zanejohnson
Diamond Member
- Nov 29, 2002
- 7,054
- 17
- 81
There is a big difference between murder and killing during war when the other side shoots back.
i mean civilian kills, also civilian kills with drone strikes...
There is a big difference between murder and killing during war when the other side shoots back.
i mean civilian kills, also civilian kills with drone strikes...
Killed the 2 in the parking garageHow many fire-fights was this guy involved in? And each one ended up with the other side retreating or being shot. Also add to that he was outnumbered in each of the fire-fights. He was an absolute bad ass. They wanted nothing to do with raiding that building so they burnt it down.
Killed the 2 in the parking garage
Ambushed 2 (3?) cops at a stop light.
Haven't caught up on the news for the officer killed yesterday.
That's it, right?
Missed that but I would think any normal thinking person that's getting shot at is going to have an "oh, shit" moment and run for cover. At least, my pansy butt would be.He was in two different ones where police followed him by vehicle he stops and lays down fire and either shoots them or they retreat. Remember this is one man taking on squad cars with two highly trained officers.
Missed that but I would think any normal thinking person that's getting shot at is going to have an "oh, shit" moment and run for cover. At least, my pansy butt would be.
Didn't he open fire before they could even get out?
:biggrin:Sorry but a white vehicle driving erratically with a large black man hanging out the window with an assault rifle is plenty of warning.
There is a big difference between murder and killing during war when the other side shoots back.
So if the other side shoots back which means you fired first and broke the rules of engagement.
Murderer
Ok, I don't even understand why they would throw a smoke grenade in the house, unless they were specifically trying to burn it down with him inside.
Someone correct me but I believe there are at least two types.. The 'smoke' type that would never catch fire, and the 'incendiary' type that has a flame, gets hot, and is basically designed to burn things down.
This entire thing is just terrible, and is in my opinion one of the worst things LEOs have done in the past 10 years.
Everything from attempting to murder multiple innocent civilians without warning to having roadblocks where they point rifles at children in cars. This entire thing is so far beyond botched, I just can't even believe it.
From this guys' point of view, the LAPD started the war and fired first.
I don't agree with what he did at all, but after looking at how they handled the entire thing I can logically understand how and why Dorner was pushed over the edge.
You use smoke in conjunction with tear gas to make it cover the full area. If you just use teargas it goes up in the air and lying down you can avoid it. Using smoke it will not work
We were referring to a war situation
We are, but from his perspective this was a war type situation.
Yes, I am aware, but the non-incendiary smoke grenades could not catch a house on fire from what I understand.
LEOs and SWAT use smoke grenades (non-incendiary) and tear gas ALL the time. I have never, in all my years of following police reports and oddball LEO situations have heard of a smoke grenade or tear gas grenade burning down a structure UNLESS it was the specific incendiary type of smoke grenade and was intentional.
do not lose sight of what the real outrage should be...
there was NO DUE PROCESS.
do not lose sight of what the real outrage should be...
there was NO DUE PROCESS.