It’s Crisp. He for damn sure had a great set of teeth so perhaps that’ll speed the process. Curious, generally speaking do departments keep dental records of their officers on file?
I doubt it. But dentists do. CNN has a story about how these kinds of bodies can be identified. It includes more uses of the word “charred” than you ever expected to read in any piece of writing that wasn’t about a real barbecue.
See, this is why I still have my CA drivers license. Not because I’m too lazy to go to the IL DMV, but because not even *fire * that chars up a human body can destroy one of those sonsabitches.
It’s not that rare of a phenomenon. Plenty of people have a black hat/white hat mentality that holds if one side is bad, anyone who announces themselves to be in opposition must be the good guy. For a large scale example, look at all the people who ignored all the evil that America did in the Cold War, handwaving away America’s own atrocities by pointing out the evil of the USSR.
A murderer and not a martyr. Yes, I do suspect that perhaps his firing was a set-up, since I know that pretty much whistle-blowers are fired, but even if so that did not justify his violent actions against innocents.
And yes, the LAPD FUBARed this, and in other news Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.
What I said was I don’t understand why it’s linked to the Dorner situation, people seem to be saying “the LAPD had a bad shoot while protecting someone who they feared may be on Dorner’s target list, so that means we can assume Dorner’s original firing was entirely corrupt and maybe Dorner on some levels was right to be very pissed and to have felt wronged.” I’m not saying we shouldn’t be concerned about police violating use of force doctrines, I’m saying I don’t get how people are logically connecting one police failure to the concept of whether or not Dorner was “justified” (not necessarily justified in killing, which luckily few if any are saying, but justified in his anger and hostility towards LAPD.)
ONE police failure? :dubious:
I said “Dark Knight”, which is a play on the movie the Dark Knight.
When gun fetishists talk about waging war against their government, what they ate talking about would look a lot like what Dorner did over the past few days.
The Navy certainly keeps dental records of its personnel.
Agree with others - ***no ***martyr’s rank for the dude with the broad, friendly smile (and yes it’s chilling that said smile hid the potential for something like this). When he decided to target uninvolved third parties, family members, and people who were just doing their job, he lost the moral high ground, having NOT exhausted all valid avenues for crusading against the claimed misdeeds within the framework of the law. He could have sought to go on any of scores of radio talk shows who’d be happy to put on someone denouncing LAPD, joined a citizens’ advocacy group, supported reform-minded candidates, performed civil disobedience, rabble-roused, etc. One individual may never get his job back but he can become the sympathetic face for a struggle against real and alleged unfair practices, rather than go on a violent spree.
Instead the guy despaired and snapped and spoke of asymmetric war, claiming the mantle of being a one-man insurgency. But one man is not an insurgency, one man is a serial murderer or at best a lone-wolf terrorist (if there’s an ideology behind the actions). There is no compelling case for launching Total War against the police forces of SoCal in the full knowledge it will end with your death, since the LAPD’s problems can still be addressed by regular political action, if and when the political players and voters of Los Angeles find the will.
So are the LAPD hierarchy a bunch of putzes? Maybe, even probably. Is Dorner is a murderer? Abso-OgDamn-lutely.
Whose eponymous protagonist has as part of his canonical characterization going out of his way at stupid risk to self not to kill (at least not directly / by his own hands) even the worst deserving.
Or even if he had exhausted them. The justification that “the system is corrupt, so I had to kill the bad guys myself” at a bare minimum requires that the people you kill actually be the “bad guys” for it to even make sense, much less be correct.
You’re right, of course. That phrase should have a period before “having NOT” and a comma after “framework of the law” to communicate a more proper meaning.
And who never uses a gun- not on criminals, and not on strangers sitting in their cars.
You mean, like the lapd did the other day in Torrance when they opened fire on a 71 yr old grandmother and her daughter ‘mistaking’ them for a single large burly black man?
We were talking about the quadruple murderer, but yes, the police also screwed up in a major way. I’m not sure why “mistaking” is in quotes in that sentence. Do you think maybe they just felt like shooting those women?
Not sure how the people you talk to feel about it, but everyone I’ve taked to don’t understand how they could possibly mistake something like that…single large burly young black man is the suspect,…and let’s get this straight …they open fire ( with no warning, no command given, just simply ready set fire!) on two older even elderly Hispanic women
Ok, if they had mistaken another young black man who was somewhere in the range of his height and build,…but two elderly Latina women?
If that’s a ‘mistake’ I hate to see what their true f*** ups look like :eek:
I think they screwed up (in a huge way) about the kind of car the women were driving. Like I said, it sounds like a mistake and a bad one, not a “mistake.”
:eek:
Oh, got it. It sounds like your saying they could only see the truck and didnt know who the hell they were firing at? All the more reason to exonerate them?
Taking cleansing breath, trying to visualize something peaceful…you realize its their sworn duty to protect citizens, yes? So your saying that they couldn’t even see who was in the truck? If that’s so, even more reason why they had to n some way confirm the passengers identity, not simply open fire for Pete’s sake. (I will venture to say if it was your family member they just blindly fired on without knowing who the hell they were firing at, you’d be up in arms) And you realize they didnt even give a warning, or issue a directive, they simply opened fire?
I have a hunch I shouldn’t even go there with you, you will no doubt have some reason why it was not that much of a boo boo for them to do so.
I didn’t exonerate anyone. I asked why you called it a scare-quotes ‘mistake,’ which makes it sound like you don’t think it was a mistake. Would you mind explaining?