Talk:Christopher Dorner shootings and manhunt

Special Forces combatant

Dorner was never a "Special Forces combatant." First of all, "Special Forces" refers only to the United States Army Special Forces, which he could not have been a part of as a member of the Navy. Secondly, neither of his units were Special Operations units. As such, I have removed the erroneous information. 208.40.242.41 (talk) 02:45, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 report by LAPD re Dorner firing

LAPD: Firing of Christopher Dorner 'sound and just' CNN
Police Commission questions why Christopher Dorner was ever hired by LAPD Southern California Public Radio
LAPD's firing of Christopher Dorner was justified, report says LA Times
--Bob K31416 (talk) 01:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting accounts regarding fire

The article states that incendiary devices were used to start the fire on February 12. However, it seems there are conflicting accounts about what happened. Therefore, this should not be stated in such a matter-of-fact manner, but instead be described with reference to the source of information. For instance: "At time T, the building caught fire. Joe Shmoe has alleged that incendiary gas cannisters were used, based on X, Y, and Z. A statement released by P states that no incendiary devices were used." 67.188.230.128 (talk) 06:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

After reading the LA Times article, it becomes clear that the problem was misleading language in the article. The devices used were not "incendiary gas canisters", but rather tear gas grenades (which are known have the potential to start fires). The debate is over whether the canisters were intentionally used for the purpose of starting a fire, or whether the fire was an unintended side effect. I fixed this, although the wording is a bit awkward and could likely be improved. 67.188.230.128 (talk) 07:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In my many years as a firefighter and several years as a cop, I have NEVER seen SWAT grade tear gas used where the structure or contents did not catch fire. Those things land in piles of laundry, furniture, carpet and all sorts of flammable items you would expect to find in a home. The decision to use them comes with that knowledge. Sometimes it's a warranted risk and sometimes it's an intentional act. We were always able to suppress the fire. The action of letting it burn is a premeditated act by the commanders at the scene. --SlimJim^Talk 15:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Redirect of Christopher Droner article

Even though I appreciate the users effort. I think it is hasty to redirect an article like Christopher Dorner without consensus for this redirect. We need more input.--BabbaQ (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Assault Weapon Vs. MSR

The term "Assault Weapon" is incorrect in this instance. The rifles being labeled are AR-15's, which are MSR (Modern Sporting Rifles.) The term Assault Weapon is a non-descriptive, political term, and not one used by the industry. The lobby group that represents the firearm industry (The NSSF) is very clear on this subject. "AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle." http://www.nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm Dreg102 01:11, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

Hi Dreg, I don't particularly care what the correct nomenclature is of the weapon(s) used, is. What I care about, is what the sources say, and I don't think any of the sources refer to the weapon as a "modern sporting rifle". Many of the sources referred to his arsenal as containing assault weaponry. At least one source described the sniper rifle as an assault rifle. I don't know that he actually even "used" an AR-15, only that it was found among his arsenal. Rather than trying to redefine something that can be sourced, perhaps the way to go is to reference the specific rifle, assuming it was actually used, since the |weapons= description at Template:Infobox civilian attack is "Weapons used in attacks". If he didn't actually use the AR-15, then it doesn't belong in the list. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

And that's the point. The source that refers to a semi-automatic rifle as an assault rifle is exactly why you need to use the term that the industry use. When he was killed he was found with 2 magazines for a MSR. We can't verify the make of the MSR, so we can't refer to it as an AR-15 (as it has to be made by either Colt, or ArmaLite to be an AR-15). And an assault weapon included an M1 Carbine with a folding stock. MSR is a rifle based upon the AR-15, and the most correct term used. Dreg102 04:00, 1 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

We can only go by what the sources say, or it's original research. It's not your job or my job to apply preferred terminology to something that's already amply sourced. We neither censor, nor do we euphemize. And maybe you're forgetting that Dorner claimed to have a Barret .50 caliber rifle? As for your most recent edit, per WP:BRD, when you were reverted originally, you should have opened the discussion and maintained the status quo until a new consensus was formed, not revert. That is why I reverted you. Your re-reversion, is inappropriate. I'll leave it up for the time being, but you do not presently have consensus, and the appropriate thing to do would be to revert it yourself until consensus is achieved. As for the sources: "Assault weapons", LAPD Chief Charlie Beck is quoted saying "assault rifles", "AR-15", Beck again cited as having said assault rifle, "assault rifle" again, "assault rifle" again, "assault rifle" again and "two AR-15"s. Contrast that against a Google news search of "Christopher Dorner" and "Modern Sporting Rifle" and the results are nil. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:53, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Assault Rifles are not assault weapons. You're welcome to add that section if you'd like. Dreg102 22:31, 2 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

Great. Then I'll change "modern sport rifle" which is unsourced interpretive content, to "assault rifle" which can be directly sourced, since you didn't like any of my other suggestions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

You're going to claim that a fully-automatic firearm was used? Don't be spiteful because you're ignorant. Seek to learn more, not less. Dreg102 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs)

Needlessly condescending. The dispute isn't between your gun knowledge and my gun knowledge, the dispute is either between your gun knowledge and LAPD Chief Charlie Beck's gun knowledge, or it's between your Wikpedia knowledge and my Wikipedia knowledge. Plus, you didn't like any of my other suggestions, which were that we just refer to the rifle itself, or avoid the matter entirely in the infobox because it wasn't clear from any source that I read that Dorner used that weapon/sporting tool in the commission of the crimes. Rather, you seemed more interested in cramming hyperspecific definitions into the article that contradict sources. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Full-protected 1 week

Pursuant to the request at WP:ANI I have full-protected the article for 1 week. I see multiple good-faith editors trying to do the right thing, but it cannot be done by edit-warring. Please continue to use the Talk page to try to develop support for content change suggestions, remember to cite reliable sources, and consider using Wikipedia's dispute resolution pathways if you're stuck. Thanks... Zad68 21:51, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

@Zad68: Understood. For the record, I thought the user had capitulated on the use of "assault rifle" since he neither addressed the fact that the phrase was amply sourced, nor did he address any of my other options as detailed above. Quote: "Assault Rifles are not assault weapons. You're welcome to add that section if you'd like." Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:18, 6 April 2015 (UTC)