LAPD as judge, jury, and executioner

[Pedro]

@Marley23

Broseph, don’t worry about it!

I won’t douchenozzle. You, on the other hand, might just get an education out of it.

@Miller

[Moderating]
Telling other posters to fuck themselves is a violation of the Pit’s language rules. Please avoid doing this in the future.

No warning issued.
[/Moderating]

Noted.

[Marley23]

@Pedro

You, on the other hand, might just get an education out of it.

OK, Ed Hardy, tell me what you think you’re going to teach me.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

I don’t think you’ll see any more killing, on Dorner’s part at least. The announcement that they are reopening the case will mean he wants to stay alive and witness the outcome. He will stay low under the radar and allow the terror he has caused amongst the LAPD to work his feelings of revenge. If and when this review is completed, good or bad, he will quietly commit suicide in such a manner that his body may never be found so that his targets continue to suffer fear. He will never surrender.

[Pedro]

@Marley23

OK, Ed Hardy, tell me what you think you’re going to teach me.

I thought I did already. My mistake.

Meanwhile the amusement factor has gone way down to make you interesting and I’m not feeling it to keep a good roast going on. I’ll let you know if that changes.

[Marley23]

@Pedro

I thought I did already.

Definitely not. You said there must be a reason for all of this - because we all know psychos don’t murder people for no good reason - and it must be the LAPD’s fault on some level, but that’s pretty much it. And if you won’t even argue that, then I guess you don’t have anything else to offer.

[Pedro]

@Marley23

Definitely not. You said there must be a reason for all of this - because we all know psychos don’t murder people for no good reason - and it must be the LAPD’s fault on some level, but that’s pretty much it. And if you won’t even argue that, then I guess you don’t have anything else to offer.

Suddenly you’re interested in debate? I’m not a “loon”? Consider it lesson number 1.

[Marley23]

@Pedro

Suddenly you’re interested in debate?

What do you mean suddenly? I’ve been responding to your nonsense for a couple of days.

I’m not a “loon”?

You wouldn’t be the first loon I’ve argued with. And this stuff is very stupid if not crazy:

@Pedro

There has got to be some repugnant shit going on to turn an upstanding soldier and police officer into a cop-killer.

@Pedro

Dorner himself said his actions were a “necessary evil”. Necessary might be up for debate. Evil, not so much.

On occasion I still remember unjust, cowardly people I met who need their moral compass adjusted and I have angry and violent thoughts. Then I remember how great my life is and go play video games or something to forget about it.

@Pedro

What’s illogical is to say this guy is an asshole murderer so I I’ll keep making a statement that doesn’t fit the facts of the case (Dorner killed the daughter of his own “advocate”).

@Pedro

That makes him an asshole murderer who kills the daughter of people he perceives as morally corrupt instead of an asshole murder who kills the daughter of his friends.

Clear now?

I’ll put the stupid vs. crazy question aside. What you’re doing here is bending over backward to find excuses for a murderer. You say nothing justifies the murder of three people, but you do keep finding partial justifications and excuses and you’re unable to shake the assumption that the guy was wronged by the LAPD. Maybe he got a bad deal, but even if he did, he’s the one who decided to respond with a killing spree instead of a lawsuit or something that makes sense and has a chance of working out. Or maybe he wasn’t wronged and he’s actually a violent nut who washed out of the police department and the military and decided to get revenge. He wouldn’t be the first. Unfortunately, violent and arrogant people are drawn to jobs like this, and if all goes well, they don’t stay in them for very long. So far, the evidence that he got a raw deal is as follows: nobody likes the LAPD (which I understand), and a guy who shot a bunch of strangers said so.

[Pedro]

Lesson number 2 would be that when I say I’m not excusing the murder of innocent civillians I mean it asshole. More later.

[Marley23]

@Pedro

Lesson number 2 would be that when I say I’m not excusing the murder of innocent civillians I mean it asshole.

Right, you’re not “excusing it” … you’re just finding ways to blame the LAPD for everything that made this good man kill a bunch of people who’d done nothing to him, say that maybe this was necessary, and say it’s illogical to call Dorner an asshole murderer based on that murdered-three-people thing.

[Typo_Negative]

@Marley23

Quote:
Originally Posted by Machine Elf View Post
That was kind of the point in my OP: I don’t believe the LAPD intends to bring Dorner in alive. The fact that they shot two women and one white man without any sort of instruction or warning suggests that they don’t have any intention of giving Dorner an opportunity to surrender peacefully.

If he contacts them and says he wants to surrender peacefully he might be able to do that. In the meantime he’s shot a couple of cops and says he wants to kill more of them, so there’s only so much you can expect them to do in terms of giving him an opportunity to surrender unless it’s somehow obvious he’s not a threat when they find him.

I dunno. They fact that officers in two separate incidents opened fire on a vehicle before checking to see if their target was actually inside doesn’t speak well for their motives in this regard. I find it difficult to believe that these officers followed established procedure.

There is so much crap in this story.

1. Dorner is a murdering scumbag, who deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison, at best.

2. LAPD does have an unfortunate history of racism and criminal behavior in its ranks. I guess a lot of police departments do. But this one is ours so we need to clean it up. I have no idea what role racism played in the Dorner story, if any. Maybe a special investigation by the AG of California?

3. LAPD has a lot of morons who fire indiscriminately AND are awful shots. Really bad combination.

4. Whatever happens, Euphonious Polemic writes the screenplay.

[elbows]

Would “we were hunting a murderer (yet no evidence to go on at all)”, be doing it for you if that was your 70 year old Mom?

Forgive me for suspecting you would not seem so blindly apologetic for the LAPD, in that case.

[Kamino_Neko]

Would ‘he says he was railroaded’ excuse it if it was your daughter and her fiance?

[Marley23]

@elbows

Would “we were hunting a murderer (yet no evidence to go on at all)”, be doing it for you if that was your 70 year old Mom?

Probably not, but I’m assuming they didn’t shoot at your mom - so that doesn’t explain why you can’t tell the difference between the police doing a shitty and irresponsible job and yourself opening fire on a car.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Czarcasm

What I am saying is that the two incidents have to be totally separated. His murder spree should not be used as a mitigating factor in any way for their reckless behaviour, and any possible misdeeds on behalf of the police force should not be used as a mitigating factor in any way for his murderous rampage.

Precisely this. The police that shot up the truck need to be investigated for why they violated what would certainly be any use of force guidelines I’ve ever heard of, and then appropriate internal discipline needs to be determined. Then, all the case notes need to be turned over to the local prosecutor, and the local prosecutor needs to additionally do an independent investigation. I’m not saying anyone has to be fired or sent to prison, because I believe in a full airing of the facts; but that only happens with the process outlined above. No part of that investigation should be “Dorner was so scary that it abrogated the police responsibility to follow use of force guidelines.” Those guidelines do not exist just for situations that are stress free.

Likewise, Dorner’s case inside the LAPD may represent one of many poorly handled personnel cases that is endemic to a troubled department with racist and brutal tendencies. But that does nothing to mitigate his actions.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Snowboarder_Bo

I think that if Dorner were to surrender by walking naked down a 6-lane wide street with his hands in the air and hundreds of news cameras filming the event, he’d still get shot by a cop and the cop would suffer no ill consequences. In fact, the cop will be lauded as a model officer and the “incident” would be described only as “unfortunate”.

Many mass shooters put their guns down and are taken unharmed, as are cop killers. There’s no immediate evidence to suggest they’ll kill Dorner if he makes a deliberate effort to surrender. The fact that some cops shot up a truck just shows that some cops were acting very stupidly, it isn’t conclusive proof of anything.

I thought I saw on the news that Dorner basically said in his manifesto that he’s going out shooting, anyway? I don’t think Dorner has an interest in being taken alive.

[Martin_Hyde]

@Pedro

Lesson number 2 would be that when I say I’m not excusing the murder of innocent civillians I mean it asshole. More later.

I’m surprised at your registration date because obvious annoying troll behavior usually gets you a reputation pretty fast around here. You’ve basically spent this whole thread posting unintelligent, contradictory, and basically vapid comments. Lacking in all content and being filled with childish insults. Finally the coup de grace is the move from the third graders playbook equivalent to holding a finger one inch from someone and saying “I’m not touching you!” over and over again.

You can’t post dozens of stupid shit trying to sympathize with Dorner and then get uppity because people draw conclusions. That’s like me saying “man, Hitler was a great guy and I really like the stuff he did.” And then saying “killing Jews is bad” and then saying “Hitler was a great guy” and then when someone says I am defending the holocaust arguing “you need to take my word that I think killing Jews is bad.” It’s schizophrenic behavior, stupid, and no one has to buy into it.

I’ll also note (and this isn’t directed at Pedro ) it’s amazingly disgusting that the leftist excrement here on the SDMB have transformed their childish hatred for all police into making jokes and thinking it’s funny this guy killed two people who were parking their car and never even met Dorner or had anything to do with him. Not to mention the fact that he’s still out there and possibly going to kill more people that have nothing to do with the police before he’s done. That’s like cheering on the people blowing up train stations in Spain or buses in London because you didn’t like George Bush.

[Labrador_Deceiver]

@Marley23

… and say it’s illogical to call Dorner an asshole murderer based on that murdered-three-people thing.

I think you’re misreading him on that last point. The way I read that is: “it’s illogical to keep making a statement that doesn’t fit the case just because Dormer is a murdering asshole.”

[Pedro]

@Marley23

Right, you’re not “excusing it” … you’re just finding ways to blame the LAPD for everything that made this good man kill a bunch of people who’d done nothing to him, say that maybe this was necessary, and say it’s illogical to call Dorner an asshole murderer based on that murdered-three-people thing.

I didn’t do any of that. Fail.

You have no reason to assume that I feel the murderous rampage was justified, much less affirm it in the way you did. If I had wanted to say that, I’d have said it. In fact I stated the opposite. So except for being a loser who feeds on misplaced moral superiority and collecting brownie points from other people you have no reason to assume that, like I said. Sorry for repeating myself.

Should I keep counting?

I’ll address the “maybe this was necessary” part. Please allow me to quote myself:

Not a saint. That’s a ridiculous statement to make. Dorner himself said his actions were a “necessary evil”. Necessary might be up for debate. Evil, not so much.

Firstly there is a world of difference between saying something “might be up for debate” and “may have been necessary”. Secondly, this was intended as a prosaic device to put emphasis on the following sentence, “evil, not so much”. Thidly, douchebag.

[DrDeth]

@Martin_Hyde

Precisely this. The police that shot up the truck need to be investigated for why they violated what would certainly be any use of force guidelines I’ve ever heard of, and then appropriate internal discipline needs to be determined. Then, all the case notes need to be turned over to the local prosecutor, and the local prosecutor needs to additionally do an independent investigation. I’m not saying anyone has to be fired or sent to prison, because I believe in a full airing of the facts; but that only happens with the process outlined above. No part of that investigation should be “Dorner was so scary that it abrogated the police responsibility to follow use of force guidelines.” Those guidelines do not exist just for situations that are stress free.

Likewise, Dorner’s case inside the LAPD may represent one of many poorly handled personnel cases that is endemic to a troubled department with racist and brutal tendencies. But that does nothing to mitigate his actions.

Right.

Altho I can’t see any way those LAPD officers would not deserve *some *punishment. The dec to file charges should be given over to the GJ, just to show the whole thing is on the up&up. But I bet it won’t be.

[Marley23]

@Pedro

You have no reason to assume that I feel the murderous rampage was justified, much less affirm it in the way you did. If I had wanted to say that, I’d have said it.

Unfortunately I can’t believe that. Your posts indicate that either you don’t know what you’re saying, or you’re a disingenuous jerk.

Firstly there is a world of difference between saying something “might be up for debate” and “may have been necessary”.

There’s no difference. If you’re saying it’s up for debate, that means it might have been necessary. Otherwise there’s nothing to debate. This goes back to the disingenuous jerk thing.

Secondly, this was intended as a prosaic device to put emphasis on the following sentence, “evil, not so much”.

It failed.

@Labrador_Deceiver

I think you’re misreading him on that last point. The way I read that is: “it’s illogical to keep making a statement that doesn’t fit the case just because Dormer is a murdering asshole.”

On review, you’re right about that.