If your city is on "lock-down", do NOT look outside.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
reply to post by Afterthought

 

I do see a militarized police force in that photo. Can someone explain to me why their outfits are different? Is the one in the darker clothes the battalion, er, LEO commander?

See, the people making the claims are the ones that need to answer those questions. Since it is being claimed that they are military, someone needs to back that up.

Truth be told, they are likely national guard. It is not illegal for national guard to be there.

Why are the officials not disclosing who exactly were on the streets commanding entrance to private homes?
I would think that if they were doing everything by the book, this info would've been reported on by now.
Am I to assume that all officers are being issued camo fatigues to keep in their lockers for such an occasion? What's wrong with them wearing their normal uniform and a bullet proof vest? I can certainly understand the need for a helmet though, but that's all the lax I'm going to give them on the garb for this situation.

I know there was a thread following on the transporting of military vehicles. I wonder if anyone noticed one of these train loads headed to Boston. I'll have to see if I can find the thread, but I hear the new search engine isn't very cooperative.

reply to post by Covertblack

Didn't he kill a police officers daughter, and fiance?

Yes, but I think she was the chief's daughter and fiance. I'm still not convinced that he killed them, but they did die. The point I was making is that he wasn't after any joe blow civilians who didn't have any connections to his anger and how he was unjustly treated by those in uniform. The only civilian I thought might be at risk was the principal who he mentioned in his letter who he stated lied about something he did. It's all fuzzy though. My point being though, the cops in this situation were the real threat to innocent civilians and door to door searches weren't done.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Didn't he kill a police officers daughter, and fiance?

Yes, but I think she was the chief's daughter and fiance. I'm still not convinced that he killed them, but they did die. The point I was making is that he wasn't after any joe blow civilians who didn't have any connections to his anger and how he was unjustly treated by those in uniform. The only civilian I thought might be at risk was the principal who he mentioned in his letter who he stated lied about something he did. It's all fuzzy though. My point being though, the cops in this situation were the real threat to innocent civilians and door to door searches weren't done.

Ok, it was his daughter though, which means she and the fiancee weren't involved with the police, other than being related to one. They were both civilians, and weren't involved in anything other than being related to the wrong person.

Not to come off as rash, and I know that he let at least one civilian live, but he still killed people not related to what he stated. He said he was targeting cops and killed two civilians.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

Speaking about Dorner, remind me again who exactly fired on innocent civilians in their own vehicles?
I'm pretty sure it was the loose canon police, right?

I'm glad you do see the pattern emerging here. The thing with Dorner is that he specifically stated that his targets were the officers and others who had wronged him and had no intention of hurting civilians.
Alas, they probably should've put LA on lock down, too. Maybe the cops wouldn't have been so trigger happy if everyone was in their homes too scared to look out their windows.
Anyways, how come they didn't go door to door during the hunt for this man who did have friends and family? No, they wait until there's a terrorist in Boston and act like the citizens of Boston are hiding a man they're told just bombed their city street. If I were a Bostonian, I'd be extremely offended that my police force thought I or my neighbors were harboring a terrorist and treated as such.

1)Dorner killed two civilians. Thats how the hunt for him started. Please, at least educate yourself on the topics you are speaking of.

2)Like I said, many parts of LA were, indeed, locked down.

3)They did go door to door in the search for Dorner. Again, please, educate yourself.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by captaintyinknots

 

Police activity... looking for a single 19 year old male suspect. Using military force in that situation was completely overboard. Let me remind you that he was completely unarmed and they fired a whole lot of rounds into the boat in that situation. Think they were a little too edgy? Using these dopes as as yardstick is not a good move.

As far as my ignorance, what was the need for all of the storm troopers with their fingers on the triggers pointed at completely innocent citizens? You don't think rules of safety should be followed when they are 'protecting' the public?

1)A 19 year old who just injured over 200 people, and who had intentions of harming more.

2)They had no way of knowing he was unarmed, though I do agree they went overboard.

3)You are completely ignoring my very first post on this thread. Go back and read it.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
What would you do if the shoe was on the other foot?

Been there done it - in Indian country. The only Americans for miles, everyone in the market a potential enemy and no, and no one ever flashed a civilian for using a cell phone or looking out the window. It is not done, it is evidence of poor training and muzzle discipline. One doesn't aim unless the target has been identified as hostile - period.

I was an SF Team leader, if any of my team had flashed a civilian like that I'd have had the ass....

In an area with more collaterals present than actors one must be very careful.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
You are part of a tactical team tasked with catching someone who is willing to kill a lot of people. You are clearing a street. Suddenly, you see the curtain on a window pull back. You see a shadow of a figure through it. That figure raises something to eye level, pointed right at you.

You can't tell the difference between a firearm and a cell phone at range then you need to find another line of work...

Looking down the barrel of a firearm limits your field of vision and narrows your focus - he has no idea what else is going on. A verbal would have sufficed.

There is absolutely no reason that these cops have people at gun point in America. None.

Originally posted by Danbones
Funny, he can point a gun at you, but you can NOT point a gun at him...

Wanna bet?

reply to post by Afterthought

Why are the officials not disclosing who exactly were on the streets commanding entrance to private homes?

The fact that you are still using the word 'command' makes it really difficult to explain it any further.

I would think that if they were doing everything by the book, this info would've been reported on by now.

What info? That tactical teams and national guard were there? Hasnt exactly been hidden.

Am I to assume that all officers are being issued camo fatigues to keep in their lockers for such an occasion? What's wrong with them wearing their normal uniform and a bullet proof vest?

Try reading a little more carefully: N-A-T-I-O-N-A-L G-U-A-R-D. Furthermore, most tactical teams DO have varying tactical unis for different situations.

I can certainly understand the need for a helmet though, but that's all the lax I'm going to give them on the garb for this situation.

'All the lax I'm going to give them'? ....AND? Hate to break it to you, but it really doesnt matter how you feel about the tactical outfits that are issued.

I know there was a thread following on the transporting of military vehicles. I wonder if anyone noticed one of these train loads headed to Boston. I'll have to see if I can find the thread, but I hear the new search engine isn't very cooperative.

Military equipment is moved all the time. Enjoy searching-you'll find thousands of transportation logs.

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by Danbones
Funny, he can point a gun at you, but you can NOT point a gun at him...

Wanna bet?

Not wise my friend. They can shoot you at that point.

reply to post by Golf66

Been there done it - in Indian country. The only Americans for miles, everyone in the market a potential enemy and no, and no one ever flashed a civilian for using a cell phone or looking out the window. It is not done, it is evidence of poor training and muzzle discipline. One doesn't aim unless the target has been identified as hostile - period.

Were you conducting a search for one target, who is thought to be armed, dangerous and ready to attack? If not, its not really the same thing.

I was an SF Team leader, if any of my team had flashed a civilian like that I'd have had the ass....

And props for you for that.

In an area with more collaterals present than actors one must be very careful.

Very true. And lets remember, no one was injured here. In fact, I could argue that the person in the pic WAS being careful-as in, watching the back of his companions.

You can't tell the difference between a firearm and a cell phone at range then you need to find another line of work...

So, in shadows, through a window, you can identify an object at first glance? Really?

Looking down the barrel of a firearm limits your field of vision and narrows your focus - he has no idea what else is going on. A verbal would have sufficed.

Agreed, but without context, this is all hypothetical. For all we know, the officer saw movement, identified, and immediately disengaged.

The one thing we DO know, is that he identified and did not fire.

reply to post by Covertblack


I realize that the death of the chief's daughter and her boyfriend started the man hunt, but there are questions surrounding this, too, as well as the letter he supposedly wrote.
I would comment further, but I don't want to take the thread off topic.
The point being, the cops fired on more civilians than Dorner. The cops also didn't go door to door looking for him either. That was the main points I was trying to make.

Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by Covertblack

 

The point being, the cops fired on more civilians than Dorner. The cops also didn't go door to door looking for him either. That was the main points I was trying to make.

For the third time, YES THEY DID.They did at Big Bear, and they did in multiple neighborhoods around the shooting.

Please, just stop. You are making things up, or else you have simply not researched the topic. Either way, you arent doing yourself any favors.

Here's one of the threads I was speaking about
www.abovetopsecret.com...
and I find this comment on the first page to back up what I'm mentioning about the camo.

Yesterday in NC on I-40 to and back from Tenn, I saw transport vehicles and Humvees. What struck me about these was the fact that they were regular camo and not desert cam. It's been nearly 20 years since I've seen anything but desert cam.

Then this comment also on the first page

Good reading gents, and here I thought that I was the only one seeing a lot of movement. Tanks and humvees on a daily basis up and down I-81 in Va. I drive 81 several days a week, and more times than not in my 30 min or so drive I'll see two or three trucks the said tanks and HVs.

Third page (5/10/12)

Nothing much to add...but I saw at least 50 new vehicles added to our National Guard inventory today!

They kind of looked like something you would see roaming the tundra...except they were camouflage...and sort of a train kind of assembly...don't know what they were exactly!

Just odd for our small town...and certainly not the type of equipment I would expect to be used in this area!

Third page

National Guard and Reserve Forces aren't a massive a threat as Active Federal Forces, not only do they hold their pledge to the State and Adjutant General/Governor, but for years the Pentegon has been trying to move Combat Arms out of Guard and Reserve Units.

The Reserves have no current Combat Arms units, the Guard has slowly been having it's Armor taken away as the Pentagon seeks to shrink the existing Armor Corps down in favor of vehicles like the M1128 MGS and other LAV's.

This of course is hinging on the bet that the Guardsmen and or Reservists take their oaths to be more than a spoken word. It could be very likely they are activated as Federal Forces and play game with the Active Federal Forces in the event of Civil Unrest.

Anyways, it's an interesting thread with more posts to read. Links to other threads exist within it, too.
All this may be them moving vehicles around, but the trend I'm seeing with the camo and National Guard being mentioned put up red flags with me. As usual, take it for what you will. I'm just putting it out there to ponder upon and research further.

Hard to believe they can get away with aiming guns at innocent people in their homes. It ironically mirrors CRIMINAL behavior. What "law" was he enforcing there? Martial law? Gee...

reply to post by captaintyinknots

There is another major point on Dorner that people gloss over in their pursuit to make him sound almost like Robin Hood or some crazy thing. He wasn't on a crusade against the LAPD for truth and justice or any such abstract and noble ideas. He'd just lost a long running legal action against the Police Department to be reinstated. He snapped like a twig because they wouldn't give him his job BACK. So...a courageous figure he wasn't, as far as I'm concerned.

He was a bad apple the LAPD actually caught and weeded out for a change...and he proved them 100% right by how he reacted to having his firing upheld. err.... Funny how that part rarely gets mention, huh?

I'd still say the LAPD were the last people who should have been chasing him though. TOO much personal baggage and emotion between individual cops involved to make that professional on any level, as it most needed to be in a thing like that.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

If somebody comes to your door with a gun in your face you are going to let them search your house if you're smart. It doesn't matter if it's the police or a bad guy. That is NOT a voluntary search. If somebody uses a gun to 'coerce' another person to have sex with them that is not considered consensual sex, even if the victim would consider consesual sex with that person in a normal situation.

If I want to look out the window of my house, I can any damn time I please. If I was there in Boston that day, it is more likely that a SWAT hero would kill me at my window because he is scared out of his boots than a terrorist would. How many innocent people did the police in CA shoot in the Cristopher Dorner hunt? I'm not scared enough of a couple random whack-job terrorists to force me into hiding into the center area of my house. I can't say the same about a SWAT team on the search though.

I feel horrible for the families that lost somebody and for all the victims who will suffer with life-changing injuries. Every single sane person wanted these guys caught, but the methods NEED to be changed. They went to great lengths to find this kid, and later we found out that it was a person moving about their property AFTER the shutdown order was lifted that discovered him. Who would have thought to look in people's yards for the easy hiding spots first before going door to door to occupied homes, checking up old lady's blouses to see if he might be there.

Originally posted by Danbones
what are the odds "gunny" spent time in Iraq ( or a similar war zone )?
perfect training for boston

Or wish he had been, so he could have killed some rag heads and p*ssed on their corpses.

This is a very iconic picture, and is worth about 10,000 words.

People who are more concerned about one lone, punk terrorist running around than about 9,000 armed, gung-ho goons running around are kidding themselves.

reply to post by captaintyinknots

Thank you for prompting me to refresh my memory about the manhunt for Dorner.
blogs.kcrw.com...

Although they entered our property without our permission, the officers were apologetic and polite. We told them they could stay, offering coffee and use of our bathroom. By Sunday morning the original pair was gone, replaced by another officer-detective team. By the time the second team was relieved last night, they had been on my patio for more than 10 hours: watching the cars, staring through binoculars, eating sandwiches and sipping from Super Big Gulps. It seemed to be a mind-numbing assignment, but they did their best to stay alert. They stressed this wasn’t just another stakeout.

And
ktla.com...

LA PALMA, Calif. — Irvine police Friday were at the home of Christopher Dorner’s mother, apparently to search the home again, this time with a warrant.

Dorner may have been living at the Orange County home before allegedly killing three people in a rampage against the Los Angeles Police Department.

Police searched the home previously with the consent of the Dorner’s mother and sister, who live at the home.

Seems the cops in Boston need to learn some manners and decorum from the ones in LA, but that's not saying much either.
It's interesting to see how the two manhunts were handled.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
Were you conducting a search for one target, which is thought to be armed, dangerous and ready to attack? If not, it’s not really the same thing.

Sorry, I did omit that in fact we were hunting one HVT at the time for a capture/kill mission so it was almost an identical scenario. With the exception that we didn't lock down the whole market, order everyone to their homes and zip cuff and detain everyone who failed to comply. That was an option I had but I considered it too harsh... The target was an IED maker for the Taliban so presumed to be armed and of course - bomberous.

When I weighed my options for the mission I could have called a Platoon(+) of Rangers for support had air assets, cordoned off the entire area with roadblocks and gone in what was called "hard" and done just what happened in Boston. However, since I was the defacto law in the area and in the beginning of the war (early 04) I was trying to ingratiate not offend the entire population. So we went in soft with our team and found the guy without a shot fired. In that case I gambled and won - I considered that the hard presence would be less risk for my team but might illicit a negative response from the local population and tip off the subject.

Likewise one over aggressive trigger (Rangers are notoriously trigger happy - it is thier forte) puller and we'd be in deep #e since the whole village was Taliban friendly.

Originally posted by captaintyinknots
So, in shadows, through a window, you can identify an object at first glance? Really?

Yes, I can and until I am 100% sure it’s a threat or target I do not point my weapon and most especially I do not aim at or acquire it. Snap fire technique takes about a fraction of a second to acquire a target once visualized. Flashing the civilians unnecessarily inflames anti-American sentiment, (in this case anti-LEO) it is provocative and uncalled for and the hallmark of a poorly trained unit.

reply to post by SouthernForkway26


If you are smart? What do you think would happen if you refused? Could they possibly search anyway? Yea. At least in that case you are covered if they find anything illegal.