What a douchebag thing to say. You can go fuck yourself.
I don’t know what he’s thinking, I just read them a different way. I get why people are pissed about the LAPD shooting up innocent people, and I get why some folks think there may be more corruption beneath the surface of this story. Nothing justifies what this guy did.
Actually I’m sure some people are arguing his actions are valid, but in any case I’m not saying anyone is making that claim in this thread, what I’m saying is that it is wholly irrelevant whether he had a legitimate beef or not.
I don’t care that Marley23 believes I’m making excuses, but there’s nothing backhanded about what I said. You douchy douchebag.
Is he fighting with himself?
Well, there was this…
But that’s about it.
I definitely set myself up for that one. 
Whether or not he had a legitimate beef may be relevant to the broader discussion, yes, but it doesn’t excuse his actions. You’re missing the fact that nobody is using the corruption of the LAPD as a point in his defense.
Yeah, if you wanted to twist that one sentence into an excuse, I suppose you could.
It worked for OJ.
This is OT, but the common understanding of the Columbine killers - that they were bullied outcasts - is essentially a complete fiction that was made up by the media in the aftermath, based on half-baked early reports the media got hold of. Most of what people think of it - Klebold and Harris being part of a “Trechcoat Mafia” that was bullied by “jocks” - is in fact a fairy tale. (There are incidents of known bullying against them but no more than most kids.) Harris was a violent, egomaniacal psychpath who convinced Klebold, a weak, depressive and easily swayed young man, to help him out in a shooting that really had no reason behind it other than Harris’s insanity and superiority complex. They were not, and never were, part of the “trenchcoat Mafia.” Neither was particularly bullied or unpopular, especially Harris, who was charismatic.
I’ve read a lot about Columbine, and you’re only half right here. The Trenchcoat Mafia was absolutely just a media sensational thing. There were some kids who wore trenchcoats to school, most of them were older than Klebold and Harris and had graduated by the time of the shooting. The Trenchcoat Mafia in as much as it existed was just a joke phrase that a few other students might have used a few times to refer to the clique that wore the trenchcoats, but correct, it was not really a thing.
However, Klebold and Harris were both bullied, and Harris spoke repeatedly in his psychopathic rantings about wanting revenge on jocks and etc. People close to Klebold/Harris said specifically that some of the kids at school that bullied them had started calling them “faggots” together and suggested they were gay lovers (this inspired a scene in a really poorly done and in poor taste movie that basically was a fictionalization of the Columbine incident, in which the two male shooters have a “shower scene together.”)
Now, I’ve never heard that Harris or Klebold suffered what I’d consider extreme bullying. But Harris says right in his journal that he’s getting revenge, that people should never have dared make fun of him to his face etc. You’re right in your characterization of the Harris/Klebold relationship. Harris appeared to have APD and be the rare “real psychopath”, he even talked about how he had been fighting to look “normal” in meetings with a therapist he had to see because of some minor legal trouble him and Klebold had gotten into and how he had to suppress his hatred for everyone so they wouldn’t know he was planning something. Him and Klebold also had distanced themselves from each other outside of school, so that their parents would think they were no longer close friends (their parents had concerns about their relationship as they had committed a misdemeanor together.) Klebold definitely appeared depressed, starting back in junior high long before there is any indication he was a bullying victim (when his behavior change first started he was on sports teams and considered relatively popular.)
so what have you done to the officers who attempted to kill the 3 civilians?
really. now as a civilian, who is the more dangerous to me? a murderer on the run targeting a specific group of people with no collateral damage so far; or a group of twitchy police under enormous pressure who may very well spook if there is even a hint of Dorner’s presence in the crowd?
What a load of bullshit. It’s possible to disagree thar Dorner is a psychopath nutjob without justifying his crimes. It’s possible to criticize the LAPD without justifying his crimes.
This is not only not callous, it is sensible.
It would be the same thing with “mid-state auto supply”, except that they didn’t swear to serve and protect and are not going around spray painting vehicles with bullets.
Seems pretty war-like to me to kill relatives of police officers. Also brutal, effective, and evil.
Larry Borgia, on re-reading I see that you’re one of the few who didn’t equate it with justification for the murders. My bad.
I don’t agree with your definition of collateral damage. Two of the three victims were not police - no matter what Dorner’s beef is with the LAPD, the daughter and her fiancé had nothing to do with it.
I think it’s an interesting thing that so many seem to hold the hardest line, (though no one is disagreeing), that once he murdered an innocent it matters not at all whether what he is saying about the LAPD is true or not.
Yet no such hard judgement is made, by those same posters, when on comes to the LAPD, shooting innocent old ladies delivering papers. But for sheer dumb luck, they also could have killed two entirely innocent people.
To not recognize that this causes people to suspect their motives, or reflect that just maybe they are the pricks he’s accusing them of being, seems entirely disingenuous to me. It seems like they must surely have blinders on.
Really? You can’t posit that maybe, that there is even a possibility that the advocate who should have been protecting his interests, sold him out to the greater loyalty to protecting her Dad’s reputation? Seriously, how closed is your mind that you can’t even entertain the possibility such a thing could happen?
It’s curious that the very people who willingly admit, yes, there has been problems with such things on the LAPD, but they are somehow certain that’s not any factor in this situation - at all! Again it makes it seem like there are blinders in place.
‘He’s a murderer, end of story’, but the cops shooting someone’s innocent grandmother is somehow not attempted murder, and doesn’t put them all together in the same gutter, or cause people to question if their motives are all sunshine and light?
It just seems exceedingly curious that they can give the cops, now shooting innocents in the street, the benefit of the doubt, while acknowledging there are problems on the LAPD. Yet cannot, dare not, entertain even the possibility that any of what he claims might or could be true, or be a factor in what’s going on here.
It just seems so blindly and overtly one sided to me.
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.
Right, now if he had shot Quan, then maybe (but probably not) I might have some sympathy for his actions.
OTOH, I have no doubt whatsoever that his whistle-blower complaint was legit and they framed him. I also have no doubt that he was a loose cannon, waiting for any trigger to go off.
Oh, and dudes? Whistle-blowing? They always circle the wagon, defend the boss and fire your ass. Always.
Monica Quan had nothing to do with Dorner’s dismissal from the LAPD. She was an assistant college basketball coach and her fiancee was a campus police officer. Quan’s father represented Dorner during his dismissal and it’s conceivable he didn’t do a good job, but that has crap to do with her (and I wouldn’t presume it’s true). She didn’t “sell him out” and she didn’t “protect her dad’s reputation.” They were both murdered by someone with a grudge against her father.
It might cause “people” to do that if those people are kind of stupid and take the attitude that you have to be either for or against the cops. We’ve all heard stories about how fucked up the LAPD is, and while trying to kill a rampaging murderer isn’t attempted murder, these guys have screwed up royally during the manhunt, too. But it’s a hell of a thing to go from that to ‘we have to question the motives of the cops, too!’ Here’s a quick comparison: the police shot several innocent people while trying to stop a murderer. They blew it, and there should be consequences. Dorner shot several innocent people because he wants to murder a bunch of innocent people. Saying ‘you have to consider both sides or you’re being unfair!’ is pretty stupid.