Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo in 2013!!
Post by bansheebeat on Feb 13, 2013 10:25:13 GMT -5
It's not sympathizing with an insane person. It's the fact that the cops decided the best course of action was to burn the place down. What if they guy had hostages in there? And since when have cops had the authority to be the judge, jury, and executioners? This whole this is just shady and wrong on all sides involved.
EDIT: Dammit top of the page for a probably controversial opinion, we'll see how this goes.
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2013 10:26:13 GMT -5 by bansheebeat - Back to Top
It's not sympathizing with an insane person. It's the fact that the cops decided the best course of action was to burn the place down. What if they guy had hostages in there? And since when have cops had the authority to be the judge, jury, and executioners? This whole this is just shady and wrong on all sides involved.
EDIT: Dammit top of the page for a probably controversial opinion, we'll see how this goes.
Don't jump to conclusions just yet. We are not fully sure who burned the place down. He may have done it himself. Let's hold off judgement for both sides until we get more information.
It's not sympathizing with an insane person. It's the fact that the cops decided the best course of action was to burn the place down. What if they guy had hostages in there? And since when have cops had the authority to be the judge, jury, and executioners? This whole this is just shady and wrong on all sides involved.
EDIT: Dammit top of the page for a probably controversial opinion, we'll see how this goes.
Don't jump to conclusions just yet. We are not fully sure who burned the place down. He may have done it himself. Let's hold off judgement for both sides until we get more information.
The cops definitely did it. You can hear them on the scanner saying "burn it down." Let's not forget this same thing happened at Waco, just on a larger scale. And just to be clear I'm not taking any side here. I just really don't think police should be able to get away with things like this.
Video has some NSFW audio.
You can hear them say it around the 1:20 mark.
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2013 10:40:07 GMT -5 by bansheebeat - Back to Top
A guy killed multiple people for no reason. He killed innocent people for being related[/img] to someone. He was a menace and a murderer. They don't need to be a judge or a jury to take measures to ensure he doesn't kill anyone else. That's their job, they were protecting the public. This is also assuming they actually set the cabin on fire, which hasn't been confirmed by anyone. Some accounts I've read reported that there was a single gunshot from inside the cabin before it going ablaze a moment later. They implied he killed himself and burned the cabin himself.
Post by bansheebeat on Feb 13, 2013 10:44:38 GMT -5
So why would the cops feel the need to say "burn it down" and later on "burners deployed, building is lit". This has happened before (Waco). After all this is the same police force who shot 2 ladies earlier this week so we know they have no hesitation to act without thinking. The LAPD is probably the sketchiest and most crooked police force in all of America.
And while you may be able to justify it with "the dude was a murderer" that still isn't an excuse for police to take the entire legal process into their own hands. There is much more to this story then we know, that's all I'm saying. It isn't black and white at all.
It's truly frightening that you think certain situations forgo the need for a trial. This is 21st century America. We are supposed to be better than this.
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2013 10:45:57 GMT -5 by bansheebeat - Back to Top
So why would the cops feel the need to say "burn it down" and later on "burners deployed, building is lit". This has happened before (Waco). After all this is the same police force who shot 2 ladies earlier this week so we know they have no hesitation to act without thinking. The LAPD is probably the sketchiest and most crooked police force in all of America.
And while you may be able to justify it with "the dude was a murderer" that still isn't an excuse for police to take the entire legal process into their own hands. There is much more to this story then we know, that's all I'm saying. It isn't black and white at all.
It's truly frightening that you think certain situations forgo the need for a trial. This is 21st century America. We are supposed to be better than this.
"burners" could be code for a number of things. It's not like they have a burner squad who goes around starting fires. Is it possible the law enforcement officers lit a cabin on fire that was housing a guy shooting at them? Yeah, and I would have no problem if that's what they did. The guy was walled up with ammo and no value attached to the lives of others. Sorry that you feel it was inhumane to kill him like that, but I think it's inhumane to shoot innocent people because you're having a rough time.
Guilty by association isn't fair. Every cop in the LAPD isn't corrupt, every cop isn't crooked or guilty of some crime. And Dorner killed non-cops, that's what I don't get about people that are supporting him. He's killing family members of cops, anyone who defends him in any way is just disgusting in my eyes.
And they didn't take the entire process into their own hands, the guy was shooting a gun at them to kill them. How is lighting the cabin on fire (which was probably being done to flush him out via smoke inhalation) any different than shooting him a dozen times? Would you have been upset if they did that?
This isn't a 'story,' either. It's a tragedy. A guy who was mentally unbalanced killed a bunch of innocent people and justified it because they were related to people associated with the LAPD or people Dorner didn't like himself.
And it's frightening that you think "hey, some dude is popping off rounds at my face" is a time when a guy should be put on trial. No, the guy is shooting at you, you put him down.
Post by itrainmonkeys on Feb 13, 2013 10:57:35 GMT -5
Some people saying that he likely wouldn't let them take him alive. In those kinds of situations (not saying this is definitely one of them, speaking hypothetically here) what exactly do you do? How do you arrest a guy to take him to trial if he's got weapons and is shooting at anyone who gets near with intent to kill? Maybe using non-lethal weapons could be an option but I am not knowledgeable enough in this area to really know what works and what doesn't.
So why would the cops feel the need to say "burn it down" and later on "burners deployed, building is lit". This has happened before (Waco). After all this is the same police force who shot 2 ladies earlier this week so we know they have no hesitation to act without thinking. The LAPD is probably the sketchiest and most crooked police force in all of America.
And while you may be able to justify it with "the dude was a murderer" that still isn't an excuse for police to take the entire legal process into their own hands. There is much more to this story then we know, that's all I'm saying. It isn't black and white at all.
It's truly frightening that you think certain situations forgo the need for a trial. This is 21st century America. We are supposed to be better than this.
Unfortunately it does, there was a million dollar dead or alive warrant on him. Gives anyone in the country power to gain a bounty off him because we have confirmed his involvement with direct corroboration from sources and witnesses. Also as you know the cop killer laws apply in California, and that's going to expedite that process. This coming from someone who does think we are forgoing trials of "terrorists" "combatants" or "whistle blowers" like Assange and Bradley Manning. This is the rare occasion where deadly force may have been necessary, police and military training, though I do not like the term "domestic terrorist". He was a murderer and sociopath, they used to be called serial killers - go figure.
Post by bansheebeat on Feb 13, 2013 11:06:49 GMT -5
Cops have incendiary grenades. I assume those are what is meant by 'burners'. And again. What if he had hostages in there? The police had no way of knowing if they were also burning innocent people in there. Again, this is a shady story and now we will NEVER get the while story. The judge who presided over some of Dorner's cases recently stepped down due to corruption charges. I've also heard that Dorner was chastised for reporting police brutality. No, these don't excuse him for killing anyone, but it raises an interesting point that if there IS something shady going on that he knew about now we will never know, which is exactly what the LAPD would want.
And don't say I'm defending him. Because I'm not. I'm criticizing the LAPD for their choices they have made this past week.
These are trained professionals who my tax dollars support. I would hope that they have much better ways of subduing (lethal or non-lethal) a subject without resorting to barbaric measures such as burning down an entire cabin.
I'll say it one more time. Cops do NOT have the authority to be judge, jury, executioner. You're telling me an entire SWAT team + others couldn't take out a single guy?
An eye for an eye isn't a good moral code. This is the same reason I'm anti-death penalty.
EDIT: I also want to raise the point again that the LAPD shot 2 innocent ladies just a few days ago. That is seriously f'ed up. These ladies where in a vehicle that didn't come close to matching the description of Dorner's. What kind of "training" is that?
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2013 11:13:45 GMT -5 by bansheebeat - Back to Top
Post by Dave Maynar on Feb 13, 2013 11:07:25 GMT -5
Just to throw it out there, "burner" is a term used to refer to tear gas by law enforcement at times. It partly comes from the brand name of one of the manufacturers and partly from tear gas's ability to cause fires in the right conditions.
Post by bansheebeat on Feb 13, 2013 11:11:47 GMT -5
Dave here is the info I was going off when saying "burner" could also be incendiary. Cops having access to military equipment has become more and more prevalent since 9/11.
Also it is my understanding that there are two types of tear gas. One type is not meant to be used indoors due to the fact that it will potentially start a fire. So that could also be what they used.
Last Edit: Feb 13, 2013 11:13:23 GMT -5 by bansheebeat - Back to Top
Henrik: Cops have incendiary grenades. I assume those are what is meant by 'burners'. And again. What if he had hostages in there? The police had no way of knowing if they were also burning innocent people in there. Again, this is a shady story and now we will NEVER get the while story. The judge who presided over some of Dorner's cases recently stepped down due to corruption charges. I've also heard that Dorner was chastised for reporting police brutality. No, these don't excuse him for killing anyone, but it raises an interesting point that if there IS something shady going on that he knew about now we will never know, which is exactly what the LAPD would want.
And don't say I'm defending him. Because I'm not. I'm criticizing the LAPD for their choices they have made this past week.
These are trained professionals who my tax dollars support. I would hope that they have much better ways of subduing (lethal or non-lethal) a subject without resorting to barbaric measures such as burning down an entire cabin.
I'll say it one more time. Cops do NOT have the authority to be judge, jury, executioner. You're telling me an entire SWAT team + others couldn't take out a single guy?
An eye for an eye isn't a good moral code. This is the same reason I'm anti-death penalty.
This is flanzo, btw. Not sure if you knew about my name change.
The police are not torching a cabin if they are uncertain about the possibility of hostages. I feel like you're looking for this to be shadier than it is. The cops knew the general area where he was hiding, they warned everyone to stay away, they tracked him down and found him in a cabin and he started shooting at them. If there was someone taken hostage in the Big Bear area, they would have been reported missing almost immediately, and that's if someone was stupid enough not to clear out of there when the LAPD/Sheriff's/Park Rangers told them to.
You were never getting Dorner's whole story, do you seriously think after watching him go on the warpath that he ever expected to walk away from this alive? No, it was a suicide mission plain and simple. To not see that is just being naive.
It's sickening that people take a tragic run of murders and make it into a conspiracy theory. The guy was mentally unstable, maybe he did know something about certain people being corrupt, is that what we should be worrying about? People's priorities are so out of whack sometimes. Rather than simply identify it as a incredibly sad chain of events (up to and including Dorner's death), people want it to be about something bigger. I hate that about our culture, and it happens far too often.
You can say it all you want, but when a person is shooting at police officers you do NOT try to bring him in alive at all costs. You end the situation at all costs. If you're able to put the guy down without killing him, that's the best outcome, but that isn't all that likely with military-trained psychopaths shooting dozens of rounds at police officers. You shoot to kill in those situations.
So, let's say some guy is shooting at you and you're unarmed. The cops show up, the guy is standing int he middle of the street shooting at you. You'd prefer they try to talk him out of shooting you instead of just shooting him themselves?
Just to be clear banshee, I wasn't defending the ineptitude of the LAPD at all. I was solely criticizing people who I'm in contact with via social networks who were cheering the guy on/sympathizing with a pretty terrible human.
What if he had hostages in there? The police had no way of knowing if they were also burning innocent people in there.
Is that a fact though? That the police definitely had no way of knowing? I haven't been able to listen to the audio at work but is it known that they had no clue who else was in there?
Just to be clear banshee, I wasn't defending the ineptitude of the LAPD at all. I was solely criticizing people who I'm in contact with via social networks who were cheering the guy on/sympathizing with a pretty terrible human.
Yeah, I want to be clear, the LAPD is clearly a f*cked up organization, but that is independent in my eyes of how people should view their handling of the cabin situation.
LAPD shooting up a random car (and having done similar things in the past)? Horrible. The NYPD have been guilty of similarly deplorable mistakes that cost human life before as well. I know what those situations do to a city and community in terms of tensions rising.
But that has nothing to do with how they stopped a murderer from continuing his death march.
Dave here is the info I was going off when saying "burner" could also be incendiary. Cops having access to military equipment has become more and more prevalent since 9/11.
Also it is my understanding that there are two types of tear gas. One type is not meant to be used indoors due to the fact that it will potentially start a fire. So that could also be what they used.
I'm not trying to dispute what you said at all. I was just throwing some info out there especially since the link I found was a fire caused by tear gas by the LA Sheriff Dept.
Post by bansheebeat on Feb 13, 2013 11:26:20 GMT -5
I'm not trying to make it shady. It simply IS shady. I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of person, but I feel like in this case it's pretty clear that there was something more going on (not that this justifies anything, it's just an interesting note especially with all the Manning and Assange stuff going on). And no that isn't the bigger picture here. The big picture is exactly what you said; this was a tragedy full of senseless violence and carelessness by both parties.
What it boils down to for me is that everybody deserves the same rights - even psychopaths and sociopaths. I wasn't there, so I don't know the whole story. But I simply can't wrap my head around them burning the cabin down being the best possible solution. These are my tax dollars that support this so I feel that I am entitled to question their methods.
What if he had hostages in there? The police had no way of knowing if they were also burning innocent people in there.
Is that a fact though? That the police definitely had no way of knowing? I haven't been able to listen to the audio at work but is it known that they had no clue who else was in there?
Nope, not a fact. I'm just basing this off the fact that the dude was holed up in the cabin. And no cops entered the cabin. Or even if they managed to see inside the cabin it's not like they could have missed someone in a corner or something. This isn't really the point I'm going for, it's just a side note that I think shows a bit of recklessness. The audio I've heard doesn't even mention the possibility of someone else being inside though.
I'm not trying to make it shady. It simply IS shady. I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of person, but I feel like in this case it's pretty clear that there was something more going on (not that this justifies anything, it's just an interesting note especially with all the Manning and Assange stuff going on).
Specifically what though? Like I get that people think "something more" is going on but what's the popular theories? Is it that this was a revenge killing for him shooting LAPD family members? Was it done to cover something else up? I'm just trying to figure out what people are suspecting really went down.
I'm not trying to make it shady. It simply IS shady. I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of person, but I feel like in this case it's pretty clear that there was something more going on (not that this justifies anything, it's just an interesting note especially with all the Manning and Assange stuff going on). And no that isn't the bigger picture here. The big picture is exactly what you said; this was a tragedy full of senseless violence and carelessness by both parties.
What it boils down to for me is that everybody deserves the same rights - even psychopaths and sociopaths. I wasn't there, so I don't know the whole story. But I simply can't wrap my head around them burning the cabin down being the best possible solution. These are my tax dollars that support this so I feel that I am entitled to question their methods.
Fair enough. I disagree that people who have murdered and are in the act of trying to murder others gets the same rights as me. If a guy kills a person in the heat of the moment, admits as such and turns himself in? He deserves every right a person in that position is offered. When a guy shows no remorse and is trying to increase his body count? That guy shouldn't get due process in my eyes and he shouldn't get treated like a shop lifter or something where you just slap the cuffs on him and put him in a cell to be arraigned.
The guy was trained by this country how to kill a person, and then used those skills to turn on the people he was sworn to protect. I understand that you feel he was mistreated in how it was ended, but I look at the fact that it was ended. Dorner was clearly skilled in survival methods and obviously trained in how to use a weapon, not taking every measure possible to end what he was doing is the worst sin a cop can make in that situation.
I'm not trying to make it shady. It simply IS shady. I'm not a conspiracy theory kind of person, but I feel like in this case it's pretty clear that there was something more going on (not that this justifies anything, it's just an interesting note especially with all the Manning and Assange stuff going on).
Specifically what though? Like I get that people think "something more" is going on but what's the popular theories? Is it that this was a revenge killing for him shooting LAPD family members? Was it done to cover something else up? I'm just trying to figure out what people are suspecting really went down.
From my understanding it's something like this:
- Tries to report police brutality (I believe it was a cop beating a mentally impaired dude)
- Judge defends cop in question (this judge then steps down due to corruption charges not long after)
- Dorner then goes on a rampage for "justice". This is where his mental illness comes into play. It's a shame he never got the help he needed (as with any person who needs mental help). This all goes back to the "mental health" issue that was all over the news a few weeks ago regarding Sandy Hook.
He was also a veteran, which may play into this as well.
Post by bansheebeat on Feb 13, 2013 11:44:21 GMT -5
Fianzo: The other big thing that doesn't sit well with me is that the guy is mentally ill. I don't think it's as simple as he was "trying to increase his body count". This whole thing is just a shame really.
I believe are fundamental disagreement is regarding the right to due process (speaking on you saying he forfeited his right to due process). I understand (and respect) your reasoning, I just have a different opinion.
It's absolutely sad that Dorner was clearly mentally unstable and felt he either had no one to talk to about it or that the people he was being provided to talk to about it were not helping.
At some point the reality Dorner thought was his life and the one his life really was a part of split. When that happened he went from a mentally-ill person needing help to a mass murderer. I wish someone was there for him before that split took place, but once it did the idea of helping Dorner split as well.
It's absolutely sad that Dorner was clearly mentally unstable and felt he either had no one to talk to about it or that the people he was being provided to talk to about it were not helping.
At some point the reality Dorner thought was his life and the one his life really was a part of split. When that happened he went from a mentally-ill person needing help to a mass murderer. I wish someone was there for him before that split took place, but once it did the idea of helping Dorner split as well.
Post by bansheebeat on Feb 13, 2013 11:57:33 GMT -5
I hate to start the argument back up.. but yes it gives them the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. I don't think it gave them the right to burn it down. That just seems like the equivalent of a public lynching - only done for revenge and spectacle.
Post by bansheebeat on Feb 13, 2013 11:59:48 GMT -5
Dave I have got a couple "RIP Rambo Dorner" posts. It's stupid. Glorifying ANY type of crime is what keeps things like this happening. School shooters are given more TV time then the teachers who protected students.
Marilyn Manson refused to speak of Columbine or make any TV appearances for a long time after because he didn't want to give them the publicity. He had the right idea. It's the fact that we "glamorize" (for lack of a better word) these people that keeps other people copying them.
I hate to start the argument back up.. but yes it gives them the right to defend themselves with lethal force if necessary. I don't think it gave them the right to burn it down.
Couldn't "burning it down" be considered the lethal force they used?
