PDA

View Full Version : Why no thread on War on LAPD?



ccpl_fisher
February 10 2013, 03:21:22 PM
tldr version:

Navy reservist applies to LAPD.
Gets accepted, later on accuses his partner of kicking a restrained mentally ill man.
LAPD launches investigation, concludes he is lying, fires him.
He loses his clearance in the Navy because of the Firing.
He can't get promoted, so he ends up being forced out due to lack of promotion.


He stews for 4 years.
Kills family members of a cop who represented him at a cop hearing.
Post a 14 page Manifesto that Praises Obama, brags about his marksmanship skills, rails about lack of gun control, brags about his rifle and suppressor collection, and promises to go all Rambo on the LAPD until his name is cleared.
full, maybe unedited version here:
http://laist.com/2013/02/07/christopher_dorners_manifesto_in_fu.php Most news outlets are editing his rant to suit there veiwpoint.

Tries to steal boat in SD, fouls the prop.
Wings one officer in a shootout, short time later he kills one and puts the other in critical condition.
He was Driving a Grey Nissan Titan, so of course the cops open up on a blue Toyota with 2 little old Ladies in it delivering newspapers. Some skinny white dude in a black truck also got rammed and shot at.
Suspect apparently fled to Big bear mountains, broke an axle on his truck, and fled on foot. He burned his truck alerting authorities, and they mounted a massive manhunt. No sign of him going on 4 days.

dpidcoe
February 10 2013, 06:45:16 PM
I've heard a few snippets about a manhunt in big bear on the local news, didn't realize this was the cause of it though.

LAPD has a bit of a reputation for hiring ex gang members and being generally corrupt, so I'm not really all that surprised at the general amount of terribleness going on.

Sacul
February 10 2013, 07:53:21 PM
That was a long long rant and i read all of it. Sounds like a man tping and drinking whiskey.

Having a look in his mind this way i can understand. Im just assuming his words are a reasonable direction to the truth. Must be shit so i wont go the usually lolnigger route.
He became incoherent at 3/4 of his text but laughed at his double rant against lapiere of the nra.

Kanv
February 10 2013, 07:53:47 PM
What sort or discussion would this lead to?

ccpl_fisher
February 10 2013, 08:58:22 PM
What sort or discussion would this lead to?

Do you think he is dead or alive at this point? Police have been searching for days in blizzard conditions for him in big bear mountain.

Melichor
February 10 2013, 09:05:13 PM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

Alistair
February 10 2013, 09:25:41 PM
What sort or discussion would this lead to?

Do you think he is dead or alive at this point? Police have been searching for days in blizzard conditions for him in big bear mountain.

Alive, because he's not on Big Bear imo. The burning of his truck would appear to be obvious distractionary ruse thing.

This guy could be a real serious ongoing issue. Millitary and L.E.O. trained, survivalist skills, well-trained with his guns, knows how LEO operates, and is nutbar crazy and with a serious grudge. It will be good for one and all when he's taken down.

It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Kransthow
February 10 2013, 09:33:26 PM
http://onebit.us/x/i/ImZawtEkkr.jpg
Because he's the hero that Los Angeles deserves, but not the one it needs right now...and so we'll hunt him...because he can take it...because he's not a hero...he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector...the Dark Knight

AmaNutin
February 10 2013, 10:09:26 PM
It's bad either way: while this might be originating from LAPD corruption, it doesn't bring those issues to light in public consciousness as much as the manhunt for him is. Some news outlets might report the overzealous reaction by some to shooting first and asking later, but its equally bad that he has targetted people by relation to members of the LAPD that he has a grudge against.

Keorythe
February 10 2013, 10:46:30 PM
The targeting of officers pisses off LEO's more than anything else. Taking the blame for someone else's grudge sucks donkey balls and many of the victims are just doing their job whether they like it or not. But a lot of guys also agree that this being the LAPD, no one is expecting him to come out of this alive unless a camera crew is there when he's apprehended. On a side note, a number of guys in LEO forums out there are pulling some heavy overtime. The trail isn't as cold as the media is making it out to be. Also, one guy confirmed that they're deploying drones.

I did find this one snippet to be hugely ironic given California is Dianne Feinstein's State.


Big Bear Lakes Mayor Jay Obernolte, also speaking at the news conference, said Dorner “poses no threat to the ski resorts; that’s why they’re open.”

Obernolte said he has been repeatedly asked whether there is panic in the town.

“No, there’s no panic,” he said. “We’re very hardy residents here in the ... mountains. Many people here are armed.”

Alistair
February 10 2013, 11:07:32 PM
Also, one guy confirmed that they're deploying drones.

Will be VERY interesting if they manage to kill this guy via a Drone on U.S. Soil. I doubt they want to face that level of interesting, so I'd guess unarmed Drones only (i.e. Amarr Drone).

Keorythe
February 10 2013, 11:15:23 PM
Also, one guy confirmed that they're deploying drones.

Will be VERY interesting if they manage to kill this guy via a Drone on U.S. Soil. I doubt they want to face that level of interesting, so I'd guess unarmed Drones only (i.e. Amarr Drone).

We've seen drones used as far back as 2011. Never armed drones though. Stuff like the Predator is expensive as hell for a police dept. More than likely, they're using stuff like RQ-7's or other similarly sized drones for visual tracking and/or infrared.

Ampoliros
February 10 2013, 11:46:52 PM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret

ccpl_fisher
February 11 2013, 02:36:31 AM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.
Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

Aea
February 11 2013, 05:51:42 AM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.
Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

No.

Ampoliros
February 11 2013, 06:28:43 AM
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.

'well established'? by whom? What exactly qualifies as a mass murder? What exactly qualifies as left leaning political views? Did it hurt to pull this entire quote directly from your ass?


According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.

What qualifications and experience does your psychologist family member have in dealing with mass murderers? What biases does he or she have?


Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

Do you get your shitty analogies from the psychologist too, or do you have a family member who bakes cakes and doesn't know what substitutions are?

Pattern
February 11 2013, 07:08:00 AM
I recently watched Rambo first blood.

That's all I can contribute to this bombsite of a thread.

sent from a fone

Timaios
February 11 2013, 08:51:32 AM
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.

'well established'? by whom? What exactly qualifies as a mass murder? What exactly qualifies as left leaning political views? Did it hurt to pull this entire quote directly from your ass?


According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.

What qualifications and experience does your psychologist family member have in dealing with mass murderers? What biases does he or she have?


Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

Do you get your shitty analogies from the psychologist too, or do you have a family member who bakes cakes and doesn't know what substitutions are?

Furthermore, I would like to point out that starting the sentence using "with the exception of Timothy McVeigh" and then stating that "left leaning" political views are a necessary ingredient for committing mass murder, we're not off to a good start.

I'd also like to question the definition of mass murder. I believe, for example, that Anders Breivik did not actually support left-leaning political views as much of his manifesto were taken from the Gates of Vienna etc and his goal was to pretty much mass murder leftist-marxist race traitors. In addition, would you classify the shooter of Gabrielle Giffords to have had left-leaning political opinions (or is that just mass shooting, not mass murder? Nevertheless, AFAIK and according to the wikipedia, his political opinions have not been made public)?

Cassiuss
February 11 2013, 04:50:54 PM
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil#scptmfs

Confirmed.

I'm not really too sure where I stand on the US using drones to attack it's own citizens. If they can kill Iraqis with them I think US citizens aren't exempt either.

Still pretty sad though.

Tiny
February 11 2013, 05:19:51 PM
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil#scptmfs

Confirmed.

I'm not really too sure where I stand on the US using drones to attack it's own citizens. If they can kill Iraqis with them I think US citizens aren't exempt either.

Still pretty sad though.

I'm all for it, when the drones hit a few schools, weddings and town meatings as they do in Pakistan it might wake a few people up.

Sacul
February 11 2013, 05:25:00 PM
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil#scptmfs

Confirmed.

I'm not really too sure where I stand on the US using drones to attack it's own citizens. If they can kill Iraqis with them I think US citizens aren't exempt either.

Still pretty sad though.

I'm all for it, when the drones hit a few schools, weddings and town meatings as they do in Pakistan it might wake a few people up.

Government use, non military, of drones have been on the rise all over europe since 2010. Holland and Germany have a joint north sea border control project. The idea is to out source the Orions and other expensive things we use for north sea patrols.

Cassiuss
February 11 2013, 05:26:34 PM
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil#scptmfs

Confirmed.

I'm not really too sure where I stand on the US using drones to attack it's own citizens. If they can kill Iraqis with them I think US citizens aren't exempt either.

Still pretty sad though.

I'm all for it, when the drones hit a few schools, weddings and town meetings as they do in Pakistan it might wake a few people up.

Off topic a little, it does beg the question of cowardess in terms of war. How can you kill someone in the act of war, at least honourably, via drone.
I guess there is no honour in war anymore and those days are long gone with the advent of technology.

Anyways...sickening when you think about your own government or at least the US gov't taking out their own with no special legislation or war measures act in these regards.

Sacul
February 11 2013, 05:29:19 PM
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil#scptmfs

Confirmed.

I'm not really too sure where I stand on the US using drones to attack it's own citizens. If they can kill Iraqis with them I think US citizens aren't exempt either.

Still pretty sad though.

I'm all for it, when the drones hit a few schools, weddings and town meetings as they do in Pakistan it might wake a few people up.

Off topic a little, it does beg the question of cowardess in terms of war. How can you kill someone in the act of war, at least honourably, via drone.
I guess there is no honour in war anymore and those days are long gone with the advent of technology.

Anyways...sickening when you think about your own government or at least the US gov't taking out their own with no special legislation or war measures act in these regards.

This honour argument is as old as the use of crossbows. As in literally that old.

cullnean
February 11 2013, 05:33:13 PM
I recently watched Rambo first blood.

That's all I can contribute to this bombsite of a thread.

sent from a fone

I watched that on sky as well its hella dark at points

Tapatalk

Straight Hustlin
February 11 2013, 05:33:34 PM
I believe there's an old quote that goes something like "the only people who talk about the honour of war, are the people who have never experienced it"

Keorythe
February 11 2013, 07:16:59 PM
You trying to tell me you or the LAPD need a silencer to kill Dorner?

Just a bit of a response to the thread that was locked down. Silencers/Sound Suppressors are not needed but very handy to have. While most of use think of secret agent man PFFT PFFT'ing bad guy henchmen, the truth is that if you fire indoors you'll be temporarily deaf after the first shot. Outside guns are loud. Inside, guns are FUCKING LOUD! Even with a suppressor the crack of the bullet breaking the sound barrier is pretty loud but you won't lose your hearing and become disoriented if you have to shoot at something while indoors. Do to the hurdles you have to go through to get one, they aren't commonplace even with law enforcement. Those that do get them are usually the kind of people who seek better training and gear than the average line cop which makes Dorner even more scary.

Cool09
February 11 2013, 08:06:21 PM
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil#scptmfs

Confirmed.

I'm not really too sure where I stand on the US using drones to attack it's own citizens. If they can kill Iraqis with them I think US citizens aren't exempt either.

Still pretty sad though.

I'm all for it, when the drones hit a few schools, weddings and town meatings as they do in Pakistan it might wake a few people up.

Did either of you read the article? It says the drones IR cameras are the best way to find him. It's unarmed. No difference from the helicopters with IR that police have been using for years (drone is probably cheaper).

As for your "HONOURREE IN WAR" comment... as Sacul said this argument goes back to crossbows. It takes no more balls to drop a LGB on a hut than it does to send a drone to blow up that same hut.

Hast
February 11 2013, 08:59:32 PM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.
Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

This is about as a retarded of a fact as I've ever heard. I demand evidence.

Qwert
February 11 2013, 09:03:50 PM
I want to know how fisher can possibly paint Al Qaeda as left leaning...

Or how 9/11 wasn't a mass murder?

definatelynotKKassandra
February 11 2013, 09:15:25 PM
I want to know how fisher can possibly paint Al Qaeda as left leaning...

Or how 9/11 wasn't a mass murder?

They hate America
Everyone who opposes America is a communist
Therefore

Cassiuss
February 11 2013, 09:30:04 PM
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil#scptmfs

Confirmed.

I'm not really too sure where I stand on the US using drones to attack it's own citizens. If they can kill Iraqis with them I think US citizens aren't exempt either.

Still pretty sad though.

I'm all for it, when the drones hit a few schools, weddings and town meatings as they do in Pakistan it might wake a few people up.

Did either of you read the article? It says the drones IR cameras are the best way to find him. It's unarmed. No difference from the helicopters with IR that police have been using for years (drone is probably cheaper).

As for your "HONOURREE IN WAR" comment... as Sacul said this argument goes back to crossbows. It takes no more balls to drop a LGB on a hut than it does to send a drone to blow up that same hut.

Okay fine, understood, no honour in war blah blah silly to mention it. My bad CoD freaks.
Does it not bother you any that your government could use unmanned aircraft to track you and potentially kill you with it?

Shouldn't there be laws that protect citizens from their governments using military style tactics and weapons against them?!


....fuuuuuck...nevermind. :facepalm:

Tarminic
February 11 2013, 09:48:15 PM
Okay fine, understood, no honour in war blah blah silly to mention it. My bad CoD freaks.
Does it not bother you any that your government could use unmanned aircraft to track you and potentially kill you with it?

Shouldn't there be laws that protect citizens from their governments using military style tactics and weapons against them?!

....fuuuuuck...nevermind. :facepalm:
Neither of the two responses to you were disagreeing with the principle. One was actively agreeing with you and the other was pointing out that they're just using drones with IR cameras and not, you know, hellfire missiles.

SAI Peregrinus
February 12 2013, 12:20:00 AM
Okay fine, understood, no honour in war blah blah silly to mention it. My bad CoD freaks.
Does it not bother you any that your government could use unmanned aircraft to track you and potentially kill you with it?

Shouldn't there be laws that protect citizens from their governments using military style tactics and weapons against them?!

....fuuuuuck...nevermind. :facepalm:
Neither of the two responses to you were disagreeing with the principle. One was actively agreeing with you and the other was pointing out that they're just using drones with IR cameras and not, you know, hellfire missiles.

Well they can already kill any American citizen they want without trial. And they can track you from the air with helicopters. So the drones which are cheaper, quieter, and have longer loiter times aren't really a problem. Clearly we shouldn't protest when "law" enforcement's job is made easier. After all, writing that America is corrupt and should be destroyed is enough to get you named as a terrorist and have your kids killed. You don't even have to hurt anyone or blow anything up, just be a bit brown skinned and publish the wrong sort of articles. And that's how it should be, after all if the authorities weren't right and just all the time they wouldn't be authorities. Go 'Murrika!

Aea
February 12 2013, 02:20:36 AM
Okay fine, understood, no honour in war blah blah silly to mention it. My bad CoD freaks.
Does it not bother you any that your government could use unmanned aircraft to track you and potentially kill you with it?

Shouldn't there be laws that protect citizens from their governments using military style tactics and weapons against them?!

....fuuuuuck...nevermind. :facepalm:
Neither of the two responses to you were disagreeing with the principle. One was actively agreeing with you and the other was pointing out that they're just using drones with IR cameras and not, you know, hellfire missiles.

Well they can already kill any American citizen they want without trial. And they can track you from the air with helicopters. So the drones which are cheaper, quieter, and have longer loiter times aren't really a problem. Clearly we shouldn't protest when "law" enforcement's job is made easier. After all, writing that America is corrupt and should be destroyed is enough to get you named as a terrorist and have your kids killed. You don't even have to hurt anyone or blow anything up, just be a bit brown skinned and publish the wrong sort of articles. And that's how it should be, after all if the authorities weren't right and just all the time they wouldn't be authorities. Go 'Murrika!

Another :psyduck:

dpidcoe
February 12 2013, 02:34:44 AM
Okay fine, understood, no honour in war blah blah silly to mention it. My bad CoD freaks.
Does it not bother you any that your government could use unmanned aircraft to track you and potentially kill you with it?

Shouldn't there be laws that protect citizens from their governments using military style tactics and weapons against them?!

....fuuuuuck...nevermind. :facepalm:
Neither of the two responses to you were disagreeing with the principle. One was actively agreeing with you and the other was pointing out that they're just using drones with IR cameras and not, you know, hellfire missiles.

Well they can already kill any American citizen they want without trial. And they can track you from the air with helicopters. So the drones which are cheaper, quieter, and have longer loiter times aren't really a problem. Clearly we shouldn't protest when "law" enforcement's job is made easier. After all, writing that America is corrupt and should be destroyed is enough to get you named as a terrorist and have your kids killed. You don't even have to hurt anyone or blow anything up, just be a bit brown skinned and publish the wrong sort of articles. And that's how it should be, after all if the authorities weren't right and just all the time they wouldn't be authorities. Go 'Murrika!

Another :psyduck:
The precedent for killing an American citizen overseas without trial via drone has already been set. One small step to go from there to wacking people within our own borders.

the above statement is in no way intended to agree and/or disagree with sentiments expressed by SAI Peregrinus

Dorvil Barranis
February 12 2013, 03:36:30 AM
This is why nobody cares about "honorable" war anymore:

http://youtu.be/f36gPAfgRMU


It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
Anders Breivik?

And what I came here to post, cuz it is super serious (and the other threads are locked).
http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/71451_10151422764703189_75815159_n.jpg

ccpl_fisher
February 12 2013, 03:54:15 AM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.
Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

This is about as a retarded of a fact as I've ever heard. I demand evidence.
Columbine:
Kids were not old enough to vote, but there parents were both registered democrats.
VT:
registered democrat
Aurora:
socialist
Gabby Giffords shooting:
both parents democrats, he was a democrat
Current craziness in SOCA:
guy basically sucks Obamas cock in his maniesto.

So, tell me, what mass murderer in the US has been done in last 30 years has been done by a far right fanatic*?
* acts of war don't count.

ccpl_fisher
February 12 2013, 04:00:35 AM
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil#scptmfs

Confirmed.

I'm not really too sure where I stand on the US using drones to attack it's own citizens. If they can kill Iraqis with them I think US citizens aren't exempt either.

Still pretty sad though.

I'm all for it, when the drones hit a few schools, weddings and town meetings as they do in Pakistan it might wake a few people up.

Off topic a little, it does beg the question of cowardess in terms of war. How can you kill someone in the act of war, at least honourably, via drone.
I guess there is no honour in war anymore and those days are long gone with the advent of technology.

Anyways...sickening when you think about your own government or at least the US gov't taking out their own with no special legislation or war measures act in these regards.
There was never any honor in hacking someones head with a sword either.

Pacefalm
February 12 2013, 07:22:03 AM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.
Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

This is about as a retarded of a fact as I've ever heard. I demand evidence.
Columbine:
Kids were not old enough to vote, but there parents were both registered democrats.
VT:
registered democrat
Aurora:
socialist
Gabby Giffords shooting:
both parents democrats, he was a democrat
Current craziness in SOCA:
guy basically sucks Obamas cock in his maniesto.

So, tell me, what mass murderer in the US has been done in last 30 years has been done by a far right fanatic*?
* acts of war don't count.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/jt-ready-gilbert-arizona-killing_n_1475985.html
Literally the first google hit.
Please stop posting bullshit in the serious business subforum. If you have something to say you better have facts to back it up.

Cool09
February 12 2013, 03:29:55 PM
http://now.msn.com/christopher-dorner-is-first-drone-target-on-us-soil#scptmfs

Confirmed.

I'm not really too sure where I stand on the US using drones to attack it's own citizens. If they can kill Iraqis with them I think US citizens aren't exempt either.

Still pretty sad though.

I'm all for it, when the drones hit a few schools, weddings and town meatings as they do in Pakistan it might wake a few people up.

Did either of you read the article? It says the drones IR cameras are the best way to find him. It's unarmed. No difference from the helicopters with IR that police have been using for years (drone is probably cheaper).

As for your "HONOURREE IN WAR" comment... as Sacul said this argument goes back to crossbows. It takes no more balls to drop a LGB on a hut than it does to send a drone to blow up that same hut.

Okay fine, understood, no honour in war blah blah silly to mention it. My bad CoD freaks.
Does it not bother you any that your government could use unmanned aircraft to track you and potentially kill you with it?

Shouldn't there be laws that protect citizens from their governments using military style tactics and weapons against them?!


....fuuuuuck...nevermind. :facepalm:

I agree with you 100% drone strikes on civilians are wrong whether it's in the middle east or elsewhere. My point is: that is not happening in the US as your post implied. Using a camera drone is no different from the usual helicopters that have been in use for decades. Here in Ontario police use planes to find grow ops, doesn't mean the people are being opressed by military strikes.

ccpl_fisher
February 12 2013, 04:15:49 PM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.
Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

This is about as a retarded of a fact as I've ever heard. I demand evidence.
Columbine:
Kids were not old enough to vote, but there parents were both registered democrats.
VT:
registered democrat
Aurora:
socialist
Gabby Giffords shooting:
both parents democrats, he was a democrat
Current craziness in SOCA:
guy basically sucks Obamas cock in his maniesto.

So, tell me, what mass murderer in the US has been done in last 30 years has been done by a far right fanatic*?
* acts of war don't count.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/jt-ready-gilbert-arizona-killing_n_1475985.html
Literally the first google hit.
Please stop posting bullshit in the serious business subforum. If you have something to say you better have facts to back it up.
He was a Democrat.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/02/breaking-candidate-for-pinal-sheriff-jt-ready-goes-on-murder-suicide-rampage/
"Just in, Democrat Candidate for Pinal County Sheriff Jason Todd (JT) Ready killed in murder rampage in Gilbert Arizona, killing 4 adults and a 2 year old child. A multi-departmental Federal Task force is currently searching the scene. Agents report “chemicals,” other evidence."

Hast
February 12 2013, 04:24:49 PM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.
Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

This is about as a retarded of a fact as I've ever heard. I demand evidence.
Columbine:
Kids were not old enough to vote, but there parents were both registered democrats.
VT:
registered democrat
Aurora:
socialist
Gabby Giffords shooting:
both parents democrats, he was a democrat
Current craziness in SOCA:
guy basically sucks Obamas cock in his maniesto.

So, tell me, what mass murderer in the US has been done in last 30 years has been done by a far right fanatic*?
* acts of war don't count.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/jt-ready-gilbert-arizona-killing_n_1475985.html
Literally the first google hit.
Please stop posting bullshit in the serious business subforum. If you have something to say you better have facts to back it up.
He was a Democrat.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/02/breaking-candidate-for-pinal-sheriff-jt-ready-goes-on-murder-suicide-rampage/
"Just in, Democrat Candidate for Pinal County Sheriff Jason Todd (JT) Ready killed in murder rampage in Gilbert Arizona, killing 4 adults and a 2 year old child. A multi-departmental Federal Task force is currently searching the scene. Agents report “chemicals,” other evidence."

Read through some of the other articles there. Holocaust deniers, people claiming sandy hook was staged et cetera.

You got to be kidding me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Cassiuss
February 12 2013, 06:21:06 PM
Interesting article about Chris Dorner. Charlie Sheen sending a video appeal for him to calm the fuck down. Good read.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/12/fugitive-ex-lapd-cop-charged-with-officers-murder-as-fans-create-facebook-pages-and-charlie-sheen-reaches-out/

http://onebit.us/x/u/Cassiuss/UlhD7QfuYp.jpg

Sacul
February 12 2013, 08:26:27 PM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.
Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

This is about as a retarded of a fact as I've ever heard. I demand evidence.
Columbine:
Kids were not old enough to vote, but there parents were both registered democrats.
VT:
registered democrat
Aurora:
socialist
Gabby Giffords shooting:
both parents democrats, he was a democrat
Current craziness in SOCA:
guy basically sucks Obamas cock in his maniesto.

So, tell me, what mass murderer in the US has been done in last 30 years has been done by a far right fanatic*?
* acts of war don't count.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/jt-ready-gilbert-arizona-killing_n_1475985.html
Literally the first google hit.
Please stop posting bullshit in the serious business subforum. If you have something to say you better have facts to back it up.
He was a Democrat.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/02/breaking-candidate-for-pinal-sheriff-jt-ready-goes-on-murder-suicide-rampage/
"Just in, Democrat Candidate for Pinal County Sheriff Jason Todd (JT) Ready killed in murder rampage in Gilbert Arizona, killing 4 adults and a 2 year old child. A multi-departmental Federal Task force is currently searching the scene. Agents report “chemicals,” other evidence."

Read through some of the other articles there. Holocaust deniers, people claiming sandy hook was staged et cetera.

You got to be kidding me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

After having sniffed some septic tank fumes like fisher i was just enlightened by reading that website and learning two facts a) Hitler had anti gravity discs but he didnt use them at D-day because the Luftwaffe staged a coupe and b) the pope was fired by the knights of Malta and my Queen Beatrix seems to be a prominent member.

The
best
source
ever!!!!
:obama::popcorn:

ccpl_fisher
February 12 2013, 08:41:22 PM
Even if he came out hands up unarmed i can see him not surviving this if caught

Sent via magic

yeah...LAPD has already shot up two different vehicles because they thought it was him. Can't imagine he'll fare any better.


It's interesting to note, at least in U.S. media coverage, his strongly (it seems), if clearly mentally ustable, Pro-Democrat viewpoint manifesto is not often mentioned. I have to believe if you flipped the script, and it was all wargabl-pro-Republican-pro-Sarah-Palin-pro-gunrights, that aspect would be recieving a much wider range of general U.S. media coverage thus far.

Eh...maybe ed schultz or some other partisan asshole would, but I don't really think so. It's hard to spin what he's doing as a politically motivated attack either way when he pretty much up and said 'hey, it's because of this'; it's usually when news agencies don't know that the bullshit speculation comes out. I dunno if i'd really say it's strongly democrat either, but that's a matter of perspective

Anyhow, i'm sure some commentator at fox (or one of the ~non-mainstream media~ folks like glenn beck) will do it anyway, so don't you fret
It has been well established that with the exception of Timothy McVeigh, every mass murder committed in the last 20 years has been committed by a person with left leaning political views.
According to a family member who is a Psychologist, this is not an inherent element of leftist political thought. It is a portion of what makes a person who will commit mass murder.
Think of it like a recipe, without any one of the ingredients, you can't make a cake.

This is about as a retarded of a fact as I've ever heard. I demand evidence.
Columbine:
Kids were not old enough to vote, but there parents were both registered democrats.
VT:
registered democrat
Aurora:
socialist
Gabby Giffords shooting:
both parents democrats, he was a democrat
Current craziness in SOCA:
guy basically sucks Obamas cock in his maniesto.

So, tell me, what mass murderer in the US has been done in last 30 years has been done by a far right fanatic*?
* acts of war don't count.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/jt-ready-gilbert-arizona-killing_n_1475985.html
Literally the first google hit.
Please stop posting bullshit in the serious business subforum. If you have something to say you better have facts to back it up.
He was a Democrat.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/05/02/breaking-candidate-for-pinal-sheriff-jt-ready-goes-on-murder-suicide-rampage/
"Just in, Democrat Candidate for Pinal County Sheriff Jason Todd (JT) Ready killed in murder rampage in Gilbert Arizona, killing 4 adults and a 2 year old child. A multi-departmental Federal Task force is currently searching the scene. Agents report “chemicals,” other evidence."

Read through some of the other articles there. Holocaust deniers, people claiming sandy hook was staged et cetera.

You got to be kidding me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/2012/01/neo-nazi_jt_ready_runs_for_pin.php
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/03/russell-pearce-jt-ready-gilbert-arizona-shootings-immigration_n_1474251.html
"Ready filed notice in January that he was considering a run for sheriff in Pinal County, Ariz., as a Democrat after switching parties"" aka he got kicked out of the Republican party.
I suppose the Huffington post is also not a trustworthy source?

So please explain to me, why somebody who was kicked out of the republican party, would decide that the closest party that fits his world view is the Democratic party? There are plenty of small third parties out there that he could have latched on to in order to get onto the ballot, but he chose not to... I wonder why that is? Remember to, that he had to win a Primary running as a democrat.

Cool09
February 12 2013, 08:48:55 PM
So democrat being his second choice (first choice being republican) somehow makes democrats the choice party for mass murderers?

Isn't there a no trolling rule in here?

definatelynotKKassandra
February 12 2013, 08:49:45 PM
I suppose the Huffington post is also not a trustworthy source?


I haven't read any of the links but no, it isn't.

Hast
February 12 2013, 08:50:14 PM
Ready was characterized as a racist and "neo-Nazi" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which quotes him as saying in 2009 that the United States is a "white, European homeland" at a rally for the white nationalist group National Socialist Movement.

Sounds like he was kicked from the republican party for his radical centrist policies.

definatelynotKKassandra
February 12 2013, 08:55:28 PM
Ready was characterized as a racist and "neo-Nazi" by the Southern Poverty Law Center, which quotes him as saying in 2009 that the United States is a "white, European homeland" at a rally for the white nationalist group National Socialist Movement.

Sounds like he was kicked from the republican party for his radical centrist policies.

Clearly

walrus
February 12 2013, 09:03:09 PM
more shooting now: http://www.keloland.com/custompages/cbslive/

EDIT:

They found him in a cabin in San Bernadino national forest, he wounded two cops, and now he is surrounded.

E2: ROFL prank call.

Amantus
February 12 2013, 09:10:35 PM
fuck the pollis !

Pacefalm
February 12 2013, 09:37:36 PM
So please explain to me, why somebody who was kicked out of the republican party, would decide that the closest party that fits his world view is the Democratic party? There are plenty of small third parties out there that he could have latched on to in order to get onto the ballot, but he chose not to... I wonder why that is? Remember to, that he had to win a Primary running as a democrat.

m8 he was republican first democrat second. Is this too hard for you to understand? Wait I will name some more because you are seemingly incapable of understanding any opposition to your argument:

Timothy McVeigh
Ted Bundy
Gary Ridgway
Dennis Rader

spasm
February 12 2013, 10:12:16 PM
Maybe crazy mass murders exist regardless of political leanings.

Nordstern
February 12 2013, 11:27:25 PM
Maybe crazy mass murders exist regardless of political leanings.
Maybe some people only pay lip service to parties in order to attain power, so maybe we shouldn't make snap judgements based on who they registered with 25 years ago.

ccpl_fisher
February 13 2013, 12:08:54 AM
They burned him out. pretty sure there will be recordings played of the police scanner. They talked about burning him out, then something about making sure the heat got to the basement...

Dorvil Barranis
February 13 2013, 12:15:15 AM
[Updated at 5:05 p.m. PT]

The cabin where former LAPD officer Christopher Dorner is believed to be barricaded is now on fire. Numerous shots were heard near the cabin about 30 minutes ago.

It is unknown if Dorner is still inside, but officers at the scene are taking a wait-and-see approach. Thick black smoke and flames can been seen coming from the mountain cabin.

Police and tactical units are requesting that the fire personnel stay back.

Overheard from authorities on the police radio channel:

"Hold until we start mop up with fire."

"Still not ready for fire. There's a lot of smoldering."

"More ammo going off."

"Fire doing quite well. I'm going to let it go."

Police want to let the fire burn through the basement as a precaution before entering. A firefighter raised in that residence is on the scene, and is telling officers that the basement is 12 x 15 feet. The ceiling of the basement is wood.

Police captain to officers surrounding the house: "If you see something catching on fire that's not supposed to be you let me know, otherwise let it go."

Police now asking if the firefighter familiar with the house knows if there would be any reason for ammunition to be stored in the home. Firefighter has not been in the residence in years so he doesn't know.

Police are assembling a 10-man team to cover the garage.

http://my.yahoo.com/;_ylt=AqDaPzoLSOoTyE8.qxP0EuevulI6

Sacul
February 13 2013, 01:27:09 AM
2013 Let the nigger burn.

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!

Shit makes me sick and if the police want to see him literally burn in this fashion it just makes me sympathize with Dorner more. Nothing but a lynch mob.

Dorvil Barranis
February 13 2013, 01:30:25 AM
He did manage to shoot and kill another one in the process. I imagine he could have left the burning building and surrendered, looks like there was media on hand.

Synapse
February 13 2013, 02:04:12 AM
Still probably would have been shot.

Vortex
February 13 2013, 05:01:33 AM
Guy set off a personal vendetta against the police, killed a few (not sure what the exact body count is atm), wounded a few more. There was exactly 0% chance this guy could have survived any encounter with the police at that point. Maybe he could make it to trial if arranged some sort of surrender in a very public place with lots of cameras, but even then I'd put even money on a cop "seeing" a gun on him and wasting him on site. I'm not saying this is justified per say, but it was an obvious inevitability when you pull this kind of stunt.

Hell, just look how the LAPD were busy shooting up every truck they came across, regardless of make/model/color of the car and race/size/gender of the occupant. The troubling way the media gave them a free pass on those shootings aside, it really paints a clear picture that they were going to shoot first, shoot second, and only stop shooting when they run out of ammunition.

helgur
February 13 2013, 05:40:53 AM
Read through some of the other articles there. Holocaust deniers, people claiming sandy hook was staged et cetera.

You got to be kidding me

If this is not what you expected, please alter your expectations.

Hast
February 13 2013, 07:51:08 AM
Guy set off a personal vendetta against the police, killed a few (not sure what the exact body count is atm), wounded a few more. There was exactly 0% chance this guy could have survived any encounter with the police at that point. Maybe he could make it to trial if arranged some sort of surrender in a very public place with lots of cameras, but even then I'd put even money on a cop "seeing" a gun on him and wasting him on site. I'm not saying this is justified per say, but it was an obvious inevitability when you pull this kind of stunt.

Hell, just look how the LAPD were busy shooting up every truck they came across, regardless of make/model/color of the car and race/size/gender of the occupant. The troubling way the media gave them a free pass on those shootings aside, it really paints a clear picture that they were going to shoot first, shoot second, and only stop shooting when they run out of ammunition.

Professionalism, not something you would expect the police to have.

Xiang Jiao
February 13 2013, 09:05:26 AM
2013 Let the nigger burn.

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!

Shit makes me sick and if the police want to see him literally burn in this fashion it just makes me sympathize with Dorner more. Nothing but a lynch mob.

Dorner did state in his manifesto that he would not be taken alive. If they somehow determined that he was the only occupant of the cabin, why not burn it to the ground?

Hast
February 13 2013, 09:21:01 AM
Because it is the police's job to get people alive if possible and make sure people go to court for one?

What if it turns out that he didn't write in the manifesto that he would not be caught alive?

On one hand it seems that a lot of people rant about people getting killed by drones without due trial, but burning a man alive? That's entirely acceptable! (protip: It is not acceptable for a mulititude of reasons, and it should not be necessary to explain them. Unless of course you live in Somalia).

smagd
February 13 2013, 10:59:46 AM
Come on, proper laws don't really apply any more once you antagonize law enforcers.

In theory, they might, but in practice, how exactly are you going to law enforce upon the law enforcers? Get the Green Berets to raid the LAPD?

Then what if the Green Berets decide they don't really respect the law to remain innocent until convicted by a proper process to be guilty as charged?

Hast
February 13 2013, 01:09:20 PM
Come on, proper laws don't really apply any more once you antagonize law enforcers.

In theory, they might, but in practice, how exactly are you going to law enforce upon the law enforcers? Get the Green Berets to raid the LAPD?

Then what if the Green Berets decide they don't really respect the law to remain innocent until convicted by a proper process to be guilty as charged?

I thought that was why you had Internal Affairs for one? I thought America was all about checks and balances and separation of powers. With your train of thought all of that goes out of the window.

If we use your logic, what is stopping police officers from abusing their powers against innocents? You would quickly end up with the stereotypical police like you have in eastern Europe and Africa, where getting a uniform is basically like getting a license to extort money from people.

The fact that a lot of the mechanisms in place to stop such abuse is not working is a different matter. But the point is that in a functioning democracy where rule of law applies, you cannot have justified murder from law enforcement "just because they were antagonized" or "rumour has it that he will not surrender and be taken alive".

If you have that then banana republic is not far from reality. (and slippery slope argument is complete)

Cassiuss
February 13 2013, 01:16:13 PM
If you have that then banana republic is not far from reality. (and slippery slope argument is complete)

From Wiki: "Banana republic is a political science term for a politically unstable country whose economy is largely dependent on the export of a single limited-resource product, such as fruits or minerals. It typically has stratified social classes, including a large, impoverished working class and a ruling plutocracy that comprises the elites of business, politics, and the military.[1] This politico-economic oligarchy controls the primary-sector productions and thereby exploit the country's economy."

Just in case you were curious.

smagd
February 13 2013, 02:17:58 PM
I really, like, said "in theory".

I'll admit that occasionally Internal Affairs or even a proper lawsuit will succeed against a cop and get him fired, or worse.

Especially, say, if he's a dirty snitching liberal (like Chris Dorner).

In practice however once you're a cop you're part of the system and it takes some degree of public rioting.

Tellenta
February 13 2013, 02:23:42 PM
2013 Let the nigger burn.

AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!!

Shit makes me sick and if the police want to see him literally burn in this fashion it just makes me sympathize with Dorner more. Nothing but a lynch mob.

Dorner did state in his manifesto that he would not be taken alive. If they somehow determined that he was the only occupant of the cabin, why not burn it to the ground?

More to the point why would you risk the lives of the fire fighters when the person inside would happily shoot them?

Anyways this thread definitely didn't get any help by being moved to srsbsns, not very shocked.

Alistair
February 13 2013, 02:47:51 PM
Because it is the police's job to get people alive if possible and make sure people go to court for one?

The Police's job is to enforce Law, and protect the Public.

This (distasteful as it was) appears to be a "Japan at End of WWII" situation.

How many L.E.O. lives (potentially) was an extended standoff, potential for escape, and eventually an armed invasion of his location worth?


On one hand it seems that a lot of people rant about people getting killed by drones without due trial, but burning a man alive? That's entirely acceptable!

Agreed. Consistency of view should hold that objection to one would entail objection to the other.

Pattern
February 13 2013, 03:09:59 PM
Martyred. GJ LAPD.

cullnean
February 13 2013, 03:12:59 PM
Martyred. GJ LAPD.

C

Any one that condones this is mental

Tapatalk

Xiang Jiao
February 13 2013, 04:30:49 PM
Because it is the police's job to get people alive if possible and make sure people go to court for one?

What if it turns out that he didn't write in the manifesto that he would not be caught alive?

On one hand it seems that a lot of people rant about people getting killed by drones without due trial, but burning a man alive? That's entirely acceptable! (protip: It is not acceptable for a mulititude of reasons, and it should not be necessary to explain them. Unless of course you live in Somalia).

You aren't looking at this rationally.

1) Suspect won't be taken alive.
2) Has dug himself into a defensive position.
3) He is continuing to kill your officers.
4) Tear gas isn't working.
5) Fire is the next logical step. He could have months of food in there, so you can't wait him out. If Dorner didn't want to die, he would have come out.

cullnean
February 13 2013, 04:53:59 PM
Because it is the police's job to get people alive if possible and make sure people go to court for one?

What if it turns out that he didn't write in the manifesto that he would not be caught alive?

On one hand it seems that a lot of people rant about people getting killed by drones without due trial, but burning a man alive? That's entirely acceptable! (protip: It is not acceptable for a mulititude of reasons, and it should not be necessary to explain them. Unless of course you live in Somalia).

You aren't looking at this rationally.

1) Suspect won't be taken alive.
2) Has dug himself into a defensive position.
3) He is continuing to kill your officers.
4) Tear gas isn't working.
5) Fire is the next logical step. He could have months of food in there, so you can't wait him out. If Dorner didn't want to die, he would have come out.

Fire is a logical tactic? Are you high?

Tapatalk

Straight Hustlin
February 13 2013, 04:54:09 PM
Has there been any report on how the fire actually started? I have a hard time imagining the cops just ran up and torched the bitch or threw a molotov through the window. I've heard in the past that flash bang grenades can sometimes start fires, is there any truth to that?

Hast
February 13 2013, 04:55:24 PM
Because it is the police's job to get people alive if possible and make sure people go to court for one?

What if it turns out that he didn't write in the manifesto that he would not be caught alive?

On one hand it seems that a lot of people rant about people getting killed by drones without due trial, but burning a man alive? That's entirely acceptable! (protip: It is not acceptable for a mulititude of reasons, and it should not be necessary to explain them. Unless of course you live in Somalia).

You aren't looking at this rationally.

1) Suspect won't be taken alive.
2) Has dug himself into a defensive position.
3) He is continuing to kill your officers.
4) Tear gas isn't working.
5) Fire is the next logical step. He could have months of food in there, so you can't wait him out. If Dorner didn't want to die, he would have come out.

1. Fair enough, but did they try? Didn't take much time before they set the house on fire.
2. So he is contained.
3. Not if they set up a perimeter.
4. See 1-3
5. He could also have hostages.

The whole thing feels rushed and to an outsider it really looks like a bunch of gung Ho cops bent on revenge.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

Xiang Jiao
February 13 2013, 05:02:59 PM
The whole thing feels rushed and to an outsider it really looks like a bunch of gung Ho cops bent on revenge.

It was a day long stand off, so that's a lot of manpower being wasted by one deranged lunatic. We don't know all the relevant facts here. Perhaps Dorner started the fire himself? I would have burned him the fuck out, assuming he had no hostages. Usually when someone has a hostage, they will say so.

Edit: Supposedly, Dorner shot himself, so that feels like an appropriate end for him.

Melichor
February 13 2013, 05:13:36 PM
Tbere are reports of a single gunshot before the fire so possible he comitted suicide

Sent via magic

dpidcoe
February 13 2013, 05:14:44 PM
The whole thing feels rushed and to an outsider it really looks like a bunch of gung Ho cops bent on revenge. It was.

Keorythe
February 13 2013, 06:19:14 PM
Because it is the police's job to get people alive if possible and make sure people go to court for one?

Sort of yes, sort of no. Your job is to make arrests but if the situation is such that you're life is in danger then the choice of killing the bad guy or attempting to take more risks to apprehend him alive is ultimately up to the officer and few will judge him otherwise. There isn't an obligation to take more risks and IA isn't going to come down on you for it.


I've heard in the past that flash bang grenades can sometimes start fires, is there any truth to that?

Flash bangs can and do set stuff on fire. Mostly cotton based materials like cheap couches or curtains. But deploying flashbangs is only used when making entry or if breaking up crowds (launched version). No point in tossing them in alone for the sake of shaking him up. Maybe they tried to make entry and threw in a fuck ton of flashbangs while attempting to make entry. Maybe he set the fire himself.

Xiang Jiao
February 13 2013, 06:41:08 PM
I've heard in the past that flash bang grenades can sometimes start fires, is there any truth to that?

Flash bangs can and do set stuff on fire. Mostly cotton based materials like cheap couches or curtains. But deploying flashbangs is only used when making entry or if breaking up crowds (launched version). No point in tossing them in alone for the sake of shaking him up. Maybe they tried to make entry and threw in a fuck ton of flashbangs while attempting to make entry. Maybe he set the fire himself.

Police tore down all four walls of the cabin with an APC. No real need for flash bang grenades in this scenario.

Jason Marshall
February 13 2013, 07:11:55 PM
Fuck it.

http://i.qkme.me/3sz500.jpg

smuggo
February 13 2013, 08:42:01 PM
RIP Chocolate Rambo

o7 o7 o7 o7

Cue1*
February 13 2013, 10:59:11 PM
Flash bangs can and do set stuff on fire. Mostly cotton based materials like cheap couches or curtains. But deploying flashbangs is only used when making entry or if breaking up crowds (launched version). No point in tossing them in alone for the sake of shaking him up. Maybe they tried to make entry and threw in a fuck ton of flashbangs while attempting to make entry. Maybe he set the fire himself.

What the hell would make them want to make entry? As far as I know, he didn't say he had a hostage, so what would make them risk their lives for entry when they can just wait him out?

Jason Marshall
February 13 2013, 11:19:25 PM
Flash bangs can and do set stuff on fire. Mostly cotton based materials like cheap couches or curtains. But deploying flashbangs is only used when making entry or if breaking up crowds (launched version). No point in tossing them in alone for the sake of shaking him up. Maybe they tried to make entry and threw in a fuck ton of flashbangs while attempting to make entry. Maybe he set the fire himself.

What the hell would make them want to make entry? As far as I know, he didn't say he had a hostage, so what would make them risk their lives for entry when they can just wait him out?

Best part is that they aren't going to pay to fix the place. =D

Devec
February 13 2013, 11:33:36 PM
Flash bangs can and do set stuff on fire. Mostly cotton based materials like cheap couches or curtains. But deploying flashbangs is only used when making entry or if breaking up crowds (launched version). No point in tossing them in alone for the sake of shaking him up. Maybe they tried to make entry and threw in a fuck ton of flashbangs while attempting to make entry. Maybe he set the fire himself.

What the hell would make them want to make entry? As far as I know, he didn't say he had a hostage, so what would make them risk their lives for entry when they can just wait him out?

Best part is that they aren't going to pay to fix the place. =D

And they won't have to pay out the 1m $ either!

Synapse
February 14 2013, 03:33:54 AM
Flash bangs can and do set stuff on fire. Mostly cotton based materials like cheap couches or curtains. But deploying flashbangs is only used when making entry or if breaking up crowds (launched version). No point in tossing them in alone for the sake of shaking him up. Maybe they tried to make entry and threw in a fuck ton of flashbangs while attempting to make entry. Maybe he set the fire himself.

What the hell would make them want to make entry? As far as I know, he didn't say he had a hostage, so what would make them risk their lives for entry when they can just wait him out?

Best part is that they aren't going to pay to fix the place. =D

Wait what? Police can destroy your house, let it burn down, and walk away?

Xiang Jiao
February 14 2013, 04:13:25 AM
Flash bangs can and do set stuff on fire. Mostly cotton based materials like cheap couches or curtains. But deploying flashbangs is only used when making entry or if breaking up crowds (launched version). No point in tossing them in alone for the sake of shaking him up. Maybe they tried to make entry and threw in a fuck ton of flashbangs while attempting to make entry. Maybe he set the fire himself.

What the hell would make them want to make entry? As far as I know, he didn't say he had a hostage, so what would make them risk their lives for entry when they can just wait him out?

Best part is that they aren't going to pay to fix the place. =D

Wait what? Police can destroy your house, let it burn down, and walk away?

I think that's the purpose of having home insurance.

Synapse
February 14 2013, 04:29:00 AM
Flash bangs can and do set stuff on fire. Mostly cotton based materials like cheap couches or curtains. But deploying flashbangs is only used when making entry or if breaking up crowds (launched version). No point in tossing them in alone for the sake of shaking him up. Maybe they tried to make entry and threw in a fuck ton of flashbangs while attempting to make entry. Maybe he set the fire himself.

What the hell would make them want to make entry? As far as I know, he didn't say he had a hostage, so what would make them risk their lives for entry when they can just wait him out?

Best part is that they aren't going to pay to fix the place. =D

Wait what? Police can destroy your house, let it burn down, and walk away?

I think that's the purpose of having home insurance.

Didnt know police action was covered. Are you sure?

Cue1*
February 14 2013, 04:41:49 AM
Didnt know police action was covered. Are you sure?

I would assume it is, especially if the police action was not directed at you. AFAIK, the building did not belong to Dorner.

Xiang Jiao
February 14 2013, 04:46:09 AM
Flash bangs can and do set stuff on fire. Mostly cotton based materials like cheap couches or curtains. But deploying flashbangs is only used when making entry or if breaking up crowds (launched version). No point in tossing them in alone for the sake of shaking him up. Maybe they tried to make entry and threw in a fuck ton of flashbangs while attempting to make entry. Maybe he set the fire himself.

What the hell would make them want to make entry? As far as I know, he didn't say he had a hostage, so what would make them risk their lives for entry when they can just wait him out?

Best part is that they aren't going to pay to fix the place. =D

Wait what? Police can destroy your house, let it burn down, and walk away?

I think that's the purpose of having home insurance.

Didnt know police action was covered. Are you sure?

No, not sure, but pending an arson investigation, I would assume it could be covered under fire insurance. If the police had decided to level the cabin with a bulldozer, perhaps not.

Lallante
February 14 2013, 10:06:06 AM
Pretty clearcut case of (attempting to) burn a guy to death because you are pissed he shot your mates.

Hope the police get in some serious trouble for this shit.

Jason Marshall
February 14 2013, 12:10:26 PM
Would you send in firefighters if you knew their was a man shooting people in the area the fire was in?

Listening to the radio calls and some analysis by people who listen to scanners all day makes me think that it really was not intentionally set. Set by their flashbangs and gas grenades. Regardless of how the fire started I do not blame them for not sending firefighters in.

Lallante
February 14 2013, 12:39:14 PM
Would you send in firefighters if you knew their was a man shooting people in the area the fire was in?

Listening to the radio calls and some analysis by people who listen to scanners all day makes me think that it really was not intentionally set. Set by their flashbangs and gas grenades. Regardless of how the fire started I do not blame them for not sending firefighters in.

Would you deliberately do something incredibly likely to start a fire in such a situation? There are tonnes of recordings and witnesses saying they could hear "send in the burners" over the police radio channel and similar, and the architect who designed the cabin was consulted on which parts of it were flamable (all of it). "burners" are pyrotechnic grenades often used to start fires.

There's no evidence they intended to storm the cabin at that point, so why throw in grenades at all?

This is being reported by the Guardian, HuffPo etc, its not some fringe idea:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/14/christopher-dorner-fire-police

smagd
February 14 2013, 12:46:23 PM
Bloody ninja :) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/14/christopher-dorner-fire-police):


Swat teams lobbed traditional teargas canisters into the cabin but as Dorner kept firing they switched to pyrotechnic ones. "It does generate a lot of heat. We introduced those canisters into the residence and a fire erupted," said McMahon. Such devices were called burners, he said.

The spokesman's insistence that the blaze was not intentional appeared to be put in question by an exchange between deputies at the scene during the scene. The exchange was heard on a police scanner and published by the journalist Max Blumenthal.

"We're gonna go ahead with the plan with the burner. Like we talked about," said one deputy. Minutes later another deputy's voice said: "The burner's deployed and we have a fire." Social media buzzed with claims that police had sought to burn Dorner alive.


The cops first used traditional tear gas into the cabin. That didn't flush Dorner out. So they used 7 which are known in law enforcement jardon as incendiary tear gas or "burners". These canisters have significantly more chance of starting a fire. This gas can cause humans to have burning eyes and start to feel as if they are being starved for oxygen. It is often used to drive barricaded individuals out.

Or set fire to the house they're in and burn them alive (Dorner may have committed suicide to avoid the far worse death of being burnt alive...we don't know yet).

Jason Marshall
February 14 2013, 12:47:46 PM
Regardless of how the fire started.

I do not blame them for letting it burn. I would not send firefighters into a situation like that.

smagd
February 14 2013, 12:53:46 PM
True...
Well you could dump a load of water on him from a plane...
And drown him...

Jason Marshall
February 14 2013, 12:55:12 PM
I think that people who openly threaten a group lose some of their rights when it comes to manhunts.

If you label yourself as a threat I want to neutralize you in the most indirect way possible so you are no longer a threat.

I understand the implications this has when it comes to say, overthrowing a corrupt government, but if I was a uniformed officer of the LAPD I certainly would be thinking shoot before getting shot instead of capture and let the prosecutors do their jobs.

Rakshasa The Cat
February 14 2013, 01:22:42 PM
I think that people who openly threaten a group lose some of their rights when it comes to manhunts.

If you label yourself as a threat I want to neutralize you in the most indirect way possible so you are no longer a threat.

I understand the implications this has when it comes to say, overthrowing a corrupt government, but if I was a uniformed officer of the LAPD I certainly would be thinking shoot before getting shot instead of capture and let the prosecutors do their jobs.

Usually one would want to crack down hard on this kind of stuff, else it will happen in other less clear-cut cases.

Imagine if this kind of "they deserve it so screw the rules" way of thinking was widespread, one could end up with the cops shooting at innocent people in cars that looked... errr...

Jason Marshall
February 14 2013, 01:29:29 PM
I think that people who openly threaten a group lose some of their rights when it comes to manhunts.

If you label yourself as a threat I want to neutralize you in the most indirect way possible so you are no longer a threat.

I understand the implications this has when it comes to say, overthrowing a corrupt government, but if I was a uniformed officer of the LAPD I certainly would be thinking shoot before getting shot instead of capture and let the prosecutors do their jobs.

Usually one would want to crack down hard on this kind of stuff, else it will happen in other less clear-cut cases.

Imagine if this kind of "they deserve it so screw the rules" way of thinking was widespread, one could end up with the cops shooting at innocent people in cars that looked... errr...

I think a manifesto like his would be a pretty good metric to set the bar by.

But it takes a better man than I to suppress his survival instincts long enough to try and serve justice. That is for sure.

Ophichius
February 14 2013, 01:50:29 PM
But it takes a better man than I to suppress his survival instincts long enough to try and serve justice. That is for sure.

That's what officers of the law are supposed to be. Better men than you or I. Else why do we accord them such respect? If they're nothing but a schlub with a gun and a fancy set of clothes, they deserve no more respect than you would give another human being. What is supposed to set them apart, what is supposed to -earn- them the respect they're accorded, is that they hold themselves to a higher standard.

In this case, I think the LAPD has proven they don't deserve any special respect. They're not cops, they're uniformed thugs. Dorner made the decision to take up a rifle and become a thug himself. Nobody in this sordid tale deserves anything but contempt, for they demonstrated nothing but contempt. For the law, for human life, for compassion.

Sadly, what's going to happen is that the investigation will be inconclusive or find that 'excessive force' was used, the LAPD will receive a slap on the wrist, and everything will continue as before. At most a few people will be demoted, maybe even fired. This will all fade into the background noise of the twenty four hour news cycle within a few months, and when the investigation finally wraps up a year from now, or two years from now, it will be nothing more than a sound bite wedged between talking heads discussing which celebrities are fucking each other, and the latest meaningless drivel about overpaid sports players.

-O

Keorythe
February 14 2013, 02:29:39 PM
Didnt know police action was covered. Are you sure?

All law enforcement agencies have what is akin to "liability insurance" to pay for any damages or accidental loss of life occurred in the line of duty. This is mandatory for a department to exist.




I think that people who openly threaten a group lose some of their rights when it comes to manhunts.

If you label yourself as a threat I want to neutralize you in the most indirect way possible so you are no longer a threat.

I understand the implications this has when it comes to say, overthrowing a corrupt government, but if I was a uniformed officer of the LAPD I certainly would be thinking shoot before getting shot instead of capture and let the prosecutors do their jobs.

Usually one would want to crack down hard on this kind of stuff, else it will happen in other less clear-cut cases.

Imagine if this kind of "they deserve it so screw the rules" way of thinking was widespread, one could end up with the cops shooting at innocent people in cars that looked... errr...

I think a manifesto like his would be a pretty good metric to set the bar by.

But it takes a better man than I to suppress his survival instincts long enough to try and serve justice. That is for sure.

Take in mind that manifestos can be forged. Rakshasa is right in respects to the rules.

Tarminic
February 14 2013, 03:23:56 PM
I think that people who openly threaten a group lose some of their rights when it comes to manhunts.

If you label yourself as a threat I want to neutralize you in the most indirect way possible so you are no longer a threat.

I understand the implications this has when it comes to say, overthrowing a corrupt government, but if I was a uniformed officer of the LAPD I certainly would be thinking shoot before getting shot instead of capture and let the prosecutors do their jobs.
That's not how the justice system works...at least that's not how it's supposed to work. Your rights are only constrained by the rights of other people - inciting others to violence is illegal despite your right to free speech.

But we can't just decide that someone no longer has the right to a trial because he's "clearly a bad guy" or "obviously in the wrong". The law is not defined by our passions, but by our reason.

Jason Marshall
February 14 2013, 03:33:01 PM
I guess I should specify I said that as if I was an individual tasked with catching someone who has openly said he will shoot on sight and is waging war against me. That sort of puts his legal rights in the back of my mind.

But Ophichius said it best above.

Zeekar
February 14 2013, 03:38:51 PM
I guess I should specify I said that as if I was an individual tasked with catching someone who has openly said he will shoot on sight and is waging war against me. That sort of puts his legal rights in the back of my mind.

But Ophichius said it best above.

Opihichius isnt agreeing with you.

Jason Marshall
February 14 2013, 03:44:15 PM
I guess I should specify I said that as if I was an individual tasked with catching someone who has openly said he will shoot on sight and is waging war against me. That sort of puts his legal rights in the back of my mind.

But Ophichius said it best above.

Opihichius isnt agreeing with you.

I understand but I agreed with what he said after I made my comment.

But Ophichius said it best above. (LEOs need to be of a higher standard)

cullnean
February 14 2013, 03:57:13 PM
And you are allowed to own guns o. 0

Tapatalk

Straight Hustlin
February 14 2013, 04:22:33 PM
It really bothers me when people try to paint shit like this in black and white. Its all shades of grey and no one involved is in the right. Are the polices' tactics questionable, absolutely. But on flip side of that, the duty of the police is to serve and protect, and that extends to everyone including their fellow officers, the fire fighters & any civilans in the area. To the people who say the police should've taken him alive. How many more lives is that worth? 1? Another 3? A Dozen? To be fair maybe no one would've died, but we will never know. All we can say for certain today is that Dorner's life was the last one taken by this rampant clusterfuck.

Does that make the police right? No, But It certainly doesn't make them entirely wrong either. Forgive me for quoting BSG, but Its hard to take the moral high ground when we're all standing in the mud. Dorner wanted officers dead. Officers wanted Dorner dead. Sadly both got what they were after.

Tarminic
February 14 2013, 04:30:45 PM
While that's true, I think it's important to remember that this is the same police force that lost the ability to manage itself for ten years due to corruption, abuse, and civil rights violations. While correlation is not causation, I think skepticism is both reasonable and warranted.

Hast
February 14 2013, 04:31:06 PM
It really bothers me when people try to paint shit like this in black and white. Its all shades of grey and no one involved is in the right. Are the polices' tactics questionable, absolutely. But on flip side of that, the duty of the police is to serve and protect, and that extends to everyone including their fellow officers, the fire fighters & any civilans in the area. To the people who say the police should've taken him alive. How many more lives is that worth? 1? Another 3? A Dozen? To be fair maybe no one would've died, but we will never know. All we can say for certain today is that Dorner's life was the last one taken by this rampant clusterfuck.

Does that make the police right? No, But It certainly doesn't make them entirely wrong either. Forgive me for quoting BSG, but Its hard to take the moral high ground when we're all standing in the mud. Dorner wanted officers dead. Officers wanted Dorner dead. Sadly both got what they were after.

The point we are trying to make is that the officers should not want Dorner dead. That is not what being a police is about. You are supposed to uphold the law, not go on some personal vendetta. Regardless if things could be handled differently or not, the way the LAPD looks in this case is like a bunch of uniformed thugs hellbent on killing a person without a trial. And last I checked Judge Dredd was fiction and not reality.

Ophichius
February 14 2013, 07:11:21 PM
It really bothers me when people try to paint shit like this in black and white. Its all shades of grey and no one involved is in the right. Are the polices' tactics questionable, absolutely. But on flip side of that, the duty of the police is to serve and protect, and that extends to everyone including their fellow officers, the fire fighters & any civilans in the area. To the people who say the police should've taken him alive. How many more lives is that worth? 1? Another 3? A Dozen? To be fair maybe no one would've died, but we will never know. All we can say for certain today is that Dorner's life was the last one taken by this rampant clusterfuck.

I'm pretty sure I painted it in shades of black and black actually. If not, let me reiterate: Dorner and the LAPD acted on the same moral plane, personal vindictive actions for the purpose of self-gratification taken instead of the mature, reasoned, and difficult choice to do their duty, obey the law, and respect human life. Neither one was right, admirable, honorable, just, or any other positive adjective you might care to use.


Does that make the police right? No, But It certainly doesn't make them entirely wrong either.

Actually, you're wrong. Execution of a suspect without a trial is entirely wrong. And from everything I've read, it was an execution (And a particularly grisly one at that.) There was malice aforethought in the use of incendiaries. The problem is that you're viewing this as a zero-sum game where the value of 'right' is divisible but ultimately finite, and if one party is right then the other is wrong. Nobody in this clusterfuck was right.


Forgive me for quoting BSG, but Its hard to take the moral high ground when we're all standing in the mud. Dorner wanted officers dead. Officers wanted Dorner dead. Sadly both got what they were after.

To put my own take on what others have said. I can understand -wanting- Dorner dead, the fact that the officers appear to have acted upon that want is reprehensible however. They abandoned their duty to administer justice, in favor of enacting vengeance. In doing so they failed the very core of what it means to be a law enforcement officer.

-O

Reed Tiburon
February 15 2013, 02:39:20 AM
http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2010/02/the_rage_of_the_average_joe.html

always relevant


The note tells you why he was frustrated, but it does not tell you why he killed anyone. If you want to use it for the former, go ahead. But the note is as informative as Mercury in Libra for the latter.

..

In this case, people are going to use it as "see how the government drives people crazy?" and simultaneously by others to as "these anti-government nuts are crazy."

In other words, if you're reading it, it's for you.

Pacefalm
February 15 2013, 07:25:46 AM
I can not believe people are saying that Dorner is just as bad as the police.
He purposefully killed innocent people just to make a point.
Sure "lapd fired on innocents too lol!1" but their reason was NOT to kill a bunch of innocents in order to make a point, their reason was to prevent a dangerous guy from being a threat. Obviously their methods are questionable, but saying they are even remotely on the same moral plane is just :psyduck:

Rakshasa The Cat
February 15 2013, 08:10:02 AM
I can not believe people are saying that Dorner is just as bad as the police.
He purposefully killed innocent people just to make a point.
Sure "lapd fired on innocents too lol!1" but their reason was NOT to kill a bunch of innocents in order to make a point, their reason was to prevent a dangerous guy from being a threat. Obviously their methods are questionable, but saying they are even remotely on the same moral plane is just :psyduck:

Was not really sure I was going to write this, but...

The evolution of 'revenge', despite its often detrimental effect on the individual doing the deed, has been selected for due to its beneficial effect on the community at large. Basically the potential of being on the receiving end of someone taking revenge has through the ages been a factor in keeping people from being (more of a) bastards towards each other.

Now in more developed societies other, ostensibly better, means of settling grievances has developed. E.g. village elders, rule of law, and today what is supposed to be fair and blind justice.

There is however an implicit compact underlying the system we have, and when a group of individuals feel that this is not being upheld then it is not just possible, but natural, for some individuals to take on the persona of revenge. Sure that person will be one of the people who was on the edge already, however this is no different from who would be the first ones to flip in pre-law societies.

Also he didn't kill 'innocent' people, as he was very particular with who he saw as targets. Basically if the cops want to live in a world where they and their families are innocent, they should start by ensuring that the system to which they belong upholds the highest standard of morality.

Pacefalm
February 15 2013, 09:14:41 AM
Imagine he was a guy in a shopping mall wearing a bomb jacket. Would you care just as much that they killed him instead of trying to take him alive? If not, then what exactly is the difference?

This was someone who has made very clear that he is
a) a threat
b) not going to back down

Hast
February 15 2013, 10:22:12 AM
Imagine he was a guy in a shopping mall wearing a bomb jacket. Would you care just as much that they killed him instead of trying to take him alive? If not, then what exactly is the difference?

This was someone who has made very clear that he is
a) a threat
b) not going to back down

In a shopping mall he has potential to kill or wound civilians and it is a scenario where the person is difficult to contain.

In this case he was cornered in a cabin that could have been cordoned off. He had no chance to escape, and the police could have just backed off a bit and set up a perimiter and waited him out. Perhaps after a while he would have given up?

Instead they cornered him and shot incendiary devices at him, in what appears to be a revenge-driven cowboy action.

Rakshasa The Cat
February 15 2013, 10:28:30 AM
In a shopping mall he has potential to kill or wound civilians and it is a scenario where the person is difficult to contain.

In this case he was cornered in a cabin that could have been cordoned off. He had no chance to escape, and the police could have just backed off a bit and set up a perimiter and waited him out. Perhaps after a while he would have given up?

What???

He was just FEETS away from the squirrel mall, where all the local squirrels go to shop for nuts. Imagine the shitstorm the police would be facing if they let any squirrel kids get hurt.

Ophichius
February 15 2013, 11:12:12 AM
Imagine he was a guy in a shopping mall wearing a bomb jacket. Would you care just as much that they killed him instead of trying to take him alive? If not, then what exactly is the difference?

This was someone who has made very clear that he is
a) a threat
b) not going to back down

Wearing a bomb jacket in a mall he presents an immediate threat. Cornered in a cabin he is not an immediate threat. That's the difference. If the suspect does not present a clear and immediate threat to the safety of officers or civilians, use of lethal force is not justified. If he'd been shot to death exchanging gunfire with the cops from a cabin window? Justified. Burned to death hiding in the basement of a cabin? Not justified. It's a fine line, but it does exist.


I can not believe people are saying that Dorner is just as bad as the police.
He purposefully killed innocent people just to make a point.
Sure "lapd fired on innocents too lol!1" but their reason was NOT to kill a bunch of innocents in order to make a point, their reason was to prevent a dangerous guy from being a threat. Obviously their methods are questionable, but saying they are even remotely on the same moral plane is just :psyduck:

You're missing the point entirely as to why the LAPD are just as bad as Dorner. They abandoned their sworn duty to administer justice and act in a professional, responsible manner. To place law and order above emotion and instinct. They betrayed the very foundation of what the police are supposed to stand for in pursuit of revenge. They lowered themselves to Dorner's level. Only by virtue of -blind luck- did they not also kill innocents in their quest for vengeance.

Dorner killed innocents, and that makes him a reprehensible monster. The LAPD abandoned their sworn duty to serve the law, to uphold justice, and to be competent and professional in the face of threats to the above. As a society we allow the police a wide range of powers, but only with the understanding that they will employ those powers competently, after careful judgement and consideration, in accordance with the law, and with restraint. The LAPD violated that understanding in every way. They degraded themselves to be no better than the man they were hunting.

If I discharge a weapon and it kills an innocent person, I am guilty of either negligent homicide or homicide. The LAPD avoided being guilty of that only because they are so utterly inept that they cannot actually hit targets they aim at. And if you think the LAPD's primary motivation was to stop this guy for justice, or to protect innocents, you have a lot more faith in their professionalism and ethics than is warranted by either their history or their recent actions.

-O

Pacefalm
February 15 2013, 07:03:13 PM
Ok so let me get this straight.
1) A guy shoots a bunch of civilians, is called a monster (justifiably so). He had made clear that he will not go down without a fight.
2) He hides in a cabin. Police fires tear gas cannisters inside to get him to surrender.
3) The tear gas cannisters start a fire inside.

Now. In YOUR ideal world, the police should have stopped whatever they were doing, immediately called up (civilian?) firemen and tell them to go towards this armed man in a cabin, to stop the fire from killing him? Why? Just so they could uphold their professionalism in terms of the law? You are needlessly putting even more people in danger. You dismiss the bomb jacket scenario (thanks for the negreps I got about that btw!) because "he is not an immediate threat". Yet when you have an armed and angry guy in a cabin, your plan is to send firemen there? As if he is not an immediate threat to civilians then?

Note that the police DID NOT start the fire on purpose. There might be some value to your argument if the police were intentionally torching his cabin, but this is not the case and therefor you don't.
You are also bringing the history of the police into this while it has no bearing on this particular situation. At this point you are just trying to make the police look bad just to defend your argument that they are just as bad as Dorner. Last of all you pretend to know the motivations behind the actions of police officers, which I think is an unnecessary and baseless assumption.

Xiang Jiao
February 15 2013, 07:11:14 PM
If Dorner didn't want to die a firey death, he should have surrendered. Instead, he committed suicide. He said he wasn't going to be taken alive, and it seems that he meant it. Gotta love conviction.

Tarminic
February 15 2013, 07:21:26 PM
Note that the police DID NOT start the fire on purpose. There might be some value to your argument if the police were intentionally torching his cabin, but this is not the case and therefor you don't.
Really? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/chris-dorner-fire-possibly-started-by-police_n_2677442.html

In addition, a video that has surfaced on YouTube appears to include another recording of police audio from Tuesday's standoff. In the audio, which could not be independently confirmed, a voice says, "We're gonna go forward with the plan, with the burn ... Like we talked about."

A short while later a male voice says: "Seven burners deployed and we have a fire." A female voice then responds: "Copy. Seven burners deployed and we have a fire."

Lending credence to the audio tapes is the reporting of journalist and author Max Blumenthal, who as The Guardian notes, was listening to the police scanners on Tuesday and live-tweeting what he heard.



You are also bringing the history of the police into this while it has no bearing on this particular situation. At this point you are just trying to make the police look bad just to defend your argument that they are just as bad as Dorner. Last of all you pretend to know the motivations behind the actions of police officers, which I think is an unnecessary and baseless assumption.
I'd say it has a highly relevant bearing on this specific situation. Until 4 years ago, the entire LAPD force was under the supervision of the federal government due to a massive corruption and abuse scandal that involved - among other things - excessive force and civil rights violations.

Chris Dorner was fired from the LAPD because they ruled that the filed a false report against his partner...for using excessive force against a cuffed black man. Funny, last week they decided that they should reopen the report and hearings (http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2013/02/09/12489/lapd-manhunt-day-3-dorner-search-continues-he-can-/) that led to his firing.

No one here thinks that Dorner is a good guy. But just because he's not, it doesn't make the LAPD the good guys either.

Alistair
February 15 2013, 07:24:46 PM
Also he didn't kill 'innocent' people, as he was very particular with who he saw as targets.

What crime(s) were Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence guilty of?

Straight Hustlin
February 15 2013, 07:25:19 PM
Also he didn't kill 'innocent' people, as he was very particular with who he saw as targets. Basically if the cops want to live in a world where they and their families are innocent, they should start by ensuring that the system to which they belong upholds the highest standard of morality.

[/QUOTE]

Umm, You do know that the first people Dorner killed was the daughter of the officer who represented him in his lost case against the LAPD, and her Fiance. The Daughter & her Fiance, not the man involved. His next step was to gun down two officers sitting in their patrol car. Two officers that had nothing to do with him, or his case. Please tell me more about how Dorner didn't kill innocent people to get his revenge.

Unless you believe in some kind of collective guilt that gets to be shared by the progeny & associates of the offender.

Cue1*
February 15 2013, 07:28:10 PM
Wearing a bomb jacket in a mall he presents an immediate threat. Cornered in a cabin he is not an immediate threat. That's the difference. If the suspect does not present a clear and immediate threat to the safety of officers or civilians, use of lethal force is not justified.

Not true. Although it's different from state to state, the use of lethal force is authorized to stop the escape of someone who if not stopped would cause harm.

For my state:

NC GS 15A-401(d)(2)b. To effect an arrest or to prevent the escape from custody of a person who he reasonably believes is attempting to escape by means of a deadly weapon, or who by his conduct or any other means indicates that he presents an imminent threat of death or serious physical injury to others unless apprehended without delay;

the thing from the buzz buzz

Xiang Jiao
February 15 2013, 07:29:50 PM
Unless you believe in some kind of collective guilt that gets to be shared by the progeny & associates of the offender.

Dorner believed this. It's right in his manifesto, so by his logic, all cops and their families were valid enemy combatants or some bullshit.

Hast
February 15 2013, 08:00:36 PM
now, the only person who claimed that was Rakshasa. The rest of us haven't condoned what Dorner did, it is just that we hold what the LAPD did much higher, intentionally torching the building and shooting up old grannies just because they happened to drive the same car as Dorner.

definatelynotKKassandra
February 15 2013, 08:37:42 PM
now, the only person who claimed that was Rakshasa. The rest of us haven't condoned what Dorner did, it is just that we hold what the LAPD did much higher, intentionally torching the building and shooting up old grannies just because they happened to drive a car.

Fixed.

Xiang Jiao
February 15 2013, 08:51:01 PM
When I hole up in a vacant cabin with an arsenal of weapons, I hope that you guys are able to coax the police tasked to capture me to hold themselves to a higher standard and give me ample time to formulate an escape/attack plan, or call in allies for distraction/reinforcements (assuming I am intelligent and charismatic enough to have allies).

Hast
February 15 2013, 09:03:05 PM
assuming I am intelligent and charismatic enough to have allies.

Don't count on it.

:P

Pacefalm
February 15 2013, 10:02:20 PM
Note that the police DID NOT start the fire on purpose. There might be some value to your argument if the police were intentionally torching his cabin, but this is not the case and therefor you don't.
Really? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/chris-dorner-fire-possibly-started-by-police_n_2677442.html

In addition, a video that has surfaced on YouTube appears to include another recording of police audio from Tuesday's standoff. In the audio, which could not be independently confirmed, a voice says, "We're gonna go forward with the plan, with the burn ... Like we talked about."

A short while later a male voice says: "Seven burners deployed and we have a fire." A female voice then responds: "Copy. Seven burners deployed and we have a fire."

Lending credence to the audio tapes is the reporting of journalist and author Max Blumenthal, who as The Guardian notes, was listening to the police scanners on Tuesday and live-tweeting what he heard.


I hope you do know that "burner" is a slang term that police officers sometimes use for tear gas? Of course, the media interprets it as a napalm bomb and so does every sheep that follows.

Tarminic
February 15 2013, 11:12:16 PM
Note that the police DID NOT start the fire on purpose. There might be some value to your argument if the police were intentionally torching his cabin, but this is not the case and therefor you don't.
Really? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/13/chris-dorner-fire-possibly-started-by-police_n_2677442.html

In addition, a video that has surfaced on YouTube appears to include another recording of police audio from Tuesday's standoff. In the audio, which could not be independently confirmed, a voice says, "We're gonna go forward with the plan, with the burn ... Like we talked about."

A short while later a male voice says: "Seven burners deployed and we have a fire." A female voice then responds: "Copy. Seven burners deployed and we have a fire."

Lending credence to the audio tapes is the reporting of journalist and author Max Blumenthal, who as The Guardian notes, was listening to the police scanners on Tuesday and live-tweeting what he heard.


I hope you do know that "burner" is a slang term that police officers sometimes use for tear gas? Of course, the media interprets it as a napalm bomb and so does every sheep that follows.
It's slang for, specifically, a Pyrotechnic/Incendiary Tear Gas Grenade, which are produce a fire in the process of emitting gas, and it's only intended to be used outdoors and where the chance of starting a fire is relatively small. I have a hard time believing those officers were under any illusion as to what would happen when you toss seven of them into a wooden cabin. In addition, they didn't just refer to "burners" in the audio, you could also hear "we're going to fucking burn him out", "let's burn it down", and "fucking burn this motherfucker".

I'm not saying that we know what happened with certainty. But given the suspect's crimes, the history of the department, the zealousness with which he was pursued, and the audio recordings of the event, I suspicion is entirely reasonable.

Hast
February 16 2013, 09:28:22 AM
Additionaly, I would assume that part of the reason Dorner did not consider surrendering is because he probably, and most likely rightly so, felt that he would not be permitted to surrender by the LAPD.

dpidcoe
February 16 2013, 10:04:08 AM
Additionaly, I would assume that part of the reason Dorner did not consider surrendering is because he probably, and most likely rightly so, felt that he would not be permitted to surrender by the LAPD.
Also, LAPD have just made the next guy to go nuts and do something like this all that much less likely to surrender.

Badboy K
February 16 2013, 10:24:43 AM
This is gona be a great film soon

Ophichius
February 16 2013, 01:56:15 PM
You dismiss the bomb jacket scenario (thanks for the negreps I got about that btw!) because "he is not an immediate threat". Yet when you have an armed and angry guy in a cabin, your plan is to send firemen there? As if he is not an immediate threat to civilians then?

A) I didn't negrep you, thank you for implying I did though. Character assassination is classy.

B) No my plan is for the cops to not fucking use incendiaries. In a siege-type situation where the police have a total cordon there is no reason for hasty action, and no justification for firing that quantity and type of tear gas grenade into a small cabin like that. The only reasonable conclusion from the type and number of grenades used is that they were being employed for incendiary effect, not for their chemical effects.

-O

Alistair
February 17 2013, 01:30:31 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/15/us/california-dorner-death/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Dorner killed by likely sel-inflicted gunshot to head.

Change anyone's opinins of the fire?

Conspiracy/coverup?

Or something else?

Victoria Steckersaurus
February 17 2013, 05:39:25 PM
Couple different ways to look at it.

One conspiracy theory would be that that's not how he died, they just didn't want to report that he'd burned to death, easier to say that he shot himself. Helps to deflect claims that he was executed by the police.

More likely, he realized he was going to burn to death and shot himself instead.

Still highly likely that the burning cabin lead to his death (either directly or otherwise), and it's still fairly easy to make the case that the police set the fire on purpose and should be held responsible for that.

Synapse
February 17 2013, 08:30:01 PM
I'd shoot myself too if I realized the LAPD was about to burn me alive.

Keorythe
February 17 2013, 10:39:17 PM
Burning to death is a hell of a way to die. Thinking your options are a) burn to death or b) gun downed by police kind of puts a few things in perspective as to why it was self inflicted. I'm surprised he didn't attempt to shoot his way out although the LAPD has wisened up and armed themselves better since the Hollywood shootout.

This still reeks of an assassination. There are heaps of literature and protocols for dealing with barricaded suspects. Use of pyrotechnics is kind of nuts. Since Waco they're have been companies marketing launchable non-pyrotechnics to every dept. that had the budget. And LAPD has a huge damn budget. They've also got experts on hand that could talk you into buying ocean side property in Colorado. Why they didn't wheel in a wireless on a bot (getting them on a phone is pretty standard) and talk him out for a day or three is beyond me. Tear gas comes much later down the line. Forcing him that early means he would have been ready for a fight. Since he was alone, he would have suffered sleep deprivation after a few days since he would have been too worried about SWAT making entry.

Again, so many different choices to have made but they chose to use tear gas reserved for outdoor use only?

Hast
February 18 2013, 09:00:36 AM
This is the first time ever involving guns and similar where I actually agree with Keorythe.

I'm amaze

Sacul
February 18 2013, 09:20:40 AM
This is the first time ever involving guns and similar where I actually agree with Keorythe.

I'm amaze

same

Lallante
February 18 2013, 09:32:42 AM
Anyone who still claims they didn't intend to start the fire at this point has their head up their ass. Listen to the transcripts. It's completely clearcut that that was the intention.

Synapse
February 18 2013, 09:48:23 AM
I realized others may not have read the semi recent (2004) story of another overzealous police raid using military cs gas canisters which also resulted in burning house.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full

Police claimed the fire was caused by a lighted candle knocked onto a bed. Who keeps a lit candle next to the bed at 1pm on a friday in july in arizona? Nobody. Since it's a recent example of police tear gas cannisters starting a fire, I thought it relevant.

Ophichius
February 18 2013, 12:31:46 PM
I realized others may not have read the semi recent (2004) story of another overzealous police raid using military cs gas canisters which also resulted in burning house.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-08-05/news/dog-day-afternoon/full

Police claimed the fire was caused by a lighted candle knocked onto a bed. Who keeps a lit candle next to the bed at 1pm on a friday in july in arizona? Nobody. Since it's a recent example of police tear gas cannisters starting a fire, I thought it relevant.

Ah yes, Joe Arpaio's uniformed goon squad. Another 'police department' in name only.

-O

definatelynotKKassandra
February 18 2013, 01:14:02 PM
Is that the department of 'Steven Seagal crushing puppies with a tank' fame?

Tarminic
February 18 2013, 02:10:04 PM
Is that the department of 'Steven Seagal crushing puppies with a tank' fame?
The same, yes.

Lallante
February 19 2013, 03:05:35 PM
first result in google for "'Steven Seagal crushing puppies with a tank" is FHC. NEver change FHC

KathDougans
February 19 2013, 05:18:40 PM
With the death of Mr. Dorner there, does it mean that any of the things he wrote of in the manifesto (his own words, not whatever was allegedly inserted by someone else), will not be investigated in any great detail ?

Quiet investigations, finding no-one in particular to blame, and statements of "lessons will be learned" ?

Keorythe
February 19 2013, 05:35:44 PM
With the death of Mr. Dorner there, does it mean that any of the things he wrote of in the manifesto (his own words, not whatever was allegedly inserted by someone else), will not be investigated in any great detail ?

Quiet investigations, finding no-one in particular to blame, and statements of "lessons will be learned" ?

Police will review their Tactics, Techniques, Procedures (TTP's) used during the manhunt. Psychological Profile Investigators will look into this to make a profile and gain better knowledge of what set him off. That will be treated as a case study, nothing more. With the exception of his re-opened job termination case, not much else besides within the department or city.

What other investigations of past manifestos have you seen within a law enforcement department?

KathDougans
February 19 2013, 07:08:34 PM
What other investigations of past manifestos have you seen within a law enforcement department?

None that I can think of.

Internet is/was full of "Dorner is right!", "LAPD are jerks" style comments, people suggesting there were more than a few rotten apples.
Was just wondering if the outcome of the manhunt makes any difference to how any of the things allegedly wrong will be looked at.

that is:

If Dorner had been arrested, things would be said in court, local politicians would demand investigations to look at the things said in court.
But since Dorner was killed, will the local LA politicians be demanding investigations ?

Xiang Jiao
February 19 2013, 09:11:57 PM
With the death of Mr. Dorner there, does it mean that any of the things he wrote of in the manifesto (his own words, not whatever was allegedly inserted by someone else), will not be investigated in any great detail ?

Quiet investigations, finding no-one in particular to blame, and statements of "lessons will be learned" ?

Speculations presented into evidence by a violent killer are generally taken with a grain of salt.

definatelynotKKassandra
February 19 2013, 09:19:19 PM
Indeed. OTOH, as deranged rantings go, the suggestion that the LAPD is corrupt and racist is pretty reasonable.

Xiang Jiao
February 19 2013, 10:00:07 PM
Indeed. OTOH, as deranged rantings go, the suggestion that the LAPD is corrupt and racist is pretty reasonable.

Any suggestion like that should be backed up by facts, not a preconceived prejudiced notion based on speculation or any historical track record that is unrelated to Dorner's experience in the force.

Tarminic
February 19 2013, 11:00:52 PM
Indeed. OTOH, as deranged rantings go, the suggestion that the LAPD is corrupt and racist is pretty reasonable.

Any suggestion like that should be backed up by facts, not a preconceived prejudiced notion based on speculation or any historical track record that is unrelated to Dorner's experience in the force.
The LAPD was the center of the largest police corruption scandal in the US, centering around the use of excessive force and covering up wrongdoing by other officers. I have a very hard time believing, especially given how the LAPD handled Dorner's manhunt, that the Rampart Scandal isn't relevant to this discussion.

Xiang Jiao
February 20 2013, 07:13:29 PM
Indeed. OTOH, as deranged rantings go, the suggestion that the LAPD is corrupt and racist is pretty reasonable.

Any suggestion like that should be backed up by facts, not a preconceived prejudiced notion based on speculation or any historical track record that is unrelated to Dorner's experience in the force.
The LAPD was the center of the largest police corruption scandal in the US, centering around the use of excessive force and covering up wrongdoing by other officers. I have a very hard time believing, especially given how the LAPD handled Dorner's manhunt, that the Rampart Scandal isn't relevant to this discussion.

Easy. Dorner had no first-hand knowledge of any corruption that occurred previous to his stint on the force. Anything to which he could have testified during his tenure is useless now because he's a corpse. Maybe he shouldn't have been so quick to turn vigilante and he could have had his day in court to out the baddies.

ValorousBob
February 24 2013, 10:01:08 AM
I think that people who openly threaten a group lose some of their rights when it comes to manhunts.

If you label yourself as a threat I want to neutralize you in the most indirect way possible so you are no longer a threat.

I understand the implications this has when it comes to say, overthrowing a corrupt government, but if I was a uniformed officer of the LAPD I certainly would be thinking shoot before getting shot instead of capture and let the prosecutors do their jobs.

Usually one would want to crack down hard on this kind of stuff, else it will happen in other less clear-cut cases.

Imagine if this kind of "they deserve it so screw the rules" way of thinking was widespread, one could end up with the cops shooting at innocent people in cars that looked... errr...

I think a manifesto like his would be a pretty good metric to set the bar by.

But it takes a better man than I to suppress his survival instincts long enough to try and serve justice. That is for sure.

If you're going to trust his manifesto that he won't be taken alive, you have to put equal trust in the part where he said he would only attack police officers.