Video Of Firefight In Dorner Standoff

Hellacious firefight. Sadly, this will become more common as the country continues to devolve.

Bookmark the permalink.

78 Responses to Video Of Firefight In Dorner Standoff

  1. Jim22 says:

    Who is the dead guy? How sure are they that it’s Dorner?

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    Can you imagine the transformtive, radical, national change the MSM would be calling for as a result of this event if this guy was – rather than an Obama loving, MSNBC watching, black leftist – a white, conservative, Tea Partier?

  3. locke n load says:

    I gotta tell ya, I am NOT comfortable with the way that went down. I don’t care WHO the guy whacked or how angry they were, the cops burned that house down on purpose with the intent of burning him alive and that is NOT right. They executed him in a horriffic manner.
    We cannot, EVER, applaud crap like that. Unlike many of you I’m fine with the death penalty, I really am, but the force doesn’t have the right to play judge, jury, and executioner. Even dirtbag murderers deserve their day in court.
    Whoever made the call to burn that cabin is despicable. Sorry.

    • notamobster says:

      I’m not happy with the way they seem to have executed the man. I AM UBER-HAPPY THAT HE IS DEAD!

      How it went down? No. That he is dead? Yes. Don’t confuse the two.

      A commenter, Mike, made the same point. It’s a good reminder. Soon, it may be honest citizens defending themselves who are being burned out of their homes or otherwise killed by police.

      • notamobster says:

        Is anyone else getting a malware notification for the Revo? I’m not, but it’s been reported to me. The reader said they got it when they clicked on this page (Dorner video).

        • R.D. Walker says:

          James was having some sort of a redirect issue, but I think it was at the local level.

          I am getting nothing and none of our system files have been modified for weeks. Scans of the site show it clean.

          That doesn’t mean that everything embedded is clean, of course.

    • Jim22 says:

      Good point. They Waco’d him.

      • locke n load says:

        yup. the more i think about it the more disgusted i get. whats worse, i’ve heard ZERO condemnation, not a hint of it, anywhere. that fire was a criminal act and morally repugnant, the exact opposite of what we codified in the bill of rights. we can NOT encourage an increasingly federalized police force to use tactics like this. its corrosive not just to our culture but te philosophical foundation of our legal system.

        • Ray Davies says:

          I have to agree with all you folks. What the cops did was not justice but murder. Something that has not been mentioned is how the MSM built this guy up. Hell, he was the next Rambo,and could take out any group. I think if it had been treated like any other murderer things might have been a bit calmer. When they caught the guy there must have been 10,000 rounds thrown down range. I wonder if that house would have stood if it hadn’t been fire bombed? How long before we have to worry about these people?

        • notamobster says:

          On the flipside – the police were legally “justified” in using any means necessary to end the threat.

          He was trying to kill as many as possible before he went (by his own very public admission). He was firing heavily at them and had just shot several and killed one.

          I think that legally, they are justified. Morally, maybe not – but legally, yes.

          • R.D. Walker says:

            I haven’t said much here because I feel strongly both ways. :-)

            • notamobster says:

              Me too. That’s why I’m throwing out both sides of it, before everyone cements their opinion.

            • BigJimTX says:

              There is a case for officer safety. “Burn that mf’r out” does not make that case. Shooting civilians all week doesn’t make that case either.

              However, Dorner shooting two game wardens right before this firefight started makes the case clearly.

  4. Locke n Load says:

    On the flipside – the police were legally “justified” in using any means necessary to end the threat.

    I call BS. By that reasoning the police can torch ANYone who fights (or fights back). Why not just abolish all the rules and say ‘whatever means necessary, all the time’?

    The germane facts remain:
    he was outgunned 200:1
    teargas was a perfectly acceptable option, the PROPER option
    there were multiple perimeters set up, he wasn’t going ANYwhere
    he was grossly denied due process

    innocence or guilt doesnt matter here. the man wasn’t packing a Nuke for Chrissake, he was trapped and the situation could have been de-escalated, as is their mandate.
    the cops had no legal right, need, or justification for burning him alive. this was a vengeance killing, period

  5. Locke n Load says:

    to be perfectly clear, I have nothing but respect for most cops. it can be a hellish job and the risks are outrageous in some cities. it takes a rare man with a heart for service to join and uphold the responsibilities of the job.

    but they ARE responsibilities and when we give you the gun we are right to expect it will be used in service of them. we hold the police in high esteem not just because they put their lives on the line, but for WHY they do so. thats a sacred compact between us damnit

    rogue cops like Dorner are monstrous betrayals of that trust but the fucktard who ORDERED him lit him on fire is almost as bad.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I would probably be outraged if he wasn’t shooting at them from the cabin. It was a firefight. I dunno…

      Waco was innocents; women and children who had done nothing to deserve what they got.

      This guy was trying to kill them in real time as they did their jobs.

      I’m not saying I approve. I am just having a hard time getting up any outrage over it.

      Once you engage in a firefight with ANYONE, you have to expect them to try to kill you. It is kind of the rules of the game.

      • Locke n Load says:

        this wasn’t a battlefield, it was a police action.
        different ROE.
        are you saying that if anyone fires back all the rules are out the window?

        • R.D. Walker says:

          I am saying that if you were shooting at me, my response would be to try to kill you and wouldn’t be above dropping copious loads of napalm on your dangerous ass.

          I don’t see a hell of a lot of difference between my hitting you with 7.62 NATO FMJ on the bridge of your nose and lighting you up like a Yule Log. Either way, you are going to be quickly pining for the fjords.

          • Locke n Load says:

            lol, understood but again, we pay the police to capture, to de-escalate. Not to exact vengeance on those who killed their brothers.
            i understand the rage but their job, unlike soldiers, is to capture not kill.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              If he would have just been holed up and not shooting, I would be as outraged as you. He was, however, an active shooter trying to kill them. He had credibility in his intent and willingness to kill too.

            • Locke n Load says:

              no q RD, but that doesnt change a thing.
              200:1
              he cant last forever. take cover. wait.

          • Locke n Load says:

            and when they use this as precedent in the future? their response was military, not domestic. the way things are going this will only embolden them. the f’r that ordered the fire will get a medal, not punishment.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              This doesn’t seem like a new precedent to me. There has never been a time when I thought that I could a) kill cops, b) publicly taunt cops, and then, c) engage in a firefight with cops and expect to come out of it alive.

            • Locke n Load says:

              really. ok then, lets remember this if an innocent is holed up against a mistaken no-knock gone bad or an unjustified raid to seize say, legal firearms. the police now know we accept burning the mo-fo out (military) vs waiting them out (police action) and allowing for the courts to determine fates. see, its clear cut in THIS case that dorner deserved the Chair and so breaking the rules is OK… but someday soon the ‘rules’ we break might not need be so grievous to warrant the military tactics. i’d prefer we keep that line bright as hell and not let them think they can push the envelope further

            • R.D. Walker says:

              This wasn’t that. He. Was. Shooting. At. Them. It was an active firefight.

            • Locke n Load says:

              agreed. irrelevant tho.
              we are blurring the lines between police and military ROE. we are allowing an escalation in the violence against citizens, guilty or innocent.
              i can think of several situations where the ‘crime’ of shooting an officer would be self defence and by allowing this escalation we encourge further erosion of the 5th.
              how do u know he wouldn’t have stopped shooting? by NOT calming the situation down the police threw any opportunity for due process out the window. thats the difference in the ROE, the reason there are NOT military at townhall but Police.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              In any situation – civilian, military or police – in which you try to kill somebody, you can expect them to try to kill you back. It is just the way it is. If you are trying to kill me, I am justified in killing you. That is the Universal ROE… at least it should be.

            • Locke n Load says:

              oh BS, lol. ANY situation? really? your military mindset is showing sir :) thats one damn big grey area yer staking out for denial of Due Process. Might as well disband the civilian police then.

              I love ya man but you’re stubborn as a mule. Either accept that local police have a different mandate, one that demands they work to enable 5th amendment rights or disband them. Thats their core purpose. Its up to the courts to determine death sentences.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              Sorry. When someone is trying to kill you, you get to return the favor. Even if you are a civilian.

              Can it be that the same people who thought George Zimmerman was justified and that stand-your-ground is good law do not believe the same logic applies to the police?

            • Locke n Load says:

              Could it be that RD is delberately conflating hand to hand combat with a stand-off?

            • Locke n Load says:

              your conceit here is obvious in that you expect me to believe there has never been a standoff before, that Dorner possessed the overwhelming force, and that a cease fire was not an option.
              Smiley

            • R.D. Walker says:

              That he was outnumbered is irrelevant. He was a cop killer and he was actively trying to kill cops. If he wanted to live, he could have surrendered. He didn’t want to surrender, he wanted a fight. He got it and I have no sympathy for him or anyone like him.

      • Jim22 says:

        Waco was not just women and children. The people inside the compound were shooting at the people on the outside. They were also trying to kill the cops.

        Dorner was Wacoed.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          Dorner was the aggressor who drew first blood. Not so in Waco. They were defending themselves against attack. Dorner was on offense.

          In any case, I’d probably be a lot more worked up right now if Dorner had a lot of innocent women and children in that cabin with him. He didn’t and I just can’t get that worked up.

        • Jim22 says:

          Waco video:

          • R.D. Walker says:

            In Waco, they were in their homes, had hurt no one and came under sudden and unexpected attack.

            Dorner killed people, promised to kill more, was illegally in someone else’s cabin and initiated a firefight with the cops.

            The Davidians were innocent victims of government excess. If there is one thing Dorner wasn’t, it is an innocent victim.

            I cannot see a moral equivalency between the Branch Davidians and this mad-dog, spree killer.

          • BigJimTX says:

            That was not first contact. The Branch Davidians were fired upon before the news got there. If I am fired upon by an attacking force, I will return fire without hesitation.

            • Locke n Load says:

              as would any of us. but by the new ROE the police are NOT required to stand down or de-escalate. fuck due process, no need as long as the target fired on you.
              the police are SUPPOSED to leave the option of SURRENDER open.

            • BigJimTX says:

              In Waco, specifically where they were breaching the window, they were escalating the situation. It was a bunch of trigger happy tax collectors that were gonna get in there and finish the job.

    • notamobster says:

      His intention was clearly to “burn that m-f-ker out of there”. His statement clearly reflects that he didn’t intend to be judge, jury, and executioner.

      • Locke n Load says:

        bullshit. they would have dropped him as soon as he exited. they had one goal, kill him

      • Locke n Load says:

        why the hell not SMOKE him out of there? because they had NO intention of letting him live

        • notamobster says:

          If he had a gas mask, which anyone intending to kill/standoff with the cops would have – the gas is useless. Maybe they tried gas first, then said, f-k it, burn him out.

          I agree that he wasn’t leaving that cabin alive. I’m playing devil’s advocate, as I am wont to do, on occasion.

  6. R.D. Walker says:

    Shooting at Cops = Suicide by Cops

  7. R.D. Walker says:

    For the record, I am not particularly thrilled with the action of the cops here. In fact, I think they kind of mishandled this. I am just not surprised nor am I bothered by their behavior enough to be outraged.

  8. Locke n Load says:

    allow me to coin a phrase… remember, you heard it here first.
    “cease-fire!”
    properly applied i think my new verbage might help the LAPD navigate these murky ethical waters

  9. BigJimTX says:

    Has anybody heard about any casualties? I haven’t, but I have a hard time believing that the LAPD was able to maintain a perimeter, shoot toward the center and not sustain any friendly fire. We have seen examples of their marksmanship skills this past week.

    • Locke n Load says:

      lets go even further… who the hell could properly return fire while under assault like he was? he. was. cornered.
      massively outgunned, surrounded, and subject to withering fire when he returned fire on cops who obviously had good cover

      • R.D. Walker says:

        He wasn’t surrendering and he was returning fire.

        Again, the cops probably should have backed off. That would have been preferable.

        That said, it doesn’t get me too worked up that they didn’t. It was an active firefight. They had the right to return fire and I don’t see a huge difference between bullets and incendiaries.

      • notamobster says:

        Since this has once again evolved, I’m jumping back into the fray. The police don’t have some standard, universal ROE. That is set by department. My dept said that if I was in risk of mortal danger (not even in mortal danger but at risk) I was clear to engage with lethal force! Every cop in the nation should have this as a primary directive on the use of force continuum.

        You talk of de-escalation. The UOFC works like this – some situations require you to go from 1-2-3-4-5. Some require 1-5. Some require sustained 5. Sometimes you can de-escalate from 4 or 5 back to 2-3. It is entirely in the hands of the office who is facing the threat.

        If someone is actively shooting at you – regardless of whether or not you want the good intention fairy to convince him to stop shooting, you are well within legal precedent to engage with lethal force – as you should be!!!

        • Locke n Load says:

          good intention fairy,lol.
          ok look, i’m not saying they dont have the right to engage, return fire, or protect themselves. thats never been my argument Cptn162. my point is that they obviously had cover, massive superiority, and time on their side. given that, they escalated without any intention of capture. this was a kill mission, period. we’re acting like waiting wasnt an option because at any point he might pull out a friggin howitzer or something. are you telling me that you KNOW there werent pauses in the fire? that you KNOW he wasn’t going to be taken alive by a sniper or something? seems you’re arguing the BBQ was their only option. i say BS.

          i can accept the safety of the cops as an excuse but only to a point. It strikes me that they had NO intention of letting him out alive and that disturbs me to no end. if that approach to resistance is the standard then we already have a domestic military, a so-far friendly occupying force. and that doesnt square with what i know about you, rj, or any of the other police i’ve known.

          • R.D. Walker says:

            I just don’t much care. Dornan chose death. He knew what he was doing. He is no victim. He was the choreographer of this production. That matters.

            • Locke n Load says:

              yes it does. in all liklihood he would have sprayed his brains all over the roof, all by himself.
              still, 200:1 on a kill mission. capture wasn’t even contemplated. they abandoned their oaths for revenge IMHO and now we have another glorified semi-military execution on the books. one drenched in bloodlust. we’re moving farther and farther away from even the idea of a restrained police force. this is NOT good

            • R.D. Walker says:

              Please. That melodrama is over the top. The guy could have surrendered. He didn’t want to, said he expected to be killed in his manifesto and is responsible for the outcome.

              Maybe the cops should have shown some restraint but I sure am not getting worked up over it.

            • Locke n Load says:

              yeah, well i dont much like trying to justify an obvious mob mentality revenge BBQ while shielding my eyes from the 5th amendment, legal structures predicated on presumption of innocence, and the spectacle of 200 cops acting like they were completely out of options. their badges impose a higher standard, those oaths mean something. my opinion of the LAPD has sunk to a new low

  10. slinger says:

    My biggest issue with all of this is that LAPD killed Dorner with fire instead of a bullet to the brain pan. LAPD was certainly justified in using lethal force if he was shooting back. With a perimeter and an assumed LAPD sniper or 2, I don’t see why fire was the first choice. Maybe LAPD marksmanship is really THAT bad … we have seen evidence of their marksmanship competence.

    How sure were they that Dorner didn’t have hostages inside?

    • R.D. Walker says:

      “How sure were they that Dorner didn’t have hostages inside?”

      A reasonable concern.

    • Locke n Load says:

      that damn well better be Dorner’s corpse. if not perhaps you’ll reasses my admiration of police restraint as a virtue

      • notamobster says:

        I’m not arguing against restraint. I am merely saying that they were legally justified in their use of force. I don’t like them burning the guy alive, but the supervisor did say “burn that m-f-ker out”. Trying to get him out of the cabin. There were reports for the last week that he had explosives, a .50 cal, etc…

        The fear involved in this situation, even though protracted, is very real. For many, or most, of these individuals – this was their first time in combat. I’m inclined to cut them some effing slack. This was combat. Watch the video. This turd was trying to kill as many as he could. Much of the fire, I’m certain was other officers, but confusion and fear are a motherf…..

        News reported a single shot before the fire went all Waco on him. I think we’ll find that he washed his mouth out with lead.

    • BigJimTX says:

      Didn’t they mention a hostage at one point? That would explain the case of the reappearing wallet and ID though.

  11. Locke n Load says:

    Sidenote: the nested comment format really shines in these extended discussions, no?

    • Jim22 says:

      Yeah, but it also makes it a little more confusing. I’m learning to deal with it by properly wording my replies. We’ll all finally figure it out.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Current ye@r *