Wednesday, February 13, 2013

Dorner Cabin Fire Was Not an Accident

At 1:28 Cops: burners deployed and we do have a fire.





UPDATE

Cops: Burn the house down,



(ht Travis Holte)

15 comments:

  1. This is why EPJ is among the best sites on the net for real info...You get the most interesting stories here!!

    ReplyDelete
  2. It's not their property, so they don't give a shit.

    If this site, it looks like a "standard" HO-3 policy would exclude "Governmental action, such as the destruction, confiscation or seizure of covered property by any governmental or public authority".

    I just checked my policy, and I don't see an exclusion for this. Many, if not most homes in Big Bear are second homes, so I don't know if people are inclined to buy more expensive insurance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ....and always in the name of the greater good.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Replies
    1. But the people at Waco just wanted to be left alone on their private property to practice their "religion" without govt interference- they didn't go on a killing spree.
      - RJD

      Delete
    2. He's ***alleged*** to have gone on a killing spree. Big difference.

      Delete
    3. I'm with the Capn. You're not supposed to just summarily execute a suspect, by incendiaries, drone-fired missiles or otherwise. Unfortunately, this is becoming the norm for American "justice."

      If they'd wanted the man alive, they would've first tried serious negotiations or perhaps gas or stun grenades. But they obviously wanted him dead---probably for the sake of revenge (as he allegedly had the effrontery to target the state's badged anointed, and not mere disposable mundanes) and also to avert a trial that might have resulted in some of the p.d.'s dirty laundry being publicly aired. Dorner's dramatic death by fire was probably also a product of the cops' fears: that is, they likely wanted to send a clear message to any people who might in the future consider raising a hand against or drawing a bead on cops.

      The man point is, if cops and presidents and other state functionaries can summarily execute alleged "bad guys," then none of us are safe from their tyranny.

      Delete
    4. My response was intended to argue that this is not fairly analogous to the Waco massacre; it was hardly meant as some sort of justification for burning a heretic at the stake.

      Koresh was accused of not properly following ATF rules, and refusing to comply with their demands. For that he, his family, and property were destroyed. There may have been child abuse, polygamy, and all such manner of other crimes, but the ATF is the one who came knocking. I'm by no means a Davidian supporter, and I suspect Koresh was an evil man, but it's unfair to lump the Waco victims in with an "alleged" ex-military/LEO killing spree suspect.

      The fact that any person, uniformed or otherwise, feels it is their right to burn another person alive is unequivocally reprehensible and morally corrupt.

      - RJD

      Delete
  5. Vigilantes covering up their actions with help from the journalists who were right there, on-scene, to listen to live broadcasts and know what happened, yet are still happy to report that a tear-gas canister accidentally set the cabin ablaze.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, old story. I predicted flames and we got 'em.

      Delete
    2. As soon as I heard that he was holed up in a cabin that is the first thought that crossed my mind, I told myself, "they're probably gonna torch the place". And sure enough they did. I would like to see the spin that they put on it, but thus far they've been pretty mute on the subject of how the fire started (there is sparse references to a tear-gas canister). They just might attempt to memory-hole the cause of the fire altogether, and simply not mention it.

      Delete
  6. They are now claiming that burner is slang for a tear gas canister that can potentially ignite stuff. I took 10 minutes and searched for burner and tear gas and found zero references to that outside of today's use of the term. I call bullsh*t on that. Here comes the excuses and cover up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, you are 100% correct. There were NO references to the word "burner" being used to describe this type of incendiary tear gas canister before this particular instance.

      WE HAVE TO QUESTION EVERYTHING THAT THE POLICE SAY BECAUSE THEY ARE THE SUSPECTS HERE.

      We cannot take it for granted that a word means what they say it means when they have a vested interest in our believing that. A quick Google search reveals that THE WORD "BURNER" HAS NEVER BEEN USED TO DESCRIBE AN INCENDIARY TEAR GAS CANISTER BEFORE THE DORNER CABIN FIRE.

      I'm not a tinfoil hat guy but do the research - it's a clear lie and the media and general public are eating it right up. Someone has to look into this before they find a way to inject this word into old data.

      Delete
  7. So much for the truth!!

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-to-captives-i-just-want-to-clear-my-name.html

    "We did not intentionally burn down that cabin," the sheriff said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh, and FYI, when I posted your link to the article, they took it down. Shocking, I know.

      Delete