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 ...
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)
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.