Was Christopher Dorner executed ?

[Dreamliner]

Sorry, no heroes in this ugly debacle. Yes, LAPD is a cesspool of thugs. No, Dorner is not a hero. And people who consider him such are repugnant.

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by adamgator96

I work with and am friendly with one of the officers busted during Rampart. He did a year in jail. He was guilty.

Dirty cops usually just do the time rather than somehow quietly mobilizing thousands of strangers with guns to commit capital murder on their behalf.

Dirty cops usually don't get caught, because they cover for each other. And when they don't, their career doesn't go so well. I know that from officers I've known in forces that have no public track record of wrong doing. What gets to the public is the tip of the iceberg... Titanic size in the case of LAPD.

And Dream is correct there are no heroes in this case. LAPD's corruption and abuse is no justification for Dorner going on a killing spree.

[Dreamliner]

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

Dirty cops usually don't get caught, because they cover for each other. And when they don't, their career doesn't go so well. I know that from officers I've known in forces that have no public track record of wrong doing. What gets to the public is the tip of the iceberg... Titanic size in the case of LAPD.

And Dream is correct there are no heroes in this case. LAPD's corruption and abuse is no justification for Dorner going on a killing spree.

... or in other words: Dorner being even worse than what he deplored.

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by Dreamliner

... or in other words: Dorner being even worse than what he deplored.

Certainly worse than what he himself experienced.

No worse than others have received at the hands of LAPD, unfortunately.

[rampartgator]

Scenario #1; a citizen with a concealed carry permit is present when a gunman opens fire and shoots and kills several people. Is the citizen therefore justified in killing the assailant before anyone else is shot and killed; yes, or no?

Scenario #2; police officers have surrounded a gunman who has already shot and killed several people and who, in their presence, shoots 2 more, killing one. Are the police officers therefore justified in killing the assailant before anyone else is shot and killed; yes or no?

Is the answer to question #1 different than the answer to question #2? If so, why?

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

And I know the rest of the reflexive answer, i.e., "Who cares ?", or "Well yeah, but the police had our permission because he was a crazed killer and deserved it."

So while I have no personal sympathy for Dorner - and like everybody else - predicted that in accord with his wishes, he would commit suicide by cop in a shootout (as indeed he indicated he would), I do think the evidence of his execution by the police raises important questions about the limits of police power, and the criteria for who gets to decide what the limits of due process of law really are . . . especially on the street.

The police standoffs with armed individuals holed up in houses that I have seen in No Name City usually resolve themselves around dark thirty. Everybody kinds of looks at their watch and somebody signals the SWAT team to move in and resolve the issue, with the usual result.

With Dorner, seems like the decision to execute by fire was made early on, but likely after the Deputies were shot - with one killed - during the shootout at the back of the house.

So, were the police required (due process and all that) to wait Dorner out, and take him alive if possible ? Were they required to go inside the residence ?

Seems to me that the better public relations result would have been to wait him out (who knows, he could have changed his mind and surrendered), and at least allow him to try to escape out the back again, and assassinate him there.

I mean, we all knew he was going down; the question was how.

http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/...topher-dorner/

I agree with the "who cares?" sentiment.

This guy "executed" several innocent people, the first few by ambushing them when they were weaponless and defenseless.

Screw that waste of DNA. At least the taxpayers don;t have to pay millions for a trial and then his 20 year wait on death row.

[Matthanuf06]

Originally Posted by The_Graygator

I agree with the "who cares?" sentiment.

This guy "executed" several innocent people, the first few by ambushing them when they were weaponless and defenseless.

Screw that waste of DNA. At least the taxpayers don;t have to pay millions for a trial and then his 20 year wait on death row.

You could say the same about the LAPD and their happy trigger finger. They "ambushed" the occupants in the pick ups that were weapon less and defenseless. Why is that okay?

[cocodrilo]

Here is a pertinent article about "Why Police Lie Under Oath." I believe this is basically why O.J. got acquitted. Everybody (at least in LA) knew about LAPD. The jurors knew going in that the cops who would testify were dirty. And the cops went right ahead and proved it, with Detective Van Atter walking around with a vial of O.J.'s blood in his pocket (ready for planting) during the investigation, and the cops entering a photo into evidence showing blood on a gate, when a previous photo of the crime scene showed no blood on the gate. There was even Detective Mark Furman committing perjury not even related to the evidence. (His lie, as I recall, was that he never used the N word.) That is some way to convict somebody (which apparently is how they customarily do it).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/op...oath.html?_r=0

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

You could say the same about the LAPD and their happy trigger finger. They "ambushed" the occupants in the pick ups that were weapon less and defenseless. Why is that okay?

I don't think anyone is saying that is "OK". I think that what has been said is those officers likely broke protocol and will be investigated and punished if found guilty. I also think what has been said is that this guy was a real and present danger to the lives of every cop in Southern California (in his manifesto he said anyone trying to apprehend him would die) and their nerves were probably on edge since he had killed already. Not saying what they did was OK, but until you face the dangers they were facing I would say you should not be so quick to condemn them.

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by cocodrilo

Here is a pertinent article about "Why Police Lie Under Oath." I believe this is basically why O.J. got acquitted. Everybody (at least in LA) knew about LAPD. The jurors knew going in that the cops who would testify were dirty. And the cops went right ahead and proved it, with Detective Van Atter walking around with a vial of O.J.'s blood in his pocket (ready for planting) during the investigation, and the cops entering a photo into evidence showing blood on a gate, when a previous photo of the crime scene showed no blood on the gate. There was even Detective Mark Furman committing perjury not even related to the evidence. (His lie, as I recall, was that he never used the N word.) That is some way to convict somebody (which apparently is how they customarily do it).

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/03/op...oath.html?_r=0

I lived in SoCal at the time and used to ride by Bundy on my bike on the way from Brentwood to Santa Monica. I watched the trial pretty closely and it was obvious to me that most of the cops were lying in that case and had I been a juror I would have had to vote to acquit as well. My rule has always been trust everyone until they lie to you and then don't trust them again. They probably didn't need to lie but for some reason they did and that poisoned the case and likely let a murder go free, for a little while anyway..

[The_Graygator]

Originally Posted by Matthanuf06

You could say the same about the LAPD and their happy trigger finger. They "ambushed" the occupants in the pick ups that were weapon less and defenseless. Why is that okay?

I'm not talking about the LAPD, I'm talking about Dorner and his actions specifically.

If you want to go off on tangents, start another thread.