• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dorner: Executed or Accident?

Was Dorner executed or was it an unfortunate consequence?


  • Total voters
    39
  • Poll closed .
Inevitable? Death is inevitable for all of us and though his was probably going to happen there's always the chance he could've been saved. Once we remove the sane and sacred worth we place on any life, then you will see something you might not want.

What about the value of the individuals that are doing their job and protecting the public? They put their lives on the line to do their job but throwing them in a situation in order to protect the life of an individual that has made clear his intent to do them harm just makes no sense. At some point it was up to Dorner to display that he was willing to give himself up. How far should the state go in order to protect the life of someone in that situation? How many officers lives should be traded in order to protect Dorner from himself?

In a broad sense I agree with your sentiment but I also don't believe in absolutes. The idea of every life is sacred shouldn't mean we toss aside the lives of police in order to save one single individual whose actions have already cost others their sacred lives and had the potential to take more lives. There's a certain point were lives are weighed.
 
LOL - how does this figure? In a standoff with police they accidentally shot it? He accidentally shot himself? He accidentally set the log cabin on fire? When - when he turned on the gas stove to cook up some jiffy pop?

Suicide by cop, either way - really . . . I mean seriously. An accident would have been if he fell from the rooftop while aiming at a cruiser in the treeline.

Ok, let the police summarily execute anyone they deem worthy. You can eliminate the judicial system and save the taxpayers some money.

Police kill people all the time in shootouts, which is necessary but knowingly setting a building on fire to kill a suspect?
 
No one killed him, he could have surrendered at any point. The means taken to that end (his surrender) were reasonable.
 
Ok, let the police summarily execute anyone they deem worthy. You can eliminate the judicial system and save the taxpayers some money.

Police kill people all the time in shootouts, which is necessary but knowingly setting a building on fire to kill a suspect?

Grip- this guy had already killed, and was threatening to kill more. He had gone off the edge of humanity, and was resisting all attempts to bring this matter to a sane ending. If they set the house on fire, I feel pretty confident in saying that it was to flush him out, so that he could be apprehended, and not for the purpose of killing him.
 
I think it was an accident, but deep inside I hope it was an execution. Frankly I think they did the taxpayers a favor by sparing them the cost of a trial by jury.
 
Ok, let the police summarily execute anyone they deem worthy. You can eliminate the judicial system and save the taxpayers some money.

Police kill people all the time in shootouts, which is necessary but knowingly setting a building on fire to kill a suspect?

I can't believe the bull**** you're spewing. Please prove your allegation that they knowingly set a building on fire to kill him. What a crock.
 
Grip- this guy had already killed, and was threatening to kill more. He had gone off the edge of humanity, and was resisting all attempts to bring this matter to a sane ending. If they set the house on fire, I feel pretty confident in saying that it was to flush him out, so that he could be apprehended, and not for the purpose of killing him.

The smoke inhalation will suffocate a person who's resisting going outside faster than they can react too.

I'm not saying he was going out easy but we usually exhaust every effort to apprehend someone, so the justice system can work properly. If we allow cowboy tactics to succeed in real life situations, then there will be no end to where people allow police to dispense justice.
 
I can't believe the bull**** you're spewing. Please prove your allegation that they knowingly set a building on fire to kill him. What a crock.



Did you bother reading the article? And it's a poll asking opinions.
 
Last edited:
I can't believe the bull**** you're spewing. Please prove your allegation that they knowingly set a building on fire to kill him. What a crock.

Think about the $1 million bounty - no arrest, no trial and no bounty. ;)
 
Grip- this guy had already killed, and was threatening to kill more. He had gone off the edge of humanity, and was resisting all attempts to bring this matter to a sane ending. If they set the house on fire, I feel pretty confident in saying that it was to flush him out, so that he could be apprehended, and not for the purpose of killing him.

Think about the $1 million bounty - no arrest, no trial and no bounty. ;)
 
They heard a shot and THEN the building erupted in fire...but no report of shots after the explosion.

So either he shot at a gas-fueled appliances and was killed immediately in the explosion, or the fire erupted spontaneously because of the tear gas being ignited by the gun shot which he aimed at himself....

But then I find this:

TEAR GAS GRENADES | CAMEO Chemicals | NOAA

...so it doesn't make a lot of sense, really. Either he blew himself up (painful way to go) intentionally, he shot himself and a random explosion of fire somehow occurred, or he shot a canister not knowing it would (maybe) erupt (but then where'd the flames come from, unless the canister was near a gas appliance), or there wasn't a canister at all and there's no easy explanation for how a shot preceded a mystery fire, 'cause the police said they "pumped in" tear gas.

I'll wait 'til the details are more clear.

I'll go one further and say this:

If they were tearing the building down wall-by-wall as the article states, would they not have shut OFF the gas supply first? And if they didn't, wouldn't that be gross negligence?

So then there's ANOTHER question: if the gas was off, then what caused a fire to erupt? Further, there was no report of any explosion prior to the fire erupting, so that lends to the gas being off. How'd the fire spread that quickly w/o an explosion? If it was a liquid gas-fueled fire, where'd the gas come from? The guy stole a truck and left most of his gear in it when he took off on foot...so???
 
The smoke inhalation will suffocate a person who's resisting going outside faster than they can react too.

I'm not saying he was going out easy but we usually exhaust every effort to apprehend someone, so the justice system can work properly. If we allow cowboy tactics to succeed in real life situations, then there will be no end to where people allow police to dispense justice.

Grip- a fire doesn't suddenly consume a building, unless it's from a significant explosive. He would have had time to get out, and I'm pretty sure he was within close range of a window, where escape would have been easy.
 
Could they have used flash bangs to stun him? Or maybe use a sound weapon to disarm and disorient him.

When you have a barricaded suspect whom you know is alone and who has 4 kills to his name the use of non-lethal means to capture that individual should be limited to those actions which put the least number of your forces in the least amount of direct contact with the suspect. For that reason "disorienting" Dorner would have been an unnecessarily stupid move.
 
The smoke inhalation will suffocate a person who's resisting going outside faster than they can react too.

False. Anyone who has been to basic training took a lungsful of CS, in a closed chamber, after holding their breath, and had to struggle (past drills with masks) to get out. CS cannot keep someone from getting out of a room, even after getting a full dose.

He still doesn't wanna come out? Well, too bad for him.
 
Think about the $1 million bounty - no arrest, no trial and no bounty. ;)

The courts are already clogged in Southern California with criminal cases. The Return on Investment from some tear gas cannisters should be applauded by all who live here.

California courts to cut services, increase fees under budget proposal

Erika Aguilar | January 11th, 2013, 6:00am

State courts have been dealt $1.2 billion in budget cuts over the past five years. The proposed state budget released Thursday predicted that trial courts would have to make permanent changes to achieve about $200 million in savings.
 
I don't believe the man had any intention on being apprehended alive. I don't believe any cop would have let him leave alive.

There is so much to this story that we still don't know and I doubt we will ever know. Truly is an intriguing case to say the least.
 
They heard a shot and THEN the building erupted in fire...but no report of shots after the explosion.

So either he shot at a gas-fueled appliances and was killed immediately in the explosion, or the fire erupted spontaneously because of the tear gas being ignited by the gun shot which he aimed at himself....

But then I find this:

TEAR GAS GRENADES | CAMEO Chemicals | NOAA

...so it doesn't make a lot of sense, really. Either he blew himself up (painful way to go) intentionally, he shot himself and a random explosion of fire somehow occurred, or he shot a canister not knowing it would (maybe) erupt (but then where'd the flames come from, unless the canister was near a gas appliance), or there wasn't a canister at all and there's no easy explanation for how a shot preceded a mystery fire, 'cause the police said they "pumped in" tear gas.

I'll wait 'til the details are more clear.

This! Excellent post Tessa. We should wait for all details.

I cannot help but speculate though, that this man was a stone cold killer. He had just shot two deputies, killing one. He had no intention, see his manifesto, of being taken alive. That this ended in his death, by his hand or that of the police cannot be a surprise to anyone.
 
No one killed him, he could have surrendered at any point. The means taken to that end (his surrender) were reasonable.

I'm quite sure that if he had come out with his hands up he would have been shot and a gun dropped.

Cops get REALLY irrational when one of their own is killed.

And since I don't get the same "right" to vengeance, neither do the cops.
 
This! Excellent post Tessa. We should wait for all details.

I cannot help but speculate though, that this man was a stone cold killer. He had just shot two deputies, killing one. He had no intention, see his manifesto, of being taken alive. That this ended in his death, by his hand or that of the police cannot be a surprise to anyone.


I completely agree. We don't know if the cabin had gas cans stored in it for winter conditions, or propane or what? He might of started the fire himself. I was basing my opinion and possibilities on an article, not a set of concluded facts. He most likely wasn't going to come in alive by his own choice.
 
There should be a third category in the above poll and that is "Who cares?"

Even in our liberal, pop culture, tolerant, no judgments society, some people reveal themselves to be so depraved that they need killing. Dorner was in that category.

I was looking for the "Who cares, it's probably better this way" option.
 
It was reported that he bought scuba equipment prior to the beginning of the shootings. I wonder if that was to protect himself from tear gas?
 
There is no information as of right now that would lead me to believe the cops had any intention of taking him in alive.
 
Back
Top Bottom