February 17, 2013

"How the police handled this — they were the judge, the jury and the executioner."

"As an American citizen, you have the right to a trial and due process by law."

129 comments:

betamax3000 said...

Dang. I thought we had segued from Fitzgerald sentences to Mickey Spillane.

betamax3000 said...

And in the photograph the requisite guy with the Guy Fawkes mask. It is becoming to this generation what the Smiley Button was for the Seventies.

Mitchell the Bat said...

“The bottom line is the deputy sheriffs of this department, and the law enforcement officers from the surrounding area, did an outstanding job,” he said. “They ran into the line of fire.”

I'm going to give the Sheriff the benefit of the doubt and assume he has additional support for his proposition that was not reported in the news article.

a SWVA liz said...

LA and/or surrounding area police don't seem to have changed much in the last 62 years. We had specific instructions in drivers ed. Basically it was on how not to get shot by the police while operating your car.

Lem said...

Maybe the LAPD has a list of its own.

From this vantage point... the anti-Muslim video shooter is very lucky.

MadisonMan said...

The protesters have a point. They may lack some facts, but the shooting of people who looked like Dorner/drove cars like Dorner's points to a Police Force not in control.

Police hate it when they're not in control.

Pogo said...

The police serve and protect.

Just not you.

Bob R said...

LA, where there is no better way to protest an incompetent police force than to glorify multiple murders.

James Pawlak said...

Unless I have been misinformed there are "tear gas" projectiles which do NOT easily start fires. They may be "less efficient" (At the Nazi death camp levels) but they do exist. The only ethical use of the "hot" weapons is for out-of-door mob control.

Michael said...

They are right, of course, on the point that Dorner could very easily have been taken alive or at least not been burned to a suicidial crisp. Kleig lights and a surrounded cabin coupled with patience and 48 hours and they would have had him.

Then, naturally, he would have had a three or four month trial and he would have been found guilty of some fraction of the crimes or a jury would have nullified the whole shebang on one of the many technicalities the LAPD created for their benefit.

Paul said...

Back in the 1930s Bonnie and Clyde rampaged around the South. They killed several cops, some civilians, and well cause all kinds of depredations.

Frank Hammer, a sometimes Texas Ranger, and a small crew ambushed them on a little rode in Louisiana.

They did NOT GIVE THEM ANY TIME TO SURRENDER. Why? These two murders killed in cold blood and had fully automatic BARS, Thompsons, .45 autos, sawed off 12 gauges, etc...

No one shed a tear over them cause they were so dangerous no cop in his right mind would risk his life to capture him alive.

And thus the same thin for Dorner. They didn't mess around cause he would (and did) kill when cornered.

So I don't give a rat's ass for the protesters. They handled Donmer like they should have, a rabid dog.

Aridog said...

Dorner...the homicidal maniacal jackass who declared himself judge, jury & executioner...

“I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, I’m terminating yours.”

That guy? That justification for killing Monica Quan, and others who had no direct connection to him or his grievance?

I know little about the LAPD these days, but the Sherrif's Deputy Dorner killed near the end was NOT part of LAPD ... he was Jeremiah MacKay. MacKay, 35, was a 15-year veteran who was married with two children, a 7-year-old daughter and a 4-month-old son.

If the Sheriff didn't set the fire intentionally, they should have ... Dorner needed to be dead ... just as suddenly fucking dead as his victims....who never had the benefit of judge or jury, just Dorner as executioner.

Aridog said...

Correction: the sentence "MacKay, 35, was a 15-year veteran who was married with two children, a 7-year-old daughter and a 4-month-old son." should have had quotation marks. It was taken from a CNN posting and broadcast.

Astro said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Palladian said...

Police hate it when they're not in control.

And so they'll shoot until they're back in "control".

Freeman Hunt said...

Shooting at two people who weren't even him? That's pretty outrageous. How do they defend that? "Oops," is inadequate.

CEO-MMP said...

I really don't get the people who say 'so what, Dorner needed to be dead good job.

Don't you guys see that when you provide cover and praise for the cops when they do something like that at a time you agree with it, you embolden them to do something like this at a time they'll horrify you?

Police and politicians (and lawyers and doctors) need to be held to a higher standard.

CEO-MMP said...

Aridog: you say if the cops didn't set the fire they should have. What's your view on the fires set in Waco, and all the kids who came out extra crispy?

CEO-MMP said...

By the way, Paul--nice bit of revisionist history there.

Hammer gave Bonnie and Clyde a chance to surrender. They chose not to and then it was 'screw it, they picked it'.

But why let facts get in the way of a smashing story, right?

chickelit said...

Don't you guys see that when you provide cover and praise for the cops when they do something like that at a time you agree with it, you embolden them to do something like this at a time they'll horrify you?

The problem is that the protesters appear to be giving cover and praise for Dorner. They are not careful enough to cleanly dissociate themselves from his sickening manifesto. In my view, that goes for people giving him cover here.

Aridog said...

How do sympathizers and "justice defenders" conflate the LAPD with the San Bernardino County Sheriff and a homicidal Dorner as if its all one big issue?

They are not the same organizations. Dorner didn't just shoot at innocent people, he shot and killed them. If the LAPD is reckless with gunfire then that is a Los Angeles government problem to correct...and has been for many years now. They did get one thing right...they fired Dorner. Would YOU want a Dorner type wearing a badge and policing your neighborhood?

Dorner had a huge amount of time to surrender, to rethink things and show some civility ... he chose instead, on the last day, to kill a Sherrif's Deputy detective and severely injure another.

Dorner acted as judge, jury and executioner himself ... and some want to accord him righteousness? Shit! Even if his firing was improper, which I doubt given his homicidal antics, that did not justify his killing persons unrelated to his complaint, let alone his killing of anyone.

The man had just killed on man and wounded another on the day he died in that fire. Justice was done.

chickelit said...

Police brutality is out of control. Dorner was a de facto policeman--judge jury, and executioner. It's in his FaceBook post.

Aridog said...

CEO-MMP said ...

Don't you guys see that when you provide cover and praise for the cops when they do something like that...

Don't YOU see that you are conflating all police as one organization? LAPD was the object of Dorner's complaint, but he, too, decided to conflate LAPD with all police.

I don't give a flip about LAPD...Dorner was killed by San Bernadino County Sherrif's Deputies, immediately after Dorner had killed one and wounded another in a running gun fight on the same day.

Is your position that all police should be tarred and feathered for the screw ups of one department?

Skyler said...

I'm glad to see that the press is at least reporting this correct point of view.

If Dorner did what he was accused of doing, I will shed no tears for him. But if we are going to grant the police the power to execute men without due process, then none of us are safe.

How did they know there was no one else in the house?

CEO-MMP said...

Police brutality is out of control, chicklit.

Dorner was extremely wrong in what he did and, in a perfect world would have gotten the death penalty after he'd been convicted.

People celebrating his life and death are a disgusting example of part of what's wrong with the country today.

chickelit said...

But if we are going to grant the police the power to execute men without due process, then none of us are safe.

Execute? Is that in evidence? It does change the story.

CEO-MMP said...

Aridog, I'm probably wrong because I only paid superficial attention to the whole mess, but I understood there were LAPD elements at the cabin, and I've also seen the video where the cops at the scene yell "burn it down" etc. Those tear gas shells they launch are well known fire starters.

Heh. A re-run of Emergency I saw the other day on Netflix had the cops calling for the fire department before they launched the tear gas because they knew it was going to start a fire.

So...once they knew he was in there, and once they had the place surrounded, why not just wait him out?

Or did they want to start a fire and kill him?

chickelit said...

But if we are going to grant the police the power to execute men without due process, then none of us are safe.

Based on what I know he may have felt compelled to self-execute. But you'll have to give evidence that the police gave him no chance to surrender.

wyo sis said...

Under the circumstances at the cabin the tear gas was completely justified. Dorner was shooting at the officers, and killing them.
The rest of the story is less clear. But, keep in mind Dorner is a cop who didn't hesitate to become a cop killer.

chickelit said...

Chris Dorner's body lies a-smouldering in the grave,
Chris Dorner's body lies a-smouldering in the grave,
But his soul goes marching on.

Chorus:
Glory, glory, hallelujah,
Glory, glory, hallelujah,
His soul goes marching on.


/sarc

Aridog said...

CEO-MMP said...

Aridog: you say if the cops didn't set the fire they should have. What's your view on the fires set in Waco ...

My view is that "Waco" is not Bear Mountain in San Bernadino County California. A lone gunman had just intentionally killed a Deputy Sherrif and wounded another, before he was toasted in the fire.

If you are facing an enemy who will not surrender and will not stop shooting at you, you do not have the alternative of a writ of Habeas Corpus. That enemy has reduced your options to kill or be killed.

And that is essentially what I said. All the weepy eyed hindsight now is "yeah, but, if, maybe..." bullshit. Don't think so? Ask Deputy McKay. Oh, wait...he's unavailable for comment due to lead poisoning, right?

Tell me...if YOU had been there at that cabin would you have boldly walked up to that cabin, in proof of your convictions, writ in hand, to negotiate with Dorner?

CEO-MMP said...

And yes, Aridog, I am conflating all cops as one, I won't argue the point.

You know why I do it?

When a cop screws up, no matter how badly, you find that other cops from his department, his state, and across the country often leap to his defense no matter what.

Thin blue line. Blue flu, all that.

For example, the cop who shot the restrained dog in Commerce City CO.

There was video of the whole sorry event. It's hard to watch. The cop shot the dog 5 times once the dog was on a catch pole. After the dog had been tazed a couple of times for just laying in her garage.

Case gets kicked to a DA for an independent investigation. DA brings felony animal cruelty charges. On the day of the cops first hearing the local police union fixes it so only cops make it into the court room, packing it with blue--support they say. Or intimidation, one or the other.


Not that it impacts my daily life much. Whenever I'm working outside the house and the local PD goes by on patrol they always stop and chat, for instance.

I'm not anti-police officer, just anti-cop if that makes sense.

And with cops getting more and more militarized, I think it's fair they be held to a certain standard, and launching known fire starting tear gas shells into a cabin like that when they could've just waited him out--seems overkill.

Especially when they can be heard on tape calling for the place to be burned and celebrating it.

But that's just me.

edutcher said...

Back in the good old days, when there were rules (we're talking 50 years ago and more), you killed somebody and the cops put you in jail.

You killed a cop and they put you under the jail.

When the courts started ignoring the rules, cops started getting killed.

Out in Flyover Country, they still have respect for the Old Ways

CEO-MMP said...

Ari, you ask:


"Tell me...if YOU had been there at that cabin would you have boldly walked up to that cabin, in proof of your convictions, writ in hand, to negotiate with Dorner?"

Boldly walked up to the cabin etc etc?

No. Why would I? Why would anyone? If I'd been there and in charge I'd have made sure there was a secure perimeter established where all my officers were safe from the possibility of fire from the cabin and I'd have called for one of those FBI hostage negotiator types and waited him out.


You?

Gahrie said...

"As an American citizen, you have the right to a trial and due process by law."

Unless of course the president decides to kill you using a drone.....

Paco Wové said...

"Police brutality is out of control, chicklit."

How is this sorry episode an example of that?

The Drill SGT said...

MadisonMan said...
The protesters have a point. They may lack some facts, but the shooting of people who looked like Dorner/drove cars like Dorner's points to a Police Force not in control.


LOL,

- they shot up a 71 y/o hispanic woman in a pick-up of different make and color. It was a pickup however
- the shot up a skinny white guy in a pick-up of different make and color. It was a pickup however

CEO-MMP said...

I'm not sure, Paco. I was agreeing with chicklit in general.

Jay said...

Freeman Hunt said...

Shooting at two people who weren't even him? That's pretty outrageous. How do they defend that?


Have a white friend or relative that was shot as they were mistaken for a 290 pound LL CoolJ look-alike black fugitive by police?

Thank a union.

Kelly said...

I thought from the beginning the FBI should have been brought in to oversee things. The LAPD were out of control from the beginning, shooting up a truck that was the wrong make, wrong color, driven by a skinny white guy. The LAPD should not have been allowed at the cabin.

Dorner wasn't coming out of the cabin alive, he was always going to kill himself. In fact, he did kill himself. The police did themselves no favors by burning the place down and feeding the conspiracy theories.

Pogo said...

This is an example of cops out of control:

They shot 3 people who were driving pick-ups, even though they were not large black men, and not even the same make/model. Two were small Asian elderly ladies.

Cops serve and protect the state, not its subjects.

Aridog said...

CEO-MMP said ...

So...once they knew he was in there, and once they had the place surrounded, why not just wait him out?

How many more Sheriff's Deputies needed to be killed by Dorner before he surrendered?

Or did they want to start a fire and kill him?

The fired tear gas, reportedly the canister type that can start fires, to force Dorner to walk out of the cabin. He could have done so...but didn't, he shot himself. To argue that he might have been gunned down exiting the cabin is moot, because he didn't exit. Had he exited with his weapons at hand, then the gun fight isn't over and he would have been a valid target.

No matter how much kumbaya lipstick you paint on this pig, it is still a gunfight, until it isn't.

The Drill SGT said...

James Pawlak said...
Unless I have been misinformed there are "tear gas" projectiles which do NOT easily start fires


Tear Gas is the name for a series of agents, most of which are not actually gasses, but rather aerosol powders.

the Army uses CS Grenades, which are plastic grenades that shatter and disperse powdered CS into the air, avoiding the problem you see in roit video wear the demonstrators pick up the burning tear gas grenade and heave it back at the police. CS grenades dont start fires, but are less efficent that the burning type. I suspect that the police are using either a rifle grenade or a 40mm M-79 grenade launcher.

Pogo said...

And Dorner was a soulless sociopathic murderer, and a cop.

Hagar said...

I am not going to cry about Dorner, but the police behavior - in LA and at Bear Mountain - provide good arguments why civilian police should not be armed with military weapons.
They are lucky that more civilians did not get killed in LA, and that they did not kill more of their own at Bear Mountain.

I think any miltary unit that acted like this would have been restricted to barracks for the next three months and subjected to some very intensive training regarding military discipline.

CEO-MMP said...

Ari, I like how you completely overlook the idea of a safe perimeter etc.

It's clear--you have your beliefs and you're not budging.

Whatever.

But don't accuse me of being a kumbya type while you completely overlook 90-95% of what I say.

That's bullshit.

Tim said...

"But if we are going to grant the police the power to execute men without due process, then none of us are safe.

How did they know there was no one else in the house?"


@Skyler, police have had this power for quite some time now.

There was the LAPD shootout with the Symbionese Liberation Arym in 1974: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ofbvgjl6MhA

There was the Philly PD bombing the MOVE house: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-05-11-philadelphia-bombing_x.htm

Hell, there's even a webpage devoted to the "Top 10 Most Audacious Shootouts in US History:" http://listverse.com/2009/10/14/top-10-most-audacious-shootouts-in-us-history/

The best we can hope for is their training limits police to using this power only when necessary.

Paco Wové said...

"They are lucky that more civilians did not get killed in LA"

That is true enough. A previously-inconceivable (to me) mixture of recklessness and incompetence.

Tim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aridog said...

CEO-MMP said ...

You?

You know, from what I've already said, that I'd have fired the tear gas canisters in to the cabin...or even better, a couple RPG's if available. There were no known hostages inside the cabin (at least Skyler asked the question) for the hostage negotiator to negotiate release.

Now, YOU, with your secure perimeter of officers ...would you have shot to kill if Dorner had walked out shooting or trying to escape?

I fail to see a difference. Dorner had many opportunities to surrender. He did not. He died. So sad.

Trying to make this into a giant human rights case is absurd, as well as sad, because Dorner gave all that up when he gunned down Monica Quan....and the rest is now history.

Tim said...

Pogo said...

"And Dorner was a soulless sociopathic murderer, and a cop."

And who, undoubtedly, had to pass a background check and, a psychological evaluation undoubtedly more rigorous than any proposed by Obama, both of which failed.

This isn't meant to defend Obama's proposal, rather it is to point out the futility of it.

Many can agree (except for the "mental illness advocates, lol) that the criminal and mentally ill should not have access to firearms, yet, of course, there is no effective way of so limiting that access.

Paco Wové said...

CEO:

My completely uninformed guess is that the police didn't think they could create a secure perimeter around the cabin before nightfall. Darkness would have made it that much harder. So they decided to ... 'smoke him out', so to speak, and force an end to the confrontation. It wasn't a hostage-type situation where you bring in the negotiation teams.

David said...

The police were crazed over this guy. I still wonder why. Maybe just because he was a cop gone so horribly bad. Or maybe that and something more.

The pyrotechnic tear gas was not needed, given that he was one guy and they had scores of cops surrounding the cabin. A barrage of aerosol tear gas would have done it. Pyrotechnic tear gas presents a high level of fire risk.

Of course he shot himself, if the account is correct. Maybe to avoid death by incineration. Maybe to avoid capture.

Strange ugly case.



Inga said...

So, Furious Beagle and Marshal, are the commenters here on this thread leftists?

I TOLD YOU SO.

Paco Wové said...

"The police were crazed over this guy. I still wonder why."

Killing civilians is one thing; kill a cop and you've effectively signed your death warrant.

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aridog said...

CEO-MMP said...

Ari, I like how you completely overlook the idea of a safe perimeter etc. ...[snip]... But don't accuse me of being a kumbya type while you completely overlook 90-95% of what I say.

Perhaps that is because A.) you were not there, B.) you are inventing scenarios that may or may not have been valid, and C.) you conflate all cops as bad cops, even to the extent of citing Waco.

Do YOU have any even circumstantial evidence that Dorner was done shooting at police and the use of tear gas was unnecessary?

Are you familiar with the terrain around that cabin vis a vis setting up a secure permimeter? [I don't ...but maybe you've been there?]

You are right about one thing...I'll not change my mind on Dorner's death. It came too late to save some, but in all likely hood, if escaped, not all.

Bruce Hayden said...

I am very conflicted here. Dorner wasn't going quietly, and he wasn't going peaceably, and, I wouldn't be surprised if he was dedicated to not being taken alive, which was the reason for his suicide. I don't think that anyone here seriously believes that he didn't deserve to die for his crimes.

The problem, at least for me, is that this happened after a long history of LAPD brutality and corruption, and in about the same week that the NYPD story came out about two cops watching and not intervening while a wanted fugitive attacked someone, had a third party intervene, who ultimately took the suspect down, but by taking a number of knife wounds in the process before subduing him. New York's finest then stepped in, taking credit for the collar. As Pogo pointed out, it is becoming ever more obvious that a number of police serve and protect, just not you and me, but rather themselves and their blue brethren.

Sam L. said...

Supporting a killer: Coooool.

Big Mike said...

Is California one big lunatic asylum? Seems that way sometimes.

The cops who opened fire on two women driving a pickup truck to deliver newspapers? Whatever happened to them? Did they get disciplined or did the LAPD quietly issue them more rounds?

Apparently if one publishes a manifesto praising Barack Obama and other high profile lefties, it's quite all right with a significant fraction of the California population to be a serial killer? Who knew?

And don't get me started on the California high speed rail debacle. At least the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska actually went somewhere (it was an all weather connection from downtown Ketchikan to their airport, currently reachable only by ferry and water taxi).

tim said...

I didn't read the story but I say it is about time somebody gets upset with obamas drone strikes on US citizens, especially Abdulrahman al-Awlaki.

tim said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Aridog said...

Bruce Hayden said...

I am very conflicted here

So am I, because I am very aware of some police bad acts. I am also intimately familiar with a couple of police shoot outs in Detroit because I knew the police officers shot down and their partners very well. I can never be a fan of cop killers.

However, I am of the opinion that communities get the police departments [and municipal governments] they deserve.

CEO-MMP said...

Aridog sez:

You are right about one thing...I'll not change my mind on Dorner's death. It came too late to save some, but in all likely hood, if escaped, not all.


I agree with you on that.

Bruce Hayden said...

A lot of forces are coming together right now, putting police, their power, their culture, their pay, and their benefits in center stage right now.

LA right now is one of the epicenters of "blue" model progressive social engineering breakdown. It has a large number of the takers, of those who grew up without fathers, and therefore, where the males were never properly civilized and domesticated. Instead, they were raised by women, and then run in their juvenile packs terrorizing their own communities.

Because these males did not have proper male role models and fraternal discipline growing up, they push until they find some sort of limits, and the limits are imposed, seemingly more often than not, by the LAPD. Not a good place to be - trying to impose those limits on violent armed youths and young adults.

The police though are there to also enforce the edicts of the politicians running these states, counties, and cities, and, as such as the primary enforcement arm of the progressive social engineering experiment. It is a dirty job, and seemingly someone has to do it, so they are paid well for it, and given even better benefits, with a number of top cops in CA earning six figure retirements. (Scam is/was that those guys with all the stars on their collars, along with the captains, etc., get first call on overtime, and take it their last year or two, max out on make-work details, and then retire based on those inflated earnings)

BUT, neither CA nor LA can afford this any more. The progressive social engineering experiment has failed, and we need cops more than ever, but the places that need them the most, can afford them the least. So, leftist politicians are finding themselves less and less able to afford the security needed for their social engineering.

No one wants to piss off either the police or the fire department, which is why they were excluded from the changes in Wisconsin collective bargaining laws. This can't last though - there isn't enough money left to pay for their them, esp. if you include pensions and benefits. And, coming full circle, the more the police look like they serve and protect themselves first, and everyone else second, the support for their union bargaining, salaries, benefits, and pensions, will continue to erode (along with the argument for stringent gun control).

Bruce Hayden said...

However, I am of the opinion that communities get the police departments [and municipal governments] they deserve.

Good observation.

I would suggest that the worst though are in the biggest cities and in the smallest towns. The big cities because of the violence, and because they have long been an integral part of the political machines running the cities, and in some small towns, because they tend to have less opportunity to hire and train well.

Hagar said...

@Aridog,
I have yet to see an article stating just who shot the sheriff's deputy that was killed in the cabin siege.

Skyler said...

My concern is that their shooting of the trucks that had nothing to do with Dorner shows that they wanted blood. They didn't even bother to identify him before shooting at people.

With that in mind, I don't believe the police accounts of what happened. They've shown that they can't be trusted.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Forced to shoot his-self in the head, else be burned alive.

Finally, some Social Justice I can get behind.

Gari said...

Did LAPD hire a nut job?
Did LAPD create a nut job?
Awfully inconvenient if that were to all come out at trial.

GrandpaMark said...

"When a cop screws up, no matter how badly, you find that other cops from his department, his state, and across the country often leap to his defense no matter what."
When Dorner screwed up as LAPD officer, other cops from his department testified against him and got him fired.
THAT was his reason for murder, wasn't it?
The cops that shot the women should be charged and fired, no doubt.
Dorner could have come out stripped to his undies when the fire started, or come out guns ablazin'. Instead he died like a coward, as many predicted.

Skyler said...

Yeah, until they decide to burn your house down,forcing you to shoot yourself to avoid that fate.

Paco Wové said...

"forcing you to shoot yourself"

... or surrender. either one.

Aridog said...

Hagar said...

@Aridog, ... I have yet to see an article stating just who shot the sheriff's deputy that was killed in the cabin siege.

Really? It was widely reported MacKay was on scene first and the only shooting was by Dorner. There are several articles, including Huffington Post:

Dorner was equipped with an arsenal of weapons, including assault rifles with flash suppressors that masked the location the gunfire was coming from when he shot at the first two deputies to arrive at the cabin, killing Det. Jeremiah MacKay.

"Our officers had not even pulled their guns out at that point and were not prepared to engage anybody and they were ambushed," McMahon said.

The next five responding deputies got into a fierce firefight with bullets whizzing through trees.


The running firefight didn't begin until after MacKay and Collins were both shot as the first officers at the cabin scene. Who else could have shot them...maybe they shot each other? //sarc//

Aridog said...

Skyler ... I have no difficulty doubting the LAPD credibility. It's not the first time they've gone cowboy...not to mention they are the ones who hired the psycho in the first place.

I do have difficulty not believing the San Bernardino Sheriff and his deputies...they have nothing to conceal by fabricating anything.

PS: I will admit to a strong bias...I am intimately familiar, through police officer close friends, with two notorious shoot outs in Detroit where officers died or were crippled.

jr565 said...

You don't get a trial if you are shot by police dumbasses. Dorner was ready for that standoff and wasn't going to be taken alive.

As such he was forgoing a trial, and yes cops became his executioners.

But it was because of his actions.

Whatever his grievance, it kind of became moot once he went on his killing spree.

GrandpaMark said...

"Boldly walked up to the cabin etc etc?

No. Why would I? Why would anyone? If I'd been there and in charge I'd have made sure there was a secure perimeter established where all my officers were safe from the possibility of fire from the cabin and I'd have called for one of those FBI hostage negotiator types and waited him out.


You?"
If I was in charge, I would have called out to Dorner as I Calmly walked up to the cabin, with my hands raised and shirt off (to show I am unarmed). Then I would have Had a chat with him and convinced him to lay down his arms and come out peacefully with me.
You know, just like they do it on old cop shows on NETFLIX>.
OR, I would have got his Mom out there to talk to him. That seems to work also, on TV.

jeff said...

The article I read said he had a .50 barrett which has an effective range of 1.1 miles. Cops hiding behind trees a couple hundred yards away would be easy targets. Setting up that containment perimeter in the woods would be a heck of a job, unless you were good with losing a few officers. This wasnt some guy holed up with a .38 snubnose revolver. While setting up lights and a perimeter is exactly the procedure you would get in movies and tv, it doesnt work like that in real life. Charles Whitman killed at least 2 people hiding behind cover using scoped rifles in the texas tower incident back in the 60's.

Aridog said...

This might have worked, eh?

Skyler said...

"forcing you to shoot yourself"

... or surrender. either one.

Paco 2/17/13, 11:22 AM

Yeah. They were shooting little old ladies delivering newspapers driving vehicles that don't even look like his. Sure, they would have let him surrender.

Once the cops lose credibility they don't get mulligans. I don't trust any statement coming from them regarding him. I think it is just as likely he was being framed, from their behavior. I don't trust their version of the story. Cops lie to protect their self-perceived exalted reputation.

jeff said...

" They were shooting little old ladies delivering newspapers driving vehicles that don't even look like his. Sure, they would have let him surrender. " Actually, "they" weren’t. LAPD was. OTOH, considering he had just shot two San Bernardino officers, killing one of them he might assumed that they might not give him the benefit of the doubt that he was surrendering.

jeff said...

"Once the cops lose credibility they don't get mulligans." Alternately, killing the daughter and fiancé of a former officer you think you have a beef with does nothing to negate your credibility on anything else. Mulligans abound under those circumstances.

Paco Wové said...

"Sure, they would have let him surrender."

Maybe, maybe not. Once you start shooting police, you've put yourself in a very perilous situation.

As you say you don't trust the police, no matter what they say or do, I'll come clean and say that once Dorner killed Quan and Lawrence - and didn't surrender when he had a chance - I honestly would have given him no more consideration than a rabid dog.

kentuckyliz said...

My only qualms were the shootings of others in pickup trucks whose person and vehicle did not match the description.

Dorian's behavior since his firing shows that the firing was a wise move.

It's obvious to me that he was not going to surrender. He was committed to going down in a blaze of glory. He was not going to accept living in prison. I am sure cops in prison are about as safe as pedophiles in prison.

Aridog said...

Skyleer said ...

Sure, they would have let him surrender.

We won't ever know that now. Was it possible that the first two Sheriff's deputies [NOT LAPD], MacKay and Collins, arriving at the cabin would have let Dorner surrender? Before Dorner shot them down, that is?

I think it is just as likely he was being framed, from their behavior. I don't trust their version of the story.

How was he "framed" ... Dorner was fired in 2009, and ran amok with this Manifesto in 2013....and then began killing people. Was he framed for killing Monica Quan?

Why would San Bernidino Sheriff collude with LAPD on the matter?

Cops lie to protect their self-perceived exalted reputation.

There definitely is evidence of this phenomena from many cases. It is a worthwhile subject to explore. The best first questions would be: Why do they do this? Do they all do this?

You appear to have a military background. Do you think all soldiers and Marines lie to protect each other? If so, even if only some of them, why would they do that?

kentuckyliz said...

If he wanted to bring attention to issues in the LAPD, he should have hired a ghostwrite, written a book, gone on the lecture tour and be a guest on MSM, and been a community organizer. He could have chosen to go to law school and become a public defender. He could have done so many other things than murder and terrorize. In fact, he mde h enemies heroes and negated his message.

jr565 said...

ARidog wrote:
They are not the same organizations. Dorner didn't just shoot at innocent people, he shot and killed them. If the LAPD is reckless with gunfire then that is a Los Angeles government problem to correct...and has been for many years now. They did get one thing right...they fired Dorner. Would YOU want a Dorner type wearing a badge and policing your neighborhood?

Agreed, if he's killing people then that is perhaps reflective of how he was as a cop as well.

Aridog said...

Apology...Skyler, my fat fingered typo in typing "Skyleer" was not meant as insult. Proof reading is my friend...when I do it.

jr565 said...

If Dorner did what he was accused of doing, I will shed no tears for him. But if we are going to grant the police the power to execute men without due process, then none of us are safe.

IF you are arrested you should get due process. But not everyone gets arrested. If you go out in a hail of gunfire because you are in a shoot out with cops it's not as if you will ever get the due process you are asking for.


CEO-MMP said...

Curious, Aridog...why is it a good topic to explore when Skyler brings it up but not when I did (that cops lie and intimidate and whitewash to protect their own no matter what)?

LOL

God I even gave you an example!

Third Coast said...

A trial for Dorner would have been the best outcome.
FREE MUMIA!!!!

jr565 said...

CEO-MMP wrote:
When a cop screws up, no matter how badly, you find that other cops from his department, his state, and across the country often leap to his defense no matter what.

Thin blue line. Blue flu, all that.

Dorner was a cop. And supposedly screwed up. ANd got fired for it. Who is leaping to his defense? Other cops?

CEO-MMP said...

Except, GranpaMarkyMark, the setting up a perimeter/waiting the suspect out tactic is used probably daily around the country and has a fairly high success rate.

Old movie shit is exactly that, and is nothing like what I was suggesting.



jr565 said...

Ari Dog wrote
You appear to have a military background. Do you think all soldiers and Marines lie to protect each other? If so, even if only some of them, why would they do that?

I heard all Vietnam vets were going around raping and pillaging in the fashion of Genghis KHan and were all baby killers and had ears of their dead baby victims as necklaces. All of them.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Skyler said...

Yeah, until they decide to burn your house down,forcing you to shoot yourself to avoid that fate.


Based on the life I lead, I like my chances of never being in that situation.

Robert Cook said...

"The police serve and protect"...themselves!

jr565 said...

We have a few people on these boards who have such a bias against cops that they apparently can do no right and are all criminals. To the point where they're defending the actions of a guy who is out murdering people and suggesting that he is the one in the right.

CEO-MMP said...

jr, have you seen the news reports where the LAPD Chief said he was going to be looking into the firing to see if it was actually justified?


Plus, we (Ari and I) were discussing why people tend to paint cops with one large brush. I gave my reasons and gave an example.

CEO-MMP said...

Oh god jr, put a sock in it. No one commenting here has said Dorner was right and justified in what he did. No one has defended his actions.

Stop fucking lying about other commenters. It's bullshit.

jr565 said...


Yeah, until they decide to burn your house down,forcing you to shoot yourself to avoid that fate.



If Dorner hadn't gone out on a killing spree would cops be at his house "burning it down".
It's not as if Dorner was just sitting at his house minding his own business eating a hot pocket and watching a game when the cops just "decided" to burn down his house and force him to kill himself.
Here's a lesson. If you are going to go on a kiling spree, cops will come to your door to get you off the street. you might end up dying in a hail of gunfire or with your house burned down. But all of those events are precipitated by you going on a killing spree.

He had it coming.

So, yeah, we're all against cops arbitrarily burning down peoples houses for no reason. That was not this case AT ALL. And I'm not aware of too many cops just deciding to kill people for no reason.
I am aware of some ex cops doing that though. Like, say, Dorner.


jr565 said...

CEO wrote:
Oh god jr, put a sock in it. No one commenting here has said Dorner was right and justified in what he did. No one has defended his actions.

Shut up you jackass. YOu're reflexively anti cop arguing things that really have no bearing on this case. You and a bunch of others on the board.
For example:

The police serve and protect.

Just not you.




As if that has anything to do with THIS case. If cops are going after Dorner who is killing people, then they are protecting and serving ME and YOU.
This is not a case of cops deciding to burn someone's house down for no reason.
And if its determined that cops acted in the right and that his house burned down but that cops are exonhorated of any wrong doing, then it will be "Cops protect their own, just not you" all over again from the usual crowd.

CEO-MMP said...

How many, jr, is "too many"? Because I know of a few cops who've killed for no reason. Sometimes they go to trial for it, more often it's found to be justified by an "internal investigation", no part of which is ever made public.

Another example in Colorado: a few weeks ago cops went to the wrong address to investigate an alarm going off. They went inside/kicked in the door (depending if you're the cop or the guy inside at the time) and shot his dog--a 40ish pound mutt who was his best friend. And while the dog was lying, bleeding and the guy was trying to get to the dog the cops wouldn't let him and told him he needed to calm down--he could always get another dog.

Anyway...uproar was created and finally the county sheriff had to do something...turns out the officer involved had, in the last year or so, killed a guy after he'd pulled over his car. The deppity's story was that there was a gun. The other cop on the scene didn't see it but says "maybe"...and the passenger in the car swears no gun.

The deppity dawg has now been taken off patrol duty and questions are being asked, quietly, about the killing of the guy before...since, you know, there's kind of a pattern now of the guy being a little trigger happy.

But it's not just cops across the country shooting people. It's cops harassing people, lying about people...on and on.

Then there are people who want to blindly give cops a pass for anything because they're cops.

I want them held to a high standard, because they have such power over us.


jr565 said...

Or it would be "that cops lie and intimidate and whitewash to protect their own no matter what".
So even if they are ultimately acquited of any wrong doing in this case, it's not really an acuqital, its yet more of the same lying and intimidating NO MATTER what.

THere is no way, if you hold that view that you could ever judge cops fairly.

CEO-MMP said...

Title of the post involves police as judge jury and executioner. So yeah, it's going to spill out from strictly talking about dorner.

Jackass.

So you can't actually show an example of anyone who posted and said that Dorner was a good guy and what he did was justified.

Noted.

Jackass.

Robert Cook said...

"Back in the 1930s Bonnie and Clyde rampaged around the South. They killed several cops, some civilians, and well cause all kinds of depredations.

"Frank Hammer, a sometimes Texas Ranger, and a small crew ambushed them on a little rode in Louisiana.

"They did NOT GIVE THEM ANY TIME TO SURRENDER. Why? These two murders killed in cold blood and had fully automatic BARS, Thompsons, .45 autos, sawed off 12 gauges, etc...

"No one shed a tear over them cause they were so dangerous no cop in his right mind would risk his life to capture him alive.

"And thus the same thin for Dorner. They didn't mess around cause he would (and did) kill when cornered.

"So I don't give a rat's ass for the protesters. They handled Donmer like they should have, a rabid dog."


There's a difference...criminals are not bound by oaths of duty or by the constitution and the laws of the land.

Purportedly, the police are.

This was intentional murder on the part of the LAPD, and you may be unconcerned, or even applaud it, because, in your eyes their victim was just a "rabid dog," but when such use of force is excused because the victims "deserve it," it quickly becomes SOP in all cases.

Will you be so sanguine when you or a loved one is shot down in a hail of police bullets or incendiary devices because you or the loved one is seen by the police as being nothing but a "rabid dog?"

CEO-MMP said...

My god jr you have to be the dumbest commenter here.

Of course cops can be judged fairly.

Although it involves independent investigations, with civilians involved, or it involves the internal investigations be made public at the very least.

Far too often we see internal investigations that the public knows nothing about.

Sunshine, jr. Sunshine. It's good for all kinds of things. It might even do that cobwebby brain pan of yours some good.

Paco Wové said...

"Will you be so sanguine when you or a loved one is shot down in a hail of police bullets or incendiary devices because you or the loved one is seen by the police as being nothing but a "rabid dog?"

As I don't intend to go on any killing sprees, and I doubt my loved ones do either (though I might have to check with my spouse on that one), I can honestly say this is something I don't think will ever happen.

jr565 said...

THats not to say that there are no bad cops. Of coure there are. But not every situation requires us to indict cops in all situations.

For example, the whole premise of this article.
How the police handled this - they were the judge, the jury and executioner.
As if the fact that this guy died before being arrested somehow proves that cops are in the wrong automatically.
Yes, we all would like all people to be arrested and then given a trial and face a jury. But we all know that in the real world that will not always happen.
If someone doesn't want to be taken alive and is killing people, then the odds of them not being taken alive will go up dramatically.

CEO-MMP said...

BTW, jr, what do you make of the SWAT officers who were caught on tape screaming "burn it! burn the motherfucker down!" before they set fire to the cabin?

Kind of makes you wonder what the motive was for shooting in those flammable tear gas canisters, huh?

Well, maybe not you. You're an apologist and boot licker.

CEO-MMP said...

Paco, what if one of your loved ones is one of those ladies who was shot cuz they were in a pick up that looked exactly like Dorner's except that it was the wrong color and make and they looked nothing like him?

CEO-MMP said...

That's better, jr. I can agree pretty much totally with what you just posted.

Robert Cook said...

"Based on the life I lead, I like my chances of never being (forced to shoot myself to avoid being burned because the police have shot incendiaries into my home)."

How do you know the cops won't think you're someone who hasn't led the life you lead, but someone who deserves to die?

How do you know there won't be an error made on a search warrant address and the cops won't come gunning for you because they think you're a cop-killer they've been looking for who actually lives two blocks away, or next door?

If out-of-control police violence is excused because it doesn't--or hasn't yet--affected you or yours, we effectively countenance official murder by the police, and all of us must be fearful.

Paco Wové said...

"Paco, what if one of your loved ones is one of those ladies who was shot..."

I think you are conflating different things here. I was responding specifically to R. Cook, who was responding to me, specifically on the matter of what happened at the Big Bear cabin -- how the police dealt with somebody who was shooting at them.

As to their reckless behavior in L.A.? I would be pretty pissed, which is why I referred to those incidents up-thread as "A previously-inconceivable (to me) mixture of recklessness and incompetence."

Robert Cook said...

"As I don't intend to go on any killing sprees, and I doubt my loved ones do either (though I might have to check with my spouse on that one), I can honestly say this is something I don't think will ever happen."

Given that two elderly women in a vehicle that did not look like Dorner's and did not have Dorner's plate number were shot up by a hail of police bullets, what the fuck makes you think just being "innocent" suffices to protect you, or any of us, from police violence?

Paco Wové said...

So I can keep track, exactly what "out-of-control police violence" has been "excused" here?

Paco Wové said...

...because I think what the LAPD did in L.A. (with regards to shooting the wrong people) was incompetent and criminal.

What happened at Big Bear Lake should be investigated, but I think the likelihood of that situation turning out any other way than it did was close to zero, and it was Dorner's fault that it was so.

Kirk Parker said...


MadMan,

"... drove cars like Dorner's ..."

For some values of "like", sure.

cubanbob said...

Does anyone seriously believe this could have ended in any other way? Dorner was never going to have been taken alive, either he would have died in a gun fight, killed himself before being captured or be put in a situation like what happened where he chose to shoot himself or burn to death. Being taken alive and tried was never in the cards.

traditionalguy said...

It is clear that the LAPD cannot be trusted with AR-15's much less machine guns they all like to waive around like storm troopers. Some better body call Boxer Busters.

Baron Zemo said...

The LAPD is just so far behind the times.

Why didn't they just use a drone.

Then they can kill an American Citizen without benefit of trial or jury and nobody would give a shit. Just sayn'

Bruce Hayden said...

It is clear that the LAPD cannot be trusted with AR-15's much less machine guns they all like to waive around like storm troopers. Some better body call Boxer Busters.

Good point, at least for the machine guns. Still hard to see what them having fully automatic weapons gives them above and beyond what a modern semiautomatic weapon like an AR-15 does.

Some of our military vets are welcome to jump in here, but my understanding was that the Germans during WWII supplied their infantry with light machine guns (somewhat similar to our M60 and M240 models), and then, towards the end, "assault rifles" - rifles capable of fully automatic fire. Closest we had were BARs, which from several problems that made them not as effective.

The goal, I think, is to provide covering fire for fire and maneuver, where one guy keeps the enemies heads down with automatic fire, while the others work their way closer to them. The fully automatic M16 was an attempt to provide this covering fire, but that was found wanting, esp. as compared with the M249 SAW. One big problem was that it is relatively hard to hit much of anything in full rock-and-roll automatic mode with an M16, unless you practice with it an awfully lot. Three round burst turns out to apparently be roughly the number of bullets (at the M16 cycle speed) that can be fired before the muzzle starts to pull.

Which is a long way of saying that our military took fully automatic M16s out of the hands of all but the most highly skilled and trained special operations type troops for very good reasons - and then gave a lot of those fully automatic M16s to our police, who tend to have less need for that sort of covering fire, even less continuous training in firing them, and when they do, they endanger American civilians, not enemy combatants.

But, if the police want to their officers to have a rifle, along with their traditional shotgun and sidearm(s), I think that the semiautomatic AR-15 is probably one of the best choices available, for the same reasons that I don't think that these weapons should be banned to the American public. They are modern rifles, which means that they have benefited from 50 years of technology over most wood stock rifles, and this brings benefits in terms of weight, reliability, modularity, accuracy (at the distances they are most likely used), safety, etc.

jr565 said...

CEO-MMP wrote:
BTW, jr, what do you make of the SWAT officers who were caught on tape screaming "burn it! burn the motherfucker down!" before they set fire to the cabin?

Kind of makes you wonder what the motive was for shooting in those flammable tear gas canisters, huh?

And you're an apologist for Dorner, ass fucker.

And by the way the cops say they didn't intentionally burn the house down. So lets wait till we get the actual details in full rather than take things out of context.

jr565 said...

Robert Cook wrote:
How do you know there won't be an error made on a search warrant address and the cops won't come gunning for you because they think you're a cop-killer they've been looking for who actually lives two blocks away, or next door?


I don't know how to respond to this, Except to say If the cops have a warrant and make an error, or are given the wrong number I certainly won't feel good about it, were it my house. BUT they are carrying out a legitimate warrant.If they are going to the persons house who has killed cops then that is a warrant they should be serving.

A mistake is not necessarily criminal. NOw, if cops are deliberately going to random peoples houses to break in their doors and shoot them thats a totally different story.

Bruce Hayden said...

The problem that I think that some of the supporters of how the police and sheriff's deputies handled this miscreant seem maybe to have missed is that the police seem to work by two different sets of rules - one for when someone kills civilians, and another when they kill police. In this case, the LAPD seemed quite willing to shoot up a couple of pick up trucks containing people who didn't come close to matching his description, greatly endangering the innocent occupants, and probably everyone in the vicinity. And, according, maybe, to radio traffic, burn the building down around him, just to make him suffer, before dying.

Does anyone here truly believe that the police would be even half this zealous pursuing and apprehending someone who had killed you, me, or one of our loved ones? 25%? With the LAPD, I am not sure I would even give them 10%, given the violence that parts of that parts of that city sees.

We have always known about this double standard. It shows up on any number of TV shows and movies. But, arguably, if their professional purpose in life is "To Protect and to Serve", maybe they should be more worried about civilian deaths than their own.

jr565 said...

To get back to the article at hand:

Nam, of Lomita, said he was disturbed by the burning of a mountain cabin near Big Bear where Dorner barricaded himself with a high-powered sniper rifle, smoke bombs and a cache of ammo.
If you are barracading yourself in, and have a sniper rifle, and a cache of ammo you are there to have it out with cops. If cops are after you because you've already killed a bunch of people you cannot argue that cops are at fault for seeking this person out or being prepared to expect that their lives are in danger from a cop killer with a cache of ammo and a sniper rifle.



The blaze started shortly after police fired "pyrotechnic" tear gas into the cabin; the canisters are known as "burners" because the intense heat they emit often causes a fire. If they ar firing tear gas into the house, is it the intent to start a fire or to fire tear gas into a house? Are you going to tell me that cops should never be allowed to use tear gas when arresting or trying to arest someone who has killed a bunch of people and is now barricaded in a house?

"But authorities have maintained that the fire was not intentionally set.

Dorner, whose charred body was found in the cabin, appears to have died of a single gunshot wound to the head, authorities said.

“How the police handled this -– they were the judge, the jury and the executioner,” Nam said. “As an American citizen, you have the right to a trial and due process by law.”

If he shot himself in the head then the cops weren't acting as executioners. HE was acting as his own executioner. And you should be provided a trial. But before that trial you actually have to be appreheneded. And in this case, Dorner didn't want to be. So, considering his actions made apprehension impossible, why would you expect a trial?

If cops came to his door and he immediately threw down his gun, and submited for arrest and then cops shot him and/or set fire to his house then you could argue that cops did something . Because there was a fire and because he died before having his trial doesn't mean anything wrong happened, or that he wasn't responsible for how it went down.

Bruce Hayden said...

And by the way the cops say they didn't intentionally burn the house down.

Of course they say that. They are responding to news reports of what was heard over the police radios by reporters, which seemed to show almost glee in shooting "burners" into a wooden structure.

Yes, we do need to wait and see. And, I think that there may indeed be different people making the tactical decision to use armaments known to cause fires into the wooden structure, and the deputies showing the glee, the radio traffic sure seems to show at least inclination to be either grossly indifferent, or maybe even leaning towards, such a weapon, knowing that it was likely to burn the cabin down.

jr565 said...

Bruce Hayden wrote:
In this case, the LAPD seemed quite willing to shoot up a couple of pick up trucks containing people who didn't come close to matching his description, greatly endangering the innocent occupants, and probably everyone in the vicinity. And, according, maybe, to radio traffic, burn the building down around him, just to make him suffer, before dying.

A lot of this is conjecture on your part.

n.n said...

Roe vs Wade established the legal precedent for rationalizing premeditated murder without due process. It confirmed that laws did not need to be equally applied to all people and could be enforced selectively for the most capricious of reasons.

Obama has voiced his full commitment to uphold selective respect for civil and human rights.

Well, as long as people get their "free" stuff, and "freedom" from responsibility, then everyone is happy, right?

jr565 said...

Bruce Hayden wrote:
Of course they say that. They are responding to news reports of what was heard over the police radios by reporters, which seemed to show almost glee in shooting "burners" into a wooden structure.

We all are aware of what happened on 9/11. We are also are aware that many people have an entirely different view of what happened than what actually happened. THey are convinced that explosives were set and that fire doesn't melt steel and there was no real plane that hit the Pentagon. ANd they will bring forth "evidence" that proves their allegations.
Lets not rush to judge some voice heard on a scanner and assume that we KNOW what happened.
Personally, if they are firing tear gas cannisters and not using flame thrower or gas cannisters it sounds more likely that they were trying to smoke him out with tear gas and not actually trying to burn the place down. So we shouldn't say cops were trying to burn the place down simply because the house caught on fire.

Lets identify the voices who supposedly said what they said (and lets remember how a sizable portion of the population were convinced that George Zimmerman used the word "coon" because it was on a tape. I heard that tape and don't think he said anything clsoe to that. Have you heard this tape with your own ears? Then how do you know that the reporter has even heard it correctly?Can he or anyone identify that the words said were right, or provide context for who said it and when?