Dorner redux, and Tamerlan parallel?

Originally posted by no1marauder
The transcripts show law enforcement officers poured in and deputies were told not to fire unless they saw Dorner.

You would think the transcripts would say that Dorner was firing at law enforcement during that two hour window, if your assertion that he was taking potshots is true of course.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
You would think the transcripts would say that Dorner was firing at law enforcement during that two hour window, if your assertion that he was taking potshots is true of course.

That's already been reported. I haven't seen the actual transcripts nor anything in the news reports contradicting the previous information. If you have, please share.

Originally posted by no1marauder
This has been covered ad nausem. There was a single gunshot heard AFTER the sheriffs fired the tear gas into the cabin and the cabin caught fire. There was no intent to burn the cabin down though it was deemed an acceptable risk given the dangerousness of the subject and the possibility of escape after darkness in a heavily wooded area where he ha ...[text shortened]... n reasonable under the circumstances; if kin of Dorner feel differently they may file a lawsuit.

I agree that it has been covered ad nausem, but you are the one indicating a lack of faith rather than a disagreement on the facts.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're always sure of a lot of things that wind up being untrue. But:

The transcripts show law enforcement officers poured in and deputies were told not to fire unless they saw Dorner.

One thing is sure, Tamerlan wasn't in the boat.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's already been reported. I haven't seen the actual transcripts nor anything in the news reports contradicting the previous information. If you have, please share.

http://blog.pe.com/crime-blotter/2013/04/19/dorner-manhunt-sheriff-releases-dispatch-records-of-standoff/

Originally posted by normbenign
I agree that it has been covered ad nausem, but you are the one indicating a lack of faith rather than a disagreement on the facts.

A "disagreement on the facts" should be based on more than "I don't trust the guvamint". The sheriffs at the scene reported that Dorner was shooting whenever a target presented itself. The latest article says he was tossing smoke grenades as the walls were being torn down. At some point, disregarding facts without presenting any evidence that they are not true is bad faith. IMO, you and MMM crossed that line and remained across long ago regarding the Dorner incident.

Originally posted by normbenign
One thing is sure, Tamerlan wasn't in the boat.

(Shrug) That is true. I thought the OP was comparing the treatment of the person captured to Dorner. My mistake.

Originally posted by no1marauder
IMO, you and MMM crossed that line and remained across long ago regarding the Dorner incident.

Because we disagree with you? You haven't even read the sheriff transcript yet and you are calling us liars. Adorable... XD

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Because we disagree with you? You haven't even read the sheriff transcript yet and you are calling us liars. Adorable... XD

It's a standard technique to selectively quote from another's post when you don't feel you can refute the whole argument presented.

At 15:25:41 INFO it is stated the "subj inside can see out" referring to the basement.

16:07 to 16:09 there are multiple reports of "subj deploying smoke". This refutes MMM's hypothesis that Dorner was incapacitated.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's a standard technique to selectively quote from another's post when you don't feel you can refute the whole argument presented.

Alright, let's see what there is to respond to Mr. No1.

A "disagreement on the facts" should be based on more than "I don't trust the guvamint". The sheriffs at the scene reported that Dorner was shooting whenever a target presented itself. The latest article says he was tossing smoke grenades as the walls were being torn down. At some point, disregarding facts without presenting any evidence that they are not true is bad faith. IMO, you and MMM crossed that line and remained across long ago regarding the Dorner incident.

A "disagreement on the facts" should be based on more than "I don't trust the guvamint".

Complete nonsense, nothing to respond to here.

The sheriffs at the scene reported that Dorner was shooting whenever a target presented itself.

As the transcript shows, this standoff took place over several hours. Thus, the sheriff could have been talking about the beginning of the standoff when Dorner was engaging the Fish & Game and the other arriving units. I haven't seen anything that Dorner was shooting at people prior to when the burners were deployed. The transcript suggests that there wasn't an exchange of gunfire for about 2 hours.

The latest article says he was tossing smoke grenades as the walls were being torn down.

So?

At some point, disregarding facts without presenting any evidence that they are not true is bad faith.

Again, more nonsense. I have provided links to transcripts, video of the shootout, audio from the police scanners, video from the press conferences, etc. Your "facts" are loose interpretations of news articles.

There, satisfied?

Originally posted by no1marauder
16:07 to 16:09 there are multiple reports of "subj deploying smoke". This refutes MMM's hypothesis that Dorner was incapacitated.

Don't you think we beat that dead horse months ago. Let's stick to the current thread.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Alright, let's see what there is to respond to Mr. No1.

[quote]A "disagreement on the facts" should be based on more than "I don't trust the guvamint". The sheriffs at the scene reported that Dorner was shooting whenever a target presented itself. The latest article says he was tossing smoke grenades as the walls were being torn down. At some point, ...[text shortened]... c. Your "facts" are loose interpretations of news articles.

There, satisfied?

"So?" Your whole theory was that this dangerous, murderous felon was completely incapacitated and that therefore the force used against him was wholly unjustified. But someone who can toss a smoke grenade can also shoot a gun. So this FACT demolishes the main point of your pathetic argument.

That's "So!".