• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Who pays for the burned cabin?

Maggot

"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood"
Supporter
Full Member
Minuteman
  • Jul 27, 2007
    25,898
    29,185
    Virginia
    Seems that if the cops intentionally burnt it the insurance company could makde a good case for either not paying of sueing the police for it. Thats a pretty nice area and Id guess its worth at least a couple hundred thousand, probably more.

    dornercabin2.jpg



    Candy Martin, the owner of the cabin allegedly used by Christopher Dorner to engage in a deadly shootout with law enforcement, spoke with NBC Los Angeles about the loss of her family's vacation home.

    Martin was sitting down for an episode of "Walking Dead," when she saw the news coverage of the shootout near Big Bear, Calif. "And we’re looking and we say, 'Oh these are cabins, these look like...' and there’s no doubt that those are my cabins," Martin said.

    Martin bought that cabin and several others in 2002. She used the main cabin that burned down as a vacation home for her extended family, when she wasn't renting it out. "It's hard for me to imagine him in there. And if I did do that, I imagined, 'What is he doing? What room is he in?'" Martin said.

    Though she bought the cabin just over a decade ago, the home was 85 years old, dating back to the late 1920s. "That was heart-wrenching to see ... the fire. I just started crying. I couldn’t talk at that point."

    During the shootout, which left one law enforcement official dead and another seriously wounded, the cabin caught fire. An investigation to determine the exact cause of the fire is ongoing. One person's remains, presumed to be Dorner's, were later found among the wreckage.

    Though distressed and saddened about the loss of her home, Martin said she knows others are hurting more. "I'm not the [worst-off] victim," she said. "The worst are the families who lost their loved ones."
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    They can simply file a claim with their insurance, who will in turn go after the County to pay the damages, or the homeowner can simply file a claim with the County. Either way, San Bernadino will pay the damages. Counties/Cities pay to repair damage done by SWAT teams etc all the time.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Peloton</div><div class="ubbcode-body">They can simply file a claim with their insurance, who will in turn go after the County to pay the damages, or the homeowner can simply file a claim with the County. Either way, San Bernadino will pay the damages. Counties/Cities pay to repair damage done by SWAT teams etc all the time. </div></div>

    Claim would contingent on arson investigation. That is why you hire out an independent contractor and get them in before the county has time to investigate. If you can prove there was no ignition other than the flammable hot gas or even if an excelerant was used by the police - then the responsibility is on them to prove otherwise. If you wait until THEY investigate - well any evidence to the contrary could be lost or better yet could be replaced or contaminated to prove that Dorner was in fact the reason it burned down. Then your insurance company will want to sue Dorner...who is worth $0 because of civil suits from victims. In the meantime you will own an ash filled hole in the ground because the insurance company will not want to pay and the police have gotten themselves off the hook.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    Yet his wallet with ID in it, survived a fire where not one piece of wall or roof is remaining.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: John L</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yet his wallet with ID in it, survived a fire where not one piece of wall or roof is remaining. </div></div>

    His body was found in the small basement/root cellar. Note in the pic that the walls are still white. The fire starting on the ground floor would mean the majority of fire was above that level. He has most likely overcome by smoke and heat. The falling debris would have burned the body and room contents but not with such intense heat as to completely destroy either.

    As for the responsible party, I second hiring an independent arson investigator.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    Under TN law (I realize this.was in CA) the burning of the cabin might be considered a "public necessity" as when a police officer commandeers a citizen's auto for a hot pursuit. In that case, the government DOES NOT pay.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nashlaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under TN law (I realize this.was in CA) the burning of the cabin might be considered a "public necessity" as when a police officer commandeers a citizen's auto for a hot pursuit. In that case, the government DOES NOT pay. </div></div>
    Fuck that noise.
    Who pays was my first question when I saw the house burning, we pretty much figured his fate.
    Thank God for the owners it was a vacation home, and not primary residence.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: milo-2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: nashlaw</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Under TN law (I realize this.was in CA) the burning of the cabin might be considered a "public necessity" as when a police officer commandeers a citizen's auto for a hot pursuit. In that case, the government DOES NOT pay. </div></div>
    Fuck that noise.
    Who pays was my first question when I saw the house burning, we pretty much figured his fate.
    Thank God for the owners it was a vacation home, and not primary residence. </div></div>

    Well said, Milo.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    I have had an apple from this basket so I am not talking out my ass here....

    I had a vehicle stolen from me....and later it was involved in a hit-n-run....followed by a high speed chase....crash..and some gunfire exchange. The legal clusterfuck that followed that event would make your head spin. The cliffs notes is that not only did I get hung up for 9mo of legal battles....I ultimately ended up just breaking even on the vehicle FMV - nothing for the upgrades or my time spent chasing what was do to ME...the dude who had nothing to do with it but almost lost a $70k car.

    People think insurance is a catch-all....you better think again. When it comes time to pay insurance companies pull all the stops to keep from a writing a check related to something like this. Which leaves you caught in the middle - fighting between a state agency and an insurance company.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    Rest assured, the state and fed gov and the insurance companies will f*@k you as long and hard as they can, then snap it off in your ass as they turn and walk away........while laughing.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    Ya'll are definitely correct in these two previous posts. Now take that 'scheme' and add to it personal injury.

    "Permanent physical disability", and then top it off with "No-Fault Insurance" run by the government, with NO competition.

    That's all I'm saying about the topic, here. And I'll close with:

    Protect yourself from APATHY.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TOP PREDATOR</div><div class="ubbcode-body">uncle tom </div></div>


    BAHAHAHA

    That was good.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    I'm surprised the sheriff department hasn't bull dozed the site

    If an independent investigation finds the department set the fire not only will they have to pay but arson and manslaughter charges could be filed on the officers who did it .
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Rude</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I'm surprised the sheriff department hasn't bull dozed the site

    If an independent investigation finds the department set the fire not only will they have to pay but arson and manslaughter charges could be filed on the officers who did it . </div></div>
    Who'll be pressing the charges?
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    I think I read somewhere that the LAPD deemed Dorner a domestic terrorist. I believe that most insurance policies exempt any claim of damage responsibility cauded by war, nuclear, or terrrorism, any insurance agents please chime in.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    Area - you may be correct on that one. I did not know they formerly labeled him that but if so most policies due exclude exclude riots, war or terrorist events.

    All I know is that I feel really bad for the owners regardless if its a primary or a vacation residence - nobody should have to go through that much bullshit.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    OF COURSE the cops set it on fire on purpose. They had NO INTENTION of getting him out of there alive. They had no desire to kick in the door and go toe-to-toe with him either and get more cops killed.

    This is going to be a nightmare for the cabin owners. Lawyer up and dig in your heels.

    They are trying to figure out what to do with the $1 million reward now that he was not "arrested". I say that will almost cover the loss of the cabin.

    ps: same goes for the 2 trucks they shot up in Torrance (a mile from my house) with the innocent people in them. Thankfully those cops couldnt shoot for shit and didnt kill them.

    Heard these yet?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SCdqybEfy9w
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cNk-bV40XMc
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    Ask Janet Reno. She has experience in this area.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DirtyDave</div><div class="ubbcode-body">OF COURSE the cops set it on fire on purpose. They had NO INTENTION of getting him out of there alive. They had no desire to kick in the door and go toe-to-toe with him either and get more cops killed.

    This is going to be a nightmare for the cabin owners. Lawyer up and dig in your heels.

    They are trying to figure out what to do with the $1 million reward now that he was not "arrested". I say that will almost cover the loss of the cabin.

    ps: same goes for the 2 trucks they shot up in Torrance (a mile from my house) with the innocent people in them. Thankfully those cops couldnt shoot for shit and didnt kill them.

    Heard these yet?
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SCdqybEfy9w
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=cNk-bV40XMc </div></div>

    At the 1:00 min mark they say <span style="font-weight: bold">"They are going ahead with the plan. with the burn like we talked about." "the burners are deployed... we have a fire."</span>


    <object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/SCdqybEfy9w"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/SCdqybEfy9w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    Thats really chickenshit. They just burn the womans home down cause theyte not smart enough to figure out another way. Just for spite. They could have just waited him out, turned off power and water. If theyd man up and pay for it thats one thing, but what are the odds of that with out an expensive legal battle? Chickenshit.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats really chickenshit. They just burn the womans home down cause theyte not smart enough to figure out another way. Just for spite. They could have just waited him out, turned off power and water. <span style="font-weight: bold">If theyd man up and pay for it thats one thing,</span> but what are the odds of that with out an expensive legal battle? Chickenshit. </div></div>

    The problem with this is that it would be the taxpayers who's paying, in one way or the other.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: vwhugger</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats really chickenshit. They just burn the womans home down cause theyte not smart enough to figure out another way. Just for spite. They could have just waited him out, turned off power and water. <span style="font-weight: bold">If theyd man up and pay for it thats one thing,</span> but what are the odds of that with out an expensive legal battle? Chickenshit. </div></div>

    The problem with this is that it would be the taxpayers who's paying, in one way or the other. </div></div>

    It's a bit like some people say about buying expensive toys: it's easier to ask for forgiveness than it is to ask for permission. They write checks that their asses can't cover and then they expect to turn around to us and say, "You got this, right?"

    This "Dance Party" mentality has got to go. They're either accountable, or they're without a legitimate claim to authority.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    paying for the cabin is the least of there worries. Its a drop in the bucket compared to what they are going to have to pay out for shooting up those 2 ladies and the second truck.

    mys question about this is what happens to the cops that shot up the truck. I haven't herd much about that at all.

    if some one killed my wife and I went out looking for him and shot up some innocent persons car and injured them. I am pretty sure I would go to jail. I am pretty sure that how they went about shooting up those trucks broke quite a few laws. I'm pretty sure if they purposely torched that cabin they broke a few laws as well. I herd a short audio clip just before they went to radio silence where on of the officer says lets fry this guy.

    Don't get me wrong he got what he deserved IF! Infact he did what they say he did. but now we only have one side of the story. and a lot of laws were broken to get this guy. I'm guessing that the LEO are above those laws
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    State sanctioned arson, that's a new one for the books.

    "You are set ablaze,
    You have the right to remain ablaze;
    Should you choose to extinguish the fire, the court can supply further ignition upon you;
    You have the right to an ignitor;
    Should you deny the use of an ignitor, the court can and will use any ignitor against you;"
    .....ya'll get the idea, and probably know the rest better than I do.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Sean the Nailer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">State sanctioned arson, that's a new one for the books.

    "You are set ablaze,
    You have the right to remain ablaze;
    Should you choose to extinguish the fire, the court can supply further ignition upon you;
    You have the right to an ignitor;
    Should you deny the use of an ignitor, the court can and will use any ignitor against you;"
    .....ya'll get the idea, and probably know the rest better than I do. </div></div>

    EbxM5n1.jpg


    cool.gif
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    I don't like invasion of private property. I know this was legit, but I still don't like it. The officers chose to shoot it up, then burn it, then not let the fire department put it out. I think if they got to make all those decisions about this woman's property they should pay or rebuild. I'm not faulting the officers' decisions, they HAD to end it there. If a fire was the answer, than so be it. As long as they take responsibility.

    And the two pickups they shot up a few days before? HOLY CRAP!! What would you guys do if you were driving down the road and a police officer just started shooting your truck? Would you not return fire or try to ram them or evade them or something? What a poop-storm that would turn into. Really, what would you guys do?
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats really chickenshit. They just burn the womans home down cause theyte not smart enough to figure out another way. Just for spite. They could have just waited him out, turned off power and water. If theyd man up and pay for it thats one thing, but what are the odds of that with out an expensive legal battle? Chickenshit. </div></div>

    "No thanks" on your advice on handling SWAT jobs. In all sincerety and respectfully, I would not tell you the best way to do your job as I am unqualified.

    "Yes", they very well may have launched "hot gas" into the structure. It is a legit UOF option. Deadly force is deadly force. If they fired "hot gas" inside, then the SBSO's insurance will pay out. Our insurance has paid for damage done by us launching "ferret rounds" through people's walls on tac jobs numerous times.

    Are you saying all is well and not "chickenshit" if the insurance pays out? If so, you are calling "chickenshit" for something that has not even happened yet.

    A little bit of a side note: Do you believe that the US was correct in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan or should they have invaded the mainland of Japan and gotten "X" amount of people killed on both sides in the process? Are US troops correct in dropping JDAMs on a house to kill a lone enemy combatant inside? My answer is "yes" in both situations... and Dorner's.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    Burning a building is not in any way the correct use of force by any LE agency, including the Feds.
    You want to use Military tactics join up or go back.
    LE in this country is starting to believe they can shed any an everything, in the name of the law. Then they wonder why the sheep are all looking at them with so much, disdain.
    1033 was not a mandate to operate like.
    Push back is starting and will come in many forms. Just wait until one of the true take it to you guys have had enough, and has nothing to loose.


    The fact this happened with the LA PD does not surprise me at all, it took this long,... does.

     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Burning a building is not in any way the correct use of force by any LE agency, including the Feds.
    You want to use Military tactics join up or go back.
    LE in this country is starting to believe they can shed any an everything, in the name of the law. Then they wonder why the sheep are all looking at them with so much, disdain.
    1033 was not a mandate to operate like.
    Push back is starting and will come in many forms. Just wait until one of the true take it to you guys have had enough, and has nothing to loose.


    The fact this happened with the LA PD does not surprise me at all, it took this long,... does.

    </div></div>

    Why is burning a building not an appropriate UOF for LE? So I can shoot it full of holes while engaging a suspect, but in no way is setting it on fire appropriate in any circumstance?

    You are not going to be fighting back against me. My Chief as the top law enforcement entity in my jurisdiction has already put in writing that he will disregard any order to confiscate firearms. The only way you're gunfighting me is if you have committed an act that makes you a threat of serious bodily injury or death to me or the public. I highly doubt that you being a law abiding citizen is ever going to fall in that category.

    If you are among the "sheep", then there is no helping you to begin with...

    Also, if you had any idea of what the LAPD UOF complaint process is like, especially in light of the former Federal Consent Decree, then you would know that they get up guys' asses with microscopes. The LAPD Board of Police Commissioners is made of 5 civilians with oversight...
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheTick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats really chickenshit. They just burn the womans home down cause theyte not smart enough to figure out another way. Just for spite. They could have just waited him out, turned off power and water. If theyd man up and pay for it thats one thing, but what are the odds of that with out an expensive legal battle? Chickenshit. </div></div>

    "No thanks" on your advice on handling SWAT jobs. In all sincerety and respectfully, I would not tell you the best way to do your job as I am unqualified.

    <span style="font-weight: bold">"Yes", they very well may have launched "hot gas" into the structure. It is a legit UOF option.</span> Deadly force is deadly force. If they fired "hot gas" inside, then the SBSO's insurance will pay out. Our insurance has paid for damage done by us launching "ferret rounds" through people's walls on tac jobs numerous times.

    Are you saying all is well and not "chickenshit" if the insurance pays out? If so, you are calling "chickenshit" for something that has not even happened yet.

    <span style="font-weight: bold">A little bit of a side note: Do you believe that the US was correct in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan or should they have invaded the mainland of Japan and gotten "X" amount of people killed on both sides in the process? Are US troops correct in dropping JDAMs on a house to kill a lone enemy combatant inside? My answer is "yes"</span> in both situations... and Dorner's. </div></div>

    If I didn't see this on a consistent basis it would astound me. Your single mindedness and sheep- like attitude is EXACTLY why we are seeing such rampant disregard for the law - from both sides of the badge dude.

    The biggest problem with your disjointed logic is .... This is not a theatre of war in these united States- yet. Even though the Federal government is working diligently with police forces in training and equipment to militarize them. They are willingly compliant in this effort as well.

    Police forces swear to uphold the Law and are held or should be held to the highest standard of ethical decorum.

    Second last I checked , deadly force is the last resort after all efforts have been exhausted. The LA PD chose to burn this individual out and stated such intent and that as almost a first resort. What he has been attributed as stating about not being taken alive is circumstantial at best.

    Third given the preponderance of evidence the LA PD had no other intent from the jump but to kill this individual. They shot up two old ladies and another vehicle beside that didn't even match that of the suspect's. That is exactly what they did. Thus at the very least they are guilty of some form of negligent homicide in addition to breaking several other protocols.

    Fourth and least of all- This is an unmitigated Public Relations Disaster for the LA PD and anyone who endorses this behavior.

    Finally and again my delusional friend this is not Nagasaki, Hiroshima nor a theatre of war. Although many LE act like it is and welcome the opportunity.

    Your thinking and that of many of the other LEO's on this board who were once commonly referred to as Police Officers is the problem. That is you don't think. Rather willingly become indoctrinated into the "us vs them" mentality and carry out that "duty" in drone-like fashion. THe real sheep are not the gen-pop but the LE who militantly guard the system at any cost. That would include destroying the balance of society and their individual humanity in the process.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheTick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats really chickenshit. They just burn the womans home down cause theyte not smart enough to figure out another way. Just for spite. They could have just waited him out, turned off power and water. If theyd man up and pay for it thats one thing, but what are the odds of that with out an expensive legal battle? Chickenshit. </div></div>

    "No thanks" on your advice on handling SWAT jobs. In all sincerety and respectfully, I would not tell you the best way to do your job as I am unqualified.

    "Yes", they very well may have launched "hot gas" into the structure. It is a legit UOF option. Deadly force is deadly force. If they fired "hot gas" inside, then the SBSO's insurance will pay out. Our insurance has paid for damage done by us launching "ferret rounds" through people's walls on tac jobs numerous times.

    Are you saying all is well and not "chickenshit" if the insurance pays out? If so, you are calling "chickenshit" for sometIhing that has not even happened yet.

    A little bit of a side note: Do you believe that the US was correct in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan or should they have invaded the mainland of Japan and gotten "X" amount of people killed on both sides in the process? Are US troops correct in dropping JDAMs on a house to kill a lone enemy combatant inside? My answer is "yes" in both situations... and Dorner's. </div></div>

    Respectfully, spoken like a Gubmint man. I speak as Joe Citizen who would be fucking outraged if some morons burnt down my home because they were too unimaginative to think the situation through and take an alternative action. NO matter who pays I probably lost stuff that cant be replace...like a 100 year old cabin.


    That said, droping a bomb on Japan was one thing, burning down a womans house when they have th perp trapped inside is another. There wasnt even a need to shoot it full of holes. Theres a word called patience, and beyound that imagination. No matter who pays, we all lose. If the city pays we lose because our taxes pay for it. If the insurance pays then all our rates go up to covet their asses. NOw on the other hand if we made the one who gave the order, and the ones who lit the fire pa, that would be better. But, no, I dont feel tha te Gubmint, has the right o do anything they want, just because they are the Gubmint.. Thats why we have so many problems now. Fuck, lets just pass laws and prohibit firearms...wait!!!

     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    ^ Well put Gunfighter. Since when is the use of military tactics justified to the protect and serve sect, that are supposed to adhere to the you are innocent until proven guilty by a jury of your peers principle. To often the boys in blue act like they are the men in green, and if you don't like it tough shit. The roles are getting fucked up and reversed, our military is being used to police other countries and our police are being militarized in our own.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheTick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Burning a building is not in any way the correct use of force by any LE agency, including the Feds.
    You want to use Military tactics join up or go back.
    LE in this country is starting to believe they can shed any an everything, in the name of the law. Then they wonder why the sheep are all looking at them with so much, disdain.
    1033 was not a mandate to operate like.
    Push back is starting and will come in many forms. Just wait until one of the true take it to you guys have had enough, and has nothing to loose.


    The fact this happened with the LA PD does not surprise me at all, it took this long,... does.

    </div></div>

    Why is burning a building not an appropriate UOF for LE? So I can shoot it full of holes while engaging a suspect, but in no way is setting it on fire appropriate in any circumstance?

    You are not going to be fighting back against me. My Chief as the top law enforcement entity in my jurisdiction has already put in writing that he will disregard any order to confiscate firearms. The only way you're gunfighting me is if you have committed an act that makes you a threat of serious bodily injury or death to me or the public. I highly doubt that you being a law abiding citizen is ever going to fall in that category.

    If you are among the "sheep", then there is no helping you to begin with...

    Also, if you had any idea of what the LAPD UOF complaint process is like, especially in light of the former Federal Consent Decree, then you would know that they get up guys' asses with microscopes. The LAPD Board of Police Commissioners is made of 5 civilians with oversight... </div></div>
    If you can not come up with a better plan that shoot up a building or burn it down, you sir, should not be calling the shots in the first place.
    With your mind set, maybe not even at the scene at all. I have serious doubts about you having a grip on the real issue at all, based on your response.
    FYI,...Slash and burn is not a tactic professional LE use's, but is one the unskilled, untrained,... or those trying to cover up something,... use often.
    The problem with the badge is it comes with baggage most never think about before excepting it. It is not a "Shield" for lack of ability, or a power trip, that most think it is.

     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only way you're gunfighting me is if you have committed an act that makes you a threat of serious bodily injury or death to me or the public. I highly doubt that you being a law abiding citizen is ever going to fall in that category.</div></div>

    Absolutely. I am unaware of any instances of LE engaging and killing innocent citizens.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    Chris Dorners surviving family members, his mother, (the woman we saw watching her son shooting it out with LE while eating and drinking at a restaraunt), should be billed.

    Dorner was a "bad guy", pure and simple, he Murdered 2 innocent people, and 2 LE officers.

    The burnt cabin is collateral damage.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only way you're gunfighting me is if you have committed an act that makes you a threat of serious bodily injury or death to me or the public. I highly doubt that you being a law abiding citizen is ever going to fall in that category.</div></div>

    Absolutely. I am unaware of any instances of LE engaging and killing innocent citizens. </div></div>
    I will not do your home work for you, but you need to get out more!
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only way you're gunfighting me is if you have committed an act that makes you a threat of serious bodily injury or death to me or the public. I highly doubt that you being a law abiding citizen is ever going to fall in that category.</div></div>

    Absolutely. I am unaware of any instances of LE engaging and killing innocent citizens. </div></div>
    I will not do your home work for you, but you need to get out more! </div></div>

    I forgot to add the sarcasm disclaimer for those so impaired.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only way you're gunfighting me is if you have committed an act that makes you a threat of serious bodily injury or death to me or the public. I highly doubt that you being a law abiding citizen is ever going to fall in that category.</div></div>

    Absolutely. I am unaware of any instances of LE engaging and killing innocent citizens. </div></div>
    I will not do your home work for you, but you need to get out more! </div></div>

    Two examples of succinct responses using Irony!

    Brevity, the soul of wit!
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gunfighter14e2</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only way you're gunfighting me is if you have committed an act that makes you a threat of serious bodily injury or death to me or the public. I highly doubt that you being a law abiding citizen is ever going to fall in that category.</div></div>

    Absolutely. I am unaware of any instances of LE engaging and killing innocent citizens. </div></div>
    I will not do your home work for you, but you need to get out more!</div></div>

    I believe that this exchange is rife with sarcasm and innuendo. To that end, I'll ask this: How different is this whole situation (as dismal as it is,,,) with the movie "John Q"? Who were we all rooting for, then?
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A78063</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Dorner was a "bad guy", pure and simple, he Murdered 2 innocent people, and 2 LE officers.</div></div>
    You know this as fact how? You privy to info I can't get via official channels? When and where was the jury verdict read? Or are you just another 100% media/police believer?
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: EddieNFL</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only way you're gunfighting me is if you have committed an act that makes you a threat of serious bodily injury or death to me or the public. I highly doubt that you being a law abiding citizen is ever going to fall in that category.</div></div>

    Absolutely. I am unaware of any instances of LE engaging and killing innocent citizens. </div></div>

    The level of stupidity by some on this board never ceases to amaze me. You and A78063 should get together for a meeting of the "half mind"- and I am being generous.

    EDIT: IF Eddie NFL is serious

    The problems with the collective "theses" is, you all are monumentally wrong in your presumptions. Oh, and Dorner's family is not financially responsible for his actions. Much like SWAT PD or any other agency disavows responsibility for many of theirs.

    This society does not function in some half baked banana republic capacity or that of Communist China wherein said offender of the regime is presented with a bill for the bullet that was used to execute them. Not yet anyway.

    More influence from mental midgets such as the you and the tick, it soon will be.

    EDIT: Giving Eddie the benefit of the doubt
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheTick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats really chickenshit. They just burn the womans home down cause theyte not smart enough to figure out another way. Just for spite. They could have just waited him out, turned off power and water. If theyd man up and pay for it thats one thing, but what are the odds of that with out an expensive legal battle? Chickenshit. </div></div>

    "No thanks" on your advice on handling SWAT jobs. In all sincerety and respectfully, I would not tell you the best way to do your job as I am unqualified.

    <span style="font-weight: bold">"Yes", they very well may have launched "hot gas" into the structure. It is a legit UOF option.</span> Deadly force is deadly force. If they fired "hot gas" inside, then the SBSO's insurance will pay out. Our insurance has paid for damage done by us launching "ferret rounds" through people's walls on tac jobs numerous times.

    Are you saying all is well and not "chickenshit" if the insurance pays out? If so, you are calling "chickenshit" for something that has not even happened yet.

    <span style="font-weight: bold">A little bit of a side note: Do you believe that the US was correct in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan or should they have invaded the mainland of Japan and gotten "X" amount of people killed on both sides in the process? Are US troops correct in dropping JDAMs on a house to kill a lone enemy combatant inside? My answer is "yes"</span> in both situations... and Dorner's. </div></div>

    If I didn't see this on a consistent basis it would astound me. Your single mindedness and sheep- like attitude is EXACTLY why we are seeing such rampant disregard for the law - from both sides of the badge dude.

    The biggest problem with your disjointed logic is .... This is not a theatre of war in these united States- yet. Even though the Federal government is working diligently with police forces in training and equipment to militarize them. They are willingly compliant in this effort as well.

    Police forces swear to uphold the Law and are held or should be held to the highest standard of ethical decorum.

    Second last I checked , deadly force is the last resort after all efforts have been exhausted. The LA PD chose to burn this individual out and stated such intent and that as almost a first resort. What he has been attributed as stating about not being taken alive is circumstantial at best.

    Third given the preponderance of evidence the LA PD had no other intent from the jump but to kill this individual. They shot up two old ladies and another vehicle beside that didn't even match that of the suspect's. That is exactly what they did. Thus at the very least they are guilty of some form of negligent homicide in addition to breaking several other protocols.

    Fourth and least of all- This is an unmitigated Public Relations Disaster for the LA PD and anyone who endorses this behavior.

    Finally and again my delusional friend this is not Nagasaki, Hiroshima nor a theatre of war. Although many LE act like it is and welcome the opportunity.

    Your thinking and that of many of the other LEO's on this board who were once commonly referred to as Police Officers is the problem. That is you don't think. Rather willingly become indoctrinated into the "us vs them" mentality and carry out that "duty" in drone-like fashion. THe real sheep are not the gen-pop but the LE who militantly guard the system at any cost. That would include destroying the balance of society and their individual humanity in the process.
    </div></div>

    You have no clue how like-minded you and I probably are. You accuse me of single mindedness, yet fail to see any situation that would warrant LE lighting a building on fire. Who is not thinking outside of the box? I am not necessarily saying this case in particular as I was not there, but to think that the option does not even exist is closed minded.

    Deady Force is not a "last resort". It is simply a Force Option on the UOF Continuum. There is no requirement to "exhaust all of other options". You SHOULD check again. If I walk into a Domestic Call and a guy at the top of the stairs begins to fire a .380 at me, wouldn't Deadly Force be my first and best option? It happened to me, should I have pepper sprayed him first to "exhaust that option". I guess the disjointed logic goes both ways...

    We can absolutely agree that this is a major CF for LAPD.

    EDIT: Also, if I saw proof that LE was routinely lighting people's houses on fire on a whim, then I would truly say that is fucked up.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheTick</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You accuse me of single mindedness, yet fail to see any situation that would warrant LE lighting a building on fire. </div></div>
    You don't know how rich that reads.
    grin.gif

    There are guys here that have more time in isolation and bird rides to playgrounds than you have trying to grow up.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheTick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheTick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats really chickenshit. They just burn the womans home down cause theyte not smart enough to figure out another way. Just for spite. They could have just waited him out, turned off power and water. If theyd man up and pay for it thats one thing, but what are the odds of that with out an expensive legal battle? Chickenshit. </div></div>

    "No thanks" on your advice on handling SWAT jobs. In all sincerety and respectfully, I would not tell you the best way to do your job as I am unqualified.

    <span style="font-weight: bold">"Yes", they very well may have launched "hot gas" into the structure. It is a legit UOF option.</span> Deadly force is deadly force. If they fired "hot gas" inside, then the SBSO's insurance will pay out. Our insurance has paid for damage done by us launching "ferret rounds" through people's walls on tac jobs numerous times.

    Are you saying all is well and not "chickenshit" if the insurance pays out? If so, you are calling "chickenshit" for something that has not even happened yet.

    <span style="font-weight: bold">A little bit of a side note: Do you believe that the US was correct in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan or should they have invaded the mainland of Japan and gotten "X" amount of people killed on both sides in the process? Are US troops correct in dropping JDAMs on a house to kill a lone enemy combatant inside? My answer is "yes"</span> in both situations... and Dorner's. </div></div>

    If I didn't see this on a consistent basis it would astound me. Your single mindedness and sheep- like attitude is EXACTLY why we are seeing such rampant disregard for the law - from both sides of the badge dude.

    The biggest problem with your disjointed logic is .... This is not a theatre of war in these united States- yet. Even though the Federal government is working diligently with police forces in training and equipment to militarize them. They are willingly compliant in this effort as well.

    Police forces swear to uphold the Law and are held or should be held to the highest standard of ethical decorum.

    Second last I checked , deadly force is the last resort after all efforts have been exhausted. The LA PD chose to burn this individual out and stated such intent and that as almost a first resort. What he has been attributed as stating about not being taken alive is circumstantial at best.

    Third given the preponderance of evidence the LA PD had no other intent from the jump but to kill this individual. They shot up two old ladies and another vehicle beside that didn't even match that of the suspect's. That is exactly what they did. Thus at the very least they are guilty of some form of negligent homicide in addition to breaking several other protocols.

    Fourth and least of all- This is an unmitigated Public Relations Disaster for the LA PD and anyone who endorses this behavior.

    Finally and again my delusional friend this is not Nagasaki, Hiroshima nor a theatre of war. Although many LE act like it is and welcome the opportunity.

    Your thinking and that of many of the other LEO's on this board who were once commonly referred to as Police Officers is the problem. That is you don't think. Rather willingly become indoctrinated into the "us vs them" mentality and carry out that "duty" in drone-like fashion. THe real sheep are not the gen-pop but the LE who militantly guard the system at any cost. That would include destroying the balance of society and their individual humanity in the process.
    </div></div>

    You have no clue how like-minded you and I probably are. You accuse me of single mindedness, yet fail to see any situation that would warrant LE lighting a building on fire. Who is not thinking outside of the box? I am not necessarily saying this case in particular as I was not there, but to think that the option does not even exist is closed minded.

    Deady Force is not a "last resort". It is simply a Force Option on the UOF Continuum. There is no requirement to "exhaust all of other options". You SHOULD check again. If I walk into a Domestic Call and a guy at the top of the stairs begins to fire a .380 at me, wouldn't Deadly Force be my first and best option? It happened to me, should I have pepper sprayed him first to "exhaust that option". I guess the disjointed logic goes both ways...

    We can absolutely agree that this is a major CF for LAPD.

    EDIT: Also, if I saw proof that LE was routinely lighting people's houses on fire on a whim, then I would truly say that is fucked up. </div></div>

    Nonsense & Typical rationalization.

    Keep telling yourself that dude.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: TheTick</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: maggot</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Thats really chickenshit. They just burn the womans home down cause theyte not smart enough to figure out another way. Just for spite. They could have just waited him out, turned off power and water. If theyd man up and pay for it thats one thing, but what are the odds of that with out an expensive legal battle? Chickenshit. </div></div>

    "No thanks" on your advice on handling SWAT jobs. In all sincerety and respectfully, I would not tell you the best way to do your job as I am unqualified.

    "Yes", they very well may have launched "hot gas" into the structure. It is a legit UOF option. Deadly force is deadly force. If they fired "hot gas" inside, then the SBSO's insurance will pay out. Our insurance has paid for damage done by us launching "ferret rounds" through people's walls on tac jobs numerous times.

    Are you saying all is well and not "chickenshit" if the insurance pays out? If so, you are calling "chickenshit" for sometIhing that has not even happened yet.

    A little bit of a side note: Do you believe that the US was correct in dropping the atomic bomb on Japan or should they have invaded the mainland of Japan and gotten "X" amount of people killed on both sides in the process? Are US troops correct in dropping JDAMs on a house to kill a lone enemy combatant inside? My answer is "yes" in both situations... and Dorner's. </div></div>

    Respectfully, spoken like a Gubmint man. I speak as Joe Citizen who would be fucking outraged if some morons burnt down my home because they were too unimaginative to think the situation through and take an alternative action. NO matter who pays I probably lost stuff that cant be replace...like a 100 year old cabin.


    That said, droping a bomb on Japan was one thing, burning down a womans house when they have th perp trapped inside is another. There wasnt even a need to shoot it full of holes. Theres a word called patience, and beyound that imagination. No matter who pays, we all lose. If the city pays we lose because our taxes pay for it. If the insurance pays then all our rates go up to covet their asses. NOw on the other hand if we made the one who gave the order, and the ones who lit the fire pa, that would be better. But, no, I dont feel tha te Gubmint, has the right o do anything they want, just because they are the Gubmint.. Thats why we have so many problems now. Fuck, lets just pass laws and prohibit firearms...wait!!!

    </div></div>

    Again, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. I do disagree though that in no circumstance is it appropriate for LE to light a building on fire. Sorry, we are never going to see eye-to-eye I guess. I'm okay with that though, you are entitled to your opinion as am I.

    Funny, I make a decent living and pay a good amount in taxes. I can honestly say that as a tax payer, I'm not upset by a city's insurance company paying to fix a house that was damage due to an LE function, especially a Deadly Force incident.
     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A78063</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Chris Dorners surviving family members, his mother, (the woman we saw watching her son shooting it out with LE while eating and drinking at a restaraunt), should be billed.

    Dorner was a "bad guy", pure and simple, he Murdered 2 innocent people, and 2 LE officers.</div></div>

    This has got to be the most retarded fucking thing I've read this morning. So with this line of thought, your mother and family should be held responsible for your fuck ups? You present yourself as a fucking idiot. A man is responsible for his own actions, no one else. Or do you believe others are responsible for what you do?
    Dumb.


     
    Re: Who pays for the burned cabin?

    <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: waveone</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

    Nonsense & Typical rationalization.

    Keep telling yourself that dude. </div></div>

    If I have to I guess. I have never lost sight of the fact that we need public support. But, I also understand that sometimes I have to make decisions that are not popular and I am comfortable with that as it's what I signed up for.

    Are you even capable of understanding that the argument works in both directions? Sorry to say it, but your understanding of Deadly Force is incorrect. The same would be said if you worked as an Engineer on the Space Shuttle. I would defer to your expertise. We can disagree, but is it possible that I understand the UOF in LE better than you?