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

No idea who you confused me with on that one.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Are you really that slow on the uptake…it’s called an ANALOGY…s/he was giving you an example…”It would be AS IF…”

If you can’t grasp the point of his/her argument you have pretty much left the Land of Reason.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 5:54 PM

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

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 5:49 PM

So you would have just let the fire kill you were you in that position? Or would you have shown yourself and be shot by the police?

After all those are the only three options he had.

The police murdered him by setting that fire as far as I am concerned. They should have just waited him out. It is possible he would have eventually surrendered we will never really know.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

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

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM

lol, what facts do you have on your side? Please cite them.

And remember, you have yet to prove that the police didn’t videotape themselves, much less prove that those tapes of the police radio transmissions are legitimate.

Disclaimer: no one here is “defending” the actions of the cops by questioning your allegations. But by refusing to give us credible cites for why believe what you do about this whole episode, you’re just as much of a conspiracy theorist as that British comedian who posted that youtube video.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

So you would have just let the fire kill you were you in that position? Or would you have shown yourself and be shot by the police?

After all those are the only three options he had.

He may have shot himself BEFORE the fire…and No, he didn’t know he was going to die if he surrendered, but he had vowed to NOT be taken alive…

Again, you advance your point of view as “evidence” it’s NOT it’s called ASSERTION…

I simply negate your assertion by saying, He could have surrendered to the Police.

We judge the truth or falsity of assertions via EVIDENCE, please produce some.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM

The police murdered him by setting that fire as far as I am concerned. They should have just waited him out. It is possible he would have eventually surrendered we will never really know.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

He was a serial killer who was attempting to kill the police (and in fact DID kill one) and they were firing back. If they set a fire to drive him out isn’t murder in any shape or form. He made it clear he had no interest in surrendering and he had days in which to do that if such was his intent.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 6:00 PM

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

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:48 PM

I have both the facts and law on my side. You have your spoon, a high chair, and flying Fruit Loops.

The police there on radio talked about burning them out.

Those police were not on scene and “burners” refer to tear gas.

You lie I did not state that or claim it means noting you are out of order. Overruled.

LMFAO! You might wish to take basic evidence and procedure classes before telling me that I’m “out of order.” I have a law degree. You have nothing.

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

Then, provide legitimate links that the police prohibited their own cameras from filming the incident.

You buy their explanation the fire was not intentional.

No, I’ve said that I want to see what the arson investigator finds. I’ve also said that tear gas is highly flammable. Finally, I’ve said – by quoting the controlling law on the use of lethal force – that the police would have been acting within the law if they did use the tear gas to start a fire.

I don’t know how the fire started and neither do you.

To me only they can prove this one way or the other.

And, it will be.

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.

Prove your claims. Prove that no police videotape exists. Go ahead. Back up your ASSertions or STFU.

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.

I haven’t taken their word for it. I’ve said that I am awaiting the arson investigator’s report.

The use of tear gas, a highly flammable agent, is not proof of intent. That’s just the way it is.

Prove the mens rea of the police on the scene. Until you can prove that the police on the scene DELIBERATELY SET FIRE TO THE CABIN, you are basing your opinions on supposition and ‘facts’ not in evidence as of now.

The use of highly flammable material on a wooden cabin is NOT evidence of deliberately starting the fire. Tear gas does NOT ALWAYS start fires.

If a petrol trail is shown to have existed in the arson investigator’s report, are you still going to maintain that the police deliberately started the fire?

If you do, you will be both wrong and a fool.

If the evidence proves that the police merely introduced tear gas into the cabin, are you still going to maintain that the police deliberately started the fire?

If you do, you will be both wrong and a fool.

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

Well, then, those Americans should have a serious conversation with some psychologists.

File a FOIA request for the videos.

By the fact that he shot himself while the fire had already started proves they burned him out.

No, it does not. You do not know that he shot himself while there was a fire. In fact, the evidence thus far indicates otherwise considering the lack of carbon monoxide in his blood or scorching, singeing or searing in his airways.

Even the Police claim a shot was heard after the fire had started.

According to the SWAT team, they heard the shot as they were knocking down walls and nearing his location. This was before the fire started.

I have never claimed the fire killed him just that his death was assured by the fire.

You wrote: “Fact is they burned him alive at least he was alive when they lit the fire.”

That is anything but a “fact.”

Secondly, his death was not “assured by the fire.” His death was assured by the fact that he decided not to surrender.

Period.

Story.

End of.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:07 PM

The police murdered him by setting that fire as far as I am concerned. They should have just waited him out. It is possible he would have eventually surrendered we will never really know.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

ONCE AGAIN:

No, The San Bernadino Police Did NOT “Act Stupidly” Or “Murder” Django Dorner

The San Bernadino police acted within the law.

Concerning the use of deadly force and law enforcement, in Tennessee v Garner, 471 US 1 (1985), the Supreme Court held that law enforcement is only permitted the use of such force against dangerous suspects, who are in flight, when killing the suspect is “necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.”

In Fourth Amendment cases, the Supreme Court has stressed that “the use of deadly force to prevent the escape of all felony suspects, whatever the circumstances, is constitutionally unreasonable. It is not better that all felony suspects die than that they escape. Where the suspect poses no immediate threat to the officer and no threat to others, the harm resulting from failing to apprehend him does not justify the use of deadly force to do so. It is no doubt unfortunate when a suspect who is in sight escapes, but the fact that the police arrive a little late or are a little slower afoot does not always justify killing the suspect. A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead.”

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, lethal force could be used because:

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.”

While I would prefer that LE not use lethal force because I don’t support state-sponsored killing, I have no problem with using it if the alternative is the deaths of more innocent people. In the Dorner case, LE would have been completely within the law to take him down.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:11 PM

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:07 PM

I think you are a HORRIBLE person. You are using the discredited tools of the Oppressive Hetero-Normal Patriarchy against Steve…to wit, logic and evidence…that shows how much of a pawn you are to this system of Dead European Males….I’d pity you, but my anger at you outweighs that…I think you need a time out and some court-mandated Sensitivity Training.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 6:11 PM

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

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 5:49 PM

So you would have just let the fire kill you were you in that position? Or would you have shown yourself and be shot by the police?

After all those are the only three options he had.

The police murdered him by setting that fire as far as I am concerned. They should have just waited him out. It is possible he would have eventually surrendered we will never really know.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Your major problem in this post? First of all, you claim that if he had showed his face he would have been shot on sight, but then just below that you fault the cops for not waiting him out for a few days.

Using your “logic”, they wouldn’t have shot him for showing his face on day 3, but would have done so on day 1? Please explain.

He did have a fourth option. You chose to ignore it.

He could have peacefully surrendered. Instead, when caught, he shot a couple more cops, who had absolutely nothing to do with the LAPD. One of them died. He then holed up and refused to surrender yet again.

And remember, he did go thru due process, years ago. He went thru the normal legally accepted protocol for challenging his dismissal.

When he didn’t like the results of that protocol, he decided to take the law into his own hands. One of the first things he did was find the daughter of the retired LAPD cop who had actually tried to help him in his appeal. He gave her “due process” by shooting her point-blank in the face, along with doing the same to her totally innocent fiancee.

He then applied “due process” in Riverside, miles away from LA. This he did by shooting two Riverside cops for the “crime” of being stopped at a red light. He killed the veteran cop, who once again had absolutely nothing to do with the LAPD, and wounded his rookie partner.

But hey, the cops are the only bad guys here, right?

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 6:13 PM

No idea who you confused me with on that one.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:51 PM

Hey, ya tucking ‘fard, it was an analogy.

Notice:

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.

I never said that you said it, moron.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Wow you all seem to have convicted Dorner without any trial ever occurring. Whatever happened to innocent until proven Guilty?

I have stated if the police have video that proves Dorner not the police started the fire it is all on Dorner. I have stated that it is very likely Dorner was guilty but there has been no trial. The police assured there will never be one by killing Dorner. You set a house on fire if someone kills them self rather than burn to death see if you are not charged with murder.

I detest what Dorner supposedly did.

I also detest what the Police did when they decided to burn him out then did in fact burn him out. Both the Police and Dorner deserve prison by the looks of it. But unlikely any Policemen will see Prison even the ones who shot the totally innocent paper delivery people.

BTW pretty sure if you shoot at someone and they are injured by something the bullet forces into them (like say glass) you are guilty of shooting them by law.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:15 PM

I think you are a HORRIBLE person. You are using the discredited tools of the Oppressive Hetero-Normal Patriarchy against Steve…to wit, logic and evidence…that shows how much of a pawn you are to this system of Dead European Males….I’d pity you, but my anger at you outweighs that…I think you need a time out and some court-mandated Sensitivity Training.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 6:11 PM

It’s even worse than that. I’m a woman beating Stevie.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Wow you all seem to have convicted Dorner without any trial ever occurring. Whatever happened to innocent until proven Guilty?

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:15 PM

You only get a trial if you surrender which Dorner refused to do. He chose the consolation prize which is death.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 6:13 PM

Shhhhhhh…….common sense not allowed. Prefer opinions, surmisings,conjecture, guessing,etc.

avagreen on February 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM

I never said that you said it, moron.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:13 PM

“Moron” I already stated if you prove the Police did not start that fire I will change my opinion. We both have the right to an honest opinion. You are the only one trying to deny that right without proof.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:18 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Wow you all seem to have convicted Dorner without any trial ever occurring. Whatever happened to innocent until proven Guilty?

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:15 PM

The police murdered him by setting that fire as far as I am concerned.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Pot, meet Kettle. You’re making it too easy.

H

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 6:19 PM

BTW pretty sure if you shoot at someone and they are injured by something the bullet forces into them (like say glass) you are guilty of shooting them by law.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:15 PM

No, you are not “guilty of shooting them by law.”

You are guilty of aggravated assault and battery, attempted murder, felonious harming, etc.

In order to be “guilty of shooting them by law,” you actually have to have shot them.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:20 PM

I have stated if the police have video that proves Dorner not the police started the fire it is all on Dorner.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:15 PM

No, you stated (several times in this thread, as a matter of fact) that the police intentionally did not make any videos at all. You’re insulting our intelligence by claiming otherwise, because those earlier posts are still here.

You’re shoveling so fast you seem to forget what you posted just earlier. I would recommend laying off the coffee.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM

“Moron” I already stated if you prove the Police did not start that fire I will change my opinion. We both have the right to an honest opinion. You are the only one trying to deny that right without proof.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:18 PM

I said that I am awaiting the arson investigator’s report. In other words, I don’t know how the fire started or by whom it was started, if it was intentional. On the other hand, you are claiming that the fire was intentionally started by the police.

Further, as I have said repeatedly, it does NOT matter if the police started the fire to smoke him out because the situation met both Garner requirements.

You can continue to argue that the poor guy was “murdered” and he wasn’t “convicted in a court of law,” but that is irrelevant.

If you are firing a gun at police officers, they can kill you.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM

You only get a trial if you surrender which Dorner refused to do. He chose the consolation prize which is death.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 6:17 PM

Ah.

So we are now in a police state where the police can be judge jury and executioner as long as you do not agree to surrender.

Must have missed that change in the Constitution or law.

Silly me I always thought the police actually had to catch someone. Guess I was wrong they can just shoot at anyone they think are guilty as they lose that right if they do not surrender.

Try that as a Policeman and you will go to prison.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:26 PM

The police assured there will never be one by killing Dorner. You set a house on fire if someone kills them self rather than burn to death see if you are not charged with murder.

Er, wrong.

You would be charged with arson unless the death was caused, say, by deciding to jump out of a 95th storey window. Dorner didn’t have to kill himself to avoid the fire. He could have walked out the front door.

Nevertheless, in the case of Dorner, the police could kill him under Garner. As Mr Dorner wrote in his manifesto, he was a “walking exigent circumstance with no OFF or reset button.”

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Ah.

So we are now in a police state where the police can be judge jury and executioner. Of course, it’s totally irrelevant that throughout this thread I’ve been accusing and convicting the police of murder without giving them that very same due process.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:26 PM

Edited for accuracy.

Give up while you’re behind.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 6:30 PM

If you are firing a gun at police officers, they can kill you.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Indeed they can and had they done that no one would have questioned the killing.

But they did not they surrounded his cabin then burnt it down with him in it. They were not even positive no innocent people were in that cabin. But regardless we do not allow the police to burn people out why they are lying and claiming the fire was an accident.

They could have easily filmed all their actions. They should have been required to do so. So unless they provide video proof they did not start the fire many will rightfully believe they did start it just like they said they would.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:32 PM

So we are now in a police state where the police can be judge jury and executioner as long as you do not agree to surrender.

Guess what?

You get to do that as well. If someone is shooting at you with a rifle you can try to kill him right back.

Silly me I always thought the police actually had to catch someone.

Nope.

Guess I was wrong they can just shoot at anyone they think are guilty as they lose that right if they do not surrender.

If they are a threat to human life which Dorner clrealy was.

Try that as a Policeman and you will go to prison.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:26 PM

I doubt it.

sharrukin on February 17, 2013 at 6:33 PM

So we are now in a police state where the police can be judge jury and executioner.

Just as YOU CAN BE, when someone is threatening your life with a firearm….philosophically, technically and legally you and I are limited to REACTIVE VIOLENCE, whereas the police have wider latitude. But in any event, there is NO requirement for a court and an appeals process for someone to end up dead on the floor in the US…please cite the Art. and Section of the US Constitution that you believe mandates this, please?

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 6:33 PM

The police murdered him by setting that fire as far as I am concerned. They should have just waited him out. It is possible he would have eventually surrendered we will never really know.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Right, they should have just kept him penned in… I mean he only shot 2 cops so far while in that cabin; they could have kept him there another week and he’d probably have only killed another dozen or so cops before he surrendered.

How many cops would you expect to die so he can peacefully surrender… after he’s done violently killing cops of course… ?

Given that he’d already shot several cops there, killing at least one “it is possible” he’d have kept doing what he was doing and killed more people.

Why is that the preferable answer?

gekkobear on February 17, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Er, wrong. Where your proof you elites snob?

You would be charged with arson unless the death was caused, say, by deciding to jump out of a 95th storey window. Dorner didn’t have to kill himself to avoid the fire. He could have walked out the front door and been shot.

Nevertheless, in the case of Dorner, the police could kill him under Garner. As Mr Dorner wrote in his manifesto, he was a “walking exigent circumstance with no OFF or reset button.”

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:28 PM

Corrected bold.

Yes and all mad men actually never surrender. But regardless the law does not give the police the ability to execute ever under any circumstance just to defend themselves with deadly force. They did not do that with Dorner they simply stayed at a safe distance and used fire to execute him.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:38 PM

You set a house on fire if someone kills them self rather than burn to death see if you are not charged with murder.

To further explain…

1. When the people jumped from the WTC on 9/11, the terrorists, had they been taken alive, could have been charged with their murders because the proximate cause of their deaths was the flying of an airplane into the building, which made the escape of those particular people impossible.

2. If you cause serious bodily injury because of a drunk driving accident:

a) Your charge would be upgraded to vehicular manslaughter or, perhaps even, second-degree murder if the victim died after a period of time as a direct result of the bodily injuries sustained.

b) You would not face a charge of vehicular manslaughter or second-degree murder if the victim committed suicide either because he could not deal with the pain or because of depression.

3. The police did not cause Dorner’s death if he shot himself in the head. His case was not analogous to #1 because:

a) He was a fugitive and had engaged in a shootout with the police in which he killed one officer and critically wounded another.

b) The use of tear gas did not cause his death.

c) Dorner had a viable alternative; i.e., he had the ability to leave the building (if it was on fire at the time he pulled the trigger, which has not been proven as of today).

d) Dorner murdered himself not to escape a fire, but to escape being captured by police.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Yes and all mad men actually never surrender. But regardless the law does not give the police the ability to execute ever under any circumstance just to defend themselves with deadly force. They did not do that with Dorner they simply stayed at a safe distance and used fire to execute him.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Pure supposition.

And, again, yes, the police have the right to use deadly force if:

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.”

This is the CONTROLLING LAW in the United States of America. If you do not like it, then change the law.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Why is that the preferable answer?

gekkobear on February 17, 2013 at 6:38 PM

They had him. He was not going anywhere. They just wanted him dead so they executed him with fire. They do not have that right.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:41 PM

This is the CONTROLLING LAW in the United States of America. If you do not like it, then change the law.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Yes and they are lying about starting the fire because that would have been within the law anyway. If it was all legal to burn him out why are they denying they did that?

I am just saying these Police need to be investigated. They need to be asked hard questions. The fire needs to be properly investigated.

Problem is it never will be. Most likely the police who started the fire had every chance to eliminate all evidence of what they did. Thus a large number of people will believe they started it on purpose because that is what they said they would do. When they said that they should have known that those words would haunt them if a fire started. Although they probably thought those words were private and their conspiracy would never be known. A mistake that often puts criminals in prison.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Is there a manifesto in your future, or are you just enjoying playing the contrarian?

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Indeed they can and had they done that no one would have questioned the killing.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:32 PM

It is EXACTLY what they did. He was firing a gun at them. He had killed one of their fellow officers and critically injured another. They did NOT have to sit out their like sitting ducks letting him pick off more innocent men, women, fathers, wives, sons, daughters, and cherished friends.

But they did not they surrounded his cabin then burnt it down with him in it.

They were demolishing the cabin. If he shot himself after the fire started, which is unlikely given the lack of carbon monoxide in his blood, then it was he who decided that his CORPSE was going to be burned along with the cabin.

They were not even positive no innocent people were in that cabin.

Yes, they were because of the two witnesses that he had tied up for days gave the police the information of who was in the cabin.

But regardless we do not allow the police to burn people out why they are lying and claiming the fire was an accident.

Er, yes, we do allow the police to use tear gas, which may start a fire, if the situation meets the Garner requisites.

They could have easily filmed all their actions.

And, you have no evidence that they failed to do this. The police do not have to turn over all tapes to the media in the immediate aftermath. The MSM can file FOIA requests or a suit in court for the tapes.

They should have been required to do so.

Most police departments do require this just so that they can prove what happened and shut up idiots like you, who engage in conspiracy theories.

So unless they provide video proof they did not start the fire many will rightfully believe they did start it just like they said they would.

Well, coming from someone, who believes that Mitt Romney, who is worth $250 million and made it via the capitalist system, is a communist, I’ll just let your idiocy speak for itself.

You should also try proving that the police that said “burn it down” were the ones that “burned it down.”

They were not even on scene.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:49 PM

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Basically then, you and “these people” are simply Troofers….no amount of evidence or investigation will convince you, UNLESS it supports your beliefs. And if it doesn’t then it was all merely a cover-up.

You’ve already laid your mental groundwork…if no evidence of wrong-doing appears, it’s BECAUSE the police destroyed the evidence…so the very lack of evidence supports, in your mind, your paranoid conspiracy.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Yes and they are lying about starting the fire because that would have been within the law anyway. If it was all legal to burn him out why are they denying they did that?

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:48 PM

BECAUSE MAYBE – JUST MAYBE – THEY DID NOT START THE FIRE. The use of tear gas a/k/a “burners” is not evidence that they deliberately started the fire.

To prove that they started the fire, you are going to have to show that someone was seen lighting it. The use of “burners” is not sufficient to prove mens rea.

I am just saying these Police need to be investigated. They need to be asked hard questions. The fire needs to be properly investigated.

Er, that’s what is happening. What you are doing is to claim that they started the fire and they “murdered” Dorner. You have no evidence of this.

Problem is it never will be. Most likely the police who started the fire had every chance to eliminate all evidence of what they did. Thus a large number of people will believe they started it on purpose because that is what they said they would do. When they said that they should have known that those words would haunt them if a fire started. Although they probably thought those words were private and their conspiracy would never be known. A mistake that often puts criminals in prison.

Tinfoil, much?

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:53 PM

1. When the people jumped from the WTC on 9/11, the terrorists, had they been taken alive, could have been charged with their murders because the proximate cause of their deaths was the flying of an airplane into the building, which made the escape of those particular people impossible.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Thank you.

You just proved yourself wrong.

The police started the fire and made escape impossible. Dorner then used suicide to escape the flames.

Sounds almost the same as you state about 911.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Say, RWM, when did Steve claim Mitt Romney was a Kummunist? And his/her evidence? I know it’s off topic, but a man likes to learn new things.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM

They had him. He was not going anywhere. They just wanted him dead so they executed him with fire. They do not have that right.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:41 PM

One, they did not “have him.”

Two, there was great fear that he would be able to escape once night fell. In fact, you may recall that there was a little bit of time when they thought that he might have escaped.

Three, they did NOT “execute him with fire.” He self-executed.

Four, they would have had the right to light the cabin on fire if it was to smoke him out…just as they had the right to start demolishing the cabin while he was inside. I guess that if he had died because of a falling beam, you would be calling that “murder,” too.

Fifth, they absolutely had the right to use “burners” on a wooden cabin whether they would have actually ignited or not.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:57 PM

Say, RWM, when did Steve claim Mitt Romney was a Kummunist? And his/her evidence? I know it’s off topic, but a man likes to learn new things.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Glenn Beck only sees Romney’s religion is blind to anything Romney did in his life except join Becks Church.

Sorry I am a Conservative and Romney is a Communist he actually was taught it by the master Saul Alinsky.

Besides that he denied he was a Republican in 2002. I do not vote for fake Republicans that are really Democrats ever.

Let Mitt walk over to the other Isle and work with the Democrats as he said once again tonight. He will have to do so without my vote.

Steveangell on October 23, 2012 at 12:15 AM

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:58 PM

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:41 PM

I feel like I’m in an echo chamber (hands to ear). !>_<!

avagreen on February 17, 2013 at 6:59 PM

The police started the fire and made escape impossible.

soooo, like the doors were locked from the outside?

avagreen on February 17, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Thank you.

You just proved yourself wrong.

The police started the fire and made escape impossible. Dorner then used suicide to escape the flames.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Er, wrong. He was not on the 95th floor. He had the ability to escape.

The police started the fire and made escape impossible. Dorner

So, if he killed himself because of the fire, why was there no carbon monoxide in his blood or evidence of soot or smoke damage in any of his airways?

Dorner killed himself because they police were closing in on him and he did not – as evidenced by days of failing to surrender and his own words – want to be taken alive.

How many dead police officers would have it taken before you would have approved of the police using “burners”?

Sounds almost the same as you state about 911.

Almost, like close, only counts in dancing, horseshoes, and hand grenades.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 6:53 PM

Ah RWM, I am sitting in Niagara Falls having a glass of red wine reading you thoroughly whip. Funny hing is you r using the law to do this but even in a slightly inebriated state, I can say the day this guy went keyser soze on the daughter and son in law of a cop was the day that at they say “all bets are off”.

He had it coming. Legal (yes) or not.

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:02 PM

Steveangell on February 17, 2013

…wow!…and all this time I thought you were ONLY a political pr!ck…but here you are… an all-around a$$hole!

KOOLAID2 on February 17, 2013 at 7:02 PM

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:02 PM

I agree, but we also know from his own manifesto that he had no intention of being taken alive.

Stevie would rather have seen many innocent people killed before Dorner decided that he was hungry and wanted 3 hots and a cot. :-)

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 7:03 PM

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 7:03 PM

I’ll take your word on the manifesto as I never cared to read it. His self justifications mean nada.
Lots of ways to make your injustices heard these days. Becoming a serial killer ain’t the wisest choice.

Anyway, keep up the good work. Your legal smack downs are delicious. I bet you make a helluva an apple pie too!

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:12 PM

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:12 PM

Thanks and I agree.

If you do become interested in his manifesto, I’ve broken it down by categories here:

Cop Killer Sends XOXOs To Progressives!

Much easier to read. :-)

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Say, RWM, when did Steve claim Mitt Romney was a Kummunist? And his/her evidence? I know it’s off topic, but a man likes to learn new things.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM

George Romney Mitt’s father was a huge fan of Saul Alinsky who wrote the book Rules for Radicals dedicated to Satan. It is a book Communist use constantly to win their fight.

This was when Mitt was Georges Spokesman so not like Mitt was not exposed to it.

Mitt more recently went to China and praised how they were able to use the power of Communism to put on the Olympics. Of course he did not mention the Communist specifically.

Mitt has always praised his father. Mitt also met personally with the North Vietnamese during the war to interpret for his father while he was serving his mission in France. George went on to endlessly praise the North Vietnamese and complained America was doing the real brainwashing.
Point is Mitt had a lot of contact with die hard Communist. His father praised them as did Mitt. In my mind that does make Mitt a Marxist to one degree or another. How many people were friends with Saul Alinsky? Can not be that many. George had no luck making friends for Saul Alinsky and was a disaster in his run for President extolling the virtues of North Vietnam, the USSR and China.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:55 PM

Steve, quick qualifying question. Can fire melt steel?

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 7:15 PM

Thanks RWM. I will check out the linky later.

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:21 PM

When they said that they should have known that those words would haunt them if a fire started. Although they probably thought those words were private and their conspiracy would never be known. A mistake that often puts criminals in prison.

Drama queen……………..

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 7:22 PM

So, if he killed himself because of the fire, why was there no carbon monoxide in his blood or evidence of soot or smoke damage in any of his airways?

Dorner killed himself because they police were closing in on him and he did not – as evidenced by days of failing to surrender and his own words – want to be taken alive.

How many dead police officers would have it taken before you would have approved of the police using “burners”?

Sounds almost the same as you state about 911.
Almost, like close, only counts in dancing, horseshoes, and hand grenades.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Yes the fire had nothing to do with it. Are you mad?

You do know we breath out CO2 right? The level of CO2 did not kill him because he felt suicide was a better option than burning to death as the flames closed in. He was not about to give the police outside the satisfaction of shooting him either.

Cops announce we are going to burn him out.

They chase away all the cameras.

They burn him out.

They then claim burning him out was an “accident”. Right. I am not stupid. Some lawyer let them know burning out was not legal so they are now lying. The most logical explanation.

And yes Karl Rove I am one of those hated Tea Party Conservatives and proud of it. I detest Romney, McCain, Castle, Gramn and the rest of the RINOs who should be booted from the GOP IMHO.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:28 PM

You do know we breath out CO2 right? The level of CO2 did not kill him because he felt suicide was a better option than burning to death as the flames closed in. He was not about to give the police outside the satisfaction of shooting him either.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:28 PM

That’s it! I’m done.

CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) IS NOT THE SAME THING AS CARBON MONOXIDE (CO).

You’re a seriously uneducated moron.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 7:31 PM

You do know we breath out CO2 right?

MONOXIDE, not Dioxide…you exhale carbon DIoxide…fires and combustion produce Carbon MONOXIDE…

The level of CO2 did not kill him because he felt suicide was a better option than burning to death as the flames closed in.

So he killed himself, by your own admission!

He was not about to give the police outside the satisfaction of shooting him either.

So they didn’t “murder” him, he killed himself in order to thwart the police…

YOUR OWN WORDS contradict your claims…

And yes, I too am a TEA Party Conservative, and I think you give us a bad name with this silly reasoning.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM

Steve, quick qualifying question. Can fire melt steel?

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:19 PM

Is that a trick question?

We would not have steel without fire.

But of course it is unlikely the fire in that cabin got hot enough to melt steel so maybe that is actually what you were getting at.

It could certainly burn any evidence of a fire bomb. Say a plastic bottle of gasoline with a rag in it.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM

You do know we breath out CO2 right? The level of CO2 did not kill him because…
Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:28 PM

CARBON MONOXIDE (CO)…NOT Carbon DIoxide (CO2).

CO – which would have been produced by a fire; and inhaled by dorner ONLY if the fire was burning BEFORE he killed himself (along with soot and particulate matter). The autopsy showed none of that.
(Of course, the coroner could be lying.:-))

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 7:38 PM

It could certainly burn any evidence of a fire bomb. Say a plastic bottle of gasoline with a rag in it.

No, not really…..

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 7:38 PM

It could certainly burn any evidence of a fire bomb. Say a plastic bottle of gasoline with a rag in it.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM

You’re in serious need of the services of a competent mental health professional.

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 7:41 PM

And yes, I too am a TEA Party Conservative, and I think you give us a bad name with this silly reasoning.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM

I changed my opinion. His level of CO was not high enough to kill him because he shot himself before the CO killed him. So what. This means nothing. Human nature is we do not want to be burned to death and will avoid it with suicide in extreme situations. Physics is we would actually not burn to death but rather be killed by CO or extreme heat in the lungs in most cases.

The law says you start a fire and block escape you are guilty of homicide. The law also does not allow Police to burn people out.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:45 PM

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM

My question was a qualifier as to whether you are in the 911 truther group. You seem hellbent on smearing cops ( not LAPD) with motives not in evidence.

Another question. Was Dormer ineligible from becoming a cop elsewhere? He sounds like the guy who wals around with a placard explaining why he lost his job for 10 years instead of dusting himself off and getting a new one.

The chip was more like a boulder.

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM
You’re in serious need of the services of a competent mental health professional.

Solaratov on February 17, 2013 at 7:41 PM

Ah Saul Alinsky would be proud of you.

No facts so just attack.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:48 PM

His level of CO was not high enough to kill him because he shot himself before the CO killed him.

If there was no CO in his system, then he was dead before the fire started, which actually comports with the statements from the SWAT team; i.e., he shot himself when they were in the process of demolishing the cabin which occurred prior to the fire.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 7:49 PM

The law says you start a fire

Have you proof they started the fire?

and block escape you are guilty of homicide.

They didn’t block escape; you freely admit he CHOSE to kill himself…

The law also does not allow Police to burn people out.

It does allow them to deploy lethal and non-lethal force (CS gas) however.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 7:50 PM

Steve, chose A theory stick to it….

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 7:51 PM

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:47 PM

Right. I guess in your mind ever questioning any action of a Cop is smearing them.

I am very glad Dorner is dead. I feel like you he should have been able to better his life after getting fired. Instead he let his hate destroy him. I could care less how wronged he was fact is he did not handle it and that is on him.

But fire is the wrong means to use. Cops are required to capture not kill suspects who are supposed to be presumed innocent. You do not shoot at a car unless you see a gun or the car is trying to run you down.

Some Police here acted stupidly. Some. A small number but they make it harder for all Police.

Those Policemen who called on burning him out should be fired and charged if it turns out they followed through. That is my only point.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Have you proof they started the fire?

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 7:50 PM

We are going to burn him out.

He gets burned out.

This has been enough to put many in prison. It would be enough for a search warrant.

I do not know for sure they purposely lit the fire but it sure does look to be the case. A Jury should decide. But unlikely the Cops if guilty were unable to destroy the evidence of their crime.

But the statements about burning him out themselves should be enough to fire them.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:58 PM

Some Police here acted stupidly.

And, you have the audacity to refer to me as Karl Rove, Barack Obama???

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 7:58 PM

But fire is the wrong means to use.

Would a Barrett .50 Caliber been preferable, then? Of course, he KILLED HIMSELF so this is moot.

Cops are required to capture not kill suspects who are supposed to be presumed innocent.

Uh no, Peace Officers are allowed to use Deadly FOrce, even PROACTIVELY…

You do not shoot at a car unless you see a gun or the car is trying to run you down.

Since he had been and was shooting at them I guess this sorta sinks this portion of your argument, too.

Dood/doodette you are doing very very poorly.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM

obama voters

Ronnie on February 17, 2013 at 8:08 PM

obama and “Romney is a Communist so I’m going to sit out this election and let Obama get 4 more years, during which I will continuously bytch about what he is doing and demanding to know why he wasn’t stopped” voters

Ronnie on February 17, 2013 at 8:08 PM

FIFY to reflect Stevie Angell’s involvement.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 8:15 PM

The scenario here seems somewhat similar to Ruby Ridge and Waco Tx. Maybe there is some difficulty with the para Military police procedures if the out comes always seem to end with assault vehicles, fire set by the individual and a bullet to the head, always determined to be self inflicted with out autopsy.

jpcpt03 on February 17, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Since he had been and was shooting at them I guess this sorta sinks this portion of your argument, too.

Dood/doodette you are doing very very poorly.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM

What does that have to do with the paper delivery women?

Yes they can return fire with whatever they have. But there are limits for example they can not use nukes or even 10K bombs. They can not use Artillery. They are not supposed to use fire bombs either which most likely they did.

We limit Police they are not our Military nor should they be.

These officers broke the law but few police do so. These should lose their jobs you do not burn people out and keep your job or at least you should not keep your job. Policemen who think they can burn people out have no right to be a policeman.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 8:32 PM

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 7:47 PM
Right. I guess in your mind ever questioning any action of a Cop is smearing them.
I am very glad Dorner is dead. I feel like you he should have been able to better his life after getting fired. Instead he let his hate destroy him. I could care less how wronged he was fact is he did not handle it and that is on him.
But fire is the wrong means to use. Cops are required to capture not kill suspects who are supposed to be presumed innocent. You do not shoot at a car unless you see a gun or the car is trying to run you down.
Some Police here acted stupidly. Some. A small number but they make it harder for all Police.
Those Policemen who called on burning him out should be fired and charged if it turns out they followed through. That is my only point.
Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:54 PM

Generalize much? Yes I believe All cops act perfectly 100% of the time. (Facepalm)

You never answered the qualifier.

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 8:33 PM

obama and “Romney is a Communist so I’m going to sit out this election and let Obama get 4 more years, during which I will continuously bytch about what he is doing and demanding to know why he wasn’t stopped” voters

Ronnie on February 17, 2013 at 8:08 PM

FIFY to reflect Stevie Angell’s involvement.
Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 8:15 PM

Wow reposting lies of others you have no shame.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 8:35 PM

S

ince he had been and was shooting at them I guess this sorta sinks this portion of your argument, too.

Dood/doodette you are doing very very poorly.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 7:59 PM

What does that have to do with the paper delivery women?

OOOOOOH you switched topics….well unless you alert us to that fact, I just figure you are arguing about the fellow who shot himself…

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 8:37 PM

jpcpt03 on February 17, 2013 at 8:32 PM

Similar if you mean that Randy Weaver and David Koresh published a Manifesto declaring war on the LAPD and then shot two innocent civilians, and then shot an unrelated peace officer and then shot and killed a second unrelated peace officer…I can clearly see the similarities.

JFKY on February 17, 2013 at 8:39 PM

always determined to be self inflicted with out autopsy.

jpcpt03 on February 17, 2013 at 8:32 PM

There has been an autopsy.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 8:46 PM

Wow reposting lies of others you have no shame.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 8:35 PM

ACCUSING ME OF LYING WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA!

The time to choose is apon you. There are only two choices. Choose.

Bmore on June 9, 2012 at 8:02 PM

I have. I will vote for neither. A very valid choice.

Steveangell on June 9, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Very well then we shall from this point forward ignore your posts as you have nothing to contribute as is evident from your choice of candidate.

Rio Linda Refugee on June 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM

I think that I’m going to join Rio Linda. You really are nothing but Moby and a complete waste of time.

I suggest that everyone save this admission of his so that others will know exactly where he stands and that his handwringing is ALL BS.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Generalize much? Yes I believe All cops act perfectly 100% of the time. (Facepalm)

You never answered the qualifier.

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 8:33 PM

911 towers collapsed when the fire weakened the steel. When the beans started detaching they caused puffs of debries some thought was smoke. 911 Truthers are crazy. There is video of the planes flying into the buildings.

However it could have been stopped if we had bothered to understand Islam before then. We still act as if Islam is not Islam. Islam is the real problem. Islam is extreme period. Those terrorist were simply doing what their scriptures told them to do nothing more nothing extreme about them within the evil intents that Islam is. Islam is WAR. Genocide against Christians and Jews their first and greatest commandment.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 8:50 PM

I have. I will vote for neither. A very valid choice.

Now it would not be impossible for Mitt to actually reach out to conservatives but so far he has not done so. So far what he has actually proposed would make America worse not better. But he would get it into law. Obama will not as he will be stopped by Congress.

Thus if I really had to choose between the two, Obama would get the vote thankfully we are not forced to choose between two horrible choices.

Steveangell on June 9, 2012 at 8:26 PM

Are you calling yourself a liar?

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 8:55 PM

I have. I will vote for neither. A very valid choice.

Steveangell on June 9, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Very well then we shall from this point forward ignore your posts as you have nothing to contribute as is evident from your choice of candidate.

Rio Linda Refugee on June 9, 2012 at 8:33 PM
I think that I’m going to join Rio Linda. You really are nothing but Moby and a complete waste of time.

I suggest that everyone save this admission of his so that others will know exactly where he stands and that his handwringing is ALL BS.
Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 8:49 PM

Amazes me that you claim to be for freedom then claim my use of my freedom to NOT vote for the RINO you support means I should lose my freedom to express my opinions.

I left President blank in 2012. I did vote for the real Republicans that ran for House and Senate where I voted. I will never again vote for any RINO though. They are Democrats as far as I am concerned thus if I have the choice of one of two Democrats I will not vote for either.

Karl Rove certainly had no problem opposing several Tea Party Candidates so does his opinion mean nothing to you either?

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 8:57 PM

Lay off the sauce, mack.

Christien on February 17, 2013 at 9:01 PM

Thus if I really had to choose between the two, Obama would get the vote thankfully we are not forced to choose between two horrible choices.

Steveangell on June 9, 2012 at 8:26 PM
Are you calling yourself a liar?

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 8:55 PM

Is reading it all a problem for you?

Or is the problem you had that I thought Obama a lesser evil than Romney. If that be the case I still feel that way especially after his son said he never wanted to be President. Romney is indefensible.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 9:03 PM

Amazes me that you claim to be for freedom then claim my use of my freedom to NOT vote for the RINO you support means I should lose my freedom to express my opinions.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 8:57 PM

You shouldn’t lose your right to express your opinions, but you do lose the right to complain to us about Obama.

I left President blank in 2012. I did vote for the real Republicans that ran for House and Senate where I voted. I will never again vote for any RINO though. They are Democrats as far as I am concerned thus if I have the choice of one of two Democrats I will not vote for either.

Whatever. I’m a libertarian. I didn’t support Romney or any of the other candidates in the Republican primary. I merely said – repeatedly – that I would cast a vote for the Republican nominee ONLY BECAUSE S/HE WOULD BE THE ONLY VIABLE CANDIDATE WITH A CHANCE OF BEATING OBAMA. My vote was a vote AGAINST Obama, not “for” anyone.

Karl Rove certainly had no problem opposing several Tea Party Candidates so does his opinion mean nothing to you either?

Dude, I HATE KARL ROVE. Give it up, already!

Karl Rove has nothing to do with the fact that you chose not to vote against Obama when you had the chance. Furthermore, you said that, if you had to choose between Obama and Romney, you would choose Obama.

That’s all that has to be said.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 9:04 PM

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 8:50 PM

Thanks for the answer. I tend to disregard anything anyone says if they r a 911 truther which it seems to me you are not. I still don’t buy the story about the intentional firebombing of the cabin but I won’t discount your opinions.

Cheers on a great weekend!

can_con on February 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM

Is reading it all a problem for you?

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 9:03 PM

I read it all. The lesser of two evils to you was Barack Obama. That says all that need be said about your “conservatism.”

Or is the problem you had that I thought Obama a lesser evil than Romney. If that be the case I still feel that way especially after his son said he never wanted to be President. Romney is indefensible.

And, it never crossed your mind that his son may have just said that sort of like when you would stood up for the prom and said, “Well, I didn’t really want to go anyway!”

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 9:06 PM

BTW, please show me where I said that you should lose your right to express your opinion.

The truth is that I just joined others in saying that we should remember your position when you, inevitably, start bytching about Obama.

You have a right to express your opinion and we have a right to ignore it.

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 9:08 PM

They could have easily filmed all their actions. They should have been required to do so. So unless they provide video proof they did not start the fire many will rightfully believe they did start it just like they said they would.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Translated: “All through this thread, I have accused those I disagree with of not giving Dorner Due Process. After all, in civilized society, the Burden of Proof lies on the accuser, not the accused.

But in this case, the Burden of Proof is on the accused, because that’s what I’ve been brainwashed to believe by the Democrat News Media!”

Calling the shovel factory. You need more assault entrenching tools.

F-

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 9:12 PM

the law does not give the police the ability to execute ever under any circumstance just to defend themselves with deadly force. They did not do that with Dorner they simply stayed at a safe distance and used fire to execute him.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Law School of Moe Howard University graduate?

Once again, you’re trying and convicting the cops of doing something without giving them the same Due Process you claim Dorner was denied because he refused to surrender.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 9:17 PM

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Comedy Gold, Jerry!

No wonder you voted for O’bama.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 9:21 PM

Amazes me that you claim to be for freedom then claim my use of my freedom to NOT vote for the RINO you support means I should lose my freedom to express my opinions.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 8:57 PM

You shouldn’t lose your right to express your opinions, but you do lose the right to complain to us about Obama.

Logic a problem for you?

No idea how Obama being a lesser evil than Romney would draw you to the conclusion I should lose freedom to have an opinion on Obama.

Obama is hugely bad but we will never know how much worse Romney would have been. But he could have been much worse.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 9:23 PM

Logic a problem for you?

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 9:23 PM

“You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

No idea how Obama being a lesser evil than Romney would draw you to the conclusion I should lose freedom to have an opinion on Obama.

The idea that Obama was a lesser evil than Romney is why you lose the right to have us listen to your idiocy.

Obama is hugely bad but we will never know how much worse Romney would have been. But he could have been much worse.

Coulda, woulda, shoulda.

Do you even bother getting out of bed in the morning?

Translation: “Staying in bed all day is ‘hugely bad,’ but getting up might result in my slipping in the shower and dying so I’ll just stay in bed all day with the bedbugs and my blankie.”

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 9:28 PM

Cops announce we are going to burn him out.

They chase away all the cameras.

They burn him out.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:28 PM

1. You still haven’t proved this claim. Please refer upthread to my comments about those police radio transmissions that you seem to be clinging to like the Holy Grail.

2. Their “chasing away all the cameras” that you quaintly refer to is standard procedure. They did not know whether or not Dorner had access to outside news sources like TV or Internet, so they established a restricted flight zone around the neighborhood to keep LA news helicopters several miles away. I was watching the whole thing as it went down live on satellite TV on KTLA (Gene Autry’s old station?) and they kept mentioning this throughout the entire afternoon. Remember, this whole thing went down over a 5 or 6 hour period, not just the 90 seconds you saw on MSNBC.

3. Unless you have knowledge that no one else here has, you don’t know that they burned him out. Please stop insulting our intelligence.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 9:28 PM

It could certainly burn any evidence of a fire bomb. Say a plastic bottle of gasoline with a rag in it.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:34 PM

So that’s what the San Bernadino Sheriff’s Department used to “murder” him?

Oh, the Colors, the Colors!

(Excuse me while I light up and smoke a banana)

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 9:28 PM

None of these points are in dispute.

Google would quickly get you the references.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM

The law says you start a fire and block escape you are guilty of homicide.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 7:45 PM

No, the law says that you are accused of homicide. You’re making it too easy.

Using your own standards, you have absolutely no proof that the cops either started that fire, or blocked Dorner’s possible escape from that fire. After all, you told us that there were no cameras there. So your claims are nothing more than half-vast conspiracy theories.

Based on the video we saw of the building Dorner was holed up in before the fire (KTLA in LA showed it) it wasn’t exactly a tiny structure.

What proof do you have that the cops intentionally blocked every possible escape route from the building? Oh, that’s right. None.

I can see why you voted for Dear Leader.

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 9:52 PM

So that’s what the San Bernadino Sheriff’s Department used to “murder” him?

Oh, the Colors, the Colors!

(Excuse me while I light up and smoke a banana)

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 9:43 PM

Arsonist tool of choice. Though Gasoline would generally be substituted with a different flammable liquid but not trying to help arsonist.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 9:55 PM

When the beans started detaching they caused puffs of debries some thought was smoke.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 8:50 PM

I ate a can of B & M Baked Beans earlier. Had the same effect.

Is that considered Global Warming, or just Hot Gas?

Del Dolemonte on February 17, 2013 at 9:56 PM

None of these points are in dispute.

Google would quickly get you the references.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 9:48 PM

Sure they are. The arson investigator has not released his report so you don’t know how the fire started nor does anyone else on “Google.”

Just a few hours ago, you claimed that Dorner was burned alive. Undoubtedly, you got that “fact” from some internet sites. The autopsy disproves the allegation made by you and your fellow conspiracy theorists.

I mean, there’s always a possibility that the San Bernadino Coroner’s Office is part of a grand conspiracy, along with Chris Dorner’s mum, who evidently doesn’t want the “huge settlement” you’ve claimed that she could get. Undoubtedly, she’s in on the conspiracy, too!

/

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Arsonist tool of choice. Though Gasoline would generally be substituted with a different flammable liquid but not trying to help arsonist.

Steveangell on February 17, 2013 at 9:55 PM

Oy! If only I knew how to speak Austrian or sumthin’!

Resist We Much on February 17, 2013 at 10:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4 5