Originally Posted by Finger_Shocker When did you get the autopsy report before us

It's almost safe to assume that he shot himself before hand, who the would want to be burned alive willingly?

Advertisement

Register for free to remove this ad

Originally Posted by berzirk I think you don't understand the responsibility and the training that officers are subject to, so as to not endanger the public, while trying to keep them safe. We're talking about lethal force. You don't assume, and hope you're right. You need to be damn sure that when you're using lethal force, that it is justified, and that you have the ability to carry it out. Clearly they had the ability to carry it out, but also, clearly it was not justified. It's part of the officer's duty to put themselves in harm's way to protect the public. If they are unable to do that, they need different careers. Officers had no way to disable the vehicle? How bout the dude down the road that shot at them, could he not call ahead and say "take cover and get ready to defend?" This was completely botched by trained professionals. If you're this lax with the duties and failure to perform those duties, from the police here, then I wonder what professions you do hold to a normal standard (it's not a high standard to assume a trained LEO would not open fire on innocent people due to a mistake). It's baffling. I truly hope you never plan on getting in to law enforcement. Apparently we could all be in danger if you did.

Police are not Superman and they're not Judge Dredd, they're human beings. What you are asking them to do is not reasonable. They didn't assume shots were fired, there were. They didn't assume the truck was rapidly accelerating at them, it was. They didn't assume there was a highly trained murderer trying to kill police officers guarding the targets on his hit list, there was, and he had done so only hours earlier. They had every reason to believe they were in mortal danger. The situation they were placed in should have never, ever, ever happened but once it did you can not ignore the errors by other officers that got them there.

The day's light was fading when the SWAT officers decided they could wait no longer for Christopher Dorner to surrender. Dorner, the fired Los Angeles cop suspected of killing four people in a campaign of revenge, had been holed up in a cabin near Big Bear Lake for hours, trading gunfire with San Bernardino County sheriff's deputies. Repeated calls over a loudspeaker for him to surrender went ignored. Attempts to flush him out with tear gas led nowhere. Wanting to end the standoff before nightfall, members of the sheriff's SWAT unit enacted a plan they had devised for a final assault on the cabin, according to law enforcement sources. Multiple sources, who were at the scene and asked that their names not be used because they were not authorized to discuss the case, said the decision to use the incendiary gas canisters came amid mounting concern that time and options were running out. Dorner, they said, had not communicated with police at any point during the siege and had continued to fire off rounds at them with high-caliber weapons. "Any time they moved, this guy was shooting," one source said. Bringing large floodlights into the area was deemed too dangerous and police worried Dorner might have night-vision goggles that would soon give him an advantage. When they eventually moved in with the demolition vehicle and began to get glimpses into the cabin as the walls were torn down, Dorner's whereabouts and condition were unknown. On the radio transmission, one officer describes seeing blood splattered inside the cabin and then another reports hearing a single gunshot being fired, raising the possibility that Dorner may have killed himself before the fire engulfed the cabin. Samuel Walker, emeritus professor of criminal justice at the University of Nebraska Omaha, was critical of the decision to use the "burner" tear gas canisters. "It's true, he was firing at them. But he was cornered. He was trapped. At that point, there was no rush in the sense that he was barricaded. The standard rules on barricade situations are that you can wait the person out," Walker said. "To use a known incendiary device raises some very serious questions in my mind." Other law enforcement experts interviewed by The Times, however, said the move was justified. Even though SWAT officers were certain to have known a fire was a strong possibility, the use of the gas was reasonable in the face of the deadly threat Dorner presented, they said. Allowing the standoff to carry on into the night, they emphasized, would have added an unpredictable element to the drama that officials were smart to avoid. "What difference does it make if one of the officers puts a … round in his head, drives the armored vehicle over his body when they are knocking the building down, or he dies in a conflagration?" said David Klinger, a use-of-force expert at the University of Missouri at St. Louis and a former LAPD officer. "If he is trying to surrender you can't do any of those things … But if he is actively trying to murder people, there's no doubt that deadly force is appropriate and it doesn't matter what method is used to deliver it." Geoffery Alpert, a professor at the University of South Carolina who also specializes in police tactics, agreed. "I don't understand what the big deal is," Alpert said. "This man had already shot two officers and was suspected of murdering other people. He wasn't responding in a rational manner. The actions you take have to remove the threat and if it requires extreme measures, then so be it."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,5831477.story

The fact that that last quote comes from a professor and expert on police use of force is disappointing to me - the last sentence in particular. That's the same kind of approach that led to the MOVE bombing (yes, bombing) in Philadelphia in the mid-1980's.

Justifying use of force after the fact is too easy to do, anyone can bold quotes from a news article to support their view. The only rational argument in the article above is to try to end the standoff before nightfall - but that's not a very well-formed argument, to be fair. Reminds me of the Branch Davidian standoff in Waco, TX, many decades ago.

Hey guys take a read at this:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/legal-looph...ry?id=18506414

Apparently this is why I do not trust cops or the legal system to be keep their word.

They pull this same shit with the Osama thing too

Apparently if people need to be paid before reporting a criminal, we as a society basically have no morals or standards.

OH YEA AND MAYBE THAT'S WHY THE COPS/GOV'T KILL THE GUY INSTEAD....

Originally Posted by dafoomie Police are not Superman and they're not Judge Dredd, they're human beings. What you are asking them to do is not reasonable. They didn't assume shots were fired, there were. They didn't assume the truck was rapidly accelerating at them, it was. They didn't assume there was a highly trained murderer trying to kill police officers guarding the targets on his hit list, there was, and he had done so only hours earlier. They had every reason to believe they were in mortal danger. The situation they were placed in should have never, ever, ever happened but once it did you can not ignore the errors by other officers that got them there.

Again, I think you know nothing of law enforcement. It doesn't take Superman to do your job and protect the safety of citizens. It takes a trained LEO. If anyone else started shooting first and asked questions last, they would be in jail right now. Since they're cops, we just call it an honest mistake, tell the victims "sorry our guys almost killed you, let's be friends" and move on. It's naive, it's uninformed, and it lowers expectations for all professionals in every industry.

Police caused the initial situation (shots fired) and then caused the follow up (shooting at a car full of innocent people trying to get away from a madman in a uniform shooting at them).

Pretty much what I said all along...

Self Inflicted

Originally Posted by berzirk Again, I think you know nothing of law enforcement. It doesn't take Superman to do your job and protect the safety of citizens. It takes a trained LEO. If anyone else started shooting first and asked questions last, they would be in jail right now. Since they're cops, we just call it an honest mistake, tell the victims "sorry our guys almost killed you, let's be friends" and move on. It's naive, it's uninformed, and it lowers expectations for all professionals in every industry. Police caused the initial situation (shots fired) and then caused the follow up (shooting at a car full of innocent people trying to get away from a madman in a uniform shooting at them).

So essentially what you're saying is that trained law enforcement officers should never trust the judgement of other trained law enforcement officers when they have determined that lethal force is necessary? If you knew anything about law enforcement you'd understand the extraordinary circumstances required for an officer to ever discharge his weapon.

Originally Posted by GBAstar Pretty much what I said all along... Self Inflicted

It only counts as "I told you so" if people disagree with what you say.

I saw no disagreement, but I did see a lot of people who said "let's wait to get more info."

But, sure, pat yourself on the back for what everybody else already thought was the case anyway. I wake up every morning jumping up and down, telling my wife "THE SUN CAME UP! THE SUN CAME UP! TOLD YOUUUUUUUUUUUU!"

Originally Posted by GBAstar Pretty much what I said all along... Self Inflicted

At the point one believes (for better or worse) that Dorner was some kind of anti-hero and that the conspiracy was really that deep... why would anyone believe what the Sheriff or any other government official says about the outcome of the case?

Originally Posted by UncleBob At the point one believes (for better or worse) that Dorner was some kind of anti-hero and that the conspiracy was really that deep... why would anyone believe what the Sheriff or any other government official says about the outcome of the case?

Yeah I don't get that either. Especially if one believes the cabin was set on fire intentionally.

I think it was that department store shooting thread where this was last discussed, but this weekend I again saw this town using police as security for businesses. Once was the police out patrolling and walking Wal-Mart's parking lot, which I've seen lots of times. The other was at the local theater, they had three in uniform police inside the local theater, and one was tearing ing tickets for people while the theater guy went to the bathroom.

Wtf is this shit? I'm helping to pay for these places to have in uniform police security now? ing bullshit.

Not necessarily. Businesses can hire off-duty police if they need additional security. You don't think taxpayers are on the hook for all the officers on duty at a pro sports game, do you?

Originally Posted by mykevermin Not necessarily. Businesses can hire off-duty police if they need additional security. You don't think taxpayers are on the hook for all the officers on duty at a pro sports game, do you?

At least in the case of Wal-Mart, they're in their police cars. Granted they could be off duty, but that raises the other question of why they're in their police cars. I'd also assume that if they're in full uniform (like at the theater) they'd be on duty, but I could be wrong about that. Seems like it would be misrepresenting what they're doing though.

But no, I'm well aware that police moon light as security some times, but I don't think they're allowed to use the city's resources in the process.

Probably be better served checking with your local officials on that one than asking random folks on CAG. Varies by city (unsure if there are any state-wide laws regarding this). Not at all uncommon for municipalities to allow officers to wear their uniform while "off duty" (generally, officers are never truly "off duty" and still have the rights and authority of an officer even while "off the clock"). Additionally, and again, this varies by municipality, officers are allowed to use the squad car as a personal vehicle while "off the clock" - and different municipalities have different rules regarding paying for mileage/wear-and-tear/gas.

I'd be interested in hearing what you find out about your city officers if you do look into it.

That's precisely how my city does it, Bob. As long as you're within the city, the fuel is on the city. The trade off of having more police visible, especially at the high crime areas that usually pay the off duty officers, is a bonus deterrent to bad guys. Our fire dept gives city "take home" cars to chiefs and certain officers also. Some of them live a good hour or more away from our city. It comes to a huge cost for the city, especially with the rising gas prices.

Originally Posted by dafoomie So essentially what you're saying is that trained law enforcement officers should never trust the judgement of other trained law enforcement officers when they have determined that lethal force is necessary? If you knew anything about law enforcement you'd understand the extraordinary circumstances required for an officer to ever discharge his weapon.

If the cops instructions were to shoot at any vehicle that matched the description, then yes, they would have followed a dumb-ass order.

Clearly you have watched too many movies, read a couple of Tom Clancy books, or some other fantasy work, because you still don't understand the level of responsibility these guys have, the fact that their job description is unique in that in the course of duty, killing a person can be what they are expected to do, and conversely, not killing people is also a reasonable expectation.

I'm fairly well-informed with respect to local and federal law enforcement practices and training. I've never heard from training and officers that they are supposed to shoot at cars because they think a dangerous bad guy might be in them. They aren't trained to shoot at what might happen, they're trained to shoot at what is happening. That's why they put their lives at risk to protect the general public. It's clear that I'm debating this point with someone who is woefully unaware, so feel free to have the last word on it, I won't offer a rebuttal, and you can keep thinking that cops shooting at innocent people cause they thought they were bad guys is acceptable.

Just hope you're not the "innocent people" someday.