Spy Drones Used To Hunt Down Christopher Dorner 498
Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Express reports that as a task force of 125 officers continue their search for Christopher Dorner in the rugged terrain around Big Bear, it was revealed that Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil. 'The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him,' says a senior police source. 'On the ground, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.' The use of drones was confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed agents have been prepared for Dorner to make a dash for the Mexican border since his rampage began. 'This agency has been at the forefront of domestic use of drones by law enforcement.' Dorner, who was fired from the LAPD in 2008 for lying about a fellow officer he accused of misconduct, has vowed to wreak revenge by 'killing officers and their families.' According to San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon: 'To be honest, he could be anywhere right now. Torching his own vehicle could have been a diversion to throw us off track. Anything is possible with this man.'"
not the first one (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2135132,00.html
"In June 2011 a county sheriff in North Dakota was trying to track down three men, possibly carrying guns, in connection with some missing cows. He had a lot of ground to cover, so — as one does — he called in a Predator drone from a local Air Force base. It not only spotted the men but could see that they were in fact unarmed. It was the first time a Predator had been involved in the arrest of U.S. citizens."
Re:not the first one (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:not the first one (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act [wikipedia.org]
"In December 1981, additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard, especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, and aircraft, as well as intelligence support, technological aid, and surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, a U.S. Navy vessel may be used to track, follow, and stop a vessel suspected of drug smuggling, but Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETs) embarked aboard the Navy vessel would perform the actual boarding and, if needed, arrest the suspect vessel's crew."
Sounds to me like requesting assistance of an aircraft and intelligence support is perfectly fine as long as the Sheriff in question is who made the arrest and not someone from the Air-force.
Re: (Score:3)
In December 1981, additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies
That's interesting. So Posse Comitatus isn't a fundamental Constitutional principle at all and can be arbitrarily rewritten by Congress at whim. I presume a future Congress could "clarify" the Act further to say that the military doing anything in US domestic territory short of dropping a nuke is perfectly legal.
President not specially limited by Posse Comitatus (Score:5, Informative)
This is wildly inaccurate. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits anyone from using the army or air force for law enforcement purposes without specific legal (Constitutional or statutory) authorization (18 USC Sec. 1385: "Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. "); since the Insurrection Act grants specific powers to the President in this regard (see 10 USC Sec. 331-336), the Posse Comitatus Act, viewed in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, limits the President less than anyone else, not more.
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
This is about someone using weapons to fight out of control government. In this case, he's the only one who knows the facts, so it's appropriate that he's the one doing the fighting, taking the risks, etc. Before you can co-opt large numbers, you have to do a lot better job of establishing your case than anecdotes. Even if he's 100% right, no one else can really know that.
This is simply not the kind of issue where you'd see a revolt. It is neither serious enough, well documented enough, or of consequence to a wide enough spectrum of people.
It is, however, the kind of thing that will happen from time to time, as the powerful crush the lives and dreams of the (relatively) little guy. When you takes actions that ruin someone's life, you'd better be sure they've got plenty of reasons left not to go off the reservation, as it were.
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fighting a government? This guy murdered some cop's innocent kid and the cop's kid's fiancee. This wasn't collateral damage or some kind of mistake. He stalked them and murdered them.
How is that any sort of legitimate fight against a government?
--PM
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Cops murder people all the time. And they send innocent people off to their slaughterhouse prisons to die all the time. And they ruin innocent people's lives all the time. Families are hurt by that all the time. How is that a legitimate fight against crime? And why should their families be immune from the effects of their malfeasance, if the lives of the families of the people they abuse are not?
Actions have consequences. That's the lesson here. Not "omg, innocents!" And where were you when the lives of innocents were being ruined by these cops? Eh? Have you been pointing the finger at the cops for their daily, nay, hourly, maltreatment of innocents?
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:4, Interesting)
You, and all your generations.
Not if there aren't any siblings left. See how that works? Turns out your dad's best bet is not to kill my kid. You'd be the first one to tell him so.
Re: (Score:3)
Blood feuds are always stupid.
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
No, it actually works like this. [slashdot.org]
The system doesn't work. As this fellow has been telling you. Also, he tried to use the system. It chewed him up and spit him out, as it tends to do when it is challenged in any way. He's moved on to another methodology now. The system has only itself to blame.
That's an assumption, one that goes counter to the ones this society is based upon. It has its corollary in "executing criminals and the consequent huge collateral damage to their families won't deter crime, it'll just turn others borderline and the borderline into criminals."
But in fact, what it does is breeds restraint and caution, which moves the borderline away from criminality, and keeps those who weren't even borderline well aware that living right is worth the candle. And when we execute the criminal, they stop committing crimes.
What you want to avoid doing is executing the innocent (or doing anything else to them, for that matter) because they and their families tend to get righteously pissed. Whereas the families of murderers and rapists also get hurt and pissed, but generally speaking, at the criminal, not the system. "YOU brought this on us!" "How could you!" and similar reactions.
Now, if the cops know that engaging in fuckery will get them targeted, and that everyone will suffer if they act like jackasses, not just them, and their families know that such fuckery will also likely get them targeted, the most likely result is that they will begin to actually do their jobs as they were intended to be done.
This is the way of war against something. You go after everything to do with the enemy that has besieged you. You take out the infrastructure, you blockade supplies, you drop on cities and you drop on industry and you drop on troops. You make the cost of being your enemy so high that no one wants to be your enemy. You do it until the other side cries "no more, no more" and convinces you they mean it. Then you occupy them and watch them for a while. In the interim, everyone else watches and goes "good grief, I don't want to be their enemy!"
This guy hasn't decided to play tit-for-tat. He's gone to war. And I'm not talking about modern, trained-to-fail warfare designed to use up munitions and equipment and keep the trough full for the military industrial complex; I'm talking about fuck-we're-facing-hitler-and-tojo all-out nuke-em burn-em where they stand war. And just like that war, the boys in blue started this one. He's already done far more damage to them than they can do to him; will he be able to do enough to make a difference in the sick, decayed culture of police officers? Remains to be seen. I rather think he may have already done so. Odds are good there's at least a spark of awareness already circulating among the police (and not just in LA) that when you step on people unjustly, they may bite back in a way the system can't insulate them from. The more so, now that a powerful example is being set.
It's revolution, writ small. Been a long time coming.
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
It is 100% certain that an executed criminal will not commit another crime. So yes, execution deters crime.
So... you figure his trainer was kicking that homeless person in the head in order to goad the (then) trainee cop into later attacking the police department? I have to say, that's a stretch. Not buying it. :)
We never had such a right. After all the flowery verbiage dissipates, rights actually exist only in the context of someone with violent recourse available to them willing to stand up for a claim to a right. Almost always a group standing up for a member; (this case is particularly interesting because it's a member standing up for a group.) That's never been the case with drones; the government has repeatedly said it's ok to use them, and, they were already in use. When people start shooting drones down (and it's an absolute certainty that they will), that's when you'll develop some rights in the matter.
As clearly demonstrated, there was no ability to speak up, to be lost. There can only be a gain in this department.
No, again, we didn't have any such right. Happens all the time. Rarely is there any blowback to the cop. And then there's this. [cato.org]
No, that was your legislature. Had nothing to do with the bombers, other than as an excuse. It'll backfire anyway. I stopped flying then; so did a lot of other people. We keep electing stupid, rich people. We keep getting stupid laws designed to benefit the rich. Eventually the public will figure it out.
Not my war; it's this cop's. And near as I can tell, he's already won. He got his message out, he's generated a huge upwelling of sympathy, there's a lot of discussion of just how bad the cops really are, they haven't even caught him but he's already done more damage to them than remains available to do to him, he may yet do more, and the very, very large number of people who have been handled unfairly by the cops are all watching, no doubt while they take notes. A *lot* of people perceive him as a hero.
Finally, the police have been the enemy for many decades, and we didn't create the situation. They did. From bashing heads in Chicago to the "silent blue line" to beating "suspects", to confiscating people's cameras, money and property, they created the enemy that is them. Now some reaping comes, and in the final analysis, I can't say I'm the least bit surprised, except perhaps only in that it took so long.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, there's your mistaken assumption right there. In a civilized society, cops don't kick homeless people in the face; they don't rally 'round the abuser and protect them when someone reports such an act; they don't fire the person reporting the act, and they don't intentionally wipe out their reputation. In a civilized society, all of the above go differently.
But in the society we actually have, this kind of thing, and this [cato.org], is endemic, and eventually the people being abused, while
Re: (Score:3)
I agree that it is not a fight against the government as a whole, just a very tiny speck of it: a group of corrupt, violent LAPD officers and unfortunately their families as well. The killing of family members is certainly not the part of any "legitimate" fight, but he is probably assuming that the cops in question will be hurt by such killing, which may or may not be true. He certainly isn't just randomly killing people. His overall intent seems to be to fight against the corrupt cops that he witnessed com
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ahh a tyrrany fight.
But just right now we are watching our low I.Q. boys shoot it out.
I just wonder how many more will get shot up in the name of this obviously personal battle. Two last I checked. Does anybody know what the Vegas line on this is?
Adding an armed drone could hike the casualty count nicely, more if it is cops and not military running the show. I don't care how much training you give a rock, it's still only smart as a rock, but with combat training. Police commonly exclude very high above average I.Q.s as independent thinkers and do not hire them.
Mustn't have anyone making decisions and judgement calls on their own now. I notice it doesn't stop corruption though. I think it would be o.k. to hire a few rocket scientists for a change.
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:5, Informative)
Corrupt police railroading a cop that tried to expose their corruption, but because the law enforcement itself was corrupt, he uses 2nd amendment solutions.
How does murdering a basketball coach and her fiancé fit into that?
I don't really like gun nuts, but only the loopiest ones would say that Dorner is doing anything other than trying to get revenge for his perceived persecution.
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
I could support this man if he had not started out by killing a cops daughter and fiance.
Killing of the innocent should be avoided when possible.
And they should NEVER the targets.
He fucked up right there in my book.
Hope he takes out a couple of those murdering Fullerton PD cops before he gets killed or get put away forever though.
Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just want to point out... (Score:4, Insightful)
....that making guns illegal for civilian use would not prevent evil cops like this one from murdering people.
Re:I just want to point out... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I just want to point out... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let ME point out, that LAPD are civilians. I get so tired of hearing cops refer to citizens as "civilians". And, when citizens go along with the designation, that only makes it worse.
Veterans and active duty of the armed forces commonly refer to "civilians". Police departments aren't veterans, and they employ relatively few veterans. Dorner is a veteran, so he can refer to you as civilians.
To your point - if a civilian cop can have a weapon, then any civilian who is of sound mind, and not a convict, should have access to the same weapons. You are ALL civilians!
Re:I just want to point out... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry, no. Police are not civilians; that's why the police call non-police citizens "civilians". Obviously, they wouldn't use that term if police were also civilians.
Police (in the USA) are a paramilitary force. That means they're neither full military, nor civilian. For parallels, read up on the Brownshirts and the SS.
Re:I just want to point out... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I just want to point out... (Score:4, Insightful)
No, what's obvious is, the police wish to differentiate themselves from regular citizens. And, citizens permit this to happen. I have never talked to a policeman, or permitted a policeman to talk to me, as anything but an equal. Do you permit a cop to talk down to you?
Re:I just want to point out... (Score:4, Insightful)
Like the ability to purchase Off-Roster Handguns that aren't on the California Approved "Safe Handgun List" for personal use despite their department issuing them their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
The ability to buy standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for their personal firearms despite these magazines being provided with their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
Or the ability to purchase an Assault Weapons after the end of the registration period for personal use, despite their department providing Assault Weapons (or even actual Assault Rifles...) for their use in each squad car. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
That is just one area where LEO's gain more "privilege" that us mere citizens, think of how LEO's can get out of traffic tickets, can disobey the law, get preferential treatment with all the discounts (despite making six figures...) and can perjure themselves on their official documents and/or in court at whim with impunity.
No, the Police are a Privileged class of citizen above and beyond a mere civilian.
And if you have ever heard LEO's talking to each other about us mere peasants, you'd realize how much contempt they have for, and how much they consider themselves above us mere civilians.
Re:I just want to point out... (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't realize he had gone after the families of the bad cops. I agree that that is not just wrong, but pretty sick. So basically you have a guy going after the cops' families vs a bunch of cops who have no problem with blindly shooting up every pickup truck that resembles Dorner's, not caring who they kill. Who actually shot a mother and daughter in doing so. The cops who did that should be arrested and put in jail, but is that going to happen? Of course not. These are not men that I feel the slightest bit of sympathy for. They are disgusting, evil human beings themselves. But unlike Dorner they are cowards afraid of going up against anyone armed without absurdly superior numbers, body armor, and all kinds of other unfair advantages. Evil vicious cowards.
The fact that Dorner has proven himself bad despite ignoring the Blue Wall of silence and reporting the sadistic beating of a helpless suspect shouldn't really be that surprising. Most people who become cops are violent people, bullies, sadists, and amoral sociopaths. This incident just makes me more certain that the vast majority of police are like that. When it comes to US police even the 'good' guys are themselves sick and evil.
As far as going after 'random' cops, those random cops have proven willing to shoot him on sight. And not just on sight of him, but on sight of anything which holds any chance of him being inside. I'd say that is pretty close to self-defense. In a shoot-out being first to pull the trigger is everything and he knows the cops will shoot him.
Re: (Score:3)
I had a cop say something similar. He threw me against the wall and in his response to the complaint I filed, he said that he put both his hands up making the universal halt sign with both of them while verbally telling me to stop. I then stumbled into them, lost my balance and fell into the wall.
The video told a different story. It even included a chapter about his describing my mother being a whore. Well, he has a new career writing fiction for another town's police force now. It amazes me that he was st
Uncomfortable (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Uncomfortable (Score:5, Insightful)
"Drone" seems to have too many meanings. If it's ok to send a helicopter in the air to search for someone, what's wrong with sending a light unmanned vehicle into the air as well for the very same purpose? It's not like these are going to be firing missiles or calling in air strikes ala Afghan/Pakistan.
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing, until they get cheap enough that they're swarming all over the place and everywhere has as much video surveillance as London.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
as much video surveillance as London
So, most of the cameras are either broken or dummies, the vast majority of the rest are recorded at 1 fps with 4 cameras to a 320x240 MJPEG file, and none of these are networked to any centralised agency. Maybe 1% - or a fraction of - are both of useful quality, externally directable, and remotely addressable from a central agency or location.
Yeah, we've got a lot of surveillance. But it's almost all shit surveillance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to arming the helicopters?
No different than helicopters (Score:4, Insightful)
That are equipped with similar sensors.
Re:No different than helicopters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No different than helicopters (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No different than helicopters (Score:4, Interesting)
What do drone "operator(s)" get paid compared to a helicopter pilot?
The great thing about drone operators is that you can outsource the job to China or India. So probably not much.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.
Why not? Honestly, it's something I'm pretty okay with. I like the idea of being able to check on my house while I'm at the office, and be sure everything's as it should be. I like the idea of the police recording my house constantly, so if someone breaks in, there's a clear recording of what happened and where they went. I like the idea of being able to shout to my ever-listening surveillance system for help and have paramedics respond.
What I don't like is having that surveillance used for injustice. I do
Re: (Score:3)
Huh? WTF?
You're claiming that it takes more mechanical, communication, medical, electronics, and other support personnel to keep an unmanned craft in the air, than it takes to keep a piloted helicopter in the air?
I call bullshit. If the drones cost MORE, overall, then we wouldn't be seeing them used routinely. People would just hire a helicopter pilot!
Re: (Score:3)
Re:No different than helicopters (Score:5, Insightful)
True – but helicopters are expensive to operate – drones are much cheaper. I am mindful of the slippery slope logical fallacy but it does bring us one step closer to 24 hour surveillance.
Re:No different than helicopters (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
To be fair, he claims to have access to shoulder launched air to ground missiles.
To be fair, the incredibly corrupt and completely untrustworthy L.A.P.D. claims that he's claimed this...
Fascinating stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Moral of the story: if you see a superior doing something wrong, like beating a homeless guy: don't report it.
Well, sure, if you're an honor-less piece of human detritus.
For men with honor, few as they may be, the moral is: report the abuse, get fired; take every legal avenue possible, get shut out by a system gamed against you; when all other options are exhausted, take your honor back by force.
Thank goodness the British Empire didn't have drones, or we'd all be having tea and crumpets right about now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:5, Informative)
He believes the LAPD ruined his life, because he accused his trainer of beating up a civilian while he was doing his first week mentorship, and those charges were dropped after an investigation revealed that they were false. The "ruining his life" part comes because the LAPD then dismissed him for making a false charge: they felt he was a risk to have on the force.
Regardless of whether the civilian in question was actually assaulted as he accuses, this incident kind of proves their point...
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of of sad that they have to offer a million dollar reward for the capture of this man, really indicates how unpopular the police have become. Apparently the public would is more likely to protect him so that he can continue his revenge against the police, so the police, are forced to offer a massive reward. This reward yet again reminds people how much the police in that jurisdiction value their lives over the lives of the general public.
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:5, Informative)
Also noted in TFA, police wounded a mother and daughter when they opened fire on a similar looking pickup truck without verifying their target. Perhaps that's why LAPD is so unpopular.
It's the sort of thing that makes one wonder if his report was actually false in the first place.
Re: (Score:3)
Also noted in TFA, police wounded a mother and daughter when they opened fire on a similar looking pickup truck without verifying their target.
Taking bets on the end result to that one - my money is on "paid administrative leave during 'investigation,' cleared of any wrongdoing, back on the streets in 2-3 weeks"
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm surprised this aspect isn't getting more press - did you see the pictures of their truck? We're not talking 1 or 2 bullet holes, it looks like it was in a war zone...
Yea, I noticed the little round-counting cards numbered to at least 46...
My guess is, the LAPD will try and keep that one on the DL until the whole Chris Dorner thing blows over, then, once the world is no longer paying attention, quietly sweep the whole mess under the rug.
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
In further reading, apparently all of the nearby homes and cars are also riddled with bullets. So, we can add reckless disregard for the safety of bystanders to the charges against the LAPD.
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
There shouldn't have been any bullets fired, but if you're sure of your target* and going to fire at least hit the damn target. There should have been a nice big ragged hole where the driver's head is, not bullets all over the place.
*the vehicle shot was the wrong make and the wrong color. It looked nothing like the suspect vehicle. The police fired without warning. This is inexcusable. Not knowing how to aim is a training problem, firing on non-suspect targets should always result in jail time on felony charges of assault with a deadly weapon (or similar) and permanent removal from law enforcement.
There are 5 rules of gun use/safety. All are of equal importance.
All firearms are loaded. - There are no exceptions. Don't pretend that this is true. Know that it is and handle all firearms accordingly. Do not believe it when someone says: "It isn't loaded."
Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy. - If you are not willing to see a bullet hole in it do not allow a firearm's muzzle to point at it. This includes things like your foot, the TV, the refrigerator, the dog, or anything else that would cause general upset if a hole appeared in it.
Keep your finger off the trigger unless your sights are on the target. - Danger abounds if you keep your finger on the trigger when you are not about to shoot. Speed is not gained by prematurely placing your finger on the trigger as bringing a firearm to bear on a target takes more time than it takes to move your finger to the trigger. Negligent discharges would be eliminated if this rule were followed 100% of the time.
Be sure of your target and what is behind it. - Never shoot at sounds or a target you cannot positively identify. Know what is in line with the target and what is behind it (bullets are designed to go through things). Be aware of your surroundings whether on a range, in the woods, or in a potentially lethal conflict.
Take nothing for granted. Check everything by sight and touch. EVERY TIME!
Violation of any of the 5 rules should be grounds for mandatory retraining at the minimum.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, the whole incident more closely resembled gang violence than professionals using their firearms in the line of duty. So much so that they should be treated accordingly under the law.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It was not a similar looking pickup truck. The vehicle shot was neither a Nissan Titan, nor was it grey. It was a blue Toyota Tacoma. And the police engaged the vehicle without issuing any orders to the occupants. No sirens, no verbal commands, nothing. Just *POW POW POW*. LAPD's mistake? They didnt kill the two occupants. Now they will face a civil lawsuit that they cannot win. Often if the victim is killed, then there are no first hand accounts of what happened. Its standard police procedure. I
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Even more interesting, was 30 min later, they shot up another pickup, 2 blocks away from the first shooting..
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Certainly any other group of people who opened fire in a neighborhood would be sitting in jail right now. Given the reckless endangerment of everyone around, even a legitimate threat from someone wouldn't excuse the shooting.
Re: (Score:3)
They're scared. They've got twitchy trigger fingers. And they certainly aren't professional. They're not the kind of people who I would want policing me, that's for sure.
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
They are exactly the people who shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. They are exactly the people who will be exempt from any gun control measure.
Re: (Score:2)
You could take a 60 year old who has never even thought of harming anyone, and mistreat him to the point where he would go on a rampage.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
>"those charges were dropped after an investigation revealed that they were false."
Alternatively, with more neutrality and less bias:
"those charges were dropped after an investigation concluded that they were false."
I mean ... unless you're certain that the LAPD would never cover up wrong doing to protect their own.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean ... unless you're certain that the LAPD would never cover up wrong doing to protect their own.
I'm old enough to remember the testimony given by Sgt. Stacey Koon... your point is well taken. :)
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes they concluded that it was a false statement, while completely ignoring the fact that the victim and the victims father corroborated his story. Not that any of this excuses his actions in the slightest.
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that any of this excuses his actions in the slightest.
I agree that killing the bad cops is an over-reaction, but otherwise he does sound like one of the good guys who got fired for violating the blue wall of silence.
The problem is that seeking justice against a cop is a problematic endeavor. Short of improbably convincing evidence that is quite rare in the real world, getting a DA to prosecute a cop for anything is nearly impossible. So our justice system doesn't punish them. Period. Not even for murder (well unless it's for the murder of another cop of course).
So if you are a justice minded person what do you do? Just accept that the system sucks and live with the injustice? Killing them may be an overly harsh punishment depending on what the cops actually did, but it is pretty much the only thing you can do against them. These guys are armed pretty much all the time. This is what happens when our justice system breaks down and seeks injustice instead. This is one of the practical problems with a corrupt system where a certain privileged elite are above the law.
It's also important to keep in mind that the murdered cops may have threatened Dorner's life. He may have had reason to believe that they would have murdered him, and of course got away with it, if he hadn't killed them first. The code of the Blue Wall may have allowed that. In their view he is a 'rat'. Think about what criminal gangs do to rats. Aside from the badges they carry, police are indistinguishable from criminal gangs and this guy turned against them.
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyone with any sort of real experience with the police, or anyone who has ever searched youtube for "police brutality" already knows who to believe. Why would a cop choose to bring a shitstorm upon himself for no good reason? No one would do that. Dorner's story is simply more plausible and far more likely to be the truth than yet another "false accusation". To the cops themselves every accusation is a false one. And he sure as hell isn't going on a rampage of revenge over a merely satisfactory evaluation. Give me a break. This is the result of the unjust system, of the Blue Wall of Silence, which protects police from their own violent, sadistic crimes.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind you of the film the running man ?
Re: (Score:3)
Christ, this whole thing is entertaining in a macabre way that I should not be enjoying,
This is the second problem America has which perpetuates the first problem.
Re: (Score:3)
You should root for the people who arent running around doing extra-judical killing sprees, and instead root for the people who are trying to catch him.
Just because the world isnt perfect doesnt mean you lose track of perspective and stop caring about whether a serial killer is caught or not. Do you really mean to imply that you think that the cops who have been killed all deserved it?
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
You should root for the people who arent running around doing extra-judical killing sprees, and instead root for the people who are trying to catch him.
But I thought you said were weren't supposed to root for the ones engaging in extra-judicial killing sprees?
Oh, I see, the LAPD only wounded innocent people, so they're still the good guys, I guess?
Re:Fascinating stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
The LAPD tried to intentionally murder people in the pickup trucks they shot up like swiss cheese. The fact that they didn't actually kill the mother and daughter is amazing. They certainly tried like hell. Cops without military training are notoriously bad shots.
No problem (Score:5, Funny)
Use drones. Keep shooting random civilians until you find this man. Whatever it takes.
Re:No problem (Score:5, Informative)
They're already way ahead of you
Victim 1: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story [latimes.com]
Victim 2: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is completely beyond me how those two stories have not garnered more press. Thats bigger than the Dorner case considering it's basically giving rights to the LAPD to open fire on absolutely anybody and get away with it.
The way it begins (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, who could oppose using hundreds of drones to hunt down a cop-killer.
And the next suggestion will be, "Wouldn't it be a good idea for the drones to be able to fire, too?" So the next thing you know, you've got weaponized drones.
And after a decade or so, they won't be used to find mass murderers. Merely traffic offenders or people late on their alimony.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
As long as they use the drones to find the cops that shoot up random civilian vehicles and punish the cops.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209
I'm all for purging the police with a little, nay a lot, of Police Style justice.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's really hard to tell who is even a good guy any more in this situation. The fact that the police are pretty much shooting anything that *might* be him is even more disturbing.
Re:The way it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
It's really hard to tell who is even a good guy any more in this situation.
That's probably because there aren't any.
Re:The way it begins (Score:5, Insightful)
YOu don't even have to weaponize them for this to be scary (not that they won't). "Look how useful, and much safer than helicopters.", "These are so cheap, we can keep them up all day", "More in the air means more criminals caught", "We could have caught him quicker if we recorded all of this"
Think of the children (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Think of the children (Score:4, Insightful)
That's just it. We really could use this technology, but abuse is so damn likely.
first human target (Score:5, Insightful)
Have the drones on the border only been going after sub-humans?
You have to wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:You have to wonder (Score:4, Funny)
Re:You have to wonder (Score:5, Funny)
Its interesting that the LAPD has shot at more innocent civilians than Dorner has. The primary difference is that the LAPD is so unprofessional they haven't successfully killed as many innocent civilians as Dorner, at least so far, although they're trying their best to even up the score. I have faith in the LAPD, they'll catch up soon enough.
Re:You have to wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
They shot up two women in a truck, and then in another incident rammed a man that in no way fit dorners description (thin white guy) in his truck and shot at him (he was not hit by any of the shots)
It gets better. They actually stopped him, talked to him, let him go then decided to ram him and shoot at him.
He's not there (Score:2)
This dude is scary as shit and they're not going to find him this easily.
xkcd does it again. (Score:4, Funny)
Once again, xkcd [xkcd.com] tells it like it is for would be survivalists.
Blues Brothers (Score:5, Funny)
You know just over 30 years ago, "The use of unnecessary force has been approved" read over the police dispatch was a laugh line from a comedy. Now its apparent SOP in a completely serious way.
Not so fast guys... (Score:5, Insightful)
"' Dorner, who was fired from the LAPD in 2008 for lying about a fellow officer he accused of misconduct"
You seems to be drinking the cool aid too easily. Every other source, the lapd over reaction and Dorners manifesto lead to believe that corruption coverups and raw incompetence was the name of the game for Lapd.
Ok Dorner is enemy public #1
but the LAPD looks like a fitting enemy public #2 and not just because they are shooting at anyhthing looking even remotely like a Nissan Pickup truck...
Sensationalist Headlines (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I wish (Score:5, Insightful)
He's killing family members too. Any level of sympathy or understanding for his position went out the window when he declared war on presumably innocent bystanders. He might have had a cause but he damned it by his own actions.
Re: (Score:3)
The body count in the war on drugs is pretty high too
Re: (Score:3)
I think that's rather a matter of individual perspective. A life of misery compared with a quick death? It's not cut and dry.
I think you're being more than a little disingenuous there. One of the things being accomplished, or at least
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If that worked, they wouldn't have taken so long to find Bin Laden.
We're talking about LA, an absolutely huge area ... spotting an infrared signature isn't exactly a small task if you're looking for something specific.
It's not like they can just click in the "find me this guy" comman
Re:What the fuck is happening to my country? (Score:5, Insightful)
Using drones that cause "collateral damage" to kill a suspect? What happened to the right to a fair trial, due process... ?
911. The bad guys won.