Bane LAPD manhunt ongoing

FRED HALE SR. · 02-14-2013, 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khfreek

Did you miss the part where I said "everyone deserves a fair trial"? No exceptions

EDIT: Ah I think you meant more about the safety of the public thing. They had him trapped in a house, the only people he might have hurt at that point were law enforcement agents.

He wasn't coming out alive either way. Trial was never going to be an option because he wasn't going to allow it. You think if he would have said i'm coming out hands up they would have shot him in cold blood? Did you read his manifesto? He was gonna take out as many people as he could before they got him. They got him and I think law enforcement deserves some accolades for a job well done.

I don't understand your reasoning honestly, the guy had just minutes earlier snipered two officers of the law. Two Sheriffs who had families with children will be laid to rest because he was wrongfully fired according to him. Couldn't he have just sucked it up and got another job? Wouldn't that make more sense then going on a killing rampage to prove some point?

khfreek · 02-14-2013, 12:28 PM

If what they did deserves accolades then why are the police denying starting the fire? Oh right, because it's totally not standard procedure and is equivalent to murder (if anyone pressed charges, which they won't). Even the people you're defending don't agree with your logic it seems, haha. Dorner has a family too, if you're gonna play THAT card. They should have taken him down (and hopefully taken him into custody) the correct way, which would have involved risking their lives, yes, but that's part of the job. They took the easy way out and I think it's shameful. And stop acting like I think the guy's justified in killing people, that's ridiculous. You, however think the police are justified in the same thing. It's a bit hypocritical.

FRED HALE SR. · 02-14-2013, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khfreek

If what they did deserves accolades then why are the police denying starting the fire? Oh right, because it's totally not standard procedure and is equivalent to murder (if anyone pressed charges, which they won't). Even the people you're defending don't agree with your logic it seems, haha. Dorner has a family too, if you're gonna play THAT card. They should have taken him down the correct way, which would have involved risking their lives, yes, but that's part of the job. They took the easy way out and I think it's shameful. And stop acting like I think the guy's justified in killing people, that's ridiculous. You, however think the police are justified in the same thing. It's a bit hypocritical.

Who said they did start the fire? Who doesn't agree with my logic? Yeah maybe Dorner should have thought about his family and got another job and moved on with his life. He made a bad decision apparently. Taking him down the correct way such as? I think the police were jusitified we agree on something and I don't find it hypocritical in the least.

**Exo** · 02-14-2013, 12:46 PM

This argument will go on forever if the three of us let it but I wanted to get my last two cents in (I hope).

I respect your opinion KH. I do. I just want to get something straight. You're saying that he should have been given due process by trial to explain his actions and most likely succumb to justice by sentencing. I'm fine with that. Really. I am. What I'm not fine with is the accusation that what the police did was wrong. We have no idea how that fire started. Was it the police? Maybe. Was it Dorner? Probably, but we can't know for sure. So saying the police started the fire and that they're murderers is the exact thing you're accusing us of by calling out Dorner to be killed.

Fact is that Dorner killed four people. He had a manifesto stating that he'd kill as many as possible before it was all over. He hijacked cars and invaded peoples homes. He tied up an elderly couple. He was nice to them because they listened to him and stayed quiet. What if they didn't? It's completely logical to assume that he would kill that elderly couple if they didn't do what he said because it was in direct correlation with him getting away and filling out his plan. The man was a danger to everybody.

Here's another thing to think about. Lets say the police have a guy cornered and the perp pulls out a knife. Does that automatically mean he's going to stab the cop? No. But police are trained to defend themselves with deadly force if they feel their lives are in danger just as civilians are allowed to do so as well. Dorner was shooting at them. He killed one of them. The time for due process flew out the door as soon as he started shooting at officers.

This isn't a hard concept to understand. And just for the record, I'm not happy with the police shooting at those mistaken vehicles. That was reckless and should be addressed. Fact is we don't know who started the fire but trying to arrest him without anybody getting killed was just an impossible scenario. Dorner was a dead man no matter what.

midnight rain · 02-14-2013, 02:44 PM

Did you guys listen to the audio feed posted earlier in the thread? They're clearly outlining the process of starting the fire.

We'll never know for sure what went down, but as I said before they clearly started the fire. By an account of one of the officers, Dorner tried to exit the cabin after the fire was started and was "pushed back in", I don't know if we ever got clarification on what he meant by that, but it's very possible he was trying to surrender and they weren't having it.

Of course we won't know any of that for sure because they forced all news choppers to leave the area.

http://communities.washingtontimes.c...-fire-to-kill/

**Exo** · 02-14-2013, 02:48 PM

Bottom line is I don't give a **** what happened as long as the guy is dead. They may have started the fire but I doubt that they'd force him back in if he was trying to surrender. It'd be more likely that he'd be shot instead of being lead back into the cabin.

The guy deserved what he got.

FRED HALE SR. · 02-14-2013, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

Did you guys listen to the audio feed posted earlier in the thread? They're clearly outlining the process of starting the fire.

We'll never know for sure what went down, but as I said before they clearly started the fire. By an account of one of the officers, Dorner tried to exit the cabin after the fire was started and was "pushed back in", I don't know if we ever got clarification on what he meant by that, but it's very possible he was trying to surrender and they weren't having it.

Of course we won't know any of that for sure because they forced all news choppers to leave the area.

Chris Dorner: Did police set fire with intent to kill? | Washington Times Communities

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...CvEzzXdsYOg8YQ

Seems most people are assuming it was the tear gas that ignited the flames. Either way i'm with EXO on this **** this guy.

midnight rain · 02-14-2013, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Exoskeletal

Bottom line is I don't give a **** what happened as long as the guy is dead. They may have started the fire but I doubt that they'd force him back in if he was trying to surrender. It'd be more likely that he'd be shot instead of being lead back into the cabin.

The guy deserved what he got.

I don't think he was lead back into the cabin, he probably was shot at so there was no letting him escape.

Due process shouldn't be thrown out the window just because you disagree with the guy's actions.

midnight rain · 02-14-2013, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FRED HALE SR.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...CvEzzXdsYOg8YQ

Seems most people are assuming it was the tear gas that ignited the flames. Either way i'm with EXO on this **** this guy.

How could you say that when they talk about 'setting up the burners' and 'burning that mother****er down'?

It wasn't an accidental fire dude.

FRED HALE SR. · 02-14-2013, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tuna

How could you say that when they talk about 'setting up the burners' and 'burning that mother****er down'?

It wasn't an accidental fire dude.

They also couldn;t confirm that was a legitimate police scanner. And burner is slang for tear gas.

02-14-2013, 12:28 PM	#62 (permalink)
khfreek What a guy Join Date: Oct 2008 Location: Brentwood, TN Posts: 2,123	If what they did deserves accolades then why are the police denying starting the fire? Oh right, because it's totally not standard procedure and is equivalent to murder (if anyone pressed charges, which they won't). Even the people you're defending don't agree with your logic it seems, haha. Dorner has a family too, if you're gonna play THAT card. They should have taken him down (and hopefully taken him into custody) the correct way, which would have involved risking their lives, yes, but that's part of the job. They took the easy way out and I think it's shameful. And stop acting like I think the guy's justified in killing people, that's ridiculous. You, however think the police are justified in the same thing. It's a bit hypocritical. __________________ last.fm

02-14-2013, 12:46 PM	#64 (permalink)
Exo All day jazz and biscuits Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NJ Posts: 7,354	This argument will go on forever if the three of us let it but I wanted to get my last two cents in (I hope). I respect your opinion KH. I do. I just want to get something straight. You're saying that he should have been given due process by trial to explain his actions and most likely succumb to justice by sentencing. I'm fine with that. Really. I am. What I'm not fine with is the accusation that what the police did was wrong. We have no idea how that fire started. Was it the police? Maybe. Was it Dorner? Probably, but we can't know for sure. So saying the police started the fire and that they're murderers is the exact thing you're accusing us of by calling out Dorner to be killed. Fact is that Dorner killed four people. He had a manifesto stating that he'd kill as many as possible before it was all over. He hijacked cars and invaded peoples homes. He tied up an elderly couple. He was nice to them because they listened to him and stayed quiet. What if they didn't? It's completely logical to assume that he would kill that elderly couple if they didn't do what he said because it was in direct correlation with him getting away and filling out his plan. The man was a danger to everybody. Here's another thing to think about. Lets say the police have a guy cornered and the perp pulls out a knife. Does that automatically mean he's going to stab the cop? No. But police are trained to defend themselves with deadly force if they feel their lives are in danger just as civilians are allowed to do so as well. Dorner was shooting at them. He killed one of them. The time for due process flew out the door as soon as he started shooting at officers. This isn't a hard concept to understand. And just for the record, I'm not happy with the police shooting at those mistaken vehicles. That was reckless and should be addressed. Fact is we don't know who started the fire but trying to arrest him without anybody getting killed was just an impossible scenario. Dorner was a dead man no matter what. __________________ LastFM SUPREME POO BAH MODERATOR EXTRAORDINAIRE

02-14-2013, 02:44 PM	#65 (permalink)
midnight rain Music Addict Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 1,711	Did you guys listen to the audio feed posted earlier in the thread? They're clearly outlining the process of starting the fire. We'll never know for sure what went down, but as I said before they clearly started the fire. By an account of one of the officers, Dorner tried to exit the cabin after the fire was started and was "pushed back in", I don't know if we ever got clarification on what he meant by that, but it's very possible he was trying to surrender and they weren't having it. Of course we won't know any of that for sure because they forced all news choppers to leave the area. http://communities.washingtontimes.c...-fire-to-kill/ Last edited by midnight rain; 02-14-2013 at 02:51 PM.

02-14-2013, 02:48 PM	#66 (permalink)
Exo All day jazz and biscuits Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: NJ Posts: 7,354	Bottom line is I don't give a ** what happened as long as the guy is dead. They may have started the fire but I doubt that they'd force him back in if he was trying to surrender. It'd be more likely that he'd be shot instead of being lead back into the cabin. The guy deserved what he got. __________________ LastFM SUPREME POO BAH MODERATOR EXTRAORDINAIRE**