The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old February 14, 2013, 12:24 PM   #76
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
^^

Indeed. Why not just call in a few of my friends flying Hornets up at China Lake and have them just roll-in for a pass and drop a Mark-82 on the place? Heck, Edwards AFB is within line of sight view of Big Bear. Sortie a B-1 from South Base and laze it and drop.

The difference is that US Naval Officers and USAF Officers are knowlagable about what to do when issued illegal orders. Local law enforcement... not so much.

This is not to excuse the criminal. BTW. It is just that WE and our agents whom WE employ as our protectors, ought to well above criminal acts, no matter the reason. The ends do not justify the means.

My contempt for these "officers of the law" is complete.

Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 01:25 PM   #77
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,457
It is not like there is no history of these units causing fires when deployed.

This from the L.A. Times.

SOURCE

Quote:
Dorner manhunt: Cabin not intentionally set on fire, sheriff says
February 13, 2013 | 4:37 pm

"We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out," Sheriff John McMahon told reporters at a news conference.

[Updated, 4:53 p.m. Feb. 13: He said that deputies fired conventional tear gas into the cabin and then used incendiary gas on the structure, which was first reported Wednesday by The Times. The cabin burned to the ground. Dorner is believed to have died inside.]
So what part of "incendiary" do they not understand?

Quote:
in·cen·di·ar·y
[in-sen-dee-er-ee] plural in·cen·di·ar·ies.
adjective
1. used or adapted for setting property on fire: incendiary bombs.
2. of or pertaining to the criminal setting on fire of property.
3. tending to arouse strife, sedition, etc.; inflammatory: incendiary speeches.
4. tending to inflame the senses: an incendiary extravaganza of music and dance.
noun
5. a person who deliberately sets fire to buildings or other property, as an arsonist.
6. Military . a shell, bomb, or grenade containing napalm, thermite, or some other substance that burns with an intense heat.
7. a person who stirs up strife, sedition, etc.; an agitator.
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 01:47 PM   #78
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 200
" I was addressing the undertone I'm feeling here that "police forces shouldn't have used any lethal force at all to prevent them from being judge, jury, and executioner."

I don't think that anyone is finding the legal killing of someone as reprehensible. It has been MANY years, however, I remember learning levels of control. For instance, if someone used an open hand, you would use a fist. If someone used a "soft" weapon, (a misnomer is you ask me) you would use a "hard weapon (ie. justifies using lethal force)." I can easily control where I point my rifle or throw a fist. How can the police control a fire??? As was mentioned earlier, this fire could easily have gotten out of hand. Additionally, at any point in time, this killer could have seen the futility of his situation and surrendered. Granted, this was far from likely but still a definite possibility. As the saying goes, not impossible, just improbable. By the police setting fire to this structure, they started a lethal force that was far out of their control and, in my opinion, not a legal choice for these officers to make. What if this scumbag was trying to surrender and found his exit barred by the fire?
Lastly, does anyone know why the LAPD was in Big Bear?? I mean, it is a little far out of their jurisdiction isn't it? Would they be the ones to respond to a situation of similar significance?
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 01:51 PM   #79
scrubcedar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 3, 2012
Location: Southwestern Colorado
Posts: 478
Obviously at least one officer figured this was going to be the result."The police can be heard yelling "Burn that <distorted> out!"".
The audio is pretty clear. No one says"gas him out" or"tear gas him" or anything else along those lines.
The other audio recording concerns me a little as some of the things said don't seem to apply to the facts as we know them.
Assuming that it is accurate however, listen to the audio itself at one point they deliberately get very cagey about" go forward with the plan with the burner, I want it, uh,(pause) like we talked about."
Maybe they didn't want the suspect to know what they were doing,but,listen to the audio and it's pretty clear that the officer isn't at all surprised that "seven burners deployed" caused a fire. This is the same officer that pauses while speaking in almost every other sentence but doesn't pause at all between "seven burners deployed and""we have a fire".
__________________
Gaily bedight, A gallant knight In sunshine and in shadow, Had journeyed long, Singing a song, In search of El Dorado
scrubcedar is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 02:05 PM   #80
jimpeel
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: Longmont, CO, USA
Posts: 4,457
He definitely stated "seven burners deployed and we have a fire". It was a contiguous sentence. He did not say "seven burners deployed and ... oh, oh ... we have a fire".
__________________
Gun Control: The premise that a woman found in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, is morally superior to allowing that same woman to defend her life with a firearm.

"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones. But a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house." - Jules Henri Poincare

"Three thousand people died on Sept. 11 because eight pilots were killed"
-- former Northwest Airlines pilot Stephen Luckey
jimpeel is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 03:41 PM   #81
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
I don't think that anyone is finding the legal killing of someone as reprehensible.


All taking of human life is manslaughter.

Extrajudicial Killing is a crime.

And who is a worse criminal? A criminal, or those represtatives of us, the people, who we charge with the responsibility to enforce those laws that are constitutional? IE: No person shall be deprived of LIFE without due process of law.


This was extrajudicial activity leading to loss of human life, with wanton disregard for the safety of anyone else that might possibly be inside. It certainly is homicide and likely rises to the level of homicide that demands an investigation and possible criminal charges.

But who will prosecute it? Sadly... "The People" are represented by the District Atttorney, who will no doubt decline to be interested. So much for fair representation of the people. The US Justice Department, if it had any balls at all, would prosecute the perpetrators for deprivation of Mr. Dorners constitutional right to due process. Indiscriminate use of area weapons is not a valid police tactic.


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 03:52 PM   #82
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Are the State's arrest powers in practice if not in technical nature part of due process? I'm not saying what they did was right, but that it may be a little extreme to label it extra-judicial. Excessive Force is a lot less Gray- though until we get more details it's all some level of gray.
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 03:59 PM   #83
horatioo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Posts: 332
Quote:
But who will prosecute it? Sadly... "The People" are represented by the District Atttorney, who will no doubt decline to be interested. So much for fair representation of the people. The US Justice Department, if it had any balls at all, would prosecute the perpetrators for deprivation of Mr. Dorners constitutional right to due process. Indiscriminate use of area weapons is not a valid police tactic.
Dorner's stated reason for what he did was because the system was unfair and protected the guilty. Maybe someone will escalate things further.

If the system is going to work, authority needs to respect the law.

Last edited by horatioo; February 14, 2013 at 04:13 PM.
horatioo is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 04:01 PM   #84
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 200
At least someone is questioning it... kinda... sorta... Well, they wrote an article...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-n...stopher-dorner

Granted, it was in the UK.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 05:28 PM   #85
KyJim
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 26, 2005
Location: The Bluegrass
Posts: 7,474
To circle back to what agency or agencies might investigate, the California Attorney General might also do so, depending on state law. In a number of states, the state AG can investigate if "invited" to do so by one of several specifically identified persons or agencies (e.g., the governor, a judge, the local prosecutor, etc.). Some state attorneys general also have authority to investigate civil rights violations. The state AGs are not normally intertwined with local law enforcement the way local prosecutors may be.

While I have no beef with police replying with deadly force when fired upon, the issue here is not that simple. Did the police deliberately employ the incendiary gas canisters in a deliberate effort to execute Dorner? Did they allow sufficient time for the regular tear gas take effect? Were there other, reasonable alternatives? In the end, all the police actions may be justifiable but there has to be a fair investigation into the matter.
__________________
Jim's Rules of Carry: 1. Any gun is better than no gun. 2. A gun that is reliable is better than a gun that is not. 3. A hole in the right place is better than a hole in the wrong place. 4. A bigger hole is a better hole.
KyJim is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 05:36 PM   #86
Willie Sutton
Junior member
 
Join Date: January 26, 2012
Posts: 1,066
Are the State's arrest powers in practice if not in technical nature part of due process? I'm not saying what they did was right, but that it may be a little extreme to label it extra-judicial. Excessive Force is a lot less Gray- though until we get more details it's all some level of gray.


Lots of grey. Lots of black too.


Hypothetical conversation between two LEO's on scene who later actually took part in the activity:

Cop 1: "Well, I can say this... he's not coming outta there alive"

Cop 2: "Darn right bubba"

= Conspiracy to deny due process under color of law.


Anyone out there doubt in their heart of hearts that this sort of conversation didn't take place?

This case would be a slam dunk for any civil rights attorney willing to take it on.


Willie

.
Willie Sutton is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 05:57 PM   #87
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,810
All of the shouts of "Burn it down!" "Burn that mother--" etc., followed by the exchanges over the radio ("Seven burners deployed and we have a fire." etc.) add up to something of a smoking gun, as it were.

According to this CNN report S.B. County Sheriff John McMahon acknowledged that "the cabin caught fire after police shot tear gas canisters into it."

"Although the canisters included pyrotechnic tear gas, which generates heat, 'We did not intentionally burn down that cabin to get Mr. Dorner out,' McMahon said."

If their intention actually was to burn him to death, this is a really nifty bit of prevarication.
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)
Vanya is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 06:31 PM   #88
graphic97501
Member
 
Join Date: January 29, 2013
Location: Southwest Oregon
Posts: 15
Already talking about a movie or tv show with this in mind and LL COOL J
would play Dorner.

WOW!
graphic97501 is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 06:36 PM   #89
DASHZNT
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2012
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by graphic97501 View Post
Already talking about a movie or tv show with this in mind and LL COOL J
would play Dorner.

WOW!
Awesome!! Id watch it, good actor choice too, he looks pretty darn close but i dunno if he can pull off the role. I think Forrest Whitaker has more experience with those characters... itll be interesting whome they choose in the end.

DASHZNT
DASHZNT is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 06:39 PM   #90
JimDandy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 8, 2012
Posts: 2,353
Black horse choice... Michael Dorn
JimDandy is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 07:17 PM   #91
WW2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2009
Location: Southern California.
Posts: 193
Two Wallets?

I have seen several people note that Dorner's ID was found in San Diego so how could it have been found in the cabin?

The answer is simple. The ID found in San Diego was his police badge and departmental ID. I saw a news report last week (several days before the cabin incident) that showed a picture of the badge that was found. So he dumped his badge but kept his personal California Driver’s License in his wallet with him. That is the second ID that was found in the cabin.

As for the "fireproof" wallet, you would be amazed at what can survive a fire. Several years ago my landlord's Mobile Home burnt down. The fire was so hot that the aluminum siding melted. Yet the meat in his freezer was still frozen. Also the papers in his filing cabinet were intact except for charred edges. This mobile home was his office, and since all his records were still intact it was business as usual the next day out of a smaller travel trailer. By the way, this was before the widespread use of PCs so a loss of his files could have destroyed his business!
__________________
Clinging to my God and my guns!

Luke 22:36
Quote:
Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.
WW2 is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 08:27 PM   #92
horatioo
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2008
Posts: 332
A pretty good monetary reason n to kill Dorner!

There was a million dollar reward on him. The person he tied up who escaped would be a pretty good candidate for the reward. But the reward was contingent on Dorner being captured and convicted. Burning him to death means no reward.

I read that on slate so who knows.
horatioo is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 08:34 PM   #93
pnac
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 7, 2008
Posts: 329
Quote:
I have seen several people note that Dorner's ID was found in San Diego so how could it have been found in the cabin?

The answer is simple. The ID found in San Diego was his police badge and departmental ID. I saw a news report last week (several days before the cabin incident) that showed a picture of the badge that was found. So he dumped his badge but kept his personal California Driver’s License in his wallet with him. That is the second ID that was found in the cabin.
Is it common for a dismissed officer to keep his ID and badge?
__________________
In my hour of darkness
In my time of need
Oh Lord grant me vision
Oh Lord grant me speed - Gram Parsons
pnac is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 09:09 PM   #94
Vanya
Staff
 
Join Date: July 7, 2008
Location: Upper midwest
Posts: 3,810
Quote:
Is it common for a dismissed officer to keep his ID and badge?
I think not. I believe I've read that in the LAPD, it's standard practice to give a retiring officer his badge as a keepsake -- embedded in acrylic resin and mounted, so he can't go on using it for anything but a paperweight.

And then there are all those "Turn in your badge and gun" clichés...
__________________
"Once the writer in every individual comes to life (and that time is not far off), we are in for an age of universal deafness and lack of understanding."
(Milan Kundera, Book of Laughter and Forgetting, 1980)

Last edited by Vanya; February 14, 2013 at 10:12 PM.
Vanya is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 09:59 PM   #95
ltc444
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 3, 2011
Location: Vernon AZ
Posts: 1,195
law Enforcement Agencies have a history of using incendiary devices to end standoffs.

In 1974 the LAPD along with a number of other agencies used incendiary devices to burn the house suspected of containing members of the Symbionese Liberation Army (SLA). 5 dead 3 from gun fire and 2 burned.

In 1985 Baltimore Police dropped an explosive device on an explosive device from a helicopter on a row house occupied by members of MOVE. The device ignited a fire and destroyed several adjacent homes. Police fired over 10.000 rounds. The single survivor and decendants were awarded 1.5 million.

1993 Waco TX the BATF botched a raid/publicity stunt on the Branch Davidians. They used burning munitions/incendiary devices in their final assault. The Treasury report revealed that the fire was intentionally set by the Government.

These are three high profile events were the police knowingly used a device to burn out suspects.

My point is that Law Enforcement knows full well that a burning munition is also an incendiary device. They know that when such a device is used a major fire will result. In this case they were lucky that the forest was wet and they did not create a massive forest fire and burn down a bunch of expensive cabins owned by rich and influential people.
ltc444 is offline  
Old February 14, 2013, 10:07 PM   #96
DASHZNT
Junior member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2012
Posts: 179
When is the movie slated to be made.. thats what i wanna know??

DASHZNT
DASHZNT is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 03:56 AM   #97
MLeake
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
I don't know about your military mindset, P1090, but in my military experience, CDE (Collateral Damage Estimation) is huge.

Dropping munitions on a dwelling without verifying the absence of non-targets is only done in extremis. This case was not an in extremis case. All the officers had to do was pull their cordon back out of effective range from the cabin, and wait behind cover.

They were hardly going to take overwhelming, long range fire from one gunman.

What they did was not justifiable. Again, I really don't care about Dorner. I do care about precedent.
MLeake is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 09:37 AM   #98
mrbatchelor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 18, 2010
Location: South Carolina
Posts: 237
The weapon of choice employed again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MLeake View Post
What they did was not justifiable. Again, I really don't care about Dorner. I do care about precedent.
This.

And we're miles too far down the road. And it's why so many people are extremely alarmed at, and distrusting of, the government these days. Everything from the ones of us willing to lament openly the loss of due process to the ones wearing tin foil hats looking for black helicopters.
mrbatchelor is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 09:42 AM   #99
I'vebeenduped
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 2, 2013
Location: AZ
Posts: 200
Mleake, I think you hit it square on! I don't think anyone really cares about the perp. The system is what has been exploited here. Our checks and balances are completely out of whack! This, coupled with the fact the the main proponents of the 1st amendment, the press, has been largely silent on this issue, is very troubling.
__________________
The natural state of man, the way G‑d created us, is to be happy.
Look at children and you will see
I'vebeenduped is offline  
Old February 15, 2013, 10:15 AM   #100
overhead
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 28, 2013
Location: Norfolk, VA
Posts: 182
The press has been silent? There is a story about it on the front page of the LA Times today.
overhead is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.14655 seconds with 7 queries