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?

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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:

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

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

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.

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

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/Rhetori...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:

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

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.

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.

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.

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.