Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Alfndrate wrote:
Wrong article on the clipboard

I have paid for my sins three fold:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/dorner-drone-manhunt-192403607.html

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.

 sebster wrote:
bring him in if possible & safe.

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 sebster wrote:

 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.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No. Anyone who thinks that needs a swift kick to the gonads. This guys was calling the victims' families and taunting them.

Sure, but Bonnie & Clyde were murderous imbeciles. It's weird what a few years and some imaginative re-writes will do to history.

Irrelevant.

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.

 Frazzled wrote:

Anyone who supports him is also vermin.

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.

 sebster wrote:

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.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 sebster wrote:

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.

No one cares about the weather ya durned hippies!

Those were alien spaceships, of course.

Anyways, now that a body's been found, we're all waiting to see if Dorner has been burnt to a chrisp.

Word around the web is that good sized chunks of Dorner's manifesto were added courtesy of 4chan

I thought that his demand or a cure for diabeetus was suspicious.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Word around the web is that good sized chunks of Dorner's manifesto were added courtesy of 4chan

Why, I can't believe those fine young men would try to pull such a boner.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Irrelevant.

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.

You obviously haven't been up on some of the twitter comments calling him a hero for fighting The Man.

Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster? That was the prompt for my comment.

Though extra points for passive-aggression.

 Monster Rain wrote:
Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster?

I think because, while they were psychopaths in real life, they would later become romanticized, almost folk heroes.

I don't think we romanticize these guys like we used to do in the 30s though.

Yeah, we are much better at it now.

We just call it News.

 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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster?

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster?

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.

 Ahtman wrote:
fun loving criminals ..

I like when they run around robbing banks all wacked off of scooby snacks.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster?

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster?

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.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster?

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.

Perhaps I misintrepreted the intent of the statement.

If so, my bad.

 WarOne wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster?

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...

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster?

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)

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Then why point to Bonnie and Clyde, sebster?

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)

Don't forget Jesse James.