Dorner redux, and Tamerlan parallel?

Originally posted by FMF
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.

Yea, flamethrowers, so we can burn suspects out. They can either surrender or burn (or commit suicide). Is there really a meaningful difference between a flamethrower and a "burner" cannister, whose instructions clearly warns against using the cannisters indoors?

Originally posted by normbenign
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.

Idiocy. People escape from far more extensive fires all the time. Dorner had no intention of surrendering.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Yea, flamethrowers, so we can burn suspects out. They can either surrender or burn (or commit suicide). Is there really a meaningful difference between a flamethrower and a "burner" cannister, whose instructions clearly warns against using the cannisters indoors?

The fact that you would ask such a stupid question shows how ridiculously extreme your position is.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The fact that you would ask such a stupid question shows how ridiculously extreme your position is.

Err, I guess when all else fails, resort to character attacks?

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
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.

The time is utterly irrelevant; Dorner was just as dangerous and murderous a felon 4 hours into the standoff as Gintner was 20 minutes into his (probably more so).
The facts in MOVE are distinguishable; there a bomb was dropped on the building to demolish part of it (knowing innocent civilians, including children, were inside); in Dorner, a standard type of tear gas was used which, while having a higher risk of fire than normal tear gas (which had already been unsuccessfully deployed), was not unreasonable under the circumstances.

Originally posted by MoneyManMike
Err, I guess when all else fails, resort to character attacks?

The question is stupid. If you think that saying someone who asks an obviously stupid question is asking a stupid question is a "character attack", so be it.

EDIT: If you think your question deserves an answer (though we both know you are being incongruous):

The purpose of a flamethrower, is to set things on fire.

The purpose of the tear gas used, is to incapacitate persons. The type of device uses a small incendiary charge in order to more quickly disperse the gas. This somewhat increases the chance of fire and thus it is not recommended for use indoors under normal circumstances.

The situation at the cabin Dorner was in was not "normal" under any stretch of the imagination. The sheriffs had already used a tear gas with less chance of fire as well as other measures to force surrender and they had been ineffective. The upgrade to a non-lethal, though more fire risk, device just can't be reasonable compared to using a flamethrower and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The time is utterly irrelevant; Dorner was just as dangerous and murderous a felon 4 hours into the standoff as Gintner was 20 minutes into his (probably more so).
The facts in MOVE are distinguishable; there a bomb was dropped on the building to demolish part of it (knowing innocent civilians, including children, were inside); in Dorner, a standard ty ...[text shortened]... (which had already been unsuccessfully deployed), was not unreasonable under the circumstances.

The plaintiffs in MOVE, who won, were dangerous too...

The time was relevant to the MOVE courts...

Originally posted by no1marauder
The question is stupid. If you think that saying someone who asks an obviously stupid question is asking a stupid question is a "character attack", so be it.

EDIT: If you think your question deserves an answer (though we both know you are being incongruous):

The purpose of a flamethrower, is to set things on fire.

The pur ...[text shortened]... an't be reasonable compared to using a flamethrower and to suggest otherwise is ridiculous.

This has already been discussed at length. There is a question as to whether the police deliberately deployed the burners in order to set the cabin on fire. If the police had this in mind, the flamethrower example is completely analogous. Additionally, there is a question as to whether deploying burners that carry a risk of fire that the police clearly knew about is reasonable in and of itself.

Do you want to discuss this again for another 200 pages?