In February 2013, Christopher Jordan Dorner, 33, an ex-Navy Reservist and former Los Angeles police officer, was named a suspect wanted in connection to several shootings that occurred throughout Southern California. In a manifesto that was posted online, he declared "unconventional and asymmetric war" upon the Los Angeles Police Department over what he considered to be his unfair dismissal from the police force in 2008. In his "war" Dorner declared the police and their families as his targets.
I am still in shock about the two Asian women who were shot by the LAPD. Those police officers better be punted off the force for such gross misconduct. Some jail time would be nice too.
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I am still in shock about the two Asian women who were shot by the LAPD. Those police officers better be punted off the force for such gross misconduct. Some jail time would be nice too.
Luckily from what I could make of the article, despite the damage to the car the women recieved injuries to their hand and back, respectively, and seem to be doing well.
Still, as much as I'd like the cops involved to be punished, it seems very unlikely
If it turns out that he was actually framed, and all of the cops he killed were corrupt pawns of some shady crime lord, this would be a great movie plot.
I mean, that's probably not going to happen, though.
Goliath wrote: Luckily from what I could make of the article, despite the damage to the car the women recieved injuries to their hand and back, respectively, and seem to be doing well.
Still, as much as I'd like the cops involved to be punished, it seems very unlikely
Luckily for those ladies, the LAPDs accuracy is almost as bad as the NYPDs.
I get that the LAPD are jumpy right now, but they need to fething check their fire. I hope they can nab this guy before he shoots anyone else, but I also hope they can nab him before they shoot anyone else.
Goliath wrote: Luckily from what I could make of the article, despite the damage to the car the women recieved injuries to their hand and back, respectively, and seem to be doing well.
Still, as much as I'd like the cops involved to be punished, it seems very unlikely
Luckily for those ladies, the LAPDs accuracy is almost as bad as the NYPDs.
Yeah, but the NYPD has the advantage that even if they miss their intended target they may hit another criminal anyway
DarkTraveler777 wrote: I am still in shock about the two Asian women who were shot by the LAPD. Those police officers better be punted off the force for such gross misconduct. Some jail time would be nice too.
The funny part being that the cops responsible getting off with a slap on the wrist only helps to vindicate that crazy melon-fether's point.
Of course, it doesn't change the fact that he's a crazy ass melon-fether.
Of course, the militant anti-gun crowd is gonna run with this, and the militant pro-gun crowd (in both groups i'm talking about the talking heads that are actually on TV, not us normal folk) will point out how bat-gak crazy this guy is..
Funny thing, yesterday at work, i had an article pulled up on this guy, and a co-worker walked up and over my shoulder said, "damn, when did LL Cool J get so fat?".
Holy feth thats bad. Still how the hell did the officers believe that to be his car? and i mean surely the donut eating oafs must have realised their mistake before they turned the car into a sumos colander?
I just hope that this finishes befor either side nails anymore inoccents.
Damn though this really is a black and white battle huh?
skyfi wrote: I believe the quoted alert from police specify a gray or blue nitro. The author of article merely says gray I think? Would have to re read it.
Updates have said a Blue or Grey Nissan Titan which is a pickup truck >_<
Also glad Ouze picked up on the move plot aspect, because good or evil I thought this was the plot of the next NCIS: LA episode.
It goes into a little bit more about the incident that caused his dismissal from the LAPD, and some other background info.
Dorner graduated and served for only four months in the field before being deployed to the Middle East in 2006 and 2007. When he returned, he was assigned to a training officer, Sgt. Teresa Evans, who became increasingly alarmed at his conduct, according a summary of an interview with Evans in Dorner's disciplinary file.
The burly man with tattoos on his biceps repeatedly asked why he was not sent to reintegration training after his return from war and on one occasion, began weeping in the patrol car and demanded to be taken back to the police academy to be retrained, court documents show.
Dorner also told Evans he was building a house in Las Vegas and intended to sue the department after his probationary period was over — a conversation Evans reported to a superior.
Evans began collecting examples of "deficiencies" in Dorner's police work — including talking to a suspect on a "man with a gun" call without taking cover. After much prodding, Evans recounts, Dorner told her he "might have some issues regarding his deployment."
On Aug. 4, 2007, Evans warned Dorner that she would give him an unsatisfactory rating and request that he be removed from the field unless he improved.
Six days later, Dorner reported to internal affairs that in the course of an arrest Evans had kicked a severely mentally ill man in the chest and left cheek. His report came two weeks after the arrest, police and court records allege.
Three civilian witnesses and a harbor policeman all said they didn't see Evans kick the man, who had a quarter-inch scratch on his cheek consistent with his fall into a bush. The police review board ruled against Dorner, leading to his dismissal.
"The delay in reporting the alleged misconduct, coupled with the witnesses' statements, irreparably destroy Dorner's credibility and bring into question his suitability for continued employment as a police officer," the file reads.
It is starting to seem like someone who couldn't accept life not going his way and so created an external tormenter to become a transcendent hero figure. It isn't that gak happens, it is that the LAPD is trying to destroy him, and now he is a paragon of virtue standing up against injustice. It seems unlikely that his discharge from the Navy was barely a week ago before shooting the daughter of the man who was his defender in the IA investigation from 2008. We don't know much about his time in the Navy yet, and perhaps he was suffering from PTSD after coming back state side? That explains the weeping in the car, but that was years ago, and the Navy never discharged him either so it doesn't seem as if he had that much trouble.
The response to corruption isn't killing civilians in cold blood; terrorism destroys any legitimacy he may have wanted.
Exactly... I've read his manifesto... holy.gak.he's.off.his.rockers.
And I blame the whole premise of "why is he doing this" that is seeped in our culture. He's doing this for attention... the best thing to do is capture him quietly and throw the book at him without sensationalizing the whole thing.
whembly wrote: Exactly... I've read his manifesto... holy.gak.he's.off.his.rockers.
And I blame the whole premise of "why is he doing this" that is seeped in our culture. He's doing this for attention... the best thing to do is capture him quietly and throw the book at him without sensationalizing the whole thing.
Unfortunately, not sensationalizing it is something that the media is absolutely unable to even consider doing.
Understanding why someone is doing something is not the same thing as sensationalizing a thing. We like to understand why and/or how things happen so that we can predict/prevent them from happening, or at the very least reduce the likelihood. Understanding the reasons, not what he believes they are, but the underlying, driving force, may help us catch him sooner, as well. This is not to say that this won't be a media storm, it will, but I don't think that is reason alone to not try to understand what went wrong, and why.
In my above post I meant to say that it seems unlikely that his recent discharge is unconnected to him starting to murder people a few days later.
Oh, I definitely think it's worth it to try to figure out and understand why this happened. I just don't think that that is the media's prime concern. Their first priority is getting higher ratings. Everything else is secondary.
Ahtman wrote: Understanding why someone is doing something is not the same thing as sensationalizing a thing. We like to understand why and/or how things happen so that we can predict/prevent them from happening, or at the very least reduce the likelihood. Understanding the reasons, not what he believes they are, but the underlying, driving force, may help us catch him sooner, as well. This is not to say that this won't be a media storm, it will, but I don't think that is reason alone to not try to understand what went wrong, and why.
In my above post I meant to say that it seems unlikely that his recent discharge is unconnected to him starting to murder people a few days later.
Okay... I've sorta calmed down... yes, we'd need to understand what made him tweak, I was referring the the media storm sensationalizing this... which gives the whackos a forum.
Ahtman wrote: Understanding why someone is doing something is not the same thing as sensationalizing a thing. We like to understand why and/or how things happen so that we can predict/prevent them from happening, or at the very least reduce the likelihood. Understanding the reasons, not what he believes they are, but the underlying, driving force, may help us catch him sooner, as well. This is not to say that this won't be a media storm, it will, but I don't think that is reason alone to not try to understand what went wrong, and why.
In my above post I meant to say that it seems unlikely that his recent discharge is unconnected to him starting to murder people a few days later.
Okay... I've sorta calmed down... yes, we'd need to understand what made him tweak, I was referring the the media storm sensationalizing this... which gives the whackos a forum.
DakkaDakka has given this wacko a forum But I only ever get told to put a wash on it
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.
Ahtman wrote: The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.
There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...
Ahtman wrote: The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.
There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...
Gee. I wonder why "your average gun enthusiast" has more time to spend at the range/practicing than a cop...
Couldn't be that law enforcement traditionally works long hours on strange shifts, right?
Ahtman wrote: The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.
For the most part, the only people who claim that a gun is a magical defense that will guarantee your safety are anti-gun people who are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the arguments of pro-gun people because they find it more entertaining than having an actual discussion about firearms.
Ahtman wrote: The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.
There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...
Gee. I wonder why "your average gun enthusiast" has more time to spend at the range/practicing than a cop...
Couldn't be that law enforcement traditionally works long hours on strange shifts, right?
Alleged Los Angeles shooter Christopher Jordan Dorner, influenced by left-leaning media coverage of gun crime in the wake of the Newtown shootings, has virtually paralyzed the City of Angels. Floyd Lee Corkins, a gunman incensed by anti-gay marriage bias after reading articles by the liberal advocacy group Southern Poverty Law Center, took a firearm into the Family Research Council’s headquarters with the intention of killing “as many as possible.” He hoped to smash Chick-fil-A sandwiches in the faces of as many corpses as he could. These shooters were clearly moved by left-wing media, and we should thank every benevolent force in the universe that they were. Had either shooter possessed even a tenuous link to a conservative group, a media-driven hysteria about the malevolent influence of right-wing broadcasters and commentators would be gripping the nation today. Fortunately, when a crazed shooter’s ideology is explicitly and demonstrably left-wing, the media displays admirable restraint about linking a gunman’s politics to their acts of violence.
The instinct by many high profile voices in the media to link violence to right-wing politics is not a new phenomenon, but it has enjoyed a renaissance since the tea party began to achieve political power. The broadcasters who subtly implicated former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in the 2011 attack on a Democratic congresswoman in Tucson, Arizona, is indicative of this bias. CNN host Piers Morgan exemplifies the lamentable instinct to blame conservatism for senseless violence well.
In a November, 2011, interview with Mark Kelly, Morgan said he was shocked by the “extraordinary” fact that Palin did not reach out to former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-AZ) immediately after the shooting. Kelly agreed, saying that the infamous map on Palin’s website which featured targets over a variety of congressional districts that Republicans were “targeting” in that year’s midterm elections – an infraction which sparked a national uproar about the marshal imagery employed by politicians since the time of Demosthenes – was “not the right thing to do.”
The implication was clear: Palin had some influence on the crazed gunman who shot up an impromptu meeting of a Congresswoman and her constituents. Palin’s crosshairs map had become a scapegoat for prominent voices from Paul Krugman to Randi Zuckerberg. It did not take much investigation into Loughner’s background to learn that he was not especially political, and was certainly not a fan of Palin’s. Nevertheless, nearly a year after this tragic incident, Morgan clung to that baseless charge.
Since the Newtown shooting, Morgan has been beating the drum about the need for stricter gun laws. His pro-gun control crusade made a deep impression on Dorner, who praised Morgan in his manifesto. So, having been specifically cited as someone who influenced Dorner, Morgan would engage in some introspection. Instead, he dismissed his influence on the L.A. shooter outright.
Morgan tweeted confidently — just hours after the manifesto in which Dorner praised not just Morgan but MSNBC’s programming and a proposed Assault Weapons Ban – that politics has “nothing to do” with Dorner’s rampage.
Unfortunately, the spectacularly wrong-headed approach the media took to assigning nonexistent motives to Loughner did not lead the media to impose some restraint on itself when opining on the politics of crazed shooters.
After Aurora, Colorado, shooter James Holmes attacked moviegoers this summer, ABC News reporter Brian Ross – minutes after the name of the suspect had been leaked to the press – sifted through the white pages to discover that there was one James Holmes in Colorado who happened to be a tea party activist. That incident forced ABC’s President Ben Sherwood to issue an apology.
In February, 2010, when the deranged Joseph Stack flew his Piper Cub into the headquarters of the Internal Revenue Service in Austin, Texas, few in the elite media waited for the dust to settle before blaming conservatism. “The First Tea Party Terrorist?” asked New York Times columnist Robert Wright.
Even though Wright had Stack’s online manifesto in hand – one in which he praises Marxist communism and laments the harsh excesses of American capitalism – Wright used a magicians sleight of hand to nevertheless link Stack to the tea party.
Was he a Tea Partier — or at least a Tea Party sympathizer? Conservatives who say no point to leftish themes in his manifesto. And it’s true that — in a line much-quoted by these conservatives — he seems to wish that the government would do something about health care. Then again, who doesn’t?
…
In the end, the core unifying theme of the Tea Partiers is populist rage, and this is the core theme in Stack’s ramblings, whether the rage is directed at corporate titans (“plunderers”), the government (“totalitarian”) or individual politicians (“liars”).
When the facts make it impossible to indulge the instinct to link a violent extremist to the right – in Dorner and Corkins’ cases for example – the media displays appropriate caution about assigning political motives to their actions.
That is an laudable impulse. The motives that drive disturbed individuals to commit heinous acts of violence, whatever they are, should not be glorified. Dorner’s manifesto clearly indicates that the media, and its coverage of the gun control debate that has followed the Newtown massacre, influenced him significantly. A responsible media would take that into account and maybe, just maybe, ask what they may be doing to contribute to the increased incidences of mass shootings.
That is a national conversation that Americans deserve. Rest assured, if Dorner or Corkins had been influenced to commit their crimes by right-wing media outlets, we would get it. Sadly, that level of self-awareness is nowhere to be found in today’s media landscape.
Hordini wrote: For the most part, the only people who claim that a gun is a magical defense that will guarantee your safety are anti-gun people who are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the arguments of pro-gun people because they find it more entertaining than having an actual discussion about firearms.
And some of those people (both sides) are right here. You'll note that I didn't say that everyone felt that way, just that is an attitude that is presented, and has been done so on Dakka as well. Just looking here I find that apparently gun owners (which most cops are as well but we'll ignore that for the moment) are better with firearms in practical situations then the police. Shooting targets is one thing, being in a gunfight is a different issue, and I would still bet that most police are better trained to deal with that then Joe Schmo gun owner who goes to the range frequently.
@Whembly: That article is just as much a part of the propaganda and conspiracy as anything else. They are just spinning it the other way.
Ahtman wrote: The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.
I don't think anyone has ever said that having a gun and being trained makes you immortal, impervious to harm, or anything near that. It just means you have a gun. Which I think is more likely to prove useful to a little old lady vs a 300 pound man. The 300 pound man doesn't need a gun to win. The little lady probably does. It's an equalizer, not a a magical defense.
edit. didn't realize you were saying someone in the thread/on dakka had been presenting the POV. In any case, I still don't think the musings of some dakka-ites or whomever represents the totality of gun owners. I also don't think it being a magical defense is a matter of opinion. It's just false. I could opine anything, and if a bunch of other people agree with me, it somehow makes it factual? Just don't see much merit for discussing "magical defense".
Ahtman wrote: The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.
There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...
Gee. I wonder why "your average gun enthusiast" has more time to spend at the range/practicing than a cop...
Couldn't be that law enforcement traditionally works long hours on strange shifts, right?
What point are you trying to make here?
The idea that "spending more time at the range/practicing than a cop" does not mean that your "average gun enthusiast" will actually be effective in shootout situations.
Nor does it take into account the idea that most agencies train their officers to use their cruisers as stationary cover in any kind of open shootouts and that many agencies train their officers to not approach suspect vehicles in situations like these...
Ahtman wrote: The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.
There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...
Gee. I wonder why "your average gun enthusiast" has more time to spend at the range/practicing than a cop...
Couldn't be that law enforcement traditionally works long hours on strange shifts, right?
What point are you trying to make here?
The idea that "spending more time at the range/practicing than a cop" does not mean that your "average gun enthusiast" will actually be effective in shootout situations.
Nor does it take into account the idea that most agencies train their officers to use their cruisers as stationary cover in any kind of open shootouts and that many agencies train their officers to not approach suspect vehicles in situations like these...
Then why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of just mocking my post?
skyfi wrote: I don't think anyone has ever said that having a gun and being trained makes you immortal, impervious to harm, or anything near that.
Do you really think people actually use the word magic or immortal? Or perhaps it is an attitude that is presented, that when called on, gets backpedaled? Just as (heavy handed) gun control people don't actually say that if we ban all guns we'll be immortal and nothing bad will happen again, but they present the argument in such a way as to make one think that is what they believe. You'll need to do better then semantics, really. Of course no one uses that phrasing, they just act like it is true. You'll also notice it was only said in response to someone bringing up that people need to be armed to be able to shoot back at cops, as if that would have made much of a difference in the situation.
skyfi wrote: It's an equalizer, not a a magical defense.
The idea that it is an equalizer is pretty close to believing it is magic, as it isn't in any way. Guns are an advantage, not something to level the playing field, and even then circumstance always gets to be the determining factor, not firearms.
Ahtman wrote: The only problem with this line of reasoning is that it cuts both ways. The guy killed a police officer who was trained and experienced in firearms, not just unarmed civilians. It has been presented that having a gun means that you will always be protected, and yet, magically, somehow this man was able to penetrate the magic defense of being armed, and was able to kill him. Apparently having a gun and having training is no guarantee of not being killed by an attacker. Though it did help the gunman, obliviously.
I think we all know this is going to be turned into a liberal conspiracy to further gun control.
There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...
Gee. I wonder why "your average gun enthusiast" has more time to spend at the range/practicing than a cop...
Couldn't be that law enforcement traditionally works long hours on strange shifts, right?
What point are you trying to make here?
The idea that "spending more time at the range/practicing than a cop" does not mean that your "average gun enthusiast" will actually be effective in shootout situations.
Nor does it take into account the idea that most agencies train their officers to use their cruisers as stationary cover in any kind of open shootouts and that many agencies train their officers to not approach suspect vehicles in situations like these...
Then why didn't you say that from the beginning instead of just mocking my post?
Because I figured the point would have been blatantly obvious, rather than needing an explanatory statement.
Kanluwen wrote: Because I figured the point would have been blatantly obvious, rather than needing an explanatory statement.
Or you could have just avoided the vague post that didn't add anything to the topic of conversation... In fact, things could have played out like this instead:
Alfndrate wrote: There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...
[Added by me] You do realize...[/Added by me]
The idea that "spending more time at the range/practicing than a cop" does not mean that your "average gun enthusiast" will actually be effective in shootout situations.
Nor does it take into account the idea that most agencies train their officers to use their cruisers as stationary cover in any kind of open shootouts and that many agencies train their officers to not approach suspect vehicles in situations like these...
That makes sense, I was merely pointing out posts I have seen, thanks Kan (maybe not the thanks Kan )
Kanluwen wrote: Because I figured the point would have been blatantly obvious, rather than needing an explanatory statement.
Or you could have just avoided the vague post that didn't add anything to the topic of conversation... In fact, things could have played out like this instead:
Alfndrate wrote: There are plenty of posts (can't be arsed to find them) in many of the gun threads that mention that your average gun enthusiast tends to spend more time at the range/practicing than a cop...
[Added by me] You do realize...[/Added by me]
The idea that "spending more time at the range/practicing than a cop" does not mean that your "average gun enthusiast" will actually be effective in shootout situations.
Nor does it take into account the idea that most agencies train their officers to use their cruisers as stationary cover in any kind of open shootouts and that many agencies train their officers to not approach suspect vehicles in situations like these...
That makes sense, I was merely pointing out posts I have seen, thanks Kan (maybe not the thanks Kan )
But let's continue the mocking in the future.
Fair point. I should have been less churlish, but it is quite frustrating to continually see these kinds of threads devolve into the typical "Bash the police" that they become and that the commentary about "average gun enthusiasts" was frankly unnecessary.
skyfi wrote: I don't think anyone has ever said that having a gun and being trained makes you immortal, impervious to harm, or anything near that.
Do you really think people actually use the word magic or immortal? Or perhaps it is an attitude that is presented, that when called on, gets backpedaled? Just as (heavy handed) gun control people don't actually say that if we ban all guns we'll be immortal and nothing bad will happen again, but they present the argument in such a way as to make one think that is what they believe. You'll need to do better then semantics, really. Of course no one uses that phrasing, they just act like it is true. You'll also notice it was only said in response to someone bringing up that people need to be armed to be able to shoot back at cops, as if that would have made much of a difference in the situation.
skyfi wrote: It's an equalizer, not a a magical defense.
The idea that it is an equalizer is pretty close to believing it is magic, as it isn't in any way. Guns are an advantage, not something to level the playing field, and even then circumstance always gets to be the determining factor, not firearms.
It might not necessarily equal the playing field, but it may give you a better chance of survival. Like you said, it's an advantage. Nothing will create a truly equal situation. Everything comes up to circumstances. I think you're a bit caught up on semantics.
It gives you an advantage, it's an equalizer... While not the same I didn't think my point was that hard to see.
I think that you'll find many more circumstances in which you could protect yourself with a firearm as opposed to a taser, mace, a knife or bat etc. Not sure anything magical about it. Seems common sense.
I don't bash the police that do their job, I bash the cops I catch sitting in parking lots not doing anything. Hell, patrol the streets and I'd be okay with them not doing anything. There are also a lot of examples of a minority of cops that are horrible people... Like the cops out west that ignored a 911 call so they could sit and enjoy a cup of coffee.. If it was out of the way, that would be one thing... but they replied and said they were en route, and then put in their reports that they were on the scene... Those cops deserved to be bashed.
Granted they are a minority of cops.
And to be fair, Ahtman's posts are a little flamebaitey about how "having a gun = magically delicious protected" which is why I said the post that I said...
Alfndrate wrote: I don't bash the police that do their job, I bash the cops I catch sitting in parking lots not doing anything. Hell, patrol the streets and I'd be okay with them not doing anything.
I'm still on the "Stop shooting innocent people in trucks, you morons!" step.
It might be forgivable if the truck and occupants fit the description of the suspect. There is a difference between a mistake and a big fethup like they did here.
Grey Templar wrote: It might be forgivable if the truck and occupants fit the description of the suspect. There is a difference between a mistake and a big fethup like they did here.
The truck could have the bad guy in it, and writing on the side saying "hey guys, I'm the cop killer". It doesn't really matter.
Unless these women had a gun in their hands or did anything else to make it seem like they are getting ready to shoot the cops, there was absolutely zero reason for this.
It doesn't matter how many cops the guy has killed, it is not the job of the cops to kill him. The times of the armed vigilante mobs dispensing street justice is long over. Cops are not judges. Their job is to arrest him. If he pulls a gun on the cops trying to arrest him, by all means blow his brains out.
Maybe it's just me, but this guy doesn't seem all that crazy. He got forced out of the LAPD for standing up to 2 racist lapd officers. And didn't just snap, this has been years in the making.
I'm really interested to know if he actually has SA-7's. I saw confirmation somewhere he does have a Barrett .50 registered to him. Whether he's right or wrong the LAPD has been fething up in a big way. Shooting at random people, I wonder if the 2 ladies received any sort of warning whatsoever before they were opened fire on.
Chancetragedy wrote: He got forced out of the LAPD for standing up to 2 racist lapd officers.
Is that what happened? Because all records show something completely different, and even his own story only included one person being accused. Your ability to know with certainty that someone you've never met is racist is quite a gift, even more so considering you seem to have some of the basic facts off as well. Certainly this justifies killing his defense representatives daughter and fiance.
Chancetragedy wrote: He got forced out of the LAPD for standing up to 2 racist lapd officers.
Is that what happened? Because all records show something completely different, and even his own story only included one person being accused. Your ability to know with certainty that someone you've never met is racist is quite a gift, even more so considering you seem to have some of the basic facts off as well. Certainly this justifies killing his defense representatives daughter and fiance.
Yeah, his "manifesto" gives written account of how HE felt he was slighted in his dismissal from the department, and now he's wanting to dismantle everyone who he feels is responsible's lives...... That's One Flew Over The Cuckoos Nest type crazy there.
Going by the structure and content of the sentence I was responding to, chancetragedy wasn't referencing the manifesto as much as agreeing with ramblings contained within the manifesto prima facai, and not just relaying how he 'felt'.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: If only this was happening in a society with guns, everyone would be safer and some heroic passer by would have taken him out early.
A photo never tells the whole story, and that's especially true for Christopher Dorner. The images on his Facebook page are essentially the same: Dorner, smiling, seemingly loving life and all it offers.
But they accompany a rambling document where he portrays himself as a real-life Rambo, an expert in weapons, explosives and military tactics who will stop at nothing to avenge his 2008 firing from the Los Angeles Police Department.
It's incongruous and it underscores the complexity of the man who now is the most wanted in America, accused of killing three people as he carries out his vendetta.
Where Dorner sees himself as a warrior, others see someone much different. The 6-foot, 270-pounder is a physical hulk who — despite his size — seemed to battle deep-seated insecurities, lived with his mother and cracked under the pressures of police work.
Court and police files show that Dorner once began weeping while on duty in a patrol car, awkwardly flashed his police badge on a first date and told a girlfriend he kept his emotions bottled up.
Those who study the psyches of criminals said Dorner's aggressive and self-aggrandizing rant indicates a classic case of malignant narcissist personality disorder. Some people with the disorder are extremely thin-skinned and vengeful, said Mary Ellen O'Toole, a retired FBI profiler.
They may seem insecure, she said, but in reality their rages — and even tears — are extreme reactions to real or imagined criticisms because they have such grandiose visions of themselves.
"He's putting in his manifesto that he's going to use all the training he received as an LAPD officer and as a military officer to basically hold Southern California hostage, and to be there when you least expect it," she said. "Is he deadly? Yes. Of course he has killed people."
"But is he capable of taking on some 1,000 officers looking for him? That's someone with a personality disorder," she said.
Dorner, 33, is accused of killing a woman last weekend whose father had represented him as he fought to keep his police job, and the woman's fiance. On Thursday, police say he ambushed two officers, killing one, and then vanished, setting off a manhunt that put police on alert across the Southwest.
The search Friday focused on the mountains around Big Bear Lake, about 80 miles east of Los Angeles. Police said officers still were guarding more than 40 people mentioned as targets in the rant.
The rambling manifesto was on a Facebook page that also includes smiling pictures of Dorner and critiques or politicians, musicians, and comedians. He also offers commentary on topics from gun control — he wants stricter laws for assault weapons — to sexual abuse by priests to the proper room temperature.
Court papers from 2006 show that Dorner requested a restraining order against a woman he had dated for six weeks after he said she posted his LAPD badge number and trash-talked about him on a website called dontdatehimgirl.com.
Dorner attached the lengthy posting he said was by his ex-girlfriend, Ariana Williams, as well as a handwritten note she apparently placed on his belongings when she returned them after they broke up.
In the web posting, Dorner is described as "severely emotionally and mentally disturbed," ''twisted" and "super paranoid." It also said he flashed his police badge on their first date, lives with his mother and hates himself for being black — at one point asking her to act more like a white woman.
"Just be careful because this guy is a police officer and he will probably think that he can get away with anything. ... If you value your sanity, stay away from this guy."
Dorner claimed Williams was harassing him and sent a threatening letter to his home. He asked that she also stay away from his mother and sister. In her response, Williams denied Dorner's allegations.
Records show Dorner did not show up at a hearing in November 2006 and the case was terminated. She could not be reached to comment. Her attorney, Stephen G. Rodriguez, did not return a call or email seeking comment.
In 2008, after Dorner was deployed to Bahrain with the Navy Reserves, he returned to the LAPD and began to patrol with his training officer, Sgt. Teresa Evans. He had worked for just four months after his graduation from the academy before being sent overseas.
In internal police papers, Evans said Dorner repeatedly asked why he was being put back on patrol without reintegration training. On one occasion, he began weeping in the patrol car and demanded to be taken back to the police academy to be retrained, according to a summary of an interview with Evans contained in 2009 court documents.
Evans warned Dorner that she would give him an unsatisfactory rating and request that he be removed from the field unless he improved. A day after she followed up on her threat with a poor review, Dorner reported to internal affairs that Evans had kicked a severely mentally ill man in the chest and left cheek during an arrest.
A police review panel ultimately found the allegation untrue and Dorner was fired for making a false statement.
In the manifesto, Dorner said the LAPD destroyed his life, ruined his relationships with his mother and sister and harmed his military career.
Those types of statements don't surprise O'Toole, the former FBI profiler, who said narcissists feel intense shame and humiliation when outside events challenge their perception of themselves.
"He's somebody I call an injustice collector," she said. "When they respond to an injustice that they think is out there, their reaction is completely over the top."
Hordini wrote:For the most part, the only people who claim that a gun is a magical defense that will guarantee your safety are anti-gun people who are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the arguments of pro-gun people because they find it more entertaining than having an actual discussion about firearms.
YOU made a claim to that effect. You did it right here.
Hordini wrote:For the most part, the only people who claim that a gun is a magical defense that will guarantee your safety are anti-gun people who are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the arguments of pro-gun people because they find it more entertaining than having an actual discussion about firearms.
YOU made a claim to that effect. You did it right here.
I read that link of yours. Didn't see anything about magic defense. Did see him stating that an ex-police officer armed with a gun would have nailed the guy who was just a few feet away, attacking him.
Wow just read about this, it hasn't had any real coverage in the UK press. That is so shocking with those 2 women that it would almost be funny if it wasn't so horrific! Was the police car crewed by officers Mulroney and Hightower?
Hordini wrote:For the most part, the only people who claim that a gun is a magical defense that will guarantee your safety are anti-gun people who are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the arguments of pro-gun people because they find it more entertaining than having an actual discussion about firearms.
YOU made a claim to that effect. You did it right here.
Yeah, that's nothing close to what I actually wrote.
I don't like the implication that somebody who defends his- or herself with a gun has a "sort of idiotic rage." What does that have to do with this thread?
Hordini wrote:For the most part, the only people who claim that a gun is a magical defense that will guarantee your safety are anti-gun people who are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the arguments of pro-gun people because they find it more entertaining than having an actual discussion about firearms.
YOU made a claim to that effect. You did it right here.
I read that link of yours. Didn't see anything about magic defense. Did see him stating that an ex-police officer armed with a gun would have nailed the guy who was just a few feet away, attacking him.
Exactly. Thank you. I didn't really think I was making a claim that was that outlandish.
whembly wrote: Exactly... I've read his manifesto... holy.gak.he's.off.his.rockers.
And I blame the whole premise of "why is he doing this" that is seeped in our culture. He's doing this for attention... the best thing to do is capture him quietly and throw the book at him without sensationalizing the whole thing.
I'm not sure there's any sensationalising to be done in this case. I mean, it's straight up a sensational story. Downplay it as much as you can and it still reads like a movie script.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: No. You won't hear much of it because he doesn't fit the narrative.
bs. Byron Williams was called to pull over for speeding by a police car, leading to a pursuit and a gunfight. Two officers were wounded and Williams was taken into custody. This was an incredibly lucky turn of events, as Williams had collected his guns, put on body armour, and was on his way to the Tides Foundation, believing his shooting spree there would inspire a revolution. The Tides Foundation is an obscure left wing not-for-profit that's only claim to fame is being at the centre of Beck's craziest conspiracy theories. Williams was, of course, an avid viewer of Beck.
That didn't hit the media because Williams didn't manage to complete his shooting spree, because of the incredibly good luck of police trying to pull him over for an entirely unrelated matter. In the story you quoted, Corkins failed to complete his massacre because, very luckily, he was bad at it (managing only to wound one guard before being wrestled to the ground).
And that's why these stories don't make major headlines. Because luck or incompetence means they don't get their bodycount. Not because of some grand liberal media conspiracy, but because of simple fact about humans - we are far more interested in sprees where people die, than ones where they don't.
Hordini wrote:What does that have to do with this thread?
Just pointing out your hypocrisy.
Hordini wrote:For the most part, the only people who claim that a gun is a magical defense that will guarantee your safety are anti-gun people who are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the arguments of pro-gun people because they find it more entertaining than having an actual discussion about firearms.
For someone who gets so sad about gun owners being painted with broad brushstrokes, your own brush seems pretty broad itself.
Hordini wrote:What does that have to do with this thread?
Just pointing out your hypocrisy.
My hypocrisy regarding what, exactly? That I don't like people implying that people who defend themselves have "idiotic rage" and that I wrote that people who write that guns are a "magical defense" either don't understand or are trying to ridicule pro-gun arguments?
Hordini wrote:For the most part, the only people who claim that a gun is a magical defense that will guarantee your safety are anti-gun people who are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the arguments of pro-gun people because they find it more entertaining than having an actual discussion about firearms.
For someone who gets so sad about gun owners being painted with broad brushstrokes, your own brush seems pretty broad itself.
Are you saying that people who actually say that a gun is a "magical defense that will guarantee your safety" is anyone other than someone who is trying to misrepresent or at the very least poke fun at the arguments of pro-gun people? Seriously? I don't think anyone who is pro-gun has actually used the term "magical defense" when discussing the advantages of going armed, but I have seen quite a few posters here use similar terminology in an effort to ridicule pro-gun arguments.
So, do you think he's hiding in the snow-covered hills? Or do you think he had another car waiting where he torched his truck and is hiding in Mexico right now?
If he's as clever and highly skilled as he makes himself out to be, he's in Mexico. Judging by his manifesto though, he's crazy and most likely not as clever and skilled as he tries to sound, in which case he's probably hiding in the mountains (or dead).
Hordini wrote: If he's as clever and highly skilled as he makes himself out to be, he's in Mexico. Judging by his manifesto though, he's crazy and most likely not as clever and skilled as he tries to sound, in which case he's probably hiding in the mountains (or dead).
I don't think it's about being clever, skilled or crazy. It's about what he wants, and what he wants ain't in Mexico.
Hordini wrote: If he's as clever and highly skilled as he makes himself out to be, he's in Mexico. Judging by his manifesto though, he's crazy and most likely not as clever and skilled as he tries to sound, in which case he's probably hiding in the mountains (or dead).
I don't think it's about being clever, skilled or crazy. It's about what he wants, and what he wants ain't in Mexico.
I suppose that might be true. If he wanted to get away, Mexico would be the place to be. I guess that would be a reasonable thought process, but he's proved himself to not be a particularly reasonable guy. In that case, if we assume his intentions are really just what it says in his manifesto (that is, to wreak havoc on the LAPD) then he probably isn't far off and would probably be in or near the mountains.
However, they think that he did try to steal a boat in order to make a run across the border but was unsuccessful, so we know he's attempted to leave the country at least once. That kind of muddles things as far as determining what his actual intentions are.
Breotan wrote: This whole thing is going way off topic, guys.
So, do you think he's hiding in the snow-covered hills? Or do you think he had another car waiting where he torched his truck and is hiding in Mexico right now?
Breotan wrote: This whole thing is going way off topic, guys.
So, do you think he's hiding in the snow-covered hills? Or do you think he had another car waiting where he torched his truck and is hiding in Mexico right now?
Plan B, but not Mexico.
This, in fact, he's probably taking over stuntman duties for LL Cool J on NCIS: LA, hiding in plain sight if you would.
If this man is as competent as he believes he is, I would almost assuredly bet that he had a getaway car, probably a different make, different model, different color, probably even a different condition. If he had a nice shiny, blue/grey truck, then I'd get away in a beat up old caddy.
David Perdue was on his way to sneak in some surfing before work Thursday morning when police flagged him down. They asked who he was and where he was headed, then sent him on his way.
Seconds later, Perdue's attorney said, a Torrance police cruiser slammed into his pickup and officers opened fire; none of the bullets struck Perdue.
His pickup, police later explained, matched the description of the one belonging to Christopher Jordan Dorner — the ex-cop who has evaded authorities after allegedly killing three and wounding two more. But the pickups were different makes and colors. And Perdue looks nothing like Dorner: He's several inches shorter and about a hundred pounds lighter. And Perdue is white; Dorner is black.
deathholydeath wrote: Yeah! That'll teach all those asian women and surfer-dudes!
If his goal was to make the LAPD look like idiots, I'd say he's succeeded.
I believe if the LAPD look like idiots, it might give credence to his claims.
Did anyone catch the story about the LAPD looking into his case again? They say it's so they can remain transparent, but we all know that they want to cover their arses on this. If they did feth up his case, and he was screwed over, the guy goes from 1 crazy loon with several guns to someone that might have 1 leg to stand on... though that won't matter with how he reacted.
deathholydeath wrote: Yeah! That'll teach all those asian women and surfer-dudes!
If his goal was to make the LAPD look like idiots, I'd say he's succeeded.
I believe if the LAPD look like idiots, it might give credence to his claims.
Did anyone catch the story about the LAPD looking into his case again? They say it's so they can remain transparent, but we all know that they want to cover their arses on this. If they did feth up his case, and he was screwed over, the guy goes from 1 crazy loon with several guns to someone that might have 1 leg to stand on... though that won't matter with how he reacted.
That's my problem here... it's legitimizing his actions.
deathholydeath wrote: Yeah! That'll teach all those asian women and surfer-dudes!
If his goal was to make the LAPD look like idiots, I'd say he's succeeded.
I believe if the LAPD look like idiots, it might give credence to his claims.
Did anyone catch the story about the LAPD looking into his case again? They say it's so they can remain transparent, but we all know that they want to cover their arses on this. If they did feth up his case, and he was screwed over, the guy goes from 1 crazy loon with several guns to someone that might have 1 leg to stand on... though that won't matter with how he reacted.
That's my problem here... it's legitimizing his actions.
What immediately springs to mind is that it's to confuse and perhaps even partially placate him while they continue the hunt; if some delusional hope for redemption gets introduced into his head, it may buy time before he attacks again, or at least leave him conflicted or confused,and so more prone to making an error they could exploit.
deathholydeath wrote: Yeah! That'll teach all those asian women and surfer-dudes!
If his goal was to make the LAPD look like idiots, I'd say he's succeeded.
I believe if the LAPD look like idiots, it might give credence to his claims.
Did anyone catch the story about the LAPD looking into his case again? They say it's so they can remain transparent, but we all know that they want to cover their arses on this. If they did feth up his case, and he was screwed over, the guy goes from 1 crazy loon with several guns to someone that might have 1 leg to stand on... though that won't matter with how he reacted.
That's my problem here... it's legitimizing his actions.
What immediately springs to mind is that it's to confuse and perhaps even partially placate him while they continue the hunt; if some delusional hope for redemption gets introduced into his head, it may buy time before he attacks again, or at least leave him conflicted or confused,and so more prone to making an error they could exploit.
I don't buy that at all...
Charlie Freaking Sheen has a video about this guy...
You don't engage whackos like this... you hunt them down like dogs.
Remember, even in our country even the whackos deserve due process of law. The problem is that 1 of 2 things are likely to happen 1) He gets cornered and takes his own life, or 2) He gets shot regardless of how he is captured, simply because he's a cop killer, and most of them probably want revenge. I know that I probably would if I were in the LAPD's seat.
Think of hostage situations: one guy with a megaphone (or regular phone, as the case may be) engages the lunatic, and tries to distract them and undermine their will to carry out their threats/objectives, while a dozen snipers take up positions and a tactical team sneaks around back, so to speak. He's a dead man regardless of what he does next, but the less willing/able to carry out his intended rampage the better.
Who says its going to be a hostage situation? Even if you're just using it as an example, nothing this guy has done has even remotely suggested he's willing to take a hostage, or let the cops use such tactics.
Alfndrate wrote: Remember, even in our country even the whackos deserve due process of law. The problem is that 1 of 2 things are likely to happen 1) He gets cornered and takes his own life, or 2) He gets shot regardless of how he is captured, simply because he's a cop killer, and most of them probably want revenge. I know that I probably would if I were in the LAPD's seat.
Yeah I know... I'm being melodramatic. I didn't mean to advocate assassination.
Alfndrate wrote: Remember, even in our country even the whackos deserve due process of law. The problem is that 1 of 2 things are likely to happen 1) He gets cornered and takes his own life, or 2) He gets shot regardless of how he is captured, simply because he's a cop killer, and most of them probably want revenge. I know that I probably would if I were in the LAPD's seat.
Yeah I know... I'm being melodramatic. I didn't mean to advocate assassination.
Just get the fether and throw the book at him.
Well we're more likely to throw a drone at him since he is one of the few people on US soil to get the green light to be targeted by drones.
Alfndrate wrote: Remember, even in our country even the whackos deserve due process of law. The problem is that 1 of 2 things are likely to happen 1) He gets cornered and takes his own life, or 2) He gets shot regardless of how he is captured, simply because he's a cop killer, and most of them probably want revenge. I know that I probably would if I were in the LAPD's seat.
Yeah I know... I'm being melodramatic. I didn't mean to advocate assassination.
Just get the fether and throw the book at him.
Well we're more likely to throw a drone at him since he is one of the few people on US soil to get the green light to be targeted by drones.
I could see taking away the 5th amendment rights for Anwar al-Awlaki who advocating attacks against the American government which is treason if I recall correctly. But Dorner is technically attacking parts of the American government (albeit local), so does that make him guilty of treason... Am I splitting hairs? idk D:
Grey Templar wrote: Well, he is technically attacking the local government. Pretty sure Treason deals with the Federal government only.
I thought so as well, as crazy as this guy is/seems, I still find it extremely wrong that he's not going to get his due process, and he's more likely going to get some Punisher type of justice that involves setting fire to his house in the shape of a skull or... ya know taking 1 between the eyes...
Of course it pretty much is his choice. He could give himself up in a public place. That way if the police just shoot him it would make them look very bad.
If he goes down fighting in an obscure area its really down to what the police say happened.
Alfndrate wrote: Remember, even in our country even the whackos deserve due process of law. The problem is that 1 of 2 things are likely to happen 1) He gets cornered and takes his own life, or 2) He gets shot regardless of how he is captured, simply because he's a cop killer, and most of them probably want revenge. I know that I probably would if I were in the LAPD's seat.
Yeah I know... I'm being melodramatic. I didn't mean to advocate assassination.
Just get the fether and throw the book at him.
Well we're more likely to throw a drone at him since he is one of the few people on US soil to get the green light to be targeted by drones.
Grey Templar wrote: Of course it pretty much is his choice. He could give himself up in a public place. That way if the police just shoot him it would make them look very bad.
If he goes down fighting in an obscure area its really down to what the police say happened.
Obviously he needs a TV crew to follow him around and security cams to broadcast to the youtubes for the final showdown...
The Express wrote:On Sunday, the Express quoted a "senior police source" who said the "thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him—on the ground, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack."
Police Chief Sergio Diaz wrote:When asked if drones had been deployed to search for Dorner, Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz told the Express, “we are using all the tools at our disposal.”
Alfndrate wrote: Remember, even in our country even the whackos deserve due process of law. The problem is that 1 of 2 things are likely to happen 1) He gets cornered and takes his own life, or 2) He gets shot regardless of how he is captured, simply because he's a cop killer, and most of them probably want revenge. I know that I probably would if I were in the LAPD's seat.
Yeah I know... I'm being melodramatic. I didn't mean to advocate assassination.
Just get the fether and throw the book at him.
Well we're more likely to throw a drone at him since he is one of the few people on US soil to get the green light to be targeted by drones.
Maybe I missed it, but where in that article did it say the green light had been given to target him with drones? I didn't see that anywhere.
I think thats a severe miss quote. There was a report that they had a drone looking for him. They're good at that, but its no different then a helicopter.
Which is why I said even if you were using it as an example, he would/should based on his training be able to plan for such an event.
My point being that whether or not the "peaceful" demoralization works (which would be, in this case, introducing some hesitation or other error into his actions if he can be made to harbor a doubt, however weak, about his delusions of persecution), the violent option still gets in place, and will almost certainly be enacted the first time they have half a chance. Introducing any element of indecision or error into his behavior, however small or unlikely, can only improve the odds of the actual plan working and at worst fails to effect it.
Which is why I said even if you were using it as an example, he would/should based on his training be able to plan for such an event.
My point being that whether or not the "peaceful" demoralization works (which would be, in this case, introducing some hesitation or other error into his actions if he can be made to harbor a doubt, however weak, about his delusions of persecution), the violent option still gets in place, and will almost certainly be enacted the first time they have half a chance. Introducing any element of indecision or error into his behavior, however small or unlikely, can only improve the odds of the actual plan working and at worst fails to effect it.
Success would violate the man's due process of law.
The fugitive ex-LAPD cop suspected of killing three and declaring war on the force exchanged gunfire with authorities in the San Bernardino Mountains, law enforcement sources said.
A police source told The Associated Press Christopher Dorner burglarized a cabin on the mountain resort area where days ago Dorner’s truck was found burning. Two people were bound inside the cabin, but one managed to escape and call authorities around 12:50 p.m. local time.
Police, who had been swarming Big Bear Lake since the weekend, responded and spotted and chased a suspect believed to be Dorner in a stolen car, exchanging gunfire, a federal law enforcement source told Fox News.
San Bernardino police were on the scene the county Sheriff's Department shut down Highway 38 to create a choke point, sources told Fox News. It was unclear if Dorner was in custody.
The shootout came after a day of searching and speculation, with authorities continuing their door-to-door search at Big Bear Lake, even as sources guessed Dorner may have made it over the border and into Mexico.
The Associated Pres
Automatically Appended Next Post: Reports now coming in that Dorner is in a cabin and it is surrounded.
I have no doubt the LAPD has problems with racism and the blue wall. I might even have been on this dudes side if he would have gone after those who 'wronged' him. When he started targeting their loved ones, he lost any sympathy I had. But major PDs still need a look.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Think of hostage situations: one guy with a megaphone (or regular phone, as the case may be) engages the lunatic, and tries to distract them and undermine their will to carry out their threats/objectives, while a dozen snipers take up positions and a tactical team sneaks around back, so to speak. He's a dead man regardless of what he does next, but the less willing/able to carry out his intended rampage the better.
That's not what the negotiator is there to do. Most hostage situations are just the fight/flight response taken into overdrive. The negotiator just keeps the guy talking, and keeps check on whether he's a greater risk to captives than an assault would be. Most times the fight response drops away, the guy realises doing some jail time is much more sensible than killing someone and getting killed, and they give themselves up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Alfndrate wrote: I could see taking away the 5th amendment rights for Anwar al-Awlaki who advocating attacks against the American government which is treason if I recall correctly. But Dorner is technically attacking parts of the American government (albeit local), so does that make him guilty of treason... Am I splitting hairs? idk D:
Treason has a really specific, technical definition. This ain't it.
He's just another murderous fugitive, and the LAPD should act towards him like they do towards any other murderous fugitive - find him, bring him in if possible & safe.
The Express wrote:On Sunday, the Express quoted a "senior police source" who said the "thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him—on the ground, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack."
Drones have been used in the US before. There's a difference between a drone strike and just using a drone for recon - the latter is really no different to using a helicopter.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bromsy wrote: I have no doubt the LAPD has problems with racism and the blue wall. I might even have been on this dudes side if he would have gone after those who 'wronged' him. When he started targeting their loved ones, he lost any sympathy I had. But major PDs still need a look.
Yeah, no. Not even a little. Even if he'd 'just' killed those who wronged him, he's still murdering people. People who do that are the bad guys.
I really wonder if this is so close to a movie that people are just assuming that his motivations must be genuine and justified, like they would be in a movie.
But that's so boring! Just end his life in a hail of gunfire/barbeque him in the place he's taken a-shelter in. I don't want his trial hogging all the front page space on my newspapers like that Brevik guy's did.
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Think of hostage situations: one guy with a megaphone (or regular phone, as the case may be) engages the lunatic, and tries to distract them and undermine their will to carry out their threats/objectives, while a dozen snipers take up positions and a tactical team sneaks around back, so to speak. He's a dead man regardless of what he does next, but the less willing/able to carry out his intended rampage the better.
That's not what the negotiator is there to do. Most hostage situations are just the fight/flight response taken into overdrive. The negotiator just keeps the guy talking, and keeps check on whether he's a greater risk to captives than an assault would be. Most times the fight response drops away, the guy realises doing some jail time is much more sensible than killing someone and getting killed, and they give themselves up.
Most hostage situations don't involve someone specifically targeting not only cops, but the cops tasked with dealing with the lunatic. They could have taken him alive and dragged him behind a cruiser, and the coroner would swear up and down his injuries were consistent with self-inflicted gunshots.* The core point I was trying to get across was that one guy engaging the target and distracting him/undermining his resolve to carry on violently (the best manifestation of which would be surrendering to police) does not preclude preparations for/positioning of more violent options.
* I'm obviously exaggerating, but the fundamental point is sound.
CuddlySquig wrote: But that's so boring! Just end his life in a hail of gunfire/barbeque him in the place he's taken a-shelter in. I don't want his trial hogging all the front page space on my newspapers like that Brevik guy's did.
I'm not so sure the front page of your newspaper is really a good reason to have the state going around murdering people. I mean, does anyone even read the paper anymore?
That said, the 'if possible' was kind of important big part when it came to this guy. It was very unlikely he was ever going to let it get to a situation where he could be captured alive.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: Most hostage situations don't involve someone specifically targeting not only cops, but the cops tasked with dealing with the lunatic. They could have taken him alive and dragged him behind a cruiser, and the coroner would swear up and down his injuries were consistent with self-inflicted gunshots.* The core point I was trying to get across was that one guy engaging the target and distracting him/undermining his resolve to carry on violently (the best manifestation of which would be surrendering to police) does not preclude preparations for/positioning of more violent options.
* I'm obviously exaggerating, but the fundamental point is sound.
Yeah, definitely agree that working towards a peaceful solution doesn't prevent set up for a more violent resolution. My point was just that the work towards a peaceful resolution is a genuine effort, not just buying time.
CuddlySquig wrote: But that's so boring! Just end his life in a hail of gunfire/barbeque him in the place he's taken a-shelter in. I don't want his trial hogging all the front page space on my newspapers like that Brevik guy's did.
I'm not so sure the front page of your newspaper is really a good reason to have the state going around murdering people. I mean, does anyone even read the paper anymore?
Of course it's a good reason. Endless high publicity trials bug me. I can't tell you how tired I got of seeing that file image of Omar Khadr's innocent baby face that the Toronto Star was so fond of. A good cover story always makes me read more of the whole paper, which is important when I'm having my cereal.
And...yes. I do read the paper.
They're young people who feel that talking trash about the police makes them macho is all.
Looking over the reactions some people are having to this. There's this YouTube clown saying Chris Doner is an agent of Obama who carried out his attacks so to give the US government reasons to legislate gun control. We ought to stop telling people to think for themselves. Some people are just too stupid to think for themselves, because they have stupid brains and stupid brains have stupid thoughts.
Drones have been used in the US before. There's a difference between a drone strike and just using a drone for recon - the latter is really no different to using a helicopter.
Not just that, they actually have been used for weather research as well.
Drones have been used in the US before. There's a difference between a drone strike and just using a drone for recon - the latter is really no different to using a helicopter.
Not just that, they actually have been used for weather research as well.
Revisionist history hasn't had a chance to take root. I'm with Frazz.
When a man KILLS THE CHILREN of the people he's pissed off at, he's a vermin. Anyone who supports him is also vermin.
Of course he's vermin. And of course anyone who ends up trying to fantasise about the guy will be vermin. I'm not saying it's morally okay, I'm just saying that there is a chance it will happen, because it happened with murderous imbeciles before.
Pointing out that no attempt at revision has happened yet (within a day of his death?!) or that it's not morally okay is beyond irrelevant to my point.
Frazzled wrote: I don't think we romanticize these guys like we used to do in the 30s though.
They weren't much romanticized during that time period, perhaps a bit, but it was the movie with Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway in 1967 that sort of made them out as fun loving adventurers. There was a hit song in 2003 called 'Bonnie and Clyde' by Jay-Z and Beyonce, in which the duo are a couple of fun loving criminals on the run together in an exciting adventure. The romantization is still fairly prevalent, and the term has come to mean a couple that love eachother so much they dtick together through anything. A sort of Romeo and Juliet by way of Al Capone.
I think because, while they were psychopaths in real life, they would later become romanticized, almost folk heroes.
While I won't venture to say they were psychopaths, they're negative qualities get hashed out and what is left is justification for their actions that eventually people find appeal in so long as it is not negatively associated, no matter their intent.
Look at those who admire generals of the Confederate Army of the United States. Anyone defending the CSA was by extension defending slavery. There was a huge push after the war and well into the 20th century in glorifying their achievements through name dedications, monuments, and statues.
Example: Nathan Bedford Forrest is considered one of the greatest cavalry leaders of the war and has his image tainted by actions by his men (Fort Pillow Massacre), his previous job before the military (slave trader), and his job after the war (Ku Klux Klan leader).
Take that negativity all away and your left with a man who through sheer untaught strategic brilliance caused considerable vexation for the Union army.
People would want to associate with a legendary hero than a racist murderer.
I think because, while they were psychopaths in real life, they would later become romanticized, almost folk heroes.
As a rebuttal to the idea that people that are currently supporting Dorner are scum? I don't get it.
I don't think that was the point at all. He was referencing a tendency among people to romanticize an incident, or individuals. If anything it is an indictment of the people wanting to make this into something it isn't, not a defense of their turning a blind eye to the realities, or that confuse a film for history.
I think because, while they were psychopaths in real life, they would later become romanticized, almost folk heroes.
As a rebuttal to the idea that people that are currently supporting Dorner are scum? I don't get it.
I don't think that was the point at all. He was referencing a tendency among people to romanticize an incident, or individuals. If anything it is an indictment of the people wanting to make this into something it isn't, not a defense of their turning a blind eye to the realities, or that confuse a film for history.
Films just muddle the pool even further on what should be idolized. But then again, that is it. We idolize those, shearing away imperfections and lauding them for their virtues.
Look at Michael Jackson....people still love his music, his ground breaking style and fame but ignore or insignifify his flaws.
I think because, while they were psychopaths in real life, they would later become romanticized, almost folk heroes.
As a rebuttal to the idea that people that are currently supporting Dorner are scum? I don't get it.
I don't think that was the point at all. He was referencing a tendency among people to romanticize an incident, or individuals. If anything it is an indictment of the people wanting to make this into something it isn't, not a defense of their turning a blind eye to the realities, or that confuse a film for history.
I think because, while they were psychopaths in real life, they would later become romanticized, almost folk heroes.
As a rebuttal to the idea that people that are currently supporting Dorner are scum? I don't get it.
I don't think that was the point at all. He was referencing a tendency among people to romanticize an incident, or individuals. If anything it is an indictment of the people wanting to make this into something it isn't, not a defense of their turning a blind eye to the realities, or that confuse a film for history.
Films just muddle the pool even further on what should be idolized. But then again, that is it. We idolize those, shearing away imperfections and lauding them for their virtues.
Look at Michael Jackson....people still love his music, his ground breaking style and fame but ignore or insignifify his flaws.
But at the same time there are plenty of us that realize the man still had the voice and the moves, and his legal troubles probably stemmed from the fact that he had a messed up childhood, and never really... grew up...
I think because, while they were psychopaths in real life, they would later become romanticized, almost folk heroes.
I think, IIRC about the only criminal in the US to really, and truly be romanticized and hailed as a hero by many, was John Dillinger (ya know, the famous bank robber who robbed from the bank's vault, not the customers in the bank, and who escaped many prisons previously thought to be unescapable)
I think because, while they were psychopaths in real life, they would later become romanticized, almost folk heroes.
I think, IIRC about the only criminal in the US to really, and truly be romanticized and hailed as a hero by many, was John Dillinger (ya know, the famous bank robber who robbed from the bank's vault, not the customers in the bank, and who escaped many prisons previously thought to be unescapable)
I think because, while they were psychopaths in real life, they would later become romanticized, almost folk heroes.
I think, IIRC about the only criminal in the US to really, and truly be romanticized and hailed as a hero by many, was John Dillinger (ya know, the famous bank robber who robbed from the bank's vault, not the customers in the bank, and who escaped many prisons previously thought to be unescapable)
Frazzled wrote: I don't think we romanticize these guys like we used to do in the 30s though.
That's true, there's much greater awareness of what bankrobbers and mafia types are really like, leaving much less scope for romanticisation. But that doesn't mean it can't happen, especially with a guy like Dorner, who's killing spree is quite different from the norm, and maybe liable to be romanticised if the right* people get hold of it.
*Or wrong people... you know what I mean.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Monster Rain wrote: As a rebuttal to the idea that people that are currently supporting Dorner are scum? I don't get it.
The question at hand wasn't on people currently supporting Dorner. To recap;
Easy E asked; "Do we have the makings of a modern day "depression era" folk hero in this story?"
Fraz replied, pointing out the guy called and taunted the families of the victims.
I replied to that, pointing out that Bonnie & Clyde were murderous imbeciles, who in time and with imaginative re-writes were turned into folk heroes.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I don't think that was the point at all. He was referencing a tendency among people to romanticize an incident, or individuals. If anything it is an indictment of the people wanting to make this into something it isn't, not a defense of their turning a blind eye to the realities, or that confuse a film for history.
Not a problem. I think there were two different conversations running through the thread, one on people who are cheering on Dorner, and another on whether he might one day be a folk hero. I was commenting on the former, and saying 'donkey-caves have been made heroes in the past, so there's a chance it'll happen again.'
I think this might also explain why your original question to me might have seemed very different to how you intended it. If so, my apologies for my curt response.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I think, IIRC about the only criminal in the US to really, and truly be romanticized and hailed as a hero by many, was John Dillinger (ya know, the famous bank robber who robbed from the bank's vault, not the customers in the bank, and who escaped many prisons previously thought to be unescapable)
You should watch the 60s movie of Bonnie & Clyde, because it is the culmination of a lot of efforts to turn those two into heroes (and it's also a pretty good movie, in that 'ignore the history' Braveheart kind of way).
And whembly's call of Jesse James is a really good one. There's also Billy the Kid. In Australia we do the same thing with Ned Kelly.
Breotan wrote: Back in the 70s, there was an episode of the Brady Bunch dedicated to little Bobby's infatuation with BtK.
If you had written BTK, I would have thought you were talking about the BTK killer... and then I remembered the Brady bunch ended before BTK really got going.
But I only ever get told to put a wash on it 
Just end his life in a hail of gunfire/barbeque him in the place he's taken a-shelter in. I don't want his trial hogging all the front page space on my newspapers like that Brevik guy's did.
