More Police Chatter. This Is When Dorner Died

Again, recorded from a scanner. The building seems to have been intentionally torched.

Bookmark the permalink.

132 Responses to More Police Chatter. This Is When Dorner Died

  1. messup says:

    Big Bear;Kent State; Ruby Ridge; Waco, Texas; Katrina; Sandy, hollow point ammunition purchases by DHS. What do these have in common? Posse Comitatus…and violation thereof.
    Secondly, am strong supporter of Law and Order, “Rule of Law” and Constitutional guarantees…but more and more We The People are witnessing a morphing of all Law Enforcement into a gray area of:”interpretation of Laws,” instead of “enforcing existing Laws” as written.
    This morphing into”interpretaion of Laws’,” gray area, by Law Enforcement officials, is causing a very bonafide reaction by America’s populace to Law Enforcement (in general) with a heightened degree of distrust. A possible solution? Streamline all Law making so as to facilitate enforcement of all Laws (eliminating a Laws morphing into societal experimentation or “social engineering”). Writing Laws is a precise, logical endeavor to be treated with utmost respect of not only the “Rule of Law” but the “Word of Law” as well. This will permit Law Enforcement to “enforce Laws” accurately and precisely instead of today’s common practice of Law Enforcement “interpreting Laws.” Pray. Amen.

  2. R.D. Walker says:

    If it is true that “burner” is slang meaning “tear gas grenade”, I don’t know that the audio proves they burned the place down on purpose.

    If they did torch the place on purpose, it isn’t clear to me that they intended to kill him rather than give him this treatment.

    • RJ says:

      RD yes “burner” is commonly used for a triple burner tear gas canister, nasty stuff, only problem it is pyrotechnique dispersion, should not have been used inside if in fact it was.

      If that was all they had available (hard to accept) they could deploy it down wind of the cabin on the ground and allow wind to blow it into the smashed windows.(using wood baton rounds)

      That being said, 7 of the things deployed inside a open topped football stadium would clear it out powerful nasty and lots of effect.

      7 inside a house would likely be lethal if the person did not or could not flee, even without the fire burning down the structure

      Deployed against a wooden structure or inside through broken windows is just asking for a fire.

      Any compentent gas man would have known the inherent danger of fire. As would any compentent SWAT team leader or commander.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        Sounds like they torched it then.

      • notamobster says:

        The pyro charge is thermate. Thermate is used for cutting steel. It burns around 4500f. It’s an incendiary. It shouldn’t be used in a wooden structure unless your intent is to set fire. Any SRT/SWAT operator would/should know this.

        The intent seems to have been to burn him out of the building. I’m comfortable with the deployment of incendiary grenades, if that was their intent.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          When they set your building on fire, you are definitely in a tight spot, boys.

          He probably should have R U N N O F T.

      • RJ says:

        should read up wind idiot… so the wind blows it into the structure…

  3. Doc says:

    Ask ANY cop why they don’t say, “to Protect & to Serve”, & they will tell you that it isn’t their job to “Protect” you; it’s their job to enforce the law. I read more & more of BLAITANT abuses of power by l.e.o.’s! They are annoyed because the public gives them little/no respect. They get none because they GIVE NONE.

    • BigJimTX says:

      I thought LAPD stopped using Protect and Serve back in the 90’s when they changed it to “We’ll treat you like a King.”

  4. notamobster says:

    an official briefed on the search told The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation was ongoing.

    Sheriff’s deputies were not trying to burn down the cabin with Dorner inside but simply flush him out, McMahon said.

    He was right in front of them. Literally. Across. The. Street.

    He may have caught a break when he found refuge in a vacant vacation cabin just across the street from a command post established for the hundreds of officers frantically searching for him.

    Despite a search that involved helicopters and bloodhounds and officers going door-to-door checking hundreds of cabins, Dorner remained out of sight until he was discovered Tuesday at the cabin near the command post.

  5. xenicalman says:

    I would think that Dorner, in planning his rampage, would have included, at the minimum, a gas mask, Maybe that’s why they used an incendiary gas device that would be next to impossible to defend against.

  6. R.D. Walker says:

    Whacked himself?

    Police initially weren’t sure if Dorner was killed by one of their bullets or by a fire that engulfed the cabin as they fired tear gas inside. Now they believe he died by his own hand as the cabin was going up in flames.

    “The information that we have right now seems to indicate that the wound that took Christopher Dorner’s life was self-inflicted,” sheriff’s Capt. Kevin Lacy told a news conference.

  7. R.D. Walker says:

    On the other hand, how much credibility do you give an article that would have you believe a flash suppressor is a silencer?

    Lacy, McMahon and others described a fierce firefight with bullets whizzing through trees and Dorner firing on officers every time they tried to get to their wounded comrades. Authorities said he equipped his weapon with a flash suppressor, masking the sound of the gunfire and the location it was coming from as he hit two of the first deputies to arrive.

    Damn, these people are ignorant about firearms.

  8. Locke n Load says:

    They’re more than ignorant about firearms, they’re happy to confuse the reader.

    Again, as Nota and RJ talked about, SEVEN burners can’t be expected to do ANYthing other than start a raging inferno in non time flat. The only question is whether they would have taken him alive had he chosen to leave the flames.
    Knowing the history of the Chicago police as they chased cop killers I say the obvious answer if no f’in way. The LAPD is easily as bad as Chicago’s, its a cop thing, you don’t leave a cop killer breathing.
    Screw all the nutty conspiracy ideas that they wanted to kill him to protect ‘secrets’ or something. Thats all absolute nonsense. They wanted him dead because he killed cops, thats really all they needed, thats the motivation. When an officer comes on here and tells me thats NOT how it works I might be swayed. Until then I’ll go with the history as I’ve witnessed it in Chicago and elsewhere.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I have no doubt in my mind they wanted him dead. Dorner sure made it easy for them to see him dead by shooting at them as they tried to assist the wounded and then, evidently, putting a round in his own head.

      Nobody is more responsible for Dorner’s death than Dorner.

      • Locke n Load says:

        Ultimately, yes. He set the damned stage, did he not? He was looking for a blaze of ‘glory’.
        The hardest thing about being one of those officers, at that point, would be to try and bring him in alive. I don’t think many of them had that in mind tho.

  9. Locke n Load says:

    And considering the length of our debate the other day I suppose I should leave a final clarification for those who might have read it.
    I don’t condone murder, period. I can make accomodations for heat of the moment reactions (like say, the guy who whacked the illegal raping his child) but when its premeditated…not likely. And especially not in the case of the police.
    I get the anger, I get the brotherhood. Ok.
    Thats just not justification in my mind for going out and denying a suspect’s 5th amendment right to a trial, as f’ed up as it may be.
    I will NEVER be comfortable with a militarized police force pushing the envelope and coming up with BS justifications for burning a man alive. His guilt or innocence is irrelevant. Point is, police canot be the judge/jury/ of that guilt or innocence. Thats why we have the police restrained by the 5th. They aren’t Rangers out clearing the field of insurgents, they’re domestic officers entrusted with upholding our constitutional system.
    They don’t get to go out and arrange a no-win for the defendant (burn to death OR die in a hail of bullets. you choose punk)

    You and I both know he likely would have come out shooting, yes. But the police MUST allow for a peaceful surrender. Burning that guy out with 7 incendiaries just tells me they weren’t in the mood for surrender. They wanted him dead, period.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      “But the police MUST allow for a peaceful surrender.”

      He didn’t want to surrender to them. He wanted to kill them.

      Again, eliminate the fact that Dorner was actively attempting to kill the police by shooting at them, and I wouldn’t argue with you at all.

      When a mad dog killer is actively attempting to kill police officers, however, I don’t expect them to pull back and wait him out. I expect them to kill him.

      If I was a police sniper, I would have been waiting for his big old bald jug to come into view so I could split it like a jack-o-lantern in the street. It would have been high fives all around and I would have slept like a baby that night.

      • Locke n Load says:

        “Again, eliminate the fact that Dorner was actively attempting to kill the police by shooting at them, and I wouldn’t argue with you at all.”

        2 cannisters might have allowed that conceit, 7 does not. You assume the shooting would have continued but to even allow for my scenario you have to assume it won’t. Get cover, prepare to return fire. Allow for him to exit hands up.
        They didn’t.

        “If I was a police sniper, I would have been waiting for his big old bald jug to come into view so I could split it like a jack-o-lantern in the street. It would have been high fives all around and I would have slept like a baby that night.”

        As would I. But they chose to flush him out, impying they understand the option for surrender. They chose NO options for surrender. That aint right.

        It isn’t EASY, I know that. but thats the bitch of the position and responsibility we assign with the badge.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          I am okay with the cops killing him. I don’t care how they did it. If I was there, I would have tried to kill him.

          If he started waving a white flag, I would have let him surrender. As long as I saw a gun in his hand, however, I would have killed him.

          I wouldn’t have backed off. I wouldn’t have waited him out. I would have killed him. If I had a fucking incendiary grenade, I would have launched it in the window. If he would have come running burning from the building, carrying a gun, I would have shot his on fire ass too.

          • Locke n Load says:

            And if he didn’t come out with a gun RD? Thats the whole point of my dissent.
            As hard as it is to swallow, they needed to allow for that option. 7 grenades pretty much proves they wanted to finish the job without further discussion, lmao.
            And yet… had the police stopped firing, would Dorner have continued? Do you KNOW he would have?
            How many pauses were there in the gunfire? Sure, reloading, etc. All the BS in the interim STILL allows for him to be a target for snipers.

            But then they burned him, not smoked him, burned him. And if you concede they weren’t going to allow him to walk away then you have to concede they almost certainly would have shot him, even unarmed.
            I have little faith in the restraint of cops hunting cop killers. I don’t see exactly how that might differ even if the crime of killing a cop was in self defense as opposed to premeditated murder. In my experience in Chicago, its made ZERO difference.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              I don’t care. He was shooting at the police and that is licence for the police to kill him. It is as simple as that. I don’t care if they dropped a Mark 84 bomb on him.

              Shooting at cops gets you killed. That isn’t new. That is the way it has always been.

            • Locke n Load says:


              Ahhh shit RD, I love arguing with you. But you refuse to try and see my arguments sometimes. You like arguing just as much as me, yer a born pain in the ass.

              Now look, we don’t have to BS this to death anymore, we don’t. But consider what I was saying about innocents wrongly accused and the use of force. Please. Your emotionally compromised logic allows for the police to burn the Davidians, you must see that.
              I’m not defending the dirtbag Dorner, I’m not at ALL.
              I’m trying to make a case for the proper restraint of police tactics.
              Love ya man.
              I tip another Crown to ya

            • R.D. Walker says:

              I get your argument. You have made yourself abundantly clear. I just don’t agree with you. I think killing Dorner was fine under the circumstances. I don’t agree that you have to negotiate with people trying to kill you. I don’t agree that you have to send in negotiators every time there is a pause in the shooting. I don’t agree you have to pull back and wait out killers. When someone is shooting at cops, cops have carte blanche to send the shooter off to sing with the invisible choir. It has always been this way and I am supportive of it.

          • Locke n Load says:

            Thats because you maintain a military mindset. Its alien to me and so I see when you cross boundries.

            None of what you proposed are absolutes. I wasn’t saying you MUST negotiate, only that you MUST leave open options that would allow for that opportunity.
            7 burners and a revenge mentality doesn’t do that. Hopefully they won’t use that justification on innocents who happened to take down aggressors in the wrong.
            I’m talking about principle.

            Btw, Crown is great with almond Hersheys. Just sayin

            • R.D. Walker says:

              If it was a military situation in a time of war, I would have hit him with frags and incendiaries whether he was shooting at me or not. As soon as I saw his mug peek out the window he would have been torched; no shooting by him necessary.

  10. Locke n Load says:

    There is a bizarre precedent here tho RD, though you may not agree. The public cheered his execution. Unlike Waco they actually enjoyed the show. The police haven’t been vilified for excess, they’ve been granted the special exemption, the ‘cop killer’ rule, and now they see its acceptable as a tactic to burn people out. Waco infuriated people by virtue of the horrendous tactics, not the innocence of the Branch Davidians. To this DAY they still call the Davidians whackjobs.

    There will come days when they use this tactic on innocents that fired back at cops. A new grey area has been opened up. This can NOT be applauded.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      “…and now they see its acceptable as a tactic to burn people out. “

      There has never been a time in American history, in circumstances like these, that it wasn’t acceptable.

      I am a little surprised that you see Branch Davidians as somehow the moral equivalent of Dorner. They were peaceful religious weirdos who were attacked by federal agents. Dorner was a inveterate killer who attacked the police.

      • Locke n Load says:

        I don’t see them as moral equivalents, not even close. What I’m saying is the Waco incident was roundly criticized for their tactics. Nobody came down on their side in the press as innocents. They were whackjobs according to every account. But the TACTICS were obscene to those of us who watched.

        In BOTH cases the 5th amendment rights of the accused were discarded. Again, it isn’t about guilt or innocence, its about the mandate of domestic police to honor the constitutional rights of the citizens they engage. And that 5th applies to both innocent AND guilty.

        Every incident that blurs that line, that sets precedent against the 5th…yes, I have a problem with it.
        Personally I would have liked to be a sniper in a tree looking for Dorner’s kill shot, that SOB, in MY opinion, needed to die. But it isn’t my choice ultimately, ESPECIALLY if they attempt to flush him out with smoke.
        Which we’ve determined wasn’t actually smoke but a choice: die by fire or die in a hail of bullets.
        If you concede they were going to kill him either way then you have to understand the logic of my argument

        • R.D. Walker says:

          If, instead of holing up in the mountains and engaging in a firefight with the police, Dorner would have walked unarmed into, say, a place of business and asked the proprietor to call the police, they wouldn’t have killed him. They would have arrested him.

          He didn’t do that, however. He decided to kill the police. They, therefore, had every right to kill him back.

          This isn’t a new escalation of police work. This isn’t a slippery slope. This is as it always was and always will be.

          Hell, Bonnie Parker and Clyde Barrow were flat out ambushed and lit up without warning. Compared to that, this was positively genteel.

          • Locke n Load says:

            There are ALWAYS pauses in gunfire. Stop it, you know this.
            He didn’t have an automated heat-sighted 50 cal mounted on the roof, operating without control, firing incessantly. He had the opportunity to stop. And there WERE pauses in the gunfire.

            Cease Fire.
            What would have happened? Again, this isn’t Ramadi, this is a lone nutjob in the mountains. Whatever happened to police negotiators? How are you so certain it couldn’t have been de-escalated?
            This is where we diverge RD.
            I totally agree with your argument but only in the military paradigm. That paradigm insists the enemy WON’T stop. Civilian has to allow for, and push for, the alternative.

          • Locke n Load says:

            And Bonnie and Clyde weren’t holed up with the potential for surrender. That said, I don’t know if they suggested surrender or not. If they just blasted away then perhaps it wasn’t the most ethical play, lol.
            Again, surrender must be offered. If the situation changes in such a way as to produce a standoff and temporary pauses in hostilities, even more so.
            I mean you’re acting as if there have never been police standoffs where the police backed off to de-escalate. thats absurd.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              It wasn’t offered. Hell, the cops decided beforehand that they wouldn’t yell “halt” because it would just give them warning. It was a classic linear ambush.

              Dillinger was ambushed by the police and shot in the back.

              This is nothing new. Hell, compared to Bonnie and Clyde and John Dillinger, Dorner was given a sporting chance.

            • Locke n Load says:

              All murders in the view of the constitution, all condoned by our personal extra-constitutional desire for justice.

              I want my own form of justice, yes. But I don’t trust that form of justice in the hands of cops generally, and especially NOW, what with Drones and them qualifying any dissenters from Herr Obama’s dictates as potential terrorists.
              Be careful how much leeway you give them, they’ll take EVERY inch and then more

            • R.D. Walker says:

              If someone is shooting at me, I will do my best to kill him quick while it is still justified… and I am a civilian.

              Dude. It’s common law. It is basic. It is fundamental.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              “I mean you’re acting as if there have never been police standoffs…”

              I have never said it isn’t an option. I have stated it isn’t required.

            • Locke n Load says:

              So when does restaint play in? Ever?

            • R.D. Walker says:

              Restraint is always an option.

            • Locke n Load says:

              “I have never said it isn’t an option. I have stated it isn’t required.”

              Well, i’d say it absolutely must be a consideration. The commands come down from off site. Its not like the whole thing is run by those in the firefight and amped up to finish the job.

              it SHOULD be required RD, our 5th demands it. That we allow for this grey area is a testament to our faith in the best intentions of our police.
              I no longer HAVE that faith. I’m actually surprised, to use your words, to hear that you DO.

              That logic leads us into situations where the police are granted the benefit of the doubt when they shouldn’t be. It gives them cover by virtue of your acceptance of some extra-constitutional discretion which I cannot fathom. Again, this is your military training talking, not your libertarian side.

            • R.D. Walker says:

              Dude, you can’t claim 5th Amendment rights while you are shooting at the cops. You can’t claim any rights of any kind when you are shooting at other people. When you are shooting at other people, you are surrendering your right to your life. It is common sense. When you are attempting to take others’ lives, you surrender your own right to have your life protected.

              When you don’t have a right to your life, you don’t have any rights.

              This shouldn’t even be up for debate, especially by someone with John Locke for an avatar.

            • Locke n Load says:

              Thats the whole point of a Cease Fire!
              I agree with you if theres no such thing but you constantly argue as if there ISN”T

            • Locke n Load says:

              Of course I’m not surprised you recognised the profile as Locke. he’s also sporting a pistol, lol

          • Locke n Load says:

            Whats your drink tonight? 🙂

            You’re arguing in absolutes RD, the civilian world isn’t always that easy. I don’t believe cops are always right. I think they’re often wrong. I tend to trust their judgment but in this case I see bloodlust, not law

            • R.D. Walker says:

              Nothing wrong with a little bloodlust as long as it is within the law. This was.

              Dos Equis.

            • Locke n Load says:

              Aha! Mexican beer! that explains it.
              F’in socialists have infected their beer with anti-libertarian viri 🙂

            • Locke n Load says:

              Nuts. Outta Crown. Budweiser. Ugh.
              I have to try your personal stash

            • R.D. Walker says:

              What is it that you are drinking that makes your heart bleed for mad dog, spree killers? A white wine spritzer?

            • Locke n Load says:

              ??!! Fuck you 🙂
              I’m drinking a fine whiskey blend produced by pussy pacifists if you ust know.
              And my heart doesn’t bleed for the shitbird.
              I just see a motivation, a justification, that could be extended to the both of us if we defended our homes against unlawful seizure. Or anything.

  11. R.D. Walker says:

    Important Safety Tip: Do not shoot at the police.

  12. Locke n Load says:

    Agreed. The law obviously doesn’t apply to them.
    RD says so

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I said no such thing. The law applies to them and the law says that if someone is shooting at the police, the police get to use deadly force to get them to stop it.

      Try to keep up, huh?

  13. Locke n Load says:


  14. Locke n Load says:

    And this was ONLY within the law if you accept the police are NOT accountable to the law, that theyn have special discretion.
    I am NOT in favor of that interpretation, obviously

  15. Locke n Load says:

    Don’t change the topic sir, I never said the police don’t have the right to return fire and use ‘deadly force’. I said the police don’t have the right to escalate to the point of denying the suspect the right to surrender. You assume he wouldn’t have. The police assume same. I pretty much agree BUT the laws (must) insist there be an opportunity for surrender. C’mon man, admit it. We’re only allowing the cops to go kill these guys (like Dorner and Clyde) because we grant them that extra-constitutional right. Call it common law, whatever. We put the perp in a situation where he CAN’T exorcise that right and we’ve broken the spirit of the constitution, no?
    I dunno the specifics RD, ya got me. But I’m willing to bet that the ‘law’ suggests that 5th amendment rights be the goal.

    I need to get back to booking my indecently hyper-caloric indulgences on the cruise, 10th anniversary you know. I owe her a proper honeymoon for cryin out loud.

    I love this argument but think we aren’t going to solve it online. If you want to continue this, call me, roflmao

    • R.D. Walker says:

      Sure, people can surrender. Best to do it before it is too late.

      You can surrender right up to the point that a bullet enters your skull or an incendiary device lands between your feet. At that point, you have waited too long to surrender. Dead men can’t surrender.

      Your argument is tantamount to saying that deadly force is always unjustified because its successful use necessarily creates a situation in which it becomes impossible to surrender.

      • Locke n Load says:

        Oh BS. and you know it.
        and yer fat.
        (that was my brothers favorite way to end an argument, must be something to it)

  16. R.D. Walker says:

    You get the last word tonight. I gots to gets some shut-eye. Be sure to turn out the lights and lock the door when you are done here.

  17. Locke n Load says:

    Lol. I have to go book excusrions on the cruise. And dinner.
    Wifey likes it all handled FOR her.
    Damned traditional women, argh 🙂


  18. Locke n Load says:

    This officially ends my attempt to impersonate an ACLU atty.
    I think I made my arguments clear.
    Jim, Gail… hope you were entertained

  19. notamobster says:

    You two are a trip. RD is right on this. Just saying…

  20. Locke n Load says:

    Spoken by an ex-military ex-cop.
    Just sayin

  21. Locke n Load says:

    Whaaaaaat, you figured I’d let that slide?\
    Bring it.

  22. Locke n Load says:

    Dogginit Nota, the difference between military and police actions MUST be well defined. If we don’t draw that line then the bastards are going to get public and press support for actions against LEGAL resistance

  23. notamobster says:

    Any person in existence has my blessing to kill any other person who is trying to kill them first, in an unjustified manner, without regard to either party’s station or position in life or government.

    It’s really that simple. Your argument makes a lot of presumptions and what-ifs. It’s pretty black & white. When someone is actively trying to kill you, you can kill them back.

    • Locke n Load says:

      I presume the law ‘assumes’ the police don’t have a single goal: kill the bastard.
      Your argument allows unlimited police powers without guidelines or constitutional limitations.

      • notamobster says:

        Their goal doesn’t matter. Their motives are irrelevant in THIS case. Motives be damned, they were justified by the threat he posed in actively seeking to kill them, by shooting at them. It’s that simple.

        You can make all of the suppositions you like, but the fact remains that it was his actions – at those moments – which got him killed.

        The day may very well come, that I am killed by police for shooting at them when they try to seize my weapons. I will die. Some of them will die. Their actions will be illegal, but I’ll be just as dead.

        The difference is – in THIS case – their actions were not illegal. They were not unjustified. He was not defending his rights. He was the aggressor.

        • Locke n Load says:

          I agree he was the aggressor. I agree he was pushing the buttons. What I don’t understand, or agree with, is the rush to burn him. You and I both know he wasn’t getting out of that cabin, armed or hands up, alive.
          They could have launched 1 or 2 grenades but didn’t.
          That would have allowed for a surrender but they absolutely, positively, took that out of the equation. Deliberately.
          Thats wrong Nota, period.
          They didn’t allow for surrender when they escalated, thats the point.

          Yes, they had the right to fire back. Yes, they had the right to position snipers and kill him in the house. Yes, they had the right to launch gas!

          But by launching the SEVEN grenades they escalated it to a different situation wherein the suspect had to flee and surrender or burn. And they never would have let him live.

          That could be you or me down the road. the police MUST understand that when they escalate in this fashion there MUST be an allowance for surrender. Otherwise we allow them to kill extra-judiciously by virtue of ‘circumstances’ when in reality they just cover their true intent.
          As a man who believe the death penalty is wrong, how can you possibly justify this?

          • BigJimTX says:

            This is precisely where you and I agree. Burn that mf’r out was not anything but a call to end this like the drone gang would (before the SOTU).

            • Locke n Load says:

              TY Jim. So far yer the only one who gets this. Thats the WHOLE POINT OF MY ARGGHHHHHHument 🙂

              When they escalated it to escape or burn, they HAD to offer surrender. I have NO doubt that was a false choice for that ratbastard Dorner and he knew it.

    • Locke n Load says:

      And you’re absolutely, positively, misrepresenting my argument.

      • BigJimTX says:

        When would be an acceptable time to call truce? I see your point and agree, but if the sumbitch is shooting, shoot back.

        • Locke n Load says:

          Ya know what? thats the part that I pause, when I understand where RD and Nota come from.

          I say if you don’t even call for a cease fire you haven’t even offered the option. They didn’t. They were on a kill mission. In this case, as in many other cop killer hunts, that isn’t even part of the equation. I want it to be. Its important now. The f’er’s are armed as well as the military and have us encircled in a surveilance society. The traditional agreement of societal protection seems, to me, to be altered. My spidey senses are tingling like crazy

          • BigJimTX says:

            Let’s say Dorner locked himself in a cabin. Never fired a shot after the two game wardens. I’m 1000% with you. However, once he started shooting, who’s going to believe him when he says “I was just kidding guys, I’ll just come right out”? Not this guy. Police NEED a leash. This guy used up all he was given. The time to surrender had passed. Should he have been burned to death? I don’t think so. Should he have been killed? Not if you could get him to go peacefully. He wasn’t worth another officers life. Period.

            • Locke n Load says:

              “This guy used up all he was given”

              He may have Jim, he may have. And thats the judgement call you’re willing to grant the police. Because you trust them.
              I no longer do.
              Again, the question becomes ‘are the police even willing to allow for the option of surrender?’
              If they aren’t then they are murderers. And thats how I read their approach.

            • BigJimTX says:

              I don’t trust that the police have my best interests at heart. My outlook on this deal is that on one side there is a guy that has vowed to use whatever unconventional methods available to kill cops. On the other side is a bunch of guys that just want to survive till the end of shift.

              No letter, no premature incrimination. However, there was a letter. Like I said, I think lighting his ass up like an Aggie bonfire was way out of line, but he did make very clear that his end result in this ordeal was death, as per his dissertation.

            • Locke n Load says:

              Absolutely understand Jim. And for that reason I give the police a pass on their biases.
              Still, once the situation is escalated to flee or die, they HAD to allow for surrender. I simply don’t believe they EVER intended him to live as evidenced by SEVEN burners.

            • BigJimTX says:

              No arguement here. Seven burners in a small wood cabin and he was in for a hot night. If anything comes of this, it should be the guy that made that call. Somebody consciously made that call knowing full well that there was no way out.

  24. Locke n Load says:

    “Any person in existence has my blessing to kill any other person who is trying to kill them first, in an unjustified manner, without regard to either party’s station or position in life or government.”

    Strawman argument, you know it. I’m not arguing self defense, I’m arguing police restraint or procedure.
    Stay on point my friend 🙂

    • notamobster says:

      I’m precisely on point. Police are NOT REQUIRED to exercise restraint when they are being shot at!!! Their procedure allows for them to exercise deadly force to eliminate the threat.

      Strawman my ass, quit trying to divert attention. 🙂

      • Locke n Load says:

        BS. You STILL aren’t allowing for the possibility of a pause in the firing. And you refuse to address my point abut 7 vs 1 cannister.
        Love ya Nota, but your argument is a strawman when considered against my premise.

      • Locke n Load says:

        Just. Quit. Firing.
        See what happens.
        Is that actually insane?
        Why isn’t that a strategy?
        How long would they guy have fired if not fired upon?
        Are you suggesting the guy had unlimited ammo and the need to NEVER quit shooting? BS. You know it.

        • BigJimTX says:

          This whole deal was mismanaged. There is no way you could get everybody to stop firing. One guy would shoot and the rest of them would unload again. This was a fly by the seat of the pants deal and there was probably little anybody could do to stop it. I realize that this is the biggest part of the problem, but in the middle of the woods and a bunch of guys on edge enough to shoot civilians, how do you stop that? No excuse for it, but logistically, how do you calm down a bunch of rabid dogs?

          • Locke n Load says:

            Ask the commander who demanded they burn that f’er out.
            I dunno Jim, I just don’t.
            I know those police had mutliple motivations. But I also know the commander played the situation to the hilt and probably knew they all were on the same page: kill the bastard.
            I don’t want to be the guy thats in that situation. I don’t want to have cops believing they can fire at will and kill out of vengeance, because one of their own went down. Thats where I see the parallell with Waco.
            Thos ATF bastards were hellbent on killing the folks that killed their own, regardless of who caused it.

            Again, we CAN’T encourage the police to believe the deathly silence of their targets will protect them against the unconstitutionality of their actions.

            I will NOT absolve the people I trust with defending the 5th from adhereing to it!

            Cops murdering cop killers is vengeance, nothing more. And while this case is a mess, it still strikes me as an abuse/clusterfuck

  25. Locke n Load says:

    Good lord I am TIRED of making this point.
    If I’m the only one seeing it this way does that mean I must be wrong?
    Sorry, not budging.
    Unless you can convince me those cops intended to bring him in I’m not moving an inch on this

    • BigJimTX says:

      There’s no way they intended to bring him in. I don’t think you’ll find anybody here (or likely there) that would contest that. The justification for that decision seems to be the sticking point. You argue that there is little justification where RD and Nota argue that there is plenty. I see both sides. There is plenty in my mind when considering the intent of Dorner. He made no secret as to his intentions to bring death and vengeance to the LAPD. However, the LAPD does not, or should not have the power to execute anybody – cop killer or not. We will never know the real story behind the standoff. We will never be privy to the whole truth.

      What we do know (from a media that fawned over this guy) is that he was a piece of shit that wanted to kill because he was upset about somebody doing him wrong. There were a bunch of cops that were scared to death out there. Enough so that they were shooting up neighborhoods, tall white guys, and old Mexican women. They wanted to get home alive and nothing you are going to tell them would ensure that other than Dorners ass roasting over an open fire. I think in this instance, officer safety trumps his willingness to submit because he made his intentions abundantly clear that he would make their losses plentiful if given the chance.

      We have the benefit of hindsight here. They did not. We know more than they did then. We cannot hold that against them. There will be instances where somebody’s rights are trampled without cause, and I hope we fight the good fight for them. He was probably not given extraordinary opportunity to surrender, but he could have done so when he was across from the search hq.

      • Locke n Load says:

        Deftly straddled Jim, but I’m not budging from my side of the fence.
        I expect more. I’m sure I’ll be disappointed regularly, but I expect more. And I’m still worried about exactly what this says about our adherence to constitutional principles, and how we can defend them in the future against public opinion that will argue precedent, like RD did with Bonnie and Clyde. Remember please that the press will NEVER make the philosophical distinctions we will, will NEVER argue good and evil like us. They will always see the Davidians as evil for having fired back, will always see RubY Ridge the same way. I’m in NO mood to hand them that bludgeon.

        This isn’t a good road to go down. Its lawless and destructive. We will regret it. Lord forgive me if the ACLU agrees

  26. BigJimTX says:

    On that note: I’m out. I’ll catch up with you later. I still have to vent about the libs I was arguing with tonight about minimum wage, guns, and obamacare. Awesome evening. It was good to come home and talk to y’all.

  27. Jim22 says:

    I still want to know who was using automatic weapons. The sound of three round bursts and longer was quite plain in that first video. Are the CHP or the San Berdoo sheriff’s people carrying M16’s? When did that start?

  28. R.D. Walker says:

    How can a person simultaneously and logically support stand-your-ground laws and maintain that police who are being shot at must pull back and eschew deadly force?

    • Jim22 says:

      Boy. You don’t give up, do you RD?

      Keep pushing the buttons and this will become the longest thread of all.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        “You don’t give up, do you RD?”

        Only after everyone else does.

        • Uke says:

          RD is practicing the rhetorical equivalent of total victory through absolute military destruction. The surest way to achieve peace is when the opposition surrenders unconditionally.

          I’ve been accused of this WAY too often. Paraphrase from various family members, dozens of times: “Stop! Stop! Enough! You won’t be satisfied until you’ve pummeled this topic to death, so I’ve had it! You win, okay??”


          • Locke n Load says:

            we’re both incorrigible that way.
            immovable object, meet unstoppable force. now play nice 🙂

    • Locke n Load says:

      I have to get driving so I can’t play along today. Instead I’ll answer the Stand Your Ground confusion this way…
      Remember what Zimmerman did that was problematic when he claimed/assumed SYG would be a valid defense?
      He Pursued the suspect.
      He escalated the situation to a point where deadly force was needed.

      As for the police shooting back, again, of course they can but as trained Badge wearin defenders of the constitution they ARE held to a different standard. They will outnumber their suspects, they will have the resources needed to bring dangerous murderous thugs into cutody.

      It seems almost too obvious to me that a cop and a civilian have the same right to self defense, but different imperatives in the exercise thereof. A homeowner is granted legal relief from damages because a: he has the right to defend his home and b: he is not expected to have the same training as police and wonn’t be help liable for murder if he shoots a man in the back, in his home.
      A cop won’t get that leeway. Why? Because they have a different standard, an implied mandate. They are professionals. Police are supposed to be pursuing for capture.
      Yeah, that firefight made it look like the guns were constantly blazing but they actually weren’t. There were pauses over the time they had him cornered.

      That is all, I’m outta here. 600 miles to drive today

      • R.D. Walker says:

        So, what? The cops were within their rights to shoot back but were of the wrong mindset when they were doing it? So they were engaging in a hate crime, thought crime or something like that?

        I mean, you seem to be arguing that you can respond to deadly force with deadly force but that the problem here is that the police wanted him dead. It isn’t their actions that are wrong, but their actions combined with their state of mind: Thought crime.

        • Locke n Load says:

          Is premeditated murder a thought crime?

          • R.D. Walker says:

            Premeditation isn’t a crime. Murder is a crime. Premeditation in conjunction with murder, makes the crime of murder worse. Premeditation without murder isn’t even a minor misdemeanor. It is legal.

  29. Locke n Load says:

    Its not the mindset so much, its the fact that the mindset probably interfered with their primary responsibility to bring him in alive. Look, I’m obviously no expert in police SOP but I have to believe that they have different responibilities in their pursuit of a perp. I can say that because laws regarding civilian/personal use of force have always said as much. They craft the laws by outlining differences and similarities.
    The badge has responsibilities because of the training. If I get in a fistfight and kill someone its self defense. If I’m a blackbelt and do the same its possibly murder. Why? Training.

    This has nothing to do with ‘thought crimes’, its about the distinction between civilian vs military vs police acceptable responses. There are different standards for each. And escalating to the point of certain death (fire or live-fire) seems to me something that entirely precludes the possibility of the perps rights being protected.
    As much as I like that he’s dead, it wasn’t the ideal outcome. I would have preferred trial then ol Sparky. Giving the police this much leeway, as good as it seems when the guy is obviously a bad dude deserving of death, allows for a grey area that could eventually bite US in the ass.

  30. notamobster says:

    If I get in a fistfight and kill someone its self defense. If I’m a blackbelt and do the same its possibly murder. Why? Training.

    That’s pure Hollywood bullshit. The legal standard is the reasonable man test. There is no substitute for the exceptional man. The determining factors will be the causal elements, the actual engagement, and the outcome. If the outcome required self-defense (including the perception of mortal danger), the engagement by any means necessary to end the threat, are justified by the causal elements. Your level of skill or training are immaterial.

  31. rj says:

    Wow I gotta stir the pot just a little.

    As one who has chased cop killers, fought rapist into cuffs, child abusers into patrol cars, as a twelve year SWAT operator, six as long range marksman, I know the outrage, I feel the adrenalin, I fight the urge to give a extra punch after the cuffs are on, or pull the trigger when a bad guy pops his head up for a look out out of his barricaded position, but I don’t give in to the urge, that is what separates us.

    I’m not sure who said it but I agree, when fighting monsters take care you don’t become one yourself.

    That incident from surrounding him and setting up a perimeter onward was a Flustercuck It ran on emotion not rational process. “burn the mother fucker out” said it all.

    Granted the dirtbagkiller probably deserved killing, If he was actively shooting and targeting perimeter officers, then by all means shoot back, snipe his ass, if he is behind a wall shooting indiscrimantly out a window,shoot through the wall if necessary to stop the threat.

    Intentionally setting fire to end a barricade person is unconventional at best, intentionally escalating to provoke suspect into either exiting the structure to a hail of gunfire, exiting with hands up, dying of the fire, or self destruction at worst.

    I’m with Locke on this one, no way in hell you escalate in this situation, there were too many other options.

    Our system demands we offer the possibility of a day in court and not the option of being burned out of hiding or offing yourself.

    Otherwise we become the monster we pursue.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      “Our system demands we offer the possibility of a day in court and not the option of being burned out of hiding or offing yourself.”

      See, the thing is, our system doesn’t offer that; not under these circumstances. None of the police who were involved in taking down Dorner are going to be charged with a crime or disciplined.

      I think Locke’s position differed slightly in that he was saying the system is flawed and needs to be changed so that the police can’t take a man out like this.

      As I said elsewhere, if Dorner was just holed up, I would 100% agree with Locke. He wasn’t, however.

      He was shooting at the cops. He was shooting at them as they tried to assist an injured cop. He said he wanted to kill cops. He had followed through and killed cops.

      When cops are under fire, I don’t believe they have either a legal or moral obligation to withdraw from the firefight and give a spree killer time to make his next move… even if there is the possibility that his next move is to surrender.

      You take an active shooter down and you do it with extreme prejudice.

      Locke seems concerned that the cops killed him in a state of anger and hate rather than in a antiseptic, emotionless manner.

      I submit that their state of mind is irrelevant if it was a legal take down.

      None of this means I support the police shooting first and asking questions later. Or killing bad guys in custody. Or shooting at people who aren’t shooting back.

      But when someone is shooting at you, every law from English Common law to 21st century law says you get to shoot back.

      If you can kill somebody by shooting him in the face, you can kill him other ways too. At least that’s the way I see it.

      • Locke n Load says:

        Actually RD, RJ just summed up my position better that you. He understood exactly what I was saying. Restraint, if it is an option, has to be exercised.

        I don’t know if the system is flawed, I do know that we allow cops to whack cop-killers by ignoring the perps 5th amendment rights all too often. The public feeds on these things and takes sides based on emotion, not law or logic. Thats why I asked if we’d become Rome, bloodlust and all.

        As for their state of mind when they decided to burn him out, yes, it DOES matter. It by no means follows that there was a thought crime though. What that means is that the commander in charge of the operation exercised extremely poor judgement and let the mob mentality infuse his reaction. We both know that would be part of any prosecution if indeed there ever was one. Atty’s would absolutely ask for the justification of the choice, and they’d be correct in doing so.

        As it stands there won’t be any consequences for his burn order. the public has condoned it as is evidenced by even Fox calling anyone who thought the burn was on a purpose a conspiracy nut. That IS troublesome. It may have always been thus, but its particularly troublesome in an increasingly militarized force and an expanding surveilance state. It allows for the likes of Ruby Ridge and Waco because we allways grant the cops the benefit of the doubt. We shouldn’t.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          “Restraint, if it is an option, has to be exercised.”

          You can say it until you are blue in the face but it doesn’t make it the law of the land. They called for his surrender and he kept firing. How many times must law enforcement beg an active shooter to give up before they take him down?

      • rj says:

        first under the circumstances if he was actively shooting at officers, and they fire back no problem by me, if they chose tear gas with intention of forcing his surrender, great, if they chose incenary tear gas hoping to burn the cabin around him, forcing him to exit gun in hand so they could kill him, or kill himself to avoid burning to death shame on them.

        if our system did not offer the hope of a day in court we’d still issue wanted dead or alive and shoot fleeing felons, we currently do neither.

        • notamobster says:

          Short of duct taping a gun to his hand, there is absolutely nothing the police could have done to force him to exit the cabin, gun in hand. Tie a pillow case to a broom handle. Call 911 and tell em you’re surrendering – hands held high. He had a fricking week to call KTLA and say – I want to turn myself in. You have an exclusive, if you film my surrender to insure my safety. He didn’t do that. He wanted to go out like some old west gunfighter. Instead, he offed himself like a bitch. His actions were entirely in his control and he dictated his end.

    • Locke n Load says:

      Well done RJ, you summarized my points well. Glad you understood what I was trying to explain.

      It is wrong, simply wrong to allow the police the latitude RD is willing to give them by pretending a situation canot be de-escalated. There were too many other options than taking this to the nth level like they did. I remain convinced those cops had NO intention, ever, of letting him out alive. By playing this angle RD is advocating we give them license to become animals.

      I was never arguing the police can’t fire back. Ever. Hell, I advocated for a sniper somewhere back there…
      What I have said over and over again is that restraint wasn’t part of the approach, wasn’t exercised, and probably wasn’t even considered. Cease Fire is a perfectly legit strategy when your men have good cover, the guy holed up and isolated, and you have a 200 man advantage AND a double perimeter.
      There were simply too many other ways to do this.
      The cops had no intention of letting him out.
      It was murder. Furthermore, it was murder that has been glorified and cheered.

      • R.D. Walker says:

        Your logic is a dog’s breakfast of inconsistency.

        It’s okay to kill him with lead but not fire. It’s okay to kill him coolly but not emotionally. Citizens under attack can stand their ground and use deadly force but not police.

        Again, you can say it is murder but when you are shooting at the police and they kill you, it isn’t murder in the California or anywhere else in the United States. It never has been and it should never be.

  32. BigJimTX says:

    Because this thread isn’t quite long enough. If we are talking about police action and responsibility, then I’d like to propose a scenario for discussion.

    No knock raid. Wrong house. Homeowner defends and successfully stops the raid with severe police casualties. Homeowner heard them scream “Police” but he knows that he is a simple law abiding man with no business for the police and suspects that a criminal force has kicked the door and is just trying to deceive him.

    There is a lull in the firefight and he is able to have his wife call the police who then inform here that they are on site currently.

    What are the chances the homeowner gets out alive? What are the consequences if (1) he is killed or (2) he is allowed to surrender?

    With the frequency of these no knock raids, this is actually a scenario that bothers me.

    Not the same because there was no letter of intent, but along the same lines because the homeowner is now a cop killer.

    Thanks for playing along.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      It bothers me too. People have been killed and will continue to be killed in no-knock raids.

      I don’t know what the outcome of your scenario would be. It sounds like the opening chapter of a John Grisham novel to be followed by 400 pages of lawyers, judges, courtrooms and juries.

    • Locke n Load says:

      Well Jim, seeing as we apparently live in a society that will accept any explanation offered by the press, and as the press doesn’t like gunowners…. Yeah, you should be concerned. Thats where the Waco angle comes into play. Think of the press they received.

      I say if the police know this, and DHS and BATF understand the press can be counted on for support then we’ve just added fuel to the fire by NOT questioning the ‘burn him out’ call. Every time we let that happen, and don’t protest it or demand an inquiry, we add another precedent that folks will use to disregard the story. Even extremely well intentioned people like RD play the ‘it has always been thus’ card.
      It shouldn’t be damnit. The police have a very serious responsibility, we entrust them with it. If we never question them on their use of that trust then they’ll eventually distort their mandate into grotesque forms.
      The burn is exactly the type of situation that allows them to do this.

      At the very least there should be an inquiry and public review. The asshat who ordered the burn should be disciplined. At a minimum.

      • Locke n Load says:

        Its too blasted late to go into it futher but I’ll be thinking about your scenario.. Thats what I’m worrying about as well. Our government is going rogue. Now more than ever we better be able to make the case for restraint.

        • R.D. Walker says:

          You are abandoning common law simplicity and logic for leftist overreach.

          In the simplest terms, if unjust deadly force is being used against you, you are allowed to use it in return. In using deadly force, an attacker is relieved of his right to not have it used against him.

          Your logic, taken to its extreme, results in laws that say a citizen must abandon his home rather than shoot a home invader.

          Your logic, taken to its extreme, results in laws like those in Britain in which a citizen defending his life against attack gets charged with murder.

          Your logic, taken to its extreme, provides criminals, once surrounded, time to plan their next move as the police pull back and eschew deadly force.

          We are all suspicious of government in its current form and I don’t trust, say, TSA agents with guns or deadly force of any kind under any circumstances. That doesn’t mean, however, that the concept of response-in-kind should be abandoned.

          Dorner absolutely, positively WAS NOT murdered (that is axiomatic since he shot himself) and I am pretty disgusted by the radical thinking that says he was. Any reasonable interpretation of common law and natural rights allows for the use of deadly force in response to deadly force. He was killed justly and legally and on terms that he himself dictated.

          • Locke n Load says:

            I’m sorry man, I have no idea how you think my logic in any way leads to ANY of what you just suggested. It takes a deliberate misreading of what I’m saying to do so.

            Enough. I’m tired of the argument. We’re going to have to agree to disagree.

    • notamobster says:

      Jim – in Louisiana Revised Statute, a citizen is specifically absolved of responsibility for any actions taken to evade or avoid illegal arrest. That’s how it should be everywhere.

  33. R.D. Walker says:

    What about Charles Whitman? Was he murdered by police too? Once they got everyone out of range, shouldn’t they have just waited him out so he could surrender?

  34. Uke says:

    I find Bob Owens echoes my sentiments on this matter very well:

    Dorner claimed to have explosives in his manifesto.

    He’s professed his wish to kill as many officers as possible in his blaze of glory. Dorner has initiated and returned fire at every possible opportunity. He’s killed five so far. Should there be more?

    Do you send in a tactical team into a situation where you might expect the suspect to have an IED? No responsible commander who valued the lives of his men would.

    Do you merely set up a perimeter, and hope that his insanity of the past week suddenly fades? Do you take the chance that he’s pie a corner from the dark of the cabin, and kill yet again? Do you run the risk of him charging your men, getting off more rounds that might widow and orphan more?

    Dorner had a week to surrender, on his own terms.

    He had chance to surrender at any part of the long process of the bobcat knocking down parts of the exterior walls. He had another chance to surrender when the tear gas was deployed.

    It is my judgement that the on-scene commander mad the rational, morally-correct, and legally-justifiable call.

    If there were absolutely no context for this log cabin standoff, then we might be able to say that they were overly aggressive in their takedown. However, there was a veritable cornucopia of data pointing towards the commander on the ground having made the right call. There is no reason to believe with any certainty that Dorner would have been unwilling/unable to blow the cabin to kingdom come if a breaching team were given the green light.

    We were dealing with an individual that not only wasn’t going to come quietly, but one that wanted to go out in a blaze. You can’t treat such people the same way you treat rational individuals that don’t have a death wish.

    Not unless you have your own death wish.

    • Locke n Load says:

      see, thats a compelling argument.

      • notamobster says:

        Oh MY GAWD! We’ve made all of those points above!!! Take a nap! And you other people… stop encouraging him!

      • Locke n Load says:


      • R.D. Walker says:

        Context is all I ever talked about. The context was that he was shooting at the police. The context was that he said he wouldn’t be taken alive. The context was that he was an established spree killer.

        If the context was that he was just some guy with a gun, holed up and making threats, everything would be different.

  35. Locke n Load says:

    I’m driving in the land of bluehairus horriblus, a dangerous beast. must watch road, not keyboard.
    I’m gonna have to 86 myself from this for the day

  36. notamobster says:

    Still butt-hurt over Dorner’s suicide

    WRITTEN BY: BOB – FEB• 18•13

    Uncle’s still mad that I called radical libertarians “morally repulsive” for wanting to give Dorner another chance at a final blaze of glory on his terms, where he might manage to make another cop’s wife into a widow.

    I’ve arrived at the conclusion that we’re simply going to disagree, strongly, over whether or nor the San Bernadino Sheriff’s Office acted rationally and legally in the way they attempted to flush out Dorner.

    If you still want to bitch, the comments are yours.

    • R.D. Walker says:

      I wanted to respond to this but every response I could think of was something I have already said in this thread a minimum of five times.