Skip to comments.Police Appeared To Shout 'Burn This Mother' Down Before Fire Engulfed Rogue Ex-Cop's Cabin
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.
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:
"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.
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?
No quibble with most of your statements which are quite logical and reasonable. He wasnt coming out alive. But we do have choices on how to execute someone. What one hears on the audio is not reason and logic as you stated but a mob wanting to burn him alive. That is what i object to. A hail of bullets or even a massive bomb would have been more humane than fire.
Yeah that means I believe police are subordinate to the people.
Amazing isnt it.
When the police admit the recordings are theirs then the recordings are no longer unconfirmed.
I know you probably had a little trouble in school and need your police union spokesman to tell you what to think.
The LAPD is bloodthirsty and incompetent, a dangerous combination.
If he were indeed still alive prior to the fire, why didn't he surrender peacefully?
Then you are stating that Dorner had authority over the police? Amazing!!!!!
Great, now can you provide a source from which you acquired your knowledge?
I know you probably had little trouble in school
You're correct, I had very little trouble in school.
The LAPD is bloodthirsty and incompetent
The LAPD wasn't the primary at Big Bear, cfriminal apologist.
Same tribal loyalty mentality, same tactics. I could post about LEO malfeasance featuring the same from today’s local paper but it probably wouldn’t matter to you. Life is a “Dirty Harry” movie for you I suppose.
More stupid, mindless generalizations.
I could post about LEO malfeasance
How many incidents daily are LEOs involved in nationwide?
Therein lies your problem. Supposition is NOT a substitute for facts and evidence.
That would be an uncommon reading of the Fifth Amendment. Currently the Amendment has this to say:
No person shall be [...] deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
Due process does not mean "terminate on sight, no questions asked, using any method of death that you can imagine in the rage of the battle." If the police is allowed to burn whoever they want, as long as they allege "bad things" done by the person, what stops them from stealing a page from the book of Count Dracula and impaling people in the courtyard of the police department? Even the Spanish Inquisition did not burn people without a trial (however formal it was.)
A conspiracy nut would be quick to say that nobody really knows for a fact that Chris Dorner wrote this manifesto or killed those people. Anyone could have written the document, and anyone could have killed the victims. Dorner would be then "advised" to disappear because he is a dead man walking. I personally don't think that this conspiracy theory holds water, but it is theoretically possible - and that's why we have lawyers and courts, to find out what actually happened.
Without that safety check you, an innocent person, can be easily framed for any crime - and executed on the spot by the arriving police. Someone standing over a dead body is *always* the killer, never a Good Samaritan, isn't it so?
As matter of the Constitution, nobody in this land can even "surrender his right to due process." There is no such mechanism in the Constitution, and for a very good reason. Otherwise a tyrant will always find leverage against the opponent (his children, for example, or torture) to make him surrender his rights.
It is true that the police is allowed to use force to stop a crime in progress. However, with Dorner holed up in the house, there was no crime in progress, there was no imminent harm to anyone. I'd use the situation to field-test many robots that are made for exactly these situations. Some robots can even navigate complex urban terrain, climb stairs, carry weapons. Send them in, control them from a safe location, and let them break the doors, investigate who is inside and where, deploy pepper spray and Tasers and non-incendiary tear gas, and in the end the criminal inside will be forced to surrender.
Dorner wouldn't have killed himself if he could get out of it alive simply because he'd want the trial as a platform from which he can further expose the LAPD. The act of burning him was either stupid (if done without thinking) or criminal (if done to silence Dorner forever.)
Firing at law enforcement officers in the execution of their duties is an automatic forfeiture of due process. If you shoot at me you are forfeiting your right to due process as I have a right to self defense.
You keep calling me a criminal apologist. You are a liar.
No surprise for a boot licker
“Then you are stating that Dorner had authority over the police? Amazing!!!”
Liar and a fool
So cops shooting at little old ladies delivering newspapers are also giving up their right of due process?
You posted this, "I believe police are subordinate to the people." So are you a liar, fool or both?
Well you are doing everything you can to deflect blame from a killer/fugitive, aren't you?
No dummy, the old ladies didn't fire on the cops, did they? The cops involved should be fired and be held criminally and financially responsible, IMO.
If (and that’s a big if) this was a deliberate execution, it may or may not have conformed with the primary agency’s use of deadly force policy. It is certainly questionable against the Garner standard. Assuming you are indeed from Alaska, you should know that the fleeing felon standard is even more restrictive in the use of deadly force there than elsewhere.
This really comes down to the legal interpretation of “fleeing felon.” If there was indeed a perimeter established and no active firefight, deliberately killing Dorner while holed up will be a tough sell.
If the information circling the bowl right now is true, I could bet my last dollar that I’d be answering some very tough questions from my chain of command. Police organizations vary from largely apolitical entities to elected Sheriffs for whom public perception is reality. I I hope as details emerge it is discovered that the killing was fully justified and exonerates officers who have obviously undergone a very stressful and sad ordeal — It truly is a higher calling to swallow your rage and personal feelings to do your duty as it’s defined by law.
On the other hand, it would be a tragedy if Dorner’s well-earned dirt-nap was obtained by coloring outside the lines.
They opened fire on him. He fled to another cabin.
I will say this, if anyone, LEO or otherwise begins shooting at me, bet your ass I will shoot back.
The point of the article was there were indications they previously planned to deploy the "burners" for the sole intended purpose of setting the building on fire; not for the purpose deploying CS to confuse, disrupt, debilitate.
Where does the police (aka state) derive its power?
cmon sport you should be able to answer this one. clue.. its not their glock
So you insist on due process for your fellow thugs but deny it of everyone else.
It wouldn’t take much to turn him into a martyr for how this was handled. Many more people could die as the crazies follow his example.
40 years. The fugitive was firing at police officers, endangering their lives and possibly innocent bystanders.
Was that before or after he killed and wounded police officers? Why would an innocent person open fire on uniformed police officers while holed up in a cabin with police helicopters flying overhead? What would a person expect for an outcome?
You posted this, "I believe police are subordinate to the people." You failed to answer the question I posed to you in #225. "Then you are stating that Dorner had authority over the police?"
The police are charged with the duty of enforcing the laws and apprehending criminal suspects. If those suspects fire at LEOs, they are endangering the lives of the officers and stupidly, themselves. Why do you defend the stupid and criminal?
nice try, but again you fail
Actually, AWolf is right on the money.
Once he killed 4 cops and then holed up and started a firefight with deputies, he’s begging and deserves to be killed.
And good riddance to the sick creep, was targeting wives and children of all LAPD.
Another mindless stupid allegation. Is it an act or are you really as dumb as you appear?
So far that's all you have done.
yes, you boot lickers aren’t big on due process unless its one of yours.
otherwise just blaze away, shoot anything that moves