Skip to main content

View Diary: Regarding Chris Dorner's Claims (54 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Okay, Dorner's apologists, then. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    twigg

    The video has been used in the service of justifying or vindicating Dorner, when in reality, it does no such thing (if you buy the argument that the murders of four innocent people can even be justified or vindicated).

    I'm not concerned with how the LAPD behaved in this instance.  They've behaved badly in the past--the Rampart Division famously, but even with incidents like the May Day Melee.  However, this incident is not a good example to hold up of police misconduct without doing serious violence to the facts.

    •  I'm fine with genuine attempts (8+ / 0-)

      to understand what troubled Dorner.

      As for apologising for his actions, or trying to excuse them ... Well those folk need to search their consciences. There is no excuse.

      Reasons are not excuses, and I would judge very harshly anyone who forgot who the real victims were in this case.

      I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
      but I fear we will remain Democrats.

      Who is twigg?

      by twigg on Wed Feb 13, 2013 at 10:38:42 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  The actions of the LAPD (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      hardhatmama, IreGyre, lyvwyr101

      seem at this point the most important thing to pay attention to.  I never thought this man was a hero.  I do think that the police planed and carried out a murder here.  They never planned to do their jobs.  they always planned on doing an extra-judicial execution on him.  They nearly killed three other people trying to murder him.

      You might feel safe where you live or because of the class or race group that you belong to.  I believe that as long as any police officers or organizations can act this way none of us are safe.

      That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

      by stevie avebury on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 06:08:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  The guy vowed to kill anyone (3+ / 0-)

        who tried to apprehend him. And he made good on that promise, multiple times. So how exactly would you have apprehended him if you were in charge?

        •  As I said before (0+ / 0-)

          he is no hero. I do not believe that police, who completely failed to even try to identify the drivers of the trucks they shot up, most likely made no attempt at contact or apprehension.  That is a huge failure on their part. That is wrong.

          Not having police training I am not sure how I would have attempted to apprehend him but I do know that a huge police force like the LAPD ought to have someone with training on how to do that. Am I wrong about this? Why are they police if they have no idea how to apprehend criminals?

          I do know that once they had him cornered they should have had a plan to try to talk him out.  They took the time to plan on how to burn him alive after all so they do have some idea on how to plan things!

          I know this is hard for you to understand but if you were the victim of a mistaken identity like those ladies in the truck, you would want the police to act right and follow their training and not try to murder you.

          The reason we should follow the constitution and try to make sure every person gets a fair trial is because if we are ever in that position we want a fair trial too. Just like I treat the people around me with respect because I want to be treated with respect. This is how we function in a civilized society. Both the LAPD and Dorner forgot this rule. Neither deserves my respect.

          That passed by; this can, too. - Deor

          by stevie avebury on Thu Feb 14, 2013 at 01:39:31 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Lots of assumptions here. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Dr Swig Mcjigger, doc2, SoCalSal

            And that's what this diary is trying to avoid.

            The police had someone who was willing to shoot at them without any warning at all.  He had already killed one officer (and not an LAPD one, at that) from behind, total surprise, hours before the Torrance incident, and he'd killed two officers (and four people) before the cabin burned.  I can completely understand not being willing to take any chances.  Moreover, he fired first.  Period.  That's the chronology.  He shot at the CA Fish & Wildlife officers, then at San Bernardino Sheriff's Deputies.  ANYONE has the Constitutional right to use deadly force in response to deadly force.

            It was a small cabin.  It had both a front door and a back door.  He'd already shot two San Bernardino Sheriff's Deputies (also not LAPD), killing one, when they threw the tear gas.  They did not "plan to burn him alilve"--that's just conspiracy theory (which is, or at least used to be, banned around here)--and even if they had, he could have just walked out the front door or the back door.

            Oh, and the cutsie "Both the LAPD and Dorner forgot this rule" is just a figleaf for hero worship.  Let's be honest.  You spent 99% of this comment in inflammatory comments about the LAPD (misidentifying them yourself, by the way).

      •  He murdered four innocent people. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Dr Swig Mcjigger, SoCalSal

        Keep that in perspective.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site