Skip to main content

View Diary: Cops say "Burn it Down" (250 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It was clearly a planned action (10+ / 0-)

    It was reported on police scanners. Some of the visuals being shown by the media were off -- time wise -- with the scanners (I had a few live ones online that I listened to, and read tons of reposts from others of the scanners).

    Then all of a sudden they were jammed.

    Next, they say they didn't intentionally burn anything down. At least, that's what I read in the MSM online. I was mighty surprised. Someone pointed out that one feed alone had 26,000 people on it. Twitter lit up and still is on the #lapd and #dorner channel about the fire discrepancy. As soon as the police began to deny this, people began to repost audio -- mainly on youtube. At first most of the quality was hard to hear. The one I posted below is crystal clear.

    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

    by mahakali overdrive on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 07:26:48 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why? (0+ / 0-)

      Because the word burners was used? That is proof?

      How do you then explain the addenda to The Guardian's article?

      •  I haven't read the Guardian article (6+ / 0-)

        The MSM has no better info than what was posted online, directly, since they are retroactively looking for info now after agreeing to ye old media blackout.

        At any rate, why what? Not clear what the question is? Proof that they were intentionally trying to start a fire? Because I've listened to like forty audio files that are all different now, and they talk all about a plan to burn the house down like we talked about, Steve, all consistently say some variant of that (obviously several different channels).

        Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

        by mahakali overdrive on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 07:40:57 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Read The Guardian, just the last couple sentences (3+ / 0-)

          "Burner" means a CS gas cannnister, not a police office with a lit torch.

          •  I have, but it's not particularly (9+ / 0-)

            relevant how the fires were begun. The point is whether or not they were begun intentionally. If the police say that the fire is going as planned, after it has begun, then it makes logical sense to believe it has, in fact, gone according to plan.

            I was doing this live all last night. This has already been addressed.

            Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 07:51:22 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So tear gas is now arson eh? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tom Seaview

              Tear gas cannisters get hot but they are not the tool to use if one wants to start a fire more than one wants to fill a cabin with CS gas. There is no assurance that a CS cannister will stat a fire. So why did the police not use torches and gasoline ... those DO start fires.

              Sorry but this is BS. It is entirely relevant. If the police intended to start a fire, they would have used a tool that reliably starts fires.

              I have, but it's not particularly relevant how the fires were begun
              •  You don't seem to be aware of (9+ / 0-)

                what the timeline of events were.

                - They said they were going to burn something down.

                - The house caught on fire.

                - They then said that was the plan, to let it burn.

                Just to clarify.

                Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                by mahakali overdrive on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:07:38 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Actually I have (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Tom Seaview
                  According to a law enforcement source, police had broken down windows, pumped in tear gas and blasted a loud speaker urging Dorner to surrender. When they got no response, police deployed a vehicle to rip down the walls of the cabin "one by one, like peeling an onion," a law enforcement official said.

                  By the time they got to the last wall, authorities heard a single gunshot, the source said. Then flames began to spread through the structure, and gunshots, probably set off by the fire, were heard.

                  So the fire was either started by Donner or by tear gas cannisters. Not by torches and gasoline. And the tear gas was accompanied by calls to surrender.

                  Is your position that police should not be allowed to use tear gas?

                  •  Triangulation? (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    SilentBrook, gerrilea

                    Not interested. At. All.

                    Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                    by mahakali overdrive on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:22:32 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  The timeline in the quote is incorrect (8+ / 0-)
                    By the time they got to the last wall, authorities heard a single gunshot, the source said. Then flames began to spread through the structure, and gunshots, probably set off by the fire, were heard
                    The quote above is inaccurate by whoever wrote it.

                    I was listening live to the scanner @  26:12 minutes of the link below you here the fire starting.

                    "Seven burners deployed and we have a fire"
                    The second important part starts  at 30.50
                    "One shot fired inside residence".
                    The fire was reported 5 minutes before the single gun shot.

                    https://archive.org/...

                    Secondly, if a police force wants to avoid costly litigation,
                    why would you refer to tear gas canisters as burners? In case they do set something on fire?

                    •  Yes, the shot was reported (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Prairie Gal, SilentBrook, gerrilea

                      after the fire. I recall that as well. It wasn't long after though. I don't have a timeline in front of me.

                      Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                      by mahakali overdrive on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:42:18 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  After the CS was used right? (0+ / 0-)

                      The detail I was after was that the fire was sparked either by a CS cannister or by Donner himself. As contrasted with being set with devices such as torches or thermite grenades.

                      •  I hope sincerely you are correct (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Quicklund

                        And as I commented last night, I think the San Bernadino Poilice should have an opportunity give an accounting.

                        •  There is a review after every cop death (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          Intheknow

                          Given the publicity of this case I would think the odds are above 100%, i.e. we will see more than one investigations.

                          And if said investigations show genuine police malfeasance I will join the chorus of critics. But right now the evidence before us show police acting as per the norms 98% of citizens expect.

                          •  LA Times is reporting: (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive, gerrilea
                            Faced with regular barrages of gunfire, officers confronting suspected killer Christopher Dorner lobbed incendiary tear gas into the cabin where Dorner allegedly was holed up, said law enforcement officials with knowledge of the situation.
                            According to the LA times, police tried "normal" tear gas that had no effect.
                            They then introduced incendiary tear gas into the cabin.

                            http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/...

                          •  That makes perfect sense to me, thank you (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            gerrilea, ancblu

                            The introduction of tear gas was reported, and there was no smoke, no fire visible, or any reported. This must have been regular tear gas (which is flammable, but not overly so).

                            Then, there was an announcement of a burn plan.

                            Then, there was something else introduced into the house. This must be incendiary tear gas. That's more flammable.

                            Then, they said it went according to plan.

                            That LA Times article follows my own observations of what happened, more or less. It also clarifies why so many people were confused by one report of tear gas followed some time later by smoke and this fire (a "burner"). I will reserve my judgment in this comment about this course of action, but it has been widely critiqued as one possible hypothesis.

                            As I mentioned earlier, I was under the impression that there was tear gas and then something more flammable introduced. It sounds like that was the case.

                            Thanks for posting this article. I think it shows a clear timeline.

                            On my lunch break for two minutes with little time.

                            Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 12:43:01 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I'm not so sure the critique is so much as to what (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            sviscusi

                            happened (maybe by some) but to the idea that the intent was nefarious, as some are suggesting.

                            Some people are suggesting that there was never any intent to allow this person to live, and that this proves it.

                            That's quite a serious charge--and people are definitely more-than-insinuating it here.

                            It may be that this wasn't handled well--it may be that this was handled professionally--we can't say yet.

                            Due process is always what we want to see--but there are certain cases where it isn't always possible.

                          •  Who is suggesting that? (5+ / 0-)

                            What I'm reading here is people saying that this situation was mishandled and if (key word - IF) it turns out that the police purposefully set the cabin on fire they have a problem with it and if the police drove Dornan back into the cabin to a potentially fiery death rather than making a move to take him into custody when they had the opportunity then they have an even bigger problem with it.

                            Those people are being shouted down, called apologists for a cop killer, and having words put in their proverbial mouths because he was a Very Bad Man who chose suicide by cop and got what he deserved and now there's one less cop killer out there - yay!.

                            That mindset is, in my opinion, turning a very blind eye to the potential precedent of force used in a stand off situation. In the USA that I live in we don't allow our police force to burn our citizens alive regardless of what crimes they may have committed or how deeply they're holed up. Fire is not an option I want to see used in stand off situations in the future and its potential use yesterday raises concerns that I hope will be addressed by the investigation that is forthcoming.

                          •  shouted down? er...no. (0+ / 0-)

                            considering it's the opinion of about 80% of people on here.

                            What those 20% of us object to is framing this story with a pre-conceived agenda.  

                            None of us know what happened.  So I choose to withhold judgment until I find out more.

                          •  Me, I follow all of these stories (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            entrelac

                            I followed the Zimmerman story, Breivik, Lougner's case, the Lanza case, etc. This goes all the way back to Manson.

                            I also followed the Fukushima stories, the BP oil spill, you know...

                            It is hard to determine many events when they get shitty media coverage.

                            Click the ♥ to join us on the Black Kos front porch to review news & views written from a black pov - everyone is welcome.

                            by mahakali overdrive on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 05:00:07 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  It seems to be true, they wanted him dead. (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive, ancblu

                            Let's not pull any punches here.  That "thin blue line" will rarely get crossed and when it does, you better not be the one crossing it.

                            Shit, the NYPD locked up and drugged a fellow officer for trying to tell the world the truth about the quota's.

                            Pretending we don't live in a police state doesn't float any longer.

                            They do what they want with impunity.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 01:27:18 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Everything about this Dorner case (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            mahakali overdrive, devis1

                            stinks to high heaven ... and to anyone remotely familiar with LAPD and its enablers in the fellow law enforcement agency, prosecutorial and judical ranks, this comes as absolutely no shock.

                            If you are disheartened, angry or even incredulous that some might suggest nefarious purposes as a predictable institutional practice, then my suggestion would be to research the long and wide-ranging history of systemic LAPD malfeasance.  

            •  MO, if they had wanted to start a fire (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Tom Seaview, Quicklund, gerrilea

              deliberately, they would have used thermite grenades. That is the fire starter.  

              Tear gas has a tiny pellet of flammable material that burns at 5,000 degrees to start the chemical reaction that generates the gas, but they do not ordinarily start fires. The pellet only burns very briefly. They do start a fire once in a while, but not often.

              It they had meant to burn the place down deliberately, they would have fired a couple of thermite grenades through a window or onto the roof.

              The general who wins the battle makes many calculations in his temple before the battle is fought. The general who loses makes but few calculations beforehand. - Sun Tzu

              by Otteray Scribe on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 08:13:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  Re (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Jon Says, SilentBrook, gerrilea
      Next, they say they didn't intentionally burn anything down
      Another question: when's the last time anyone in their unit got tear gas canister training? Were the officers involved aware that there is a substantial risk of fire while using these devices?

      In short, how does an 'accidental' fire that destroys a building get started by the police? I'm not saying they deliberately started it, but it could be a case of not trained, or trained and recklessly indifferent to the results, or something like that.

      Even saying 'fuck' is something I would not really expect of professional officers in a not-immediately-life threatening event, especially with global media watching them.

      All in all, does not paint a good picture.

      (-5.50,-6.67): Left Libertarian
      Leadership doesn't mean taking a straw poll and then just throwing up your hands. -Jyrinx

      by Sparhawk on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 09:01:39 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site