The weapon of choice employed again?

[I'vebeenduped]

I don't think that it is about the death of this guy bothering anyone. If he burned the cabin down around himself while trying to keep warm, I might even have tried to go and roast marshmallows on it. The problem, the MAJOR problem, is that this was done without due process. If he was actively pointing a rifle at a policeman and they shot him; Hip hip hooray! The bad guy got what was coming. If his weapon had a major malfunction and he blew his own face off; poetic justice. Nobody is saying that he wasn't a danger to anyone. Nobody is even saying he shouldn't have eventually been put to death via electric chair (if they even do that in CA). The police are not the end all of our justice system. They are the beginning of it. If there was a chance, no matter how miniscule, this man could have been taken alive, he should have been. Having said this, if he emerged from the cabin with a weapon, they would have been well within their right to shoot him. However, killing him indiscriminately was wrong. They did not have control over the situation when he died. If he surrendered, there was no way that they could have prevented his death to face a trial.

The biggest shame is that we will probably NEVER be privy to the results or facts of any investigation in to this situation. So, armchair reviewers will forever be wondering. Well, until dinner tomorrow when this has left the general public's minds eye.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Is there much to be said, that's new folks?

We are wandering.

[Tickling]

Yahoo News had a little article on the fire for those interested: (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...222441723.html)

I think we're all speculating quite a bit, but hopefully more information will come out.

[scrubcedar]

Manta, part of our laws forbid "cruel and unusual punishment". By the spirit of the law, and maybe by the letter of the law, they completely crossed the line there.
If you know he is wounded, what's wrong with waiting at a safe range and seeing if his wound doesn't change his mind about surrendering?
Yes, if you handed me a bullhorn and said, "If you don't go and try to talk this out of here, we're going to burn him to death, and Oh, by the way he's wounded and can't run away." I would do my best, no matter who it was, to try to talk him out even if he might shoot at me. I really think you would probably do that too.
If this guy went to trial, was convicted, then sentenced to death I wouldn't have even one problem. The manner of his death is what bothers me. No judge, no jury, what amounted to a legal lynch mob determining what the proper course was is the problem.
I'm really worried that none of this is going is going to be closely examined because he's dead and there seems to be very little outcry.

[Evan Thomas]

Originally Posted by scrubcedar

One more thing, go back and listen to the second recording again.
There is a sentence where they mention very clearly "blood spatter" in an interior section of the house. If that is true, then there is every possibility this guy was wounded and unable to flee when they set the cabin on fire around him.
The single gunshot mentioned may have been the only out he had.
I for one would really like that looked into further. Burning the house down around a wounded, incapacitated man is despicable in a way that can't be expressed in words.

YES, YES, YES. I also noticed that "blood spatter" remark and found the implications appalling. Mr. Dorner was a human being, and surely didn't deserve that. No sentient being deserves that.

Imagine a civilian, in a self-defense case, saying "I had to burn the house down around him to make sure he was no longer a threat." Any bets on how well that works out?

The fact that Mr. Dorner became some sort of internet cult figure has absolutely no bearing on whether the police intentionally set fire to that cabin, or, if they did, whether they were justified in so doing. This is a society that has always been prone to hero-worship of outlaws, for complex reasons that have been thoroughly studied.

But that's beside the point. It's also a society whose members are increasingly willing to accept that, at least in some cases, due process is no longer necessary, or even desirable. (Around half of Americans surveyed in recent polls approve of drone strikes against American citizens who are alleged to be terrorists.)

People here like to mouth platitudes about the Second Amendment's being the one that protects the other amendments, but in practice, that doesn't seem to be working too well. We are increasingly willing to say that it's fine to ignore Constitutional protections of life and liberty if that keeps "us" safer.

I guess it depends what we mean by safety...

[manta49]

If this guy went to trial, was convicted, then sentenced to death I wouldn't have even one problem

Don't get me wrong i am against the death penalty. But this guy showed he had no problem murdering and was proficient with firearms so if it was me i woldent be taking any chances. If he was surrounded he should be given a chance to surrender but if he started shooting then he should be stopped without endangering as much as possible the police officers. I think people should be happy he was stoped before he had the opportunity to murder anyone else.

PS What sometimes happens the focus is on the perpetrator rather than the victims. I have seen it happening here.

[MLeake]

No, the focus isn't on the perpetrator rather than on the victims.

The focus is on abuses of the system, by those who are supposed to enforce the rules.

Dorner was contained in an isolated cabin. There was no pressing need to take him down NOW NOW NOW. If the police thought there were hostages in danger, then obviously setting the house on fire was a bad tactic. If the police had confirmed there were no other persons in the house, then so long as containment was set, there was no need to rush.

If there was concern about gunfire from the house, then all they had to do was pull the cordon further back, and set barricades outside effective range.

The actions they actually took were indicators of police officers who had every intention of killing, not of making an arrest.

These were not actions that any of us regular citizens could take, with any hope of avoiding extremely long prison sentences.

[manta49]

The focus is on abuses of the system, by those who are supposed to enforce the rules.

You are a bit quick to judge before knowing all the facts.

Manta, part of our laws forbid "cruel and unusual punishment". By the spirit of the law, and maybe by the letter of the law, they completely crossed the line there.

Some would see electrocuting someone in a chair as a cruel and unusual punishment.

[Evan Thomas]

Some would see electrocuting someone in a chair as a cruel and unusual punishment.

Yes, and many have, which is why lethal injection (which has its own, major problems) is now the method of choice in many states.

The death penalty itself is problematic in that regard.

[horatioo]

You are a bit quick to judge before knowing all the facts.

Those criticizing Dorner dont know all the facts either. Are they too quick in their criticism also?

[Tickling]

Some would see electrocuting someone in a chair as a cruel and unusual punishment.

We don't really electrocute people here any more.. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/09penalty.html)

[manta49]

Those criticizing Dorner dont know all the facts either. Are they too quick in their criticism also?

The facts are he killed innocent civilians that's all i need to know. What ever grievances he had did not justify that.

[Tickling]

The facts are he killed innocent civilians that's all i need to know. What ever grievances he had did not justify that.

How do YOU know that? There's a reason why most of the media referred to his alleged murders as "alleged."

Plenty of people who have been sentenced to death were later able to clear themselves.. that's why we have courts.

[horatioo]

The facts are he killed innocent civilians that's all i need to know. What ever grievances he had did not justify that.

Those you disagree with dont know all the facts so should withhold any criticism? Those you agree with have enough facts? Is that a fair summation of your view?

[manta49]

Those you disagree with dont know all the facts so should withhold any criticism? Those you agree with have enough facts? Is that a fair summation of your view

I haven't seen anyone agreeing with me yet. Maybe most are jumping to conclusions before knowing the facts. Possibly including me time will tell.

[scrubcedar]

Manta what I at least am basing my arguments on is the evidence I heard with my own ears, the recordings.
Unless you have information that refutes these recordings, which I will be happy to listen to by the way, then I am basing my questions on fact, rather than someone else's reports of what happened.
What might be happening here however is this. LAPD has had quite a few highly publicized incidents where they clearly stepped over the line, quite often with cover ups to some degree later.
If you'll pardon the expression, there's been a lot of smoke over the years, it's tough not to figure that there is a fire here somewhere. They have earned the reputation they have with decades worth of incidents. I'll admit I'm less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. That may be what you're seeing here.

[manta49]

If you'll pardon the expression, there's been a lot of smoke over the years, it's tough not to figure that there is a fire here somewhere. They have earned the reputation they have with decades worth of incidents. I'll admit I'm less inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. That may be what you're seeing here.

The stereotype in the uk of police officers in America is that they are trigger happy. Is their not a investigations into such incidents that most people would have confidence in. ? I know the police can't fart here without their being a independent investigation. Example if a police officer uses a taser or removes his firearm from his holster it has to be reported to the police ombudsman.

[scrubcedar]

Manta, I don't think Police here are monitored as closely outside their department. An internal LAPD investigation is likely, but how honest or in depth it would be would be open to question. Yes there can be federal or state oversight, but I think someone has to initiate an investigation it's not automatic. That's part of the problem. If I had seen some agency step up and say it was going to investigate this I'd be a lot happier, and probably be willing to let the chips fall where they may. There may not be an outside investigation without public pressure.

[P1090]

To begin with, I'm not going to second guess the officers on the scene. Could they have taken other measures? Sure. However, if they felt setting the house on fire was the best way to end the stand off, then burn it down. Deadly force for deadly force, be it a gun, knife, fire, rock, pointy stick, or MLRS. He had shown he wasn't going to come quietly. To those saying he may have surrendered, he was surrounded in a backwoods cabin with no help, and he continued to engage the officers. He was being asked to surrender by the police chief from the first murders and publishing of his manifesto. There were multiple people calling for Dorner to turn himself in, after which he went and killed one officer and wounded another. To those talking about how 'the single gunshot was the only out he had', the fact that he was able to fire 'the single gunshot' showed that he still had the capability to cause deadly harm to officers on the scene. What officer in their right mind would have walked through any door of that cabin to arrest him? He probably would have shot them on sight. Make him walk outside? I wouldn't put it past him to have a suicide vest on for the arresting officers as a final statement.

Some folks here have been stating that the military would be punished for doing the same; I beg to differ. This is a picture of Uday Hussein's house after the 101st was done with it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Uday_qusay_house.jpg If I remember correctly, there were multiple TOW missile launches into the building. And they knew there were other people inside.

There are many, many stories about the military taking out buildings they were taking fire from. Difference is, the military uses explosives. If the police burnt Dorner out, I say good for them. It was the option least likely to put officers at risk. The word 'fair' has no place in a firefight, warzone, or self defense situation.

[Evan Thomas]

Historically, the LAPD has been the "the international poster child for police abuse and corruption in the 1990s in cases ranging from the beating of Rodney King to the trial of O.J. Simpson." (source below)

The LAPD is currently overseen by a semi-independent body, the Office of the Inspector General, which according to its charter, is "empowered to audit, investigate and oversee the Department’s internal disciplinary process." The OIG is under the authority of the civilian Police Commission. It's these bodies that will carry out the investigation into his firing in 2008.

This was all put in place after a period of 8 years, ending in 2009, when the department was under Federal supervision following a series of scandals and a consent decree which ended the investigation of the LAPD by the US Department of Justice. As part of that agreement, an outsider, William Bratton, was installed as chief in 2002, and he made significant progress in reforming the department. However, he left in 2009, and the current chief (Charlie Beck) is a lifelong member of the department who is not considered to have been such a strong supporter of reform. Chief Beck was also the head of the division where Mr. Dorner was assigned at the time of his firing, so he's not a disinterested party to all this.

This article from the Christian Science Monitor gives an overview of much of this, and also explains why local people haven't much confidence that any such investigations will be carried out impartially. Many people in LA, especially in the black community, don't regard the Police Commission/OIG as genuinely independent.

Investigating Mr. Dorner's death would involve the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, which presumably has its own forms of oversight. They have an internal affairs office, but I haven't been able to find out what, if any, independent oversight there is for the SBSD.

One hopes that there will be an outside investigation, preferably at the Federal level.

[Evan Thomas]

The Associated Press is reporting that an S.B. Co. Sheriff's captain has said in a press conference that Mr. Dorner died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head.

The Sheriff, John McMahon, is also the county coroner. His official title is Sheriff-Coroner.

[JimDandy]

As far as hero, lets also remember anti-heroes. If I asked you if a man who rapes women while saving the town from bandits was a hero, you'd say no. Then we could watch the Man with no Name trilogy and cheer for the Clint Eastwood character. Oops.

And we have mentioned infra-red here a couple times. For those most part we have toed the "don't know but want to be informed pretty soon" line pretty well on this forum.

I don't think the SB Sheriff-Coroner should be the guy to tell us the gunshot wound was self inflicted. Or if it was pre or post fire start.

I want to know how many gunshot wounds he had.

I want to know when he got them, when the fire started, and what the effects of those gunshots may or may not have had on his ability to exit the cabin after the fire started.

I want to know how many attempts there were to deliver a communications device to him, and when they were.

[Evan Thomas]

Yes to all the above, JimDandy.

Originally Posted by P1090

There are many, many stories about the military taking out buildings they were taking fire from. Difference is, the military uses explosives. If the police burnt Dorner out, I say good for them. It was the option least likely to put officers at risk. The word 'fair' has no place in a firefight, warzone, or self defense situation.

And this was not a military matter. The rules of war apply in combat. They do not apply in civilian police work. It's unfortunate that this distinction is becoming blurred as police are more and more militarized.

[P1090]

And this was not a military matter. The rules of war apply in combat. They do not apply in civilian police work. It's unfortunate that this distinction is becoming blurred as police are more and more militarized.

I'd like to argue that this is precisely why the police are becoming more militarized. We have a ex-police officer with military training attempting to conduct asymetric warfare in California. It was combat. You have a man using military tactics and you want them to counter with police tactics. Recipe for disaster. It doesn't make sense to tell police to fight with one arm behind their backs. Don't limit their options. If military tactics work better to address a problem, use them. Train with the military; share what works best. Whatever allows the good guys to go home and see their families at night is fine with me. Is it harsh? Yes. Will whoever gave the command second guess themselves? I hope so. But him and his men are alive to second guess, and to me that matters more than being nice to what was shaping up to be a deranged mass murderer. I'd shake that officer's hand well before I would condemn him.

Put yourselves in place of the guys who would have had to breach the cabin. I'd rather not have to go busting into that cabin with Dorner alive inside if there was another way.

[horatioo]

Put yourselves in place of the guys who would have had to breach the cabin. I'd rather not have to go busting into that cabin with Dorner alive inside if there was another way.
__________________

false dichotomy. There were other choices available other then the two you list.