There were other options

[Hugabear]

When I first heard about Dorner being holed up in the cabin, I assumed that we would be looking at a stand-off lasting days, if not weeks. Why? Because we've seen this before. Even with Waco, the standoff lasted for quite awhile before the decision was made to go in.

In this case, they knew where he was. They knew that his goal was to kill as many law enforcement as possible. There was no need to put officers' lives in danger.

They also knew that he had limited firepower and limited ammo - after all, it would be very difficult to carry a lot of ammo and weaponry through the woods like that.

Why not establish a perimeter, cordon off the area so that nobody could get through unnoticed. Why not make use of robotics, which would allow them to check out the house without exposing anyone to danger? Why not wait until nightfall? After all, they have the advantage of night-vision/infrared/thermal vision. If he tried to sneak out of the house at night, he would have stood out like a Christmas tree. Plus, he was only one person - he'd have to sleep sometime.

Fact is, they have technology exactly for these types of things - so that they can minimize risk to human life. Once they had his location pinned down, there's no reason why they couldn't have just established a defensive perimeter and waited him out.

[LisaL]

1. For what purpose should they have waited out? What would that accomplish?

They waited out with Dykes for a week. He still ended up dead.

[NCTraveler]

6. So that justice could have been delivered.

Without risk of danger to themselves, if law enforcement can possibly end a situation without additional bloodshed, that is what should be done. Dykes had a hostage, and like here, they went in. Two completely different situations.

[dbackjon]

70. Dorner killed himself. Didn't matter how long they waited

[backtoblue]

10. Dykes had a child for a hostage is the difference

Dorner was presumably alone and the police took him out before he could kill anyone else.

If the media reports are correct then the firing stopped, one single shot was heard, and they torched the place. Dorner shot himself, then they lit him up.

That's the story. According to his own words, he knew he would end up dead. He planned to fight until that time and the police were well aware of that.

[Hugabear]

44. PRESUMABLY?

This is another good point. How would they have known if there was anybody else in the cabin?

Do we just PRESUME they're alone, and then take action?

Or is it okay if we kill innocent civilians and children as long as we get the very bad people? (Yes, this argument has actually been made here on DU recently)

[robinlynne]

50. I'm not sure, but I believe they did know there was nobody in the cabin. This is a winter resort.

People spend the weekends there to ski. The cabin was such a cabin, on a golf course. the police went door to door to every cabin beforehand, determining which cabins had occupants, which did not, and if any had forced entries. They would also have contacted the cabin's owner within minutes. So they probably knew if that cabin was vacant. They saw Dorner go in. he was alone. The story of the other cabin wa son tv within minutes. The family who owned it were going to go for the weekend, decided not to because of Dorner.

this is a relatively small resort town.

[sharp_stick]

2. Fuck Dorner

I'm done with the poor poor Dorner fan club.

So many armchair experts in this place I'm surprised that all these obvious SWAT members don't have better things to do.

[Hugabear]

9. And fuck the blood-lust crowd

Is it really so hard to believe that many of us would prefer to see a non-violent approach attempted? You make it sound like anybody who dares suggest a non-violent approach is somehow a "Dorner fan club" - which is complete total bullshit.

[LisaL]

12. No, it's not hard to believe, considering the number of posts about it. On, and on, and on.

What non-violent approach, when Dorner allegedly had a shoot out and killed a cop prior to getting into that cabin could have possibly been attempted? He still was armed.
Presumably he still could shoot despite being in the cabin.

[marions ghost]

61. I agree they had few options BUT it is right to spend some time

questioning what happened. There are legitimate questions here.

[liberal_at_heart]

13. This is the second thread where some of the comments made me think I was on a

republican website, not a democratic one.

[LisaL]

15. Well I guess we are not all carbon copies of each other.

Does that surprise you?

[liberal_at_heart]

18. it does surprise me when democrats act like republicans

[LisaL]

22. Oh please. This has nothing about acting like republicans.

Using deadly force by LE against someone posing a threat is legal.
This guy was allegedly armed and wasn't harmless as a kitten, even if he was in the cabin, despite what some here are trying to claim.

[tblue]

23. Maybe at heart

we are just as hateful but just, usually, toward a different target. I don't like thinking that, but I'm sure there's some truth to it.

I don't like violence. It is inexcusable that this individual went that horrible route, for whatever reason. He had to pay for what he did, sooner or later. But I can't lose sight of the fact that the police can be as corrupt and evil as the day is long and there are untold numbers of people unjustly harmed by PDs every day. Dorner had a point to make, but he made it in exactly the wrong way. I'm pretty sure that if he'd gone the conventional route, no one would ever have known his story, and he knew that and figured this was worth it. Tragic on so many levels. Nothing good comes out of this story unless police corruption in the LAPD is rooted out. Not holding my breath.

[Yavin4]

42. "if he'd gone the conventional route....

I'm pretty sure that if he'd gone the conventional route, no one would ever have known his story, and he knew that and figured this was worth it.

Why do you say that? There's plenty of media that would have published his evidence. I completely disagree with your statement. If you have any hard evidence about corruption in the LAPD, there are tons of media outlets that would have listened to your story.

[tblue]

65. Really?

No, of course I don't. But I have heard about problems with this PD many times over the years. It's not a news story. If it was, you'd have read it and so would I.

[frylock]

26. that's how authoritarians are programmed to think..

it's all black/white. no nuance, and any disagreement will get you pegged as a sympathizer, if not an outright accomplice. welcome to the big tent.

[tblue]

68. Oy. Yup.

Just like rightwingers on terrorism. It's all black and white. They're all terrorists and therefore bad and we Americans are good. Nothing to be learned, no way to prevent attacks in the future. Just hate and close your mind and move on.

[robinlynne]

29. I don't think a "non-violent" approach is considered when someone shoots police. when someone kills

police family members? I just don't see that as any sort of a realistic possibility.

[Dorian Gray]

71. I understand the non-violent approach appreciation

too bad he didn't have that approach himself.

[sibelian]

51. Once again, for the hard of understanding...

The positions is not "Poor Dorner". The position is "Dangerously Overenthusiastic Police." It is not necessary to believe the former to arrive at the latter.

[backscatter712]

69. Oh, disapproving of reckless police tactics means I'm a Dorner fanboy?

Your shit-stirring is noted.

[HERVEPA]

3. Agree

No reason for the police to be in harm's way in this situation once he was in the cabin.

[LisaL]

5. So they should sit out there in the snow day and night for however long?

Would you like that job?

[Hugabear]

7. Police routinely conduct standoffs

Should we just put an end to all standoffs, and immediately resort to burning criminals out? Why not just arm police drones with Hellfire missiles, and anytime a murderer takes shelter in a house, just level it with a precision strike?

After all, we wouldn't want to inconvenience anybody with a stand-off.

[NCTraveler]

8. What does liking the job have to do with it? nt.

[HERVEPA]

20. I wouldn't choose to be in law enforcement. They did.

and rather than have a cop killed, yeh, waiting would have been better

[LisaL]

24. How would waiting prevent cops from being killed?

Considering Dorner was reportedly armed?

[Hugabear]

27. Was there any reason to expose cops to someone holed up who they knew was a cop-killer?

Like I said. Establish a defensive perimeter. Don't put your cops in a position where there is a likely chance of being shot.

Then just wait him out.

[robinlynne]

33. actually they kept from being shot. They did exactly what you are suggesting; eliminated the possibi

lity of another person being shot.

[HERVEPA]

35. Stay behind something that blocks metal??

Eventually he comes out and exposes himself or dies in the house.
Or if he comes out, throw a grenade. I really don't care if he dies, don't need cops dying needlessly.
And it's hard to believe they wouldn't have other means to get him out of there or knock him out somehow.
Law enforcement is kind of sophisticated these days. I'm sure they could fiollow his movement at night via infrared.

[frylock]

30. give me convenience, or give me death..

is this the new normal?

[robinlynne]

36. not about normal. This felt like the hunt for Osama Bin Laden, as many people said.

[frylock]

41. that's just ridiculous hyperbole..

Osama bin laden? really?!

[robinlynne]

47. I live in Los Angeles. That is how it felt. POlice were out shooting people becuase they were in

trucks.

[frylock]

48. kinda underscores some of the accusations leveled at the cops IMHO..

not siding with dorner at all, but just sayin'.

[2pooped2pop]

4. no reason cept that toasting him meant no long drawn out trial

that would bring a lot of attention on their authortarian tactics and record of abuse of the people they were hired to protect.

If that was you or me he killed, rather than some of their own, there would not have been this kind of action and he would not have died in that fire. IMO

[frylock]

32. true that

[randome]

11. Dorner was a sharpshooter. Should they have surrounded the area and waited to be picked off?

If they backed out of range, they would have less chance to see him sneaking away in the dead of night.

I don't at this point believe they purposely set fire to the cabin. 'Burners' is a slang term for 'incendiary gas canisters'.

[LisaL]

14. According to many on DU, sure.

And if couple of more cops got killed, so what?

[randome]

16. They probably did SOMETHING wrong at some point in their lives, right?

I don't know if this was the correct decision to make but I wasn't there and this is not my field of expertise so I'm willing to give law enforcement -LAPD, I believe, did not make the decision- the benefit of the doubt.

[loli phabay]

31. this. he was a sniper and had the training to pick of Leo counter snipers

The problem with a perimeter is it can be broken and especially one that is out of sniper range. You would need hunxreds of Leo to secure that area even with technology. Would you want to risk other Leo lives or his escape. Personally if they didnt intentially burn him out I if I wash the sheriff would have looked favourably on that as a plan to take the initiative and get him into the open into my tac teams kill zone.

[LisaL]

49. It appears they send in tear gas.

Which presumably caught the cabin on fire.
So it wasn't exactly an intentional burn, rather a side-effect of tear gas.

[marions ghost]

63. First they bashed the walls of the cabin

he did not come out, so then they intentionally set fire to the front with incendiaries--he could still have run out the back and surrendered. The armored vehicle was working the situation and the other cops were far off. I could be wrong but this is how it went down IMO. I am no expert.

From a psychology standpoint (which I am more familiar with) they had every reason to believe that Dorner would never surrender. But he did get chances. I think they thought he would rather suicide than surrender. And that would seem to be correct. They really couldn't risk men no matter how well armed, entering the place.

I think everything the law did was very intentional. They couldn't afford to mess up again.

[Light House]

17. And what?

Give Dorner more time to plan an escape or kill more officers? This man proved to be resourceful and very, very dangerous.
He never had any intention of being taken alive, he CHOSE to go out the way he did and the country and world are a better place without him.

[Avalux]

19. I'm taking a hard line on this, sorry.

He made choices, as a human being, to take lives, to kill innocent people. To publicly state he would kill more people. He knew the tactics of the police, and was a very dangerous individual. Sure it would have been nice if he'd been caught alive and had a trial, but it didn't work out that way. It was his decision to hide out in that cabin, his decision to shoot at the cops and kill one of them.

My statements above in no way mean that I am siding with the LAPD. It's just that there are consequences to actions, unfortunately.

[RebelOne]

25. I must agree with you. It was all his choice.

And I believe it was his choice to be taken out like he was. He knew there was no other way out.

[frylock]

34. taking hard lines is the hallmark of conservative thinking

[Avalux]

59. Why are you insulting me?

The 'hard line' is simply that Dorner made choices and is accountable for them.

I am not siding or sympathizing with anyone or any institution in this unfortunate incident. And I'm certainly not conservative.

[frylock]

60. my apologies..

had a rough morning.

[Avalux]

62. Apology accepted....

and for that, you get a heart! Hope your day got better!

[frylock]

67. awwwwwwwwhhhhhh..

[robinlynne]

52. Yes, and I dont think he had any intention of being arrested either.

[JoePhilly]

21. What's your expertise in this area?

I'm no expert.

You sound like one.

What in your background and experience should inspire me to trust your expertise?

[COLGATE4]

28. I second your post. Would very much like to know

what experience dictates these assumptions.

[Sheepshank]

40. hind sight being 20/20 and all.....

I'm sure the course of history would be changed in many ways given a re-do. Duh.

I really think telling DU what the LAPD was supposed to do when no one was there, non of our children were killed and threatened to be killed, is nothing more that a sham and makes the OP sound like circus side show barker.

[Hugabear]

43. And accepting whatever authority tells you without question is how we should think?

That seems to be the line from many here on DU. That we shouldn't even question what happened, we should just accept the police explanation and move on. Be good little sheep. After all, they know what they're doing, they're the good guys.

[Sheepshank]

46. your extreme/absolutism interpretation of what I said is a defensive response.

I didn't say any such thing, and your outrage at not being able to implement your hindsight as a foresight process, is a silly expectation. Getting mad at responders to your assumptive OP is even sillier. Not buying it one bit.

[Hugabear]

37. The fact that it's been done before, and we know the technology exists

This isn't the first time that a murderer has holed up somewhere. There is plenty of precedent. It doesn't take an "expert" to understand that.

And as I said, technology has advanced considerably over the past decade. We have robotics that can check an area out. We have night vision, infrared, thermal vision, etc.

Police can work in shifts. Dorner didn't have that option.

You sound like someone who simply accepts whatever you're told by those in charge.

[JoePhilly]

45. I simply want to know your level of expertise ... and you attack me personally?

As in "You sound like someone who simply accepts whatever you're told by those in charge."

And what? I should "accept" whatever I'm told by Hugabear on DU? Nope.

What do you know about tactical response in such a situation?

Do you think all of the assets you describe are readily available in all locations at all times?

You sound like some one who knows very little about the tactical realities in such a situation, and yet you also appear to be at great EASE second guessing from the relative safety of your keyboard.

[Hugabear]

54. So if I'm not an "expert" then I should just STFU?

That's very good to know.

Since I'm not an "expert" on the economy, I guess I should just STFU and never offer an opinion

Since I'm not an "expert" on Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc, I should just STFU on those topics?

Since I'm not an "expert" on climate, I should just STFU regarding climate change?

[JoePhilly]

55. Did I say "STFU?" ... no. I did not. I asked you what you level of expertise is.

And you clearly have none.

Look ... you can babble all you want ... on any topic of your choosing.

And as President Obama might say ... "Please continue Hugabear."

[Hugabear]

57. The implication is that unless one is an "expert" in tactical response, then one shouldn't criticize

Why else would you ask me my level of expertise, unless that in some way makes my opinion less worthy of attention?

[JoePhilly]

58. As I said, I asked, so I could better JUDGE how much credibility I should give to YOUR

assertions.

You were making claims as if they are FACTS that you are absolutely sure of. Perhaps you are right.

Have you helped position the kinds of surveillance resources you refer to? Do you know if those resources were available in this specific area?

You made very specific claims. I'm trying to decide how seriously I should take your claims.

My sense is that your emphatic claims are not much more than opinions. Which is fine. This is the internet. You can post opinions all day long.

If you posted an OP claiming that I should sell my 401k investments, I'd be asking similar questions about your expertise.

[egduj]

38. But that would've increased the chance that he'd be captured alive.

That would raise far too many questions. No, it's easier and tighter this way.

[wandy]

39. Did I miss something? We appear to assume that the PD touched off the house......

This was not the best of situations and given that, "sometimes it just works out that way".
Sure, they could of used robotics. It's not like they could not have acquired them. Some citys are already using them for rescue.
They could have sent in the drones and blown up half of the country side with hellfire missals.
Dorner could have doused the place of with gasoline and set it off as his final farewell.
Could someone have decided that 'enough is enough', I'm tired, let's get this over with?

Or did it just work out that way?
We may never know.

Let the silly conspiracy theories begin.

[Dreamer Tatum]

53. There was yet another option: the motherfucker could have surrendered

before he shot two more cops.


Fuck him - he needed killing. Sooner the better. Would you want an open-ended standoff next door to you? Didn't think so.

[EC]

56. How do we know that he didn't start the fire?

They heard one shot, so I'm thinking he shot himself. How do we know he didn't turn on burners or a gas fireplace or something to start a fire? He could have done all this himself.

[RebelOne]

64. Possibly.

Pardon the pun, but maybe he wanted to go out in a blaze of glory.

[Electric Monk]

66. There is recorded audio of the police saying "burn that motherfucker". They wanted him dead.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022364793