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

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

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.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Simply, it's his body.

Sure hope so. He sounded like a real baddie.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by 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?


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

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/lano...nanswered.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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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.