TexasCHLforum.com

Redneck_Buddha wrote:L.A. Confidential is a great movie, IMHO, and very accurate to the times (Early 50s).

Also, Clint Eastwood's film, "The Changeling"

Beiruty wrote:I expect a multi-million law suit and settlement from the 2 newspaper distributor ladies.

Agreed. Tax dollars well spent.

At some level, those officers decided that going home was more important than the possibility of innocent civilians not going home. I am completely comfortable saying that I too would have been wetting my pants if I had been on patrol most of those days. That still cannot justify shooting in those cases.

I am glad it is over (and frankly have few reservations about the cabin) but I usually don't have high hopes for government agencies learning very quickly in regards to the shooting of the civilians. Those in charge won't be out of pocket for any damages awarded.

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 hell.

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.

If Dorner expected any due process he would have laid his arms down and raised his hands up!

He fought the law and LOST.

Those LEOs on location had an active shooter that shot and killed one of the Brothers. Dorner got what he had coming and his death, while spectacular and leaving many questions, saved the state of California a lot of money and time. Does anyone question his guilt????

For those that wanted him captured alive, I present to you: Aurora, Co and Ft Hood. How long will it take justice to be served?
On the other hand: Newtown, CT and Midland City, AL...bad guys dead!

What if???
He had a hostage, shot him, hid his ids in the dead body. Started a fire as a divergence and used the flames as cover to flee the cabin.
It would be shocking if this Black Rambo escaped and/or had accomplices who would do more damage.

Beiruty wrote:What if???
He had a hostage, shot him, hid his ids in the dead body. Started a fire as a divergence and used the flames as cover to flee the cabin.
It would be shocking if this Black Rambo escaped and/or had accomplices who would do more damage.

But he not a Black Rambo!!! Despite what the press would have us believe, he was just a Naval Reserve Naval Intelligence officer. Intelligence officer, not some "High Speed Black Ops Ninja." I'm also pretty sure the extent of his "survival training" came from the Navy Basic Officers Course, that two days in the summer between learning the Laws of Warfare and how to find the front of a boat! All his crazy talk about being a "high Speed" intel guy, talk about IMINT, HUMINT, GEOINT and having a TS/SCI was him trying to make himself out to be special. Talking crap about Barrett .50 Cals and SA-7 Grails was just boasting at the moon!

I would suspect he was just an average beat cop. No time on any special team or anything like that (I'm going out on a limb since I don't know his service records).

He couldn't even live up to his manifesto. I think he lit the cabin on fire and feed himself a 45 round once he knew he was surrounded. Obviously he never learned about breaking out of encirclements. He was probably bummed to know that he was gonna miss Shark week on Discovery.

I hate when guys don't live up to their manifesto!

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.

You are correct and I stand by my personal belief that I would not have an issue if they intentionally set the fire. That is a lot better then forcing entry during an active 4 hour gun battle against a cop killer that had his own smoke devices and getting more officers killed. It would be another tactic like the smoke and gas to get him to come out. Sure it is not normal for LE to do this, but this was not a normal incident. Deadly force is just that, deadly force regardless of the method. That was a big house. One LA news station had the homeowner on the news talking about her house during the incident. If I were the mission commander I would take any step to ensure no more officers died during the incident. I would have also made sure it ended before it got dark.


Do I believe they were doing favors? Sorry but I don't buy that. This was real life and not a TV show. Their only objective would be to get through the incident without loosing any more LEO or civilians to a crazed madman bent on war.

I still want to know where this wacko obtained illegal firearms? Silencers are illegal in CA. Why did the gun control measures that CA has in place fail?

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!

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 laugh . 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:

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

Oh trust me, I don't take you seriously. I do think it is very sad though that one would "joke" about air strikes when LEOs have just been killed. Guess that speaks to character.

My opinion; a maniac who murdered innocent people (including law enforcement personnel) is dead. Period. I personally don't consider him a human being, just a rabid animal. How it was done doesn't matter; just take out the trash without getting anyone else hurt/killed and move on..
Hats off to California law enforcement
Dave

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


http://www.deathrowinmate.org/articles/ ... california" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

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;

I got this
404 - File or directory not found.
The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

jmra wrote:

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;

I got this
404 - File or directory not found.
The resource you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

sorry fixed it

http://www.deathrowinmate.org/articles/ ... california" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;