Skip to main content

From CNN

LA and surrounding communities are on high alert for Christopher Jordan Dorner, accused of 3 murders, including killing a cop. I have seen reports of 3 cops shot.

Police are concerned that Dorner is carrying his police radio and are having to resort to
phone calls to communicate between officers.

Per a letter Dorner wrote.......

"I will bring unconventional and asymmetrical warfare to those in LAPD uniform whether on or off duty," Dorner allegedly wrote in a lengthy letter promising retribution against the department, where he worked from 2005 until 2008. An LAPD source provided the document Thursday to CNN.
The letter writer claimed he was terminated after he reported excessive force by a fellow officer, and said his attacks were retribution for his termination, as well as a culture of racism and violence he says continues within the department.
Good thing this ex cop had not been assigned to any school.

9:15 PST Update: Authorities are looking for an older model dark colored Nissan Pickup.
2 different shootings this morning by police due to mistaken identity while searching for Dorner. Both parties were driving similar Nissan pickups.

11:22 PST Update:
Reports have indicated that there is evidence suspect could be in San Diego. Multiple tips coming in reporting similar looking individuals in San Diego. People are calling in similar descriptions of potential suspects. Multiple cases of large build African Americans males being stopped in the San Diego Area. One individual recently pulled out of Holiday Inn parking lot at gunpoint by police- false identity.

12:55 Update:  A burned out truck matching the suspect vehicle has been found near Big Bear, California at Snow Summit in San Bernadino County. Police are trying to access VIN numbers to match.

scanner traffic can be acccesed here:

Additional News Sources:

LA Times (blog)

LA Fox 40

Live coverage:

 Dorner manifesto:

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Shooting people is not the best expression (16+ / 0-)

    of protest against being terminated for reporting excessive force.

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:30:25 AM PST

  •  I know a cop who was forced to leave (9+ / 0-)

    for filing murder charges against his partner who shot an 11 year old in the back - his second juvenile shooting.
    There is obviously no excuse for going on a killing spree, but the man obviously cracked.

    "You can die for Freedom, you just can't exercise it"

    by shmuelman on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 08:45:46 AM PST

  •  Disarming civilians ends gun violence how? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zygoat, Intheknow

    Whenever anyone here brings up wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban all gun ownership, I always ask if that includes the police, and I'm always told "No, the police get to keep their guns, because they have training".

    And that's supposed to make me feel better?  That when a cop goes crazy not only is he armed, probably with a police issue assault rifle, but he's fully trained in how to best lethally wield it?  And here is someone who is not only ex-police, but ex-military, and promissing to use everything he knows to kill.

    This only reinforces my point that an assault weapons ban and/or magazine limits must include the police.  Any gun that is too dangerous in the hands of a crazy citizen is also too dangerous in the hands of a crazy police/military officer.

    Gun bans must apply equally to citizens and police because everyone has equal odds to go crazy.

    •  Problem with your thinking (3+ / 0-)

      is that gun ownership doesn't do a very good job of protecting people. That cop that was shot was armed, Kyle and his partner were armed and both were shot dead.
      If you've ever had a gun pulled on you, you wouldn't be repeating this stupid bullsh!t because it happens so unexpectedly and so fast that you'd have to have the gun in your hand and cocked if it was to do you any good.
      In your pocket or a holster, too late.
      If there were less guns out on the streets, there would be less guns in the hands of police as well, The British police were armed with a stick up until rather recently, because there were very few civilian guns in their society.

      If I ran this circus, things would be DIFFERENT!

      by CwV on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:01:04 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Isn't that what I just said? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        If there were less guns out on the streets, there would be less guns in the hands of police as well
        If assault weapons and high capacity magazines are banned from civilian ownership, then the police no longer need them either.  What would be your rationale for allowing the police to be heavily armed and capable of mass murder?
        gun ownership doesn't do a very good job of protecting people
        As you said, that includes the police shot today.  You're contradicting yourself.  If having a gun doesn't keep me safe, and it doesn't keep the police safe, then we're on equal footing right?  So any gun ban that you would apply to civilians you must apply equally to the police.  Do you agree?
        •  You don't live there (0+ / 0-)

          How exactly do you intend to enforce this weapon ban on violent criminals?

          It seems to me that people already in possession of unregistered weapons, often illegally, and who are willing to do violence to others with them, would welcome a less well-armed police.

          •  Then they would welcome less well armed civilians (0+ / 0-)

            I agree with you that criminals don't obey bans, and that gun bans are likely to create a new black market.  However, if there were a nationwide ban the manufacturing of assault weapons and large cap mags, that would affect nationwide availabilty.

            I'm not arguing for or against any particular ban.  I have been consistent in arguing for one thing.  That for any gun restriction that may be enacted, that it apply equally to civilians and police.

            If criminals welcome a less well-armed police, they welcome less well-armed civilians.  And if crazy civilians can't be trusted with a gun, crazy police officers can't be trusted either.  Equality under the law is a good thing.

            •  No angels (0+ / 0-)

              The problem with your logic is that we have no perfect angels among us. If we trust 18-year olds with rocket launchers in Iraq, it seems rather hypocritical to not trust them with pistols in the United States. They are the same people. If they are "crazy" we wouldn't trust them around their fellow soldiers, regardless of where they were. Their commanding officers are people, their commanding officers are people, all the way up.

              Similarly, every weapon in the US arsenal, is in the end, under the control of one person. Even our nukes are trusted to a civilian in the end (imagine a President Palin with a finger on the button).

              Equality under the law only works for things that are equal. I think my freedom under the law is a bit different than that of someone currently serving ten-to-twenty for murder. I do not want him equally free under the law as myself, nor do I want myself equally unfree under the law as him.

              Similarly, since by current societal norms I am apparently not crazy, being treated under the law like I was crazy is not "equality".

              If it was ethical to restrict, penalize or coerce a group for the actions of a tiny subset of its members, every Republican in the country would be in jail right now...

              •  Rights are removed through due process (0+ / 0-)

                You're confusing two different things.  There are the Rights that every one of us enjoy equally as law abiding citizens.  Then there is our individual status under the law, such as being a convicted felon or not.

                Of course you are not treated equally as someone convicted of murder.  That person was tried in a court of law and had his rights constitutionally removed by due process.  That is an individual matter.

                But a nationwide ban on something is different.  That says that even though we are innocent and law abiding, that we still don't have the right to it.  And that applies to everyone equally.

                Think of it this way.  All of us are prohibitted from driving drunk because it's too big of a risk.  We don't restrict drunk driving only to the shitty drivers and say it's okay for good drivers who can handle their liquor.  If it's an unacceptable risk for one, it's unacceptable for all.  

                What I was talking about is the risk of a person going crazy.  If we are to say that assault weapons are too dangerous because a person can go crazy and kill lots of people with it, then that attitude must also be applied equally.  I say that a civilian has just as much risk of going crazy as a police officer, and vice versa.  Therefore, any gun restrictions that are applied to civilians must be applied equally to the police.

                That is equality under the law for things that are equal.  All law abiding citizens, whether police or civilians, would have to obey the same gun restrictions, whatever they may be.  They may be no restrictions at all.  Still equal.

                Oh and P.S., if it was ethical to restrict a group based on a tiny subset of it's members, we wouldn't have a war on drugs.  One bad apple has always been able to ruin it for everyone.  Don't act naive on that count.

                •  Unclear on the concept (0+ / 0-)

                  On one hand, you are saying that no one is allowed to drive drunk but alcohol or cars are not banned, and on the other hand you are saying no one can go crazy with a gun and therefore we should ban all guns.

                  So, do you ban the conduct or the tools that facilitate the conduct? Whatever your moral stance is, be consistent with it, and when you figure out a moral stance not riddled with exceptions and special cases, let me know.

                  But a nationwide ban on something is different. That says that even though we are innocent and law abiding, that we still don't have the right to it.  And that applies to everyone equally.
                  Wow. If I used that as an anti-abortion argument, would you agree with it? After all, their stance is based on saving lives and preventing murders, too.
                  •  I'm saying could ban, not should ban (0+ / 0-)

                    No I did not say we should ban all guns.  I am not personally in favor of gun bans.  I think there are too many ways around them and too much risk of creating a black market.

                    For your abortion question, I am a libertarian, no I don't agree with bans of that type.  However, IF abortion was banned nationwide, then that ban would have to be applied to everyone equally.  Abortion would be banned for all, rich, poor, Dem, GOP, civilian, police.  

                    And that is what I was saying about assault weapons bans or large cap magazine bans.  IF, IF such a ban were put in place, I do NOT support exceptions or special cases for the police.  If I can't legally own an AR-15 with a 30 round clip, then the cops don't get one either.

                    No exemptions, no special cases. Everyone is equal under the law.  Clear now?

    •  so we're safer when surrounded by trained killers? (5+ / 0-)

      I've never understood this attitude that having more power to kill running around makes me safer as opposed to putting me in mortal danger everywhere I go.

      Something's wrong when the bad guys are the utopian ones.

      by Visceral on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:29:13 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  We are in the middle of a spate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, Norm in Chicago

    of narcissistic young (and a couple of old) murderers, who believe they have an innate right to war, maim, terrorize and kill before they go out with a blaze of glory because of whatever hell they are enduring internally. We can't stop inner their internal demons, but I wish we could figure out a way for them not to sacrifice other people's mothers, fathers, sisters and brothers to their war within.

    The choice of our lifetime: Mitt Romney, It Takes A Pillage or President Barack Obama, Forward Together.

    by FiredUpInCA on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 09:56:04 AM PST

  •  Police now shooting anything that moves? (5+ / 0-)

    From CNN:

    According to a senior law enforcement source, two people were wounded when officers in Torrance, California, opened fire on a blue pickup truck after it pulled up in front of a house where they were guarding a fellow officer Dorner had allegedly named as a target.

    The truck -- which turned out to be a newspaper delivery vehicle -- resembled the truck Dorner is believed to be driving, the source said. Police also shot at another blue pickup in that city, but no one was injured in that incident, the source said.

    I thought officers were trained to be able to handle their weapons like professionals, I thought they were trained to be brave.  How does this keep us safe, shooting up every vehicle that looks like the suspects?  Did they even try to get a positive ID before opening fire?

    The suspect is also black, I'd advise every black man in LA to stay indoors today if they don't want to eat a police bullet.  Gun control is only for civilians my ass.

  •  This nut killed (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Intheknow, lorzie, Catte Nappe

    A guy I knew back in high school. Apparently he went after his fiancée, who is the daughter of a retired LAPD Cpt. The whole community is confused and devastated. This guy is highly trained and is going after innocent family members. I don't believe this is going to end well.

  •  Striking difference in tone from comments (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'm withholding opinion on the events themselves, but finding it fascinating to compare and contrast the various comments from people on different websites. For example, a link on wordpress, here: hiphopandpolitics reveals a vastly different view of this person.

    Also, if you can stomache it, the entirety of his "manifesto" is here. There's a LOT being censored by the media, not just the names of specific people. He's obviously disturbed- he admits as much himself.

    -this space for rent-

    by EsnRedshirt on Thu Feb 07, 2013 at 12:16:37 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site