Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Christopher Dorner EX-LAPD out for vengence


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#91 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 February 2013 - 09:53 PM

Oh geez... I dunno...

Maybe THIS

His "manifesto" makes it clear that he does not fear death, it does not state that he is seeking death.

Additionally, just because a suspect is in a suicidal mindset doesn't mean they have waived their Constitutional rights. Lethal force should be a last resort, not the operating mandate. Why exactly did they need to force him out of the cabin less than hours after discovering he might be there? There was no risk of hostages being injured so why exactly were they hurrying in there demolishing a cabin. At worst (and certainly the least likely scenario) there was a kill order issued seeking him not to be taken alive, at best they were being a bunch of reckless cowboys.

So it seems to me that "some" people don't like the idea Americans suspected of terrorist activities being killed by drones without any trial or due process, but they're fine with someone being killed by police on U.S. soil without a trial or due process.

What a weird and fucked up world we live in.

Under some people's mindframe as long as it happens "over there" they don't care. I'm severely disappointed that people don't have a healthier skepticism of government agent actions. Also, along those lines, that by questioning those government agents you somehow sympathize or agree with the accused...

#92 Purple Flames

Purple Flames

    MC Sucka DJ

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:09 PM

I was being cynical and satirizing the fact that people think things like that don't happen.;)


WHOOOSH! My bad :oops:

#93 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:24 PM

His "manifesto" makes it clear that he does not fear death, it does not state that he is seeking death.

Additionally, just because a suspect is in a suicidal mindset doesn't mean they have waived their Constitutional rights. Lethal force should be a last resort, not the operating mandate. Why exactly did they need to force him out of the cabin less than hours after discovering he might be there? There was no risk of hostages being injured so why exactly were they hurrying in there demolishing a cabin. At worst (and certainly the least likely scenario) there was a kill order issued seeking him not to be taken alive, at best they were being a bunch of reckless cowboys.
Under some people's mindframe as long as it happens "over there" they don't care. I'm severely disappointed that people don't have a healthier skepticism of government agent actions. Also, along those lines, that by questioning those government agents you somehow sympathize or agree with the accused...


Right.. like when he talks about the fact that he won't be here to see next season's Shark Week or The Walking Dead... sure...

#94 4thHorseman

4thHorseman

    The New God

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:34 PM

Right.. like when he talks about the fact that he won't be here to see next season's Shark Week or The Walking Dead... sure...


The way I understood it was that he knew he would be dead after everything was said and done. But not because he would kill himself, but because they would kill him and not bring him in alive.

#95 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 February 2013 - 10:35 PM

Right.. like when he talks about the fact that he won't be here to see next season's Shark Week or The Walking Dead... sure...


So if someone is on a bridge and says he/she wants to commit suicide? Do the cops just push him/her off then? :roll:

#96 elessar123

elessar123

    96.5% more WUB WUB

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 13 February 2013 - 11:12 PM

So if someone is on a bridge and says he/she wants to commit suicide? Do the cops just push him/her off then? :roll:


Yes.

Spoiler


#97 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 12:05 AM

5am. Still dark outside. You're guarding the house of a police captain who is considered a highly likely target. You hear on your radio that a truck matching Dorner's description is heading your way. The truck is driving with its lights off, slowly down the center of the street. You hear gunshots (another officer opened fire down the street, but you don't know that) and the truck accelerates towards you and the other officers. What do you do?

I would want to know why two things happened. Why was incorrect information given to the officers (couldn't make out the truck too well in the dark with its lights off?), and why did the officer by himself further down the street open fire. That officer made a serious mistake (did he see the driver holding a newspaper out the window in the darkness and think it was a gun?). The actions of the other officers were not at all unreasonable given those circumstances.


How do the cops apprehend anyone who matches a description of a violent criminal? With guns drawn, in the safest place possible, and issuing commands. Why don't all cops start firing at cars that match descriptions? As for the excuse that another officer was firing rounds off...there's dipshit #1. If dipshit #1's actions led dipshit #2 to act improperly, it was still dependent on incompetant asshats. This isn't a couple of hillbillies shooting at moving objects from a porch rocking chair, it's trained LEO's.

So what do I do? Nothing, I probably run like hell and take cover. What should the LAPD do? How's about confirm their fucking target before shooting at innocent people. I don't think that's too much to expect out of our police officers.

#98 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:50 AM

How do the cops apprehend anyone who matches a description of a violent criminal? With guns drawn, in the safest place possible, and issuing commands.

The victims stated that they did not hear commands but I haven't heard that they never attempted to give any.

Why don't all cops start firing at cars that match descriptions? As for the excuse that another officer was firing rounds off...there's dipshit #1. If dipshit #1's actions led dipshit #2 to act improperly, it was still dependent on incompetant asshats. This isn't a couple of hillbillies shooting at moving objects from a porch rocking chair, it's trained LEO's.

Once shots are fired all bets are off. The other officers, some distance away, would not know who fired at who, there would certainly be no way to know that there was a mistake made. Shots are fired, truck is accelerating towards you, at that point you're defending yourself. The first officer to fire was completely wrong, he is responsible for the entire chain of events.

#99 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 14 February 2013 - 03:56 AM

Maybe because there's not enough evidence over what he allegedly did? I would have much preferred to have seen a trial here and it's shameful that the police didn't take him alive.

The pursuit involved a running gun battle in which he carjacked a vehicle, killed a sheriff's deputy, wounded another, and fired on two game wardens. What would you have them do?

Do you even attempt to understand the events which led to the outcome or would that get in the way of your anti police crusade?

#100 gunnm

gunnm

    SUPER FIGHTING ROBOT

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 04:04 AM

The pursuit involved a running gun battle in which he carjacked a vehicle, killed a sheriff's deputy, wounded another, and fired on two game wardens. What would you have them do?

Do you even attempt to understand the events which led to the outcome or would that get in the way of your anti police crusade?

I guess innocent before proven guilty doesn't fit in your right wing agenda but assuming he was guilty I'm glad he ate a bullet instead of this bullshit martyr internet dummies are making him to be.

#101 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 04:10 AM

Once shots are fired all bets are off. The other officers, some distance away, would not know who fired at who, there would certainly be no way to know that there was a mistake made. Shots are fired, truck is accelerating towards you, at that point you're defending yourself. The first officer to fire was completely wrong, he is responsible for the entire chain of events.


You're defending yourself from something you have not visually identified, that matches a vague description of a criminal's vehicle. You are a professional law enforcement officer. If you didn't take proper precautions to ensure that you are not trying to kill the wrong, innocent people, then it's time for you to choose a job with less responsibility...shrimp de-veiner.

There is no logical explanation for what happened. I'm not trying to keep hammering on you, but to even try to create an excuse, explanation, or mild justification, shows a lack of understanding of the law enforcement profession, the law, and common sense. It's absolutely insane to think that this could happen by trained professionals. It was an unbelievable Fuck-up by all officers involved.

#102 RedvsBlue

RedvsBlue

    Rocket Science Level

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 04:17 AM

I don't think anyone in this thread is defending Dorner or his actions in any way. I saw some of that on Reddit, but that's a different story. The guy was gonna die no matter what because if they had taken him into custody he would have been given the death penalty, no question.

My position has been, and will be, that I would have preferred he taken into custody rather than the LAPD taking actions which effectively amounted to shoot on sight orders. I don't want police to operate that way, ever. Dorner wasn't a martyr, he wasn't a hero, he was (likely) a murderer of innocent people. It's not an all or nothing affair though, just because it was the LAPD pursuing a despicable human being doesn't mean they're the "hero" either. That police agency has had a long history of corruption and impropriety. This entire ordeal was a tragedy, no 2 ways about it. It was a tragedy because of the innocent lives he took. The only good that I can hope comes from this is that federal authorities take a good long look at the LAPD.

#103 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 14 February 2013 - 04:19 AM

You're defending yourself from something you have not visually identified, that matches a vague description of a criminal's vehicle. You are a professional law enforcement officer. If you didn't take proper precautions to ensure that you are not trying to kill the wrong, innocent people, then it's time for you to choose a job with less responsibility...shrimp de-veiner.

There is no logical explanation for what happened. I'm not trying to keep hammering on you, but to even try to create an excuse, explanation, or mild justification, shows a lack of understanding of the law enforcement profession, the law, and common sense. It's absolutely insane to think that this could happen by trained professionals. It was an unbelievable Fuck-up by all officers involved.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. As a police officer, even if you knew it was another officer firing and not the driver, why would you assume that the other officer was not justified in firing? I think you're also ignoring that the truck accelerated directly at the other officers. Obviously the driver would not have seen them, as her lights were off. Should I break it down again for you?

It is 5am. It is dark.
We have been notified that a truck matching the description of the murder suspect is in the area.
The truck has its lights off and is headed towards the home of a person targeted by the suspect, which we are guarding.
We should stop and investigate the truck.

Are you with me so far? Then, it becomes:

Someone has opened fire and the truck is accelerating directly at us at a high rate of speed.

The situation for the group of officers down the street has changed at that point. They now have reason to believe the driver is armed by virtue of the gunshots and is now trying to run them over, or bypass them and reach the man they are protecting.

Edited by dafoomie, 14 February 2013 - 04:32 AM.


#104 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:24 AM

I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. As a police officer, even if you knew it was another officer firing and not the driver, why would you assume that the other officer was not justified in firing? I think you're also ignoring that the truck accelerated directly at the other officers. Obviously the driver would not have seen them, as her lights were off. Should I break it down again for you?

It is 5am. It is dark.
We have been notified that a truck matching the description of the murder suspect is in the area.
The truck has its lights off and is headed towards the home of a person targeted by the suspect, which we are guarding.
We should stop and investigate the truck.

Are you with me so far? Then, it becomes:

Someone has opened fire and the truck is accelerating directly at us at a high rate of speed.

The situation for the group of officers down the street has changed at that point. They now have reason to believe the driver is armed by virtue of the gunshots and is now trying to run them over, or bypass them and reach the man they are protecting.


Hmm so if you were fired upon while in your car, wouldn't the first instinct be to gun the car and drive the fark out of there?

Now if trying to evade being shot at by driving away fast, makes you even more suspicious and more of a reason to fire more bullets at you.......

Seems like a lose/lose situation... :booty: Wow those cops sure have it good, having people who can justify such irrationality

#105 CaptainJoel

CaptainJoel

    Captain fuckin' Marvel

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 05:26 AM

The pursuit involved a running gun battle in which he carjacked a vehicle, killed a sheriff's deputy, wounded another, and fired on two game wardens. What would you have them do?

Do you even attempt to understand the events which led to the outcome or would that get in the way of your anti police crusade?

I can understand a running gun battle since he likely knew that they would shoot to kill on sight of him since they opened fire on vehicles that looked like his. In my eyes this could really go either way and with the far less than stellar record of the LAPD I could easily see him being right (not saying he absolutely is, just that things look more than a little suspect). No reason to be a douche and accuse me of being on an anti-police crusade (certainly not what I'm on at all), I have plenty of friends that are cops and for the most part I like them (hell, I seriously considered being a cop before finally deciding on teaching). I just think that it's a real shame that they didn't seem to make any sort of attempt to apprehend him.

#106 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:23 AM

I don't think they had many viable options other than what they did. They were in a prolonged battle with the guy, already with one fatality, they fired tear gas into the cabin and he killed himself. Another course of action could've put more police officers in danger.

EDIT: Wait, what? I misread the first sentence of your post. You understand why he became involved in a running battle with police? You understand why he attacked police? And you're not anti police? His stated purpose was to kill police officers! He killed the daughter of a police captain and fucking called him and taunted him about it.

I'm sure that GAME WARDEN he attacked en route to the cabin was out to do him harm and was completely justifiable... Give me a break. Real Nazis, that California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Edited by dafoomie, 14 February 2013 - 07:43 AM.


#107 dafoomie

dafoomie

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:27 AM

Hmm so if you were fired upon while in your car, wouldn't the first instinct be to gun the car and drive the fark out of there?

As I stated, yes, and as I stated, the driver had her lights off so she could not see the officers she was driving straight into. However, how could this not be interpreted as a threat by the officers? THEY DON'T KNOW the first officer was unjustified in firing his weapon nor do they necessarily know if it was him or the driver who fired.

#108 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 06:04 PM

I think you're being deliberately obtuse here. As a police officer, even if you knew it was another officer firing and not the driver, why would you assume that the other officer was not justified in firing? I think you're also ignoring that the truck accelerated directly at the other officers. Obviously the driver would not have seen them, as her lights were off. Should I break it down again for you?

It is 5am. It is dark.
We have been notified that a truck matching the description of the murder suspect is in the area.
The truck has its lights off and is headed towards the home of a person targeted by the suspect, which we are guarding.
We should stop and investigate the truck.

Are you with me so far? Then, it becomes:

Someone has opened fire and the truck is accelerating directly at us at a high rate of speed.

The situation for the group of officers down the street has changed at that point. They now have reason to believe the driver is armed by virtue of the gunshots and is now trying to run them over, or bypass them and reach the man they are protecting.


I think you don't understand the responsibility and the training that officers are subject to, so as to not endanger the public, while trying to keep them safe.

We're talking about lethal force. You don't assume, and hope you're right. You need to be damn sure that when you're using lethal force, that it is justified, and that you have the ability to carry it out. Clearly they had the ability to carry it out, but also, clearly it was not justified.

It's part of the officer's duty to put themselves in harm's way to protect the public. If they are unable to do that, they need different careers. Officers had no way to disable the vehicle? How bout the dude down the road that shot at them, could he not call ahead and say "take cover and get ready to defend?" This was completely botched by trained professionals. If you're this lax with the duties and failure to perform those duties, from the police here, then I wonder what professions you do hold to a normal standard (it's not a high standard to assume a trained LEO would not open fire on innocent people due to a mistake). It's baffling.

I truly hope you never plan on getting in to law enforcement. Apparently we could all be in danger if you did.

#109 Purple Flames

Purple Flames

    MC Sucka DJ

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 07:08 PM

What bothers me the most about this is the complete and utter lack of due process: Shooting at at a truck that looked like Dorner's, setting fire to a cabin without knowing all the facts (if it was even him inside, if there were any other people inside), sicking drones on him, pushing him back inside when he tried to run out instead of apprehending him. No attempt at all was made to try and capture him alive.

This case just really puts a spotlight on everything wrong with the LAPD and law enforcement as a whole in this country.

#110 Clak

Clak

    Made of star stuff.

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 10:41 PM

I think it's just that deep down, most people would have no problem with mob justice. Or at least they think they wouldn't until it was them being hunted down. I think some people watch westerns and salivate at the idea of a posse just rounding up a suspect and putting them to death without any sort of trial or process.
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. -George Carlin

“Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.” -Mark Twain

“When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." -Jonathon Swift

#111 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:04 PM

Of course police are never accountable for their actions
http://www.nydailyne...ticle-1.1264384

Police got no problem shooting anyone

I can't fault Dorner for fighting even tho it was his last stand, better to die fighting then die being a victim.

#112 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:07 PM

I think it's just that deep down, most people would have no problem with mob justice. Or at least they think they wouldn't until it was them being hunted down. I think some people watch westerns and salivate at the idea of a posse just rounding up a suspect and putting them to death without any sort of trial or process.


I don't know if I would go that far. How many times have you heard a large population question the death and details, around an accused "cop killer". I mean, this was the poster child for insidious, evil, of the evil, sort of actions based on reports of what he did. Executing police officer's families, hunting them down and taunting them afterwards. Instead, some are calling this guy a martyr, a victim. The fact that there are so many strange questions surrounding this one in particular, I think makes it easier to not go mob justice on it.

The one a while back where a dad walked in to see a family friend molesting his daughter and accidentally beat the guy to death, evokes a very different reaction for me. THAT guy is a hero in my book. I'm not sure enough of the circumstances to call the LAPD "heroes" with this one, especially the innocent people shot, and the countless weird details.

#113 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:10 PM

I doubt heroes would be ones who would be caught on record for calling for "burn the Fker out"

#114 GBAstar

GBAstar

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:16 PM

I doubt heroes would be ones who would be caught on record for calling for "burn the Fker out"


To bad that coward had already taken his own life

#115 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:17 PM

To bad that coward had already taken his own life


When did you get the autopsy report before us :roll:

#116 dohdough

dohdough

    Sum Dum Guy

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 14 February 2013 - 11:33 PM

I don't know if I would go that far. How many times have you heard a large population question the death and details, around an accused "cop killer". I mean, this was the poster child for insidious, evil, of the evil, sort of actions based on reports of what he did. Executing police officer's families, hunting them down and taunting them afterwards. Instead, some are calling this guy a martyr, a victim. The fact that there are so many strange questions surrounding this one in particular, I think makes it easier to not go mob justice on it.

Or...you know...he could be all those things...even at the same time...

The one a while back where a dad walked in to see a family friend molesting his daughter and accidentally beat the guy to death, evokes a very different reaction for me. THAT guy is a hero in my book. I'm not sure enough of the circumstances to call the LAPD "heroes" with this one, especially the innocent people shot, and the countless weird details.

Ugh...not this can of worms again. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it if people also attached the label of "murderer" as well. I suppose that would make things too complicated for most people and I would hope that you wouldn't be in that category.

#117 irideabike

irideabike

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:48 AM

I'm one of the "don't ever kill the fucker there are always other options" guys on this board but know it would be incredibly difficult to not beat the guy to death that was molesting my child.

#118 Spokker

Spokker

    CAGiversary!

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:49 AM

I can't fault Dorner for fighting even tho it was his last stand, better to die fighting then die being a victim.

Yikes, talk about posting on hard mode. Arguing that Dorner is any kind of victim so he had to fight is something I wouldn't even touch! Good luck, friend.

#119 berzirk

berzirk

    I'm not so serious

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 February 2013 - 12:54 AM

Or...you know...he could be all those things...even at the same time...


You're right, entirely possible. I really hadn't been following it all that closely until towards the end. I've got some friends who are raving lunatic, tinfoil on head conspiracy theorists, some who are redneck good ole boys, so I get the full spectrum, but not to the point where I'd be willing to average the opinions and assume I've got a good picture. Things that seem clear to me, he felt wrong by the force, maybe validly so. He very likely killed some people as a result. He was on the run, although not sure where. His goal was to expose police corruption. So I'd say he was all of those things, and had varynig levels of success for good and for bad. I won't pretend to have intimate knowlege, it's more me trying to piece together a story based on a few minutes of reading articles here and there.


Ugh...not this can of worms again. I guess I wouldn't have a problem with it if people also attached the label of "murderer" as well. I suppose that would make things too complicated for most people and I would hope that you wouldn't be in that category.


I still feel that being a parent heavily shapes your opinion and likely gives you a more emotional response to crimes against children. You dedicate your life to protecting and raising a child, then you hear/see acts that are so viciously against that natural, and basic purpose, and it's hard, if not impossible, to have an emotional response to it. I don't recall the legal defintion for murder, but perhaps the dad's case was/is justifiable homicide? Again, legally speaking, no idea if that exists, or how people who kill another person under circumstances that a jury would find acceptable, get labeled. My label for a person who immediately stops a clear molestation with any level of violence, is "hero". Definitely happy to agree to disagree philosophically on this topic.

#120 Finger_Shocker

Finger_Shocker

    CAG Veteran

  • CAGiversary!

Posted 15 February 2013 - 05:28 AM

Yikes, talk about posting on hard mode. Arguing that Dorner is any kind of victim so he had to fight is something I wouldn't even touch! Good luck, friend.


No I am basically saying once you made yourself as the enemy of the state, there is really no peaceful surrenders.

Chances of peaceful surrender is close to none, he saw how cops shot up innocent people just to get him, do you think any rational person would assume a safe surrender.

So he was basically dead already, and you can choose two ways fight till your last breath or accept being put down..

Its no different then people on death row, pretty much p**sies who walk the long walk to their death.. These are hardened killers, rapist, yet they walk to their death without a fight.