I was listening last night to the live report from the reporter (CBS, Evans) who was close to the house, I recall him mentioning police loudspeakers, I also recall he reported the single gunshot after gas was fired. When I search news articles today, they all say police used a loudspeaker to tell Dorner to surrender and come out. I don't have any reason to think that is made up. The reporter was very close to the action, check out the videos online.

Police found a gas mask in his truck. He'd also used a smoke device in the gunfight with the deputies. So they'd assume he had gas masks in the cabin.

They first used "cold gas" canisters. Then they used "hot gas", the police slang for which is "burners". The burners emit more gas.

I read Dorner's body was found in the basement. I think he probably went there in an attempt to escape the gas. He was ambulatory, could move, could have come out. But he wasn't going to.

I'll ask my LEO tennant (former sniper who has probably killed more than everyone on this thread combined, outside of war) what his take is. I already know, but I'll ask. And now I think you've hit upon much of the second guessing...political motivation imo when I sense the "double standard" (not you Rick). "Wanted dead or alive"...this country isn't the utopia that some might like to believe...not now, nor has it ever been. We "can" be some savage bastards if provoked and have a long history that backs that statement up...

Completely agree. It seems that for some, the law is flexible, if the circumstances are just right.

Not directed towards you...folks who condemned some of us for our "liberal" outrage when the Wilmington, NC LEO shot a kid through a closed front door several years ago. I'm upset at the SWATification of many of our LE agencies over the past ten years also, but in this specific instance...I'm OK with what went down at that cabin. We'll just have to disagree...I GUARANTEE that 12 men/women on a jury will see it the way I and others on this thread do.

A little OT here...but I can't help thinking what if there were 10 of these guys at the same time. Something like a group of ex-mil. How the po po respond? There was ALOT of manpower invested in this 1 individual. It also seemed to me many LEO's looked at it as their chance to get an OBL type of perp.

I don't know if you or Shaun are right on the facts. I don't think any of us know.
I was able to watch the whole thing live on various news stations, though.
It seems like he was in the cabin, surrounded, for quite a bit of time. During at least part of that time, gunfire was being exchanged, as shown on video from the scene that was released the next day.
But, quite a bit of time passed while he was in that cabin.
The scenario you describe seems to be one where the cops chase him into the cabin, then immediately burn it down without giving him any time or chance to surrender.
Certainly, he had time to surrender. I don't think any of us know at this time what chances he had to surrender during that long time period (it seemed like it was at least 90 minutes, if not 2+ hours before the fire started).
I think it's hard to pass judgment here without knowing all of the facts.
It's also easy to second guess any decision they made. Night was falling, which made for a very dangerous situation. Also, if they tried to wait him out, and he managed to pick off and kill another officer, people would be saying that he was obviously a very dangerous person, and he should have been taken out earlier.

That seems to me, after watching the thing live, to be a very likely scenario.

This really has nothing to do with the Fifth Amendment. The Fifth Amendment gives due process rights, but only to those who are living. There are tons of situations where you could end up dead, with the cops acting reasonably. "Suicide by cop" happens all the time.

But again, I don't think any of us know all the salient facts yet.

Fair enough, and I also doubt that any jury is gonna convict any of the cops in this deal. There are rumblings, however, about whether they burned it intentionally, which will not sit well with some folks if it turns out that they did.

Silly guys....defending the Constitution and the right to due process. Didn't you realize the President has already suspended the 5th (executed American citizens Al Awlaki and later, his young son without charges or trial) and several other amendments...including the first (Film maker they blamed Libya attack on)? Don't be surprised when the second amendment is ignored as well.

Burning a guy (of unknown physical condition) out of a house is an execution (and gas masks do not work for smoke). No danger, fog or war, heat if the moment thing here. They had him trapped, surrounded, knew he had no hostages...then, with plenty of time for consultation/decision...methodically decided to execute him and did so on national TV (from a great distance).

Is there evidence that this man did anything he is accused of? I know someone put up a web page with a "manifesto" credited to him... But any one can post on the web and call themselves whomever they wish. We see it here on PP all the time. With all the video cameras and press involved, is there any proof that this man did anything (before there was a price on his head)? Beats me. That is why we have trials.

Once he was trapped in the cabin, they pretty much lost the right to just kill him in self defense. Apparently they kept news crews and helicopters at a distance, shut down Internet, phone, electricity, etc....do we know he was not pleading for his life and asking to turn himself in?

TV coverage I saw was from what looked like miles away.

You saw the helicopter footage. A reporter was also on scene. Google the audio and video from CBS (Carter Evans).

Not sure what you mean by is there evidence. You mean, besides the two deputies who'd been shot, one killed, from that cabin minutes before? Or the DFG wardens who were shot at by him minutes before that? Or the guy who'd been carjacked just before that? Or the people who'd been tied up in their house before that? Read a timeline of events.

you narrative guys worry about the 5th Amendment and a Police State. that's funny. Yet you are silent about all the crack dealers killed by cops every day. Are they not worthy of your outrage?

Anyway.

The police aren't your problem.

Just wait until someone manages to successfully mount a gun to a homemade drone and murders someone. I know you are all afraid of government doing that, tinfoil will help you just as much as your completely fabricated anti-police narrative did here. I'd be more worried about private citizens and drone warfare. You narrative guys are going to have fun.

Hugh, how do I get movie rights for the next action blockbuster on murder by drone? Or reality TV show, Drone Wars, mixing drones and a little of Running Man.

I can start working on the script this weekend.

Jyl
In my post I asked for "evidence before there was a price on his head"...once everyone decided to shoot on sight...anyone would defend them self or do what it took to escape. Are you claiming the wardens and the deputies did not draw/shoot at him? Apparently he did not harm non combatants in his escape.

Shaun...when they execute drug dealers on national TV...there will probably be an outcry then as well.

Weren't you one if those upset about Trayvon Martin...or do you only want people the police are mad at to not get a trial. Clearly Martin had it coming...why waste time on a trial?

Script has already been written...by me:D

No kidding.

So it's the Reality TV aspect that justifies this in your mind. We have become a culture addicted to RT, it seems many define themselves by characters, from this event to Politics. It's all theatre, a constant adrenaline rush, no careful analysis and understand, just drama.

That's not for me.

Trayvon, I don't recall being upset, but was interesting to see how folks, again, got all riled up in completely fabricated narratives. the stories they would build were really something. We are a nation defined by reality TV. No substance, we just jump from scene to scene to scene. This one was the latest. Good ratings. I guess since drug dealers don't get ratings, they don't deserve outrage.

When you are told by police to come out and instead shoot back at them, there is strong likelihood you will not get a trial as you will be dead.

Actions have consequences.




the next Tom Clancy? or Jack Olson? :D Seriously, do you expect murder by drone to happen in 2013? or next year?

Yep.

I have no issue with the police using a pyrotechnic form of CS gas. They know or should have known that it is most commonly used outside unless it is placed in a burn box before being tossed into a building. If the badguy wanted to come out and face the music for his actions, he could have prior to the building being engulfed in flames. He had his chance to give up but decided against it. I can't feel bad for a murdering POS that dies by the same sword that he used to inflict needless pain on innocent families. By acting swiftly, the police didn't give the badguy another chance to hurt anyone but himself. I'm happy no other goodguys or their families were hurt. JMO.....Al

think of all the tax dollars the police saved!

If the police are shooting at me...you had better believe I am shooting back. Actions have consequences. Police do not get to decide whether you are guilty or innocent. That is why we have trials.

Fascinating thread.

Seems a lot of you are confused by what is "just and right" and what is lawful. Pretty much everyone agrees that if he did what he seems to have done then he deserved the full punishment of the law - be that life imprisonment or death, but that really isn't the question. The more difficult question is whether the police acted lawfully. The actions of the police, may have been pragmatic, they may have even been just and they may have been exactly what the suspect expected, but that may not make them lawful.

While there are many facts in dispute, I think there is one that is not and is critical, but first, I do make one assumption which I think is reasonable, and that is that if the police fired multiple "burners" into the cabin then they intended to burn it down or knew it would burn down. I think that is reasonable given the radio traffic about burning down the house. The critical fact is that at the time this decision to burn down the cabin was made, the police had other feasible options. Options that carried a much lower chance of killing the suspect - such as lights, snipers etc mentioned by others.

I really don't think its clear whether the police acted lawfully or unlawfully, but I find it really hard to understand how intelligent people think its ok for police to do what is "right/justified/deserved" regardless of whether it is lawful. Police are given some level of discretion but it isn't an absolute discretion, for example and bringing it back to this case, returning fire when fired upon is lawful, burning down a house containing a suspect probably isn't.

Shaun - actions do have consequences, but not unlimited consequences. There is a limit to what the police are allowed to do in response to a suspects actions.

In the US?

You don't think it hasn't already happend?

Really doesn't take a lot, although the "airborne sniper" concept has been tried and it is very difficult to pull off at range.

So much out there...

Perhaps an IED-based kamikaze attack would be effective.

Pretty hard for police to deal with a guy like Dorner, by your standards. Spot him, confront him w/ your weapon drawn - he starts shooting - you're at fault. Spot him, confront him w/ your hands empty - he starts shooting - you're dead.

I think that every single time this guy engaged with police, an officer was shot. (Exception was the DFG wardens, he shot up their vehicle but they weren't hit). Makes sense no deputy was going to confront him without weapons drawn and aimed.

Sure would be. They also carry expendable "stuff" that is even more interesting.

Sorry to hijack the thread, but not really :D

There is nothing more inherently threatening from a larger UAS/Drone than a manned aircraft, none. They can both carry the weapons and sensors necessary to kill anyone, anywhere.

In fact, I have more privacy concerns over small civilian aircraft , think aerial surveyors, than I do drones...I get at least one visit a month from someone trying to sell me pictures of my farm, pictures they took without my permission.

I should start another thread...

Sorry in advance for the edit, couldn't hep myseff.

Police clearly were shooting first and asking questions later. Those circumstances don't leave you many options...innocent or guilty. As an innocent man, I still would not allow myself to be executed by a cop that was self appointed judge, jury, and executioner. What would you expect him to do, just let them shoot him to make a point? What point would it make? Wouldn't they still claim he was guilty as they so now?

Again, this thread sickens me.

The police had seen one of their own killed that day. They were in a fire fight with a mass murderer. For a bunch of f*cking internet sissies to sit around and question their actions is repulsive.

The only fire in the firefight was the one they set. Executing a trapped, surrounded man does not constitute a firefight.

I guess the rights in our Constitution only apply when convenient.

or when they get good ratings!

Exchanging 500 rounds with man who had just killed a colleague is not a firefight?

How is it that there are so many people that don't get this?
So you think the guys that commit the act are going to do a legit investigation, seriously?
How do you come up with stuff like this?
and we never will

he proved my point.

You seem to be evaluating this as if it was a war. It wasn't, police are held to a different standard than soldiers in battle. To misquote a movie - this isn't Nam, there are rules.

Try to separate your moral indignation about what a suspect may have done (remember, you may be convinced of what he did, but its not proved until proven in a court of law) and what the police are allowed to do under the law/constitution etc. Maybe that will help you understand where people are coming from. Not sayin you have to agree, but understanding is useful.

One side shooting 500 rounds at another does not constitute an "exchange"...

or a "firefight".

There is no more negotiation. That was proven with the assault on the pickup trucks of the 3 innocent victims. The militarization of police forces across America (not just LAPD) should have every citizen (not civilian) worried. How long before "collateral damage" becomes the norm for any operation? How the War on Terror Has Militarized the Police - Arthur Rizer & Joseph Hartman - The Atlantic

You register the script with the Writer's Guild of America.

As a side note, per company policy, I am prohibited from receiving, or in anyway looking at a script offered from outside the Company.

Fortunately for the two women in the pickup they failed at that.

More eloquently than I can put it

The primary mission of a police officer traditionally has been to "keep the peace." Those whom an officer suspects to have committed a crime are treated as just that - suspects. Police officers are expected, under the rule of law, to protect the civil liberties of all citizens, even the "bad guys." For domestic law enforcement, a suspect in custody remains innocent until proven guilty. Moreover, police officers operate among a largely friendly population and have traditionally been trained to solve problems using a complex legal system; the deployment of lethal violence is an absolute last resort.

Soldiers, by contrast, are trained to identify people they encounter as belonging to one of two groups -- the enemy and the non-enemy -- and they often reach this decision while surrounded by a population that considers the soldier an occupying force. Once this identification is made, a soldier's mission is stark and simple: kill the enemy, "try" not to kill the non-enemy. Indeed, the Soldier's Creed declares, "I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy the enemies of the United States of America in close combat." This is a far cry from the peace officer's creed that expects its adherents "to protect and serve."

Quit your whining. If you can't comprehend the thread, go somewhere else. For a f**king liberal pu**y from Seattle to throw out the Constitutional rights of a suspect before he has his day in court is the height of hypocrisy.

As to the title of the thread, I'll mark you down as "OK with them burning the cabin to the ground with him in it when they didn't need to."