Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
So why would the cops feel the need to say "burn it down" and later on "burners deployed, building is lit". This has happened before (Waco). After all this is the same police force who shot 2 ladies earlier this week so we know they have no hesitation to act without thinking. The LAPD is probably the sketchiest and most crooked police force in all of America.
And while you may be able to justify it with "the dude was a murderer" that still isn't an excuse for police to take the entire legal process into their own hands. There is much more to this story then we know, that's all I'm saying. It isn't black and white at all.
It's truly frightening that you think certain situations forgo the need for a trial. This is 21st century America. We are supposed to be better than this.
Unfortunately it does, there was a million dollar dead or alive warrant on him. Gives anyone in the country power to gain a bounty off him because we have confirmed his involvement with direct corroboration from sources and witnesses. Also as you know the cop killer laws apply in California, and that's going to expedite that process. This coming from someone who does think we are forgoing trials of "terrorists" "combatants" or "whistle blowers" like Assange and Bradley Manning. This is the rare occasion where deadly force may have been necessary, police and military training, though I do not like the term "domestic terrorist". He was a murderer and sociopath, they used to be called serial killers - go figure.
Cops have incendiary grenades. I assume those are what is meant by 'burners'. And again. What if he had hostages in there? The police had no way of knowing if they were also burning innocent people in there. Again, this is a shady story and now we will NEVER get the while story. The judge who presided over some of Dorner's cases recently stepped down due to corruption charges. I've also heard that Dorner was chastised for reporting police brutality. No, these don't excuse him for killing anyone, but it raises an interesting point that if there IS something shady going on that he knew about now we will never know, which is exactly what the LAPD would want.
And don't say I'm defending him. Because I'm not. I'm criticizing the LAPD for their choices they have made this past week.
These are trained professionals who my tax dollars support. I would hope that they have much better ways of subduing (lethal or non-lethal) a subject without resorting to barbaric measures such as burning down an entire cabin.
I'll say it one more time. Cops do NOT have the authority to be judge, jury, executioner. You're telling me an entire SWAT team + others couldn't take out a single guy?
An eye for an eye isn't a good moral code. This is the same reason I'm anti-death penalty.
EDIT: I also want to raise the point again that the LAPD shot 2 innocent ladies just a few days ago. That is seriously f'ed up. These ladies where in a vehicle that didn't come close to matching the description of Dorner's. What kind of "training" is that?
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2013 11:13:45 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Post by Dave Maynar on Feb 13, 2013 11:07:25 GMT -5
Just to throw it out there, "burner" is a term used to refer to tear gas by law enforcement at times. It partly comes from the brand name of one of the manufacturers and partly from tear gas's ability to cause fires in the right conditions.
Dave here is the info I was going off when saying "burner" could also be incendiary. Cops having access to military equipment has become more and more prevalent since 9/11.
Also it is my understanding that there are two types of tear gas. One type is not meant to be used indoors due to the fact that it will potentially start a fire. So that could also be what they used.
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2013 11:13:23 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Henrik: Cops have incendiary grenades. I assume those are what is meant by 'burners'. And again. What if he had hostages in there? The police had no way of knowing if they were also burning innocent people in there. Again, this is a shady story and now we will NEVER get the while story. The judge who presided over some of Dorner's cases recently stepped down due to corruption charges. I've also heard that Dorner was chastised for reporting police brutality. No, these don't excuse him for killing anyone, but it raises an interesting point that if there IS something shady going on that he knew about now we will never know, which is exactly what the LAPD would want.
And don't say I'm defending him. Because I'm not. I'm criticizing the LAPD for their choices they have made this past week.
These are trained professionals who my tax dollars support. I would hope that they have much better ways of subduing (lethal or non-lethal) a subject without resorting to barbaric measures such as burning down an entire cabin.
I'll say it one more time. Cops do NOT have the authority to be judge, jury, executioner. You're telling me an entire SWAT team + others couldn't take out a single guy?
An eye for an eye isn't a good moral code. This is the same reason I'm anti-death penalty.
This is flanzo, btw. Not sure if you knew about my name change.
The police are not torching a cabin if they are uncertain about the possibility of hostages. I feel like you're looking for this to be shadier than it is. The cops knew the general area where he was hiding, they warned everyone to stay away, they tracked him down and found him in a cabin and he started shooting at them. If there was someone taken hostage in the Big Bear area, they would have been reported missing almost immediately, and that's if someone was stupid enough not to clear out of there when the LAPD/Sheriff's/Park Rangers told them to.
You were never getting Dorner's whole story, do you seriously think after watching him go on the warpath that he ever expected to walk away from this alive? No, it was a suicide mission plain and simple. To not see that is just being naive.
It's sickening that people take a tragic run of murders and make it into a conspiracy theory. The guy was mentally unstable, maybe he did know something about certain people being corrupt, is that what we should be worrying about? People's priorities are so out of whack sometimes. Rather than simply identify it as a incredibly sad chain of events (up to and including Dorner's death), people want it to be about something bigger. I hate that about our culture, and it happens far too often.
You can say it all you want, but when a person is shooting at police officers you do NOT try to bring him in alive at all costs. You end the situation at all costs. If you're able to put the guy down without killing him, that's the best outcome, but that isn't all that likely with military-trained psychopaths shooting dozens of rounds at police officers. You shoot to kill in those situations.
So, let's say some guy is shooting at you and you're unarmed. The cops show up, the guy is standing int he middle of the street shooting at you. You'd prefer they try to talk him out of shooting you instead of just shooting him themselves?
Post by EthnicallyCrimean98476 on Feb 13, 2013 11:17:22 GMT -5
Just to be clear banshee, I wasn't defending the ineptitude of the LAPD at all. I was solely criticizing people who I'm in contact with via social networks who were cheering the guy on/sympathizing with a pretty terrible human.
What if he had hostages in there? The police had no way of knowing if they were also burning innocent people in there.
Is that a fact though? That the police definitely had no way of knowing? I haven't been able to listen to the audio at work but is it known that they had no clue who else was in there?
Just to be clear banshee, I wasn't defending the ineptitude of the LAPD at all. I was solely criticizing people who I'm in contact with via social networks who were cheering the guy on/sympathizing with a pretty terrible human.
Yeah, I want to be clear, the LAPD is clearly a f*cked up organization, but that is independent in my eyes of how people should view their handling of the cabin situation.
LAPD shooting up a random car (and having done similar things in the past)? Horrible. The NYPD have been guilty of similarly deplorable mistakes that cost human life before as well. I know what those situations do to a city and community in terms of tensions rising.
But that has nothing to do with how they stopped a murderer from continuing his death march.
Dave here is the info I was going off when saying "burner" could also be incendiary. Cops having access to military equipment has become more and more prevalent since 9/11.
Also it is my understanding that there are two types of tear gas. One type is not meant to be used indoors due to the fact that it will potentially start a fire. So that could also be what they used.
I'm not trying to dispute what you said at all. I was just throwing some info out there especially since the link I found was a fire caused by tear gas by the LA Sheriff Dept.
I'm not trying to make it shady. It simply IS shady. I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of person, but I feel like in this case it's pretty clear that there was something more going on (not that this justifies anything, it's just an interesting note especially with all the Manning and Assange stuff going on). And no that isn't the bigger picture here. The big picture is exactly what you said; this was a tragedy full of senseless violence and carelessness by both parties.
What it boils down to for me is that everybody deserves the same rights - even psychopaths and sociopaths. I wasn't there, so I don't know the whole story. But I simply can't wrap my head around them burning the cabin down being the best possible solution. These are my tax dollars that support this so I feel that I am entitled to question their methods.
What if he had hostages in there? The police had no way of knowing if they were also burning innocent people in there.
Is that a fact though? That the police definitely had no way of knowing? I haven't been able to listen to the audio at work but is it known that they had no clue who else was in there?
Nope, not a fact. I'm just basing this off the fact that the dude was holed up in the cabin. And no cops entered the cabin. Or even if they managed to see inside the cabin it's not like they could have missed someone in a corner or something. This isn't really the point I'm going for, it's just a side note that I think shows a bit of recklessness. The audio I've heard doesn't even mention the possibility of someone else being inside though.
I'm not trying to make it shady. It simply IS shady. I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of person, but I feel like in this case it's pretty clear that there was something more going on (not that this justifies anything, it's just an interesting note especially with all the Manning and Assange stuff going on).
Specifically what though? Like I get that people think "something more" is going on but what's the popular theories? Is it that this was a revenge killing for him shooting LAPD family members? Was it done to cover something else up? I'm just trying to figure out what people are suspecting really went down.
I'm not trying to make it shady. It simply IS shady. I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of person, but I feel like in this case it's pretty clear that there was something more going on (not that this justifies anything, it's just an interesting note especially with all the Manning and Assange stuff going on). And no that isn't the bigger picture here. The big picture is exactly what you said; this was a tragedy full of senseless violence and carelessness by both parties.
What it boils down to for me is that everybody deserves the same rights - even psychopaths and sociopaths. I wasn't there, so I don't know the whole story. But I simply can't wrap my head around them burning the cabin down being the best possible solution. These are my tax dollars that support this so I feel that I am entitled to question their methods.
Fair enough. I disagree that people who have murdered and are in the act of trying to murder others gets the same rights as me. If a guy kills a person in the heat of the moment, admits as such and turns himself in? He deserves every right a person in that position is offered. When a guy shows no remorse and is trying to increase his body count? That guy shouldn't get due process in my eyes and he shouldn't get treated like a shop lifter or something where you just slap the cuffs on him and put him in a cell to be arraigned.
The guy was trained by this country how to kill a person, and then used those skills to turn on the people he was sworn to protect. I understand that you feel he was mistreated in how it was ended, but I look at the fact that it was ended. Dorner was clearly skilled in survival methods and obviously trained in how to use a weapon, not taking every measure possible to end what he was doing is the worst sin a cop can make in that situation.
I'm not trying to make it shady. It simply IS shady. I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of person, but I feel like in this case it's pretty clear that there was something more going on (not that this justifies anything, it's just an interesting note especially with all the Manning and Assange stuff going on).
Specifically what though? Like I get that people think "something more" is going on but what's the popular theories? Is it that this was a revenge killing for him shooting LAPD family members? Was it done to cover something else up? I'm just trying to figure out what people are suspecting really went down.
From my understanding it's something like this:
- Tries to report police brutality (I believe it was a cop beating a mentally impaired dude)
- Judge defends cop in question (this judge then steps down due to corruption charges not long after)
- Dorner then goes on a rampage for "justice". This is where his mental illness comes into play. It's a shame he never got the help he needed (as with any person who needs mental help). This all goes back to the "mental health" issue that was all over the news a few weeks ago regarding Sandy Hook.
He was also a veteran, which may play into this as well.
Fianzo: The other big thing that doesn't sit well with me is that the guy is mentally ill. I don't think it's as simple as he was "trying to increase his body count". This whole thing is just a shame really.
I believe are fundamental disagreement is regarding the right to due process (speaking on you saying he forfeited his right to due process). I understand (and respect) your reasoning, I just have a different opinion.
It's absolutely sad that Dorner was clearly mentally unstable and felt he either had no one to talk to about it or that the people he was being provided to talk to about it were not helping.
At some point the reality Dorner thought was his life and the one his life really was a part of split. When that happened he went from a mentally-ill person needing help to a mass murderer. I wish someone was there for him before that split took place, but once it did the idea of helping Dorner split as well.
It's absolutely sad that Dorner was clearly mentally unstable and felt he either had no one to talk to about it or that the people he was being provided to talk to about it were not helping.
At some point the reality Dorner thought was his life and the one his life really was a part of split. When that happened he went from a mentally-ill person needing help to a mass murderer. I wish someone was there for him before that split took place, but once it did the idea of helping Dorner split as well.
I hate to start the argument back up.. but yes it gives them the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. I don't think it gave them the right to burn it down. That just seems like the equivalent of a public lynching - only done for revenge and spectacle.
Dave I have got a couple "RIP Rambo Dorner" posts. It's stupid. Glorifying ANY type of crime is what keeps things like this happening. School shooters are given more TV time then the teachers who protected students.
Marilyn Manson refused to speak of Columbine or make any TV appearances for a long time after because he didn't want to give them the publicity. He had the right idea. It's the fact that we "glamorize" (for lack of a better word) these people that keeps other people copying them.
I hate to start the argument back up.. but yes it gives them the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. I don't think it gave them the right to burn it down.
Couldn't "burning it down" be considered the lethal force they used?
C'mon, don't phrase it to make it seem like I'm equating him to an elk.
The guy was shooting at cops, that gives the cops the right to shoot back.
Wasn't my intention with 'free game', honestly.
But I don't think we should just resign to shooting folks that demonstrated the potential to kill others. I know it's naively idealistic, but killing another human should be avoided at all cost.
Marilyn Manson refused to speak of Columbine or make any TV appearances for a long time after because he didn't want to give them the publicity. He had the right idea. It's the fact that we "glamorize" (for lack of a better word) these people that keeps other people copying them.
Two months after it happened he had a huge article in Rolling Stone about it. I am not saying he's wrong about glamorizing this kind of stuff but he definitely did address it in a big way shortly after the events.
Dave I have got a couple "RIP Rambo Dorner" posts. It's stupid. Glorifying ANY type of crime is what keeps things like this happening. School shooters are given more TV time then the teachers who protected students.
Marilyn Manson refused to speak of Columbine or make any TV appearances for a long time after because he didn't want to give them the publicity. He had the right idea. It's the fact that we "glamorize" (for lack of a better word) these people that keeps other people copying them.
I think some of the glorification comes from people wanting to know how things can get that upside down for someone. I would venture a vast majority people don't wake up with the thought of going on a killing spree and most can't even conceptualize the idea of it in their head. That being said, there is a line between curiosity and making them into some sort of folk hero like people seem to be doing with Dormer.
C'mon, don't phrase it to make it seem like I'm equating him to an elk.
The guy was shooting at cops, that gives the cops the right to shoot back.
Wasn't my intention with 'free game', honestly.
But I don't think we should just resign to shooting folks that demonstrated the potential to kill others. I know it's naively idealistic, but killing another human should be avoided at all cost.
No offense taken, I just didn't want you thinking I saw the guy as an animal because of what happened.
To your other comment I'd simply say Dorner didn't just demonstrate the potential to kill, he demonstrated a willingness. Obviously any time a shootout happens and people don't walk away it's not the ideal outcome, but if it comes to a choice between law enforcement and suspect (the way Dorner made it with his actions)? I can't fault the law enforcement for taking extreme measures (meaning killing a person).
Im presenting for the corporate big wigs in 52 minutes. If all goes well, Ill get a gold star and the green light on a project Ive been defending for 2 years. However, this means that I may have to bow out of Wanee to handle the project. My professional self knows what it has to do. My unprofessional, highly irresponsible self is full force right now.
But I don't think we should just resign to shooting folks that demonstrated the potential to kill others. I know it's naively idealistic, but killing another human should be avoided at all cost.
No offense taken, I just didn't want you thinking I saw the guy as an animal because of what happened.
To your other comment I'd simply say Dorner didn't just demonstrate the potential to kill, he demonstrated a willingness. Obviously any time a shootout happens and people don't walk away it's not the ideal outcome, but if it comes to a choice between law enforcement and suspect (the way Dorner made it with his actions)? I can't fault the law enforcement for taking extreme measures (meaning killing a person).
Yeah I think I'm just lamenting the fact that humans have to die in general. Life, ya know?
Anyways, I discovered the hard way today that we don't have a plunger at my place.