Police Hunt for Christopher Dorner

[CalgaryFan1988]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Oh I totally agree, playing a bit of devils advocate.

I agree with your RPG comment as well. No point in losing more innocent victims for nothing. The way they went about it is very questionable to say the least though.

Definitely not going to be the last we hear of this.

[BigNumbers]

I believe it's in our nature as humans to feel a desire to know the unknown. Since we have had so much of the curtain pulled back with our unprecedented access to information, people begin to look for the unknown where it doesn't exist. Hence all the conspiracy theorists saying "this can't be everything"...

Occams Razor guys...

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Azure

This.

I don't get why people say its a good thing that they burned the cabin down, if that is actually what happened.

Law and order and all that. If he was shooting back, fine. Shoot back. Protect yourself. But to intentionally burn it down when you have nothing but time on your side? How is that justified exactly?

Just another example of the US 'police force' going completely over the line.

I'm surprised they didn't call in a drone strike.

For the record I am not happy about them burning Dorner out, I was just sarcastically pointing out how the police like to burn people out like in Waco.

This is the new normal in police state America now. Sadly, I predict more Waco type stand-off events in the future, ....hopefully not too many innocents get killed.

Funny you mentioned the drone strike thing, ....I think you know they will use an incident like this to sell the idea to the public and condition them to accept domestic drone spying and eventually armed strikes.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

For the record I am not happy about them burning Dorner out, I was just sarcastically pointing out how the police like to burn people out like in Waco.

This is the new normal in police state America now. Sadly, I predict more Waco type stand-off events in the future, ....hopefully not too many innocents get killed.

Funny you mentioned the drone strike thing, ....I think you know they will use an incident like this to sell the idea to the public and condition them to accept domestic drone spying and eventually armed strikes.

You're assuming that they purposely lit the cabin on fire. Tear gas uses smoke to disperse chemical particles to incapacitate the target. The smoke is discharged by an incendiary device inside the canister. This can cause a fire. I swear some of you use that "jump to conclusions" mat off of office space.

[Frequitude]

Anyone watching this press conference? America's desire to get on television is shocking. I can't believe these people aren't keeping mum so they can sell their story.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Lets wait til details emerge before we spout off lines like, "another example of a US police force going over the line". Tear gas canisters or diversionary devices can sometimes cause fires. I find that more plausible then they intentionally burned down the cabin but we shall see.

Well if you look around at small town police forces in the US, you notice how they have been getting military equipment for a while now. I read a great article a few months ago about the militarization of the US police force, but for the life of me I can't find it.

Reasoning basically was that small town 'cops' were being provided with military equipment but no training, and private firms were stepping in to do the training, and making a killing as a result. The END result is negligible, as there is no need for small towns to have a SWAT team. Much less one that has a military assault vehicle.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

You're assuming that they purposely lit the cabin on fire. Tear gas uses smoke to disperse chemical particles to incapacitate the target. The smoke is discharged by an incendiary device inside the canister. This can cause a fire. I swear some of you use that "jump to conclusions" mat off of office space.

And the reason for the tear gas is what exactly? Usually they throw tear gas in if they want to breach, and they had no reason to do that. Let him sit there. They have nothing but time on their side.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Azure

And the reason for the tear gas is what exactly? Usually they throw tear gas in if they want to breach, and they had no reason to do that. Let him sit there. They have nothing but time on their side.

The reason for tear gas is to make the target uncimfortable, to encourage him to give himself up or incapacitate him. Tear gas is not used for breaching. First off, breaching is done by using a halligan tool, hatton rounds, sledge hammer etc to gain entry into a buliding or residence. A diversionary device (flash bang) is commonly used during an assault, the light and noise disorientates the subject and gives the operator a precious second or two to gain the tactical advantage.

Using tear gas in an assault is not ideal as it can make identifying your target difficult and mask or not, a room flooded with tear gas is a very uncomfortable environment to work in.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well if you look around at small town police forces in the US, you notice how they have been getting military equipment for a while now. I read a great article a few months ago about the militarization of the US police force, but for the life of me I can't find it.

Reasoning basically was that small town 'cops' were being provided with military equipment but no training, and private firms were stepping in to do the training, and making a killing as a result. The END result is negligible, as there is no need for small towns to have a SWAT team. Much less one that has a military assault vehicle.

Well I'd love for you to be right but unfortunately you're wrong. Small town, rural settings can prove quite challenging and dangerous for "small town cops". Ill reference Mayerthorpe, Spiritwood Saskatchewan, Hay river NWT, and Kimmirut Nunavut as Canadian examples where "small town cops" were out gunned and lacking the equipment to deal with the situation at hand. It's unfortunate, but typically law enforcement reacts to the situation at hand and when people start shooting cops regularly you can bet your ass they are gonna get bigger guns and better equipment to deal with that threat.

It's unfortunate but until that "wild Wild West" mentality of certain segments of society are gone, you're gonna have this situation.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

Well I'd love for you to be right but unfortunately you're wrong. Small town, rural settings can prove quite challenging and dangerous for "small town cops". Ill reference Mayerthorpe, Spiritwood Saskatchewan, Hay river NWT, and Kimmirut Nunavut as Canadian examples where "small town cops" were out gunned and lacking the equipment to deal with the situation at hand. It's unfortunate, but typically law enforcement reacts to the situation at hand and when people start shooting cops regularly you can bet your ass they are gonna get bigger guns and better equipment to deal with that threat.

It's unfortunate but until that "wild Wild West" mentality of certain segments of society are gone, you're gonna have this situation.

There is a difference between cops having assault rifles, which they should, and cops having this.



I found the article.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012.../all/?pid=1301

In 2011 alone, more than 700,000 items were transferred to police departments for a total value of $500 million. This year, as of May 15, police departments already acquired almost $400 million worth of stuff. Last year’s record would have certainly been shattered if the Arizona Republic hadn’t revealed in early May that a local police department used the program to stockpile equipment – and then sold the gear to others, something that is strictly forbidden. Three weeks after the revelation, the Pentagon decided to partly suspend distribution of surplus material until all agencies could put together an up-to-date inventory of all the stuff they got through the years. A second effort, which gives federal grants to police departments to purchase equipment, is still ongoing, however. According to the Center for Investigative Reporting, since 9/11, the grants have totaled $34 billion.

Which means billions of dollars’ worth of military gear are in the hands of small-town cops who neither need the equipment nor are properly trained to use it, critics charge. At best, it’s a waste of resources (since the gear still has to be maintained). At worst, it could cost lives.

“There’s been an unmistakable trend toward more and more militarization of American law enforcement,” Norm Stamper, former Chief of the Seattle Police Department and author of Breaking Rank: A Top Cop’s Exposé of the Dark Side of American Policing, told Danger Room. During his tenure in Seattle, he clamped down on the WTO protests in 1999, the infamous “Battle in Seattle.” It’s a response he now calls “disastrous.”

According to Stamper, having small local police departments go around with tanks and military gear has “a chilling effect on any effort to strengthen the relationship” between the community and the cops. And that’s not the only danger. “There’s no justification for them having that kind of equipment, for one obvious reason, and that is if they have it, they will find a way to use it. And if they use it they will misuse it altogether too many times,” said Stamper. What happened a year ago in Arizona, when marine veteran Jose Guerena was shot down during a drug raid that found no drugs in his house, could very well be an example of that misuse.

There are various examples in the article of small town police departments obtaining equipment that they don't need in the least bit.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by Azure

There is a difference between cops having assault rifles, which they should, and cops having this.



I found the article.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012.../all/?pid=1301



There are various examples in the article of small town police departments obtaining equipment that they don't need in the least bit.

You just provided a picture of a state trooper TAV. State troopers SHOULD have access to those vehicles. Does back water Nebraska need those? No of course not and frankly anyone who thinks so is crazy.

Lets stay on topic here. Lumping small town police departments acquiring unnecessary military surplus vehicles and a highly trained tactical team dealing with an armed and barricaded murderer together is ridiculous.

[mikey_the_redneck]

Originally Posted by Zulu29

You're assuming that they purposely lit the cabin on fire. Tear gas uses smoke to disperse chemical particles to incapacitate the target. The smoke is discharged by an incendiary device inside the canister. This can cause a fire. I swear some of you use that "jump to conclusions" mat off of office space.

Did you not catch any of the audio from the tapes? They were quite clearly intending to burn the place down. I don't care what method they used.

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by mikey_the_redneck

Did you not catch any of the audio from the tapes? They were quite clearly intending to burn the place down. I don't care what method they used.

All I know is this. Everyone is assuming they know what happened and jumping to conclusions rather than having some patience and waiting for the details to come out. You, me and no one else on this board has a clue of what phrases or jargon that the San Bernadino county Sheriffs Office Tactical Team uses. I trust them a lot more than some murdering wing nut.

[Zulu29]

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...or-days-1.html

[JonDuke]

[JonDuke]

http://www.infowars.com/lapd-audio-f...-mother####er/

Where's the proof Chris Dorner killed anybody? I can prove the police killed innocent people, will they be burned alive by the state? Can you prove that Chris Dorner killed anybody?

[vektor]

the people saying this is being blown out of proportion are the worst. Any time there is a possibility of the establishment abusing its power over people that should be investigated and not swept under the rug. Something happened here, exactly what is unclear, wanting to know the specifics doesn't make you a conspiracy theorist and throwing that label around at everyone who simply wants to know the truth is ignorant. Seeking the truth shouldn't be worthy of condemnation, sure it's possible to be wrong but the polarized view of the world so many people have just makes it harder to figure out what happened in a situation like this.

[pylon]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

http://www.infowars.com/lapd-audio-f...-mother####er/

Where's the proof Chris Dorner killed anybody? I can prove the police killed innocent people, will they be burned alive by the state? Can you prove that Chris Dorner killed anybody?

The fact you linked to Alex Jones website, automatically invalidates any possible point you were trying to convey.

[vektor]

Originally Posted by pylon

The fact you linked to Alex Jones website, automatically invalidates any possible point you were trying to convey.

that's a rather narrow view of the world to possess

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by JonDuke

http://www.infowars.com/lapd-audio-f...-mother####er/

Where's the proof Chris Dorner killed anybody? I can prove the police killed innocent people, will they be burned alive by the state? Can you prove that Chris Dorner killed anybody?

This may be the stupidest post ever.