TexasCHLforum.com

Dave2 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Wow...if that is true they burned him alive......I don't think I like those tactics at all. Sounds like they could have gotten him alive and wanted to kill him instead. Not okay.

Are you serious? How would you expect them to get this guy alive?

According to how I'm interpreting what CNN reported, they already had him, then pushed him back in the burning cabin.

I'm having trouble believing it, really.

Guys, I really think "pushed back" means by gun fire, as in, "The attacking enemy was pushed back by massive defensive fire." Along those lines. I seriously doubt that anyone physically touched him and pushed him back into a burning building.

G26ster wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Wow...if that is true they burned him alive......I don't think I like those tactics at all. Sounds like they could have gotten him alive and wanted to kill him instead. Not okay.

Are you serious? How would you expect them to get this guy alive?

According to how I'm interpreting what CNN reported, they already had him, then pushed him back in the burning cabin.

I'm having trouble believing it, really.

Guys, I really think "pushed back" means by gun fire, as in, "The attacking enemy was pushed back by massive defensive fire." Along those lines. I seriously doubt that anyone physically touched him and pushed him back into a burning building.

Oh! Yeah, that would make more sense.

Ok..that would make more sense...yes. Pushed him in by gunfire..... Sorry. Yall might make the same error in you were trying to comprehend it all with four little ones on you every moment.

I did not expect him to be taken alive, just at the moment it sounded like they had him, then put him back in the house to burn to death. That would not be ok at all.

It would be OK by me if they nailed his foot to the wall so he couldn't move and set the place on fire. That piece of garbage murdered a mans daughter and her fiancé in cold blood. There was no question he did it. He killed another officer of the law tonight. Again... No question about it. The guy is scum and burning to death was the perfect reward.

I tought he was a smarter nut job. I thought the burnt up truck was a deversion to his real get away. How and where he would go from there would be a mystery till he showed up again. Nope Nope Nope. Broken axle on the truck makes you a stupid nut job, who more than likely got burned up in a cabin.

Dave2 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Wow...if that is true they burned him alive......I don't think I like those tactics at all. Sounds like they could have gotten him alive and wanted to kill him instead. Not okay.

Are you serious? How would you expect them to get this guy alive?

According to how I'm interpreting what CNN reported, they already had him, then pushed him back in the burning cabin.

I'm having trouble believing it, really.

Once again this shows people are not paying attention and just buying what the media is saying. They then jump on the typical anti LE bandwagon before any facts are even out. Every outlet I saw during the incident said he tried to escape out the back, and found LE had the perimeter set up. There was another gun battle and he went back into the house. No where did I see a news article saying they "Pushed" him into a burning house.

Mark Furhman said it best, why not give the LE's there a break ?

They lost one during the incident, and another is critical. The one that died per a media report was married and his wife just had a baby.

texanjoker wrote:

Dave2 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:Wow...if that is true they burned him alive......I don't think I like those tactics at all. Sounds like they could have gotten him alive and wanted to kill him instead. Not okay.

Are you serious? How would you expect them to get this guy alive?

According to how I'm interpreting what CNN reported, they already had him, then pushed him back in the burning cabin.

I'm having trouble believing it, really.

Once again this shows people are not paying attention and just buying what the media is saying. They then jump on the typical anti LE bandwagon before any facts are even out. Every outlet I saw during the incident said he tried to escape out the back, and found LE had the perimeter set up. There was another gun battle and he went back into the house. No where did I see a news article saying they "Pushed" him into a burning house.

If I was anti-LEO, I wouldn't have had trouble believing my incorrect interpretation. And the "he was pushed back inside" quote is still up on CNN (in the 8:34pm update): http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2013/02/12/po ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I sure hope that if I am ever in a scrape that I get to keep all of my rights. Sounds like a lot of folks think that Dorner had none. Pity. The Constitution and BOR did not evaporate into thin air.

What would you be thinking if you knew that LEO coming after you intended to kill you and not take you alive?

Anygunanywhere

texanjoker wrote:
Once again this shows people are not paying attention and just buying what the media is saying. They then jump on the typical anti LE bandwagon before any facts are even out. Every outlet I saw during the incident said he tried to escape out the back, and found LE had the perimeter set up. There was another gun battle and he went back into the house. No where did I see a news article saying they "Pushed" him into a burning house.

Mark Furhman said it best, why not give the LE's there a break ?

They lost one during the incident, and another is critical. The one that died per a media report was married and his wife just had a baby.

I am not anti-Leo because I think burning people to death that are hard to catch is inappropriate and unacceptable. I have many LEO friends and I fully support rule of law. If they burned him to death purposefully, that is not rule of law.

I think they should have brought this guy out and put him on trial if at all possible and shamed him, now he is a martyr.....great.......and the confusion over how the fire got started will give the PD another black mark. That is not what LEO's around this nation need. They need to be seen as professionals that do a dangerous job with honor and respect. They do not need to be seen as vigilantes bent on revenge (even understandable revenge). We need rule of law, and if the LAPD precipitated the fire then I find that damaging to the trust that LEO's need nationwide to do their jobs in peace.

If it comes out that this idiot set the fire, well, that is a horse of a whole different color. But right now the reports I am reading say that the PD set off incendiaries. I hope that is not true.

RIP to the new deputy who was killed. I assume he was a local deputy, doing his job. When a bad guy goes on the run like this, it brings bad news to communities far far away.

This is up on Drudge right now...there's some naughty words on this link but the content is HIGHLY disturbing...as in "burn this down"...etc....so much for the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNk-bV40 ... e=youtu.be" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

mamabearCali wrote:

texanjoker wrote:
Once again this shows people are not paying attention and just buying what the media is saying. They then jump on the typical anti LE bandwagon before any facts are even out. Every outlet I saw during the incident said he tried to escape out the back, and found LE had the perimeter set up. There was another gun battle and he went back into the house. No where did I see a news article saying they "Pushed" him into a burning house.

Mark Furhman said it best, why not give the LE's there a break ?

They lost one during the incident, and another is critical. The one that died per a media report was married and his wife just had a baby.

I am not anti-Leo because I think burning people to death that are hard to catch is inappropriate and unacceptable. I have many LEO friends and I fully support rule of law. If they burned him to death purposefully, that is not rule of law.

I think they should have brought this guy out and put him on trial if at all possible and shamed him, now he is a martyr.....great.......and the confusion over how the fire got started will give the PD another black mark. That is not what LEO's around this nation need. They need to be seen as professionals that do a dangerous job with honor and respect. They do not need to be seen as vigilantes bent on revenge (even understandable revenge). We need rule of law, and if the LAPD precipitated the fire then I find that damaging to the trust that LEO's need nationwide to do their jobs in peace.

If it comes out that this idiot set the fire, well, that is a horse of a whole different color. But right now the reports I am reading say that the PD set off incendiaries. I hope that is not true.

Amazing. Rule of the law? What rule is that? Based on the fact he was a wanted murder suspect, the days events to include not surrendering during this incident, engaged in a rolling gun fight with officers, then killed another officer, shot another, threw at least one smoke grenade at the officers, deadly force was clearly authorized by law. In CA you may used deadly force to protect your life, or the life of another. In addition you may use deadly force to prevent a dangerous felon from fleeing. There is case law to back that up. By all accounts all 3 of those elements have been met, and they only needed one to be legal. The law doesn't state how you use deadly force, only that you may when elements are met. If the PD smoke or tear gas devices, set the fire so be it. I personally don't have a problem if they intentionally set it either. That would have been a good tactic to get him out of the house because the smoke/gas was not working vs attempting entry against a heavily armed combat veteran that had already used a smoke device against the police. . Given the fact it was going to get dark soon, tactically speaking they needed this over before that point as this guy knew basic police tactics and was a combat veteran. Even when the fire started, he could have surrendered, but didn't. It sounds like he probably shot himself at that point as one shot was heard. He may have been wounded as well during the 20 plus minute gun fight. IMO there is no black mark over the fire and this was a successful outcome because no further LEO's were shot or killed, there are no reports of any civilians being harmed and the suspect is in custody. Yes being dead counts as in custody. Houses can be rebuilt. The DA's office ( different process in CA) will review the use of force. I cannot see this not being ruled a justifiable homicide (CA terms).

In listening to the radio traffic, they remained calm and cool, and did a great job. They broadcast early on they had 2 deputies down. They were true professionals and did the job that needed to be done.

http://youtu.be/WZW4kzvKIdE" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

texanjoker wrote: They were true professionals and did the job that needed to be done.

Tell that to the women delivering newspapers.

Anygunanywhere

PUCKER wrote:This is up on Drudge right now...there's some naughty words on this link but the content is HIGHLY disturbing...as in "burn this down"...etc....so much for the Constitution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNk-bV40 ... e=youtu.be" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What constitutional issue? If you are thinking the 4th, I disagree. They were in fresh pursuit of this guy after a gun battle that killed 1 deputy and wounded another. In addition, there was at least one active warrant for his arrest for murder so that gave LE authority to be there regardless of the fresh pursuit and exigent circumstances that currently existed. That included the right to arrest him, make entry into the residence to get him, and use force to effect the arrest. LE may use any reasonable and necessary force to take one into custody up to and including deadly force. This wacko dictated the events and deadly force was clearly justifiable.

anygunanywhere wrote:

texanjoker wrote: They were true professionals and did the job that needed to be done.

Tell that to the women delivering newspapers.

Anygunanywhere

What does that incident have to do with this incident? That was a different department, different officers and different circumstances.