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 ...
Plan on hunting him down?
AK Dog will run in circles chasing his tail. Have Fun!
Happy Friday from pyscho!
Nah, not worth it. I like challenges. LOL!
Yes, but I don't know if they have as many useful idiots.....or none as eager to prove they are one such as yourself.
It's a shame there are so many of you.
I quoted the only relevant part.
There is NO mitigating circumstance that justifies your "remedy." But like any other authoritarian, you vainly try to contrive a justification that ultimately satisfies only yourself, and those who agree with you in the first place.
No one who truly believes in the rule of law could ever approve your police-state sensibilities, regardless of the excuse.
Not from what I've seen here. Your consistent retreat to taking cover behind rhetorical "human shields" every time you are asked to answer a tough question, demonstrates as much. Not to mention your rather ham-handed accusations on your opponent's motivations.
Only a jack-booted thug, or shameless cop sucker, could contrive circumstances where an agent of the state burning someone alive is justifiable.
And that is exactly what you are doing.
What's next: holding a "suspect's" loved ones hostage? If you don't like the implicit "American" ROEs, find another job.
He was contained. A siege would have been not only more justifiable, but more economically responsible.
What tough questions. I've addressed all that are relevant to the thread subject.
jack-booted thug, or shameless cop sucker
I'll bet your eyes are brown.
What's next: holding a "suspect's" loved ones hostage?
Dorner went a little beyond that, didn't he? He killed the young daughter of a former cop and killed another cop leaving two young children fatherless. You pathetic criminal apologists make me want to puke.
He was armed and shooting at law enforcement and endangering lives. The POS had 6 days to surrender peacefully, but he chose to kill innocent people and was attempting to kill even more.
No, you haven't, but you have consistently turned to waving the dead victims around when questioned about the actions of police.
I'll bet your eyes are brown.
I'll bet your chin is wet.
Dorner went a little beyond that, didn't he? He killed the young daughter of a former cop and killed another cop leaving two young children fatherless. You pathetic criminal apologists make me want to puke
Much as you prefer to ignore it, the salient point being discussed here is the actions of the police, not those of Dorner. Your inability to grasp that fact makes you either too dull to have an opinion worth considering, or a provocateur trying to derail the legitimate objections of critics.
On a personal note: there is nothing I'd like better than to make you "puke."
Which has exactly nothing to do with the fact he was contained.
If someone has the ability to endanger and kill, how are they "contained"? You criminal apologists are all in need of psychiatric help.
If explaining the points and details of a siege is something beyond your understanding, you have no business offering opinions. It's a military tactic that has only been used by military and law enforcement against armed, barricaded, opponents since....oh....THE DAWN OF ORGANIZED WARFARE!
An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.
Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in Self-Defense. The rules governing the use of deadly force for police officers are different from those for citizens.
During the twelfth century, the Common Law allowed the police to use deadly force if they needed it to capture a felony suspect, regardless of the circumstances. At that time, felonies were not as common as they are now and were usually punishable by death. Also, law officers had a more difficult time capturing suspects because they did not have the technology and weaponry that are present in today's world. In modern times, the courts have restricted the use of deadly force to certain, dangerous situations.
In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot to kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.
The Supreme Court has defined the "objective reasonableness" standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force.
The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a Search and Seizure is reasonable if it is based on Probable Cause and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer's intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.
For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.
Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a Wrongful Death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.
When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice byron r. white, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."
When deadly force is used by a private citizen, the reasonableness rule does not apply. The citizen must be able to prove that a felony occurred or was being attempted, and that the felony threatened death or bodily harm. Mere suspicion of a felony is considered an insufficient ground for a private citizen to use deadly force. This was demonstrated in the Michigan case of People v. Couch, 436 Mich. 414, 461 N.W.2d 683 (1990), where the defendant shot and killed a suspected felon who was fleeing the scene of the crime. The Michigan supreme court ruled that Archie L. Couch did not have the right to use deadly force against the suspected felon because the suspect did not pose a threat of injury or death to Couch.
Were you born ignorant or is it just a conscious choice you've made?
Don’t choke on the crow, hotshot! LOL!
The criminal apologist has gone into hiding like Davis and Dorner. They both met their end and hopefully roast in hell for eternity.