Ex-Cop Begins Killing Family Members of Officers, Claims it's for a Greater Good

[Hathen]

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/dorner-manifesto/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Manifesto from the suspect: http://pastebin.com/uNYBbXaC

It's pretty surreal something like this is happening in real life. Getting past the horror of it I have to say it's a very fascinating story, though.

[Tsi Aileron]

The LAPD is on a rampage, too. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/07/16888732-women-shot-by-cops-were-just-delivering-papers >.>

[insertnamehere]

I wonder if his reasons may have some truth to them, considering that this was banned from TV.

[Annubis]

So that's the reason for the 2nd amendment, right?

(Not even sure if I'm trolling or making a valid point myself...)

[Taelus]

This is insane. I don't agree with the killing, but I am inclined to believe he is right about there be no change without drastic action. Hard to believe this isn't a movie, this is actually happening.

[Hathen]

I wonder if his reasons may have some truth to them, considering that this was banned from TV.

I'm not certain what this has to do with this story particularly because the LAPD's corruption is pretty well known whereas that has a bit less support.

It's along the same idea but they're basically two separate things.

So that's the reason for the 2nd amendment, right?

(Not even sure if I'm trolling or making a valid point myself...)

You are trolling if you are being serious about making a point, because the 2nd amendment actually doesn't have very much to do with this story (at least directly), and if it does it's over a point that's been debated countless times in gun control debates (one crazy guy going around killing people scenario). I suppose you can ironically point out that this guy thinks he's some kind of revolutionary which is some peoples' justification for their support of the right to bear arms but at the end of the day this is pretty much another "guy gone crazy" scenario.

[Lard]

He needs to wear a skull on his chest.

[Annubis]

I suppose you can ironically point out that this guy thinks he's some kind of revolutionary which is some peoples' justification for their support of the right to bear arms but at the end of the day this is pretty much another "guy gone crazy" scenario.

Well, assuming he is telling the truth in his manifest, would that not give him the right to?
Again, if true, it seems every other possible course of action has been tried or denied already. What do you do when crimes go unpunished and the only thing left is force?

Actually, reading the thing made me think of something I heard or read somewhere: "Monsters aren't born, they're made."

Just to be clear though, I don't support the killings. Especially the family members of those he says are corrupt.
Killing is bad, but killing innocents is just so much worst...

[Agent D.]

So this psycho feels that by killing people associated to wrongs that have been committed in the past to him and in general will actually improve how things are handled?

You know, I'm not a politician or a peacekeeper or anything, but when people are scared, the FIRST THING that happens is a witch hunt. It's not about resolving the problem indefinitely, but about ending the immediate threat. So....idiot goes around shooting people, he's #1 on the list of problems to be solved. He dies or is apprehended, and people are satisfied. Nothing changes.

Hooray for useless morons, I hope he eats a round in the forehead.

[Ranadiel]

Well, assuming he is telling the truth in his manifest, would that not give him the right to?
Again, if true, it seems every other possible course of action has been tried or denied already. What do you do when crimes go unpunished and the only thing left is force?

You let it go and move on with your life and just trust that karma, God, or space aliens will ensure that if a crime was comitted those responsible will get their just deserts.

[Desert Walker]

So that's the reason for the 2nd amendment, right?

(Not even sure if I'm trolling or making a valid point myself...)

You are trolling if you are being serious about making a point, because the 2nd amendment actually doesn't have very much to do with this story (at least directly), and if it does it's over a point that's been debated countless times in gun control debates (one crazy guy going around killing people scenario). I suppose you can ironically point out that this guy thinks he's some kind of revolutionary which is some peoples' justification for their support of the right to bear arms but at the end of the day this is pretty much another "guy gone crazy" scenario.

The real irony here is that the guy is an ardent supporter of gun control and has left messages basically saying 'NRA SUCKS, GO PIERS MORGAN'.

Meanwhile, the LAPD has managed to search 400 houses while looking for him.  I wonder how many of those houses they had warrants to search.

The LAPD is on a rampage, too. http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/07/16888732-women-shot-by-cops-were-just-delivering-papers >.>

I will bet any money I have now and all money I will have in the future that those cops won't see 30 days unpaid leave for this, much less the 30 + years in jail that any non-cops would if they had shot the wrong people thinking they were protecting themselves.

EDIT: A second group of police on the way to help out with the first shooting came across a guy driving a black truck on the way there and shot him.  This just gets better and better.

[ZeronHitaro]

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LAPD-Explains-Shooting-Policy-Following-Case-of-Mistaken-Identity-190485001.html

He explained what officers call “shooting to stop,” rather than "shooting to kill."

"We’re trained to stop," Vidal said. "A shot in the leg, a shot in the arm, is not gonna stop the threat. A shot in the torso, hopefully, stops the threat."

Nice to know that if a cop does think you're trying anything funny they're being trained to ensure you'll likely bleed out painfully on the pavement. /sarcasm

Imo; the benefit of the doubt should always be with the suspect. Always give them a chance to surrender, always aim to disable as non-lethally as possible; kill only if you absolutely must. If you're an officer you know the risk going into the job. You know your head's on the chopping block every day. You should not be aiming to slow-kill just because it's safer for 'you'. If you lack the stones to put yourself on the line to protect everyone then find another job.

[Desert Walker]

I'm inclined to agree.  On the one hand, I can see why this happened - they felt they were under threat from someone actively hunting them and they panicked.  On the other hand, they are police and it is their job to be a cut above the rest in both training and practical application of that training and not panic and shoot random people, and this goes double as long as most police officers who shoot the wrong person while feeling threatened continue to be given immunity from criminal prosecution that a civilian carrying a gun (legally) would never receive under similar circumstances.

[ZeronHitaro]

To be honest I have some semi-founded doubts about how well 'trained' any particular police officer may be at any given moment/location. My old man has worked in the prison system for well over a decade, I forget his exact rank but I know he pretty much sits somewhere high up on the food chain. Anyway he's moved from state to state as his position escalated and he's got quite a few stories about the ineptitude of people they hire to guard the criminals the system throws their way. Even in some of the 'high-flow' prisons discipline and training can be so lax that some of these people shouldn't be in change of pre-schoolers; let alone dangerous inmates.

My point being that if training has slipped so badly in situations where they know for a fact that they'll be dealing with 'kill you if you blink' types on a daily basis; how much worse do you think the training standards are for positions where you might be dealing with those people irregularly?

Maybe I'm being naively optimistic but it seems like the solution should be less 'Teach you how to kill someone with plausibly deniability' and more 'Here; have some proper training. Here; have some standard issue defensive equipment (like advancing Kevlar vest tech for something wearable entirely on duty) so you don't feel like it's a quick-draw contest to survive.'
__________

On a side tangent; isn't this kind of 'Shoot to Stop' mindset the sort of thing we're supposed to have SWAT teams for? I'd always assumed that was more the kind of 'permission' you only wanted to give your special ops teams, since they're only called for situations where this sort of reaction is required via advanced planning. Not for your average patrol officer.

[Annubis]

If I was in LA, I would take my vacation now and get the fuck away for a month...