Big Bear police caught on scanner discusing burning down the cottage dronner was in and then it burn

Can we please try and stay on topic.
This thread is about
1.Does the recording show that planed to burn the house down
2 if so is this ok for our police to do
This is one step off have a drone with a hellfire.
If you want to discuse donrer and what yoh think of him there are already plenty of threads going with this

reply to post by jaffer44


I’m in shock right now….I know I probably shouldn’t be but I am.

At 1:01 the cop clearly says, “We’re going to go forward with the plan with the burner…like we talked about.”

Later we hear dispatch say, “Copy – Burners deployed…we have fire.”

This is fricken unbelievable to me. This really is Waco all over again. Of course they don’t have the authority to do this crap! LE are NOT judge, jury and executioner. These dudes need to spend the rest of their life in prison for murder.

I wonder if the plan to burn the cottage was actuly dicided a lot earlier then this.
I remember reading that police were told he had a jerry can and diver tanks.

Could they have been trying to set the stage that he burnt it down himself ?
But because all scanner feeds were not cut they had to change the story ?
Also in one of the video I posted you can hear a police officer saying that he can see blood on the wall ?
Not sure why but that for some reason doesn't seem right
They were to scared to storm the cottage but walking around the front yard looking in windows wasn't a danger

reply to post by YouSir

Ummm...excuse me.....So we throw due process out the window and now high five and roast marshmallows while the LEO's get to play Judge Dredd and you think this is just great. Hopefully you wont have to eat your words...but I think I'm a little tired of you thinking you stand for some sort of constitutional rule of law. WTF....why even pretend anymore...especially when we can be so selective in which of the enumerated rights we get to pick and choose for others simply because we read a story in a paper or watched some footage.

It's not about due process. Dorner made it about more basic issues when he took the lives of innocent people and did so freely, without need or provocation, then took two more innocent people hostage in the mountains before being chased into the cabin he was killed in.

Very simply put, the cops had a choice. They could storm the cabin and get more cops killed or injured, or they could burn it down and kill him. Simple choice. Lose small or Lose big? Losing was a given the moment Dorner chose surrender as an option he WOULD NOT take or submit to.

That point made all decisions which followed and they were made by Dorner, not the cops who had to deal with him.

Now, were they more enthusiastic than they should have been? yeah... I still want to know why they were SO hot to kill this guy. Aside from the obvious fact he'd already killed others and shot as well as shot AT cops like it was a local sport. There has to be more to it.

It doesn't change a thing in the end though. There, at a distance, was a circle of cops. In the middle, was an Ex-cop trained and well versed in every tactic the cops could or may use to get him out. He was a man willing and having demonstrated the desire to kill more cops if given the chance. So what doesn't change, regardless of motives in the bigger picture?

Lose Small ...Or Lose Big. The LAPD and LA Sheriff's Office chose to Lose Small after Dorner had already killed and tried to kill FAR too many already. I don't fault them one bit, under those circumstances and am shocked anyone is actually defending a rampaging killer whose ONLY seeming 'good point' is that he wasn't STILL a cop. After all, some defending this guy HATE cops on principle.......but this one is a hero? Yeah... Color me lost on the logic.

reply to post by jaffer44

I believe my reply above is 100% on topic. Sorry for having drifted on your thread.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
It's not about due process. Dorner made it about more basic issues when he took the lives of innocent people and did so freely, without need or provocation, then took two more innocent people hostage in the mountains before being chased into the cabin he was killed in.

I must have missed the evidence proving he was guilty.
You seem to know the facts do you mind backing up what your claiming?
Or are you just spewing out unconfirmed rumours to suit your own agenda?

I still think he is a "Hero" for pointing a spotlight in on the dark corners of corruption.
Until there is proof that he took any innocent lives i will continue to think of him as a Hero.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

It's not about due process. Dorner made it about more basic issues when he took the lives of innocent people and did so freely, without need or provocation, then took two more innocent people hostage in the mountains before being chased into the cabin he was killed in.

Every American ACCUSED of taking a life is entitled to due process, friend.

Very simply put, the cops had a choice. They could storm the cabin and get more cops killed or injured, or they could burn it down and kill him. Simple choice. Lose small or Lose big? Losing was a given the moment Dorner chose surrender as an option he WOULD NOT take or submit to.

So you’re saying the cops are incompetent? Would the same argument hold water if it was the US military nuking Iran? We wouldn’t want to lose any lives unnecessarily so we should just nuke the place? Do you support that?

That point made all decisions which followed and they were made by Dorner, not the cops who had to deal with him.

Dorner didn’t decide the cops should burn down the cabin he was in.

We normally agree but I think you’re in left field on this one….still respect you though!

Like I said, today its Dorner – tomorrow it could be you who is deemed an “enemy of the state.” I bet you’d be crying for due process then.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


I understand were you are coming from
If he murdered people I say put him to death if thats the law
It doesn't change the fact that not everyone the police chase is a criminal.
there are so many that could have gone wrong.
I wonder what a lot of the people who think its ok would be saying if they found more then one body in the house.

As for the police
I have all the respect in the world for our police I understand it is not an easy job.
But you dont become a police officer to sit around and they have a lot of tax dollers spent on them for training so that when fighting crime they minimise the chances of inicent people being hurt.

If I clean windows in a high rise building and them become scared of hieghts it's time for me to get another job I risk hurting other workers in my team.
If I am a police officer and become scared of volience and don't think rationily when making decisions I need another job because not only my work mates but the bublic will be unsafe.
Like 2 old ladies driving along in a car thats the wrong colour.
In fact there is no difrence there police did not follow rules little old lady payed the price for that.

reply to post by jaffer44

I wonder if the plan to burn the cottage was actuly dicided a lot earlier then this.
I remember reading that police were told he had a jerry can and diver tanks.

Obviously it was because if you listen to the video at 1:01, the cop says “we’re going forward with the plan with the burners….like we talked about.” Obviously they planned to execute him that way prior to finding him.

Not sure why but that for some reason doesn't seem right. They were to scared to storm the cottage but walking around the front yard looking in windows wasn't a danger

Like Waco, we’re never going to know what happened. The code of silence won’t be broken. People who break it are “DORNER-ED.”

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


all good you were dead on topic with your last post

Originally posted by xXSvenXx
I must have missed the evidence proving he was guilty.

i missed that too.

I was thinking that was no accident

Like Waco, we’re never going to know what happened. The code of silence won’t be broken. People who break it are “DORNER-ED.”


lmao
Well I shouldn't laugh but I think we have a new saying for people who are killed like this before they have there day in court.

O he was DORNER-ED

reply to post by jaffer44

lmao
Well I shouldn't laugh but I think we have a new saying for people who are killed like this before they have there day in court.

O he was DORNER-ED

I will take credit for that one…

It’s a ‘seabag-ism”

It really isn’t funny at all. People who speak out against the system are crushed like ants. Until we all (or at least most of us) stand up against this then we’ll see it repeated. One day any one of us could be in the cross hairs. That prospect certainly isn’t amusing to me.

I will say this. If they burned down my house... they would soon find a string of police homes burned to the ground... This is absolutely an abuse of power. The job is to serve and protect... They are NOT Judge DREDD!!! They do not get the right to be Judge, Jury and Executioner!

This also goes into the whole second amendment ordeal... Here is a LAPD office going on a killing spree apparently with so called "assualt weapons" and if you listen clearly he had an RPG!!! Why do cops need an RPG? why is it that they are allowed to have these weapons and we as law abiding citizens arent? If the safety of our nation and our children are a real issue as the president points it out to be then why do we have guns at all? If citizens cannot own them then police shouldnt either! there needs to be a balance of power...

reply to post by seabag

Obviously it was because if you listen to the video at 1:01, the cop says “we’re going forward with the plan with the burners….like we talked about.” Obviously they planned to execute him that way prior to finding him.

I'm still fairly certain that referring to a certain type of CS canister as a 'burner' is not all that uncommon. The BurnSafe canisters. My understanding is that these are not all that safe and are typically used after normal teargas as they are more likely to cause a fire.

Again, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the police were hoping the guy would be killed and not face trial, which I have a huge problem with. I just think we should be aware that a 'burner' isn't necessarily something that's only purpose is in fact to catch something on fire.

Originally posted by seabag
reply to post by jaffer44

 

lmao
Well I shouldn't laugh but I think we have a new saying for people who are killed like this before they have there day in court.

O he was DORNER-ED

I will take credit for that one…

It’s a ‘seabag-ism”

It really isn’t funny at all. People who speak out against the system are crushed like ants. Until we all (or at least most of us) stand up against this then we’ll see it repeated. One day any one of us could be in the cross hairs. That prospect certainly isn’t amusing to me.

edit on 13-2-2013 by seabag because: (no reason given)

sorry it doesnt show your name when I quoted you I am still working out how all this works
Just wanted to leave the last line without the rest.
well done

Yeah this isn't good. They could've just waited further away keeping him under surveillance, then shoot at his legs when he emerged so he could go to trial. Or tranquilize him, or or.. there were more options put it that way. No one was at risk when he was in that cabin. The cops were at risk because they wanted a firefight (as did Dorner seemingly).

Could've been different.. could've been legal!

Now when someone is reeking havoc in a populated place and folks are at risk then sure, fire away. But in this instance they should've waited imo.

reply to post by seabag


yes I agree and am getting realy worried for my kids and the world we are leaving for them.

Did anyone watch the police update that just happened? Holy crap the officers who spoke sure as snip are trying to cover up things...they couldn't look any more guilty. Wow...what a disgrace.