Advertisement
So, about the crazy ex-cop who decided the best way to show his innocence was to murder innocent people got the LAPD in such a frenzy they decided to kill on sight, regardless if the sight was their target or not. When they finally cornered the guy in a cabin where he could not escape, they decided to execute him by burning him alive – hearings, a trial, and a jury considered superfluous in their revenge.
Some people feel the cops were justified in their actions. Others do not feel the same.
I’m conflicted. For one, crazy-ex-cop openly declared war on the LAPD. His manifesto, no matter how well scrubbed by the media to fit the narrative, clearly indicated that he was going to kill cops and their families and gave no indication that he was going to be taken alive. While we cannot say for absolute that he was the one who murdered the daughter and her fiancé, it seems the most likely scenario. And we know for sure that in the shootout at the cabin he did shoot and kill a police officer.
When your life is in danger, you do not have to worry about juries, judges, or trials. You have the right to defend your life even if it means taking the life of your aggressor. Interestingly and somewhat counter intuitively, your aggressor has the natural right to defend their life, it’s just that from a societal point of view, there should be no criminal punishment for your actions while there is for theirs simply because they initiated the violence.
Cops run a little different. They actively seek the danger. They track down and chase the criminals, thugs, and violent in our society. Part of what makes the job honorable is that they understand that by doing so, they put their lives at risk. It is a dishonor to their profession to violate your rights in order to achieve a higher degree of safety, and because of that I cannot wholeheartedly agree that the LAPD was in the right to burn this guy to a crisp.
It was clear from the shooting up of anything that looked like the truck of the crazy guy (I avoid using his name for a reason) that the LAPD was going to execute him and make no attempt to take him alive. Granted, it was clear that he intended to take as many of them as possible and that his continued oxygen consumption posed a threat to police officers in the area, cops take on an extra degree of risk by accepting the authority we give them.
It’s not that I care less about the lives of police officers. Like I always seem to have to say – my dad is a cop – so seeing him return home safely every day is something I strive for. But he volunteers every day he puts on that badge to accept both the authority and the risks associated with it. This means even when there is a clear and present danger, he and his fellow officers must simply accept the additional risk and continue to honor the rights of the people they are pursuing.
This did not happen with the LAPD.
I realize the cops faced more danger, but they had the guy surrounded. There was no place for him to go and it seemed pretty clear he’d swallow a lead pill before being taken alive, but that was his choice. There was no need to ‘smoke’ him out (which would have had the cops shoot him), no need to burn someone else’s property, no need to do anything but wait him out.
Getting him alive probably wasn’t an option, but that was the option he chose. The cops should have done everything to try. Heck, our military has more rules of engagement than these guys do and they’re in war zones.
The guy was a crackpot, a danger to society, and I have not lost a Planck lengths’ worth of sleep over his birth certificate being revoked. But I do feel a lot of discomfort knowing that one of the largest police forces in the country has decided that they like the authority but do not accept the risk associated with it and can execute an American citizen at their whim.
There were no winners here.
Incoming Fire
SayUncle » Like the Superbowl and the last four presidential elections
on 2/14/2013 9:49 PM
Comments
MattW says:
on 2/14/2013 at 10:52 AM
"There were no winners here." That says it all.
I think, at this point, that we don't have enough facts to definitively say that the LAPD deliberately set fire to the house. (Or am I missing something?) We do know - or, at least, we've been told - that the fire department was kept away because of ammo cooking off in the house.
I'm an LA gun enthusiast here so it's close to home. We had a whole weekend with no visible cops, and lots of innocent big black dudes and truck owners laying low. I'm glad it's over, any LAPD you did see looked really nervous and pissed off, more than usual. As a non-criminal, I like the LAPD and am usually happy to see them, of the rank and file that I have dealt with, many are all solid Americans who know more than anyone that unarmed civilians are truly defenseless(despite their leadership being typical CA-style socialists politicians). But part of me, the anti-gov't outlaw in me (now more than ever) was rooting for him just a little tiny bit, despite his lefty leanings. I think this guy spent more time on his manifesto than he did on his escape plan. In the end he was just a cowardly murderer and not a badass at all. He reminds me of the cops who show up to competitive shooting matches or BJJ classes thinking they're going to do well just because they're cops and then they struggle just like any other new guy (and then don't come back the next week). If you're going to go hide in the woods, start by not being fat and actually going in the woods instead of hiding in cabins. I know engineers and accountants who'd have fared better in waging "asymmetrical warfare." In CA more than anywhere, this bizarre case is a reminder of who would much prefer to see law abiders disarmed. Thank god he wasn't a right-winger, the media would be having a field day. The only reason it's getting reported this much is because the LA Times has it in for the LAPD.
Jennifer
says:
Yes, exactly. I'm not sad dude is dead, but you are right, there were no winners here.
Reno Sepulveda
says:
You won't catch me second guessing those officers onsite up in Big Bear. And you won't find me second guessing those that want to romanticize an outlaw. Americans have a long and strong tendency for that.
I disagree that there were no winners. Pro 2A-advocates now have more ammunition (pun intended) to discredit 2 anti arguments:
1. Only LEO and military are responsible enough have "assault weapons".
This example reminds the press and the public that cops (and ex-cops) are human too. They can, and sometimes do, go rogue. Both Dorner's madness and the LAPD's trigger-happy behavior really disqualifies this point.
2. Civilians couldn't stand up to a modern military / police force.
Even if one argues that he's ex-military/police and therefore not a valid comparison to your average civilian gun nut (which only proves point #1), one can now see that a single lone wolf can effectively tie up a large police force and put them on edge so much that they'll shoot anything that moves. This is particularly damning, since he only had access to semi-auto weapons.
I believe that it's important to pound these points home and put Feinstein, Bloomberg, et al on the defensive.
1. Only LEO and military are responsible enough have "assault weapons".
This example reminds the press and the public that cops (and ex-cops) are human too. They can, and sometimes do, go rogue. Both Dorner's madness and the LAPD's trigger-happy behavior really disqualifies this point.
2. Civilians couldn't stand up to a modern military / police force.
Even if one argues that he's ex-military/police and therefore not a valid comparison to your average civilian gun nut (which only proves point #1), one can now see that a single lone wolf can effectively tie up a large police force and put them on edge so much that they'll shoot anything that moves. This is particularly damning, since he only had access to semi-auto weapons.
I believe that it's important to pound these points home and put Feinstein, Bloomberg, et al on the defensive.
What really bothers me about the whole thing is wondering if other police departments will react in the same manner given similar circumstances. Given that, it wouldn't take a whole lot of effort to cause police to start killing those they're charged with protecting and serving.
If A few insane threats published online coupled with one or two attempted murders of cops and/or their family members are all it takes to cause the entire department to start shooting at shadows...Well, *that* is much more worrisome than the idea that some day, some beardy tur-rist might set off a bomb near me or my family.
If A few insane threats published online coupled with one or two attempted murders of cops and/or their family members are all it takes to cause the entire department to start shooting at shadows...Well, *that* is much more worrisome than the idea that some day, some beardy tur-rist might set off a bomb near me or my family.
Every time a government agency fails, it shows that they need more money to do their jobs.
The police, and related administrators will need paid leave to process what happened. They will need extensive training, preferably at nice hotels with lavish buffets. The top managers will probably need to be trained in Las Vegas.
Given the decedent's race, all the police in California will get another round of diversity training.
Given that a house made of wood burned, the state of California will fund at least a $100 million in grants to study the environmental impact of cops burning down a house.
The University of California system will get 2 or 3 endowed chairs to help Calfornia's best and brighest write poems and screenplays about the tragedy.
The police, and related administrators will need paid leave to process what happened. They will need extensive training, preferably at nice hotels with lavish buffets. The top managers will probably need to be trained in Las Vegas.
Given the decedent's race, all the police in California will get another round of diversity training.
Given that a house made of wood burned, the state of California will fund at least a $100 million in grants to study the environmental impact of cops burning down a house.
The University of California system will get 2 or 3 endowed chairs to help Calfornia's best and brighest write poems and screenplays about the tragedy.
It wasn't the LAPD that ran the final shootout. Not sure even if anyone from LAPD was involved. Other then that, yeah, pretty much.
Robb, excellent take on a bad situation...and it's very worrisome that a large and allegedly professional police department came very close to slaughtering several innocents who weren't even driving the same make of pickup as the alleged perp...it's happening more and more, and at other loctions besides LA so you've got to figure that the trainers and the lawyers are telling them "it's ok to shoot first and ask questions...well...thee really aren't any questions going to be asked, so just shoot first."
wizardpc
says:
I used to have a saying:
"I'm not anti-cop, I just don't think they're special. Unfortunately, to a lot of cops that makes me anti-cop."
I just want them and us to have the same standard. If I can be sued and go to jail for a mistake, they should be, too.
"I'm not anti-cop, I just don't think they're special. Unfortunately, to a lot of cops that makes me anti-cop."
I just want them and us to have the same standard. If I can be sued and go to jail for a mistake, they should be, too.
Linoge
says:
Iff (sic) the various reports, indications, and so forth are true and to be believed, I have absolutely no doubt that the LA shooter intended on ending his life on his terms, and if those terms were charging the police line that had him surrounded, shooting as he went, I would have absolutely no problems with the police putting him down like the rabid dog he apparently turned out to be.
But it is this part that bugs the hell out of me:
As you say, there is absolutely no justification for intentionally and knowingly setting fire to the cabin... at least, aside from outright revenge.
And revenge is not justice, nor, in the case of killing people, is it legal. We can go 'round and 'round about whether or not we have a "justice system" or a "legal system", but the simple truth is that if you or I had done what the police did, we would be up on murder charges (as would the shooter himself, but that, likewise, gets filed under "no winners here"). I cannot speak specifically to the military side of the house, but Chris did a pretty good job of that, and my reading is that such activities would likewise end you in a world of trouble unless you followed a very specific escalation of force that the police neatly skipped over.
For heaven's sake, we just spent a week camped outside of some nutjob who kidnapped a kid in Alabama; sure, he did not take it upon himself to shoot any cops, but that does not change the fact that the police's mission is to take in the suspect for appropriate processing, not mete out whatever revenge-driven punishments they feel are appropriate.
Of course, speaking of the hostage situation in Alabama, that brings up another chilling aspect of the Big Bear fire - the LA shooter took hostages before, in that very cabin even. How do the LAPD know he did not have additional hostages in the cabin with him when they torched it? Did they check? How?
Again, if Dorner had been shot down while posing a legitimate threat to police officers or other American citizens, I would have no problems with it. But cornering a suspect - and that is what the shooter was, even if the Pope himself had witnessed the murders - and then setting fire to the structure you have him surrounded in is not how the American justice/legal system is supposed to work, and it gives me chills that is how some people - people who hypocritically stand up for some Amendments but not others - want it to work.
If it happened to a former member of the very organization that was pursuing him, how hard would it be for it to happen to someone they care about even less?
But it is this part that bugs the hell out of me:
no need to do anything but wait him out.
As you say, there is absolutely no justification for intentionally and knowingly setting fire to the cabin... at least, aside from outright revenge.
And revenge is not justice, nor, in the case of killing people, is it legal. We can go 'round and 'round about whether or not we have a "justice system" or a "legal system", but the simple truth is that if you or I had done what the police did, we would be up on murder charges (as would the shooter himself, but that, likewise, gets filed under "no winners here"). I cannot speak specifically to the military side of the house, but Chris did a pretty good job of that, and my reading is that such activities would likewise end you in a world of trouble unless you followed a very specific escalation of force that the police neatly skipped over.
For heaven's sake, we just spent a week camped outside of some nutjob who kidnapped a kid in Alabama; sure, he did not take it upon himself to shoot any cops, but that does not change the fact that the police's mission is to take in the suspect for appropriate processing, not mete out whatever revenge-driven punishments they feel are appropriate.
Of course, speaking of the hostage situation in Alabama, that brings up another chilling aspect of the Big Bear fire - the LA shooter took hostages before, in that very cabin even. How do the LAPD know he did not have additional hostages in the cabin with him when they torched it? Did they check? How?
Again, if Dorner had been shot down while posing a legitimate threat to police officers or other American citizens, I would have no problems with it. But cornering a suspect - and that is what the shooter was, even if the Pope himself had witnessed the murders - and then setting fire to the structure you have him surrounded in is not how the American justice/legal system is supposed to work, and it gives me chills that is how some people - people who hypocritically stand up for some Amendments but not others - want it to work.
If it happened to a former member of the very organization that was pursuing him, how hard would it be for it to happen to someone they care about even less?
Robert
says:
This is a typical response from people who no longer believe in individual choice and consequences of ones actions.
Had Dorner came out of that cabin with his arms raised and given himself up. He would have had his day in court. OR he would have been capped. THEN it would be murder by cops. They wouldn't have killed him I'm almost sure...
Dorner was firing rounds at cops from that cabin. Those were not "I'm going to give up" messages he was sending.
This guy got what he wanted. He went out in a shootout. I don't read anymore into it than that.
Had Dorner came out of that cabin with his arms raised and given himself up. He would have had his day in court. OR he would have been capped. THEN it would be murder by cops. They wouldn't have killed him I'm almost sure...
Dorner was firing rounds at cops from that cabin. Those were not "I'm going to give up" messages he was sending.
This guy got what he wanted. He went out in a shootout. I don't read anymore into it than that.
wizardpc
says:
Had Dorner came out of that cabin with his arms raised and given himself up. He would have had his day in court. OR he would have been capped. THEN it would be murder by cops. They wouldn't have killed him I'm almost sure...
Even after they opened fire on $RandomPickupTruck, TWICE, you can say that with a straight face?
Even after they opened fire on $RandomPickupTruck, TWICE, you can say that with a straight face?
Randall
says:
I agree with Robert. Dormer made the choices that led to his death. If you are passing judgment from the safety of your armchair, your opinion does not move me.
Randall
Randall
Linoge
says:
If you are passing judgment from the safety of your armchair, your opinion does not move me.
Wow. That is in the same family of specious arguments as, "You can't support our troops overseas / call for those troops to be deployed overseas / support a "war" unless you are an active duty military member!"
As a veteran, I know that argument is bullshit, and as a thinking human being, I know the above-blockquoted argument is bullshit.
Hell, if nothing else, judges pass judgement from the safety of their armchairs every day, and I dare say their opinions move a lot of people.
NUGUN Blog
says:
Just curious...
If evidence turns out that Mr. Dorner's case was in fact a fire the whistle-blower.
And it comes out that he was wrongly released.
His manifesto declared his actions would cease upon admission of those facts.
It's possible it could all of have ceased a different way.
***
But I think Mr. Dorner knew he was dead as soon as he began. Hence his leaving his manifesto.
He knew after taking the first cop that he wasn't ever going to see a court date.
The LAPD and surrounding regional authorities pretty much confirmed that with the random truck shootings.
It's one thing to have such as an internal policy. It's another to let the world know it. That you really are just a bunch of cops out for vengeance.
If evidence turns out that Mr. Dorner's case was in fact a fire the whistle-blower.
And it comes out that he was wrongly released.
His manifesto declared his actions would cease upon admission of those facts.
It's possible it could all of have ceased a different way.
***
But I think Mr. Dorner knew he was dead as soon as he began. Hence his leaving his manifesto.
He knew after taking the first cop that he wasn't ever going to see a court date.
The LAPD and surrounding regional authorities pretty much confirmed that with the random truck shootings.
It's one thing to have such as an internal policy. It's another to let the world know it. That you really are just a bunch of cops out for vengeance.
NotClauswitz
says:
QOTD: The cops should have done everything to try. Heck, our military has more rules of engagement than these guys do and they’re in war zones.
Unix-Jedi
says:
What's really boggling about this.
Bob Owens has been the goto guy for info on the Erik Scott killing/lynching.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/
Bob Owens has been the goto guy for info on the Erik Scott killing/lynching.
http://pjmedia.com/blog/gunned-down-in-vegas-what-really-happened-to-erik-scott/
Jake
says:
What really boggles my mind is this quote from Bob Owens, about Dorner, just 3 days earlier:
So, targeting him with a drone while he was on the run would have been "cross[ing] a Rubicon in this nation, where the government assumes it can kill American citizens, [...] without due process", but setting fire to the building he's in while he's contained was apparently "Basic human decency."
The cognitive disconnect between those two positions is staggering, at least to me.
If, however, they are looking to terminate him with a bomb or missile from an armed drone, then we have crossed a Rubicon in this nation, where the government assumes it can kill American citizens ,at a distance on a whim, without due process. If that is the case, it merely escalates the possibility of an armed conflict breaking out between the would-be elites of the polimedia and those Americans who would remain free.
So, targeting him with a drone while he was on the run would have been "cross[ing] a Rubicon in this nation, where the government assumes it can kill American citizens, [...] without due process", but setting fire to the building he's in while he's contained was apparently "Basic human decency."
The cognitive disconnect between those two positions is staggering, at least to me.
Jake
says:
Ugh. Forgot the link to his drone statement.
http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/02/ex-cop-dorner-becomes-target-of-in-country-drones/
http://www.bob-owens.com/2013/02/ex-cop-dorner-becomes-target-of-in-country-drones/
The cabin was surrounded by San Bernardino County Sheriffs, not LAPD. The final firefight killed a deputy. I don't think that SBdo Co Sheriffs would have gunned him down had he surrendered. I don't think they were as vengeful as LAPD, but then, LAPD has a record of "Us against Them", with "Them" being us citizens. Clearly, they were willing to shoot anyone without IDing their target first, making them among the most dangerous and untrustworthy lots.
I don't know that the Sheriff's Dept. meant to burn the cabin, or if they figured once it started, let it burn. The burners were incendiary tear gas grenades, which generate a more potent tear gas.
As to why they didn't just wait him out, i guess they were afraid that he might have slipped away in the dark.
I don't know that the Sheriff's Dept. meant to burn the cabin, or if they figured once it started, let it burn. The burners were incendiary tear gas grenades, which generate a more potent tear gas.
As to why they didn't just wait him out, i guess they were afraid that he might have slipped away in the dark.
"If evidence turns out that Mr. Dorner's case was in fact a fire the whistle-blower. "
He had four years to make that case, during a time when the LAPD was being watched by people desperate for just the type of activity he claimed to have seen.
He couldn't convince THEM.
He had four years to make that case, during a time when the LAPD was being watched by people desperate for just the type of activity he claimed to have seen.
He couldn't convince THEM.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/02/13/audio-catches-cops-shouting-burn-this-motherfcker-during-dorner-siege/
I'm not the least bit conflicted about this one: Both sides did wrong.
I'm conflicted, partly because I think the LAPD is still a crappy organization. I deliberately choose to live in areas that aren't in their jurisdiction. Unfortunately, I usually work in areas patrolled by the LAPD.
Don't get me wrong. Some members of the LAPD are really nice guys, but they seem to hire more than a few who have a sadistic streak. That makes me wonder of Dorner's manifesto wasn't true. It sounds true. He doesn't sound like someone who would make things up.
Once, before cell phones, I saw a car at 4 a.m. that had crashed into a telephone pole. I happened to see the LAPD patrolling a few miles away so I pulled over to tell them about the accident. Instead of thanking me and getting in their car to go see, they started questioning me about littering because something fell off my lap when I got out of the car and I didn't pick it up immediately. It's crap like this that makes people hate dealing with the police.
Dorner made up his mind that he was going to be a martyr to expose police corruption. I think it's important that the LAPD answer for their actions. And now, I also think it's important that the San Bernardino sheriff's department do the same because they don't sound terribly honest at this point either.
Don't get me wrong. Some members of the LAPD are really nice guys, but they seem to hire more than a few who have a sadistic streak. That makes me wonder of Dorner's manifesto wasn't true. It sounds true. He doesn't sound like someone who would make things up.
Once, before cell phones, I saw a car at 4 a.m. that had crashed into a telephone pole. I happened to see the LAPD patrolling a few miles away so I pulled over to tell them about the accident. Instead of thanking me and getting in their car to go see, they started questioning me about littering because something fell off my lap when I got out of the car and I didn't pick it up immediately. It's crap like this that makes people hate dealing with the police.
Dorner made up his mind that he was going to be a martyr to expose police corruption. I think it's important that the LAPD answer for their actions. And now, I also think it's important that the San Bernardino sheriff's department do the same because they don't sound terribly honest at this point either.
'I think, at this point, that we don't have enough facts to definitively say that the LAPD deliberately set fire to the house. (Or am I missing something?) '
You are. The news audio clearly has the cops yelling to try to blow up the natural gas tank so that he is incinerated.
You are. The news audio clearly has the cops yelling to try to blow up the natural gas tank so that he is incinerated.
Jake
says:
I don't know that the Sheriff's Dept. meant to burn the cabin, or if they figured once it started, let it burn. The burners were incendiary tear gas grenades, which generate a more potent tear gas.
They're also well known for starting fires when used in structures, and (from what I understand) they used far more of them than were necessary to fill the cabin with CS gas, probably to make a fire more likely.
It's pretty obvious that there was never any intent to take him alive. The moment he stepped out of that cabin he would have been shot, even if he had clearly communicated his intent beforehand and walked out slowly, naked, and with his hands clearly visible. Trying to run out of a suddenly burning cabin while partially obscured from the cops’ view by smoke would have just been another form of suicide.
Comments have been closed on this topic.