Posted on 02/13/2013 3:00:36 PM PST by Repeat Offender
A six-day California manhunt ended Tuesday with rogue ex-cop Christopher Dorner apparently dying in a cabin fire on Bear Mountain.
One of many big questions to be answered is how the deadly fire was started.
Multiple unconfirmed audio clips appear to show police officers talking about burning down the cabin in which the alleged cop-killer was hiding.
Deliberately starting a fire, rather than waiting out the suspect, could be seen as an extreme measure.
---(snip)
In an unconfirmed video showing live footage from KCAL9 Los Angeles, officers are apparently caught in the background around the 20 second mark saying, "burn that f------ house down." It continues:
[Inaudible]
"Burn him out!"
"Get to him right now, f------ burn this motherf-----!"
Another unconfirmed video posted to YouTube of television coverage from CBS 2 captures officers apparently saying, "burn it down, burn it down ... get the gas." Another officer says, "yeah, burn it down." The exchange happens around the 1:24 mark:
The Guardian reports that journalist Max Blumenthal was listening to the police scanners, and live-tweeting the event.
On the scanners, Blumenthal reports hearing an exchange where the police talk about using "burners." The Daily Caller is reporting that is police slang for tear gas.
"All right, Steve, we're gonna go, we're gonna go forward with the plan, with the burner."
"Copy," is the response.
"We want it, like we talked about."
"Seven burners deployed and we have a fire," says the first voice.
"Copy. Seven burners deployed and we have a fire," responds a female voice.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Has nothing to do with being a peasant,
Has to do with showing absolutely no intent to do harm.
If he had come out any other way they would have perforated him.
He killed himself probably anyway.
drpix wrote: You argue like a real leftist - you change the subject or case every time your arguement on the original subject or case colapses. Are you sure your a libertaian and not a leftist?And yet my above quote was a reply to your following post:Notice how you change the subject "every time your arguement on the original subject or case colapses".
The subject is the police hosing down everything in sight with lead and fire...
"Were those women shooting at the cops? How about that guy in the black pickup they also shot?"Who changed the subject/case from the cabin shooting to the 2 women shooting and who responded to you changing the case/subject? Pathetic! You can't engage in a rational discussion if you can't remember what you post.
The legal right to use deadly force differs for cops and civilians. For both it involves the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury at the hands of the offender(s). But, the difference is that for civilians it either includes the right to stand their ground or a requirement to try and safely retreat - but it never includes the duty to pursue and stop, as it does for cops.
Dorner surrendered his right to due process by trial when he fired on pursuing police - whether the deadly force used to kill him was lead or flames!!!!!!!!
All Americans have the right to self protection (including armed 2nd Amendment protection) but many are not up to it. In those cases and when facing the violence of criminal gangs and violent anti-American radicals, cops have been America's "thin blue line."
As for boot licking, I've never associated with those cops who either licked boots or wanted their boots licked. But if you try some boot licking on Sharpton, Jackson, Bill Ayers or the many Hollywood leftists, they may let you in on the "police brutality" campaign they are sure to launch in response to "Django" Dorner's death.
I'll live with the company I choose. You can live with the company you chose.
Self-defense? Dinno. One guy in a cabin surrounded by armed poice? I see no legal or other justification for intentionally burning someone alive. there are more humane ways of wasting an SOB than by burning them alive.
As I told bigheadfred in post-151...
Try the entire quote: "When, after a black has already killed many, and is in the act of trying to kill some more, it becomes the job of the ACLU, the Communist Party and the Black Panther Party to defend the Constitution. It is the cops' and every other patriotic American's duty to kill the SOB."And as I replied to him in that post...
"Do you work for NBC news? Cutting out parts to slant its meaning!"Note: In "Django" Dorner's case, since reality required me to include the Black Panther among his defenders, I also had to specify his race.
Exactly.
You have proof of this happening in Dorner's case?
PDs have become street gangs with the color of law. The psychology is no different between the two. Loyalty to the group over all others.
This is a concern because there was a direct line between Waco and the OKC bombing. Not a moral justification for OKC, but these sort of things happen when government doesn’t consider anything other than the short term effects of its actions.
That is pure speculation on your part. Dorner could easily have turned himself in prior to killing the deputy sheriff.
That generalization is pure lunacy.
What are "unconfirmed" videos and audios?
A better question would be why was the occupant of the cabin shooting at law enforcement officers?
What are two little old ladies?
No argument regarding more humane ways to kill someone, but how much risk do you expect the police to take in attempting to arrest a guy like that? He shot the first two that approached the cabin, killing one of them. At some point it becomes obvious that the suspect is not going to come out just because you asked him to. Having seen one fire myself that was started by tear gas I can tell you there was plenty of time for the gas to begin working on the guy, and more than enough time for him to come out and surrender, if he had a mind to. Clearly he did not. What seems to get overlooked in this discussion are the decisions made by the suspect, all of which directly resulted in his death. He could have avoided that any number of times.
Answer the question already posed to you first. What are "unconfirmed" videos and audios?
So you’re saying those aren’t recordings of the police communications? Heck the police have even admitted they are so you must be just another liar protecting his buddies.
No, I posed a question. . What are "unconfirmed" videos and audios? If you don't know, just admit it.
you must be just another liar
For posing a question, criminal apologist?
ROTFLOLAY!!!!!!!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.