21 Apr 13
Originally posted by no1marauderYou 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.
The transcripts show law enforcement officers poured in and deputies were told not to fire unless they saw Dorner.
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by MoneyManMikeThat'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.
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.
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by no1marauderI 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.
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.
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by no1marauderhttp://blog.pe.com/crime-blotter/2013/04/19/dorner-manhunt-sheriff-releases-dispatch-records-of-standoff/
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.
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by normbenignA "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.
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.
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by no1marauderAlright, let's see what there is to respond to Mr. No1.
It's a standard technique to selectively quote from another's post when you don't feel you can refute the whole argument presented.
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?
21 Apr 13
Originally posted by MoneyManMike"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.
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?
That's "So!".