Was Christopher Dorner executed ?

[Lawdog88]

And I know the rest of the reflexive answer, i.e., "Who cares ?", or "Well yeah, but the police had our permission because he was a crazed killer and deserved it."

So while I have no personal sympathy for Dorner - and like everybody else - predicted that in accord with his wishes, he would commit suicide by cop in a shootout (as indeed he indicated he would), I do think the evidence of his execution by the police raises important questions about the limits of police power, and the criteria for who gets to decide what the limits of due process of law really are . . . especially on the street.

The police standoffs with armed individuals holed up in houses that I have seen in No Name City usually resolve themselves around dark thirty. Everybody kinds of looks at their watch and somebody signals the SWAT team to move in and resolve the issue, with the usual result.

With Dorner, seems like the decision to execute by fire was made early on, but likely after the Deputies were shot - with one killed - during the shootout at the back of the house.

So, were the police required (due process and all that) to wait Dorner out, and take him alive if possible ? Were they required to go inside the residence ?

Seems to me that the better public relations result would have been to wait him out (who knows, he could have changed his mind and surrendered), and at least allow him to try to escape out the back again, and assassinate him there.

I mean, we all knew he was going down; the question was how.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-christopher-dorner/

“The Burn Plan”
Shortly after 4pm Pacific Standard Time, the cabin was engulfed in flames, with CNN helicopters broadcasting plumes of black smoke from a distance of five miles. A single gunshot is reported from within the house. A narrative quickly emerged among the mainstream media, which we should recall was conspicuously absent from the scene, that police agencies had only deployed tear gas, and that perhaps Dorner himself had set the fire. Soon, what seems to be a cache of ammunition is exploding sporadically.

But for those of us listening to the San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department radio frequency, there was little question what had occurred. Nearly a half hour prior, officers had referred to “going ahead with the plan with the burner,” with another adding that the plan was to “back the Bear down and deploy the burner through the turret.”

(Live audio during the preceding shootout URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sisVskohj1k" seems to confirm this intention). Soon, the message was straightforward and expected: “Seven burners have deployed and we have a fire.” No surprised tones, no suggestion that the fire be extinguished.

In fact, there was the exact opposite: a female voice on the scanner repeatedly asks if the fire crews should be allowed to approach, and is told that it’s not time yet, that we need to wait until all four corners are engulfed, then that we need to wait until the roof collapses. At one particularly repulsive point, those on the scene realize that the house has a basement, and an authoritative male voice indicates that the fire crew would not be called until the fire had “burned through the basement.” They were going to let him die.

References to the 1993 massacre at Waco, Texas, the murderous 1985 bombing of the MOVE Organization in Philadelphia were immediate, and will serve as opposing frames for Dorner’s death in the days and weeks to come.

A murder? An assassination? A lynching? An execution.

[orangeblueorangeblue]

Was a pretty messed up situation all the way around.

[wgbgator]

To what extent are the police obligated to take someone alive? There's no doubt there was beef there, but I'm wondering even then what level of risk they need to take to capture someone determined to shoot it out, probably to the end. That's not to say I'm letting the cops off the hook, but just wondering what reasonable expectations would be in a similar situation.

In theory, I'm against the extrajudicial drone killings of US citizens who happen to be Al-Queda members too, but from another POV, it does allow the elimination of a threat with minimal risk to soldiers. There is a certain logic that is difficult to argue against in all but the most idealistic terms. The "compromise" positions are a sort of "drone court" where someone is convicted in absentia, which itself is sort of icky.

[cocodrilo]

I'm not that familiar with tear gas, but when your cabin is full of it don't you have to get out or suffocate? One shot was allegedly heard when the fire started (from the tear gas?). So it seems to me he committed suicide by shooting himself or by not getting out. Or maybe he had a gas mask. Or they thought he might and that's why they let it burn. Firefighters approaching could be shot by Dorner before he got lit. Just thinking out loud.

[gatorman_07732]

I highly doubt the fire itself took his life and I'd be willing to be he shot himself. That said what about the angle of burning it down to force him out? I don't think I'm going out on a limb when I say he was not going to let himself be taken alive.

[Lawdog88]

I'm not that familiar with tear gas, but when your cabin is full of it don't you have to get out or suffocate? One shot was allegedly heard when the fire started (from the tear gas?). So it seems to me he committed suicide by shooting himself or by not getting out. Or maybe he had a gas mask. Or they thought he might and that's why they let it burn. Firefighters approaching could be shot by Dorner before he got lit. Just thinking out loud.


My understanding Coco - from the FBI police expert who was the play-by-play commentator for CNN - said that they have two different "types" of gas, one hot and one cold. The cold will not ignite and is the classic tear gas you experience in boot camp or running down hills at Berkeley.

The hot type is the one that ignites and is known to ignite, though I do not know what the ignition mechanism is, i.e., does the police armored vehicle that actually injects the gas, also light it ? Or, is it accidental ?

So I don't know the ignition specifics, but the police do. And obviously, they used the hot gas on Dorner.

[1329gator]

Everyone who watched it live on CNN as i did knew it was gonna go down like this... they definitely were not going to send in a SWAT team and risk the place possibly being booby trapped. Bottomline,they weren't about to jeopardize their guys lives and also take a chance that he may have had "sensitive information ".....flash drives,manuscripts,disks,etc....that could embarrass LAPD more than it already has been and let Dorner get the last "hoorah".

[MichaelJoeWilliamson]

I am very ambivalent about these sets of circumstance. The man killed several people, one LEO at the scene. I do not think the LE had any obligation to take the man alive, especially if they had already ordered him to come out unarmed, which I seem to remember, they did. LE had every reason to fear for their safety, as well as the safety of firefighters.

On the other hand, intentionally burning a man to death, which if that report is true that is exactly what they did, is barbaric.

[gatorman_07732]

I am very ambivalent about these sets of circumstance. The man killed several people, one LEO at the scene. I do not think the LE had any obligation to take the man alive, especially if they had already ordered him to come out unarmed, which I seem to remember, they did. LE had every reason to fear for their safety, as well as the safety of firefighters.

On the other hand, intentionally burning a man to death, which if that report is true that is exactly what they did, is barbaric.

Ah, who was he going to hurt with that little ole full auto 50 cal

[gator1986]

Who cares kill him, I can't believe people are still wondering if there's corruption within our local, state, and government agencies. Of course they probably plotted to kill him, in any way, shape, or form. Is it really a question?

[92gator]

And I know the rest of the reflexive answer, i.e., "Who cares ?", or "Well yeah, but the police had our permission because he was a crazed killer and deserved it."

So while I have no personal sympathy for Dorner - and like everybody else - predicted that in accord with his wishes, he would commit suicide by cop in a shootout (as indeed he indicated he would), I do think the evidence of his execution by the police raises important questions about the limits of police power, and the criteria for who gets to decide what the limits of due process of law really are . . . especially on the street.

The police standoffs with armed individuals holed up in houses that I have seen in No Name City usually resolve themselves around dark thirty. Everybody kinds of looks at their watch and somebody signals the SWAT team to move in and resolve the issue, with the usual result.

With Dorner, seems like the decision to execute by fire was made early on, but likely after the Deputies were shot - with one killed - during the shootout at the back of the house.

So, were the police required (due process and all that) to wait Dorner out, and take him alive if possible ? Were they required to go inside the residence ?

Seems to me that the better public relations result would have been to wait him out (who knows, he could have changed his mind and surrendered), and at least allow him to try to escape out the back again, and assassinate him there.

I mean, we all knew he was going down; the question was how.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-christopher-dorner/

A murder? An assassination? A lynching? An execution.

All of the above, imo. :yes:

The LAPD could not have this guy go to trial.

Definitely premeditated, 'the hell with due process', excessive use of force.

Par for the course. Even if that's what Dorner wanted--even if that's what they figured he was going to try to precipitate--LAW ENFORCEMENT still had a duty to exercise it's authority, according to--THE LAW.

At least make him force the end result.

...but again....the stakes were just too high for the LAPD, and they could not have that. That's their internal rationalization (presumably)--but that ain't justification.

IMHO.

[Lawdog88]

Ah, who was he going to hurt with that little ole full auto 50 cal


I heard that propaganda too (we can't get near the house because of the .50 cal.), but I am not certain it has been shown that he had a .50 cal in the house. In fact, they were saying elsewhere, that he was using a firearm that had a silencer.

In the recordings of the shootout, I don't think you hear the report of a .50 cal, either.

Crime scene photos (it is a crime scene), evidence, etc., remain to be seen, however.

[92gator]

^^^Follow up as to the recklessness of their tactic:

What assurance did LE have, that no one else was in that cabin? Hostages, guests, innocent bystanders...


Hell--we sent a team of navy seals to take out OBL--not a drone missle, or one of those crater making tent bombs...

[wgbgator]

If Dorner wanted to put the LAPD on trial, he was an extremely poor strategist.

[cocodrilo]

I'm sure that when Chief Beck completes his personal investigation of the reasons for Dorner's firing, he will announce that Dorner was right.

[adamgator96]

Burning him out seemed a logical plan to reduce the risk of further casualties to LEO/first responders. Dorner could have walked out and surrendered. He had no plan to do so.

This wasn't a typical scenario which would have benefitted from a negotiator. I think Dorner closed that door when the 2nd cop died.

Sad all the way around. I'm interested in reopening his original case to see if his complaints were valid.

[92gator]

Who cares kill him, I can't believe people are still wondering if there's corruption within our local, state, and government agencies. Of course they probably plotted to kill him, in any way, shape, or form. Is it really a question?

That's what your government is counting on--you (and everyone else)--not carrying.

Did you know (let alone care) that your government used chemical weaponry that is banned under UN treaty--IOW--the kind of stuff we condemned Saddam Hussien for using on his own people--and the kind of stuff we would never use on our worst enemy--on a bunch of rednecks in Waco Texas?

(no matter it seems, that those 'rednecks' happened to be US citizens).

...yeah...who cares....

[OaktownGator]

Great topic, LD.

In this particular situation, I don't have a problem with LEO taking out a guy that vowed to take them out, and demonstrated he had the ability to do so.

In the bigger picture, it is pretty clear that LAPD is a govt protected gang of thugs with no compunction about abusing their power and destroying anyone who dares speak against their abuses. The coldness with which they destroyed Dorner's personal life, and then burned him to death are both examples of that.

I hope someone does a documentary on Dorner and the entire situation leading up to and including his death. This is a case that needs real sunlight, and not just superficial media coverage.

[gatorman_07732]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=a32eba0a02cd" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I think I hear some fully auto noise in this feed, but I can't tell whether its a 50 cal or not.

[1329gator]

If somehow he survived this ordeal and pleaded...."insanity",everything he accused the LAPD of would become debatable in open court...... no way no how was Dorner getting out that cabin alive...

[92gator]

If Dorner wanted to put the LAPD on trial, he was an extremely poor strategist.

He didn't want to go to trial--he wanted to go out in a flame of glory--Hollywood movie style.

I'm just saying the the LAPD could not even risk the possibility of capturing him alive, and an ensuing trial.

[wgbgator]

He didn't want to go to trial--he wanted to go out in a flame of glory--Hollywood movie style.

I'm just saying the the LAPD could not even risk the possibility of capturing him alive, and an ensuing trial.

If he was determined to die, then there was no risk. No different than any other "suicide by cop."

[Lawdog88]

<iframe src="http://www.liveleak.com/ll_embed?f=a32eba0a02cd" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

I think I hear some fully auto noise in this feed, but I can't tell whether its a 50 cal or not.


Well the only .50 cal. autos I know about are mounted on Bradleys, Hum Vees, Abrams tanks, and are securely in the hands of the government. Collectors and museums may have some, but they are usually mounted. The rest are semi-auto sniper configured rifles and can be carried. Heavy rascals, but portable.

[wgbgator]

Besides, I'm not sure what "risk" was invovled in a trial. He ambushed two civilians in a parking garage in an act of vengence against a former employer. That doesnt give him a forum to air his grievances.

The "risk" at best would be him becoming a Mumia-like figure rotting in prison or on death row. Even then, he'd have very little credibility.

[PSGator66]

If he had anything on the LAPD why did he resort to killing innocent people instead of taking his case to court?

[gatorman_07732]

Well the only .50 cal. autos I know about are mounted on Bradleys, Hum Vees, Abrams tanks, and are securely in the hands of the government. Collectors and museums may have some, but they are usually mounted. The rest are semi-auto sniper configured rifles and can be carried. Heavy rascals, but portable.

He's the one that claimed to have a Barrett 50 cal. I'm shot them and machine gun shoots and he could have certainly carried it with him.

[CalSFGator]

A very reasonable question. I know few will agree, but I have the same question on Bin Laden. I am not comparing the two people, but I don't see the legal justificatiion for execution.

[92gator]

If he was determined to die, then there was no risk. No different than any other "suicide by cop."

Really? No risk of getting cold feet, in the face of death? No risk of his firearm failing him? No risk of being hit, or otherwise disarmed/disabled, but not killed? No risk of him surrendering, after several hours of stand off? No 'risk' at all?

Nonsense. Those risks were so great, that when they had him cornered, in a cabin, surrounded from every side....they SWIFITLY torched the place down.

Nah...no risk there at all...

[Lawdog88]

He's the one that claimed to have a Barrett 50 cal. I'm shot them and machine gun shoots and he could have certainly carried it with him.


The Fish and Wildlife guys got into a firefight with him as Dorner abandoned the truck and fled to the cabin. They would have seen what he was carrying.

[92gator]

A very reasonable question. I know few will agree, but I have the same question on Bin Laden. I am not comparing the two people, but I don't see the legal justificatiion for execution.

We couldn't risk him going to trial either.

[wgbgator]

Really? No risk of getting cold feet, in the face of death? No risk of his firearm failing him? No risk of being hit, or otherwise disarmed/disabled, but not killed? No risk of him surrendering, after several hours of stand off? No 'risk' at all?

Nonsense. Those risks were so great, that when they had him cornered, in a cabin, surrounded from every side....they SWIFITLY torched the place down.

Nah...no risk there at all...

Geting cold feet or surrendering kinda means you are not determined to die. See my other post why a trial wasnt really a risk either.

[gatorman_07732]

The Fish and Wildlife guys got into a firefight with him as Dorner abandoned the truck and fled to the cabin. They would have seen what he was carrying.

That's is a good point, but what has been said from the F&W guys?

[Lawdog88]

That's is a good point, but what has been said from the F&W guys?


Haven't heard from them yet. Perhaps they are still preparing the script, er, report.

While I totally understand the motivation of what happened, it would be refreshing to hear them just come out and say, "Hey, we looked at it and we decided not to risk anymore law enforcement folks to get this guy. We did what we did.", instead of trying to justify it with invented facts.

Like the .50 cal. thing if he really didn't have one (you know, the announced justification to keep the firetrucks away). He might have said he had one earlier in his announcements, and maybe he actually ran from the F&W guys carrying one . . . and maybe not.

[gator1986]

That's what your government is counting on--you (and everyone else)--not carrying.

Did you know (let alone care) that your government used chemical weaponry that is banned under UN treaty--IOW--the kind of stuff we condemned Saddam Hussien for using on his own people--and the kind of stuff we would never use on our worst enemy--on a bunch of rednecks in Waco Texas?

(no matter it seems, that those 'rednecks' happened to be US citizens).

...yeah...who cares....

Everyone knows America does things, then turns around and tells others not to do it. That's why were the land of hypocrites, and I wasn't saying who cares about slaying thousands of people? I was talking about one rogue cop, who was going to die regardless.

[92gator]

Besides, I'm not sure what "risk" was invovled in a trial. He ambushed two civilians in a parking garage in an act of vengence against a former employer. That doesnt give him a forum to air his grievances.

The "risk" at best would be him becoming a Mumia-like figure rotting in prison or on death row. Even then, he'd have very little credibility.

OJ Simpson killed 2 civilians. Rodney King had quite a record, and arguably posed a threat of imminent danger (believed to be high on PCP). Those things were largely looked past, as the focus came on LAPD's integrity in discharging its duties.

Already, this guy had develeoped a facebook following, and even some apparent sympathy of hollywood elites.

[92gator]

Everyone knows America does things, then turns around and tells others not to do it. That's why were the land of hypocrites, and I wasn't saying who cares about slaying thousands of people? I was talking about one rogue cop, who was going to die regardless. And I guess your calling me a redneck? So your a liberal hippy douche? Lol name calling... I'm not a redneck, I just don't care about one guy... Sorry...

I didn't call you redneck--that was a reference to the cult members in Waco--not to you. And it was in the sense of what the goverment viewed them as--not me.

btw: "LOL @ name calling"...and then swiftly resort to same. :huh:

FYI: I'm not a liberal (nor a douche, or a hippy).

[NJG8tor]

We couldn't risk him going to trial either.

Nonsense.

[wgbgator]

OJ Simpson killed 2 civilians. Rodney King had quite a record, and arguably posed a threat of imminent danger (believed to be high on PCP). Those things were largely looked past, as the focus came on LAPD's integrity in discharging its duties.

Already, this guy had develeoped a facebook following, and even some apparent sympathy of hollywood elites.

OJ was a rich, likeable celebrity. Dorner was an unpopular crank who didnt work well with others. Given the OJ debacle, I doubt they' let the trial get out of hand or bungle the investigation like they did back then. The LAPD while still terrible, was arguably even more f'd up back in the 90s.

[MastaG8r]

"Burner" is police slang for tear gas canisters, it doesn't necessarily mean they were incendiary grenades. But with that said I agree that from the radio transmissions it sounds like they did it intentionally.

That was a historic, 100 year-old cabin. No need to burn it down. It was a wood cabin, not a concrete-reinforced bunker. They could've snaked a camera line in there, found his location within the cabin and shot him through a window. With armor piercing rounds they probably could've shot him right through the wall. They didn't need to burn that Jimmy Lee Dykes guy out in Alabama a couple weeks ago and they didn't need to burn this guy either.

[92gator]

"Burner" is police slang for tear gas canisters, it doesn't necessarily mean they were incendiary grenades. But with that said I agree that from the radio transmissions it sounds like they did it intentionally.

That was a historic, 100 year-old cabin. No need to burn it down. It was a wood cabin, not a concrete-reinforced bunker. They could've snaked a camera line in there, found his location within the cabin and shot him through a window. With armor piercing rounds they probably could've shot him right through the wall. They didn't need to burn that Jimmy Lee Dykes guy out in Alabama a couple weeks ago and they didn't need to burn this guy either.

Excellent points.

[malligator]

So, you don't want militarized police (as evidenced by so many anti-police threads on Too Hot) unless the guy could make a good witness against the police so many hate? Then you want police that are trained and capable of carrying out surgical strikes like Navy SEALs. Seems a little duplicitous.

[gatorman_07732]

Haven't heard from them yet. Perhaps they are still preparing the script, er, report.

While I totally understand the motivation of what happened, it would be refreshing to hear them just come out and say, "Hey, we looked at it and we decided not to risk anymore law enforcement folks to get this guy. We did what we did.", instead of trying to justify it with invented facts.

Like the .50 cal. thing if he really didn't have one (you know, the announced justification to keep the firetrucks away). He might have said he had one earlier in his announcements, and maybe he actually ran from the F&W guys carrying one . . . and maybe not.

I agree that we don't know, however did that sound like fully auto to you in that feed?

[MastaG8r]

I hope some of that $1 million reward money that they won't be paying out is given to the lady who owned the cabin. Her homeowner's insurance won't cover it. Damage caused by governmental authorities is typically excluded.

[Lawdog88]

I agree that we don't know, however did that sound like fully auto to you in that feed?


Yes, some of it was, in brief bursts. Some of the semi-auto was exceptionally loud, as well.

I just wonder why they didn't let him get fully out the back door and clearly in the yard and away from the residence, before opening up.

But then, it was chaos.

[gatorman_07732]

I hope some of that $1 million reward money that they won't be paying out is given to the lady who owned the cabin. Her homeowner's insurance won't cover it. Damage caused by governmental authorities is typically excluded.

I would suspect they will pay to rebuild and loss for any personal belongings

[NJG8tor]

If somehow he survived this ordeal and pleaded...."insanity",everything he accused the LAPD of would become debatable in open court...... no way no how was Dorner getting out that cabin alive...

I doubt that. How would any of that be relevant to an insanity defense? That he coldly and calculatingly plotted to murder people he may have had rational and understandable reasons for hating? That is exactly the opposite of what his defense wants the jury to believe. I dont know what the test for insanity is in California but insanity generally involves the inability to distinguish between right and wrong and/or an irrisistable impulse to commit the crime. How does making him appear sane and even sympathetic help that cause?

Not to mention that everything he had to offer on the circumstances of his termination probably came out in his administrative hearing and if not then then in his manifesto. We can debate the legality or wisdom of the procedures used my law enforcement which led to his demise but the talk about the police assasinating him because they were scared of what he has to say is crap.

[bakaduin]

I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me this stuff is practically out of a movie.

You have the guy surrounded by police and heavily outnumbered. You have plenty of tools at your disposal and you try to burn the guy out? Dorner certainly deserved to die but death by fire is a very cruel way to take someone out.

What really makes me wonder though is how desperate the cops seemed to want to kill him. The shot up civilian trucks they mistook for his in the days leading up to this. It seemed like they never had any intention of taking him alive. He was a whistleblower and they wanted to see he never got the chance to tell his story on the stand.

[DaveFla]

At least it wasn't a drone.

[adamgator96]

I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me this stuff is practically out of a movie.

You have the guy surrounded by police and heavily outnumbered. You have plenty of tools at your disposal and you try to burn the guy out? Dorner certainly deserved to die but death by fire is a very cruel way to take someone out.

What really makes me wonder though is how desperate the cops seemed to want to kill him. The shot up civilian trucks they mistook for his in the days leading up to this. It seemed like they never had any intention of taking him alive. He was a whistleblower and they wanted to see he never got the chance to tell his story on the stand.

I figured the cops who shot at the wrong vehicles were scared of dying. Dorner was trained to kill, had just killed a LEO in a cowardly ambush at a red light, and he promised to kill as many more as he possibly could.

If they were trying to keep the story from coming out, why didn't they finish the job and kill the two ladies delivering the paper that they mistook for Dorner?

[NJG8tor]

I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me this stuff is practically out of a movie.

You have the guy surrounded by police and heavily outnumbered. You have plenty of tools at your disposal and you try to burn the guy out? Dorner certainly deserved to die but death by fire is a very cruel way to take someone out.

What really makes me wonder though is how desperate the cops seemed to want to kill him. The shot up civilian trucks they mistook for his in the days leading up toiu this. It seemed like they never had any intention of taking him alive. He was a whistleblower and they wanted to see he never got the chance to tell his story on rthe stand.

(1) he got the chance to tell his story. (2) I doubt he was going to get to tell his story on the stand, as little of it is relavant to a defense of murder. Typically the defense introduces evidence to negate elements of the crime --and not plead a set of facts that even if true concedes guilt. (3) The police did appear to get sloppy and over vigilant at certain points in the pursuit.

[Matthanuf06]

The fact that the police randomly shot US civilians is the most important thing in this whole story. Chris Dorner is a wacko, wackos exist and will always exist. Yet we had a police department, that was either so scared or so motivated to risk it all to kill him, that they unloaded into trucks that had almost no resemblance to Dorner.

Someone else brought this up, but our military shows far more restraint and due process to freaking terrorists than the LAPD did in the Dorner pursuit. The LAPD had a happier trigger than the military at a checkpoint.

Those cops deserve to be in jail for years.

[wargunfan]

Dorner was not killed by the LAPD and, unless you believe in a statewide cop conspiracy, were bystanders to his death. I don't believe that the San Bernardo Sheriffs Department murdered Dorner on orders from the LAPD. Criminals have been announcing that they will not be taken alive and the police have been obliging them at least since Bonnie and Clyde.

[Swampmaster]

dorner was killed to keep him quiet--the corrupt lapd wanted nothing to do with a trial

[DowntownGator]

I'm not condoning the actions of Dorner, who appears to have murdered at least four victims, although a typical LA citizen was more likely to be killed by the LAPD than by Dorner. Aside from the online trolls who actually support all this and don't get why this is such a powerful example of runaway law enforcement tyranny, here's the point: if the LAPD is going to abandon its mission of public safety and function as an armed vigilante justice squad, dishing out death sentences to those it believes are guilty -- without a trial or anything resembling due process -- then they might as well throw away all their badges as just call themselves the LA Gang Squad. Because that's how they've acted. They can even have their own three finger gang signs that they flash at each other before running another taxpayer-funded drive-by.

The entire police force has turned into a paramilitary terrorist organization that recognizes no law, no court system and no restraint. They've become the enemy of the Sheople.

Think about where this is headed, folks: California legislators are working very hard right now to criminalize firearms ownership by private citizens. This is going to mean all the citizens will be disarmed while the raging execution squad known as the LAPD has a monopoly on guns.

What will the LAPD do with all that power over the people? Take a guess. "Burn that motherf#cker down" might give you a clue.

[wgbgator]

I hope some of that $1 million reward money that they won't be paying out is given to the lady who owned the cabin. Her homeowner's insurance won't cover it. Damage caused by governmental authorities is typically excluded.

Fire is a covered peril. Usually "War" (including rebellion or insurrection) and "Nuclear" are what's excluded under homeowner's policies, but this didnt involve military personel, or a nuclear explosion.

[Swampmaster]

I hope some of that $1 million reward money that they won't be paying out is given to the lady who owned the cabin. Her homeowner's insurance won't cover it. Damage caused by governmental authorities is typically excluded.

the police will find some way to not pay her anything--she's on her own with her insurance company. they'll probably blame her somehow and sue her.

[squigator]

I am very ambivalent about these sets of circumstance. The man killed several people, one LEO at the scene. I do not think the LE had any obligation to take the man alive, especially if they had already ordered him to come out unarmed, which I seem to remember, they did. LE had every reason to fear for their safety, as well as the safety of firefighters.

On the other hand, intentionally burning a man to death, which if that report is true that is exactly what they did, is barbaric.

Dorner was the barbaric one. He killed himself. Can you imagine what kind of policeman this psycho would have been.

[GboroGator]

For some of you..In the words of one of your political heros

"What difference does it make?"

Look at it this way..you have a new reason to celebrate Ash Wednesday

[g8trjax]

I haven't kept up with this story, but initial reports were he had hostages in the cabin? If true doesn't seem like a good idea to torch it.

[GatorAvatar]

So the police have the power to kill Americans, and people are bit***** about Obama killing American-born terrorists.

[The_Ultimate_Gator]

I figured the cops who shot at the wrong vehicles were scared of dying. Dorner was trained to kill, had just killed a LEO in a cowardly ambush at a red light, and he promised to kill as many more as he possibly could.

If they were trying to keep the story from coming out, why didn't they finish the job and kill the two ladies delivering the paper that they mistook for Dorner?

I'm not condoning the actions of Dorner, who appears to have murdered at least four victims, although a typical LA citizen was more likely to be killed by the LAPD than by Dorner. Aside from the online trolls who actually support all this and don't get why this is such a powerful example of runaway law enforcement tyranny, here's the point: if the LAPD is going to abandon its mission of public safety and function as an armed vigilante justice squad, dishing out death sentences to those it believes are guilty -- without a trial or anything resembling due process -- then they might as well throw away all their badges as just call themselves the LA Gang Squad. Because that's how they've acted. They can even have their own three finger gang signs that they flash at each other before running another taxpayer-funded drive-by.

The entire police force has turned into a paramilitary terrorist organization that recognizes no law, no court system and no restraint. They've become the enemy of the Sheople.

Think about where this is headed, folks: California legislators are working very hard right now to criminalize firearms ownership by private citizens. This is going to mean all the citizens will be disarmed while the raging execution squad known as the LAPD has a monopoly on guns.

What will the LAPD do with all that power over the people? Take a guess. "Burn that motherf#cker down" might give you a clue.

You are 100% correct. It is so obvious that the police *never* wanted to take him alive. I wouldn't be surprised if they had "shoot on sight" type orders - else, how do you explain the two "pick up truck" shooting incidents?

Even though they have come out and denied "intentionally" setting the fire, they used the "hot" tear gas canisters referred to as "burners" in the audio, knowing that they could cause a fire.

Dorner was criminal scum, don't get me wrong - but the LAPD's agenda was very well illustrated here. It seeks not to "protect and serve" the people, but only its own interests.

[GatorAvatar]

At least it wasn't a drone.

I know. LOL

[NJG8tor]

I figured the cops who shot at the wrong vehicles were scared of dying. Dorner was trained to kill, had just killed a LEO in a cowardly ambush at a red light, and he promised to kill as many more as he possibly could.

If they were trying to keep the story from coming out, why didn't they finish the job and kill the two ladies delivering the paper that they mistook for Dorner?

Exactly. This talk about the police killing Dorner because they were scared he would expose them is up there with Sandy Hook truthism. He was a cop killer who had every intention of killing as many police officers as possible. The police are going to look for any excuse to kill someone like that. It's like that everywhere.

Not to mention that everything Dorner had to say was already documented and available to the public.

[OaktownGator]

Exactly. This talk about the police killing Dorner because they were scared he would expose them is up there with Sandy Hook truthism. He was a cop killer who had every intention of killing as many police officers as possible. The police are going to look for any excuse to kill someone like that. It's like that everywhere.

Not to mention that everything Dorner had to say was already documented and available to the public.
Assassins/killers can have multiple motives.

Killing him because he was a cop killer doesn't exclude killing him because leaving him alive risks further exposure of ongoing criminal behavior on the part of LAPD.

[NJG8tor]

Assassins/killers can have multiple motives.

Killing him because he was a cop killer doesn't exclude killing him because leaving him alive risks further exposure of ongoing criminal behavior on the part of LAPD.

Well he hasnt worked there since 2008 so I dont know how much knowledge he would have regarding ongoing criminal behavior. And there isnt much more to say regarding the police brutality be alleges that he witnessed. He wouldnt know much about what happened in the higher ranks since he never earned a promotion. He would limited mainly to what he witnessed on patrol and rumours he heard. He isnt the only officer to be fired, so the LA Police Department would have many more people than him to worry about. Not to mention it would be hard to take him seriously regarding fresh allegations of misconduct after waging a guerrilla war against the LAPD.

Im just not seeing any compelling reason to want to silence him. And when you shoot a cop, you are a marked man. Even after imprisonment.

[madgator]

is possible booby traps a motivation in making sure that everything was crispy first? protect the lives of the cops?

[OaktownGator]

Well he hasnt worked there since 2008 so I dont know how much knowledge he would have regarding ongoing criminal behavior. And there isnt much more to say regarding the police brutality be alleges that he witnessed. He wouldnt know much about what happened in the higher ranks since he never earned a promotion. He would limited mainly to what he witnessed on patrol and rumours he heard. He isnt the only officer to be fired, so the LA Police Department would have many more people than him to worry about. Not to mention it would be hard to take him seriously regarding fresh allegations of misconduct after waging a guerrilla war against the LAPD.

Im just not seeing any compelling reason to want to silence him. And when you shoot a cop, you are a marked man. Even after imprisonment.
I'm not disagreeing with the motive you state... just doesn't mean there is not an additional motive.

You mention other officers that have been fired and might be willing to talk. Google is no help in finding stats on fired LAPD officers.

I found one article on turnover in general for LAPD, back from 2001. It mentions: "--Over the past five years, the LAPD has seen a 30 percent turnover rate of its sworn officers, losing 2,832 to retirement, disability, resignation and discharge. "

But no breakdown on how much of that was discharge. It did mention 332 resignations in the prior year.

Also noted further in the article... "Some 200 officers have joined a ``whistle-blower'' lawsuit, saying the LAPD brass retaliated against or discriminated against them for reporting wrongdoing in the department.

``My clients frequently tell me they are more afraid of management than the criminals on the street,`' said Bradley C. Gage, the attorney representing the officers in the suit."
FWIW, these officers reported a very real fear of their superiors in LAPD. And LAPD's track record SHOULD invoke very real fear in people dealing with them.

So how many of the terminated or retired officers would be willing to talk? If their fear is founded, do they need to risk their lives and their family's lives to come forward?

IDK the answer, but at least one officer was willing to come forward recently: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/12/joe-jones-manifesto-christopher-dorner_n_2670513.html

[FlyingGatorII]

I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me this stuff is practically out of a movie.

You have the guy surrounded by police and heavily outnumbered. You have plenty of tools at your disposal and you try to burn the guy out? Dorner certainly deserved to die but death by fire is a very cruel way to take someone out.

What really makes me wonder though is how desperate the cops seemed to want to kill him. The shot up civilian trucks they mistook for his in the days leading up to this. It seemed like they never had any intention of taking him alive. He was a whistleblower and they wanted to see he never got the chance to tell his story on the stand.

If I recall the tone of his manifesto correctly it was apparent to me he was not going to be taken alive (talked about all the things he would miss and gave advice to those that he thought would care after he was gone) and warned those that tried to apprehend him that they would be killed. He then executed unarmed civilians as well as ambushed officers not even associated with the LAPD and killed them as well. I am sure the cops that shot up the wrong truck were worried much more about not being killed by this very capable killer then making sure he didn't go to trial. Doesn't make their actions correct but I would not judge them until I walked a mile in their badges when a crazed cop killer is after them. Not sure why any LEO should risk their life to save him and put him on trial. In the end he was just another whack job with a gun that killed himself when his reign of terror was up. Happens at almost every mass shooting we see as well.

[GatorAvatar]

I heard that ex-cops can buy all sorts of heavy weaponry like rocket launchers and machine guns etc. That true?

[PIMking]

If he had anything on the LAPD why did he resort to killing innocent people instead of taking his case to court?

If he didn't have anything on the LAPD why did they resort to killing innocent people driving blue trucks?

[PIMking]

Haven't heard from them yet. Perhaps they are still preparing the script, er, report.

While I totally understand the motivation of what happened, it would be refreshing to hear them just come out and say, "Hey, we looked at it and we decided not to risk anymore law enforcement folks to get this guy. We did what we did.", instead of trying to justify it with invented facts.

Like the .50 cal. thing if he really didn't have one (you know, the announced justification to keep the firetrucks away). He might have said he had one earlier in his announcements, and maybe he actually ran from the F&W guys carrying one . . . and maybe not.

who knows what he had, the news reported that the Newtown Conn. Killer used and AR-15 but it wasn't even used or even there. The next hot weapon the government will want to ban is Barrett bolt action rifles and while they're at it some hot tear gas

[PIMking]

I'm not condoning the actions of Dorner, who appears to have murdered at least four victims, although a typical LA citizen was more likely to be killed by the LAPD than by Dorner. Aside from the online trolls who actually support all this and don't get why this is such a powerful example of runaway law enforcement tyranny, here's the point: if the LAPD is going to abandon its mission of public safety and function as an armed vigilante justice squad, dishing out death sentences to those it believes are guilty -- without a trial or anything resembling due process -- then they might as well throw away all their badges as just call themselves the LA Gang Squad. Because that's how they've acted. They can even have their own three finger gang signs that they flash at each other before running another taxpayer-funded drive-by.

The entire police force has turned into a paramilitary terrorist organization that recognizes no law, no court system and no restraint. They've become the enemy of the Sheople.

Think about where this is headed, folks: California legislators are working very hard right now to criminalize firearms ownership by private citizens. This is going to mean all the citizens will be disarmed while the raging execution squad known as the LAPD has a monopoly on guns.

What will the LAPD do with all that power over the people? Take a guess. "Burn that motherf#cker down" might give you a clue.

They wont have all the guns, the criminals (the bad guys) wont give thiers up.

[PIMking]

I heard that ex-cops can buy all sorts of heavy weaponry like rocket launchers and machine guns etc. That true?

Anyone can buy a machine gun or that great word out media anti gunners like to say in assault rifles that are automatic weapons if they can pass a super strict background check and get their class III license through the feds and the county sheriff has to sign off on it too

[NJG8tor]

If he didn't have anything on the LAPD why did they resort to killing innocent people driving blue trucks?

Maybe because be was a cop killer dedicated to killing more cops and their families. Something tells me that that factor weighed more heavily than whatever ultra-sensitive info he must have aquired in the few months he was with the department as a trainee.

[PIMking]

Maybe because be was a cop killer dedicated to killing more cops and their families. Something tells me that that act weighed more heavily than whatever ultra-sensitive info he must have aquired in the few months he was with the department as a trainee.

what?!
The LAPD got out of their vehicles that shot at a blue truck (that wasn't even the right make or model) without identifying who was in the vehicle TWICE!!!! 1+2 doesn't equal 13 and neither does this

[NJG8tor]

what?!
The LAPD got out of their vehicles that shot at a blue truck (that wasn't even the right make or model) without identifying who was in the vehicle TWICE!!!! 1+2 doesn't equal 13 and neither does this

Which was reckless procedure for sure. And they intended to kill Dorner. But there is no evidence to imply they were scared of what he might reveal if captured (not that he couldnt leak that information prior to capture).

[adamgator96]

If he didn't have anything on the LAPD why did they resort to killing innocent people driving blue trucks?

None of the three citizens mistaken for Dorner died. That was MY point. If LAPD was so hellbent on hushing Dorner, why weren't the innocents killed in a hail of gunfire? Surely LAPD could have planted a gun or narcotics on those ladies delivering the paper once the officers realized their mistake.

Those officers disregarded their training, IMO, and overreacted out of fear for their own lives.

This cover-up theory sounds straight out of Hollywood. I would bet that most officers just want to cover their own butts and live long enough to get their outrageous pensions.

[NJG8tor]

None of the three citizens mistaken for Dorner died. That was MY point. If LAPD was so hellbent on hushing Dorner, why weren't the innocents killed in a hail of gunfire? Surely LAPD could have planted a gun or narcotics on those ladies delivering the paper once the officers realized their mistake.

Those officers disregarded their training, IMO, and overreacted out of fear for their own lives.

This cover-up theory sounds straight out of Hollywood. I would bet that most officers just want to cover their own butts and live long enough to get their outrageous pensions.

Finally a voice of reason. Not everything is a shady conspiracy.

[OaktownGator]

Guys, what you say probably makes sense for most LEOs.

But LAPD has a well established track record of criminal assaults, killings, planting evidence and covering it up. The Rampart scandal is just one set of issues that got to see the light of day and get published.

I worked in the LA area prior to Rampart coming to light, and I was warned how dangerous interactions with LAPD could be. More for minorities than us white guys, but still dangerous none the less. The first couple of times I heard it, I figured it might have been exaggerated "victimhood". But you hear enough stories, and it sinks in that more is going on.... then Rampart came out.

Whether they did it in any one specific case is open to question and available evidence. Certainly it's not like all LAPD officers are running around assaulting civilians and planting drugs on them.

But to assume an organization with a track record of this behavior is above it in any specific case (where they have something to lose) is a poor assumption, IMO.

[adamgator96]

Guys, what you say probably makes sense for most LEOs.

But LAPD has a well established track record of criminal assaults, killings, planting evidence and covering it up. The Rampart scandal is just one set of issues that got to see the light of day and get published.

I worked in the LA area prior to Rampart coming to light, and I was warned how dangerous interactions with LAPD could be. More for minorities than us white guys, but still dangerous none the less. The first couple of times I heard it, I figured it might have been exaggerated "victimhood". But you hear enough stories, and it sinks in that more is going on.... then Rampart came out.

Whether they did it in any one specific case is open to question and available evidence. Certainly it's not like all LAPD officers are running around assaulting civilians and planting drugs on them.

But to assume an organization with a track record of this behavior is above it in any specific case (where they have something to lose) is a poor assumption, IMO.

I work with and am friendly with one of the officers busted during Rampart. He did a year in jail. He was guilty.

Dirty cops usually just do the time rather than somehow quietly mobilizing thousands of strangers with guns to commit capital murder on their behalf.

[Dreamliner]

Sorry, no heroes in this ugly debacle. Yes, LAPD is a cesspool of thugs. No, Dorner is not a hero. And people who consider him such are repugnant.

[OaktownGator]

I work with and am friendly with one of the officers busted during Rampart. He did a year in jail. He was guilty.

Dirty cops usually just do the time rather than somehow quietly mobilizing thousands of strangers with guns to commit capital murder on their behalf.
Dirty cops usually don't get caught, because they cover for each other. And when they don't, their career doesn't go so well. I know that from officers I've known in forces that have no public track record of wrong doing. What gets to the public is the tip of the iceberg... Titanic size in the case of LAPD.

And Dream is correct there are no heroes in this case. LAPD's corruption and abuse is no justification for Dorner going on a killing spree.

[Dreamliner]

Dirty cops usually don't get caught, because they cover for each other. And when they don't, their career doesn't go so well. I know that from officers I've known in forces that have no public track record of wrong doing. What gets to the public is the tip of the iceberg... Titanic size in the case of LAPD.

And Dream is correct there are no heroes in this case. LAPD's corruption and abuse is no justification for Dorner going on a killing spree.

... or in other words: Dorner being even worse than what he deplored.

[OaktownGator]

... or in other words: Dorner being even worse than what he deplored.
Certainly worse than what he himself experienced.

No worse than others have received at the hands of LAPD, unfortunately.

[rampartgator]

Scenario #1; a citizen with a concealed carry permit is present when a gunman opens fire and shoots and kills several people. Is the citizen therefore justified in killing the assailant before anyone else is shot and killed; yes, or no?

Scenario #2; police officers have surrounded a gunman who has already shot and killed several people and who, in their presence, shoots 2 more, killing one. Are the police officers therefore justified in killing the assailant before anyone else is shot and killed; yes or no?

Is the answer to question #1 different than the answer to question #2? If so, why?

[The_Graygator]

And I know the rest of the reflexive answer, i.e., "Who cares ?", or "Well yeah, but the police had our permission because he was a crazed killer and deserved it."

So while I have no personal sympathy for Dorner - and like everybody else - predicted that in accord with his wishes, he would commit suicide by cop in a shootout (as indeed he indicated he would), I do think the evidence of his execution by the police raises important questions about the limits of police power, and the criteria for who gets to decide what the limits of due process of law really are . . . especially on the street.

The police standoffs with armed individuals holed up in houses that I have seen in No Name City usually resolve themselves around dark thirty. Everybody kinds of looks at their watch and somebody signals the SWAT team to move in and resolve the issue, with the usual result.

With Dorner, seems like the decision to execute by fire was made early on, but likely after the Deputies were shot - with one killed - during the shootout at the back of the house.

So, were the police required (due process and all that) to wait Dorner out, and take him alive if possible ? Were they required to go inside the residence ?

Seems to me that the better public relations result would have been to wait him out (who knows, he could have changed his mind and surrendered), and at least allow him to try to escape out the back again, and assassinate him there.

I mean, we all knew he was going down; the question was how.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-christopher-dorner/


I agree with the "who cares?" sentiment.

This guy "executed" several innocent people, the first few by ambushing them when they were weaponless and defenseless.

Screw that waste of DNA. At least the taxpayers don;t have to pay millions for a trial and then his 20 year wait on death row.

[Matthanuf06]

I agree with the "who cares?" sentiment.

This guy "executed" several innocent people, the first few by ambushing them when they were weaponless and defenseless.

Screw that waste of DNA. At least the taxpayers don;t have to pay millions for a trial and then his 20 year wait on death row.

You could say the same about the LAPD and their happy trigger finger. They "ambushed" the occupants in the pick ups that were weapon less and defenseless. Why is that okay?

[cocodrilo]

Here is a pertinent article about "Why Police Lie Under Oath." I believe this is basically why O.J. got acquitted. Everybody (at least in LA) knew about LAPD. The jurors knew going in that the cops who would testify were dirty. And the cops went right ahead and proved it, with Detective Van Atter walking around with a vial of O.J.'s blood in his pocket (ready for planting) during the investigation, and the cops entering a photo into evidence showing blood on a gate, when a previous photo of the crime scene showed no blood on the gate. There was even Detective Mark Furman committing perjury not even related to the evidence. (His lie, as I recall, was that he never used the N word.) That is some way to convict somebody (which apparently is how they customarily do it).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html?_r=0

[FlyingGatorII]

You could say the same about the LAPD and their happy trigger finger. They "ambushed" the occupants in the pick ups that were weapon less and defenseless. Why is that okay?

I don't think anyone is saying that is "OK". I think that what has been said is those officers likely broke protocol and will be investigated and punished if found guilty. I also think what has been said is that this guy was a real and present danger to the lives of every cop in Southern California (in his manifesto he said anyone trying to apprehend him would die) and their nerves were probably on edge since he had killed already. Not saying what they did was OK, but until you face the dangers they were facing I would say you should not be so quick to condemn them.

[FlyingGatorII]

Here is a pertinent article about "Why Police Lie Under Oath." I believe this is basically why O.J. got acquitted. Everybody (at least in LA) knew about LAPD. The jurors knew going in that the cops who would testify were dirty. And the cops went right ahead and proved it, with Detective Van Atter walking around with a vial of O.J.'s blood in his pocket (ready for planting) during the investigation, and the cops entering a photo into evidence showing blood on a gate, when a previous photo of the crime scene showed no blood on the gate. There was even Detective Mark Furman committing perjury not even related to the evidence. (His lie, as I recall, was that he never used the N word.) That is some way to convict somebody (which apparently is how they customarily do it).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/opinion/sunday/why-police-officers-lie-under-oath.html?_r=0

I lived in SoCal at the time and used to ride by Bundy on my bike on the way from Brentwood to Santa Monica. I watched the trial pretty closely and it was obvious to me that most of the cops were lying in that case and had I been a juror I would have had to vote to acquit as well. My rule has always been trust everyone until they lie to you and then don't trust them again. They probably didn't need to lie but for some reason they did and that poisoned the case and likely let a murder go free, for a little while anyway..

[The_Graygator]

You could say the same about the LAPD and their happy trigger finger. They "ambushed" the occupants in the pick ups that were weapon less and defenseless. Why is that okay?


I'm not talking about the LAPD, I'm talking about Dorner and his actions specifically.

If you want to go off on tangents, start another thread.