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.
“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://" 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.
__________________
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
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.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
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.
__________________ It takes a lot of time to be a genius, you have to sit around so much doing nothing. – Gertrude Stein
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.
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.
__________________
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
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".
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.
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
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?
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.
A murder? An assassination? A lynching? An execution.
All of the above, imo.
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.
__________________ "Too much sanity may be the greatest maddness of all--to see life as it is rather than as it should be.”
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.
__________________
On the third day he rose again in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
If Dorner wanted to put the LAPD on trial, he was an extremely poor strategist.
__________________
"The things we admire in men, kindness and generosity, openess, honesty, understanding and feeling, are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest, sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meaness, egotism and self-interest, are the traits of success."
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.
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....
__________________ "Too much sanity may be the greatest maddness of all--to see life as it is rather than as it should be.”
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.
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...
Was Christopher Dorner executed ?
"Too much sanity may be the greatest maddness of all--to see life as it is rather than as it should be.” 
Linear Mode
