Open Letter to all you ultra-liberal wimps whining about Dorner being torched.

[99th_Monkey]

Who do you think you are? How dare you actually CARE about
this quaint notion of "laws".

That is SO yesterday. WHERE did you guys come from anyway? Are
you time-travelers from the last century? This isn't the Andy Griffith
Show anymore, not even Columbo. Now we just cut to the chase ..
boom! POOF! <--like that.


Get real people. Man-up for Christ sake.

Laws, Shmaws. Who needs 'em.. NOW we got paid killers with badges
& guns transparently enforcing a corporate agenda, we got drones, we
got NDAA trump-cards nullifying our "outdated" Constitution, Congress
is confirming one of corporate America's favorite Thugs to run the CIA,
we got tax-funded domestic Armies of well-seasoned SWAT teams (thanks
to the War on Drugs), we got 100% saturation surveillance, etc. Now we
got EVERYTHING we need, to just cut to the chase and murder "them".

Please understand, this is so much more practical. And not only that,
it's also so much cheaper to just torch or gun down our Evil Doers, rather
than giving them "3 hots and a cot" in some spendy private prison for the rest
of their sorry-ass lives.

Besides, dead lips are zipped lips. It's so much more discrete all around
to take out our Evil Doers summarily, along with their distorted version of events,
and just "get it over with". Their "wild stories" might even be taken seriously,
if known, and we don't want to encourage that kind of pandering.

Don't worry. You won't be next. If you've got nothing to hide, you'll be
just fine, just trust the corporate state, and all those untidy details will be ironed
out, out of sight (mostly - except when it's on the evening news),
out of mind. Well, unless we decide differently tomorrow.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

<-- Please note the sarcasm smilie is "on"

[JI7]

1. that was lame

[darkangel218]

4. Actually, it wasnt lame at all.

Have you missed the sarcasm tag in the end of the post?,

[kestrel91316]

85. No, it wasn't. The sarcasm was quite appropriate.

SOME of us still want Due Process in this country.

[Kelvin Mace]

141. Hmmm, so caring about "due process"

the "rule of law" etc, is now officially "lame"

Glad to know that.

[Dreamer Tatum]

2. Lame. kick so more people can bask in the brown glow. nt

[Fumesucker]

3. Third Way Manny does it better

[quinnox]

5. K&R

The authoritarian crowd seems to be in full bore kill mode over this Dorner thing. As if their simple and one dimensional viewpoint is the only valid opinion.

[99th_Monkey]

7. I'm honestly hoping DU can be a forum where we work through stuff

like this. Where Dems & Progressives can really have honest discourse,
especially among the whole range of people who VOTED FOR OBAMA,
which includes me, both 08 and 12.

I guess we'll see how all this pans out.

[quinnox]

10. I voted for Obama too

yet for some of the hard core devotees around here, that isn't good enough. You must swear fealty to all authority figures apparently, and never ask questions, to satisfy them.

[theKed]

11. "Progressives" and "Anti-Authoritarian" "Leftists"

Are just, you know, getting in the way of the proper order of things.

[Fantastic Anarchist]

103. And we're really sorry about that. ;)

[robinlynne]

114. Interestingly enough, whenever a poster doesn't have an argument, they seem to use the word lame.

[Coyote_Tan]

9. Thank God you are evolved and can help the "simple" folk...

[quinnox]

17. my pleasure

welcome to DU!

[geek tragedy]

22. Do you concede that it's a defensible viewpoint

that the use of tear gas to subdue an extremely dangerous, violent and well-armed killer was justified?

Or is your own simple viewpoint the one that is God's spoken truth?

[quinnox]

43. In general, sure, that is a legitimate use of force by police in the appropriate circumstances

But I must say I don't like to argue with folks who use certain, what I consider to be, under-handed debate tactics, because it is a waste of my time. So I'll leave you to it, I don't want to be accused of being a commie, satanist and in league with the Ted Bundy fan club, all rolled into one.

[geek tragedy]

51. Just like those who disagree with you don't like being labeled bloodthirsty cowboys.

Best option would have been for him to surrender to police. Absent that, what happened was the least bloody ending possible.

[robinlynne]

117. I don't think the OP is about that. The OP is saying... then they come for you.

When you open up exceptions to human rights or legal rights, or what is right and wrong because you find a person is "bad", you are opening the door to injustice. Once you permit injustices to "bad" people, there is no protection for the rights of "good" people.

This is why the ACLU has to defend the Nazi Party's right to speak. So we all can speak.

[geek tragedy]

127. There was no illegality or injustice here. An armed gunman died in an armed struggle

with police.

The police are supposed to take out guys like him.

[Ohio Joe]

6. Still trying to put it out there that Obama wanted him to be killed?

"Don't worry. You won't be next. If you've got nothing to hide, you'll be
just fine, just trust the corporate state, and all those untidy details will be ironed
out, out of sight (mostly - except when it's on the evening news),
out of mind. Well, unless we decide differently tomorrow."

Nooooooo, not trying to pimp a conspiracy here.... Not trying to make a murderer into a hero, no no no... Just 'asking questions'?

A shame the Hosts do not do their job and lock shit like this.

[99th_Monkey]

8. I never even mentioned Obama ONCE

you are the one dragging Obama into this, for the record.

I have no idea what Obama thinks, did, or didn't do re:
Dorner, as he was quite busy with SOTU, as he should
have been.

[Ohio Joe]

12. You did... Then changed it to try and hide your right wing conspiracy

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2347592

It's all there... And now you shuffle this bullshit around so the poor murderer was vaguely 'set up' or maybe "I have no idea what Obama thinks, did, or didn't do"... What a load of shit. You deserve a pizza for continuing to spread this right wing bullshit.

[99th_Monkey]

18. I did 2 edits

neither of which was scrubbing Obama out.

[Ohio Joe]

30. That is simply not true

Original:

"in this tawdry freak show.

For all we know, it's a staged event, so that massive
surveillance apparatus that Obama's been building can
document how private citizens respond and talk about
it on the internet.

Yes I have a capacity for distrusting impulsive rushes to
judgment mid-way into these kinds of unfolding stories,
where someone goes bonkers with guns ablazing.

I just want the WHOLE story, the WHOLE truth to be told,
not just a dime-store novel with ONE conspicuous villain."

The first time you say you did not scrub Obama:

"in this tawdry freak show.

For all we know, Dorner was set-up, caught-up in the
rampant corruption machine called the LAPD. I'd super
curious as to the back-story here, that's all.

I have a capacity for distrusting impulsive rushes to
judgment mid-way into these kinds of unfolding stories,
where someone goes bonkers with guns ablazing.

I just want the WHOLE story, the WHOLE truth to be told,
not just a dime-store novel with ONE conspicuous villain."

oop's... Obama seems to have been scrubbed...

Second edit:

"in this tawdry freak show.

For all we know, Dorner was set-up, caught-up in the
rampant corruption machine called the LAPD. I'm super
curious as to the back-story here, that's all.

I have a capacity for distrusting impulsive rushes to
judgment mid-way into these kinds of unfolding stories,
where someone goes bonkers with guns ablazing.

I just want the WHOLE story, the WHOLE truth to be told,
not just a dime-store novel with ONE conspicuous villain."

Double oop's, Obama is still scrubbed.

Transparency is such a fine thing, no more claiming things that are not true. All of it can be seen here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2347592

[zappaman]

33. Don't you love that we can now see edits?

Big improvement over DU2!

[99th_Monkey]

37. Joe is lying through his teeth

what he posted is from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POST
ON A DIFFERENT DAY!!

But maybe you don't mind being misled. whatever.

[Ohio Joe]

52. I lied? I gave links to what I was talking about... You knew in post 18 what I was talking about...

Who is lying?

Who is spreading right wing conspiracies?

[99th_Monkey]

55. Joe is lying through his teeth

what he posted is from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT POST
ON A DIFFERENT DAY!!

But maybe you don't mind being misled. whatever.

[Ohio Joe]

58. I don't think it will become true by repeating it.

But hey... You can keep trying.

[99th_Monkey]

35. EXCUSE ME? Yikes! Your pants are on fire Joe!!

What you posted here has NOTHING to do with THIS OP,
are you claiming that's what I posted originally HERE,
in THIS OP?? really ?

[Ohio Joe]

40. ohhhhh... So this is a new conspiracy?

Sure looks like a re-hash of the old one... Who did it this time? Who persecuted this poor hero?

Why are you trying to make this murderer into a hero?

[99th_Monkey]

50. Slippery Joe

you didn't answer me.

Again, you claimed to have "busted" me having posted something
about Obama originally in THIS OP, and to "prove" it you copy/pasted
something from an ENTIRELY DIFFERENT OP posted yesterday.

ANd in making that claim, you are lying. That WAS my post from
yesterday, that I posted originally YESTERDAY, then changed to clarify,
but you don't even show that either.

[Ohio Joe]

56. I did not answer you? You have yet to ask me anything...

It is all there... Who is a liar?

[99th_Monkey]

61. Wow. just wow.

Ok I'll bite.

WHERE DID YOU GET THE "PRE-EDITED" TEXT YOU CLAIM WAS PART
OF THIS OP ORIGINALLY??? <-- HERE IS THE QUESTION JOE

Did you get it from searching my edits on THIS OP, or from my
OP that was posted YESTERDAY?

[Ohio Joe]

77. I got it from where I linked to...

Do you not remember your right wing conspiracy?

But my link was clear on that and I never claimed anything else but hey... Make a few more posts calling me a liar... Then a few more on some other right wing conspiracies, this one is getting over used.

[99th_Monkey]

89. I'm not here to defend EVERY other OP in my history on DU

I'm here on THIS OP string, to discuss WHAT IS POSTED
therein. NOT past OPs which you attempt to use to
smear me, implying that I said something in THIS OP
which I didn't.

[Ohio Joe]

97. It is all the exact same topic

You had another one on it last night... Skinner had interesting thoughts to add:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022359540

May have been more of them, I don't read every post.

"implying that I said something in THIS OP which I didn't."

You keep saying this and it is simply not true, I've been clear and given links. Pushing things that fly in the face of facts seems to be something you do regularly.

[99th_Monkey]

108. NOT "same topic", NOT same OP. FAIL. ~nt

[Ohio Joe]

113. Sure it is, you are still pushing conspiracy and trying to make a murderer a hero

It's pretty fucked up.

[99th_Monkey]

118. and you are still putting words in my mouth, otherwise known as

LYING.

[Ohio Joe]

122. You never said he was "set up"? Did I imagine that? Mis-read it perhaps?

"Besides, dead lips are zipped lips."

He was going to say anything not already on record? There was more to the manifesto that could not be written?

Which of these words did I put into your mouth? Where exactly have I lied?

And yes, I'll say it again, creating a conspiracy that this guy has been set up and he is just fighting the evil LAPD (or whoever) is in fact trying to make him a hero.

You are spreading conspiracy crap.

[99th_Monkey]

123. Maybe in a past life

I told you I have NO intention of debating
ANY OTHER OP that I may have made in
the past. Only THIS OP.

sorry, no cigar.

[Ohio Joe]

124. Not even going to address what I quoted you saying in the OP? I'm shocked.

or maybe not.

[99th_Monkey]

125. c*r*i*c*k*e*t*s ~nt

[Ohio Joe]

126. I thought not

Can't wait for the next iteration of this non-sense

[Cali_Democrat]

13. Who said Obama wanted Dorner killed?

I'd like to see that link, if it exists.

[Ohio Joe]

15. See reply 12 - nt

[Luminous Animal]

39. And this is how false info gets spread. For the record, I thought 99th Monkey's unedited OP

was rash and conspiracy theory-ish and I don't support it He in no way even HINTED that Obama wanted Dorner killed. Not once, not ever.

The post in question posits that Dorner's crimes may be a set up in order for law enforcement to further exploit the tools of Obama's surveillance state. He didn't even make the claim that Obama set it up to expand the surveillance. He seems to pointing at the LAPD as the instigator.

Anyway, people went off half-cocked and read into the words a message that wasn't even there. The post was ill-thought out and 99th Monkey admits to that. (He has admitted it several times) and he edited to better convey what he was trying to say.

[99th_Monkey]

66. ^ What LA said here is the truth ^ nt

[darkangel218]

14. If i could give this OP a thousand recs, i would. nt

[KingFlorez]

16. Bottom line, Dorner brought it all on himself

I have no sympathy for him, when you shoot people, then it's a good chance that something terrible will happen to you. I firmly believe that you get back exactly what you give from the universe in these sort of situations. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

[99th_Monkey]

19. This isn't just about Dorner. ~nt

[darkangel218]

29. Its ok, 99.

We live in such a utopian society. Police force abuse doesn't exist. Corruption doesn't exist. Suspects are never executed out of revange. Cover ups dont exist.

It must all be just a dream.

[KingFlorez]

36. His actions triggered this

If he thought he was fired unfairly, he should have filed a lawsuit or written a book, instead he chose to shoot people out of revenge. Nobody has ever changed the system by doing that.

[99th_Monkey]

42. I don't actually even disagree with what you say here

Dorner was CLEARLY off the rails, dangerous, and a criminal that
needed to be brought to justice.

My concern is more with the HOW of it, in the CONTEXT of the
national security state that's being/has been built in this nation.

[robinlynne]

119. He did (file lawsuits).

[darkangel218]

21. Wow.

So by your reasoning, cops can/should execute and burn alive without any due process any suspect who commits a capital murder?

Tell me please you're not a LEO

[geek tragedy]

25. Was Dorner reading in a library or engaged in a gunfight with

police when this happened?

To call this an execution is idiotic. Dude was shooting at cops, and they took him down.

[darkangel218]

38. It was a fuking execution!,

They TORCHED the cabin when they had him already cornered and the perimeter secured! Did you not listen to how they were chearing each other to him burn??

He was a murderer, he deserved to be brought to justice, or shot if caught in a gun exchange. But they ALREADY had him surronded, and instead of following procedures they TORCHED HIM ALIVE!! I'm sorry, but I'm not okay with that!

[geek tragedy]

47. You have proof the cause of death was fire?

They sent tear gas cannisters in.

When you use lethal force against police, you authorize the use of lethal force against you.

How were tear gas cannisters worse than a sniper rifle?

[darkangel218]

54. How do you know the tear gas was what srarted the fire??

Have you listened to the audio at all? You can think whatever you wish, but we have the right to our own opinion until proven otherwise!
They didn't follow the procedures, instead acted like a bunch of bullies seeking revange.

No one should be burnt alive on purpose. No one. Not even a killer. That is why we have a judicial system and procedures to be followed.

[geek tragedy]

57. They said "burners" which is SWAT lingo for incendiary tear gas cannisters.

How do you know he was burnt alive instead of shooting himself?

Bunch of bullies? Really. Should they have only sent one cop in at a time to make things fair?

[darkangel218]

67. How do you know he wasnt alive??

No, they should've waited it out, and follow their procedures. I'm pretty damn sure the procedures were not sending in one cop at a time. Just like they were not to torch him alive.

And yes, they acted in revange, there is no doubt about that. What if Dorner had hostages with him inside? And don't tell me they used infrared technology to deetrmine who's in. If they did that, they could've pinpointed his exact location in the cabin and monitored him.

[geek tragedy]

74. How do you know procedures?

They probably did not want someone adept at evading detection from slipping away in the night.

[darkangel218]

133. I guarantee you that setting fire on a dwelling where a suspect is hiding,

And that within a secured perimeter, is not part of the protocol of any law enforcement agency. Not in the US anyway.

[geek tragedy]

134. You know more than I then. nt

[Lokey]

81. I can understand why they didn't want to go in

However, I was listening to that scanner feed at least a half hour before the fire and for several hours after. I know what I heard. Me and at least 8k other people on one feed and about 23k on the other at that time. Yet the sheriff comes out and says they did not intentionally burn it. really.
One would think that since they know many people heard it, and portions of the audio are flying around the internet,they could at least admit what they did. What are they afraid of? An uprising because they knew it was wrong to do that?
I think we all knew it wasn't going to end well, but I am not sure I can agree with the tactic used.

[geek tragedy]

83. They probably knew there was a chance there would be a fire.

They're called burners, after all. But the goal of tear gas is to flush him out. He only burns to death if he doesn't leave the building.

[magellan]

111. The possibility exists that

....he didn't leave the building because he was wounded, even unconscious or dead of a self-inflicted wound, and incapable of doing so.

From what I understand of events at the cabin, he hadn't moved or made a noise for some considerable length of time before they decided to use the burners. There's every chance of a fire when setting even one of those off in a wood cabin. And they did this even though they weren't certain he was the only one inside, or that he was still in there. Why not start with non-incendiary tear gas if the goal was to flush him out?

I would have hoped we had better ways of dealing with such people than to jump straight to total annihilation.

[geek tragedy]

130. They waited at least two hours so it's not like they instantly zapped him.

We don't know if they heard him moving or what. But, they had every right to place the risk of death on him instead of officers moving in to try to apprehend him.

[magellan]

135. That is what they did

They waited however long, and then, instead of trying regular tear gas, they went with the incendiary type. They had to know a fire would result. Their robot had made splinters of several walls. And they had no idea of Dorner's condition.

I'm not saying he didn't deserve to die. There's no question he was out to kill as many LEOs as possible. But that doesn't give the police the excuse to go on a similar vendetta and leap to the most extreme option when other tools are still available.

[geek tragedy]

136. Eh, there should be an investigation.

But this is about a .01 out of ten on the injustice scale, right below Bradley Cooper beating out Ryan Gosling for Sexiest Man Alive.

[magellan]

138. An investigation would be a waste of time

It'd be another whitewash. Because increasingly, too many believe the rule of law only applies when people are behaving themselves. There's a creeping "Act up and you deserve what you get" attitude in this country that scares the hell out of me. That's why I have a problem excusing incidents like this, though I'm probably not stating it very well and know I'm in the minority.

[geek tragedy]

139. I have no problem with cops killing people like Dorner in situations like this.

They could have thrown stun grenades in and run the place over with a bulldozer too. Taking him alive wasn't a priority--preventing him from killing again was. The instrumentality employed did the job perfectly.

[magellan]

140. I guess the standards we expect from law enforcement aren't the same

But I respect your opinion and appreciate the discussion.

[truedelphi]

73. Supposedly we have a body - but no proof that he was killed

Inside the cabin.
He could have been killed at any time in the last hours before the fire -but we don't really know, do we?

[geek tragedy]

76. Well, if he wasn't killed inside the cabin, how did he get inside? Did he go zombie?

You need to double-tap them--fire doesn't do it.

[meanit]

49. Were these cops backwater yokels

who've never done anything more than write a parking ticket, or were they highly trained and superiorly equipped professionals who have to deal with everything from hostage situations to terrorist strikes?

[geek tragedy]

53. I doubt any had dealt with a heavily armed gunman with military training.

Moreover, there was a successful resolution--the dangerous gunman was subdued and was no longer a threat.

[meanit]

78. SWAT teams deal with heavily armed gunmen all the time

that's their job. "Special Weapons And Tactics".

And the "successful resolution" was to subdue the suspect by burning him up until he was no longer a threat? I doubt that is in the SWAT training manual.

[geek tragedy]

82. The goal is to make sure he isn't a threat to anyone anymore.

To minimize the risk of life and limb to civilians and to the officers.

Successful outcome.

[meanit]

99. These cops weren't Marines burning up enemy caves on Iwo Jima

they are civilians sworn and paid to protect the public while enforcing the law. It's not "anything goes to get your man".

[geek tragedy]

102. They carry guns for a reason.

It's not illegal to use lethal force in this kind of situation.

And it pretty much is "kill the bastard" if there's no way to safely take him alive.

They didn't have a 'set phasers to stun' option.

[meanit]

116. Nobody said the police didn't have the right to use lethal force.

But it looks like they may have intentionally set the cabin on fire to kill Dorner. If that turns out to be the case, do find that to be an acceptable tactic for police to use?

[geek tragedy]

129. They used tear gas to smoke him out and the building caught fire.

Given that they had a right to shoot him between the eyes with a sniper rifle, I think we're micro parsing here.

[meanit]

149. Micro Parsing?

No, I don't think so. We are talking the difference between using proven and practiced police methods for dealing with a dangerous suspect vs. what amounts to a vigilante execution by law enforcement. Dorner was supposed to be the depraved killer, not the police.

To ignore the methods that police use to get the bad guy at any cost is a slippery slope, IMO. Similar excuses were made about the actions at Abu Ghraib and Gitmo too.

[Luminous Animal]

63. According to reporter Max Blumenthal, who was there, there was no

gunfight when the cops burned down the building.

In an initial dispatch, a deputy reported seeing “blood spatter” inside the cabins. Dorner, who had just engaged in a firefight with deputies that killed one officer and wounded another, may have been wounded in the exchange. There was no sign of his presence, let alone his resistance, according to police dispatches.

It was then that the deputies decided to burn the cabin down.

“We’re gonna go ahead with the plan with the burner,” one sheriff’s deputy told another. “Like we talked about.” Minutes later, another deputy’s voice crackled across the radio: “The burner’s deployed and we have a fire.”

Next, a sheriff reported a “single shot” heard from inside the house. This was before the fire had penetrated deeply into the cabin’s interior, and may have signaled Dorner’s suicide. At that point, an experienced ex-cop like him would have known he was finished.

Over the course of the next hour, I listened as the sheriffs carefully managed the fire, ensuring that it burned the cabin thoroughly. Dorner, a former member of the LAPD who had accused his ex-colleagues of abuse and racism in a lengthy, detailed manifesto, was inside. The cops seemed to have little interest in taking him alive.

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/how-law-enforcement-and-media-covered-plan-burn-christopher-dorner-alive?paging=off

It really is a good idea to read the entire thing. It pretty much matches the tweets that were being sent by other reporters on the ground. The main stream media has scrubbed those tweets.

[geek tragedy]

69. Well, sure, because they didn't make themselves targets for him.

They sent tear gas cannisters in instead of human beings.

Much better to risk tear gas cannisters than human beings. There was certainly damn little point in trying to take him alive by tackling him.

Honestly, there is usually little interest in taking someone like this alive, for very good reason--it's an undue risk to those trying to take him alive.

[Luminous Animal]

84. You claimed that there engaged in a gunfight when they sent they employed the tear gas.

You are incorrect.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022369836#post25

Was Dorner reading in a library or engaged in a gunfight with

police when this happened?

To call this an execution is idiotic. Dude was shooting at cops, and they took him down.

[geek tragedy]

87. How did the cop die yesterday?

There are lulls in gun fights.

He had an ample chance to surrender. He declined the opportunity and opted for death.

Had he surrendered instead of shooting, there would be a trial. That's not what he wanted.

[Luminous Animal]

90. That gun fight was way over. How many days was Waco?

53? And they had supplies.

[geek tragedy]

104. They weren't a flight risk.

Had a cop set foot in that cabin, the gunfight would have resumed.

[KingFlorez]

31. Don't lie, I didn't say that

Dorner bears the bulk of responsibility of what happened to him, because he chose to kill people. The law is the law, but that doesn't mean I have to feel sorry for what happened to him.

[darkangel218]

41. What law??

He was never tried, he was burned alive by police.

[KingFlorez]

46. I was referreing to due process

I'm not saying that everyone shouldn't have it, my point is that Dorner chose to kill people and set his fate in motion. It's not like he was minding his own business when all this happened. Again, my point is about what set all this in motion to begin with. None of this had to happen.

[robinlynne]

121. but that is not what the OP is about.

[KingFlorez]

131. I was addressing a particular sub-post that mentioned due process

[HipChick]

24. If only that could apply to the LAPD

and all the innocent people they kill every year...oh wait..

[truedelphi]

60. But none of us know anything about any of this...

I just read several "news articles" about the crimes Dorner committed. Funny thing, only one name is even offered up regarding his criminal behavior. Someone steals a car - but the reporter writing up the story doesn't put in the name of the individual whose car was stolen? Several accounts in the news that various individuals saw Dorner doing such and such - but no names to those witnesses????

So far as I can tell, Dorner has been convicted by the press, BECAUSE OF A GULDARN MANIFESTO posted on FB. I am far from being a computer expert, but FB is easy enough to hack, and if the LA Police or any other org wants to take you down, they have the money and can get the expertise to do so.

Not a standard of law I want to see implemented any time soon, but apparently a lot of Americans are A-okay with all this! If the media says it - it must be true!

And ain't it rather odd that both Nine Eleven Hijacker Atta and now Dorner had offical photo ID's that were impermeable to mass conflagrations?? We all saw how the fire at that cabin raged - yet his wallet and his ID survived?? I'd like to coat my house with whatever substance his wallet and his Calif. Driver's License were made of. That coating woul dbe invaluable during a California's summer firestorm...

[geek tragedy]

79. So, who shot the deputy who died that day, kidnapped those maids, committed the carjacking, and shot

at the fish and wildlife rangers?

The guy was an actual threat, and there was not the luxury of treating a guy shooting people as harmless before proven dangerous in a court of law.

[truedelphi]

109. We are told that he was a threat - what we aren't being told are the actual

Names of witnesses to these events.

In three separate news stories, I tally up quite a few crimes, but only one individual actually is named as being a witness.

Hells Bells, even in the matter of the JFK assassination, we were given the names of witnesses to Oswald's activities.

It is decent reporting to state that a car was stolen, and then NAME the individual whose car was stolen.

Otherwise the journalism is rather pathetic.

[geek tragedy]

20. What laws were broken by the use of tear gas to subdue

an armed and violent gunman whose goal was to kill police?

And, no, I am not worried at all about this kind of thing happening to me, as I do not own a gun let alone have plans to go on a murder spree.

Can't speak for you though.

[WinkyDink]

23. An Immodest Proposal!

[alarimer]

26. They should have used a drone

Then the authoritarians would be so happy they could die.

[rightsideout]

27. I was just amazed

I'm still amazed that the police can pretty much destroy someone's personal property with reckless abandon to go after their quarry. I imagine all the damage will be paid for.

Yea, I realize four people were killed but the realization to me has come that this can happen to anyone's property.

Our family was having a crab feast in the backyard when the police jumped the fence from two sides with guns drawn and took position in our backyard as they tried to apprehend my neighbor. He had apparently stabbed someone to death the day before. He wasn't home so they stayed there and waited. Nothing stands in their way. I was actually surprised they didn't tell us to go inside. They pretty much ignored us. So we kept eating the crabs. It was kind of sureal.

[HipChick]

34. Interesting....the police broke into my house while I was away on a business trip

they were observing a suspect on my property in my garage....I arrived home to see a an entire SWAT team on my property, I have never been reimbursed for the damage they did either...

[rightsideout]

45. Wow! They never paid?

That's what I don't get. If they destroy your property going after someone like wrecking a wall or knocking down a door they should pay for it.

I guess the red tape to go through must be a pain. And who would you even approach? I imagine you just get a run around and they hope you just tired of trying and you'll go away.

[truedelphi]

48. Sorry for your mistreatment. A reporter, way back in early 1990's, attempted to

Document the number of people who were outright killed, or die as a result, of a SWAT team arriving at their property because they don't get the correct address of their quarry. There were people who ran to the door as police were busting in, and since they had a weapon at their side to defend themselves, they were shot. There were little old ladies and gentlemen who died - nothing like a concussion bomb to go through your front door, start a fire and then with a squad of Nazi Storm Trooper types entering, all at 4 in the Am, the inevitable heart attack followed.

This reporter managed to put together the names of 400 people. And it was a difficult task - often a news media will ignore anything bad the police in their area due, but only report the good they do.

Even last year in Indiana, the local Swat team in Indiana arrived at the wrong address for their drug bust. The activity scared the bejesus out of the teen who had played hookie from school that day. (I venture to say she won't be playing hookie any time soon, not after that!) The news media reported on the police drug bust that occurred later in the day as being successful, and it was only because a neighbor's video of the original attack going viral that the wrong address incident became known in the local media.

[geek tragedy]

64. The government has the right to seize (and destroy) any piece of property so long as they compensate

you for it, so long as it's done for public purposes.

[zappaman]

28. I wish admin would put back the UNREC button.

[bayareamike]

32. "Burners" is a term for tear gas.

They didn't "torch" him. They gave him the opportunity for over two hours to surrender. They had that cabin surrounded for more than 3 and a half hours. He had plenty of chances to give himself up and face the criminal justice system. Instead, he decided to engage police.

That's what the police are for.

He had plenty of chances to surrender. He decided to kill instead. He went out in a literal blaze of glory.

[Le Taz Hot]

44. The "jokes" and the bloodthirsty

responses on some of these threads are disgusting. Just merely bringing up the suggestion of a trial elicits responses that you, somehow, have no compassion for the people he ALLEGEDLY murdered. That somehow a trial would have been "coddling." I swear some days some of the posters on this board are no better than those on FR.

[geek tragedy]

59. Trials are for people who are in custody. One does not conduct a trial for a gunman shooting

at people. That occasion calls for tear gas and bullets.

Had he surrendered, there would have been a trial.

His decision to avoid a trial.

[Le Taz Hot]

68. Way to completely miss the point.

[geek tragedy]

71. What point? A trial was impossible because Dorner refused to let himself

be taken into custody alive.

[99th_Monkey]

94. I don't completely disagree with you

it's just not the point I was making, rather I was looking at this
incident in larger context of drone killings, NDAA, et. al.

[geek tragedy]

100. This has absolutely nothing to do with drones

Guys who go on shooting rampages generally wind up like this. And trigger happy cops are a much older problem than are drones.

[99th_Monkey]

107. Actually, there is a connection, or so it was reported on DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022346878

[truedelphi]

75. My spouse and I are making the same observations that you are.

See my reply number 60 for more detailing. And more questions.

[MotherPetrie]

62. K&R

[Lady Freedom Returns]

65. It's OK 99th_Monkey, We all love you, we just want to help you...

Let us have the TV remote so we can shut off the Fox News, OK?
.
.
.
.
.
OK! That's our 99th_Monkey! now don't feel beter?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is why friends don't let friends watch Fox News!

[99th_Monkey]

72. FOX Nooze?

I never watch it, rather I watch Democracy Now, Chris Hedges, Michael Moore, et. al.

At least please frame your acidic accusations in the ball park of plausibility.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

101. Have to admit that my post adds to the sarcasm.

I mean have you seen some of the stuff being wrote on their comment pages about this?

OMG! There are some that are way over the deep end.

[99th_Monkey]

106. "on the comments pages"?

Not really sure what you refer to here. you mean somewhere
else besides this OP/String? Or maybe you mean in Meta forum?

[Lady Freedom Returns]

112. The one there on Fox News site.

You know, where you can comment on the story.There are some that are just going crazy over there. I ended up going over there to try and find a lead on something else and... boy!
Seeing what some them are saying over there, and some on FB, is where I though you got some of the idea for this.

[99th_Monkey]

120. NEVER watch FOX

I'm a Democracy Now, Chris Hedges, Michael Moore, et. al. kind of guy.

[quinnox]

91. did you miss his "sarcasm" tag?

It is at the bottom of his OP.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

98. And that is why I use the laughing smiley there at the end.

Mine is just to add to the sarcasm.

[great white snark]

70. What the fuck is up with this liberal labeling regarding Dorner?

Your opinion of this tragedy does not make you any more or less of a liberal.

[99th_Monkey]

80. Perhaps

I've heard people who are concerned about the ongoing march
to setting up a national security police state, concerned about
the NDAA, et. al. .. I've heard them described as soft-on-crime
Liberals, too mushy and touchy-feely, etc.

You have not heard such descriptions? Maybe is not as widely
held belief as I thought.

[one_voice]

86. Indeed. n/t

[datasuspect]

88. Uhhhhhhmerica say BOOOOM!!11111

i giggle in my own shit cuz cops give me a hardon.

[meanit]

92. Cops are not supposed to burn down houses with suspects inside them!

Why is that so hard for some people to understand?

[99th_Monkey]

95. Esp. when they apparently weren't entirely certain whose charred body they found

in the basement, not until they found some ID.

[Historic NY]

93. Check out the video the deputy was shot in the face with a 50 cal sniper rifle...

All the nay sayers and hero worshipers............

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50140955n

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50140903n

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=50140924n

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57569233/carjacking-victim-christopher-dorner-told-me-i-dont-want-to-hurt-you/

Dorner got exactly what he wanted a blaze of no glory.

[99th_Monkey]

96. Assuming it really WAS Dorner who died

the cops themselves said they weren't certain of the identity of
the body, not until they found a piece of ID that somehow survived
the fire.

[Historic NY]

105. Their not looking for anyone else...you heard the sheriff...

that pile of cooked meat is dorner the mass murderer. The only thing I want to know is if he stuck the 40 in his mouth or his ear........on his way to hell

[zappaman]

110. So, you think it might not have been him?

Really?

[99th_Monkey]

115. No. didn't say that.

I said the cops were NOT sure, til AFTER they found his charred ID.

I think he was too baked to tell, and not from pot.

This whole think is sad and my heart goes out to the victims
and their families.

I do hope, however, that the more conscientious Officers in
LAPD will allow some kind of inquiry into this incident, just
like they do when it's s school that a rogue shooter has some
affiliation with.

[99th_Monkey]

128. TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Edit History (of this OP)

This post has been edited 0 times.

(which can be seen just below the very bottom of the string. )

[jsr]

132. Efficiency is paramount to corporations

which, although they are persons, are not flammable.

[GreenStormCloud]

137. You act like it was new.

Dillinger was killed without a chance to surrender. Bonnie & Clyde were killed in an ambush.

The FBI had orders to shoot on sight at Ruby Ridge.

The Branch Dividians were torched at Waco. Lots of little kids died in that.

MOVE was burned out in Philly, along with an entire neighborhood.

It is the way we have been doing business for a long time. (Note: I am not defending any of the above as being good guys. They weren't. But they did deserve trials.)

[99th_Monkey]

142. What you say is true

sadly, it is not new.

I guess what is new though, is how the government is granting itself a "right"
to conduct themselves this way as codified and refined via the NDAA, which is
linked up with an unprecedented sweeping 100% penetration surveillance apparatus,
that is also new. And now we also have drones being rolled out to be used as
well. So there are some new aspects to all this, and they aren't pretty.

[geek tragedy]

143. How was the policy's conduct illegal?

He was holed up on someone else's property, and they used tear gas to smoke him out. The fire would have had the same basic effect--force him to move from his place of hiding from which he could shoot at police.

He had no legal protection against those tactics given his violent resistance to attempts to arrest him.

This is silliness.

[99th_Monkey]

144. My post was in reply to #137

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2371366

Not particularly about Dorner, but about the what's "new" and what isn't, about guv-mint
abuses of power, you know at Ruby Ridge, Waco and such. I'm frankly tired of talking
about Dorner per se, this string has run it's course pretty much, and I'm tired, it's late;
so I'm going to brazenly ignore your post this time. cheers.

[geek tragedy]

145. Ruby Ridge and Waco and gubmint all in one post.

That explains a lot.

[99th_Monkey]

146. Take it up with GreenStormCloud

that's who brought those up. nite.

[GreenStormCloud]

148. Yes, the level of surveillance is new.

And it is scary, because it will be inescapable.

[Waiting For Everyman]

147. Remember the D.C. snipers?

(not as skilled as this guy perhaps, but there were two of them)

They killed a lot of people, over a large area, and it continued for a long time. Yet they were apprehended the old-fashioned way. And then they were put through the entire legal process, both of them. So it can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks