Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Christopher Dorner proven right in his death

page: 6
32
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   
you can't just dismiss "going around killing people" like it's no big deal

c'mon man




posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:03 PM
link   
It is truly a sad day when people can cheer on these tactics by an arm of the law. In this country, regardless of what you did, or are accused of, you are innocent until PROVEN guilty in a court of law. What part of this is hard to understand? I see this time and time again, the media sensationalizes every story, and fuels the fire. Did anyone here witness Dorner killing those people? Anyone with their own eyes? We live by laws, or at least we did. This story is tragic from the get go. Another thing about it that really grinds my gears, is that all of the sudden, when is a cop more important than a regular person? How can we just give a pass to the police shooting up not one vehicle, but two, no questions asked? How do you mistake a Gunmetal grey Nissan pickup with a bright blue Toyota? With two women inside? Please, this is an absolute disgrace. This whole episode just highlights how corrupt these organizations are. I am absolutely floored that no one seems to see how absurd and frightening this is. The country we knew and loved is gone.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:35 PM
link   
People on this forum are completely missing the point. It's the fact that they are openly lying to your face and they know they can get away with it.

We have clear audio of them planning and setting the cabin on fire right after they tell the media to cut all the live feeds, then they go on national TV and say it was an accident? That officers yelling out "burn that mother #$%#er" is just 'bravado'... oh how sweet.

These people have taken you for complete chumps.
edit on 14-2-2013 by Konduit because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   
San Bernadino County Sheriff. Not LAPD. That will become important (not just semantics). We can't have an intelligent argument about a public enemy if we don't even know who they are.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xeven
He was a clear and present danger. Use of deadly force authorized. Was right thing to do in this case.


A Danger to whom? Himself? Being surrounded captive inside of a building offers zero chance of escape, especially when they are all armed.
Just basing your statement on facts: all military personnel are clear and present danger as they commit a much higher crime rate when back in the states, which typically involves violence of the brute most force, which is fairly easy to understand as they are brainwashed to be that way, or joined the military just for the fact they are allowed to act in that manner, many have killed more innocent people than Dorner, and all consequently own firearms more dangerous than Dorner's pistol. And yet they are free to live in houses without being burned down.



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 08:10 PM
link   
I've seen no one addressing some other holes in the official story that occurred in real time. They could have been whitewashed, or disinformation from the very beginning. In any case, I'm going to list what I think are the three biggest "Read between the lines" indicators of a possible cover up.


1. There were initial reports of someone attempting to get out the back door and being shoved back inside the cabin. Do a search for "*U.S. Marshals Service district chief Kurt Ellingson told CNN’s Brian Todd." to see for yourself the fringe occurrences of this report on the internet. This is hearsay, and even worse, they backpedaled on that less than 45 minutes later. If you read between the lines, though, you'll see that evidence is stacked a particular way. For one thing, the backpedaling by the reporting was ONLY to report that other "authorities" disagree with that ever happening, but not to firmly assert that it didn't, nor to report that the district chief retracted it.

As if that wasn't vague enough, no one is cited to back up that fact, whereas there's a clear source for the initial report. Who disagrees with the U.S. Marshals Service district chief? Why wouldn't they claim credit for having the more 'trustworthy' intel? Why didn't the district chief retract his claim?

It's this poster's opinion that the initial report is more likely to be factual, and the flimsy whitewashing afterward was damage control. There's far more citation and "before we've all agreed on the story" aspect to the initial report, due to it having been reported by someone who is a bit more of an outlier to the wall of blue, and much sooner than the counter-report.

The damage control may not have even come from the authorities, but from the news media itself! After all, when they don't cite their sources, one could happily claim that "Authorities" could mean the persons paying you to inject propaganda and delete inconvenient facts from inside the news company. This, however, just serves to illustrate how vague the counter-claim is, than any kind of attempt to explain it as being the case.

1a. If this in fact happened, then the cabin was nothing but a funeral pyre and any calls for him to surrender were intentional "signals" to those who may have been inside the cabin that they were not going anywhere. This subtle communication may have been a ploy to incite suicide, but this runs in opposition of the very real fact that not only was a fire started in the cabin, but that the cabin was also allowed to burn down.


2. The fire started from some time in 7:20 to 7:22 (7:20 is exactly when the assault started, and by 7:22 black smoke rising from the cabin was reported from the CNN helicopter that was still close enough to the scene to see it.) and by the midnight briefing was still smoldering and ('authorities claim') too hot to enter.

The ambiguity of when the fire actually ceased, or when the fire fighters were allowed to begin to put it out concerns me, though they are reported to have begun clearing the road for fighters to arrive at 8:44, there's nothing to assert when the effort to put it out actually began. If we assume instantaneous teleporting fire fighters, then by their own admission, they sat there and watched the cabin burn for at least 1 hour and 22 minutes before even beginning the process of trying to put it out. Any assertions that the authorities did not intend to start the fire are simply misleading, as it's quite possible to burn someone alive through inaction.


3. They had no idea who may have been in there. Perhaps they used a heat signature measurement device to ascertain that it really was only one person. But, if that were true, would they not want to report that to come off looking at least a bit more respectable? No one ever reported the amount of people inside the cabin, but only that they were not aware of anyone else being in there.

What they want us to believe is that the absence of evidence is the evidence of absence needed to watch a fire burn this cabin down, and that only in the aftermath will the evidence of their suspicions out. Even if they internally know better, and they know that he was the only one in the cabin, and that it was indeed the one they were looking for, and they neglected to tell us all of that, what purpose does it serve? In what looks like an effort to not admit they intentionally burned a man alive, they admit to much more heinous possibilities of incompetence.


In summation, I can only say that these are just the problems I see with the reporting of the events, more than any kind of claim on my part of knowing what really happened. I would be willing to bet that if I began to dip deeper into this, I would find more than I bargained for.

Where there's smoke, there's usually some kind of volatile chemical reaction.
edit on 14-2-2013 by OminousZ because: Grammatical edit: "Starting from" -> "The fire started from"



posted on Feb, 14 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   
I find it ironic that in a society where our judicial system is supposedly run by "Due Process", we can't even try a man who is supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. I don't believe they wanted him to even have a trial, in fact I believe that they did not want him to be able to talk to anyone. I believe that he had some sensitive information that, if leaked, could have ruined some people's careers, and awoken some of us from our ignorant slumber. We are fed constant lies from the mainstream media, just so we stay naive. And you know the sad part? Most of us believe it. I know I did until just recently. Dorner is a victim of the corrupt injustice of this capitalist society. There are too many holes in the Dorner story for me to believe he was a murdering sociopath. I only wish I could know the information that he had inside his head.



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Wolf321
 



What ever happened TO INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY U IDIOTS!!! who is to say he didn't have n e hostages they might not have known about tied up in that cabin and because the cops shot 1st & asked questions later who would have ever known? Nobody that's who kind of like how they shot that pick up truck that was a Toyota with 2 Women inside because they mistook Dorners Nissan!?!?! They shot over 39 bullets or more into the back of that truck & to show u how qualified these so called trained police officers r not only did they shoot at the truck with no positive ID on who was in the truck Cuz it sure wasn't Corner & they only hit the woman twice out of 39+ Rounds & now those two ladies will b living like millionairs 4 the rest of there lives on tax payer dollars while these same cops get to move on with their careers it disgusts me 2 know end



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 03:36 PM
link   
The thing is several officers with automatic weapons fired over 500 rounds at him and it wasn't until he put his 410 shotgun under his chin and pulled the trigger that he died.

No one needs high caps...10 rounds are enough.....



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
You know, I swear to God I met Dorner at a small Football party. He just seems so damn familiar. Anyway, glad he's no longer alive to hurt anyone. (If he in fact did anything at all).

-TheGhoster



posted on Feb, 15 2013 @ 04:03 PM
link   
We all will or already experience(d) at some point unfairness in our life's. Doesn't matter if it was a wrongfully terminated job, some romance that didn't work out or a lost opportunity. Nobody of us is going around murdering people because of it. It's pretty sad if this was his last "option" to "clear his name" .. after 5 years some might think that he would have moved on and just left that chapter behind ..

I believe that there is a lot more to this story and I wouldn't be surprised if he actually was wrongfully terminated because of the things he claimed, however it doesn't matter because he killed 4 innocent people that had nothing to do with his case .. not the Cops and not even the Daughter of his defender. He is murderer and he knew that...

However there is one little thing that bothers me a bit how the Police handled the standoff in the cabin. None of us has the complete facts or how it unfolded, but I was very surprised about the "Stop the Twitter" and the Media Blackout where the News Stations where asked not to Zoom-in and provide a clear picture of the Cabin - right in the same moment when the Cabin was engulfed in flames. I think that was very weird .. but I also can see how it can provide tactical information to Dorner.. still I am very confused and between agreeing and disagreeing - and I think that's the feeling most people have here.

There is a lot of rant on the Police - nobody wants a Police force that kills people because of revenge - but on the other side, they had to do something. Even he let some people go, maybe they just had their lucky day and the next "hostage" wouldn't be so lucky - just assumption - but we will never know.

I am glad it's over! But I don't think that this is closed.



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by flyandi
 



I believe that there is a lot more to this story and I wouldn't be surprised if he actually was wrongfully terminated because of the things he claimed, however it doesn't matter because he killed 4 innocent people that had nothing to do with his case .. not the Cops and not even the Daughter of his defender. He is murderer and he knew that...


Really? Not saying he DIDN'T kill the daughter and fiance but rather asking the question is this just hearsay that HE was the one that did that or do we have actual undisputed and verifiable *facts* and numerous undisputed witnesses to support this conspiracy theory of him killing them?



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   
It is what Police do when they are scared.

Burn them out, a very old and proven effective tactic.


Originally posted by xedocodex
I have no sympathy for him either...but I don't think burning down a house should be a valid tactic cops should use to get their man.

Still not clear who started the fire though. If Dorner started the fire, I understand the cops/firefighters not being eager to rush in there since an ambush might be waiting for them.



posted on Oct, 2 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
Here's a video I found and the guy asks some very important questions and gives "New" info...





new topics

top topics



 
32
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join