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 ...
You're kidding, right? You give yourself a high five for the ability to cut and paste a tangentially related article on deadly force from the online free legal dictionary like you're the second coming of Blackwell?
I have a four year old to deal with right now. I'll be back to eviscerate your "football bat" reasoning when time and obligation permit.
We've already established the fact that you aren't very bright. There is no need to reinforce the fact.
I have a four year old to deal with right now
I'm positive you could learn plenty from a four year old, hotshot! LOL!
N00b, if you’re too stupid to see the tactical differences between the two cases, it’s not my fault, nor is it my burden to educate you.
IMO, arguing with a person who endorses arson as a law enforcement tool is just a form of sticking your neck out. Just be grateful to learn that the cops view arson as a legitimate form of deadly force against civilians.
Who might that be, criminal apologist?
You, adolescent name caller.
You can post quotes that I've made to corroborate your allegation that I support arson as a law enforcement tool? Or are you going to slink off like a cowardly, lying criminal apologist POS?
I despise LIARS!
I really don’t care what your opinion of me is, and I’m sure the sentiment is mutual.
It's not an opinion it is a fact. You are a despicable,bald-faced liar.
That doesn't even hold a candle to this post to me ...
Like I said, I don't care what you say, what you think, etc. I don't find your remarks to be persuasive, and IMO, you are damaging to the very cause you think you are supporting. You come off as a hot head, action before thought.
- would rather believe and spread lies than accept the truth ... includes you, oh, most definitely it includes you.
- you post against the truth on numerous threads.
- you are tiresome and tiring. You are old, worn out, rung out, dry. Not you but your tiresome falsehoods.
- you [are] with the worst of the worst we have here, because of what I see repeated and repeated, right in league with the meanest, lowdown prevaricators and vilest language talkers, who wouldn't care about the truth if their grandmother's lives hung in the balance on it.
We've already established the fact that you are a despicable, bald-faced liar. Now you apparently are going for lowlife sum of the earth.
You come off as a hot head
I despise LIARS and false accusers. You're too cowardly to admit that you lied. You disgust me.
FWIW, the feeling is mutual. We both think of the other as cowardly, low life and a liar. Neither of us is going to admit the other is right, so we are at a stand off.
What are you going to do now? Come and burn me out? LOL. Carry on, hot shot.
You are in fact.
That plus shooting 30x? at a 'suspect (different color) truck' and we are to believe a cop didn't kick a homeless man?
Now that can't be right. You plagiarized the article on "deadly force" from an online legal dictionary. That makes you a "liar" and thief by definition.
I'll let you in on a little secret....want to know how I knew you'd stolen that quote from an online source so quickly?
You're not smart enough to come up with it on your own, and you don't know what it means, anyway.
"Greater leeway" does not mean "carte blanche," genius.
I know I won't be changing your mind here, but I've always believed "stupid should hurt," so I'm just going to enjoy myself by knocking the crap out of your puerile excuses even if your aren't smart enough to recognize when you've been totally outclassed.
No liar, I didn't claim it was mine. You criminal apologists are so desperate and pathetic.
What exactly is it that you don't understand about, "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", hotshot?
Yes you did, moron. Unless you give attribution to the original source, you are, in fact, claiming it as your own.
That you don't know that is even further proof you need to leave discussions of public policy to the grown-ups.
Why do you find it necessary to lie? Do you enjoy being humiliated, hotshot?
What is it that you don't understand an article from an online dictionary is neither a statute, nor a statement of policy?
You're as pitiful as a schoolboy that screams "you can't do math with letters" because he is ignorant of Algebra.
You think I could learn something from my four year old?
At least she has the excuse of being four when she hides behind her hands and shouts "YOU CAN'T SEE ME."
It's from a legal dictionary, dimwit! It is indeed policy and it has been upheld in the USSC! LOLAY!
Read it and weep, hotshot! http://what-when-how.com/police-science/deadly-force-police/
"deadly force is appropriate if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses significant threat of death or serious physical injury to officers or others. In addition, the severity of the crime, uncertain conditions or rapidly evolving circumstances, and a suspect actively resisting arrest may enter into the objective reasonableness standard. In other words, the Court views the situation from the officers perspective, evaluating the objective reasonableness of the officers response to the unfolding events."
Your 4 year old has to be more intelligent than you, hotshot. LOL!
What's your excuse, hotshot?
I understand, as a functional illiterate, you have a tough time distinguishing between "deadly force" (something no one here is challenging) and "justified" immolation, but trust me...those who don't consider your GED an "education" can tell the difference.
Where is your proof that Dorner was alive and the authorities intentionally set fire to the building for the purpose of burning him alive, hotshot?
If you don't have it, quit wasting everyone's time and let your four year old educate you.
I feel sorry for your four year old.
I thought you were saying Dorner was actively shooting at LEOs when they burned him?
Which is it?
That swirling sound you hear is any pretense of your "justification" circling the drain.
I feel sorry for your victims.
No emoter, you are fantasizing.
That swirling sound you hear
I don't hear anything but the music emanating from my speakers, hotshot.
Are you now in mourning for Dorner?
Either way, why don't you go and find a 2nd Amendment protected and observant American and take a shot at him/her to test your theory... I'm fed up with hearing your #$%@ing shit!
Don’t feed the trolls.
“Either way, why don’t you go and find a 2nd Amendment protected and observant American and take a shot at him/her to test your theory... I’m fed up with hearing your #$%@ing shit! “
Would that be the LAPD who has a long history of illegally confiscating firearms and ignoring court orders to return them?
At least thats according to the NRA and public record.
The article clearly states the "San Bernardino Sheriff's Office, the organization with jurisdiction over the scene". Yet you bring up the LAPD to make yet another disconnected and baseless reply. Make your foolish arguements to somewhere else, I won't waste anymore of my time with them.
Oh shut up dufus. The SBPD didn’t shoot those women.
A LAPD swat team was at the cabin.
You said, and I quote "The use of deadly force by police is justified when they are under fire. You do know that, don't you? " at least three times on this thread.
Apparently your warming up to "liars" with stunning alacrity.
It is when that FNG makes utterly asinine statements, like comparing the circumstances of the Larry Davis case to what was thrown at Dorner.
Dorner had substantially more than a dozen and a half cops surrounding him, he was in a rural, as opposed to urban, environment, and there was no one that could have been construed as a hostage behind his barricade.
So "welcome" to FR. Continue as you have, and your stay here will be short.
Rather, it takes a shameless cop-sucker, or an unrepentant brown-shirt, to believe immolation is a legitimate tool of the state's police powers.
Well only one more time and just to clear the record on your LAPD burning your hero dribble/fantasy/lie:
"San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon said Wednesday that his deputies shot pyrotechnic tear gas into the cabin, and it erupted in flames." (sfgate.com)
You’re right, you are a fool and you should stop.
The tactics used by the police from the beginning of this effort were questionable and put numerous additional lives at risk. The lives of innocents.
Please tell me, at what point in your questionable grasp of the relevant details does one earn the right to be provoked?
It’s all very well and good to be polite, but do you really expect to be treated as a good faith participant in this thread went you attempt to draw parallels such as you have?
Was an LAPD SWAT team on site at the cabin?
Yes or no?
You do know that he had already killed and wounded police officers, don't you? So intent to kill on his part is clear to anyone with an IQ. Are you saying that he hadn't killed and engaged in a gunfight with authorities?
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that reasonableness under the fourth amendment does not require police officers to choose the least intrusive alternative, only a reasonable one. Following that principle, most courts have rejected arguments that the use of deadly force was not necessary because officers had less intrusive options available or it was made necessary by the actions of the officers themselves.
Surprised they were taken off of speed trap duty. Must have wanted to try some new toys out.
Go play some video games with the $cumßags:
You keep saying I support what he did and yet I have never said that. Instead I have condemned his actions. I have also questioned the police tactics since they injured and endangered numerous innocents.
You are a liar and continue to use these lies when you know its false. That is something the leftists liars do.
You aren’t worth any more time.