Ex-LAPD policeman surrounded in cabin in Big Bear, CA

[geetrue]

Live right now on CNN


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57569033/fugitive-ex-la-cop-barricaded-in-calif-cabin/

[Armistead]

Yea, been watching it. They're reporting now he killed another officer today and another in critical condition. Not sure if he has hostages, if not, they should be able to end this easily, not sure the hold up, SWAT should be there by now. Anyway, this should end it.

[geetrue]

Tear gas being used right now ...

continuous firing and now smoke from cabin (black)

[Tchocky]

One shot fired inside the cabin, it seems. Wonder if he killed himself.

[Armistead]

Seems he decided to cremate himself.

[Platapus]

He sounded like a real baddie. sad that he had to kill as many as he did.

[geetrue]

Live rounds are going off in the fire ... no one wants to go in yet.

I wouldn't want to be a black man that looks like Dorner in LA ...

http://www.takepart.com/sites/default/files/styles/tp_large_rail_wide/public/not_chris_dorner_640.jpg

Photo of the day

[mookiemookie]

some people were reporting on what happened according to the police scanner:

http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/18ef62/christopher_dorner_in_gun_battle_with_authorities/c8e1vkh

[Cybermat47]

http://www.takepart.com/sites/default/files/styles/tp_large_rail_wide/public/not_chris_dorner_640.jpg

Photo of the day

:haha:

Oh, that is the funniest thing I've seen all day! :har:

[Hottentot]

He sounded like a real baddie.

I read his manifesto (http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/uncensored-manifesto-from-retired-lapd-officer-christopher-dorner/) the other day. Sounded like a real nutcase.


Hand picked the part that struck me as the most disgusting:

To those children of the officers who are eradicated, your parent was not the individual you thought they were. As you get older,you will see the evidence that your parent was a tyrant who loss their ethos and instead followed the path of moral corruptness. They conspired to hide and suppress the truth of misconduct on others behalf’s. Your parent will have a name and plaque on the fallen officers memorial in D.C. But, In all honesty, your parents name will be a reminder to other officers to maintain the oath they swore and to stay along the shoreline that has guided them from childhood to that of a local, state, or federal law enforcement officer.

[Jimbuna]

Well it's over now...that is the main thing I suppose.

Condolences to the families and loved ones of those who lost their lives.

[Skybird]

Intended and partially executed multiple/mass murder is just that, and I do not wish to excuse it.

However, LAPD has won questionable fame worldwide for racism and racism-related misconduct by police forces. Dorner claimed that he got fired in I think 2007 due to filing in a wrong accusation regarding a colleague who should have mistreated a mentally retarded prisoner. Yesterday I fetched up that that case has been reopened by investigators. Leaves two questions: will such an examination against a police officer in a department like LA have a fair chance to go unhindered, and second: what if they find that Dorner's claim about what happened in 2007 - were correct? It would not excuse his killing spree. But it would explain some things, and open some unwelcomed perspectives.

There must be a reason why he has ticked out so dramatically - even if it would be a mental disease or underlaying psychosis.

[Armistead]

Intended and partially executed multiple/mass murder is just that, and I do not wish to excuse it.

However, LAPD has won questionable fame worldwide for racism and racism-related misconduct by police forces. Dorner claimed that he got fired in I think 2007 due to filing in a wrong accusation regarding a colleague who should have mistreated a mentally retarded prisoner. Yesterday I fetched up that that case has been reopened by investigators. Leaves two questions: will such an examination against a police officer in a department like LA have a fair chance to go unhindered, and second: what if they find that Dorner's claim about what happened in 2007 - were correct? It would not excuse his killing spree. But it would explain some things, and open some unwelcomed perspectives.

There must be a reason why he has ticked out so dramatically - even if it would be a mental disease or underlaying psychosis.

Well, you just tried to excuse it...

I don't know of a person that can go through life and not be wronged, I know I have. Should I go on a murder spree. Our culture is creating a deadly mindset always trying to excuse murderers.

[Skybird]

Well, you just tried to excuse it...

I don't know of a person that can go through life and not be wronged, I know I have. Should I go on a murder spree. Our culture is creating a deadly mindset always trying to excuse murderers.
Thank you. Care to rationally explain that? And in case that already is asked too much, to elaborate the difference between "excuse" and "explanation"?

[Armistead]

Thank you. Care to rationally explain that? And in case that already is asked too much, to elaborate the difference between "excuse" and "explanation"?

You excused it with the "However". It's like saying "I'm sorry, BUT".

There is no explanation except he was angry and evil. Millions of people suffer wrong and have no need to murder innocent people. My guess is some of his complaint is right, but after he was fired, instead of picking up his life like normal people do, he fumed in anger for years. I bet he was killing people in his head years ago. He chose not to make proper change in his life. He could've filed a civil lawsuit, called the NAACP, fought racism, helped others. Instead he blamed others, giving up control of his life. Sure, we could find explanations for his anger, but not for his murdering innocent people.

I got wrongly fired once, because my Supervisor lied to protect his butt, was I mad, you bet, did I go on a shooting rampage killing innocent people....no.

[CaptainHaplo]

ok you two - behave.

Sky - what Armistead is saying is that by having an "explanation" of why, it can create the "excuse" in the process. This is not always the case, but happens more times than not in cases like this because people use the explanation to excuse the actions.

If the guy was fired unjustly - he should have just sucked it up and moved on with life. We all have stuff hit us that isnt' "fair". The problem is he didn't move on - he chose to let it eat at him to the point of murder. There is no excuse for such actions - but some people (not all) will go to any length to absolve people of personal responsibility. It is that which Armistead is talking about.

[TLAM Strike]

I looked over some of his manifesto, best quote ever...

If you had a well regulated AWB, this would not happen. The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives.

Get rid of your guns or I kill you? :06:

So remember support a new AWB, it's what Chris Dorner (cop killer, murderer of four) would want. :nope:

Sheesh its not the guns, in the constant anti-gun rhetoric and prominent news stories of mass shootings that glorify the killers that put ideas like this in to the heads of disturbed people. Get a gun; you'll be a rebel cuz The Man doesn't want you to have one, shoot a bunch of people; everyone will know your name from CNN. It once was kids, then it was felons, now it's people with training. :stare:

[Takeda Shingen]

Sheesh its not the guns, in the constant anti-gun rhetoric and prominent news stories of mass shootings that glorify the killers that put ideas like this in to the heads of disturbed people. Get a gun; you'll be a rebel cuz The Man doesn't want you to have one, shoot a bunch of people; everyone will know your name from CNN. It once was kids, then it was felons, now it's people with training. :stare:

So anti-narcotics law enforcement is responsible drug use. Laws against domestic abuse are responsible for men beating their wives. Traffic laws are the reason behind reckless driving. That's some logic.

[TLAM Strike]

So anti-narcotics law enforcement is responsible drug use. Laws against domestic abuse are responsible for men beating their wives. Traffic laws are the reason behind reckless driving. That's some logic.
Laws are not stopping such acts are they? The idea that such acts are acceptable is the problem. The problem is that the portrayal of such acts in the media glorify them, not in that they are just shown but in the context they are shown as positive.

Be like Snoop, smoke weed every day. While your at it smack a ho, you'll be a real pimp then. Your beamer is the best car in the world, people will stop for you as you drive by texting.

[Sailor Steve]

There is no explanation except he was angry and evil. Millions of people suffer wrong and have no need to murder innocent people. My guess is some of his complaint is right, but after he was fired, instead of picking up his life like normal people do, he fumed in anger for years. I bet he was killing people in his head years ago. He chose not to make proper change in his life. He could've filed a civil lawsuit, called the NAACP, fought racism, helped others. Instead he blamed others, giving up control of his life. Sure, we could find explanations for his anger, but not for his murdering innocent people.
That has got to be one of the best comments on this subject that I've read anywhere. :rock:

[Hottentot]

That has got to be one of the best comments on this subject that I've read anywhere. :rock:

Aye. It makes sense. Whereas when I was reading Dorner's rant, it was the very beginning that already confused me. He went on for a long time about how important the name is to a fellow and how you do things to make a name for yourself and keep it good.

And so his solution for clearing his name is...to start killing people like his former lawyer's daughter and her boyfriend? That's his solution?

He wanted not to be remembered as a man who filed an unfounded complaint against his colleague and decided to instead be remembered as a man who murdered people, went on the run and died in fire if the latest reports are to be believed.

How the heck is that helping in the society remembering him as an honorable and good fellow?

[Skybird]

You excused it with the "However". It's like saying "I'm sorry, BUT".

There is no explanation except he was angry and evil. Millions of people suffer wrong and have no need to murder innocent people. My guess is some of his complaint is right, but after he was fired, instead of picking up his life like normal people do, he fumed in anger for years. I bet he was killing people in his head years ago. He chose not to make proper change in his life. He could've filed a civil lawsuit, called the NAACP, fought racism, helped others. Instead he blamed others, giving up control of his life. Sure, we could find explanations for his anger, but not for his murdering innocent people.

I got wrongly fired once, because my Supervisor lied to protect his butt, was I mad, you bet, did I go on a shooting rampage killing innocent people....no.

All that so far is just your belief.

Next time you are in town, go to the library and get a book on psyciatric case-studies. You'd be surprised to learn that people can be or become that mad that they become delusional, start to hear voice sin their head, write hundreds of pages of cryptic theories about how they think "they" are watching them from 5th dimension, and finally started to kill people.

I do not excuse what he did, and I said that several times, in black on white letters. But if you cannot differ between an excuse and an explanation - I do not buy your theory on how the one leads to the other necessarily - then the problem is with you, and your exlcusively. And when I ask those two question that I pout up, your reaction just is to accuse me of sympathising with a multiple murder and wanting to excuse that, I am getting slightly pissed by that, like I get pissed when I would get called a Nazi because I explained my view on how and why Hitler was able to come to power and install his control.

Excuse and explanation are two totally different things, to start with. You can enact as if you do not understand this in order to get a cheap opportunity for a quick slap at somebody. But still excuse remains to be something different than an explanation.

It also helps not to try to think with a by a bag of aroused emotions. Feeling, and thinking, are two different things too, you know.

[Takeda Shingen]

Laws are not stopping such acts are they? The idea that such acts are acceptable is the problem. The problem is that the portrayal of such acts in the media glorify them, not in that they are just shown but in the context they are shown as positive.

Be like Snoop, smoke weed every day. While your at it smack a ho, you'll be a real pimp then. Your beamer is the best car in the world, people will stop for you as you drive by texting.

So should we do away with the laws? That would be pretty silly.

[Armistead]

All that so far is just your belief.

Next time you are in town, go to the library and get a book on psyciatric case-studies. You'd be surprised to learn that people can be or become that mad that they become delusional, start to hear voice sin their head, write hundreds of pages of cryptic theories about how they think "they" are watching them from 5th dimension, and finally started to kill people.

I do not excuse what he did, and I said that several times, in black on white letters. But if you cannot differ between an excuse and an explanation - I do not buy your theory on how the one leads to the other necessarily - then the problem is with you, and your exlcusively. And when I ask those two question that I pout up, your reaction just is to accuse me of sympathising with a multiple murder and wanting to excuse that, I am getting slightly pissed by that, like I get pissed when I would get called a Nazi because I explained my view on how and why Hitler was able to come to power and install his control.

Excuse and explanation are two totally different things, to start with. You can enact as if you do not understand this in order to get a cheap opportunity for a quick slap at somebody. But still excuse remains to be something different than an explanation.

It also helps not to try to think with a by a bag of aroused emotions. Feeling, and thinking, are two different things too, you know.


Certainly it's my belief, because it's my opinion, just as you have yours.

We call those people nut cases. I don't see that here, I see a man that got angry, instead of dealing with that anger, he let it spiral out of control to the point it consumed his life and he sought revenge. It's shameful how many are making a hero out of him. Who among us hasn't been so angry we didn't want to kill someone, but 99% of us realize it solves nothing and instead of blaming and ruining lives, we change ours and move on.

Life has always been a pile of unfair BS, it's something we as humans deal with and mostly live with. No doubt, sometimes it takes violence to bring forth change, but that is different than revenge. You can't compare revenge to a mass revolution of people fighting tyranny.

No doubt many social and cultural issues effect us all, sometimes unfairly. I agree we're all interconnected on many levels, we should try to deal with those issues, but it's not an excuse or explanation to murder innocent people.

As far as I can tell, there was nothing in this mans life to show any mental illness, in fact, this story is common, someone gets fired, they go to killing. It happens everyday. Most of us take responsibility for our lives, a few go into pity mode, blame others, you hurt me so I'll get you.

It's the new political correctness, no one is responsible for their actions anymore, someone else is at fault.


Any explanation for this behavior is unacceptable

[TLAM Strike]

So should we do away with the laws? That would be pretty silly. Laws exist to allow society to punish bad acts. If laws prevented criminal acts then "Thou shall not steal" would have ended theft.

Outlawing something does not prevent someone from doing or possessing it, it only allows society to punish that person.

Preventing said person from doing or possessing something bad for society in the first place is the responsibility of society; first to indoctrinate the individual on the societal norms they are expected to uphold and second to warn society if an individual poses a danger to said society. It is in the second stage that legislation takes effect allowing society to deal with a wrongdoer.

Now implementing new laws to prevent something that old laws failed to prevent is well... whats the definition of insanity? Doing something over and over again expecting a different result. It does not seem sufficient for some to have for example murder outlawed they must outlaw everything remotely connected to the act, or conversely one single item connected to it. Such thinking does not address the problem of what caused the murder to occur in the first place.

[Takeda Shingen]

Laws exist to allow society to punish bad acts. If laws prevented criminal acts then "Thou shall not steal" would have ended theft.

Outlawing something does not prevent someone from doing or possessing it, it only allows society to punish that person.

Preventing said person from doing or possessing something bad for society in the first place is the responsibility of society; first to indoctrinate the individual on the societal norms they are expected to uphold and second to warn society if an individual poses a danger to said society. It is in the second stage that legislation takes effect allowing society to deal with a wrongdoer.

Now implementing new laws to prevent something that old laws failed to prevent is well... whats the definition of insanity? Doing something over and over again expecting a different result. It does not seem sufficient for some to have for example murder outlawed they must outlaw everything remotely connected to the act, or conversely one single item connected to it. Such thinking does not address the problem of what caused the murder to occur in the first place.

Okay, so you are now backing away from your original concept that opposition to X is responsible for the cause of X. This is a good thing, because that statement was completely indefensible. I suspect that you started to see that after you posted it.

[Armistead]

So should we do away with the laws? That would be pretty silly.

Of course not, didn't see that TLAM even said that, but it's silly to create more laws when we don't enforce laws on the books. This has become the politically correct thing to do, sounds good, does nothing. Honest people don't need more laws when government won't enforce the ones that exist, moreso when they infringe on the rights of law abiding people.

[Platapus]

Sorry to hijack the thread BACK to the original post, but,

What is the opinion of our members on whether that body is the cop or not?

This guy knows what cops know and he knows what cops will do.

Seems pretty lucky that he was so easily tracked to this cabin when he was on the lamm so long. And this tactically skilled former cop barricades himself in a building (cops, even crazy ex cops, should know that is not a good tactic) especially with no hostages.

Pretty lucky that this baddie made this very convenient mistake.

Cabin catches on fire (he would know about the tear gas fire probability) and there is body discovered that may take weeks to positively identify.

Pretty lucky.

This baddie was crazy like a fox. Be a real kick in the butt if the body turns out to be someone else.

I hope the search is still going on, but I fear that the police have stopped/scaled way down upon the discovery of the body.

Possibility just what this baddie also knows that the cops would do.

To me, until the body is positively identified, the baddie is still presumed on the Lamm. :yep:

[Takeda Shingen]

Of course not, didn't see that TLAM even said that, but it's silly to create more laws when we don't enforce laws on the books. This has become the politically correct thing to do, sounds good, does nothing. Honest people don't need more laws when government won't enforce the ones that exist, moreso when they infringe on the rights of law abiding people.

I didn't say that he did. I posed the question rhetorically.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetorical

[Armistead]

Most reports show he wasn't that highly trained, in fact, he shot himself in the hand during police training. He has no special skills other than the average cop. He did well cowardly killing people, but when on the run, he started making many mistakes, got trapped and is now toast...Simply, it's his body.

[Platapus]

Simply, it's his body.

Sure hope so. He sounded like a real baddie. :nope:

[Armistead]

I didn't say that he did. I posed the question rhetorically.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rhetorical

The question you posed was absurd, not rhetorical.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absurd

[Takeda Shingen]

The question you posed was absurd, not rhetorical.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/absurd

Yes. Illustration of point through absurdity is one of hallmarks of rhetoric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_strategies#Argument_from_absurdity

Or perhaps now you are attempting to be rhetorical. In this case, I would say that you are being too direct to produce good rhetoric.

[Armistead]

Yes. Illustration of point through absurdity is one of hallmarks of rhetoric.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_strategies#Argument_from_absurdity

Or perhaps now you are attempting to be rhetorical. In this case, I would say that you are being too direct to produce good rhetoric.

Argue with yourself, I'm not swimming in this silliness.:salute:

[Takeda Shingen]

Argue with yourself, I'm not swimming in this silliness.:salute:

No one asked you to. It is standard academic discourse, and has been for thousands of years. Silliness indeed.

[Skybird]

Certainly it's my belief, because it's my opinion, just as you have yours.

We call those people nut cases. I don't see that here, I see a man that got angry, instead of dealing with that anger, he let it spiral out of control to the point it consumed his life and he sought revenge.

Why.


It's shameful how many are making a hero out of him.
Me not.

I was just asking two very legitimate and important questions: now that the case of 2007 is reopened, can an unbiased and unobstructed examination be expected in a department like LA with a certain kind of not really positive reputation that lasts since very long time now, and with the to be expected political pressure to get the report that is wanted to avoid more attention being drawn to this mess. And second question, what will it mean - for example for the public perception - when it is now found that the guys' original file report on his colleague - was correct and justified?

And later I added in the second post that you simply do not know whether he was just born evil, or in other ways turned bad by his own responsibility - or whether he had no other choice than to become what he became due to for example a genetic disposition to form a psychosis, a personality syndrome, whatever.

Why you accused me of excusing what he did, and wrote all the other stuff, simply is beyond me.

Heck, even Bin Laden'S motivation could be explained - without being accused of defending what he did.

[Madox58]

Illustration of point through absurdity is one of hallmarks of rhetoric.



Now your just makeing my head hurt.
:nope:

[Takeda Shingen]

Now your just makeing my head hurt.
:nope:

Why? It is true. I was using a rhetorical device. I've studied rhetoric extensively and I use such things all the time. Others use it here too; completely fair and legit.

Maybe I my biggest mistake was attempting to interact with the members outside of the moderating sphere. I suppose I should only be posting when I have to put my boot on someone throat.

[Armistead]

Why.


Me not.

I was just asking two very legitimate and important questions: now that the case of 2007 is reopened, can an unbiased and unobstructed examination be expected in a department like LA with a certain kind of not really positive reputation that lasts since very long time now, and with the to be expected political pressure to get the report that is wanted to avoid more attention being drawn to this mess. And second question, what will it mean - for example for the public perception - when it is now found that the guys' original file report on his colleague - was correct and justified?

And later I added in the second post that you simply do not know whether he was just born evil, or in other ways turned bad by his own responsibility - or whether he had no other choice than to become what he became due to for example a genetic disposition to form a psychosis, a personality syndrome, whatever.

Why you accused me of excusing what he did, and wrote all the other stuff, simply is beyond me.

Heck, even Bin Laden'S motivation could be explained - without being accused of defending what he did.

We can look for explanations, but those don't justify murder.
I think it rather obvious they reopened the case hoping it might calm him, not to solve anything, but now they're stuck with that can of worms.

I didn't accuse you, I said we don't excuse murdering innocent people.

Neither of us know if he was born evil, but I don't think any of us are. I don't know all his history, except I've seen no reports of serious mental issues with him. The fact he was in the service and police force, they're pretty good at spotting nuts.

Again, he may have been right in his complaint, he should've taken proper action, he didn't. He was motivated with anger, that caused him to seek revenge.

[Skybird]

We can look for explanations, but those don't justify murder.

I did not claim it does. I saids exxactly the oppsoite. Two or three times


I didn't accuse you, I said we don't excuse murdering innocent people.

post #13, first sentence - your very first reaction to me.

Let's leave it here.

[Armistead]

I did not claim it does. I saids exxactly the oppsoite. Two or three times


post #13, first sentence - your very first reaction to me.

Let's leave it here.

Indeed, in that post you seemed to be excusing his actions based on assumed mental issues, but I'm not accusing you in that murder is justified over anger. Big difference.

[Skybird]

I. Assumed. Nothing. Becasue I know that I have no valid info on the whoel case - so I lack the database to even form a hypothesis, not to mention a theopry or a concluded assumption.

I could as well have said "even if the reason just would have been the red beard of his father or the blue eyes of his mother".

However, still not excusing anything and still not assuming anything, IF he would be found as mentally ill indeed, some serious psychosis, a progredient mental dementia, a serious personality syndrome, a psychopathic character as defined by DSM and or ICD, or whatever it is, that maybe would explain why he became what he became, or why his life pushed him over the edge where others would nto have ticked out, or why it all broke out of him due to that disease.

But then he would have been a sick man indeed - and depending on the circumstances and diagnosis, somebody being technically, causally responsible for what he did, but morally not, at least not in full. You cannot sentence a patient with Tourette syndrome for speaking offensively, or sentence a White for having the genes to have a white skin, or sentence a patient with a brain tumour destroying his mind and personality for having a brain tumor. You cannot sentence somebody for developing a personality disorder or suffering from schizophrenia, and having suffered a trauma that kicked him over the edge and led to lasting personality changes.

If you wanted to say that medical reasons to often are abused at courts, while holding no ground (the "patient" is a simulating non-patient only, he and his lawyer lie about his health "issues") - to that I would agree. At least to a wider degree than is politically correct in Europe, but to a probably lesser degree than maybe is common in the US.

[Armistead]

When you keep saying "if" he is mentally ill, etc., you're assuming.

"However, still not excusing anything and still not assuming anything, IF he would be found as mentally ill indeed,"

There is nothing at all to suggest he was mentally ill or insane, everything points that he let his anger reach a point to he became vengeful. Certainly anyone that starts killing innocent people isn't mentally stable, that doesn't mean they suffer a mental disease. It is clear he had great mental capacity, planning and a point to prove. I see no sign of a severe mental illness, but plenty signs of anger and revenge. He clearly knew right from wrong.

The fact is 90% of people with serious mental illness still know the difference between right and wrong and don't get involved with crime or hurting others.. I do agree when people are seriously mentally ill, don't know right from wrong, others have to get involved and take responsibility, even if that means putting them in an institution to protect others.

Like it or not, many people CHOOSE to follow their anger to the point of murder, they become evil. Dorner became evil, he planned and picked his targets to hurt others. He clearly knew what he was doing and why. We all deal with anger, that doesn't give us the right to kill. It's clear this isn't a case that he didn't know right from wrong.

[TLAM Strike]

Okay, so you are now backing away from your original concept that opposition to X is responsible for the cause of X. This is a good thing, because that statement was completely indefensible. I suspect that you started to see that after you posted it. I think you misunderstood what I said. I never said that opposition to gun violence causes gun violence, what I said was support of gun control caused gun violence; at least in this case. That would be a X causes Y situation.

In the case of Chris Dorner we have a man who couldn't control his temper over being fired from the LAPD (over a case of using excessive force), latching on to an idea that assault weapons are bad. An idea that has filled the media in recent weeks, along with the constant media coverage and indeed glorification of those who commit murders with firearms.

We have society that does not condone violence while we have a media that makes famous those who do commit violence. For a disturbed individual such mixed messages are dangerous, especially if they see themselves as betrayed by society or somehow better than it.

[Armistead]

Much of what happens in the media is politically motivated, such is the case with guns. It will be interesting to see if Dorner used the gun control theme, knowing it would help give him a good guy image to many. It's shocking how the liberal media hates guns, but glossing this guy over.
This is how we create copycat Killers.

[Skybird]

When you keep saying "if" he is mentally ill, etc., you're assuming.

"However, still not excusing anything and still not assuming anything, IF he would be found as mentally ill indeed,"

There is nothing at all to suggest he was mentally ill or insane, everything points that he let his anger reach a point to he became vengeful. Certainly anyone that starts killing innocent people isn't mentally stable, that doesn't mean they suffer a mental disease. It is clear he had great mental capacity, planning and a point to prove. I see no sign of a severe mental illness, but plenty signs of anger and revenge. He clearly knew right from wrong.

The fact is 90% of people with serious mental illness still know the difference between right and wrong and don't get involved with crime or hurting others.. I do agree when people are seriously mentally ill, don't know right from wrong, others have to get involved and take responsibility, even if that means putting them in an institution to protect others.

Like it or not, many people CHOOSE to follow their anger to the point of murder, they become evil. Dorner became evil, he planned and picked his targets to hurt others. He clearly knew what he was doing and why. We all deal with anger, that doesn't give us the right to kill. It's clear this isn't a case that he didn't know right from wrong.

Sigh.

If there would be pink gas clouds on Io, it could maybe be a hint for pink elephants eating pink grass and producing pink gas.

But I do not assume that it is so.

If you would hop on one leg and never walk on two, it could be that your other leg is dysfunctional or you are phobic to walking on two legs, or your other leg is amputated.

But I do not assume it is so.

If you would consume LSD, you would see fancy colours and bright lights. By saying that, I do not express an assumption that you recently consumed LSD.

Enough of this now, before I feel like been pulled by force back into a Kindergarden. Since you have never been inside his head, you just do not know what it weas that made him tick the way he ticked. I just think it would be good to know, and I do not take YOUR assumptions (thats what they are! ;) that he just ticked out for granted. You do not know, nor does anyone at this stage. Maybe (or probably) we will never know.

[geetrue]

Sorry to hijack the thread BACK to the original post, but,

What is the opinion of our members on whether that body is the cop or not?


To me, until the body is positively identified, the baddie is still presumed on the Lamm. :yep:

I think it was him ... he was hiding right in front of one search party in a cabin across from where they searched.

They heard one single shot after the cabin (accidently???) caught on fire.

Someone tried to sneak out the back door and went back inside.

The witnesses he tied up saw him plus the hi-jacked truck.

Pretty sure it was him and now the argument over who get the reward starts.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-case-question-of-who-if-anyone-will-get-1-million-reward-unanswered.html


Officials have not made a decision on who, if anyone, will get a piece of more than $1 million in reward money




Officials have not made a decision on who, if anyone, will get a piece of more than $1 million in reward money offered for the capture and conviction of suspected killer Christopher Dorner.
Dorner, 33, is believed to have died in a Big Bear cabin fire after a standoff with police Tuesday afternoon.
He was tracked there after reportedly tying up two people in one cabin and carjacking a man minutes later. All three people reported seeing Dorner to police.

[Armistead]

Sigh.

If there would be pink gas clouds on Io, it could maybe be a hint for pink elephants eating pink grass and producing pink gas.

But I do not assume that it is so.

If you would hop on one leg and never walk on two, it could be that your other leg is dysfunctional or you are phobic to walking on two legs, or your other leg is amputated.

But I do not assume it is so.

If you would consume LSD, you would see fancy colours and bright lights. By saying that, I do not express an assumption that you recently consumed LSD.

Enough of this now, before I feel like been pulled by force back into a Kindergarden. Since you have never been inside his head, you just do not know what it weas that made him tick the way he ticked. I just think it would be good to know, and I do not take YOUR assumptions (thats what they are! ;) that he just ticked out for granted. You do not know, nor does anyone at this stage. Maybe (or probably) we will never know.


I'll not get into the pink clouds or LSD, but it sounded like a good time.

I never said he got ticked off for granted, he wrote a complete manifesto why he was ticked and how he would seek revenge. This isn't a complex case, he clearly fumed in his anger for years. What made him finally snap years later, you're right, we may never know, but it's clear he knew right from wrong and chose to do wrong. He meets no criteria for mentally deranged or ill. In fact, few meet the criteria for the insanity plea, it gets a lot of attention, but only used in about 1% of murder cases and usually fails.

...," Dorner wrote. "Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur within the LAPD and reclaim my name."

Dorner called Randall Quan and told him that that he "should have done a better job of protecting his daughter," an innocent woman he gunned down. This was calculated revenge.

I'm not sure what you need to know, he clearly had issues, we all do, he chose not to take correct action and blame others. Society isn't the blame here, he was a murderous coward, now a dead coward.

[Bilge_Rat]

...can an unbiased and unobstructed examination be expected in a department like LA with a certain kind of not really positive reputation that lasts since very long time now...



of course and why not? Is the L.A. PD more or less racist than the:

-Frankfurt PD:

http://www.thelocal.de/national/20121108-46055.html


- Baden-Württemberg state PD:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-police-kept-jobs-despite-ku-klux-klan-involvement-a-847831.html

- Dessau PD:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/01/oury-j11.html

- Berlin PD:

http://www.freedominfonetwork.org/profiles/blogs/racist-police-brutality-hinders-democracy-in-germany

[Platapus]

It seems like the body has been confirmed as the baddie. That's good. :yep:

[Hottentot]

In the light of this confirmation, his manifesto starts looking pretty sad. I mean he ranted for what seemed to be an endless wall of text about how he is practically invincible, always a step ahead and always has the initiative. I suppose his infallible masterplan had one fatal flaw: the reality.

[geetrue]

Remember the guy that shot up the other police down in LA and Riverside:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/27/christopher-dorner-reward-riverside-california/2024341/

Now they say they won't pay due to Dorner killed himself before they could arrest him ... :hmmm:


Some California donors, including the city of Riverside, have withdrawn their part of more than $1 million in reward money offered for the capture and conviction of cop-killer Christopher Dorner, who committed suicide after a 10-day shooting spree in Southern California last month.
The city of Riverside had pledged $100,000 in reward money for information leading to the arrest and conviction of Dorner, who was suspected of killing four people

[em2nought]

Remember the guy that shot up the other police down in LA and Riverside:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/27/christopher-dorner-reward-riverside-california/2024341/

Now they say they won't pay due to Dorner killed himself before they could arrest him ... :hmmm:




Don't trust gov't, what a novel idea. :D

[Tribesman]

Now they say they won't pay due to Dorner killed himself before they could arrest him ... :hmmm:

Even if they arrested him that wouldn't have meant a payout.
"Arrest and conviction"...terms and conditions always apply.

Don't trust gov't, what a novel idea.
Always read the small print