TexasCHLforum.com

SF18C wrote:Check out this link if you think CA has any sense of justice for the victims of murders!

http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/capital.../docs/ ... secure.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:Great post VMI77. I grow weary of those who act as if LE can do no wrong. The LAPD has a lot to answer for. Hopefully it doesn't all get swept under the rug.
As for the compliant media...maybe they didn't want their vehicles to get all shot up with them inside.

Be clear I am not saying LAPD did no wrong on the shootings of innocents. I have never said they did not wrong. Let the facts come out and if they just shot people for no reason they will be unemployed if not prosecuted. However people keep mingling the incidents and those are NOT this incident. I am ONLY speaking about the Big Bear incident and events there.

THIS incident is different and the suspect sealed his fate when he failed to surrender and kept engaging LEO's during the ongoing fire fight, killing one, and wounding another. Suspects that shoot cops surrender all the time w/o being shot. From all accounts and his actions he didn't want that. Late last year my former partner was critically wounded, taken hostage and a 2nd officer was shot. During the 15 minute gun fight the suspect was hit. The suspect then wanted to surrender, and knowing 2 officers were shot, they still allowed him to surrender as that was the right thing to do. That happens all the time - crooks decide to give up and are taken into custody. This guy did not want that.

I have a real hard time with all the Monday night quarterbacking when the facts of the fire are not even out and as the incident unfolded live people are jumping to conclusions. Just like all the rest of the population the LEO's are innocent until proven guilty. From the latest report the swat team was tearing the walls down room by room. When they reached the room he was in it sounds like he might have shot himself and the fire started. On a side note that also does not sound like they just burned him out. If they were going to do that, why would they risk going room to room on the swat action? I am curious to see if he set the fire to try and take one last LEO with him to heck.

Everything you're saying here may be true, but it really doesn't address the issue of concern. You said that even if they intentionally burned him out you are ok with that. It's that intentionality that is my focus. The same rationale you use to justify burning him out would justify a bomb, an air strike, or a drone strike. LE was recorded making statements that suggest they intentionally burned him out. That's a fact. So what we have is LE making claims that they did such and such and an actual recording that suggests they did something else. Self-serving claims don't invalidate actual recorded statements. This action followed a skeptical public widely expressing the belief that LE was going to kill Dorner no matter what. So, do they act in a way that will invalidate this suspicion? No, they get him contained, they attempt to make sure there are no witnesses, then burn the guy alive, and unless they had information to the contrary that hasn't been released to the public, they did it without even knowing if there was anyone else in the building.

You keep saying it's a different LE agency than LAPD. For this to be truly meaningful you also have to contend that there is no way the Sheriff of San Bernardino County, or someone high up in his COC, is going to do a favor for the Chief of the LAPD or the Mayor of Los Angeles, or some other self-interested politician --even when the favor is something that County LE might already want to do anyway in revenge for killing one of their own guys? Nothing I've seen gives me that much faith in the system.

This incident did not involve airstrikes, drones, ect so that is a "what if" and not part of this incident. I'll leave those discussions for Alex Jones.

Does this quote look familiar?

texanjoker wrote:


SWAT teams work off secure channels and only certain people will have access to that channel even within the agency. Routine patrol will still be yacking away.

I am hoping the 2 latest wounded officers are ok.

Time to call in an air strike!

I have seen many posts of yours on various threads directed at me in a negative manner. That is fine. I normally don't respond as I look at the source . However, if you can't figure out when one is joking about an air strike I have to . Last I checked, LEO's DO NOT have the capability to call in an air strike and if you are taking that literally

texanjoker wrote:

VMI77 wrote:

texanjoker wrote:

jmra wrote:Great post VMI77. I grow weary of those who act as if LE can do no wrong. The LAPD has a lot to answer for. Hopefully it doesn't all get swept under the rug.
As for the compliant media...maybe they didn't want their vehicles to get all shot up with them inside.

Be clear I am not saying LAPD did no wrong on the shootings of innocents. I have never said they did not wrong. Let the facts come out and if they just shot people for no reason they will be unemployed if not prosecuted. However people keep mingling the incidents and those are NOT this incident. I am ONLY speaking about the Big Bear incident and events there.

THIS incident is different and the suspect sealed his fate when he failed to surrender and kept engaging LEO's during the ongoing fire fight, killing one, and wounding another. Suspects that shoot cops surrender all the time w/o being shot. From all accounts and his actions he didn't want that. Late last year my former partner was critically wounded, taken hostage and a 2nd officer was shot. During the 15 minute gun fight the suspect was hit. The suspect then wanted to surrender, and knowing 2 officers were shot, they still allowed him to surrender as that was the right thing to do. That happens all the time - crooks decide to give up and are taken into custody. This guy did not want that.

I have a real hard time with all the Monday night quarterbacking when the facts of the fire are not even out and as the incident unfolded live people are jumping to conclusions. Just like all the rest of the population the LEO's are innocent until proven guilty. From the latest report the swat team was tearing the walls down room by room. When they reached the room he was in it sounds like he might have shot himself and the fire started. On a side note that also does not sound like they just burned him out. If they were going to do that, why would they risk going room to room on the swat action? I am curious to see if he set the fire to try and take one last LEO with him to heck.

Everything you're saying here may be true, but it really doesn't address the issue of concern. You said that even if they intentionally burned him out you are ok with that. It's that intentionality that is my focus. The same rationale you use to justify burning him out would justify a bomb, an air strike, or a drone strike. LE was recorded making statements that suggest they intentionally burned him out. That's a fact. So what we have is LE making claims that they did such and such and an actual recording that suggests they did something else. Self-serving claims don't invalidate actual recorded statements. This action followed a skeptical public widely expressing the belief that LE was going to kill Dorner no matter what. So, do they act in a way that will invalidate this suspicion? No, they get him contained, they attempt to make sure there are no witnesses, then burn the guy alive, and unless they had information to the contrary that hasn't been released to the public, they did it without even knowing if there was anyone else in the building.

You keep saying it's a different LE agency than LAPD. For this to be truly meaningful you also have to contend that there is no way the Sheriff of San Bernardino County, or someone high up in his COC, is going to do a favor for the Chief of the LAPD or the Mayor of Los Angeles, or some other self-interested politician --even when the favor is something that County LE might already want to do anyway in revenge for killing one of their own guys? Nothing I've seen gives me that much faith in the system.

This incident did not involve airstrikes, drones, ect so that is a "what if" and not part of this incident. I'll leave those discussions for Alex Jones.

mamabearCali wrote:

jmra wrote:

texanjoker wrote:SWAT teams work off secure channels and only certain people will have access to that channel even within the agency. Routine patrol will still be yacking away.

I am hoping the 2 latest wounded officers are ok.

Time to call in an air strike!

Heard something about possible hostages. Might want to hold off on the drones.

Why bother to wait. This admin does not seem to have problems with collateral damage. Which I think is immoral but that seems to be their MO.

texanjoker wrote:SWAT teams work off secure channels and only certain people will have access to that channel even within the agency. Routine patrol will still be yacking away.

I am hoping the 2 latest wounded officers are ok.

darn now news says 2 more injured...

Time to call in an air strike! I guess they could call NObama and borrow a drone.

texanjoker wrote:SWAT teams work off secure channels and only certain people will have access to that channel even within the agency. Routine patrol will still be yacking away.

I am hoping the 2 latest wounded officers are ok.

Time to call in an air strike!

texanjoker wrote:MILLION dollar reward for this clown?

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2 ... ected.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

FishInTx wrote:From the sounds of the "manifesto", he's not your average nut job.