CA - Christopher Dorner kills 4 in tri-county rampage, Feb 2013 - #3

[mikeysmommom]

Because wishing to burn the cabin, with a human being inside it, shows a wish to kill, rather than simply take the suspect into custody. It is not LEs job to serve justice. That is up to the courts.

Because wishing to jump to burning the cabin, rather than using other, less dangerous means of ensuring the safety of both the suspect and the public, gives the impression that LE is going beyond merely enforcing the law, and into the realm of revenge.

Dorner made it clear he would kill anyone in his way. I applaud the Police force for stopping this ruthless murderer!It was Dorners choice he could have surrendered instead of shooting 2 more Policemen killing 1 and putting the other one into surgery.They did their job and quite well. If they would have just waited him out it is possible he might have gotten away putting more Police and the public at risk.The taxpayers were saved paying for this to sit on death row for years ,and years. I also hope the 2 house cleaners who escaped from being tied up and called 911 get the full reward.

 

[time]

I find it slightly unrealistic and more than idealistic to believe that the folks who were being fired on should have been calm cool and collected when threatened with imminent danger.

jmvho.

That's what they are paid and trained to do, isn't it?

 

[deoneta]

I totally agree, but I guess wherer I differ is that I would hope LE wouldnt seemingly oblige his wish for suicide so easily. Do we know if they did indeed to try to gas him or stun him out? I don't know what typical procedure is for say, a swat team going in when someone is holed up. But I can't see where deliberately burning a building down, if that is what happened (as hinted at by the video) would ever be proper procedure. I'd hope that everything possible would be done first to minimize the loss of human life, the perpetrator's included.

I think I will bow out for a bit here, all. Thanks for the discussion, and hope to be back later. :wave:

There are conflicting reports. I do believe LE first used tear gas, then a stronger gas which is incendiary which is standard when the tear gas fails to flush anyone out. I don't know how the fire started, but the fact that Donner had propane in the cabin and ammunition and was firing off rounds was his choice. I can't see this as anything other than police determined to stop a killer who was firing on them. All MOO

 

[mikeysmommom]

Because wishing to burn the cabin, with a human being inside it, shows a wish to kill, rather than simply take the suspect into custody. It is not LEs job to serve justice. That is up to the courts.

Because wishing to jump to burning the cabin, rather than using other, less dangerous means of ensuring the safety of both the suspect and the public, gives the impression that LE is going beyond merely enforcing the law, and into the realm of revenge.

A human being that had a choice when the fire started to come out but chose not to.They did not explode the house he could have came out but was too much of a coward to do so.

 

[mikeysmommom]

no, I said they cannot behave as if they are hit squads. Their job is law enforcement. Not revenge. This is a critical thing for a society that wishes to live within the rule of law. I'm not sure why this is some kind of objectionable statement.

Btw can you please answer my question to you I posted aways back, about increasing attacks on LE?

I have always felt that if you shot and kill police they will try to kill you back.They are not suppose to just stand there and be sitting ducks.A hit squad IMO is if you did not shoot and kill innocent people and were just a law abiding citizen.

 

[MOsborne05]

Mr. Happy...lemme say, first, that I understand your position. Then again, you need to take into consideration where you're posting - a crime site. And just so you're aware, I think Ted Bundy was fascinating; same thing with Dahmer. And on and on. I am intrigued and find fascinating some of the more "famous" killers, and some of the not-so-famous ones, too.

Specifically, in Dorner's situation, I find it truly fascinating that he did not hurt his hostages, or the guy he carjacked...when they posed a significant risk of capture, and indeed did cause the shootout with their reports...but they were unharmed (physically...).

See, for me, I think this *is* fascinating. If Dorner were targeting just anyone, those three would've been killed just so he could get away. But Dorner had compartmentalized his focus, and held himself to only murdering those who were connected to his specific situation and no one else.

I said that early on in the situation that I didn't feel the threat from him (or from LAPD, frankly), as I was not a target, and could not be construed as a target. I'd figured out early on his target were those in uniform or family of those in uniform, and not me or my type (I believe I said middle aged, middle weight suburbanites). I was chastised then, too...but having lived through a few serial killers in this area, and being part of their victim profile...well...it's just not the same.

Bear in mind, I'm not holding him out as a hero, a dark knight, a Robin Hood...he was an evil, vile murderer who deserved no less than what he got - an ignominious end to an horrific reign of terror.

That doesn't make him less fascinating...he has an interesting criminal mind ala Bundy, Dahmer, et al, and to me, that's interesting. It's all right that you don't find him interesting or fascinating...I freely admit that I have odd interests; but that's all right.

We can agree to disagree...I have my interests, and I find this case to be really interesting (and similar to the Unibomber, too). I believe there is a lot to be learned from him, regarding mental health, and response to pressure/sequelae to MI. You don't have to agree.

But in no way do I, or anyone I've read here recently, hold that Dorner was any sort of hero, or "anti-hero". Not at all, not even in the slightest.

Best-
Herding Cats

^^Completely agree. Even though I definitely did not agree with his mission, he stuck to it and stayed true to his word. I'm impressed that he didn't harm the hostages because it definitely would have bought him more time.

And you sound like my twin! All of my papers on college were on the interesting ones like Dahmer & Gacy. The mind is a fascinating thing

 

[Seajay]

As a California resident of the area in which Dorner terrorized I am EXTREMELY happy with the way that LE and first responders dealt with this monster. I am EXTREMELY proud of ALL of LE and their actions. And I am EXTREMELY happy with the "outcome to this manhunt."

I have been reading 10's of pages without commenting or replying to anything that's been said in those pages, but this one was different. I have to respond.

I also am a Southern California resident of the area in which Dorner terrorized and I completely agree with you. I am proud of the job LE did to bring an end to the terror that's been in the air of this area for the past week. I'm GRATEFUL that no other lives were lost in this. I'm saddened for the ones that were, sans Dorner.

Thank you for your post.

 

[Voice4theSilent]

"burn it down" doesn't sound like something you'd hear from an angry mob? Ive heard people in near riots shout the same thing, but I would guess no one would defend it in that context. I wouldn't.

If an order was given to deliberately burn that cabin, knowing a human being was inside it, that is scary to me. As is what sounds like an attitude of vengeance from LE yelling those phrases. I do not fault anyone for losing their cool, but a higher standard must be upheld, and if it is not then we as citizens need to know why, and how to prevent it from happening again.

"Burn it down" sounds like something you would also hear from a fire fighter or first responder and since they were the people on the scene there, not rioters, I wouldn't attribute the statement to rioters. Nobody "lost their cool" and gave a command to flush a suspect out of a structure. There are certain protocols and procedures that are followed in these scenarios and that is what was done yesterday. They were acting within their rights to make that call.

 

[Sonya610]

I find it slightly unrealistic and more than idealistic to believe that the folks who were being fired on should have been calm cool and collected when threatened with imminent danger.

jmvho.

That's what they are paid and trained to do, isn't it?

Uhhh....no...they are not paid to be poets under great duress, they are paid to deal with the situation even if it costs them their life in the process!

Sorry but expecting them to act "poised and charming" in a firefight is just plain fantasy land stuff.

Like many other posters I am finding this LE criticism to be very unsavory, how out of touch are people these days?

 

[MOsborne05]

Because wishing to burn the cabin, with a human being inside it, shows a wish to kill, rather than simply take the suspect into custody. It is not LEs job to serve justice. That is up to the courts.

Because wishing to jump to burning the cabin, rather than using other, less dangerous means of ensuring the safety of both the suspect and the public, gives the impression that LE is going beyond merely enforcing the law, and into the realm of revenge.

I really don't think that they are the ones that burnt the cabin. From what I've read, he is the one that used a smoke bomb to cover him while he shot the first deputies on the scene. And I believe he started the fire once he realized that he was surrounded, which is the same time that they heard the single gunshot. He is the one that started the gun battle in the first place by shooting at the game warden while they passed each other in vehicles. They gave him a chance to surrender and he didn't take it. It was WAY too dangerous for them to approach that cabin knowing that he was still in it, and way too dangerous to even attempt to put out the fire. He made his bed and eventually had to lie in it. That wasn't LE's fault.

 

[Voice4theSilent]

Imo, we do not know for a fact, that they started the fire. All we have is scanner chatter and people's interpretation, thereof.

You are correct. Sorry. "IF LE.....

 

[jjenny]

I totally agree, but I guess wherer I differ is that I would hope LE wouldnt seemingly oblige his wish for suicide so easily. Do we know if they did indeed to try to gas him or stun him out? I don't know what typical procedure is for say, a swat team going in when someone is holed up. But I can't see where deliberately burning a building down, if that is what happened (as hinted at by the video) would ever be proper procedure. I'd hope that everything possible would be done first to minimize the loss of human life, the perpetrator's included.

I think I will bow out for a bit here, all. Thanks for the discussion, and hope to be back later. :wave:

They did try to gas him. And what proof do you have that LE deliberately burned the building down? And neutralizing the suspect quickly would minimize the potential loss of human life-why can't you see that?

 

[michmi]

I don't doubt your wish-I just think you are unfairly criticizing how LE handled this situation, and that reflects on what I see in the news as a trend against LE.
There are no easy answers. For you or for me...........

It's really unfortunate that this thread is less about this particular situation and more about being rah-rah for LE no matter what (and yes, that's the way I see some of these posts).

In every situation, there can be things done by LE that are questionable or that can be learned from. Some people are trying to figure that out here and if anyone DARES to question what was done or try to figure out what CD was thinking, they are accused of being anti-LE.

Everything is open to question, including law enforcement actions, motives and reports of what happened. The criminal is the criminal and we don't hold them to the higher standard LE is supposed to exhibit, which is why nobody is really questioning what CD did.

 

[michmi]

They did try to gas him. And what proof do you have that LE deliberately burned the building down? And neutralizing the suspect quickly would minimize the potential loss of human life-why can't you see that?

And one could ask why you believe what LE tells you. It's a no-win here---you and others clearly have a bias toward LE and other people do not.

It's okay to be one or the other, but not okay to attack someone who doesn't believe the same things you do.

 

[time]

They did try to gas him. And what proof do you have that LE deliberately burned the building down? And neutralizing the suspect quickly would minimize the potential loss of human life-why can't you see that?

Incendiary tear gas was reportedly used


in·cen·di·ar·y (

n-s

n

d

-

r

)adj.1. a. Causing or capable of causing fire.
b. Of or containing chemicals that produce intensely hot fire when exploded: an incendiary bomb.
c. Of or involving arson.

Adjective
(of a device or attack) Designed to cause fires: "incendiary grenades".

 

[Voice4theSilent]

There are conflicting reports. I do believe LE first used tear gas, then a stronger gas which is incendiary which is standard when the tear gas fails to flush anyone out. I don't know how the fire started, but the fact that Donner had propane in the cabin and ammunition and was firing off rounds was his choice. I can't see this as anything other than police determined to stop a killer who was firing on them. All MOO

Thank you. I believe it was this secondary gas (perhaps mixed with a smaller fire Dorner set himself) that is what resulted in the fire that we all watched yesterday on television. The use of the gas is for the purpose of flushing a suspect out of an area if tear gas fails. That is what LE was trying to do, in my opinion.

 

[Elley Mae]

They did try to gas him. And what proof do you have that LE deliberately burned the building down? And neutralizing the suspect quickly would minimize the potential loss of human life-why can't you see that?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...-highly-incendiary-hot-gas-used-on-cabin.html

Hoping to end the standoff, law enforcement authorities first lobbed "traditional" tear gas into the cabin. When that did not work, they opted to use CS gas canisters, which are known in law enforcement parlance as incendiary tear gas. These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire.

bbm

 

[jjenny]

Incendiary tear gas was reportedly used


in·cen·di·ar·y (

n-s

n

d

-

r

)adj.1. a. Causing or capable of causing fire.
b. Of or containing chemicals that produce intensely hot fire when exploded: an incendiary bomb.
c. Of or involving arson.

Adjective
(of a device or attack) Designed to cause fires: "incendiary grenades".

Using something capable of starting a fire is not the same as deliberately starting a fire.

 

[Sonya610]

That's what they are paid and trained to do, isn't it?

And one could ask why you believe what LE tells you. It's a no-win here---you and others clearly have a bias toward LE and other people do not.

I do not have some "pro-police bias/agenda". At the same time I don't hold them to some idealistic standard, they have a rough/tough job so I expect them to act rough/tough in many ways when called to.

If they are pulling over an honest citizen for some minor traffic violation I expect them to be polite, if they are dealing with armed/dangerous/murderous thugs I expect them to get nasty and pose an OVERWHELMING threat to get the job done.

 

[LinasK]

Here are 3 pictures of the Command Center area on Friday, February 8, 2013:

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/interactive/article/J1/20130208/NEWS0801/130208001

And that is what I tried to explain about the area. It DOES get "cold-cold" there, near zero degree temps., and that's a big part of the reason he couldn't leave until he decided to steal/carjack a vehicle.