Fugitive ex-cop Dorner reportedly dead after standoff with police

Shooting suspect Christopher Dorner, the subject of a week-long manhunt, has not emerged from a cabin destroyed by fire late this afternoon, according to The Associated Press.

Police believe the disgruntled ex-LAPD officer barricaded himself in the mountain home following a deadly shootout with officers earlier Tuesday.

A single gunshot was heard from inside the cabin just before the fire broke out around 4:30 p.m. PT, a law enforcement source who requested anonymity told the AP.

Fox News and CBS News both report that Dorner has died inside the charred cabin.

The L.A. Times gave this account on how the final moments unfolded:

According to a law enforcement source, police had broken down windows, pumped in tear gas and blasted a loud speaker urging Dorner to surrender. When they got no response, police deployed a vehicle to rip down the walls of the cabin "one by one, like peeling an onion," a law enforcement official said.

By the time they got to the last wall, authorities heard a single gunshot, the source said. Then flames began to spread through the structure, and gunshots, probably set off by the fire, were heard.

Hope this guy's rampage is over. He had destroyed a lot of families and I'm not surprised in the least that it came to this. I expect the people of Cali are glad this is over.

Hmm.....

"The NRA knows that there are millions of qualified active and retired police; active, reserve and retired military; security professionals; certified firefighters and rescue personnel; and an extraordinary corps of patriotic, trained qualified citizens to join with local school officials and police in devising a protection plan for every school."
- Wayne LaPierre, after Sandy Hook.

So, ex-cops like this guy?

Yeah no shit. What do we need guns for, we have the cops to protect us....right?

To be honest, i dont much care for the militant authoritarian attitude of most cops these days, but then again i think this is largely a reaction to the society we live in

Pun wrote:To be honest, i dont much care for the militant authoritarian attitude of most cops these days, but then again i think this is largely a reaction to the society we live in

did I hear something like the cops were caught on some police scanner talking about deliberately torching the cabin?

I didnt hear that.

Re: what LaPeirre said...

This goes back to what I've been saying all along. Its not the gun that is the problem....its the person using the gun. MOST retired cops are fine, good and decent people. I daresay 99% of them are. Same with retired military, etc. Its always that 1 nutjob that uses a gun to harm others. THOSE are the dangerous people imo.

I like the idea LaPeirre posed about letting 'trained' people guard our schools. To me, though, such a person would have to have extensive background checks including psychological analysis, etc. There would also need to be extensive safety measures in place because now you got a guy wearing a gun and walking around kids. Such a person should probably have little interaction with the kids. No socializing or trying to be cool around them.

Christopher Dorner most likely would never have qualified to be a guard around those kids if it were up to me. He'd been fired. Had trouble within the dept. Was not really highly trained. Plus extensive psycho analysis probably would have revealed the deep-seated anger that lay within this guy.

Dennis324 wrote:I didnt hear that.

Well, I saw that first on Alex Jones's feed on facebook, but now apparently some of the legit news sources have picked up on it.

I like the idea LaPeirre posed about letting 'trained' people guard our schools. To me, though, such a person would have to have extensive background checks including psychological analysis, etc. There would also need to be extensive safety measures in place because now you got a guy wearing a gun and walking around kids. Such a person should probably have little interaction with the kids. No socializing or trying to be cool around them.
.

So what do you think of the idea of background checks (including maybe psych analysis if deemed necessary) for people who have guns in general then? A gun is a gun, whether the person works directly with kids or not.

That is a hard one there miles, because you cant just mandate it for some people, you have to mandate it for all people, unless you were target individuals with prior histories of certain violent or delusional conditions, but then there will always be those who slip through the cracks. I dont like the idea though of every person who wants to purchase a gun, even if its only for their first gun purchase, of having to pay for the inconvenience of being told theyre not crazy. And then you would have to have all these bureaucratic rules in place of just is too nuts to own a weapon, and what isnt quite nuts enough to disqualify someone.

Because you also never know where someone is in life or what circumstances are surrounding them, even if theyre sane. Theres no way of sniffing out criminal intentions altogether.

Pun wrote:That is a hard one there miles, because you cant just mandate it for some people, you have to mandate it for all people, unless you were target individuals with prior histories of certain violent or delusional conditions, but then there will always be those who slip through the cracks. I dont like the idea though of every person who wants to purchase a gun, even if its only for their first gun purchase, of having to pay for the inconvenience of being told theyre not crazy. And then you would have to have all these bureaucratic rules in place of just is too nuts to own a weapon, and what isnt quite nuts enough to disqualify someone.

Well, a start would be to have some sort of check, even if its something like a form saying "Are you currently on any medication/undergoing any treatment that may impair your ability to responsibly operate a firearm[Y/N]? If yes, insert name of doctor". If they answer yes, then you check with the doctor to see whether they think they're nuts or not before they're allowed buy any guns. For a start, that is at least a tripwire that will turn away the obvious crazies who won't want to sign the sheet in the first place. Just like if an SUV is barreling down the road behind me, I'd like to be safe in the knowledge that at some stage some optician said they were most likely able to see you before they got their license, if some guy is walking towards me with a bag from a gun store, I'd like to know that before he got that gun, some doc did attest to the fact that he probably doesn't think he's Chuck Norris or that I'm an invading space alien that is trying to invade his mind with my iphone/mind control device.

And I know that people will always slip though the cracks, but at least there'd be only a crack to slip through as opposed to now where there's pretty much nothing. At the moment if there's a shooting in any given neighbourhood, the cops can't even tell who in the vicinity owns or doesn't own a gun, thanks to the NRA. Seems that whenever the pro-gun lobby start screaming "my second amendment rights shall not be infringed" they seem to forget/conveniently leave out the fact that the words "well regulated" are in there too....

Miles1 wrote:

Dennis324 wrote:I didnt hear that.

Well, I saw that first on Alex Jones's feed on facebook, but now apparently some of the legit news sources have picked up on it.

I like the idea LaPeirre posed about letting 'trained' people guard our schools. To me, though, such a person would have to have extensive background checks including psychological analysis, etc. There would also need to be extensive safety measures in place because now you got a guy wearing a gun and walking around kids. Such a person should probably have little interaction with the kids. No socializing or trying to be cool around them.
.

So what do you think of the idea of background checks (including maybe psych analysis if deemed necessary) for people who have guns in general then? A gun is a gun, whether the person works directly with kids or not.

After my last post, I heard the radio stuff where it (sounded) like the police were gonna set the cabin on fire. Apparently tear gas cannisters get really really hot and can cause things to catch fire. Did the police assume the cannisters would cause the cabin to cath fire? Maybe. They should because tear gas cannisters were used at Waco and that place lit up like a roman candle. Honestly I dont care because this killer had many many opportunities to give up prior to this. Some are actually calling this guy some kind of hero...such is the insanity of our culture int he states today.

Background checks? I support background checks. It harms no one except people with a criminal past and we have background checks for all sorts of things already. They did a background check on me when I bought my pistol. Plus a waiting period. No biggie for me.

But the only reason I mentioned psych analysis was because of the fact that those guards would be working around little kids. Have to be veeeery careful there.

Miles, we dont even have eye exams for locense renewals here lol. Or driving tests. Basically, once you get your license, its yours for life unless you get it suspended/revoked, or until either someone realizes theyre just too old or otherwise incapable of driving anymore, or in some cases their families may help them make that decision. And to me, your comment about the shooting in a neighborhood really illustrates how to me, youre looking at the issue backwards, when only 3% of gun crimes in the US are carried out with lawfully owned firearms. So it wouldnt be the law abiding citizens who own firearms for protection whos doors shouldbe pounded on every time theres a nearby shooting, its the law breakers, thugs, and crooks that need to be targeted most. U know, the ones that arent sitting around waiting to find out what new law may be passed for them to break.

Pun wrote:Miles, we dont even have eye exams for locense renewals here lol. Or driving tests. Basically, once you get your license, its yours for life unless you get it suspended/revoked, or until either someone realizes theyre just too old or otherwise incapable of driving anymore, or in some cases their families may help them make that decision. And to me, your comment about the shooting in a neighborhood really illustrates how to me, youre looking at the issue backwards, when only 3% of gun crimes in the US are carried out with lawfully owned firearms. So it wouldnt be the law abiding citizens who own firearms for protection whos doors shouldbe pounded on every time theres a nearby shooting, its the law breakers, thugs, and crooks that need to be targeted most. U know, the ones that arent sitting around waiting to find out what new law may be passed for them to break.

I wonder how the relation between legal/illegal guns varies by the type of crime? Is the preference exhibited by spree or mass killers the same as that of gangsters or drug dealers? It seems like after most of these mass shootings it comes out that the guns were legally obtained (or taken from a family member who had legally obtained them). I'd be really interested to see the statistical breakdown (after all, the plural of anecdote isn't data). Different types of criminals tend to behave different ways for different reasons (hence the existence of police profilers).

Unfortunately, most of these mass murderers are career criminals.

And we have to remember that statistically these mass shootings probably represent less than 1% of gun crimes, theyre just the ones that get all the media publicity. Its like plane crashes. Thanks to media coverage it. Can seem like flying is dangerous, when statistically its much safet than driving.

Pun wrote:Can seem like flying is dangerous, when statistically its much safet than driving.

Difference is tho, if your car runs out of gas or your engine quits, you just get out and walk.... :-P

Pun wrote:Unfortunately, most of these mass murderers are career criminals.

are NOT career criminals

Also, i think just the last two mass shootings used ARs. The virginia tech shooter used pistols, columbine was with pistols and a shotgun.

Miles1 wrote:

Pun wrote:Can seem like flying is dangerous, when statistically its much safet than driving.

Difference is tho, if your car runs out of gas or your engine quits, you just get out and walk.... :-P

Exactly!

Which is why I wont fly anymore...

Dennis324 wrote:
Which is why I wont fly anymore...

is all well and good, until an airplane crash-lands on your car....