Former LAPD Cop/ Naval Officer turned Serial Killer

San Bernardino County Sheriff just unequivocally stated "We did not intentionally burn down the house."

 

I think everyone here can agree, THAT statement was a LIE.

 

I think the fact that he feels the need to LIE about it should tell you all you need to know about the legality of doing it.

 

Hannibal - I agree 100% with you if they did not know if someone else was in the home. I am sure they confirmed before entering. Me personally, I would have rather raided the house for the fun of it! BUT, the higher order makes the call.

 

RD - I agree, what an idiot for trying to hide this...they intentionally burned, no question about it. That is what is sad with our government, etc today...you will NEVER get the truth or the true agenda of what they are wanting to accomplish/do.

I have actually heard a REASON WHY they would burn the house down OTHER than they hate him and want him to die an agonizing death in a fire... And it resonated with me to a degree (Im still pissed they burned somebody's house down... Its not like this was HIS house... Then, fcuk him... He had multiple chances to surrender... But this is as innocent person's house.).

 

But If they're going to lie that they did it, I'm not going to give them the benefit of that doubt.

 

(And of course there is still no way to have known for sure that he didnt have a hostage, that scene was too fluid and too chaotic for them to have POSSIBLY confirmed that the house was EMPTY, or that he didn't bring a hostage in with him- and they just didn't give a fcuk.)

Keep in mind, they were in contact with the owner of the property who said nobody was in there. If you are that dude, you aren't dragging "hostages" around in cars or out in the open. They had good reason to believe he was alone in there and acted accordingly due to the circumstances.

 

There is no way they knew he wasn't dragging hostages with him.... He could have grabbed a fcuking TV reporter as close as they were to the scene. He could have caught somebody in the back yard... A neighbor... A worker. He could have grabbed a kid on the side of the road... whatever.

 

 

 

Let's pretend for a moment that he ran inside of Charlie Beck's house... OR LAPD headquarters... (Let's face it, neither is very far fetched given his plan)... For the sake of argument, assume nobody's inside... Everybody got out...

 

Anybody want to take odds on the chances they light either building on fire?

Who knows is right. No way of knowing 100% and that is the negative part of deciding to burn when you have so many better options. The no brainer would be to use tear gas first. If nobody comes out then send a team in. If a victim is in the house they are most likely not able to exit so you would need to go in to find out.

If there does end up being someone else who died in that house fire, the PD is going to be in a whole mess of hurt.

 

Who knows is right. No way of knowing 100% and that is the negative part of deciding to burn when you have so many better options. The no brainer would be to use tear gas first. If nobody comes out then send a team in. If a victim is in the house they are most likely not able to exit so you would need to go in to find out.

 

 

HEY!

 

I sent you a PM...

What limitations did SWAT have tactically from just storming the building?

 

Full vests plus ballistic shields....they could have breached the entry and waited before entering. Simultaneous breach at front/rear entrances, tear gas...

 

I don't understand why they were so afraid to storm the cabin unless they thought the entire place was booby trapped?

 

Don't see how you rationalize the fire so quickly.

I have actually heard a REASON WHY they would burn the house down OTHER than they hate him and want him to die an agonizing death in a fire... And it resonated with me to a degree (Im still pissed they burned somebody's house down... Its not like this was HIS house... Then, fcuk him... He had multiple chances to surrender... But this is as innocent person's house.).

 

But If they're going to lie that they did it, I'm not going to give them the benefit of that doubt.

 

(And of course there is still no way to have known for sure that he didnt have a hostage, that scene was too fluid and too chaotic for them to have POSSIBLY confirmed that the house was EMPTY, or that he didn't bring a hostage in with him- and they just didn't give a fcuk.)

 

 

Honestly who gives a fcuk if they burned a whole building ( knowing 100% its empty and no other person inside) ?

 

Try telling the deputy's wife that someone's wood cabin got burned down. If that was your brother he killed , you could care less if they burned a stadium down to make sure the killer is dead.

 

police dept. /insurance will cover a new cabin. Material stuff is replaceable. Douce bag having a chance to escape and kill or injure one more life is not.

 

I do agree with you that I hope the cops KNEW 100% that he was the only life inside that cabin otherwise they are stupid.

Actually that may not be true. Ill wait to hear Romandads interpretation of this. Read it earlier

"The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.

The Supreme Court has defined the "objective reasonableness" standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a Search and Seizure is reasonable if it is based on Probable Cause and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer's intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.

For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time. Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The Model Penal Code, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, and the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.

Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the suspect's attempts to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler, 211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a Wrongful Death lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.

When police officers are arresting someone for a felony, the courts have given them a little more leeway. The police may use all the force that is necessary to overcome resistance, even if that means killing the person they are trying to arrest. However, if it is proved that an officer used more force than was necessary, the officer can be held criminally and civilly liable. In Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 105 S. Ct. 1694, 85 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that it is a violation of the Fourth Amendment for police officers to use deadly force to stop fleeing felony suspects who are nonviolent and unarmed. The decision, with an opinion written by Justice byron r. white, said, in part, "We conclude that such force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others."

What it comes down to is if deadly force was necessary. It's clear that trying to storm the house and take him alive would be extremely dangerous and possibly if not probably lead to police causalities. Negotiating was also clearly not viable. The option that remains is attempting to "siege" the suspect until he runs out of resources inside the house and is forced outside. The problem with this approach is that the suspect will be able to choose the circumstances for his breakout attempt. This will give him an advantage and significantly increases the risk of causalities. It's also extremely likely to lead to the death of the suspect anyway.

Therefore, in my opinion it would seem that forcing him out by setting fire to the house is a reasonable option given the circumstances of the situation. In fact this doesn't really seem very close at all to me. Given that he has already shown a willingness and capability of killing several armed police officers, there are very few other approaches to safely subduing him."

 

Do you have a link to the original site?

Who knows is right. No way of knowing 100% and that is the negative part of deciding to burn when you have so many better options. The no brainer would be to use tear gas first. If nobody comes out then send a team in. If a victim is in the house they are most likely not able to exit so you would need to go in to find out.

I believe early reports were stating tear gas was used. I'm not sure if that's been confirmed yet?

 

 

Video of the shootout

 

Video of the shootout

Wow...surprised they allowed someone to video tape the shoot out .

in the video..what were the cops shooting at? the house? or him...it just looks like them wasting bullets..

 

and is he confirmed dead? or...

Dead!

 

Took a bullet to the head.

OK... This story just got weirder...

 

How he was IDd as the murderer of the Irvine couple:

 

 

National City PD (near San Diego) get called about some police gear in a dumpster. They find an LAPD Uniform with Dorner's name on it. In the pocket is the name and phone number of Teresa Evans, Dorner's training officer who he claimed beat up the homeless guy, and who he blamed for much of his troubles.

 

National city PD CALL Evans to find out if she knows anything about Dorner, and why his shit is in a dumpster in San Diego.

 

Evans then hears about the murders in Irvine and that the victim was a former LAPD officer's daughter... And remembers that Randal Quan represented Dorner.

 

She thinks "This is a longshot, but I should call Irvine PD..." She does, and they start to investigate him, and find the manifesto on Facebook.

 

 

So... The woman he blamed for all his troubles, and who was at the top of his hitlist, caught him.

OK... This story just got weirder...

 

How he was IDd as the murderer of the Irvine couple:

 

 

National City PD (near San Diego) get called about some police gear in a dumpster. They find an LAPD Uniform with Dorner's name on it. In the pocket is the name and phone number of Teresa Evans, Dorner's training officer who he claimed beat up the homeless guy, and who he blamed for much of his troubles.

 

National city PD CALL Evans to find out if she knows anything about Dorner, and why his shit is in a dumpster in San Diego.

 

Evans then hears about the murders in Irvine and that the victim was a former LAPD officer's daughter... And remembers that Randal Quan represented Dorner.

 

She thinks "This is a longshot, but I should call Irvine PD..." She does, and they start to investigate him, and find the manifesto on Facebook.

 

 

So... The woman he blamed for all his troubles, and who was at the top of his hitlist, caught him.

Interesting..

I still want to know how they found his ID's at the Mexican border

Interesting..

I still want to know how they found his ID's at the Mexican border

 

He dropped it there?

 

Oh... I see what youre saying...

 

Ive yet to hear any conformation on the USA Today article... Remember, the press was reporting they had IDd the body, while I was still watching the cabin on fire live on my TV screen.... The firefighters wouldnt even go INTO that cabin for another 14 hours, and they wouldnt find him in the basement for almost 24... Just because the press prints something doesnt make it a fact.

 

Regardless, he had multiple IDs... He had a California DL. He had a military ID. He PROBABLY had a Nevada DL and it sounds like he still had his LAPD ID (Which he shouldn't have had after his termination, but he wasnt supposed to have an LAPD uniform, or a DETECTIVE badge either (Probational Trainee Dorner never got CLOSE to taking the detective exam), all of which they found in the dumpster in National City).

It just seems so unrealistic for his IDs to be found in those places, period. Unless you are being tailed, how do you find such things???

 

Story is very odd.

 

It reminds me of the Patrice O'Neal quote regarding Bin Laden:

 

"In any of your scenarios, did you ever picture him being dumped into an ocean?"

 

LOL.

It just seems so unrealistic for his IDs to be found in those places, period. Unless you are being tailed, how do you find such things???

 

Story is very odd.

 

.

 

They found them, because he dumped them along with other items that got the attention of the shop owner who's dumpster he dumped them in... That shop owner saw the magazine full of bullets and the handcuffs, and the cop uniform, (I think there was a baton as well, and maybe a silencer) in his dumpster and called the police... Because he figured somebody killed a cop... (Police station is right across the street) Cops came over and took the contents of the dumpster, which included a badge and ID.... They also took the surveillance video of DORNER DUMPING THE SHIT.

 

Wow...surprised they allowed someone to video tape the shoot out .

 

The guy with the camera is far less of a threat than the guy shooting at you. Priorities I suppose for those involved.

Despite everything that happened, the LAPD's conduct was fcuking outrageous. By all accounts, the people they shot, it was unprovoked and like a firing squad. Just got out and starting shooting. The Chief had the audacity to say "I'll pay for a new truck". fcuk that, throw those cops in jail!