Originally posted by MoneyManMike Hmm, I thought I cited a case where the police started fire was found to be excessive force even though the victim escaped from the fire. Shrug...
That's unresponsive to norm's "point" i.e. that once a fire had started Dorner's only choices were to die of smoke inhalation or suicide by gunshot. That is patently false.
(Shrug) And I showed you a case where law enforcement agents had deliberately set fire to a building housing a dangerous felon and a court found such action reasonable as a matter of law. Of course, the sheriffs didn't do that here but it's an example of the leeway police are given under the law rather than being subject to the nitpicking, 20-20 quarterbacking of jailhouse lawyers like yourself.
Originally posted by MoneyManMike Why do you need to see a case?
Because it's just something you're making up when we have an actual case before us. It's like your repeated references to Dorner's "summary execution". He shot himself. Flamethrower? For the record, I don't think that the perp's family should be rounded up and shot in the head one at a time until the perp gives himself up either.
Originally posted by normbenign Perhaps, but I can't get into Dorner's head retrospectively. It was really fast from first spark to inferno.
Actually the deputies at the scene said the fire had consumed about a quarter of the building before they heard the gunshot. It would appear Dorner had a chance to surrender even after the fire started but choose not to avail himself of it. That was, of course, consistent with his manifesto.
Originally posted by normbenign Perhaps, but I can't get into Dorner's head retrospectively.
Your entire claim about him having ONLY two choices, which did not include surrender, is based on your assumption that you have got into Dorner's head retrospectively.
Originally posted by no1marauder Actually the deputies at the scene said the fire had consumed about a quarter of the building before they heard the gunshot. It would appear Dorner had a chance to surrender even after the fire started but choose not to avail himself of it. That was, of course, consistent with his manifesto.
With the building, a rather small cabin a quarter consumed, it is amazing that Dorner was still conscious to shoot himself.
Fire move quickly, and super heated smoke puts most people in fires down long before the flames reach them.
Originally posted by FMF Your entire claim about him having ONLY two choices, which did not include surrender, is based on your assumption that you have got into Dorner's head retrospectively.
I'm saying that after the fire started, the chances of surrender were reduced to virtually zero. In any case, the entire thread is hijacked from any parallel to the Tamerlan shooting.
Originally posted by no1marauder That's unresponsive to norm's "point" i.e. that once a fire had started Dorner's only choices were to die of smoke inhalation or suicide by gunshot. That is patently false.
(Shrug) And I showed you a case where law enforcement agents had deliberately set fire to a building housing a dangerous felon and a court found such action reasonab ...[text shortened]... being subject to the nitpicking, 20-20 quarterbacking of jailhouse lawyers like yourself.
Even if that case is on point, which it isn't for reasons already stated ad nauseam, the transcript demolishes your analogy because the fire in the Dorner case started hours after the initial shooting had commenced while the fire in the Ginter started 15-20 minutes after the initial shooting had commenced. Dorner is more like M.O.V.E. where the fire started hours after the standoff had begun.
Dorner redux, and Tamerlan parallel?
22 Apr '13 00:01
Back to Top