Let us get this straight from the start. Dorner was a criminal, he admitted that he planned to kill in his manifesto and he needed to be prosecuted. We are NOT a conspiracy website/blog. Although asking questions about how the law enforcement officers handled a situation doesn’t equal support, sympathy, or saying the person was a hero. He was not! I am however going to address the tactical response handling of the “burn” that everyone is questioning about the Dorner situation in the cabin.
Did the police intentionally burn down the cabin? Did the police refer to gas canisters as burners? On both those my answer is yes. Here is why the answer is yes, even though I just laid the claim that what the office said about referring to the gas canisters as burners is correct. California police agencies commonly use a canister called BurnSafe that actually shells/holds the incendiary gas that was deployed. Why do they use the canister because it has been know that incendiary gas without housing will cause fire because of the high burning temperature it uses to more effectively deploy the gas?
The department was correct in saying that they commonly refer to the BurnSafe canister as burners. What they fail to mention were they properly used? It is know that if you use enough of these at the same time in a close area they will start a fire even within the container. Also, it is known that with little altering or using a different device in the canisters will result in an intense fire.
With what is known above and then the context of the videos of the communication of the police you can come to one conclusion. That there was a “plan” they had discussed about using the tear gas. Also if you take one of the local news videos you can hear clearly that referring to the device by its slang it seemed they knew that they had altered the deployment of this device to burn the structure. Referring to the statement made, “burn this mother fucker down” not referring to the statements, “burn him.” “Burn him,” you could argue they were just meaning lets hurry up and deploy the gas to force him out. Although, “Burn this mother fucker down” would mean they knew that this was going to cause a fire. Along with the “plan they discussed” through radio traffic you can conclude that they had alter the BurnSafe canister to fail on purpose and start the fire.
http://www.tomahawkburnsafe.com/Fire-Retardancy-Videos.html (video shows how SafeBurn doesn’t start fire)
So why come to the conclusion that is what happened. Well, we look at the history; they opened fire on two women delivering papers without any confirmation of who was in that vehicle. You know that the department has this almost movie like approach to the “thin blue line.” We also know that they had “someone” they believed to be Dorner contained in a building that fled from a truck with only what he could carry. Once containment took place there were many options but the departments and tactical made it clear they were only interested in one response. Not only that but they by admission didn’t have 100% id on who was in the house and if there were anyone else in the home to me that is troubling. I tweeted when they first shot the ladies in the truck that they should have allowed outside agencies to be in charge of the search operations such as the FBI to be making the calls due to the obvious emotion involved in the search.
Found it also profound that the reward that was offered was so much given some of the crimes and people that remain on the streets that have warrants out and no reward or little offered in those cases. So you ask is this sympathizing with a man (Dorner) that is a criminal. No but for the ones that hope that the officers burnt down that house and applaud that type of response you are the problem with an already over reaching, none transparent, no responsible police department. Vigilante justice was used in both cases by Dorner and then in response by the police. This isn’t the way law is to be handled outlined by many things one of the biggest our own United States Constitution. If we allowed for vigilante justice then we have chaos and we might as well abolish the U.S. judicial system. Most that support the action in thought that the police purposely burnt down the house I have seen claim to be constitutionalist, which is even more alarming or complain about a tyrannical government and gun rights. In those people mentioned in the previous sentence I ask, if circumventing due process and the justice system is ok in this case then when is it not ok? When it involves you and possible claims that you may have violated the law? What separates the police department from Dorner in a circumstance like this that society proclaims that one is wrong and the other is right because of a uniform?
It is the judicial system that is to proclaim that and the fact that there were literally people more afraid of the police departments involved in the search for Dorner than scared of Dorner himself says something in its self. That is the inherent problem and that is what most people are trying to bring to this conversation that has been spark by these events, not that Dorner was a hero, good man for what he did. It is more about the conduct and power of the police agencies that were in the midst of the allegations by Dorner. The fact that, the agencies had already made it clear in shooting two civilians that they had no intend in taking the suspect alive. Not saying that Dorner himself had any intent of being taken alive and I do not think he did but the agencies involved didn’t even make an attempt to go thru the motions to do so. The biggest problem in this case and the reason why most are asking questions is because California police departments even as of recent have been plague with shooting now and asking question later and people have become tired of fearing a tax paid public servant that seems to answer to absolutely no one.
In the state I reside now, North Carolina, it is easier to remove the Governor of the State than almost a judicial official. To question a cop in this state is equal to you deserved however they have treated you and you should never question and always do what they say. Police here will get fired from one department and get hired onto another even after misconduct. Judges and DA will withhold evidence to get convictions to ensure a good result in election regardless of being correct. Also, in the state I reside in now it was two activists that held a newspaper company hostage claiming corruption of a county police department and demanding an investigation. Years later a federal group would start an operation called tarnish badge and subsequently convict over 22 police officers in crimes from rape, kidnapping to corruption and money laundering. I believe that the proclaimed support for Dorner isn’t support at all. No one I have seen thinks that he shouldn’t have been held to prosecution for the crimes he committed. I also believe those people being held as proclaiming support of Dorner are just question the response of the police in this case because of things I mentioned above. I think a lot of the discourse by the handling of apprehension of Dorner is because of all the above mentioned and as long as the police which are supposed public servants because more ego filled and held above the law you will see a continuation of people questioning what is going to be done to get police to be held responsible for their very own crimes? I don’t think this mess with corruption in police departments will be solved across the U.S. until there is an outside no partial source that investigates complaints, not only by persons outside the departments but complaints within the departments as well. It is obvious over the years that police policing police does not work and has not worked.
In conclusion he was a criminal that needed to be stopped. Don’t believe it is a “conspiracy”, “Hoax,” or anything of that nature. There is a problem with police departments today and brings it to the front.