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

WOW......I've been a lurker for many years. I created an account specifically because of this thread. I dont care what the media told you, what you heard, let me ask...What was proven in a court of law??? Is due process now obsolete?? If the media or gov't perceive you as guilty...Boom you're dead. Thats Bull#, I have been falsly accused before and can tell you it's not pleasant. But for the American people to be behind this makes me Ill!!! Really, now we just kill anyone that is most likely guilty of a crime..no judge...no jury...not even charges pressed, just kill them? you have got to be kidding me....I have lost faith in the American people, Our gov't and the land I once swore to protect and serve. Please dont send a drone to my house, I have children.........

reply to post by seabag


It is obvious the LAPD only wanted this guy dead.. There never was going to be a trial for him because the LAPD would never have allowed it.... If they really wanted to capture this guy alive (that is if Dorner would of allowed it) All they had to do was get Jesse Jackson and friends down there.. Jesse Jackson already reached out to Dorner to contact him if he wanted a trial... Maybe Dorner did not know of this offer.. Dorner's only chance around the LAPD's execution swiss cheese style death would of been to walk right into Jesse Jackson's office and lawyer up before the police caught up with him. (Or any lawyer that had reached out.... There was no *come out with your hands up* option on the table from the LAPD. The only option the LAPD gave was the death squad option waiting for Dorner...

dp

reply to post by seabag


A canister that has an incendiary component is not the same as an incendiary grenade. The gas is released by burning tablets, which make it more prone to catching a building on fire. It's purpose isn't to catch a building on fire, but it is more dangerous than other delivery methods. My understanding is that with this type it will completely flood a building and make it hard to breathe etc. whereas the next step down is just an irritant.

Why the eye rolling? I'm not trying to defend the cops, or vilify the man that was killed. I'm not convinced in one way or the other, I'm just trying to point some things out in an attempt to keep us all honest and open to other possibilities.

In this thread we've talked about innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time so many automatically assume this fire was intentionally set to kill someone.

I would rather discuss the thing and not have it turned into some Cops are bad so this was murder nonsense. At the same time, I fully recognize that there are bad cops and think I've made myself quite clear that I don't trust them in this situation.

I think you're good people, and that you care. I'm a bit confused that you seem so ready to dismiss what I believe are good points.

reply to post by Domo1

In this thread we've talked about innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time so many automatically assume this fire was intentionally set to kill someone.

I hear ya, but this is pretty damming evidence to me.



Minute 1:00 - We don't know what the so-called "burner" was but when they say "we have fire" afterwards, then we see the cabin on fire on the TV, that's alarming to say the least.

In this thread we've talked about innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time so many automatically assume this fire was intentionally set to kill someone.

I may be convicting LE in the court of ATS public opinion but that holds little weight…if any.

What they did to this man is execution…that’s real. Dorner didn't set that fire. Self immolation takes a person of much stronger conviction. How many times have you witnessed or even heard of that?

WACO, TEXAS

A man runs around with guns and kills people. At least this is the claim. Then they trap him in a building and burn him alive to death in it. Which is more evil ?

Don't believe everything they tell you on the news. Who even knows if this man wasn't completely set up to die. Even if he killed those people, the government is supposed to obey the laws they make for the people. They could have waited him out, just like in Waco, Texas.

So when the government is burning people to death trapped in buildings they have so completely surrounded. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee.

reply to post by Domo1


here is another good for poster no emotions thanks.

Even if they were talking of using the gass (after listening to the audio I find very hard to believe) from past experince they know these things cause fires like the kids from Waco then the SOP should not alow use of thoughs wepons. and fire brigades should be close by if they had to.
It just doesn't seem to add up

They report, you decide.

Before I post my thoughts I would like to point out that I have not been following the news on this case, actually havent watched TV to much lately or heard anyone mention it.

No I do not believe it is okay to burn the place down, due process is how things are supposed to work. Innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. Not, guilty then burned to a crisp so you cannot possibly prove your innocense.

Now I am not saying the man was innocent in the least, but today I actually caught some of the news on this incident and something stuck out as very odd. There was a gentleman on the news who was interviewed. He said that this man was standing in the middle of the road with a rifle pointed at him as he was coming down the road. He said he slowed down put it in park and the man approached and said I do not wish to hurt you, but I need you truck, Take your dog and go.

For a man hell bent on killing people and supposedly already having done so, why did he have mercy on this man? That struck me as odd and painted a different picture of the man labled as some excop nut case on a rampage.

Again I havent followed the case so please correct me if I missed something, ie, did he have a list of people he was going after etc.

reply to post by bodybagPAT
Ummm....Wow...an honest to goodness..."I wanna be a roid ranger"...macho man. Are you the poster child for inbred nation..........or what In case you hadn't heard, we have a little thing in this country called innocent until...PROVEN...guilty. That would be trial by jury...NOT...by LAPD or CNN.........bodybagpat......You Sir....are an.

YouSir

Originally posted by Domo1
reply to post by seabag

 

A canister that has an incendiary component is not the same as an incendiary grenade. The gas is released by burning tablets, which make it more prone to catching a building on fire. It's purpose isn't to catch a building on fire, but it is more dangerous than other delivery methods. My understanding is that with this type it will completely flood a building and make it hard to breathe etc. whereas the next step down is just an irritant.

Why the eye rolling? I'm not trying to defend the cops, or vilify the man that was killed. I'm not convinced in one way or the other, I'm just trying to point some things out in an attempt to keep us all honest and open to other possibilities.

In this thread we've talked about innocent until proven guilty, but at the same time so many automatically assume this fire was intentionally set to kill someone.

I would rather discuss the thing and not have it turned into some Cops are bad so this was murder nonsense. At the same time, I fully recognize that there are bad cops and think I've made myself quite clear that I don't trust them in this situation.

I think you're good people, and that you care. I'm a bit confused that you seem so ready to dismiss what I believe are good points.

More recently I recall a guy who allegedly shot a bus driver and supposedly kidnapped a child from a bus and then later locked himself in his bunker.... Now in that situation the officers gave it a week of negotiations before attempting anything. After they had enough waiting, their main tactic was throwing in a incendiary flash-bang grenade throw off attacker long enough to incapacitate them and save the child... This situation is which no time was spent negotiating, no known knowledge of hostages and no care to thought if there was... Now the flash bang in the bunker did not burn anything inside the bunker... It is obvious they used a launcher and propelled a thermite Incendiary grenade into that cabin Dorner was in... It was no accident... A canister of pepper spray would not of caused the damage that was prevalent.. these fire grenades burn 24 44 seconds the
Burn Temperature is Approximately 4000F.... They had the place surrounded there was no escape... It leads me to believe they either wanted to lure him out to pump him full of lead or they enjoyed watching him burn alive, especially since a firetruck was no allowed in for hours after they torched the place...

I'm entirely at a loss for why some are so energetically defending this guy for how it ended. His own words set this thing.

Dorner blames one retired officer for bungling his appeal to get his job back in an 11-page manifesto, in which he also complained of mistreatment by the LAPD. In that letter -- provided to CNN by an LAPD source -- he vowed to violently target police officers and their families, whoever and wherever they are.

"I will bring unconventional and asymmetrical warfare to those in LAPD uniform whether on or off duty," Dorner wrote.

"I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, I'm terminating yours."

Source

Now this all started with him suspected in the murder of a an Officer's daughter with her fiance on a parking structure in Irvine. Next he's in a shootout with Corona Police while they're en-route to protect someone his manifesto targeted. He then moves north and ambushes a Riverside Police unit parked at a stop light, killing one of two officers there, at the scene. Finally, he kidnapped and held an elderly couple for days in Big Bear

Dorner Timeline

This was by no means some wayward soul who may be innocent and they put him down, HARD, after he'd bested them more than once with police shootings and a dead officer to prove it. He's killed civilians, which is what started the whole thing, killed and tried to kill cops, told the world he WOULD be killing more, and was, in the last days, holding a couple hostage.

The cops DID go absolutely wild to get him. I've never read anything like how they describe the reaction over the course of this....and having grown up there, I never heard of anything like it. Richard Ramirez ("The Night Stalker" for those who weren't around for it) was the closest to it I can say I recall.....and for about the same reason. He was death walking and no one knew where or who next.

I simply can't fault the police for risking no more men and seeing no more wild shooting in whatever directions another shoot out would have taken it. (Especially given that THEY were DOING the wild shooting in some cases of mistaken identity over the past days. Ugh!) Oh well....

Agree to disagree I suppose I must with some on this one. Feelings are definitely strong all over.

Anyone who doesn't believe that the cops intentionally set the fire is literally bat poop crazy, this is no conspiracy theory...these two statements spell it out plain as day...

"Were gonna go ahead with the plan to burn"..."7 burners deployed and we have fire"

Then the Chief says we have cold tear gas(that do not set fires), and hot tear gas(referred to as burners, that use a incendiary device to expel the tear gas)...and admits that they could start a fire in a house.

Now..they throw 7 burners...Seven! Into a house..do you think they thought for one second that 7 incendiary devices wouldn't cause the house..a cabin no less..to go up in flames.

This isn't the first time they have used this tactic...they did the same exact thing in Waco, Texas..to the Branch Davidians...They poked holes into the building(knocking down walls), creating a oxygen rich well ventilated area ripe for a fire to start, then introduced "burners" throughout the building and within minutes the entire building was engulfed....So once again they did the same thing to this guy in this building. It's a tactic, and they know exactly what they are doing, they know exactly what the end result will be.

Of course their not gonna come on TV and say "Yes, we set the building on fire to try and smoke him out" But that's exactly what they did and they will get away with it..and it will happen again.

They didn't want to take him alive. They were not going to take him alive. Period. They had other options, he was completely surrounded by a 1000 cops. But they set the building on fire, knowing he would either shoot himself, die in the blaze, or come running out..upon where he would of then been shot dead.

reply to post by starfoxxx

It was no accident... A canister of pepper spray would not of caused the damage that was prevalent.. these fire grenades burn 24 44 seconds the
Burn Temperature is Approximately 4000F.... They had the place surrounded there was no escape... It leads me to believe they either wanted to lure him out to pump him full of lead or they enjoyed watching him burn alive, especially since a firetruck was no allowed in for hours after they torched the place...

My thoughts exactly!

That was no CS “burner” as they called it (no such thing). I have first-hand experience with both…CS doesn’t start fires, especially when the occupant of the dwelling is vigilant.

We have become a police state and many Amerikans are more than willing to carry the water!

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

I'm entirely at a loss for why some are so energetically defending this guy for how it ended. His own words set this thing.

You’re missing the point!

He may be guilty as sin but he hasn’t been granted his day in court. He has NOT been PROVEN guilty, therefore he doesn’t deserve the death penalty.

If he had walked out the door shooting at police and was gunned down in a hail of bullets I wouldn’t question that it was his fault. That's not the case here! In this case, he was inside a building and no attempt was made at negotiation.

I fail to understand how you can’t grasp the notion that THIS COULD BE YOU! What if you were framed and YOUR house was surrounded?? Are we not to scream from the roof tops that you didn’t get your day in court????

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


See this is the problem we are back to validating burning the house because of droner
So you would say that it is ok in certian situations.
My problem with this was that it won't always be a dorner that this will happen to and even if the person did deserve to burn innicent people could be hurt in the process.
This is not a war and they are not soldiers
innecent people dying along with collateral dammage is no exeptable in my book

Remember 2 old lady were shot while the police were angry think he desuved to die

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
I'm entirely at a loss for why some are so energetically defending this guy for how it ended. His own words set this thing.

Ummm....You seem to have lost your way...If I may...please allow me to adjust your sails. You equate defending the man....with defending his rights. Forgive me, but YOU dont know if this man is guilty or innocent anymore than I do....your just not that prescient...all you have to go on is the court of public opinion, the story out of LAPD and the news media....NONE of that equates guilt, at this point, it's only a story.

I don't know about you, but I am not comfortable that these LEO's took on the role of judge, jury and executioner, not comfortable at all, in fact It makes me ill. I still for the life of me cant wrap my head around that your comfortable with the selective application or removal of individual rights......For me it's the whole package and that's what I defend, regardless of guilt or innocence...Burning him up and laughing is banana republic, not Constitutional Republic...

YouSir

reply to post by seabag


So how many dead cops would have been enough? Another 2? 3? How many before they either shot the house to pieces in a cross fire 'just to be sure', or burned it down anyway? This was not a man who "maybe" committed a crime. He'd outright said, in his own words, he was going to war with police. He was in a GUN BATTLE with TWO different city police departments .....and most shockingly... he actually broke contact and got CLEAR of both.

Growing up around the police culture and cops, that last detail made him infinitely more dangerous in my mind...and I wasn't the one being actively hunted. The cops were, as he declared himself. he'd kill them, anywhere he could ...and he did just that.

So.... Again, you have a rabid dog surrounded. Now what? Storming a house only works with people who aren't LOOKING to die and simply take more with them. If they had gone in, lost half a dozen more guys, we'd all be calling the :LAPD criminally negligent for that.

reply to post by jaffer44

It's not about Okay, it's no choice. They had a guy who escaped active shoot outs...twice. 99% of mere mortals would have met their end in Corona with that Police Dept and the first gun battle. How many goofy speeders even get clear, let alone one shooting it out with cops?

The choices ended the third time, I'd say. We don't HAVE chemicals that can be used to knock people out. The Russians tried that at the Theater Massacre and killed as many good guys as bad guys, almost literally. Approaching the house was giving the guy another cop to kill and waiting him out was stupid. Again..... He'd bested them and broken contact twice more than should ever have happened anyway. That's a rare factor to have in something like this. This is more Bonnie and Clyde thinking on BOTH sides of the line here ...and the cops likely won't ever admit it, judging by the early statements and spin on it.

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by seabag

 

This was not a man who "maybe" committed a crime.

I still dont see you providing proof of guilt.
Yet your happy to crucify him on rumour or inconsistent storys.