• 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 .
I don't think we want the police killing easily or making decisions based on emotion because it makes them judge, jury and executioner. I'm not saying the police were wrong in this instance but it doesn't look good for them to use an incendiary device to burn a suspect out because, until any of us are convicted, regardless of how bad it looks were still not guilty by law.

What it really amounts to is that it would have been better if they had shot him after he opened fire on them, and before he entered the cabin. Either way, the end result is the same, but the public would have an easier time digesting it. If someone was shooting at me, you can bet your ass I'd try my damndest to kill him.
 
It doesn't really matter..The butcher is dead.....That is the good thing.
 
What it really amounts to is that it would have been better if they had shot him after he opened fire on them, and before he entered the cabin. Either way, the end result is the same, but the public would have an easier time digesting it. If someone was shooting at me, you can bet your ass I'd try my damndest to kill him.

It's not that they finally got him. Anything he did doesn't justify wrong behavior by the police force in my eyes. If someone was shooting at me I'd shoot back but I still wish for no persons death. I've seen people die up close and it's nothing like the movies it burns a hole in your soul.
 
Dorner was executed just like Koresh and the dozens of women and children with him in Waco.


What at total grotesque lie and low-life scummy comparison to the horrific actions by the federal government in murdering women and children at Waco with cyanide gas versus state and local police trying to tear gas and burn out a killer into surrendering. Your message truly is sickening to compare the two as they are exactly opposite. The police did it right with Dorner.
 
I have not seen anyone anywhere, until now, suggest that police used the incendiary version of the tear gas delivery device with the intention of burning the guy to death. we have been told that it was used to drive him out with the stronger tear gas, and fire was a possibility, but even if the officers wanted to start the fire, the fire by no means required that the suspect be burned to death. He could have easily just exited the building and surrendered.

He apparently chose not to go this route, and it is likely that he shot himself instead.

Did the police kill him at all?

I really don't think so.

If your house catches fire, do you leave, or do you stay and shoot yourself?

Read some articles on the internet it's all over that the police chose to use the incendiary version of teargas.
He probably succumbed to the smoke before he realized he couldn't withstand it.
He had a big hand in his own death by his choices, though his reasons for choosing his path will probably not come out at a trial now.
Who benefits from that if the LAPD did screw him and the homeless man that got beat?
 
It's not that they finally got him. Anything he did doesn't justify wrong behavior by the police force in my eyes. If someone was shooting at me I'd shoot back but I still wish for no persons death. I've seen people die up close and it's nothing like the movies it burns a hole in your soul.


So your view is that .... a person can murder as many people as he wants to and the police shouldn't bother that person or intefere? That seems you point.
 
It's not that they finally got him. Anything he did doesn't justify wrong behavior by the police force in my eyes. If someone was shooting at me I'd shoot back but I still wish for no persons death. I've seen people die up close and it's nothing like the movies it burns a hole in your soul.

Yes, I've seen many people die up close, and it's not fun, and I don't wish for anyone's death in specific, but I would most definitely try to kill someone who was shooting at me. Period. My life is every bit as important as anyone else's, and I will defend it to the death, if necessary.
 
So your view is that .... a person can murder as many people as he wants to and the police shouldn't bother that person or intefere? That seems you point.

That's not my point at all if it takes deadly force to put someone down, then that's the way it is. But if it can be averted, even with a killer, then it should be. Or do you condone death squads for certain defenses? And does that make you any better than them?
 
There should be a 3rd option of "Who cares? There's one less scumbag in the world".
 
Yes, I've seen many people die up close, and it's not fun, and I don't wish for anyone's death in specific, but I would most definitely try to kill someone who was shooting at me. Period. My life is every bit as important as anyone else's, and I will defend it to the death, if necessary.

There's nothing wrong with being passionate about your life. I just don't like it when people are so eager to kill others because most likely you're going to kill an innocent eventually, and there's coming back from that one. Shooting all the bad guys in the world isn't worth one innocent.
 
Hillary weighed in earlier today ... she said "What difference does it make at this point in time."
 
There's nothing wrong with being passionate about your life. I just don't like it when people are so eager to kill others because most likely you're going to kill an innocent eventually, and there's coming back from that one. Shooting all the bad guys in the world isn't worth one innocent.

I didn't say it is worth one innocent, but this nutcase was not an innocent, and he was shooting at the cops. That's not only stupid and insane, it's suicidal.
 
I didn't say it is worth one innocent, but this nutcase was not an innocent, and he was shooting at the cops. That's not only stupid and insane, it's suicidal.

I agree he was bananas though what if he DID have an innocent hostage they didn't know about in the cabin? Would their behavior have been so easily dismissed?
 
I agree he was bananas though what if he DID have an innocent hostage they didn't know about in the cabin? Would their behavior have been so easily dismissed?

I figure they were certain that there wasn't a hostage, because of the timeline of the story, and the specific actions taken by Dorner.
 
I figure they were certain that there wasn't a hostage, because of the timeline of the story, and the specific actions taken by Dorner.

Certain? How could they be, unless they searched the premises? They were going by what the two maids that escaped said. But what if some child had been walking out back in the snow and Dorner had snatched him up and tucked him in the back room?

My only point is the procedure to subdue and detain a suspect and not to dispense instant justice on a cornered perpetrator, exist for a reason. Too many people either wanted to support him, which is wrong or justify anything the police did because it stopped him. They may have been well within guidelines. I don't know for sure. This was always a POLL with simple questions, not accusations about events that I have no first hand knowledge of.
 
He's a cop killer. No sympathy for him.
 
That's not my point at all if it takes deadly force to put someone down, then that's the way it is. But if it can be averted, even with a killer, then it should be. Or do you condone death squads for certain defenses? And does that make you any better than them?

This situation was not a "death squad." You are trying to equate what happened to other bad cop/bad government actions and it doesn't work. In this instance, there was one person who likely had killed may people, was killing people to kill people - particularly cops - and had extremely long range and high penetration weapons with ranges up to a mile - and an entire forest to try to escape or do an attack from.

What were the police suppose to do? Pull everyone back at least a mile from the cabin in evry direction and let him stay there however long he liked - or alteratively try to figure an attack plan?

I have noticed all the people trying to portray the police at the scene as torturous murders who locked him in a building and set him on fire offer NO alternative of what the police should have done instead.
 
This situation was not a "death squad." You are trying to equate what happened to other bad cop/bad government actions and it doesn't work. In this instance, there was one person who likely had killed may people, was killing people to kill people - particularly cops - and had extremely long range and high penetration weapons with ranges up to a mile - and an entire forest to try to escape or do an attack from.

What were the police suppose to do? Pull everyone back at least a mile from the cabin in evry direction and let him stay there however long he liked - or alteratively try to figure an attack plan?

I have noticed all the people trying to portray the police at the scene as torturous murders who locked him in a building and set him on fire offer NO alternative of what the police should have done instead.

My only point is the procedure to subdue and detain a suspect and not to dispense instant justice on a cornered perpetrator, exist for a reason. Too many people either wanted to support him, which is wrong or justify anything the police did because it stopped him. They may have been well within guidelines. I don't know for sure. This was always a POLL with simple questions, not accusations about events that I have no first hand knowledge of.

Try reading my post, one above yours before hacking at me. It doesn't say what you imply.
 
I think you're talking about out of the country treatment of non-citizens? They probably would still permanently intern a citizen but we'll never hear about that one. Threaten the president and some guys in black suits and sunglasses will show up to your door, handcuff you and ship your ass to some island in the Artic to an underground base...lol

No, I'm talking about American citizen.

We just used a drone to kill one that was 16 a few weeks ago.

And it's now legal, according to the Justice Department, for the President to to deny anyone he chooses the right to a trial, but he can still detain them indefinitely....

Guess you've missed that.
 
What at total grotesque lie and low-life scummy comparison to the horrific actions by the federal government in murdering women and children at Waco with cyanide gas versus state and local police trying to tear gas and burn out a killer into surrendering. Your message truly is sickening to compare the two as they are exactly opposite. The police did it right with Dorner.

That's your opinion.
 
I agree he was bananas though what if he DID have an innocent hostage they didn't know about in the cabin? Would their behavior have been so easily dismissed?

Evacuate a half-mile radius and wait him out? This guy swore to and did kill cops on sight, and he's probably got 500m of reach and then some. When he demands food, we send for takeout? I just hope we can get Commander Worf to drive the get-away semi.
 
"Read some articles on the internet"

Yeah, 'cause if it's in the internet, it's true. I heard that on the internet.

FACT: The police used the non-incendiary tear gas delivery cannister FIRST, it did not drive him out. The next step was the stronger delivery system.

That the suspect CHOSE to try and withstand the gas rather than leave the building is who's fault?

This guy knew the law, and he knew that he would been treated fairly if he surrendered. He chose not to.

This is suicide by cop or he shot himself.
 
Last edited:
When he demands food, we send for takeout? I just hope we can get Commander Worf to drive the get-away semi.

Haha, the joke keeps giving:

No, no, that's "yes, captain".
Yes, captain.
That doesn't sound like you mean it.
Yes, captain!
Ok, full speed ahead!


(South Park, Fun with Veal)
 
Here we are, Sam, Day 196 of the stand off between the ex-cop and, well, everyone. CNN has been covering live 24/7 since the start.
*bang*
Damnit, Sam, we lost another camera man. Anyway, we can see through the window that he's riding... is he? Yes, he is... riding the new stationary bike provided by Nike who, ironically enough, reminds us to 'just do it'.
 
Last edited:
Certain? How could they be, unless they searched the premises? They were going by what the two maids that escaped said. But what if some child had been walking out back in the snow and Dorner had snatched him up and tucked him in the back room?

My only point is the procedure to subdue and detain a suspect and not to dispense instant justice on a cornered perpetrator, exist for a reason. Too many people either wanted to support him, which is wrong or justify anything the police did because it stopped him. They may have been well within guidelines. I don't know for sure. This was always a POLL with simple questions, not accusations about events that I have no first hand knowledge of.



It was a poll that did not ask accurate opposing questions because of your "burm him alive" absurd juxtiposition. It only would have been burning him alive if they had locked him in the cabin refusing to allow him to surrender as they burned the cabin.

By what the maids said it all but certain there was no hostage, combined with him not declaring he had one. He COULD have had a remote cell phone activated 1000 bomb in a hospital. In theory he COULD have had ... but all reasonable known facts including 2 eye witnesses made it a reasonable conclusion he had no witnesses.

Why don't you limit it to what appears to be the truly WRONG actions of the police of shooting up a couple of wrong vehicles before this happened at the cabin?

It need be remembered that he had VERY long range weapons, that it KNOWN he was a good enough shot to kill people, and it known police body armor will not stop those bullets from his rifle(s). In addition, with it KNOWN he had a "silencer," containing him overall was impossible without endangering more police lives lost. And that does not consider it very possible he had more deadly ammo or weapons still. I have some NATO .308 ammo (a common civilian caliber too including in bolt action) that will cut thru 1 inch hardened steel armor - or 2 inches+ regular steel and slice nearly any tree. Being 30 caliber bullets, they could be switched to even longer range cartridges. There is no way to SAFELY contain someone with such ammo because you can't even safely watch without exposing yourself.

There are rifles that in calm air can put a bullet within 2 or 3 inches at many hundreds of yards, with range finders, scopes and drop-charts per grams of the bullet allow anyone with a steady hand to make such a shot with a good chance of being within inches. How do you watch and contain someone like that with such firepower? Its NOT that he maybe had a 30 round high capacity AR15. It's it was known he was into and very capable of having very deadly weaponry pre-planned - known by his having a silencer (not easy to get and generally homemade) - and thus may have had such as a BOLT ACTION high quality 30-378 with a SERIOUS SCOPE firing MAJOR military grade ammo. You can not "contain" such a person. You can not even watch such a person. If you can see him, his rifle scope can see you.

AND did those officers have night scopes and night vision? A good chance he did. Then what? Not only no way to contain him, but the police would have to evacuate the area - FAST - as the sun set. Then anyone, everyone, would be at risk and he with a good chance of escape, more killings along the way. They HAD to force him to 1.) surrender, 2.) shoot him or 3.) give him the choice of either surrender or suicide. The clock was ticking as it was already in the afternoon - and every minute that passed another officer could have been murdered by him.
 
Back
Top Bottom