- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 11,273
- Reaction score
- 5,733
- Location
- On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
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.
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?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Could they have used flash bangs to stun him? Or maybe use a sound weapon to disarm and disorient him.
The smoke inhalation will suffocate a person who's resisting going outside faster than they can react too.
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.
Since when has tear gas been used to start a fire?
No one killed him, he could have surrendered at any point. The means taken to that end (his surrender) were reasonable.
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.
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.
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?
I'm quite sure that if he had come out with his hands up he would have been shot
and a gun dropped.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?