OT: Fuck LAPD

[MHSL82]

Undeniable fact that negates any credibility he might have had.

Another question is how much publicity would his manifesto have received had he not killed innocent people?

I'd say more heard it now that he killed someone, didn't have to be innocent people but I think outrage brings publicity.

But if it doesn't reach the right person or bring about the change, all that happened was pissing off a few previously naïve trusters of the police, embarrass a few mostly anonymous people that will keep their job most likely, and kill innocent people and sadden their families and friends.

The truth is that it is difficult to get the message to the right people and ultimately it's better to get quality publication (right people) than mass publication, when the national media and people can't or won't do anything better than say on a message board that they agree with their side. I seriously don't see anything happening from this because the corrupt will get away with stuff even when it's publicized. I understand it's hard to get it publicized without an event, but I really feel bad for the innocent. Up until he killed any innocent people, that included him.

 

[MHSL82]

I get it, Tall; I honestly do. This is an emotionally charged, highly sensitive issue and I would expect most will/would gravitate to a position similar to yours. Many years ago I would have done the same; I just can't anymore.

In this case, that stance serves only to hand over to the LAPD the full license to write whatever ending to the story they choose. Inversely speaking, however, I am not advocating for allowing Dorner the same license either; instead, I want to give that license to its proper owners - the victims.

While it may be difficult to see this truth amidst the emotions and the spin the LAPD is spewing to the media, it nonetheless is the truth that these innocent lives you have spoken of were not the victims of only Dorner's gun they were also the victims of the rampant corruption that has pervaded the administration and rank & file of the LAPD for years.

So, while I advocate on behalf of Dorner's cause, perhaps it would be more understandable and thus acceptable to see it not as Dorner's cause but that of the victim's.

I guess I'm a pessimist because I think while it exposes the LAPD and if the proper recourse happened it would help future victims, I don't trust that will happen. I feel, perhaps too skeptically, that this will all go away and they will continue their corruption with no shame and now innocent people were killed in a vain attempt to send the right message, that will fall upon deaf ears.

You will get the message, but the people who can act either won't get it or do anything about it. Normally, I'll just say that you must try in what you can, so I won't condemn the effort, I'm just worried or not convinced that it did anything,

 

[Bemular]

I should have been more clear. I am with you in the fact that I don't think they should have executed him. I knew they would once he killed a cop, but they shouldn't have. It makes the entire ordeal look shady, and now we all know only what the LAPD want us to know. But at the same time...

.... maybe he was actually the "good guy" and he had a ton of info that would have shed some light onto the corruption of the LAPD or something along those lines. He was done wrong and he was trying to open up the public's eyes to all of it to help out others who have been wronged and any future people in his position. That is fine, but the actions he took show that he was just a really unstable guy and I think no differently of him than I do any other criminal. I do think that there is more to this story and I am open to that. But as far as Dorner... he turned himself into exactly what he was supposedly fighting and even worse. I think you hit it on the head with it being the victims cause and not Dorners. I agree with that.

Excellent reply - Well said, Brother. I tip my hat to you for keeping this convo of the mind and not of the heart - This is not an easy topic to do that with.

 

[xxERICSMITHXX]

ftr record, I was under the impression, the little drones can be armed with tasers and rubber bullets??


Considering where we are technologically, is it unreasonable to assume that they've already developed "small" drones, that are "armed"?

It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that. I know the FAA regulates what police departments can have, but I am not sure if armed vs. unarmed is covered. I would hope that they can't have armed drones, but who knows.

It is a pretty interesting topic because there are some good reasons to allow police departments to use drones, but there are also a lot of reasons to not allow them to use drones. Hopefully a reasonable middle ground can be found.

 

[imac_21]

I want to start by saying I haven't really followed this that closely, but . . .

Don't Dorner's actions take away from his cause? I don't think it's a surprise to many people to learn that the LAPD (or really police departments in general) have corrupt members. I think every industry/business/service has to deal with corruption. It is, of course, worse when the offending people are those trusted with the protection of society, but we all still know there are corrupt police officers.

However, it seems to me like Dorner's actions shifted the focus from his cause to his actions. There will be enough people who will view the killing of Dorner as the police doing what was necessary to get a dangerous man off the streets rather than trying to silence a voice against the police.

There had to be a more effective way of getting his information to the public.

Lastly, as I said at the top, I haven't followed the case very closely, so I can't comment on the use of force by the police. Based on what has been said in this thread, it seems like the police overdid it, but this thread also seems to carry an anti-LAPD bias (not suggesting that bias is a negative thing, just a strong presence in this thread).

 

[tomikcon1971]

Man I miss football...

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

There will be enough people who will view the killing of Dorner as the police doing what was necessary to get a dangerous man off the streets rather than trying to silence a voice against the police.

Its tough, the guy was sniping police and good at it. He was in a pretty fortified location. How many more police lives do you risk or sacrifice to bring him in alive? I understand the argument that police can't be the executioner, but at some point the situation becomes too dangerous to risk a single more life to make sure the the guy faces proper justice when really he doesn't deserve any better. Again, the guy was going to death row regardless.

Past that, regarding "of the head and not of the heart" above.......whatever. My head tells me this guy was a serial killer no matter how he tried to justify it, or whatever you think of police. I guess maybe this guy saw himself as some kind of Rambo or Charles Bronson vigilante, but he was just a pitiful, messed-up terrorist who thought killing a bunch of people was a good way to get people to listen to him.

 

[Bemular]

Past that, regarding "of the head and not of the heart" above.......whatever.

Seriously? Would you rather Tall & I trade insults with one another? What is the point of mocking someone's appreciation for sharing a thoughtful as opposed to an emotional response on a sensitive subject? Seems worthy of appreciation to me.

 

[MHSL82]

Seriously? Would you rather Tall & I trade insults with one another? What is the point of mocking someone's appreciation for sharing a thoughtful as opposed to an emotional response on a sensitive subject? Seems worthy of appreciation to me.

I would.

Maybe he misinterpreted your post? Maybe he thought you were saying that to side with Dorner was "the mind" and to hate Dorner was "the heart"? And that you were saying that he was correct to being of the mind with his last paragraph? I know you were talking about civil discourse with the mind not mud slinging with the heart, on what could be an emotional subject. I'm not sure he objects to civility. Only me.

 

[Bemular]

Maybe he misinterpreted your post? I know you were talking about civil discourse with the mind not mud slinging with the heart, on what could be an emotional subject.

Who knows; and, correct.

 

[Bemular]

I want to start by saying I haven't really followed this that closely, but . . .

Doesn't Dorner's actions take away from his cause? I don't think it's a surprise to many people to learn that the LAPD (or really police departments in general) have corrupt members. I think every industry/business/service has to deal with corruption. It is, of course, worse when the offending people are those trusted with the protection of society, but we all still know there are corrupt police officers.

However, it seems to me like Dorner's actions shifted the focus from his cause to his actions. There will be enough people who will view the killing of Dorner as the police doing what was necessary to get a dangerous man off the streets rather than trying to silence a voice against the police.

There had to be a more effective way of getting his information to the public.

Lastly, as I said at the top, I haven't followed the case very closely, so I can't comment on the use of force by the police. Based on what has been said in this thread, it seems like the police overdid it, but this thread also seems to carry an anti-LAPD bias (not suggesting that bias is a negative thing, just a strong presence in this thread).

Whether Chris Dorner's actions did or should shift the focus from the cause to the effect is a personal decision based on one's beliefs and influences. For some, perhaps many, the answer is absolutely; for me, the answer is absolutely not.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

Seriously? Would you rather Tall & I trade insults with one another? What is the point of mocking someone's appreciation for sharing a thoughtful as opposed to an emotional response on a sensitive subject? Seems worthy of appreciation to me.

If you find my posts laughable, feel free to mock them. I will often be dismissive of an idea, no matter how heartfelt, if I find it ridiculous. As far as I can tell you were saying my and others' perspective was emotional rather than thoughtful, which is no more respectful than my post, just a more passive-aggressive way of dismissing it.

Bin Laden had some worthwhile ideas mixed in with his insanity. So did the Unabomber. Doesn't mean you root them on, or give their ideas any sort of credence in any way. No justifying people who kill to send a message.

 

[Bemular]

If you find my posts laughable, feel free to mock them. I will often be dismissive of an idea, no matter how heartfelt, if I find it ridiculous. As far as I can tell you were saying my and others' perspective was emotional rather than thoughtful, which is no more respectful than my post, just a more passive-aggressive way of dismissing it.

Bin Laden had some worthwhile ideas mixed in with his insanity. So did the Unabomber. Doesn't mean you root them on, or give their ideas any sort of credence in any way. No justifying people who kill to send a message.

No, Space not at all. I was referring strictly to Tall's comments. There was no pretext in my response to him whatsoever.

 

[imac_21]

Whether Chris Dorner's actions did or should shift the focus from the cause to the effect is a personal decision based on one's beliefs and influences. For some, perhaps many, the answer is absolutely; for me, the answer is absolutely not.

The problem with this is that his target audience was bigger than one person. I would imagine the people that share your belief that his actions don't distract from his message, had previously received and understood the message. The mass audience - the short-attention-span, 140-characters-or-less audience - that need to get his message miss it because the focus shifts to his actions (and the actions of the LAPD and all other agencies involved in the pursuit/killing) and the message Dorner wanted to deliver is left in the gutter somewhere.

Instead we're stuck with a "psycho who killed random people" in the eyes of the people that likely most needed to get the message he was trying to convey.

 

[Bemular]

The problem with this is that his target audience was bigger than one person. I would imagine the people that share your belief that his actions don't distract from his message, had previously received and understood the message. The mass audience - the short-attention-span, 140-characters-or-less audience - that need to get his message miss it because the focus shifts to his actions (and the actions of the LAPD and all other agencies involved in the pursuit/killing) and the message Dorner wanted to deliver is left in the gutter somewhere.

Instead we're stuck with a "psycho who killed random people" in the eyes of the people that likely most needed to get the message he was trying to convey.

He tried to resolve this locally, so his target audience was never big to begin with. Now he has an audience millions of times bigger than what he originally targeted and one that is infinitely more informed than the 140 character bubble many call home. (At least I certainly hope so sheesh)

Anyway, so once again the question comes back to us as individuals and now members of the media which is: what do we do with this information?

 

[TobyTyler]

The problem with this is that his target audience was bigger than one person. I would imagine the people that share your belief that his actions don't distract from his message, had previously received and understood the message. The mass audience - the short-attention-span, 140-characters-or-less audience - that need to get his message miss it because the focus shifts to his actions (and the actions of the LAPD and all other agencies involved in the pursuit/killing) and the message Dorner wanted to deliver is left in the gutter somewhere.

Instead we're stuck with a "psycho who killed random people" in the eyes of the people that likely most needed to get the message he was trying to convey.

I like this. I'll add it to my growing list of sayings I'm going to steal and use as my own.

 

[1911Alaska]

I want to start by saying I haven't really followed this that closely, but . . .

Don't Dorner's actions take away from his cause? I don't think it's a surprise to many people to learn that the LAPD (or really police departments in general) have corrupt members. I think every industry/business/service has to deal with corruption. It is, of course, worse when the offending people are those trusted with the protection of society, but we all still know there are corrupt police officers.

However, it seems to me like Dorner's actions shifted the focus from his cause to his actions. There will be enough people who will view the killing of Dorner as the police doing what was necessary to get a dangerous man off the streets rather than trying to silence a voice against the police.

There had to be a more effective way of getting his information to the public.

Lastly, as I said at the top, I haven't followed the case very closely, so I can't comment on the use of force by the police. Based on what has been said in this thread, it seems like the police overdid it, but this thread also seems to carry an anti-LAPD bias (not suggesting that bias is a negative thing, just a strong presence in this thread).

Great post

 

[numone9er]

I was stayed in Downtown LA this weekend for a competition and there were a shit load of cops and protestors. A lot of the citizens were saying that the police officers were not aloud to be alone it was so bad. The horses even had riot gear on. Those bastards are putting horses in danger. I've never felt so safe and and unsafe at the same time.

 

[1911Alaska]

I was stayed in Downtown LA this weekend for a competition and there were a shit load of cops and protestors. A lot of the citizens were saying that the police officers were not aloud to be alone it was so bad. The horses even had riot gear on. Those bastards are putting horses in danger. I've never felt so safe and and unsafe at the same time.

They were saying that they were not aloud to be alone? Like they need supervised by citizens while on duty? or?

But wow thats crazy, so glad I live in a small boring town lol

 

[MHSL82]

They were saying that they were not aloud to be alone? Like they need supervised by citizens while on duty? or?

But wow thats crazy, so glad I live in a small boring town lol

Buddy system, I think. They had to have two or more cops together, not alone.