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

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Armistead

Simply, it's his body.

Sure hope so. He sounded like a real baddie.

[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.

[Armistead]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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

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

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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.

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

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

Now your just makeing my head hurt.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by privateer

Now your just makeing my head hurt.

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

Originally Posted by Armistead

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]

Originally Posted by Skybird

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]

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.