Reddit transcribers claim police started fire in Dorner case.

Reddit transcribers claim police started fire in Dorner case.

www.reddit.com

Yeah, that's affirmed.
Copy. Alright [inaudible](chief/Steve?), we're gonna go, uh, we're gonna go forward with the plan with the, with the burner.
Copy.
Want it, uh, like we talked about.
Seven [inaudible](active?)-burners deployed and we have a fire.
Copy: Seven burners deployed and we have a fire.
Ontario, medic engine 6-7.

(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Christopher Dorner in gun battle with authorities, source says

Background story-

Redditors were listening to and recording the police scanners in the Dorner Case.

Current audio transcriptions suggest that the police placed 7 "burners" in or around the house.

Transcription also states "Seven [inaudible](active?)-burners deployed and we have a fire.
Copy: Seven burners deployed and we have a fire."

More to come. Follow the link to see the work in progress.

If anyone has a LEO background or understands their lingo, please give us your analysis of the wording!

www.reddit.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

reply to post by VonDoomen


You mean this



Its the scanner recording of the transcript

the sides they're referring to (number 2 and 4 fully engulfed) are the way tactical units number a building when they're setting up. 1 is always facing the road/main entry, 2 is the left side (looking at the building), 3 is the back side, 4 is the remaining side. when they say "3 4 fully engulfed" they're referring to the corner where those two walls meet. they're not (I'm assuming) saying both sides are fully engulfed, but rather that particular corner is now lit up. I'm at work, so I can't listen to the recording right now, but based off the transcripts it appears to be units all around the house communicating whether their area of responsibility is lit up or not.

as for the burners: i won't even hazard a guess as to what those are. i won't say they intentionally set actual fires or not, because I wasn't there and don't know. I will say that there are any number of things tactical units can refer to as burners, from untraceable firearms to smoke canisters to CS canisters. it does NOT necessarily indicate an actual intent to start a fire, but i'm not saying it doesn't either. without knowing the specific equipment used, i would only be guessing. there are different types of gas/smoke grenades that actually burn hot enough to cause combustion given the right circumstances.

again, not offering any opinion on whether they did or did not intend to start fires, simply trying to clear up some of the lingo.

reply to post by Shamrock6


From one of the comments:

[–]Oznog99 3 points 4 hours ago CNN carried it as "smoke and/or flash grenades ignited a fire". Which is total, objective B.S. The police radio says "burners", which isn't a term for smoke grenades. In fact you wouldn't use "smoke" because it equally covers the suspect's movement. There's teargas, which would never be referred to as "burners". And they make it clear "fire" and burning the building down is their objective. More to the point is where he stops himself, unwilling to explicitly incriminate himself with something that was understood "that... thing we talked about." WTF?? NO competent officer gives orders in such an indefinite.

They intentionally burned it down.

It makes me wonder what he knew.
They wanted him dead for a reson and it wasn't because he's killed some people.

Originally posted by VonDoomen

Background story-

Redditors were listening to and recording the police scanners in the Dorner Case.

Current audio transcriptions suggest that the police placed 7 "burners" in or around the house.

Transcription also states "Seven [inaudible](active?)-burners deployed and we have a fire.
Copy: Seven burners deployed and we have a fire."

More to come. Follow the link to see the work in progress.

If anyone has a LEO background or understands their lingo, please give us your analysis of the wording!

www.reddit.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

edit on 2/13/2013 by VonDoomen because: (no reason given)

I know this is off topic but why do your pictures depict kadafi the same as obama, the pope, the queen ect.?


I wonder if these people will be prosecuted. I hope more comes out, so much that they have no choice but to put them on trial.

reply to post by AmberLeaf


Yes, from listening to the video you posted, it seems to be the same scanner content. Thanks for posting a link to the audio.

What I posted is the work of redditors at transcribing that audio. I find it is much easier to read these transcriptions than try and decode the audio myself.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

I just read this. Ever since I had heard about the fire, it crossed my mind that it would be very easy for the police to start the fire, weather accidentally or on purpose. I had from an earlier article (by the same source) that had said that the police had pumped the cabin full of gas (I had assumed some type of tear gas, but it wasn't specific), then the house was engulfed in flames after the police heard a single gunshot. That in itself seemed reasonably suspicious to me.

Originally posted by AutOmatIc
reply to post by Shamrock6

 

From one of the comments:

[–]Oznog99 3 points 4 hours ago CNN carried it as "smoke and/or flash grenades ignited a fire". Which is total, objective B.S. The police radio says "burners", which isn't a term for smoke grenades. In fact you wouldn't use "smoke" because it equally covers the suspect's movement. There's teargas, which would never be referred to as "burners". And they make it clear "fire" and burning the building down is their objective. More to the point is where he stops himself, unwilling to explicitly incriminate himself with something that was understood "that... thing we talked about." WTF?? NO competent officer gives orders in such an indefinite.

They intentionally burned it down.

The above is at least partially incorrect. Burner is often used police jargon for tear gas canisters. This isnt to say the fire was intentional or not, but burner is known terminology.

reply to post by Shamrock6


Thanks for the input! I do not understand most LEO lingo so its good to put some of it in perspective.

I really liked one of your statements that you appear to have edited out. Along the lines of giving an order with an indefinite article. Its confusing that they would act/talk in such a manner considering they are LEO. They are usually pretty straight forward

reply to post by Infi8nity

My avatar is the ICP, or Insane Clown Presidents.

Its nothing more than a joke alluding to the ludicrous and crass band Insane Clown Posse. As you can see, they are wearing the ICP style makeup.

reply to post by VonDoomen


reading it and listening to it is key, as words cannot always relay the attitude of what is being said.

Want it, uh, like we talked about.

sounds like someone asking a question. In the audio, it sounded like someone restating how they want something done.

I rekon they did light the place on fire hoping to drive him out.

Or risk losing him again into the public?

reply to post by flyswatter


"known terminology"? Burner is also used in reference to a gun. So did they plant guns that magically caught fire? It wasn't merely the "burner" comment that made me believe they intentionally burned the cabin down....but quite a few other comments made by the "public servants" such as:

“f**king burn this motherf**ker”

“bring fire”

“burn that f**king house down.”

...I don't believe that we are "misinterpreting" their intentions one bit.

in the Corps there's about 19 different things referred to as "a donkey dick." every locality has their own lingo. unless you're on that local PD you have not freaking clue what terminology they use. tear gas IS referred to as a burner, and you CAN use smoke inside a building. smoke would obscure the subject's movement. really? would it obscure it more than the WALLS he's behind? smoke can be used to flush out any hidden exits from the building. so no, that's an incorrect assertion. same as some PDs use the 10-code via radio, some use plain-speak, some use a mix. it varies widely from PD to PD.

I think it's impossible to say unless you know exactly what the jargon being used means. As it would appear none of you are LAPD then it's likely none of you know the exact meaning. It's unlikely the reddit users know either.

I'm not saying there is nothing fishy about this whole thing. I tend to think he was a scumbag, but he was merely a tip of a large iceberg so to speak. I'd trust Obama before I trusted LAPD and that's the damn truth.

To someone unfamiliar with this whole event - did police say that Dorner started the fire as to not be taken alive? or have police denied they started it?

whats the significance here?

please excuse my ignorance and thanks in advance to anyone that responds.

Originally posted by six67seven
To someone unfamiliar with this whole event - did police say that Dorner started the fire as to not be taken alive? or have police denied they started it?

whats the significance here?

please excuse my ignorance and thanks in advance to anyone that responds.

Listen to the recording carefully, they said casually "we have a fire"....not "OH MY GOD WE HAVE A FIRE SOMEONE CONTACT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PUT IT OUT!!!"

No accident, they were not surprised by the fire at all.

Originally posted by AutOmatIc

Originally posted by six67seven
To someone unfamiliar with this whole event - did police say that Dorner started the fire as to not be taken alive? or have police denied they started it?

whats the significance here?

please excuse my ignorance and thanks in advance to anyone that responds.

Listen to the recording carefully, they said casually "we have a fire"....not "OH MY GOD WE HAVE A FIRE SOMEONE CONTACT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO PUT IT OUT!!!"

No accident, they were not surprised by the fire at all.

I've listened to police scanners a lot of my life.

I've yet to hear a distressed officer call for the fire dept. because a building has caught on fire.

You're applying how you'd react to a situation you can only assume about.

This is how it always starts. soon we'll have 'truthers' come out and bag the 'official story people' and using a 'burner' as the new 'pull it'.

terminology... who needs it when we all know already what the other guy means.

reply to post by AutOmatIc


so it sounds like Dorner decided to stay in the cabin to burn instead of coming out to surrender?

accidental or on purpose, he decided not to come out... ?

What is the agenda behind this thread, what would you like me to take away from it?