[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Those officers should be imprisoned for lighting that building on fire.[/quote]
Not even close. If someone is violently resisting arrest (as is his right to do so) they have every right to take him out in any way which puts their men and women in the least amount of harm. I mean they have the right to return fire if someone is firing at them. Burning the building down is fine, the only thing I would say is they should pay for the damage (yes we as taxpayers should carry that burden). Insurance policies generally do not cover damage as a result of Governmental action.
V[/quote]
No way bro! Due process! They should let him expend all of his rounds and take him alive at all costs. He’s gotta have a trial!
I don’t feel people see the bigger picture of about whats happening here. The batman killer that shot up a movie theatre, the Sandy Hook incident, and now this whole Dorner thing is leading to a greater purpose. These were all set up by the governement in order for the govt to have a justification to pass a gun control law.
[quote]GetItSon wrote:
I don’t feel people see the bigger picture of about whats happening here. The batman killer that shot up a movie theatre, the Sandy Hook incident, and now this whole Dorner thing is leading to a greater purpose. These were all set up by the governement in order for the govt to have a justification to pass a gun control law. [/quote]
Luckily I have not heard too much about gun control with this guy. In all seriousness what new laws being proposed would affect this guy? He almost falls into the category of police/military (since he was ex-both). Its hard to argue any law against this guy having guns or restrictions on them when he is so close to police/military where these laws don’t apply at all.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Those officers should be imprisoned for lighting that building on fire.[/quote]
Not even close. If someone is violently resisting arrest (as is his right to do so) they have every right to take him out in any way which puts their men and women in the least amount of harm. I mean they have the right to return fire if someone is firing at them. Burning the building down is fine, the only thing I would say is they should pay for the damage (yes we as taxpayers should carry that burden). Insurance policies generally do not cover damage as a result of Governmental action.
V[/quote]
What if he kept secret hostages knowing the police would be responsible for their death after they set the fire?
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
Those officers should be imprisoned for lighting that building on fire.[/quote]
Not even close. If someone is violently resisting arrest (as is his right to do so) they have every right to take him out in any way which puts their men and women in the least amount of harm. I mean they have the right to return fire if someone is firing at them. Burning the building down is fine, the only thing I would say is they should pay for the damage (yes we as taxpayers should carry that burden). Insurance policies generally do not cover damage as a result of Governmental action.
V[/quote]
What if he kept secret hostages knowing the police would be responsible for their death after they set the fire?[/quote]
[quote]GetItSon wrote:
I don’t feel people see the bigger picture of about whats happening here. The batman killer that shot up a movie theatre, the Sandy Hook incident, and now this whole Dorner thing is leading to a greater purpose. These were all set up by the governement in order for the govt to have a justification to pass a gun control law. [/quote]
Luckily I have not heard too much about gun control with this guy. In all seriousness what new laws being proposed would affect this guy? He almost falls into the category of police/military (since he was ex-both). Its hard to argue any law against this guy having guns or restrictions on them when he is so close to police/military where these laws don’t apply at all.[/quote]
This guy went ape shit because he lost his job, this is not limited to military or police personnel.
Anyone can get unhinged when they lose their job you just cannot predict who will.
You would have to literally ban all guns, justified in the name of “since anyone can go ape shit if they lose their job, no one should have any guns.”
[quote]GetItSon wrote:
I don’t feel people see the bigger picture of about whats happening here. The batman killer that shot up a movie theatre, the Sandy Hook incident, and now this whole Dorner thing is leading to a greater purpose. These were all set up by the governement in order for the govt to have a justification to pass a gun control law. [/quote]
Luckily I have not heard too much about gun control with this guy. In all seriousness what new laws being proposed would affect this guy? He almost falls into the category of police/military (since he was ex-both). Its hard to argue any law against this guy having guns or restrictions on them when he is so close to police/military where these laws don’t apply at all.[/quote]
[quote]GetItSon wrote:
I don’t feel people see the bigger picture of about whats happening here. The batman killer that shot up a movie theatre, the Sandy Hook incident, and now this whole Dorner thing is leading to a greater purpose. These were all set up by the governement in order for the govt to have a justification to pass a gun control law. [/quote]
Luckily I have not heard too much about gun control with this guy. In all seriousness what new laws being proposed would affect this guy? He almost falls into the category of police/military (since he was ex-both). Its hard to argue any law against this guy having guns or restrictions on them when he is so close to police/military where these laws don’t apply at all.[/quote]
You guys are fucked up if you think it’s an appropriate response for police to burn someone alive, even more so when they aren’t sure of who else might be in there. You fuckin’ deserve your police-state.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You guys are fucked up if you think it’s an appropriate response for police to burn someone alive, even more so when they aren’t sure of who else might be in there. You fuckin’ deserve your police-state.[/quote]
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You guys are fucked up if you think it’s an appropriate response for police to burn someone alive, even more so when they aren’t sure of who else might be in there. You fuckin’ deserve your police-state.[/quote]
he was shooting at / killing officers on sight… how do you negotiate with that?
You are certifiably nuts. If everything he said in that manifesto is 100 percent true the bottom line is he just lost his job. JUST LOST HIS FUCKING JOB! This is not a case where one goes out and fights for justice even at the expense of innocent lives. This is a case where one goes out, gets another job and goes on with their lives. If they want to make a hobby out of it they can try to get their story out to the public, maybe even write a book. Not fucking kill people.
I read that manifesto and I read the cops side of the story. I’m not predisposed to siding with the cops, not by a long shot. I find the cops side of the story more plausible. The guy was a bad cop and his complaint against the training officer was purely a preemptive strike because he knew she was going to write him up.
In the most favorable light for Dorner he’s killing innocent people over losing his job. Not only that, police work is a mediocre career as far as careers go and he’s a guy with a college degree. Losing that job might easily have been a favor to him if he had applied himself in a constructive manner.
[/quote]
From the 9th and in way ahead of Brad.
Yep[/quote]
Sorry man, didn’t read back far enough when I posted that.
[quote]MattyG35 wrote:
You guys are fucked up if you think it’s an appropriate response for police to burn someone alive, even more so when they aren’t sure of who else might be in there. You fuckin’ deserve your police-state.[/quote]
he was shooting at / killing officers on sight… how do you negotiate with that?
[quote]Gettnitdone wrote:
Dorner’s wallet apparently found near charred corpse. I’ve seen to much CSI/NCIS/Mentalist to definitively conclude the body is Dorner. [/quote]
Bones would know immediately if the body was his or not … shit all she would need was half his pelvic bone and two teeth and she be like “Yea that’s him” and we be like daaaaaaamn
This whole thing is starting to stink quite a bit. They’ve stated that they found his wallet in the cabin but did they not also find his wallet in San Diego and near the border?
[quote]BeefEater wrote:
This whole thing is starting to stink quite a bit. They’ve stated that they found his wallet in the cabin but did they not also find his wallet in San Diego and near the border?[/quote]
I am not a police officer or a lawyer so I cannot be 100% certain but I don’t think it is illegal to buy more than one wallet.