Concerned citizens rally in support of … Dorner?

posted at 11:01 am on February 17, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

I first expressed some concerns over this growing meme one week ago, and MK Hammer found it cropping up in other places a few days later. Now it’s apparently spilling out into the streets of California, as people attempt to make the recently expired cop killer Christopher Dorner into some sort of martyr / hero.

Dozens of protesters rallied outside Los Angeles police headquarters Saturday in support of Christopher Dorner, the former LAPD officer and suspected killer of four who died after a shootout and fire this week at a mountain cabin following one of the biggest manhunts in recent memory.

Protesters told the Los Angeles Times they didn’t support Dorner’s deadly methods, but objected to police corruption and brutality, and believed Dorner’s claims of racism and unfair treatment by the department. Many said they were angered by the conduct of the manhunt that led to Dorner’s death and injuries to innocent bystanders who were mistaken for him.

Michael Nam, 30, who held a sign with a flaming tombstone and the inscription “RIP Habeas Corpus,” said it was “pretty obvious” police had no intention of bringing Dorner in alive.

I suppose it’s nice that the protesters would take the time to specify that they’re not actually supporting murdering your former employers and colleagues, but that’s a pretty soft sell in light of what transpired. That comment about not having any intention of bringing Dorner in alive was another common theme, and one which I saw reflected in my Twitter timeline many times through the final couple of days of the manhunt. It’s also one of the ones that I find the most confounding. The idea that law enforcement officials were somehow “hunting down” Dorner with the specific intention of killing him should be obviously preposterous on its face. At any point in this saga, Dorner could have put down his weapons and walked into a police station with his hands up and he’d have been taken into custody without further incident. But by the same token, the police weren’t going to blindly wander around while searching for someone who had already shot several of their fellow officers without being prepared for the worst.

Still, the latest group of protesters wanted to get their message out there.

Signs expressed anger at police and support for Dorner.

“If you’re not enraged, you’re not paying attention,” one sign read.

“Why couldn’t we hear his side?”

“Clear his name! Christopher Dorner”

Liliana Alaniz, 40, came with her family -– her mother, sister, nieces and daughters -– from Long Beach to join the protest, which she said was her first.

“I really, really believe he was innocent in the firing case,” Alaniz said of Dorner.

Alaniz held a sign that read, “Trying to clear your name.”

Her daughter, Andrea Tovar, said Dorner “has his supporters.”

If you have complaints with the methods and potential abuses of the police department, bring them forward in the press and in the courts. Showing up as a “supporter” of somebody who is running around shooting cops isn’t helping anyone.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Ah I see. So the cops get the benefit of the doubt but Dorner’s alleged crimes warrant being burned alive without due process? Gotcha.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

If you are trying to make the assertion that the cops intended to burn him alive, you need to work on your sentence structure and it wouldn’t hurt you to learn the facts of the case either.

To prove intent, you have to prove mens rea and you also have to have the evidence to support your allegations.

As of today, you have neither.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

So the cops get the benefit of the doubt but Dorner’s alleged crimes warrant being burned alive without due process? Gotcha.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Dorner had every chance to get due process. All he had to do was surrender peacefully. He didn’t. In fact, he continued taking out cops who weren’t even in the LAPD.

And remember, his Manifesto promised that he would use, and I quote his own words directly, “unconventional and asymmetrical warfare” on not only police officers, but also on their families. In fact, apparently there had been some sort of police family day planned last week at Big Bear, and there’s word Dorner wanted to pick off cops’ family members on the ski slopes.

Just curious: what “due process” did those two cops in Riverside get from Dorner, when they were innocently stopped at a traffic light?

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Why is it acceptable to blow someone’s head off with a rifle, but it’s an outrage to burn them out?

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Birds of a feather and all that.

CW on February 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM

Word for word. Scary.

VegasRick on February 17, 2013 at 2:00 PM

There’s clear evidence that they did and that they did it on purpose. If they were within their rights to do it, why are you denying it? Why did they deny it the following day?

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 12:59 PM

No. There is NOT “clear evidence” that they set the cabin on fire on purpose.
There was radio chatter four hours before the cabin was assaulted and burned.
You do, however, seem to “conveniently” omit from your whining and sniveling that there are also recordings of radio talk saying that the fire started as the assault vehicle demolished the walls. Why do you omit that?
Dorner could have started the fire himself. He had a can of gasoline and a lighter. For what purpose?

And, if there is “clear evidence” of wrongdoing, do you really think that the eric holder doj is going to miss an opportunity to prosecute the “rogue white cops”? Not in this lifetime!

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 2:01 PM

No one in 1865 had a problem when the soldiers surrounding the barn where John Wilkes Booth had holed up set fire to the place (hint: they didn’t have tear gas back then so they likely used torches). Booth still refused to come out though a man with him did surrender. A soldier then spotted Booth and shot him in the neck, ostensibly against orders to take him alive. In any case, troops went in and brought Booth out, him dying about three hours later.

Same today, far as I’m concerned. I don’t care if the fire was set intentionally or not. The bottom line is that Dorner is dead by his own hand–the coward’s way out. This whole story is about a psycho liberal with guns and full intention to use them in a spree of murder of specifically-stated targets. Except he killed people who had nothing to do with offending his fragile narcissism.

Dorner is the crux, not some made-up detritus by hero-worshippers or bleeding-hearts. If I wanted to be annoying, I could add in the MSM talking heads and Obama who Dorner praised refused to call on him to surrender peaceably, thus being responsible in some way for Dorner’s demise.

Of course I don’t believe that, but it’s not much different from saying the cops are responsible for Dorner’s rampage and subsequent suicide.

Liam on February 17, 2013 at 2:01 PM

I’m confused. What does the Philly police have to do with Dorner?

hawkdriver

*facepalm*

So many illiterate people here.

Is it really so hard to understand my point? There are some here who are taking the word of the cops as gospel regarding what went down at that cabin. This despite the screw ups by their fellow officers during attempts to apprehend Dorner.

The post you’re responding to is just an illustration of how cops can and will abuse their power given the opportunity. It’s happened with the LAPD and cops just about everywhere else in this country.

So I’m just saying that you’d better rethink your position or this could be you at the other end of a cop’s service weapon when you’re just walking down the street obeying the law.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM

You have all the genius of a community organizer from the south side of Chicago.
Fight the power!

RovesChins on February 17, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Anyone who has been following this story closely can see the blame falls squarely on the Torrance Sheriffs Department, the Los Angeles County Police Department, Santa Bernadino Police Department, the Big Bear National Guard, the Fresno Bureau of Intimidation, and most of all the Los Angelus Sheriffs Department.

Learn to reed.

Christien on February 17, 2013 at 2:03 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:25 PM

lol, who the getalife is Timothy Havener?

Although I must admit, his fascinating video on how to make Oreo-Stuffed chocolate chip cookies looked tasty!

Thanks for the tip! Heating the oven up now…

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:04 PM

It’s because he’s Black.

There are people out there who think Blacks can do no wrong.

It is not because he is black. Most folks in LA are hispanic now.

southernms on February 17, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Most folks in LA are not out there celebrating Dorner.

itsnotaboutme on February 17, 2013 at 2:04 PM

*facepalm*

I’ve been pwned.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Edited for accuracy.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Obviously cops are always guilty until proven innocent. /s

farsighted on February 17, 2013 at 2:06 PM

And, again, he was NOT burned alive.

Resist We Much

And, again for the illiterates, I never said he was. I said it was the intention of the cops to burn him alive. I just can’t prove it.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Fixed.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Edited for accuracy.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Heh…no doubt.

CW on February 17, 2013 at 2:07 PM

I said earlier that the cops intended to burn Dorner alive.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

And all these posts later, you still haven’t been able to prove that. Please do so.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

This murderer never provided proof of his claims. That doesn’t matter to those who hate the LAPD. He said it, so it must be true. Regardless of how one feels about the LAPD, this man was crazy and it’s probably a good thing that the LAPD didn’t think he would make a good cop.

It’s also fun to listen to the gun-grabbing liberals talk about how dangerous government agencies are. Maybe we can get them to agree that the 2nd amendment is designed to protect us from a tyrannical government.

The liberal thought process changes from issue to issue.
Government can be trusted with our private medical info and our healthcare but we can’t trust government law enforcement agencies.

We must ban guns to save the children, but we should cheer on a crazy murderer for using guns to take on “The Man”

Abortion is ok, because that fetus isn’t a baby. Except, of course, when it is a baby. A criminal shoots a pregnant woman and the fetus dies, then the criminal will be charged with killing a baby. A doctor can destory a fetus, even in 3rd trimester, and it is just a bunch of cells.

We don’t have a spending problem, unless you’re talking about all of the money spent on our industrial military complex.

It’s hard to follow a liberal’s thought process.

Ibanez Lotus on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Anyone who has been following this story closely can see the blame falls squarely on the Torrance Sheriffs Department, the Los Angeles County Police Department, Santa Bernadino Police Department, the Big Bear National Guard, the Fresno Bureau of Intimidation, and most of all the Los Angelus Sheriffs Department.

Learn to reed.

Christien on February 17, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Priceless.

RovesChins on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

You’re indicting the entire LAPD and their actions. What does a single Philly Police Officer have to do with it?

hawkdriver

I don’t know why I’m bothering but I’ll attempt to put it all in one post together for you.

My points thus far have been -

1. I detest what Dorner did.

2. I also detest the way the response to it was handled by the police (LAPD or otherwise).

3. The actions of the police just reinforce the points Dorner made about them in his manifesto.

4. All of you cheering on the police here need to consider what exactly you’re cheering. The police had the intention to kill Dorner most probably to keep him from exposing more corruption inside the LAPD. That he wasn’t killed as a result of the actions of the LAPD is irrelevant. Cops look out for other cops. This smells more like vengeance than justice to me.

5. I posted the video of the Philly cop as an example of the abuse of power that goes on in every state in this country. Also it addresses a major issue in conservative circles, that being gun control laws. Almost every poster here including myself is pro-2nd Amendment. By not questioning the actions of the cops during the manhunt for Dorner you’re enabling more abuse of power later on. Abuse of power that could be aimed at you if and when gun bans are enacted in your state or city.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

hawkdriver on February 17, 2013 at 1:46 PM

…I think Barabbas is the type that stands at urinals…and sh!ts his pants!

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2013 at 2:10 PM

There’s a difference between killing someone in a firefight and setting fire to a building during a standoff. Surely you can see the difference?

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:18 PM

You’ve never been in a firefight, have you?

(And, just as an aside…for perspective…there were a number of times when I was in “contact” with an armed enemy, and I called for air support. Those planes dropped NAPALM all over the little buggers I wanted to kill. Turned’em right into Crispy Critters. While they were alive.
Are you going to try to tell me that was a “bad” thing to do?)

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Why is it acceptable to blow someone’s head off with a rifle, but it’s an outrage to burn them out?

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 1:59 PM

Don’t confuse the Subject with Facts. It is not programmed to respond in that area.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM

I said earlier that the cops intended to burn Dorner alive.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:53 PM

You’re a scum bag. You make such a serious charge against real people. F-off.

CW on February 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM

And all these posts later, you still haven’t been able to prove that. Please do so.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

I haven’t seen any evidence at all, much less enough to get a guilty verdict. Except maybe from OJ’s first jury.

Apparently premise is that when cops are involved the worst possible motives and actions are assumed until someone proves otherwise.

farsighted on February 17, 2013 at 2:14 PM

‘Cuz those gold-encrusted, roasted babies delivered to the Bilderbergers for their lavish dinners deserve a voice!!!

/

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Maligning one’s enemies and goading them with BS stories is nothing new. Ever hear of Saul Alinsky?

Of course, for all we know the Bilderbergers are a secret cabal of international Conservatives who worship Ronald Reagan at the openings and closings of their secret meetings, so you may have a point here.

Oh, brother.

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 17, 2013 at 2:15 PM

You’ve never been in a firefight, have you?

(And, just as an aside…for perspective…there were a number of times when I was in “contact” with an armed enemy, and I called for air support. Those planes dropped NAPALM all over the little buggers I wanted to kill. Turned’em right into Crispy Critters. While they were alive.
Are you going to try to tell me that was a “bad” thing to do?)

Solaratov

So Dorner was VC? Interesting.

Again, there’s a vast difference between shooting someone in a firefight and setting the building they are in on fire during a standoff. He wasn’t going anywhere and his fellow VC were an ocean away. I don’t think they were showing up to reinforce his position.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM

hawkdriver on February 17, 2013 at 1:46 PM

…I think Barabbas is the type that stands at urinals…and sh!ts his pants!

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2013 at 2:10 PM

And eats the mint.

RovesChins on February 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM

4. All of you cheering on the police here need to consider what exactly you’re cheering. The police had the intention to kill Dorner most probably to keep him from exposing more corruption inside the LAPD.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

You still haven’t provided credible proof that the police had that intention.

Until you can do so, you’re wasting our time.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM

S. D. on February 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM

…gotcha

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Not so fast. There is incriminating audio of LAPD at the scene.

Christien on February 17, 2013 at 2:18 PM

You still haven’t provided credible proof that the police had that intention.

Until you can do so, you’re wasting our time.

Del Dolemonte

I’ve provided it. You’re choosing to ignore it. Just remember that when you’re the one they have cornered. Probably in your house because you have a gun they want.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:18 PM

And all these posts later, you still haven’t been able to prove that. Please do so.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

I haven’t seen any evidence at all, much less enough to get a guilty verdict. Except maybe from OJ’s first jury.

Apparently premise is that when cops are involved the worst possible motives and actions are assumed until someone proves otherwise.

farsighted on February 17, 2013 at 2:14 PM

As I noted upstream in the thread those “youtube videos” of “police transmissions” would most likely not even be admissible as evidence.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:18 PM

All of you cheering on the police here need to consider what exactly you’re cheering.

A crispy serial killer.

The police had the intention to kill Dorner

We knew that when they started shooting guns at him.

We’re very quick that way.

most probably to keep him from exposing more corruption inside the LAPD.

I have no doubt there is corruption in the LAPD but I don’t think I need Dorner to make that point, nor do I think he was a victim of anything but his own ego.

This smells more like vengeance than justice to me.

Smells like barbecued Dorner to me.

By not questioning the actions of the cops during the manhunt for Dorner you’re enabling more abuse of power later on.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Police are people. Some are good, some are bad, most are somewhere in between.

There has been incompetence on the part of the LAPD in the shootings where they didn’t ID the vehicles they fired on.

There hasn’t been any abuse of power as far as Dorner is concerned. They were trying to kill him and he was trying to kill them. Dorner killed four people before he killed himself.

That the police were trying to kill him is obvious. That they ‘may‘ have tried to kill him with fire is interesting, but who really cares?

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 2:19 PM

5. I posted the video of the Philly cop as an example of the abuse of power that goes on in every state in this country. Also it addresses a major issue in conservative circles, that being gun control laws. Almost every poster here including myself is pro-2nd Amendment. By not questioning the actions of the cops during the manhunt for Dorner you’re enabling more abuse of power later on. Abuse of power that could be aimed at you if and when gun bans are enacted in your state or city.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

All cops bad, even ones from across the fruited plain.
Murderers good, especially if they can string together a serious rant.

RovesChins on February 17, 2013 at 2:20 PM

And, again, he was NOT burned alive.

Resist We Much

And, again for the illiterates, I never said he was. I said it was the intention of the cops to burn him alive.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Ummm…yes, you did, illiterate one.

Ah I see. So the cops get the benefit of the doubt but Dorner’s alleged crimes warrant being burned alive without due process? Gotcha.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Or do you just not ever read or remember what you write?

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Don’t confuse the Subject with Facts. It is not programmed to respond in that area.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM

At least with a fire the guy would have a chance of getting out.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM

You still haven’t provided credible proof that the police had that intention.

Until you can do so, you’re wasting our time.

Del Dolemonte

I’ve provided it.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:18 PM

lol, please don’t insult our intelligence.

What you call “credible proof” is

1.a youtube video posted by a British comedian and conspiracy theorist, followed by

2. a youtube video posted by some fat guy from Pennsylvania who makes even more fattening Oreo-Stuffed Chocolate Chip Cookies.

You really need 2 shovels. One for each hand.

I was going to give you a grade, but will give you one final chance to prove your allegations with credible and multi-sourced cites.

(Starts stopwatch)

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM

You still haven’t provided credible proof that the police had that intention.

Until you can do so, you’re wasting our time.

Del Dolemonte

I’ve provided it. You’re choosing to ignore it. Just remember that when you’re the one they have cornered. Probably in your house because you have a gun they want.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013

We gots lots of guns.
No cops beating down our door.
I’m more concerned with McCain and friends instituting a federal gun owner list.

RovesChins on February 17, 2013 at 2:22 PM

All of you cheering on the police …
Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Again F off.

CW on February 17, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Benihana, you’re either against lawlessness, or you are for it.

Dorner killed people. A child is going to grow up with out their Daddy.

Everything you have presented, does not established the fact that the police wanted to burn the psychopathic murderer alive. It just happened that way.

Excuse average Americans if we do not mourn his loss.

kingsjester on February 17, 2013 at 2:23 PM

Or do you just not ever read or remember what you write?

Solaratov

Context is lost on you apparently.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:24 PM

And, again for the illiterates, I never said he was. I said it was the intention of the cops to burn him alive.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Ummm…yes, you did, illiterate one.

Ah I see. So the cops get the benefit of the doubt but Dorner’s alleged crimes warrant being burned alive without due process? Gotcha.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

Or do you just not ever read or remember what you write?

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 2:21 PM

The Subject was shoveling manure so fast it couldn’t keep track of what it had shoveled less than 30 minutes earlier? Shocking!

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Someone should show up a la Breitbart on rollerblades and lead the Dorner Mourners over to El Pollo Loco for some charbroiled chicken, in honor of Chris. It’s only good manners to serve food after memorial events.

Christien on February 17, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Somehow, charbroiled chicken seems most appropriate to celebrate the departed one.

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Benihana, you’re either against lawlessness, or you are for it.

Dorner killed people. A child is going to grow up with out their Daddy.

Everything you have presented, does not established the fact that the police wanted to burn the psychopathic murderer alive. It just happened that way.

Excuse average Americans if we do not mourn his loss.

kingsjester

Please point out to me anywhere I’ve said that I agree with what Dorner did, that I empathize with him in any way, or that I support the idiots who are marching in support of him.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Fugitive ex-cop Christopher Dorner apparently killed himself as the cabin he was barricaded in caught fire after a shootout with officers, police revealed Friday while also confirming he spent most of his time on the run in a condominium just steps away from the command center set up to find him.

He took his life as many of us predicted.

Nuff Said. Beni ESAD.

CW on February 17, 2013 at 2:26 PM

It’s also one of the ones that I find the most confounding

Perhaps if the LA Cops did not shoot first and ask questions second when they saw a vehicle similar to Dorners somehow escaped your knowledge? I mean two innocent paper delivery people were shot. How do you justify that? They were also caught on radio saying they were going to burn him out two hours before they did. They were also breaking down the walls of the cabin.

Had he tried to surrender it is very likely he would have been shot on sight.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM

The police had the intention to kill Dorner most probably to keep him from exposing more corruption inside the LAPD.
Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

The operative words being PROBABLY. In other words, it is your assertion that you have not, as of this writing, been able to prove.

That he wasn’t killed as a result of the actions of the LAPD is irrelevant. Cops look out for other cops. This smells more like vengeance than justice to me.

Yes, cops do look out for other cops…and, after the SBPD watched one of their officers killed and another saw another sent to the ICU in critical condition, along with the fact that the subject was still firing on them, they were within the law to fire tear gas containers (“burners”) into the cabin. If the “burners” started or contributed to the fire, that is not illegal or an undue use of force.

AGAIN, given the fact that Dorner a) had killed an officer at the final shootout site, b) sent another officer to ICU where he is in critical condition, and c) continued to shoot from the cabin, the two requirements set by the Supreme Court were met:

1. It was “necessary to prevent the escape;”

AND

2. Officers had “probable cause to believe that the suspect posed a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officers or others.”

If you do not like the holding in Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1 (1985), then find someone with standing and challenge it. Until then, you will have to argue within the law.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 2:29 PM

Don’t confuse the Suspect with Facts.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 2:13 PM

Fixed.

Christien on February 17, 2013 at 2:30 PM

I read through some of the comments and I think that people are missing the point/causation of pro-Dorner sentiment.

The LAPD is largely unaccountable to the public. LAPD and corruption go together like peas and carrots. And it is not limited to the LAPD. If you remember Kelly Thomas being murdered, yes murdered, not killed on accident but murdered by the Fullerton PD for absolutely no reason then you’ll remember the anti-police sentiment surrounding that incident. This sentiment exists because there are dozens of Kelly Thomas’ and Dorners (that aren’t crazy, and homicidal). And nothing ever changes. The people that are given the liberty and responsibilty of force of arms regularly murder and punish the innocent and it never sees the light of day. The cops that go to prison for their crimes are the rare exception not the rule. This is what the Dorner case is tapping into. If you don’t like the pro-Dorner sentiment, then tell all the “good” cops you know to break the blue wall and hold their colleagues accountable for the violation of people’s rights.

I read a few comments about cops wanting to burn Dorner out. Well I hate to agree but tear gas grenades are incendiary in nature, they have to be to burn the gas pellets and cause gas to be emitted from the grenade. This is being shot into a wooden cabin yes? Then what sane person believes that a tear gas grenade is not going to set a wood cabin on fire? I told my girlfreind that Dorner was not going to make it out alive and it was law enforcements intent to kill him. I said this the secind the news broke. You can doubt that but cannoty doubt that the LAPD thought they were killing him when they opened fire on a couple of old ladies delivering papers. Did they identify themselves? No, just point and shot. Since when are cops given a license to kill? Cops in California continually prove themselves unworthy of our trust. Just another reason I moved away from California.

Theworldisnotenough on February 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM

My points thus far have been -

1. I detest what Dorner did.

2. I also detest the way the response to it was handled by the police (LAPD or otherwise).

3. The actions of the police just reinforce the points Dorner made about them in his manifesto.

4. All of you cheering on the police here need to consider what exactly you’re cheering. The police had the intention to kill Dorner most probably to keep him from exposing more corruption inside the LAPD. That he wasn’t killed as a result of the actions of the LAPD is irrelevant. Cops look out for other cops. This smells more like vengeance than justice to me.

1. I not only detest what Dorner did, but the police had every right to stop him from doing it again.

2. How would you have caught this murderer and how many more leo’s, civilians, etc. would have been killed before your plan worked? It’s easy to sit on the side and second guess the decisions made. Preventing this madman from killing again was probably foremost on the leo’s agenda. He had killed again on the very day that he died and he had no intention of giving himself up. He wanted suicide by cop if he was ever cornered. It doesn’t look like an easy capture to me.

3. The leo’s caught and killed a crazed killer determined to kill again. How thus that re-enforce the claim that an LAPD officer kicked a suspect and are racists?

4. I am cheering on that fact that this killer was stopped before he could kill again. He created this situation and he was responsible for his death. Or, are you telling me that if he’d waived the white flag and come out with hands up, that the leo’s would have shot him full of bullets on live tv?

Is there corruption in law enforcement, yes. Just like there is corruption in government, business, schools, churches, and every other form of human endeavor. Some people are rotten, greedy, evil. I believe there are far more good cops than bad cops, just like there are more good priests, businessmen and teachers than bad ones.

Ibanez Lotus on February 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM

Again, there’s a vast difference between shooting someone in a firefight and setting the building they are in on fire during a standoff. He wasn’t going anywhere and his fellow VC were an ocean away. I don’t think they were showing up to reinforce his position.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:16 PM

You’re just putting us on, aren’t you?

After all, no one (well, except for sniveling leftists) could possibly be as obtuse – stupid, even – as you have presented yourself on this thread.
You call others stupid and illiterate, and yet you hold to an absurd position that you can’t prove or defend and for which you have no evidence……
and you scrunch up your little face and whine, snivel and whimper that we’re the stupids who just won’t see the brilliance of your (absurd) position. Because you *just know* that it’s true!

You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 2:40 PM

The LAPD is largely unaccountable to the public. LAPD and corruption go together like peas and carrots.

No one is denying the fact that the LAPD has a history of corruption. Until 2009, it was acting under a Consent Decree with the DOJ. A Federal judge, appointed by President Bill Clinton, found that the LAPD had made the necessary reforms and requisites and lifted the Consent Decree.

Well I hate to agree but tear gas grenades are incendiary in nature, they have to be to burn the gas pellets and cause gas to be emitted from the grenade. This is being shot into a wooden cabin yes? Then what sane person believes that a tear gas grenade is not going to set a wood cabin on fire?

You still have not proven intent and, as I have repeatedly demonstrated, IT DOES NOT MATTER. The police could use lethal force in that situation.

I told my girlfreind that Dorner was not going to make it out alive and it was law enforcements intent to kill him. I said this the secind the news broke.

I can also say, from his own words, that HE HAD NO INTENTION OF BEING TAKEN ALIVE AND HIS INTENT WAS TO TAKE OUT AS MANY POLICE OFFICERS AND THEIR RELATIONS AS POSSIBLE BEFORE HE DIED.

You can doubt that but cannoty doubt that the LAPD thought they were killing him when they opened fire on a couple of old ladies delivering papers. Did they identify themselves? No, just point and shot. Since when are cops given a license to kill?

They are not and I have no doubt that those victims will be more than compensated. As I have said, if I were licenced in California, I would be more than happy to represent them.

Cops in California continually prove themselves unworthy of our trust. Just another reason I moved away from California.

That is true in California and elsewhere. I am not saying that the police were faultless in this case. It is obvious from the two mistaken identity cases that they were not; however, that does NOT mean the actions taken by the SBPD were illegal or immoral.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Can you please provide a link to your manifesto. I’d like to read it before… well, you know.

farsighted on February 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM

Is there corruption in law enforcement, yes. Just like there is corruption in government, business, schools, churches, and every other form of human endeavor. Some people are rotten, greedy, evil. I believe there are far more good cops than bad cops, just like there are more good priests, businessmen and teachers than bad ones.

Ibanez Lotus on February 17, 2013 at 2:36 PM

I noticed that you left “government” out of your last sentence. I agree.

VegasRick on February 17, 2013 at 2:44 PM

My points thus far have been -

Not sure why I’m bothering since you won’t admit your link was stupid. But …

1. I detest what Dorner did.

I’m glad. This has nothing to do with a single Philly Police Officer.

2. I also detest the way the response to it was handled by the police (LAPD or otherwise).

I’m glad. This has nothing to do with a single Philly Police Officer.

3. The actions of the police just reinforce the points Dorner made about them in his manifesto.

Only in your opinion, But, you’re a cop-hater. This has nothing to do with a single Philly Police Officer.

4. All of you cheering on the police here need to consider what exactly you’re cheering. The police had the intention to kill Dorner most probably to keep him from exposing more corruption inside the LAPD. That he wasn’t killed as a result of the actions of the LAPD is irrelevant. Cops look out for other cops. This smells more like vengeance than justice to me.

“Probably”. So much for your due process. You’re worse than the LAPD. And this still has nothing to do with a single Philly Police Officer.

5. I posted the video of the Philly cop as an example of the abuse of power that goes on in every state in this country. Also it addresses a major issue in conservative circles, that being gun control laws. Almost every poster here including myself is pro-2nd Amendment. By not questioning the actions of the cops during the manhunt for Dorner you’re enabling more abuse of power later on. Abuse of power that could be aimed at you if and when gun bans are enacted in your state or city.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:09 PM

Single events to consider. The cop in Philly had nothing to do with the LAPD. If you’re going to go on and on complaining about the LAPD going off the deep end over speculations, you better take a good look in the mirror yourself.

hawkdriver on February 17, 2013 at 2:45 PM

Perhaps if the LA Cops did not shoot first and ask questions second when they saw a vehicle similar to Dorners somehow escaped your knowledge? I mean two innocent paper delivery people were shot. How do you justify that? They were also caught on radio saying they were going to burn him out two hours before they did. They were also breaking down the walls of the cabin.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 2:28 PM

You are conflating two police departments and two separate issues. Under the law, the San Bernadino PD had every right to use tear gas and to demolish the building in their efforts to resolve the situation.

Had he tried to surrender it is very likely he would have been shot on sight.

Again, you assume facts not in evidence and base assertions on your opinion. “Very likely” is neither evidence nor is it anything other than a supposition based on your own opinions and beliefs.

PS: Only one of the women was shot. The other was injured by flying glass. Get your facts right.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 2:46 PM

Can you please provide a link to your manifesto. I’d like to read it before… well, you know.

farsighted on February 17, 2013 at 2:42 PM

“Green Eggs and Ham”

VegasRick on February 17, 2013 at 2:46 PM

I told my girlfreind that Dorner was not going to make it out alive and it was law enforcements intent to kill him.

Theworldisnotenough on February 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM

Yeh and I said that he in fact would kill himself AND THAT is what happened.

CW on February 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Context is lost on you apparently.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Not so, you obsessive little freak.

What was posted was exactly what you wrote. Then, you lied about it. And tried to keep lying about it.
And now that people are calling you down on it…you start whining about connnntexxxxxt and sniveling about some Philly cop coming to take our guns.

You’re a whiner. Nobody likes a whiner.

And…You’re an idiot.

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM

The police had the intention to kill Dorner most probably to keep him from exposing more corruption inside the LAPD.
Benaiah

Yeah, that was probably it. By the way, did you know 9/11 was an inside job?

xblade on February 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM

Oh c’mon Jazz. I don’t think Dorner is any kind of hero or “martyr”, but when the cops light up a pickup truck with two Asian women, and then another pickup truck occupied by a white guy, it’s pretty obvious that A ) They didn’t even TRY to get a visual ID of their target, and B ) taking that target in alive was the last thing on their minds.

quikstrike98 on February 17, 2013 at 2:48 PM

“GIVE US BARABBAS!”

………..sheeple!……..

IslandLibertarian on February 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Tough room. Oh, well, I tried.

Christien on February 17, 2013 at 2:50 PM

Maligning one’s enemies and goading them with BS stories is nothing new. Ever hear of Saul Alinsky?

Dr. ZhivBlago on February 17, 2013 at 2:15 PM

So why would you believe Alex Jones if he tells BS stories?

Of course, for all we know the Bilderbergers are a secret cabal of international Conservatives who worship Ronald Reagan at the openings and closings of their secret meetings, so you may have a point here. Oh, brother.

Well, we also “know” that Rick Perry is behind a grand conspiracy to take over the world, according to Alex Jones.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 2:51 PM

I don’t think the LAPD has played this episode straight, inviting loons to take Dorner’s side, they’ve basically freaked out and left the building with their exaggerations and politics, and its not hard to notice that when cops and their families are victims the response level, including the breathless emotional quotient, goes up about ten notches.

LE is very sorry if your cousin is killed, they bananas when one of their community murdered, people who leaned toward Dorner even though his manifesto is nuts, take that as a signal.

Look at the illogical ding bat children the edu. system has turned out for some time now, we should expect idiots like this.

Wrong is right, bad is good, immoral is cool.

Society is sick.

Speakup on February 17, 2013 at 2:53 PM

The police had the intention to kill Dorner most probably to keep him from exposing more corruption inside the LAPD.
Benaiah

Yeah, that was probably it. By the way, did you know 9/11 was an inside job?

xblade on February 17, 2013 at 2:47 PM

And how about that shooter on the grassy knoll who got JFK?

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM

and its not hard to notice that when cops and their families are victims the response level, including the breathless emotional quotient, goes up about ten notches.

Speakup on February 17, 2013 at 2:53 PM

Cops get more upset when their families are murdered than if a strangers family is murdered?

The hell you say!

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM

Well, we also “know” that Rick Perry is behind a grand conspiracy to take over the world, according to Alex Jones.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 2:51 PM

And he always seemed like such a nice young man. Tsk. Tsk.

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM

with two Asian women,

quikstrike98 on February 17, 2013 at 2:48 PM

They were latinas. At least get your stories straight.

CW on February 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM

They killed him because of what he did, was doing, and might do, not because he had some secret knowledge of inside operations. I would like to have seen him frog marched like a punk.

S. D. on February 17, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Christopher can revealed what really happened for his fans when they finally meet him.

Mwahahahaha.

Christien on February 17, 2013 at 3:11 PM

They killed him because of what he did, was doing, and might do, not because he had some secret knowledge of inside operations. I would like to have seen him frog marched like a punk.

S. D. on February 17, 2013 at 3:06 PM

He killed himself, but otherwise I agree with you.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Sorry, they didn’t. He got himself first. I believe they would have, because it would have been necessary.

S. D. on February 17, 2013 at 3:13 PM

They killed him …

S. D. on February 17, 2013 at 3:06 PM

He killed himself. Jeebus would you guys get your stories straight. The ignorance is killing me.

CW on February 17, 2013 at 3:15 PM

Again, you assume facts not in evidence and base assertions on your opinion. “Very likely” is neither evidence nor is it anything other than a supposition based on your own opinions and beliefs.

PS: Only one of the women was shot. The other was injured by flying glass. Get your facts right.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 2:46 PM

The idea that law enforcement officials were somehow “hunting down” Dorner with the specific intention of killing him should be obviously preposterous on its face.

It sure looked to much of America that they were hunting him down with the intention of killing him. I mean when you shoot first and ask questions later there is no other conclusion.

The American Public never likes it when police burn someone out. It is rarely done and it should be criminal to do it. You claim he was not burned alive well you are on thin ice on that one he had two options be burned alive or quicken his death with his gun. Technically he could have poked his head out and been shot dead. If you believe he could have surrendered well you are of the opposite opinion of a lot of Americans. Once those paper delivery people were shot at first it was clear.

I am opposed to the police mentality. I am more so opposed to Dorner. He was 100% wrong but that hardly excuses the tactics used by the police where they will be sued for their behavior and lose.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 3:20 PM

It sure looked to much of America that they were hunting him down with the intention of killing him. I mean when you shoot first and ask questions later there is no other conclusion.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Much of America disagrees with you.

The American Public never likes it when police burn someone out. It is rarely done and it should be criminal to do it. You claim he was not burned alive well you are on thin ice on that one he had two options be burned alive or quicken his death with his gun. Technically he could have poked his head out and been shot dead.

Untrue and assumes facts not in evidence. The American public much prefers a murderer dead than more innocent people murdered. He could have turned himself in on innumerable occasions before the final shootout. He chose not to and killed a deputy and sent another to the hospital in critical condition.

Only the deranged and silly believe that the police should have stayed there allowing Dorner to kill as many as he wanted until he chose to surrender.

If you believe he could have surrendered well you are of the opposite opinion of a lot of Americans.

Coming from the person, who believes Mitt Romney is a communist, I’ll disregard your statement of what “a lot of Americans” believe. In your rarefied world of conspiracy theories, there may be “a lot of Americans” in your opinion, but they are certainly not a majority or even a significant minority.

Once those paper delivery people were shot at first it was clear.

The LAPD is not the SBPD. The Torrance PD is not the SBPD or the LAPD.

I am opposed to the police mentality. I am more so opposed to Dorner. He was 100% wrong but that hardly excuses the tactics used by the police where they will be sued for their behavior and lose.

They will rightfully be sued by the three innocents they injured. If Dorner’s family sues, they will lose.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Another illiterate. Great.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Please give example where what I’ve said is illiterate.

I have a degree that allows me to say what I said and 25 years’ experience.

You? Other than an expert in mindreading?

avagreen on February 17, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Yeah, I xxxked up pretty bad on that. Sorry. It may happen again. I went to public school you know…

S. D. on February 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM

They were latinas. At least get your stories straight.

CW on February 17, 2013 at 3:05 PM

Oh deary me, I’m so very sorry. Does their ethnicity in any way change the fact that they bore zero resemblance to the suspect, yet were subjected to a “Mad Minute” by SoCal’s finest?

Maybe you will find more nits to pick with my latest post, regarding details which really have no frigging bearing on the point. The police shot up innocent bystanders who had absolutely no resemblance to the suspect.

quikstrike98 on February 17, 2013 at 3:34 PM

I said earlier that the cops intended to burn Dorner alive.
Benaiah

More mindreading.

avagreen on February 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM

They will rightfully be sued by the three innocents they injured. If Dorner’s family sues, they will lose.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 3:32 PM

Not so sure about that. But their chances would not be great.

But little doubt the paper delivery women will get a great settlement which is of course what I was referring to.

You act like I said a majority when I said many and some Americans. You act like the protest never happened even though the article was about it. I am right about many and some.

You cherry pick then use straw men but you are just plain wrong. I would venture to opine a majority of Americans believed this would end with Dorner killed by police as it did. I doubt Dorner had any intention of it ending any other way either. But you simply do not burn someone out. I have no doubt they did this deliberately. I have no doubt either that the police who did the burning covered their tracks such that there will never bee proof of what they did. It is interesting that they never film these actions. They could easily do so.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Since when are cops given a license to kill? Cops in California continually prove themselves unworthy of our trust. Just another reason I moved away from California.

Theworldisnotenough on February 17, 2013 at 2:31 PM

They are given a license to kill when their lives or other lives are in imminent danger of being lost. They had the license to kill when confronting Dorner, so says the Supreme Court of the United States.

ButterflyDragon on February 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

But you simply do not burn someone out.

They didn’t they lobbed CS canisters into the house….Plus, please explain the difference between being “burned out” and shot in the head? I’m puzzled….dead is dead…

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 3:49 PM

Not so sure about that. But their chances would not be great.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 3:44 PM

Who’s chances?

But little doubt the paper delivery women will get a great settlement which is of course what I was referring to.

Except you continue to talk about Dorner and the final confrontation.

You act like I said a majority when I said many and some Americans.

You said “a lot” of Americans. You said “The American Public never…”

You act like the protest never happened even though the article was about it. I am right about many and some.

A few dozen.

You cherry pick then use straw men but you are just plain wrong.

Untrue. I use facts, evidence and the law. You use opinion and supposition.

I shouldn’t have to tell you which one of us would win in a court of law.

I would venture to opine a majority of Americans believed this would end with Dorner killed by police as it did.

That’s your opinion. Of course, as I have previously laid out by quoting from Dorner’s manifesto, I could easily “opine” that a majority of Americans believed that he would never be taken alive because he intended on dying, which is why he wrote stuff like he was going to miss “Shark Week” and the third installment of the Hangover movies.

I doubt Dorner had any intention of it ending any other way either.

Let me get this straight, you and “the majority of Americans” believe that it “would end with Dorner killed by police as it did,” but you also doubt that Dorner “had any intention of it ending any other way either.” So, in other words, you believe both.

By the way, it did NOT end with Dorner being killed by police. It ended with Dorner killing himself.

But you simply do not burn someone out.

The police can legally use tear gas – even in a wooden cabin – to get a suspect to surrender. Period.

I have no doubt they did this deliberately. I have no doubt either that the police who did the burning covered their tracks such that there will never bee proof of what they did. It is interesting that they never film these actions. They could easily do so.

Prove it then or shut up. You continue to say what happened as though you are reciting the facts when all of your allegations are based on your own opinions, beliefs, and suppositions.

Talk about strawmen. You could burn a bloody army of them with your idiocy.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Ah I see. So the cops get the benefit of the doubt but Dorner’s alleged crimes warrant being burned alive without due process? Gotcha.

Benaiah on February 17, 2013 at 1:14 PM

As I read through JS’s piece, I knew I wouldn’t have to look far to find some utterly clueless comments in response. First post, top of page three. Well done.

Between liberals and folks with the above-stated kind of mindset, I truly don’t recognize the people living around me anymore. w.t.f.

Midas on February 17, 2013 at 4:01 PM

Prove it then or shut up. You continue to say what happened as though you are reciting the facts when all of your allegations are based on your own opinions, beliefs, and suppositions.

Talk about strawmen. You could burn a bloody army of them with your idiocy.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 3:58 PM

You try to isolate the two actions by police because that is the only fig leaf you have. They were connected. This was a manhunt and both happened during the man hunt. The first made it clear the police would shoot first and could care little if innocent people got hurt.

As I stated the police did not film themselves to assure their actions could never fairly be examined. Thus we only have police verifying other police. The police lost credibility in the first innocent shooting that injured two. Cameras could have easily been used to prove they were acting within the law. Since they did not do this I am free to believe they were covering up their actions.

You can not ignore that they said they were going to burn him out when that is exactly what they eventually did. A jury will not ignore that which is why his family might just get a settlement. I do not buy for a second this fire was started by tear gas. It seldom does that. I do not buy the Branch Dividien fire was started that way either. But of course this action is illegal thus the officers who start these fires make sure to do so such that they will not be caught.

A lot means many BTW.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Memo to Los Angeles County:
Keep your trash out of the Inland Empire.

MichaelGabriel on February 17, 2013 at 4:22 PM

It sure looked to much of America that they were hunting him down with the intention of killing him.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 3:20 PM

First of all, you have to prove that allegation. Did someone do a poll?

And if you’re correct, exactly how did “much of America” arrive at that conclusion?

Simple. Because they got their information from the Democrat Media. The very same Democrat Media that worships the very same politicians Dorner did!

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 4:30 PM

You try to isolate the two actions by police because that is the only fig leaf you have. They were connected. This was a manhunt and both happened during the man hunt. The first made it clear the police would shoot first and could care little if innocent people got hurt.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 4:13 PM

As I’ve said:

1. The innocent victims have a cause of action against the LAPD and the TPD.

2. The SBPD were within their legal right to use whatever force necessary to end the standoff. Both of the requirements set forth by the Supreme Court had been met.

So, even if Dorner had not been planning on taking out as many people as he could with him or killed himself, the police would have been correct to end the siege even if it meant killing him. Period. Story. End of.

As I stated the police did not film themselves to assure their actions could never fairly be examined. Thus we only have police verifying other police.

You have no idea whether videotape exists or not. The reason that the news helicopters were sent away is standard:

In an ongoing hostage or shootout situation, the police do not want the suspect(s) to be watching their movements on television. This is SOP and 100% acceptable. As a fugitive, you do NOT have the right to watch the police outside of your location.

The police lost credibility in the first innocent shooting that injured two.

The LAPD was not involved in the shootout at Big Bear.

The LAPD -> The two Hispanic women.

The TPD -> The white male.

The SBPD -> Dorner.

Please note that the count is THREE DIFFERENT POLICE DEPARTMENTS.

Cameras could have easily been used to prove they were acting within the law. Since they did not do this I am free to believe they were covering up their actions.

I am almost certain that there is police videotape of the two innocent bystander situations. Police cars are outfitted with dashcams for liability reasons. That the tapes have not been released to the public does not mean that they are non-existent. The counsel for the plaintiffs will be able to get copies of all video and audio tape and, if for some reason they do not exist, have been erased or lost, then that will, undoubtedly, factor into the jury’s deliberations and the verdict and award.

You can not ignore that they said they were going to burn him out when that is exactly what they eventually did.

Get it through your head: IT DOES NOT MATTER.

Even if you could prove intent, which you have yet to do, it would NOT make a bit of difference. The Garner requirements WERE met.

A jury will not ignore that which is why his family might just get a settlement.

Wanna bet?

I do not buy for a second this fire was started by tear gas. It seldom does that.

BS. It is highly flammable.

I do not buy the Branch Dividien fire was started that way either.

The Branch Davidian case presented different facts and the Feds were not in imminent danger when the tear gas was pumped into the compound. 50 days separated the initial raid, which resulted in LEO casualties, and the final assault that caused the deaths of the Branch Davidians.

The two situations are not remotely similar.

But of course this action is illegal thus the officers who start these fires make sure to do so such that they will not be caught.

It was NOT an illegal action. Go read Tennessee v Garner, you idiotic dolt.

A lot means many BTW.

“A lot” has been proven by you to be a very fluid term.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 4:34 PM

the police did not film themselves to assure their actions could never fairly be examined.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 4:13 PM

Do you have credible and multi-sourced proof that the police did not film themselves? If so, please share it with us.

And if in fact they “conspired” over all these different law enforcement agencies to keep this whole thing a secret, how did those police radio transmissions ever get sent in the first place?

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 4:36 PM

Some more thoughts about those “incriminating” police radio transmissions posted to youtube by the British comedian/conspiracy theorist, and also the ones posted by the fat guy in Pennsylvania who apparently makes killer Oreo-Stuffed Choco Chip cookies…

1. We have absolutely no proof those transmissions are “real”, because we don’t know precisely where they were transmitted from. As one of the other posters upthread states, they were probably sent by cops who were nowhere near the actual firefight. And how do we know they weren’t surreptitiously edited after the fact, solely to make the cops look bad?

2. In addition, the majority of “important” (tactical) police radio transmissions these days are done with encrypted radio systems. For our Democrats and Ron Paulists out there, “encrypted” means that the signals are scrambled to make them unintelligible to any outside listener.

These youtube transmissions, assuming they are real, were out in the open, which would lead one to believe they did not come from the immediate firefight zone. After all, for all the cops knew, Dorner himself had a police scanner. Why in the world would they want to let him listen in on their strategy?

3. Even listening to (much less recording and distributing) encrypted police radio transmissions is a crime. And considering it’s a Blue State, it wouldn’t surprise me to find that it’s also illegal in California to listen to unencrypted police radio transmissions.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 4:49 PM

3. Even listening to (much less recording and distributing) encrypted police radio transmissions is a crime. And considering it’s a Blue State, it wouldn’t surprise me to find that it’s also illegal in California to listen to unencrypted police radio transmissions.

that’s irrelevant…no doubt in 1920 surreptitiously recording the Kl@n planning a lynching might have been illegal, too. In fact that line of (non)-argument merely augments the silliness of Angell and SWAlker. I t merely allows them to point out the “police state” tactics and really isn’t germane to the argument.

This from someone who doesn’t believe Angell or Walker are close to correct on 90% of their beliefs.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 4:54 PM

“A lot” has been proven by you to be a very fluid term.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 4:34 PM

Not sure when this became a court where things had to be proved.

By definition this is all about opinions.

You have yours and I have mine. I just have a problem when you insist my opinion is invalid then say I have to prove mine. You prove the Police did not intentional start that fire then I will change my opinion.

The police also did not film themselves at that cabin while assuring others did not film it. To me that is proof they were not acting in a way they wanted others to NOT know about. That to me is proof. All you have is the statements of Police saying trust me. Sorry I do not trust them and could care less how many different departments were involved. Fact is they burned him alive at least he was alive when they lit the fire. That he chose to die quickly does not change their intent to burn him out. Either they prove they did not start that fire or I hold them responsible. Mostly because they made sure they were not filmed.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Not sure when this became a court where things had to be proved.

By definition this is all about opinions.

You have yours and I have mine. I just have a problem when you insist my opinion is invalid then say I have to prove mine. You prove the Police did not intentional start that fire then I will change my opinion.

The police also did not film themselves at that cabin while assuring others did not film it. To me that is proof they were not acting in a way they wanted others to NOT know about. That to me is proof. All you have is the statements of Police saying trust me. Sorry I do not trust them and could care less how many different departments were involved. Fact is they burned him alive at least he was alive when they lit the fire. That he chose to die quickly does not change their intent to burn him out. Either they prove they did not start that fire or I hold them responsible. Mostly because they made sure they were not filmed.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:07 PM

Prove that they did not film themselves.

Prove that they “lit” the fire.

Prove that they intended to “burn him alive.”

You must be the best forensic pathologist and arson investigator in the world. You had absolutely no contact with either the body nor the scene; yet, you “know” what happened.

Fact is they burned him alive at least he was alive when they lit the fire.

He died from a gunshot wound. NO CARBON MONOXIDE WAS FOUND IN HIS BLOOD NOR WERE ANY OF HIS AIRWAYS SCORCHED, SINGED, OR SEARED.

You also do not know when he killed himself. The SWAT team heard a shot when they were dismantling the cabin BEFORE THE FIRE STARTED.

Prove that he died when they “started the fire.”

Prove that he didn’t start the fire with the petrol he had on hand.

If you can’t prove your assertions, then there is no reason for anyone to even entertain your arguments considering they are based on supposition, opinion, and belief.

I prefer to wait for the arson investigator’s report on the issue of how the fire started, BUT MAKE NO MISTAKE: IT DOES NOT MATTER, AS A LEGAL MATTER.

If Mrs Dorner believes that her son was “murdered,” then she is more than entitled to seek an independent autopsy and arson investigator’s opinion. Then, she can offer them to a trier or fact to determine which side’s evidence is more credible.

To my knowledge, Mrs Dorner has not made any such allegations nor has she retained counsel to pursue same. Her only statement to date is the following:

It is with great sadness and heavy hearts that we express our deepest sympathies and condolences to anyone that suffered losses or injuries resulting from Christopher’s actions. We do not condone Christopher’s actions.

The family has no further comments and ask that our privacy be respected during this difficult time.

- Nancy Dorner

PS: We may not be in a court of law; nevertheless, there is a minimum burden of proof in debate. If you are incapable of meeting this minimum burden, then do not be surprised that your opinions and assumptions are disregarded out-of-hand.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 5:28 PM

By definition this is all about opinions.

Er, no, it is not. It is about information.

For example, if you claim that revenues decreased after the Bush tax cuts and I can prove unequivocally that you are wrong, you are not entitled to maintain your “opinion,” if you wish to be taken seriously.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM

We may not be in a court of law; nevertheless, there is a minimum burden of proof in debate. If you are incapable of meeting this minimum burden, then do not be surprised that your opinions and assumptions are disregarded out-of-hand.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 5:28 PM

You demand I prove because you do not have the facts on your side.

The police there on radio talked about burning them out. You lie I did not state that or claim it means noting you are out of order. Overruled.

The police did then prohibit any cameras even their own then burned him out. That is all fact.

You buy their explanation the fire was not intentional. To me only they can prove this one way or the other. But they made sure there would never be proof one way or the other by making sure no one observed what they were doing that was unbiased. You take their word the fire they all wanted somehow just happened all on it’s own. I say it is far more likely they did what they said they would do.

Either they provide video proving they did not start this fire or in the minds of many Americans they did start it on purpose.

By the fact that he shot himself while the fire had already started proves they burned him out. Even the Police claim a shot was heard after the fire had started. I have never claimed the fire killed him just that his death was assured by the fire.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM

By the fact that he shot himself while the fire had already started proves they burned him out. Even the Police claim a shot was heard after the fire had started. I have never claimed the fire killed him just that his death was assured by the fire.

His death was “assured” by the bullet he put into his OWN brain….

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 5:49 PM

For example, if you claim that revenues decreased after the Bush tax cuts and I can prove unequivocally that you are wrong, you are not entitled to maintain your “opinion,” if you wish to be taken seriously.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Not me. I was all for the Bush tax cuts totally against the Obama tax increase on the rich.

Bush decreased taxes revenues increased. Obama raised taxes revenues went down.

No idea who you confused me with on that one.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Steve you are really nothing more than a poorly informed Loose Change Troofer…at least they can produce “evidence” for their claims…all you keep doing is giving your OPINION. That’s not evidence…and giving your opinion repeatedly doesn’t make it any more true.

The fact that there is “no” film, proves NOTHING…there’s no film of me typing this, right now…does that mean it’s not happening? No, it just means that there’s no film….

You have suspicions and that’s it.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 5:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5