Chris Dorner No Excuses

[MJS]

Exactly. Cutting off media in SWAT operations is only good common sense. Why would you want the BG to have the opportunity to see what you are doing?

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

I believe the media helicopters were also told to move away. I mean, they're broadcasting live footage. Having access to a radio, tv, computer, etc, could've easily given Dorner all the info he would've needed, to know what the cops were doing, etc.

 

[Makalakumu]

Here is a journalist who was listening in while Dorner was burned out. I think you all make great points, but here is a different perspective...

http://scotthorton.org/2013/02/16/21513-max-blumenthal/

 

[Tgace]

Here is a journalist who was listening in while Dorner was burned out. I think you all make great points, but here is a different perspective...

http://scotthorton.org/2013/02/16/21513-max-blumenthal/

Another ignorant journalist who thinks that "burners" mean something other than CS canisters that burn their payload vs spraying liquid?

Pass...what's his expertise on SWAT/LE tactics, gear and operations that should impress me that he knows anything about the topic he's discussing?

I run a SWAT team...we don't have anything we could intentionally burn down a house with, and I don't know of any other teams in my area who do. CS "burners" have that possibility but the tactical situation weighed against the risk needs consideration. And even when they do start fires its not like a Molotov going off....the person has an opportunity to leave the building and surrender.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[ballen0351]

Burner is basically slang for a gas dispersal unit that gets hot. We use hot or cold gas as our terms. Every dept uses different terms.

There are only two things I can think of that will start a fire. Flash bangs and hot gas. Both are rare to start a fire but of happens

 

[Tgace]

Burner is basically slang for a gas dispersal unit that gets hot. We use hot or cold gas as our terms. Every dept uses different terms.

There are only two things I can think of that will start a fire. Flash bangs and hot gas. Both are rare to start a fire but of happens

Although its a good example of how terminology can hurt you. We changed our entry cadence from "execute" to "initiate" because some knucklehead reporters may hear and claim we were going in to "execute" someone. Sigh......

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

 

[MJS]

Another ignorant journalist who thinks that "burners" mean something other than CS canisters that burn their payload vs spraying liquid?

Pass...what's his expertise on SWAT/LE tactics, gear and operations that should impress me that he knows anything about the topic he's discussing?

I run a SWAT team...we don't have anything we could intentionally burn down a house with, and I don't know of any other teams in my area who do. CS "burners" have that possibility but the tactical situation weighed against the risk needs consideration. And even when they do start fires its not like a Molotov going off....the person has an opportunity to leave the building and surrender.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

Sigh...doesn't it get depressing when the uneducated reporters start talking about **** they know nothing about?

 

[ballen0351]

Although its a good example of how terminology can hurt you. We changed our entry cadence from "execute" to "initiate" because some knucklehead reporters may hear and claim we were going in to "execute" someone. Sigh......

Sent from my SCH-I405 using Tapatalk 2

That's why we changed our name we stopped using SWAT because of the negative image the term SWAT has in public. Now we are the Emergency Response Unit

 

[Carol]

The LE folks here can correct me if I'm wrong...even in a standoff situation, there are escalating levels of force. There are also several factors that go in to the use of force, including the likelyhood of hostages, and the likelyhood of a person giving themselves up. There was a standoff in the overnight hours in a north from a man shooting at police for a seemingly unknown reason. Unfortunately a 90 year old neighbor lost her life in the initial crossfire.

The shooter had barricaded himself and his gf in the apartment (she was eventually able to exit safely). Reports were that he was talking to negotiators. Even in the discussion there were additional factors. He sounded intoxicated. There were periods he was vomiting profusely, and the incident command post was relaying that they have doctors available. There were periods where he stopped talking with the negotiator and it was suggested that he may have been fading in and out of consciousness. Fortunately the standoff ended peacefully with the man surrendering and no further loss of life.

The Dorner standoff wasn't instantaneous...nor should it have been. There is a lot of coordination that goes in to such a response, including steps take to ensure public safety, such as evacuating the neighbors and closing the street. He had the ability and many opportunities to turn himself in, but he chose not to. Is there a scenario where bringing him out alive could be done without putting more lives in substantial danger? I can't think of one.

 

[Tgace]

http://www.newsnet5.com/dpp/news/national/florida-deputy-shot-and-killed-in-fort-pierce-traffic-stop

Hmmm...officer killed, suspect chased and apprehend. I thought all cop killers were summarily executed.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2