Related reply I posted on one of the other threads just a few minutes ago-

>>>>

As I have written many times on threads here; I have no idea of Dorner's guilt or innocence, and have made no determinations towards either as I, nor anyone else here, have not been provided with adequate truthful information necessary to make such determination.

That being said; I did learn that it is apparent that many INALIENABLE RIGHTS, GRANTED BY THE CREATOR other than the 2nd Amendment have also been pushed aside.

Right to fair trial
Right to face your accusers
Right to a jury of your peers
Right to Due Process

Whether Dorner was killed in that cabin or not, the actions taken specifically to set fire to a dwelling in which the "suspect" was reportedly located negates all of these.

If he were killed in an exchange of gunfire, that I could surely understand as a result of immediate involved action. Once the gunfire stopped (and the location changed) and there was a pause in the event - then the protocol also adapts. That is the point in which more information is pursued, as well as negotiating tactics applied. Once the person is so isolated, it SHOULD BE (and typically is) a waiting game. Those on the outside with access to extensive resources have no implied exigence of action - essentially, they can wait longer than someone who has barricaded themselves with little resources available.

Regardless of if their intentions were to smoke him out like a rat, or if their actions were out of anger in response to the earlier gunfight - such actions create a definite insight into a mindset that was determined to kill this man. If the communications that we were witness to last night referring to "just as we planned...", then there also exists an element of predetermined actions.

For a specific person or group of persons to define this course of action - to set fire to a dwelling with the belief of a person, an American citizen inside - and to accept the related potential outcome, then "they" have made the decision to be both judge and executioner without any proof of allegations against this person in an open court.

Likely, the most troubling of these times would be digestion of information available to us as we have watched events and conditions unveil over the recent weeks. The renewal of NDAA has been greatly discussed with concentration and concern of the US Government's new lead way in targeting American citizens. This event, I fear, has shown many of these things in play - the possible use of drones, the active involvement of military, and the decision and acceptance of killing the accused by burning them to death.

The labeling of "Undesirables" has been used throughout history in order to decimate, demoralize, and destroy those who oppose a particular government or government agenda, with little thought of the dangers of painting with such broad brush.

I will restate; I am not applying guilt or innocence to Dorner. I am, however, raising the same flag that I have many times before of the inevitable dangers related to accepting the labeling of "Undesirables" and the relinquishing of the BoR in order to pursue an agenda.

Yeah, I have learned (confirmed?) A LOT over the past week with regard to the government's view on the citizenry, and over the past 24 hours I also learned that things have gone so far in this country that we are ALL now in jeopardy of being labeled "Undesirable", having our constitutional protections negated, and being subjected to most any fate your accusers may choose.