It's been abundantly clear from Day 1 that they were more concerned with silencing Dorner than bringing him to justice... and whether or not he deserved death was for the people to decide, not the LAPD.
[News] Ex-cop, ex-military James Dorner is waging war on the LAPD
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
- Status
No body recovered. LAPD says he's still on the loose.
They haven't searched the fire site yet. It's too hot to go into, so they likely aren't going to look until the morning.
EDIT: They found a body in the cabin. They're going to need to do DNA and dental exam to know for sure but it's likely him.
Forcing someone back inside a burning building is murder or manslaughter; no matter what. I don't care if Rambo comes out armed with twin AK47s and an Apache helicopter in his pocket. No doubt the guy's a copkiller and deserved to be given the maximum penalty possible (be it life in prison or death sentence, as the local laws may dictate). But a police force that decides to play judge, jury and executioner is the end of all democracy and rule of law. It's a private militia. I do hope there's a decent investigation into this - preferably by people who aren't affected or involved in any way.
Y'know, when GasBandit and Charlie AGREE, the cops are really messing up.
Y'know, when GasBandit and Charlie AGREE, the cops are really messing up.
I don't know, I can sort of understand why the chase might have ended this way. While it would be an exaggeration to say that getting shot at is an occupational hazard for police officers, they should realise that there is a distinct possibility of it happening, and be prepared for it.
But this guy went after one of their families. I imagine that is a very different thing for quite many people, and not only cops. And as Dorner made sure this thing and his allegations got widely publicized, we may well hear from several copycats doing similar things in the future. I imagine that in a country the size of the US there are many people who are not quite right in the head, who are in desperate curcumstances with nothing to lose, who have beef with law enforcement, who want their fifteen minutes of fame, and who have easy access to high-powered guns. And now they have an example.
Assuming the cabin didn't catch fire entirely by accident, then perhaps one of the best (and one of the very few) ways cops can discourage such copycats from coming after them or their families in the future would be to set an example of their own, to show that things don't really turn out very well for people who do those things. In fact, things might turn out quite nasty for those people, ifyouknowwhatImean
It's not right and it certainly isn't legal, but I can sympathise with the way of thinking, all things considered. They needed to nip this shit in the bud, pour encourager les autres.
This is assuming the body will be identified as Dorner. If it wasn't him... ouch.
But this guy went after one of their families. I imagine that is a very different thing for quite many people, and not only cops. And as Dorner made sure this thing and his allegations got widely publicized, we may well hear from several copycats doing similar things in the future. I imagine that in a country the size of the US there are many people who are not quite right in the head, who are in desperate curcumstances with nothing to lose, who have beef with law enforcement, who want their fifteen minutes of fame, and who have easy access to high-powered guns. And now they have an example.
Assuming the cabin didn't catch fire entirely by accident, then perhaps one of the best (and one of the very few) ways cops can discourage such copycats from coming after them or their families in the future would be to set an example of their own, to show that things don't really turn out very well for people who do those things. In fact, things might turn out quite nasty for those people, ifyouknowwhatImean
It's not right and it certainly isn't legal, but I can sympathise with the way of thinking, all things considered. They needed to nip this shit in the bud, pour encourager les autres.This is assuming the body will be identified as Dorner. If it wasn't him... ouch.
This is the exact same reasoning Saddam Hussein used to justify gassing a village of Kurds. Deterence by overwhelming retributionary force is perhaps udnerstandable, it's also against the very core of our modern, Western society.I don't know, I can sort of understand why the chase might have ended this way. While it would be an exaggeration to say that getting shot at is an occupational hazard for police officers, they should realise that there is a distinct possibility of it happening, and be prepared for it.
But this guy went after one of their families. I imagine that is a very different thing for quite many people, and not only cops. And as Dorner made sure this thing and his allegations got widely publicized, we may well hear from several copycats doing similar things in the future. I imagine that in a country the size of the US there are many people who are not quite right in the head, who are in desperate curcumstances with nothing to lose, who have beef with law enforcement, who want their fifteen minutes of fame, and who have easy access to high-powered guns. And now they have an example.
Assuming the cabin didn't catch fire entirely by accident, then perhaps one of the best (and one of the very few) ways cops can discourage such copycats from coming after them or their families in the future would be to set an example of their own, to show that things don't really turn out very well for people who do those things. In fact, things might turn out quite nasty for those people, ifyouknowwhatImean
This is assuming the body will be identified as Dorner. If it wasn't him... ouch.
also how many times do I have to remind everyone that the Death Penalty doesn't fucking work
Now who is the conspiracy nut?
I'm just giving you shit, but seriously, this whole thing is a mess. I'm not saying it could have ended any other way that wasn't messy, just that it's a stupid mess. I have no idea what happened and honestly, after reading several news reports it sounds like there is still tons of confusion so I'm going to wait to hear how it all plays out.
It works for the killer in question.[DOUBLEPOST=1360765748][/DOUBLEPOST]
When a suspect shoots on sight, there is no way to bring him in alive. Once he shoots 4 and kills 2 cops... fill in the rest.
Sure there is. From tranquilizer darts over starving out, from flashbangs over teargas to rubber bullets. No, not all of those work as well as they should, yes, some of them can be lethal, and no, not all of those are applicable in all situations. Claiming there's "no alternative" to shooting someone because they shoot back is ridiculous. Heck, I haven't even mentioned "trying to talk to him" or "trying to deplete his ammo reserves".
In all likelihood, this was going to end with his death, one way or another, no matter what tactics or what methods used. Doesn't mean we shouldn't've tried.
(I'm no better - and probably worse - informed than most of you, so if some of these were tried and failed, my apologies.)
Dave
Staff member
I doubt we'll ever know either way. The press was kept well away from the scene. It's okay for the press to go with the military into combat, but not the police into this situation.
GasBandit
Staff member
And the police in the video yelling "burn it down!" "get the gas!" were just, what, cheering him on?
Dave
Staff member
Don't know. I realize what you'll say about this, but we don't know the actual context of what was happening. Not giving them the benefit of the doubt, but I'm also not saying they did this on purpose. Yet.
GasBandit
Staff member
While I realize they were not the same organizations, the seemed upholding of precedents set by Waco and Ruby Ridge leave me very dubious of the conduct of law enforcement here.
I'm just going to point out that when other people in LA do this kind of thing, they call them a gang. Or vigilante-ism. Or both.perhaps one of the best (and one of the very few) ways cops can discourage such copycats from coming after them or their families in the future would be to set an example of their own, to show that things don't really turn out very well for people who do those things. In fact, things might turn out quite nasty for those people, ifyouknowwhatImean
Actually, I find myself to be a lot less upset by the end-game on this than I think I probably should be. I don't see Dorner letting the cops take him in alive, and I do see them at least running the risk of losing more officers or at least having several more wounded officers if they tried a more traditional extraction. I'm not saying that I think anyone who has shot an officer should be killed rather than arrested, but I really don't see how the LAPD, or any agency, could have reached a different end to this event without a greater than normal danger to their officers.
I can't read the Reddit threads about this. Just filled with people treating Dorner like some Joker-like genius that did what he had to do against the evil, theist, cat-hating LAPD.
Don't get me wrong. Fuck the LAPD, but the dude murdered 4 people. He's not a hero. He's a mad dog that pissed off a bunch of other mad dogs.
Don't get me wrong. Fuck the LAPD, but the dude murdered 4 people. He's not a hero. He's a mad dog that pissed off a bunch of other mad dogs.
Reddit is terrible and wrong about everything always and ever
Dave
Staff member
Not always, but it does seem to be fringe on a lot of things.
Hm. I don't see much in the way of fringe opinions on reddit at all anymore. Of course, that may have something to do with the fact that I only have 9 subscribed sub-reddits, and none of them are hugely popular (AskCulinary, Aww, Blacksmithing, Charcuterie, Cooking, Mead, Path of Exile, Recipes, and Smoking). I couldn't take all of the insane and inane bullshit on the major subs.
GasBandit
Staff member
I believe it was Richard "Lowtax" Kyanka who said, "The internet may not make you stupid, but it certainly makes your stupidity infinitely more accessible to everyone."
Hmmm.... I'm going to be completely honest here. If I was on a scene like this, where a suspect (maybe not even the right one) had exchanged fire with officers, downing 2 of my coworkers, possibly friends of mine, and my adrenaline was up?
I DOUBT I would have shot the exterior gas/propane tank to the cabin. And I DOUBT that I would have said anything like was heard in that video.
But I definitely would have been thinking it, if only for a short moment.
Yes, getting shot at is a possibility in this job. Yes, I signed on knowing that it was a possibility. That doesn't mean that I, or any other officer, am immune from the psychological effects of it. Seeing something on paper is one thing, knowing it intellectually is one thing - hell, knowing it in your heart is one thing... but until you hear the crack of a round before you heard the report of the weapon, you are NOT going to know how you'll react.
Adrenaline is funny stuff - it can make you a little loopy, if you get enough of it all at once, with a cognitive dissonance effect not unlike being slightly drunk, only without the sensory impairment. Get a large shot of adrenaline from a situation that you honestly don't know if you're going to survive, then come talk to me about being professional, or being prepared. You DON'T KNOW until it happens to you, and no amount of training - be it with blanks, paintballs, simunition rounds, whatever - will TOTALLY prepare you for that crack-hiss.
As for the "advanced tactics" commentary... well, yes, there is a certain amount of scoffing to be had here, until you realise what we normally deal with. Your average "dirty" doesn't think in terms of ambushes and decoy maneuvers - they think like prey, once the police get involved. They run, they hide, they think only of self-preservation. Which course is going to put enough of an obstacle between them and their pursuers. When they start thinking more critically, they start thinking in terms of "how can I make myself enough of a danger to the public that they're likely to terminate the pursuit for fear of public safety."
But when prey starts thinking like a predator... that's not a scenario we come up on, many times. When you fight with a suspect, even an armed one, that's USUALLY still lizard-brain - fight, instead of flight. They generally DON'T hunt officers. So from that perspective, Dorner's actions WERE advanced tactics.
I DOUBT I would have shot the exterior gas/propane tank to the cabin. And I DOUBT that I would have said anything like was heard in that video.
But I definitely would have been thinking it, if only for a short moment.
Yes, getting shot at is a possibility in this job. Yes, I signed on knowing that it was a possibility. That doesn't mean that I, or any other officer, am immune from the psychological effects of it. Seeing something on paper is one thing, knowing it intellectually is one thing - hell, knowing it in your heart is one thing... but until you hear the crack of a round before you heard the report of the weapon, you are NOT going to know how you'll react.
Adrenaline is funny stuff - it can make you a little loopy, if you get enough of it all at once, with a cognitive dissonance effect not unlike being slightly drunk, only without the sensory impairment. Get a large shot of adrenaline from a situation that you honestly don't know if you're going to survive, then come talk to me about being professional, or being prepared. You DON'T KNOW until it happens to you, and no amount of training - be it with blanks, paintballs, simunition rounds, whatever - will TOTALLY prepare you for that crack-hiss.
As for the "advanced tactics" commentary... well, yes, there is a certain amount of scoffing to be had here, until you realise what we normally deal with. Your average "dirty" doesn't think in terms of ambushes and decoy maneuvers - they think like prey, once the police get involved. They run, they hide, they think only of self-preservation. Which course is going to put enough of an obstacle between them and their pursuers. When they start thinking more critically, they start thinking in terms of "how can I make myself enough of a danger to the public that they're likely to terminate the pursuit for fear of public safety."
But when prey starts thinking like a predator... that's not a scenario we come up on, many times. When you fight with a suspect, even an armed one, that's USUALLY still lizard-brain - fight, instead of flight. They generally DON'T hunt officers. So from that perspective, Dorner's actions WERE advanced tactics.
A point to which I would agree wholeheartedly. I've also found that the internet, and the amount of rampant stupidity within easy access because of it, significantly lowers my stupidity tolerance.
Which is why I opted for the "we should update their training" route, rather than the "morons, ambushes are simple" route. We seem to be seeing more and more retaliation against police officers either as individuals or as whole departments. People who are putting their lives on the line day after day should have at least some training to fall back on if they find themselves in one of these situations.
This time it was the LAPD with a former officer with military training. A few years back it was the Lakewood PD with a career criminal, who ambushed four officers at a coffee shop before their shifts began. Within a year of that incident (before or after I'm not sure), it was the Seattle PD with Christopher Monfort, who had no criminal record at the time, but in addition to shooting several officers and killing one, was linked to fire-bombing cop cars at a city lot.
There's been a lot more press coverage recently (either traditional media or blogs) regarding police misconduct, excessive use of force, no-knock drug raids gone wrong, etc. It's only a matter of time before the next retaliation, and there's no guarantee that the next perpetrator won't be military trained, or even just some survival nut. The police, as departments and as individuals, need to be prepared for that eventuality.[DOUBLEPOST=1360794007][/DOUBLEPOST]Though I do realize there was a fair amount of snark in my original comment.
I took it in the spirit in which it was intended.*grins*
Also, you can follow the proper tactics and still get killed. It happened to a cop I have second hand knowledge of from Indy. He rolled up to a report of a guy with a Ruger Mini-14, firing it like a pistol. The officer was at least 3 blocks away from the active shooter, and the perp - holding the rifle at arms length just randomly pulled the trigger and hit the cop just above his vest... dead.
In addition:
You can train all you want for situations like this, but real life has a way of throwing you one you never expected.
For instance: you get a call that a person with a gun has just driven into the football complex of the local NFL team, and is apparently suicidal. While reporting to the scene, you get a message that potential suspect may have killed his girlfriend earlier that morning. What do you do?
Or something more akin to my situation: Informed by outgoing staff that there have been a few youth in your living unit who have been disruptive all night, and there has been yelling, and pounding on the doors and walls. You can hear it even as you return to the control booth after you've let the staff out for the evening. Before you can even start planning on what to do, you hear the "K-TSSSSHHH" of breaking glass. What do you do?
You can train all you want for situations like this, but real life has a way of throwing you one you never expected.
For instance: you get a call that a person with a gun has just driven into the football complex of the local NFL team, and is apparently suicidal. While reporting to the scene, you get a message that potential suspect may have killed his girlfriend earlier that morning. What do you do?
Or something more akin to my situation: Informed by outgoing staff that there have been a few youth in your living unit who have been disruptive all night, and there has been yelling, and pounding on the doors and walls. You can hear it even as you return to the control booth after you've let the staff out for the evening. Before you can even start planning on what to do, you hear the "K-TSSSSHHH" of breaking glass. What do you do?
GasBandit
Staff member
Burn it down, obviously.
Perhaps the principles might be the same, given that deterrence is a general concept with applications in many fields, including perfectly peaceful and law-abiding ones. For instance, deterrence is a significant factor in legal punishments, where a sentence for a crime is intended, in part, to discourage repeat offenses and to deter others from committing similar crimes. Although the principles might be the same and both cases feature a public body using overwhelming force against private individuals, I'm sure everyone agrees that a judge pronouncing a stiff sentence is not the same thing as gassing the Kurds.
So I would posit that the principle of deterrence in both public and private (e.g. a parent disciplining a child hopefully does not do so out of revenge but because the child needs to learn not to do it again) spheres is valid and acceptable in itself, and is in little to no way in conflict with the principles of Western society at large. What I think matters most is how the principle of deterrence is applied. Saddam applied it in that case by indiscriminately gassing scores of people. Street gangs apply it by killing people who are in their way. Judges apply it through the force of the law, backed by the state's monopoly of organised violence. Parents apply it in a carrot-and-stick approach, and hope that the conditioning will kick in at some point, rendering such means moot.
In the case of Mr. Dorner, like all people he is to be considered innocent until proven guilty in court. I understand that's the law. In practice, the evidence we've seen so far gives a high likelyhood that he was indeed guilty of the crimes he is suspected of having committed. A person who is thought to have been Mr. Dorner died in a fire on Tuesday (have they already determined the cause of death?) which began during a shoot-out with the police, a shoot-out in which one officer also died.
This was not of course the best outcome. In the best case they would have caught him alive to stand before trial. After a lengthy process featuring several trials and appeals, he might have received the death penalty. Then some more time for his application for pardon to be processed, and if, by the time of the application's rejection, California had gotten over their moratorium on executions, then he would have died. If not, then he would have lived out the rest of his days on the government dole. But we would have heard his side of the LAPD issue and could have verified if his claims of wrong-doing truly had any basis:
That quote was by Constance L. Rice, Civil rights lawyer, Los Angeles.
Personally, I don't find it in me to shed too many tears when a person who has done what Dorner is thought to have done dies in a fire. And who knows, perhaps the deterrence value of this outcome (whether the fire was intentional or accidental doesn't matter in this, it's the perception and the suspicion that matters) will help out in some small measure in preventing these kinds of things from recurring too often.
And you'd be wrong. I'm sorry, but you're wrong. What "matters most" isn't how it's applied, it's by whom it's applied. A judge is appointed/elected/etc (depending on country). A parent's a parent. A general in a combat situation is a commander in armed forces. Police Captain Jack Bauer was not elected, or appointed, or annointed; he has not made a pledge, he isn't bound by law.
The moment you allow anyone outside of the Judicial Power (and possibly executive power in the case of pardons/grace/etc) to play judge against a civilian, you're...off the rails. Period.
If Dorner was killed during an unavoidable shoot-out, well, so be it. Just like any other criminal, he can get killed or wounded during arrest. We don't know yet and probably won't. Xhat bothers me enormously is the apparent lack of outcry over this. People, this is the polcie becoming a militia! This is the police saying "screw the powers, we're taking matters into our own hands". Deterrence-by-going-outside-the-law-yourself is Deadpool. It's Batman. It's not democratic, it'sn ot acceptable on any level. Because tomorrow, they shoot a known child molester who "got off too easy". Day after, they shoot a communist for spouting dangerous ideas. Day after, they shoot someone who pirated Call of Modern Warfare 3. Who's to stop them?
What I quoted from you TommiR wasn't your description of deterrence by judicial sentence, it was your implication towards the necessity of extrajudicial killing as that method of deterrence.
That's gang behavior. That's specifically something that law enforcement is supposed to prevent and not partake in of themselves.
Now in this case? I hope that the SB Sheriffs had no choice in the matter without unacceptably compromising their own safety as opposed to your obliquely referenced "need to set an example".
That's gang behavior. That's specifically something that law enforcement is supposed to prevent and not partake in of themselves.
Now in this case? I hope that the SB Sheriffs had no choice in the matter without unacceptably compromising their own safety as opposed to your obliquely referenced "need to set an example".
Good point. Though I think I did mention previously that, if the officers intentionally set fire to the cabin to kill Dorner, then they were operating outside the bounds of the law. I can grant you that, legally speaking, it is not the how that is important, but whether the person who does it has the authorisation under the law to perform that action. It is not exactly what you said, but I think it's what you meant. Would you agree with this?
Other than that, I think my other points still stand.
Okay. I think I can understand what you are saying, but I feel it needs more clarification.
For instance I'm not entirely sure which part of the legislation gives a parent or legal guardian the ability to set rules and restrictions (legislative), enforce compliance (executive), and, within limits, to discipline misbehavior (judicial) of another human being (their child). But I'm sure it's in there somewhere, as otherwise a parent who didn't let their child go out and play late in the evening might be guilty of something in the direction of kidnapping (heh, kid-napping...). And I understand it's only a parent, and no-one else, who has these rights regarding their children.
Perhaps a clearer example would be the authority of a police officer (in most jurisdictions I believe) to place a person in temporary detention, if they feel there is sufficient cause. Now, depriving a person of their freedom of liberty violates a whole bunch of rights, even if it is done only temporarily. Yet the police can do that through proper procedure, and if the suspicion falls through, they just let you go. No need for anyone from the judicial branch of government to get involved in anything, as long as any laws aren't broken.
So, I would challenge your assertion, and believe an improved one would be something along the lines of "The moment you allow anyone outside of the Judicial Power (and possibly executive power in the case of pardons/grace/etc) to play judge against a civilian, without them being authorised to do so under the law, you're...off the rails. Period."
I believe the addition is important, as the law can and does give people the right to interfere with your own rights, guaranteed by other laws, without any participation by the Judiciary, which I believe to be a more accurate description of the state of affairs. And it does fit in with what I said above, I believe.
So... deterrence-by-going-outside the law is what we need, though not what we deserve?
Seriously though, I don't think that if a handful of officers stepped outside of their mandate for a minute and offed a multiple homicide suspect, it necessarily means arbitrary executions for online pirates will follow.
Oh I hope so too, that it was an accident, a bust that just went bad. And I think that in my previous post I laid out my take on what would have been the best way this might have reasonably ended, where everyone present at the cottage site remained alive.
So I hope the fire was an accident. If it wasn't... well, as I said, I think I can sort of understand where the officers might be coming from, and I sympathise.
- Status