Was Christopher Dorner executed ?

[The_Ultimate_Gator]

Originally Posted by adamgator96

I figured the cops who shot at the wrong vehicles were scared of dying. Dorner was trained to kill, had just killed a LEO in a cowardly ambush at a red light, and he promised to kill as many more as he possibly could.

If they were trying to keep the story from coming out, why didn't they finish the job and kill the two ladies delivering the paper that they mistook for Dorner?

Originally Posted by DowntownGator

I'm not condoning the actions of Dorner, who appears to have murdered at least four victims, although a typical LA citizen was more likely to be killed by the LAPD than by Dorner. Aside from the online trolls who actually support all this and don't get why this is such a powerful example of runaway law enforcement tyranny, here's the point: if the LAPD is going to abandon its mission of public safety and function as an armed vigilante justice squad, dishing out death sentences to those it believes are guilty -- without a trial or anything resembling due process -- then they might as well throw away all their badges as just call themselves the LA Gang Squad. Because that's how they've acted. They can even have their own three finger gang signs that they flash at each other before running another taxpayer-funded drive-by.

The entire police force has turned into a paramilitary terrorist organization that recognizes no law, no court system and no restraint. They've become the enemy of the Sheople.

Think about where this is headed, folks: California legislators are working very hard right now to criminalize firearms ownership by private citizens. This is going to mean all the citizens will be disarmed while the raging execution squad known as the LAPD has a monopoly on guns.

What will the LAPD do with all that power over the people? Take a guess. "Burn that motherf#cker down" might give you a clue.

You are 100% correct. It is so obvious that the police *never* wanted to take him alive. I wouldn't be surprised if they had "shoot on sight" type orders - else, how do you explain the two "pick up truck" shooting incidents?

Even though they have come out and denied "intentionally" setting the fire, they used the "hot" tear gas canisters referred to as "burners" in the audio, knowing that they could cause a fire.

Dorner was criminal scum, don't get me wrong - but the LAPD's agenda was very well illustrated here. It seeks not to "protect and serve" the people, but only its own interests.

[GatorAvatar]

Originally Posted by DaveFla

At least it wasn't a drone.

I know. LOL

[NJG8tor]

Originally Posted by adamgator96

I figured the cops who shot at the wrong vehicles were scared of dying. Dorner was trained to kill, had just killed a LEO in a cowardly ambush at a red light, and he promised to kill as many more as he possibly could.

If they were trying to keep the story from coming out, why didn't they finish the job and kill the two ladies delivering the paper that they mistook for Dorner?

Exactly. This talk about the police killing Dorner because they were scared he would expose them is up there with Sandy Hook truthism. He was a cop killer who had every intention of killing as many police officers as possible. The police are going to look for any excuse to kill someone like that. It's like that everywhere.

Not to mention that everything Dorner had to say was already documented and available to the public.

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by NJG8tor

Exactly. This talk about the police killing Dorner because they were scared he would expose them is up there with Sandy Hook truthism. He was a cop killer who had every intention of killing as many police officers as possible. The police are going to look for any excuse to kill someone like that. It's like that everywhere.

Not to mention that everything Dorner had to say was already documented and available to the public.

Assassins/killers can have multiple motives.

Killing him because he was a cop killer doesn't exclude killing him because leaving him alive risks further exposure of ongoing criminal behavior on the part of LAPD.

[NJG8tor]

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

Assassins/killers can have multiple motives.

Killing him because he was a cop killer doesn't exclude killing him because leaving him alive risks further exposure of ongoing criminal behavior on the part of LAPD.

Well he hasnt worked there since 2008 so I dont know how much knowledge he would have regarding ongoing criminal behavior. And there isnt much more to say regarding the police brutality be alleges that he witnessed. He wouldnt know much about what happened in the higher ranks since he never earned a promotion. He would limited mainly to what he witnessed on patrol and rumours he heard. He isnt the only officer to be fired, so the LA Police Department would have many more people than him to worry about. Not to mention it would be hard to take him seriously regarding fresh allegations of misconduct after waging a guerrilla war against the LAPD.

Im just not seeing any compelling reason to want to silence him. And when you shoot a cop, you are a marked man. Even after imprisonment.

[madgator]

is possible booby traps a motivation in making sure that everything was crispy first? protect the lives of the cops?

[OaktownGator]

Originally Posted by NJG8tor

Well he hasnt worked there since 2008 so I dont know how much knowledge he would have regarding ongoing criminal behavior. And there isnt much more to say regarding the police brutality be alleges that he witnessed. He wouldnt know much about what happened in the higher ranks since he never earned a promotion. He would limited mainly to what he witnessed on patrol and rumours he heard. He isnt the only officer to be fired, so the LA Police Department would have many more people than him to worry about. Not to mention it would be hard to take him seriously regarding fresh allegations of misconduct after waging a guerrilla war against the LAPD.

Im just not seeing any compelling reason to want to silence him. And when you shoot a cop, you are a marked man. Even after imprisonment.

I'm not disagreeing with the motive you state... just doesn't mean there is not an additional motive.

You mention other officers that have been fired and might be willing to talk. Google is no help in finding stats on fired LAPD officers.

I found one article on turnover in general for LAPD, back from 2001. It mentions:

"--Over the past five years, the LAPD has seen a 30 percent turnover rate of its sworn officers, losing 2,832 to retirement, disability, resignation and discharge. "

But no breakdown on how much of that was discharge. It did mention 332 resignations in the prior year.

Also noted further in the article...

"Some 200 officers have joined a ``whistle-blower'' lawsuit, saying the LAPD brass retaliated against or discriminated against them for reporting wrongdoing in the department.

``My clients frequently tell me they are more afraid of management than the criminals on the street,`' said Bradley C. Gage, the attorney representing the officers in the suit."

FWIW, these officers reported a very real fear of their superiors in LAPD. And LAPD's track record SHOULD invoke very real fear in people dealing with them.

So how many of the terminated or retired officers would be willing to talk? If their fear is founded, do they need to risk their lives and their family's lives to come forward?

IDK the answer, but at least one officer was willing to come forward recently: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2670513.html

[FlyingGatorII]

Originally Posted by bakaduin

I am not a conspiracy theorist but to me this stuff is practically out of a movie.

You have the guy surrounded by police and heavily outnumbered. You have plenty of tools at your disposal and you try to burn the guy out? Dorner certainly deserved to die but death by fire is a very cruel way to take someone out.

What really makes me wonder though is how desperate the cops seemed to want to kill him. The shot up civilian trucks they mistook for his in the days leading up to this. It seemed like they never had any intention of taking him alive. He was a whistleblower and they wanted to see he never got the chance to tell his story on the stand.

If I recall the tone of his manifesto correctly it was apparent to me he was not going to be taken alive (talked about all the things he would miss and gave advice to those that he thought would care after he was gone) and warned those that tried to apprehend him that they would be killed. He then executed unarmed civilians as well as ambushed officers not even associated with the LAPD and killed them as well. I am sure the cops that shot up the wrong truck were worried much more about not being killed by this very capable killer then making sure he didn't go to trial. Doesn't make their actions correct but I would not judge them until I walked a mile in their badges when a crazed cop killer is after them. Not sure why any LEO should risk their life to save him and put him on trial. In the end he was just another whack job with a gun that killed himself when his reign of terror was up. Happens at almost every mass shooting we see as well.

[GatorAvatar]

I heard that ex-cops can buy all sorts of heavy weaponry like rocket launchers and machine guns etc. That true?

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by PSGator66

If he had anything on the LAPD why did he resort to killing innocent people instead of taking his case to court?

If he didn't have anything on the LAPD why did they resort to killing innocent people driving blue trucks?

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by Lawdog88

Haven't heard from them yet. Perhaps they are still preparing the script, er, report.

While I totally understand the motivation of what happened, it would be refreshing to hear them just come out and say, "Hey, we looked at it and we decided not to risk anymore law enforcement folks to get this guy. We did what we did.", instead of trying to justify it with invented facts.

Like the .50 cal. thing if he really didn't have one (you know, the announced justification to keep the firetrucks away). He might have said he had one earlier in his announcements, and maybe he actually ran from the F&W guys carrying one . . . and maybe not.

who knows what he had, the news reported that the Newtown Conn. Killer used and AR-15 but it wasn't even used or even there. The next hot weapon the government will want to ban is Barrett bolt action rifles and while they're at it some hot tear gas

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by DowntownGator

I'm not condoning the actions of Dorner, who appears to have murdered at least four victims, although a typical LA citizen was more likely to be killed by the LAPD than by Dorner. Aside from the online trolls who actually support all this and don't get why this is such a powerful example of runaway law enforcement tyranny, here's the point: if the LAPD is going to abandon its mission of public safety and function as an armed vigilante justice squad, dishing out death sentences to those it believes are guilty -- without a trial or anything resembling due process -- then they might as well throw away all their badges as just call themselves the LA Gang Squad. Because that's how they've acted. They can even have their own three finger gang signs that they flash at each other before running another taxpayer-funded drive-by.

The entire police force has turned into a paramilitary terrorist organization that recognizes no law, no court system and no restraint. They've become the enemy of the Sheople.

Think about where this is headed, folks: California legislators are working very hard right now to criminalize firearms ownership by private citizens. This is going to mean all the citizens will be disarmed while the raging execution squad known as the LAPD has a monopoly on guns.

What will the LAPD do with all that power over the people? Take a guess. "Burn that motherf#cker down" might give you a clue.

They wont have all the guns, the criminals (the bad guys) wont give thiers up.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by GatorAvatar

I heard that ex-cops can buy all sorts of heavy weaponry like rocket launchers and machine guns etc. That true?

Anyone can buy a machine gun or that great word out media anti gunners like to say in assault rifles that are automatic weapons if they can pass a super strict background check and get their class III license through the feds and the county sheriff has to sign off on it too

[NJG8tor]

Originally Posted by PIMking

If he didn't have anything on the LAPD why did they resort to killing innocent people driving blue trucks?

Maybe because be was a cop killer dedicated to killing more cops and their families. Something tells me that that factor weighed more heavily than whatever ultra-sensitive info he must have aquired in the few months he was with the department as a trainee.

[PIMking]

Originally Posted by NJG8tor

Maybe because be was a cop killer dedicated to killing more cops and their families. Something tells me that that act weighed more heavily than whatever ultra-sensitive info he must have aquired in the few months he was with the department as a trainee.

what?!
The LAPD got out of their vehicles that shot at a blue truck (that wasn't even the right make or model) without identifying who was in the vehicle TWICE!!!! 1+2 doesn't equal 13 and neither does this

[NJG8tor]

Originally Posted by PIMking

what?!
The LAPD got out of their vehicles that shot at a blue truck (that wasn't even the right make or model) without identifying who was in the vehicle TWICE!!!! 1+2 doesn't equal 13 and neither does this

Which was reckless procedure for sure. And they intended to kill Dorner. But there is no evidence to imply they were scared of what he might reveal if captured (not that he couldnt leak that information prior to capture).

[adamgator96]

Originally Posted by PIMking

If he didn't have anything on the LAPD why did they resort to killing innocent people driving blue trucks?

None of the three citizens mistaken for Dorner died. That was MY point. If LAPD was so hellbent on hushing Dorner, why weren't the innocents killed in a hail of gunfire? Surely LAPD could have planted a gun or narcotics on those ladies delivering the paper once the officers realized their mistake.

Those officers disregarded their training, IMO, and overreacted out of fear for their own lives.

This cover-up theory sounds straight out of Hollywood. I would bet that most officers just want to cover their own butts and live long enough to get their outrageous pensions.

[NJG8tor]

Originally Posted by adamgator96

None of the three citizens mistaken for Dorner died. That was MY point. If LAPD was so hellbent on hushing Dorner, why weren't the innocents killed in a hail of gunfire? Surely LAPD could have planted a gun or narcotics on those ladies delivering the paper once the officers realized their mistake.

Those officers disregarded their training, IMO, and overreacted out of fear for their own lives.

This cover-up theory sounds straight out of Hollywood. I would bet that most officers just want to cover their own butts and live long enough to get their outrageous pensions.

Finally a voice of reason. Not everything is a shady conspiracy.

[OaktownGator]

Guys, what you say probably makes sense for most LEOs.

But LAPD has a well established track record of criminal assaults, killings, planting evidence and covering it up. The Rampart scandal is just one set of issues that got to see the light of day and get published.

I worked in the LA area prior to Rampart coming to light, and I was warned how dangerous interactions with LAPD could be. More for minorities than us white guys, but still dangerous none the less. The first couple of times I heard it, I figured it might have been exaggerated "victimhood". But you hear enough stories, and it sinks in that more is going on.... then Rampart came out.

Whether they did it in any one specific case is open to question and available evidence. Certainly it's not like all LAPD officers are running around assaulting civilians and planting drugs on them.

But to assume an organization with a track record of this behavior is above it in any specific case (where they have something to lose) is a poor assumption, IMO.

[adamgator96]

Originally Posted by OaktownGator

Guys, what you say probably makes sense for most LEOs.

But LAPD has a well established track record of criminal assaults, killings, planting evidence and covering it up. The Rampart scandal is just one set of issues that got to see the light of day and get published.

I worked in the LA area prior to Rampart coming to light, and I was warned how dangerous interactions with LAPD could be. More for minorities than us white guys, but still dangerous none the less. The first couple of times I heard it, I figured it might have been exaggerated "victimhood". But you hear enough stories, and it sinks in that more is going on.... then Rampart came out.

Whether they did it in any one specific case is open to question and available evidence. Certainly it's not like all LAPD officers are running around assaulting civilians and planting drugs on them.

But to assume an organization with a track record of this behavior is above it in any specific case (where they have something to lose) is a poor assumption, IMO.

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.