So, is everybody cool if they burned the cabin down without even trying to negotiate?

[Baz]

Separate set of rules" apply when dealing with cop killers.

Toss in that this perp was an ex-cop.

Game on....and that's how it is.

Tradition - to protect and serve.

[Rick Lee]

I have no problem with the cops giving a good beatdown after a chase (though I know it's illegal). That's not what happened here. This was an assassination and totally deliberate, with plenty of other options available.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by rusnak

There is no way the fire was accidental. That is why they used enough to make sure the fire started fast and burned completely, and that's also why they already had called the fire truck beforehand.

They also knew he was down before the fire. They intended to kill him in that fire.

It's interesting how they've made it a point to report that they heard a single shot just before the fire started, as though he may have shot himself, thereby absolving the firestarters of murder.

Should be a skull with a hole in it if that's the case.

[ducky1111]

I'm fine with how it turned out, he didn't give the people he killed their day in court.

[Jim Bremner]

HE had plenty of time to get out before he shot the 2 SBCS deputies. He knew what they would do. They did it on the time schedule that they would. It gets dark in the mountain and prior to the sun going down the burned him out. They did it in the light so they could make sure that if he tried to get out that they could get him with cold handcuffs or hot lead.

Does it suck? not as bad as it would for us paying 40k a year for life keeping him in jail plus a million or two for his trial.

He knew his end. He almost wrote the script for it. Anyone Zillow the property to see how much it's going to cost us to build them a new cabin?

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I have no problem with the cops giving a good beatdown after a chase (though I know it's illegal). That's not what happened here. This was an assassination and totally deliberate, with plenty of other options available.

I'm with you, Rick. I'm just asking a broader question.

[Baz]

Originally Posted by scottmandue

Uh, no... cops are not supposed to be vigilantes... or was that supposed to be in green type?

There is a VERY thin line between a cop and a criminal.

This is what I have been told by many cops over the years.

You have to factor this in while discussing their actions.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong.

It's just the tradition.

They look after their own.

[jyl]

I was thinking about how, practically, you would "wait out" Dorner in that cabin.

Let's start with: you are not going to take even a small chance of another officer shot. The guy has killed four people already and wounded several others who knows how badly. Whatever your plan is, there must be almost zero risk of losing another man.

And the next criteria is that there has to be no chance at all of Dorner escaping. Obviously!

So, suppose you surround the cabin and wait him out.

This is a cabin in the thick woods, so your men are going to have to be pretty close to the cabin - probably 30 to 50 feet, where the brush clearance ends and the trees start. Any further away, and your guys would be standing in the midst of trees where they can't see the cabin. No good, there has to be no chance of escape, remember?

Dorner has plenty of weapons, is a trained shot, and his goal is to kill cops. From a cabin window, with a rifle, he can easily kill anyone who is 30 to 50 feet away. Just let them show their head or body, for a moment. So your guys have to be behind shelter at all times.

A car is not shelter from a rifle. A typical tree is not shelter from a rifle. A bush is not shelter. You have a few armored cars, you can put them on the perimeter and your men can huddle behind them or in them, and try to keep an eye on the cabin through the slits or otherwise without exposing their heads or bodies. There are gaps between the three or four armored cars. You leave those open?

Okay, there you are. The sun goes down. Your guys are standing or crouching behind or in the armored cars, trying to watch the cabin without exposing themselves, without freezing, without losing their alertness. It is dark. It is damn cold (lows of 10-20 F there). Dorner watches from a window, rifle ready. Or maybe he eats, naps, writes chapter 2 of his manifesto - its dark, you don't know. This goes on all night.

Next day. Standoff continues. Next night. Next day. How long is this going to continue? This is a mountain cabin, there is plenty of food stored. Your guys are tired and cold. The taxpayer is spending how much money every day on this siege? News media is laughing their heads off. You look like an idiot.

Then some deputy gets careless, he stands up too straight, walks in the wrong place. 50 feet with a rifle, easy shot. Dorner kills him. You have just failed.

Screw that, fellas. The last thing I would do is let that situation turn into a standoff, lose the initiative, make my men stand around like targets under a killer's sights 24/7. If there are hostages - you negotiate. No hostages - end the situation. Give him the chance to come out. Put CS gas in the place and force him out. The house didn't "blow up", the fire took time to develop, he could have come out. He doesn't come out? - that's his decision.

This guy made his decision weeks ago, he was going to die. I wouldn't risk one more officer, with kids and a wife, to save a killer from his chosen destiny.

Damn, there are a lot of bleeding hearts here. Must be a needlepointing forum.

[Hydrocket]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

It's an interesting issue that needs to be discussed. We see the effects of adrenaline-filled chases on the cops when suspects are finally captured, and the cops tend to unleash their frustration and anger on the suspect, many times resulting in brutal assaults, as though they aren't accountable. I've always wondered why the training doesn't focus on that moment when the officer finally has the upper hand, and should be at his most correct and professional, in order to preserve order and protect the rights of the accused. It is precisely at that moment that most of them go off the reservation and become the very thing they are charged with protecting society from. Why is that?

Because it's been an accepted practice in law enforcement for so long.....long before there were cameras. In their minds, they are giving the perp "what they deserve". It's a complete culture, and changing the culture is difficult.

Look how many times the LAPD has been called out for racism, how they've admitted in trials that they lied or planted evidence...and crap like this STILL continues.

Change needs to happen for sure...but getting them to admit there's a problem is the first step. And good luck with getting them to do that.

[MikeSid]

Like it or not, under our Constitution, cops in this situation are allowed to be "judge jury and executioner."

Use of deadly force to seize an armed, violent, fleeing, felony suspect who engaged in a gun battle with officers is completely within the standard of objectively reasonable force allowed by the Supreme Court since 1985. Hell, I'm not so sure that even under the old standard of shocking the conscience of the court, that the cops wouldn't be within constitutional limits with this one. Dorner shot at, and hit mind you, an officer attempting to arrest him pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant.

I'm as skeptical of LEOs as anyone...and particularly of late and in my particular city...but there simply isn't a viable due process argument here.

[Rick Lee]

I'll throw this out there. How sure can anyone be positive that cabin was unoccupied before Dorner holed up there? There's just no way you can ever be sure that burning down a bldg. and watching it burn while holding the fire dept. back is really the right thing to do.

I watched a guy throw a molotov cocktail at a rowhouse and then it burn to the ground in college. Someone busted down the door in the place nextdoor, ran up and pulled a baby out. Parent had run out for just a quick errand. How sure can you ever be, without searching, that a bldg. is empty?

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by jyl

I was thinking about how, practically, you would "wait out" Dorner in that cabin.

Let's start with: you are not going to take even a small chance of another officer shot. The guy has killed four people already and wounded several others who knows how badly. Whatever your plan is, there must be almost zero risk of losing another man.

And the next criteria is that there has to be no chance at all of Dorner escaping. Obviously!

So, suppose you surround the cabin and wait him out.

This is a cabin in the thick woods, so your men are going to have to be pretty close to the cabin - probably 30 to 50 feet, where the brush clearance ends and the trees start. Any further away, and your guys would be standing in the midst of trees where they can't see the cabin. No good, there has to be no chance of escape, remember?

Dorner has plenty of weapons, is a trained shot, and his goal is to kill cops. From a cabin window, with a rifle, he can easily kill anyone who is 30 to 50 feet away. Just let them show their head or body, for a moment. So your guys have to be behind shelter at all times.

A car is not shelter from a rifle. A typical tree is not shelter from a rifle. A bush is not shelter. You have a few armored cars, you can put them on the perimeter and your men can huddle behind them or in them, and try to keep an eye on the cabin through the slits or otherwise without exposing their heads or bodies. There are gaps between the three or four armored cars. You leave those open?

Okay, there you are. The sun goes down. Your guys are standing or crouching behind or in the armored cars, trying to watch the cabin without exposing themselves, without freezing, without losing their alertness. It is dark. It is damn cold (lows of 10-20 F there). Dorner watches from a window, rifle ready. Or maybe he eats, naps, writes chapter 2 of his manifesto - its dark, you don't know. This goes on all night.

Next day. Standoff continues. Next night. Next day. How long is this going to continue? This is a mountain cabin, there is plenty of food stored. Your guys are tired and cold. The taxpayer is spending how much money every day on this siege? News media is laughing their heads off. You look like an idiot.

Then some deputy gets careless, he stands up too straight, walks in the wrong place. 50 feet with a rifle, easy shot. Dorner kills him. You have just failed.

Screw that, fellas. The last thing I would do is let that situation turn into a standoff, lose the initiative, make my men stand around like targets under a killer's sights 24/7. If there are hostages - you negotiate. No hostages - end the situation. Give him the chance to come out. Put CS gas in the place and force him out. The house didn't "blow up", the fire took time to develop, he could have come out. He doesn't come out? - that's his decision.

This guy made his decision weeks ago, he was going to die. I wouldn't risk one more officer, with kids and a wife, to save a killer from his chosen destiny.

Damn, there are a lot of bleeding hearts here. Must be a needlepointing forum.

So, you'd be fine with drafting your sentiments into a policy document that establishes policy to deliberately kill a person rather than attempt to apprehend?

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by MikeSid

Like it or not, under our Constitution, cops in this situation are allowed to be "judge jury and executioner."

Use of deadly force to seize an armed, violent, fleeing, felony suspect who engaged in a gun battle with officers is completely within the standard of objectively reasonable force allowed by the Supreme Court since 1985. Hell, I'm not so sure that even under the old standard of shocking the conscience of the court, that the cops wouldn't be within constitutional limits with this one. Dorner shot at, and hit mind you, an officer attempting to arrest him pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant.

I'm as skeptical of LEOs as anyone...and particularly of late and in my particular city...but there simply isn't a viable due process argument here.

There's a subtle difference between returning fire, and making a conscious choice to switch from cold gas to incendiary "burners". They intended to burn him out, when it can be argued that they had other options.

[Jim Bremner]

How many Officers/Depyties lives are worth his? zippo! oh wait, maype that's the wrong word. I really don't like cops being judge and jury but they made the right choice. If I held up in my house and shot 4 cops I would expect the same

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by Hydrocket

Because it's been an accepted practice in law enforcement for so long.....long before there were cameras. In their minds, they are giving the perp "what they deserve". It's a complete culture, and changing the culture is difficult.

Precisely correct.

[VaSteve]

Hey the LAPD beat down Rodney King and it was a problem. They *killed* this guy and its not. Howaboutthat?

[Rick Lee]

How heavily armed could he have been when he got to that cabin on foot after two carjackings? It's not like he methodically loaded up weapons in the stolen car and the offloaded them into the cabin. He went in there with whatever he had on him. Pretty easy to cover that cabin with floodlights at night and snipers around the clock. I haven't heard any mention of the gun(s) he used in the shootout earlier in the day. If it was just a handgun, then very minimal risk to those surrounding the house to wait him out. EBR (evil black rifle), then some more risk. But I thought you couldn't own those in CA.

[ZOA NOM]

Originally Posted by Jim Bremner

How many Officers/Depyties lives are worth his? zippo! oh wait, maype that's the wrong word. I really don't like cops being judge and jury but they made the right choice. If I held up in my house and shot 4 cops I would expect the same

What if they thought you had, and chose the same?

[MikeSid]

The law doesn't require use of all available lesser options. Only an objectively reasonable use of force given the totality of the circumstances. This wasn't knock, announce, shoot.

Now I'm not so naive to think that Dorner had a legitimate shot at surrendering if he should have choosen. But that examination just results in speculation and we'll never know the real answer to that.

[Jim Bremner]

Originally Posted by ZOA NOM

What if they thought you had, and chose the same?

If I'm shooting back from my house and won't come out bring on the s'mores