Ex-cop manhunt in LA; tragedy ensues

[Jagos]

Meet Chris Dorner. His uncensored manifesto ( http://boywithgrenade.org/2013/02/07/christopher-dorners-manifesto/) can be explained best in a certain context. Hell, I can explain it in one word.


Racism. No, he's not racist. But as you read about a man who is thoughtful, intelligent, and very armed and dangerous, you begin to wonder how could a man decide to kill cops. In LA, you can kind of figure out why as you read his words. He's been the target of racism for a long time. He's been a whistleblower against injustice. And he's decided to take a stand against the corruption that caused his termination from the police force.

To explain in a nutshell, Dorner blew the whistle on his superior which lead to him being terminated. The superior officer kicked a perpetrator while they were down, causing a laceration in their eye which set up a chain of events leading to Dorner's dismissal from the LAPD.

As you read his words, you can understand his viewpoint even if you don't confine his actions... He tried fighting in court, he explained his reasoning and now he's aiming to use the bullet box instead of the judicial system.

Of course, the police do NOT want him alive... Just for driving a pickup, a couple was shot ( http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/02/christopher_jordan_dorner_lapd.php) with one woman shot in the back and another shot in the hand. The LAPD has as many victims on its hands (http://m.dailykos.com/story/2013/02/07/1185397/-LAPD-Goes-on-Shooting-Rampage-of-Innocent-People#) as Dorner at this point.

The timeline can be found here ( http://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/184570/detailed_timeline_background_updates_about_former/).

The man has a death wish and the best I can do is try to understand his actions. Having a manifesto helps but I have no idea what to believe right now given the severity of the crimes for Dorner and the LAPD.

-e- The media aren't in Big Bear:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/manhunt-faa-orders-media-copters-to-leave-.html

So my conspiracy theory is that they're preparing a drone strike.

[Jagos]

So I have a hunch...

I think that the "cop killer" might have been set up and I'm not positive on it. Indulge me a bit on my conspiracy...

Just in the same week, the LAPD let go ( http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2020303507_apusdeputiesfired.html?syndication=rss) of some officers for acting like a gang.

Now is it possible that the guy killed innocents? No question...

But can I also believe that the LAPD decided to go after him and set him up to assassinate him in the press?

Maybe... With everything that this guy talked about, I'm willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt until I have more to go on.

[Kim]

I'd be more sympathetic if he was just killing cops.

[rpgdemon]

How can anyone be sympathetic to ANYONE who's taking lives? That's seriously sickening.

Edit: Like, do you believe in the death penalty for the mentally ill then? For the "sane and healthy criminals"? I am seriously revolted by that statement. Someone should die for having a problem with their judgmental faculties, is what you're essentially saying.

[Osterbaum]

I'll go as far as saying the comment might have been a bit distasteful. But she did say more sympathetic, which doesn't necessarily imply that she is tremendously sympathetic to the whole thing either way. And it also seems like you're displaying a level of anger in response to Kim's comment that most people, including people here, don't seem to display when cops opress or even kill people for no good reason.

Like, do you believe in the death penalty for the mentally ill then?
That's quite a leap, unless there's something I'm missing here.

[rpgdemon]

I'll go as far as saying the comment might have been a bit unsavory. But she did say more sympathetic, which doesn't necessarily imply that she is tremendously sympathetic to the whole thing either way. And it also seems like you're displaying a level of anger in response to Kim's comment that most people, including people here, don't seem to display when cops opress or even kill people for no good reason.

I'm just as angry. I am opposed to killing.

That's quite a leap, unless there's something I'm missing here.

The leap is this: So, the cops who are guilty are criminals. The role of society isn't to punish those who are guilty of crimes (Because of any sort of mental illness, or their situation in the world, or whatever), but to try to help them STOP criming it up, and to help those who were affected rebuild and repair. Kim's attitude above, applied to criminals in general and not just these cops, is essentially saying to murder off the mentally ill, to keep the "sane" safe.

I mean, from what it sounds like, some of these cops are clearly mentally ill. So is the other guy. It's pretty terrible in general to say that we murder certain mentally ill people, because those people have abused power to murder others. That's not how you help society.

[Jagos]

I'd be more sympathetic if he was just killing cops.

I'm not exactly sure what to believe just yet. There's another story that may be related which causes me to think that the guy may be innocent.

[Sifright]

it's hard not to be sympathetic to some one who has had their life destroyed by institutionalized racism and a group that holds them selves above the law.

[Sifright]

How can anyone be sympathetic to ANYONE who's taking lives? That's seriously sickening.

Edit: Like, do you believe in the death penalty for the mentally ill then? For the "sane and healthy criminals"? I am seriously revolted by that statement. Someone should die for having a problem with their judgmental faculties, is what you're essentially saying.

because people are more than just the final acts they take after their life has been destroyed by a police force that is renowned as one of the most racist police forces in usa?

It's easy to see how a person can be pushed so far they break?

His manifesto explains everything quite well, and if even half of it was true which i'm sure a great deal more than that is true. I can empathize with what lead him to break down.

Edit: I also don't see where any of the other police officers involved had mental illnesses.

Unless you are ascribing believing you are above the law and immune to such.
and that Hating on black people is a mental illness.

In which case all I can say is what.

[rpgdemon]

You're attacking a different thing than I am saying. Rather than go through the motions, I'm just going to exit stage left, and you can realize that arguing phantom points does not make any sense, as no one is arguing against you.

Kim said that cold blooded murder, with no motive aside from the fact that the murderees are cops, would make someone more sympathetic. That is sickening.

To find someone less sympathetic because his violence isn't pointlessly directed at someone, and is instead directed at someone in anger, is a disgusting attitude. To find someone sympathetic BECAUSE they're taking lives of people who honestly are messed up is not a healthy way to look a the world.

[Sifright]

You're attacking a different thing than I am saying. Rather than go through the motions, I'm just going to exit stage left, and you can realize that arguing phantom points does not make any sense, as no one is arguing against you.

Kim said that cold blooded murder, with no motive aside from the fact that the murderees are cops, would make someone more sympathetic. That is sickening.

To find someone less sympathetic because his violence isn't pointlessly directed at someone, and is instead directed at someone in anger, is a disgusting attitude. To find someone sympathetic BECAUSE they're taking lives of people who honestly are messed up is not a healthy way to look a the world.

In regards to kims point, I believe she was saying if he was only directing his violence against those he was aggrieved with she would have more sympathy for him, not that murdering cops makes you sympathetic.

That said, fuck the police.

[Jagos]

New story up top. Finishing the second story this afternoon...

[Kim]

In regards to kims point, I believe she was saying if he was only directing his violence against those he was aggrieved with she would have more sympathy for him, not that murdering cops makes you sympathetic.

That said, fuck the police.

The institution of police is super fucked up. This and other stories make this fact readily apparent. I despise police.

I do not like killing. I do not like the taking of lives. However, violence directed at evil institutions of oppression for being what they are is something I can sympathize with.

As it is, he's just a murderer, and I'm much less sympathetic to his actions than I would be if he was just enacting violence against the police.

EDIT: Like, cops murder and hurt innocent people all the time. Even when the people aren't "innocent", they get away with using excessive force that they really shouldn't. They're also responsible for a lot of awful treatment of people and racism and just general shittiness. Even the "good ones" are complicit in this for not doing anything to try and stop it. I don't like murder, but I can sympathize with someone killing murderers, abusers, and their accomplices.

[Sifright]

The institution of police is super fucked up. This and other stories make this fact readily apparent. I despise police.

I do not like killing. I do not like the taking of lives. However, violence directed at evil institutions of oppression for being what they are is something I can sympathize with.

As it is, he's just a murderer, and I'm much less sympathetic to his actions than I would be if he was just enacting violence against the police.

EDIT: Like, cops murder and hurt innocent people all the time. Even when the people aren't "innocent", they get away with using excessive force that they really shouldn't. They're also responsible for a lot of awful treatment of people and racism and just general shittiness. Even the "good ones" are complicit in this for not doing anything to try and stop it. I don't like murder, but I can sympathize with someone killing murderers, abusers, and their accomplices.

Yea, pretty much.

I'm conditioned to hate violence, resorting to it makes me feel awful.

That said the system is fucked up enough that with out using violence we haven't the power to enact change now.

Edit: In this case, it's pretty clear the guy has been understandably driven off the deep end, and that he has lost perspective on what he himself is going to be doing.

You only have to look how LAPD are responding though to see the man has a point.

They are shooting up people and vehicles with out even making sure they have anything to do with the guy.

YOU DONT SHOOT PEOPLE UNLESS THEY ARE SHOOTING YOU FIRST.

Fucking police break their own damn rules and operating procedure shoot people and get a paid fucking holiday.

Whistle blowers get fired. talk about justice.

[stefan]

How can anyone be sympathetic to ANYONE who's taking lives? That's seriously sickening.


It's the LAPD. The literal actual Nazis are a more sympathetic organization than the LAPD, because the LAPD is a volunteer force and the Nazi party was not.

[Solid Snake]

It's the LAPD. The literal actual Nazis are a more sympathetic organization than the LAPD, because the LAPD is a volunteer force and the Nazi party was not.

Godwin's Law!
But, man, I find this opinion stupid and I don't even care much for cops. Let's not get all hyperbolic and exaggerate law enforcement officers into a political party that encouraged the intentional commission of genocide, shall we?

That being said that are a lot of specific details about this particular ex-cop's story that strike me as very suspicious. He apparently attempted to whistleblow cop abuse, and lost his career because he dared speak out. IF that tidbit of information is true (a very big 'if,') I can actually comprehend why this is happening. Sympathy would be a bit of a strong word, but empathy would fit just fine.

[stefan]

Godwin's Law!
But, man, I find this opinion stupid and I don't even care much for cops. Let's not get all hyperbolic and exaggerate law enforcement officers into a political party that encouraged the intentional commission of genocide, shall we?

Dude. It's the LAPD. They would literally firebomb slums if they could get away with it. Their entire actions throughout their history in the last 40 years has doen nothing to prove that they wouldn't try to pull genocide in the name of Law if they could get away with it.

[Sifright]

Godwin's Law!
But, man, I find this opinion stupid and I don't even care much for cops. Let's not get all hyperbolic and exaggerate law enforcement officers into a political party that encouraged the intentional commission of genocide, shall we?

That being said that are a lot of specific details about this particular ex-cop's story that strike me as very suspicious. He apparently attempted to whistleblow cop abuse, and lost his career because he dared speak out. IF that tidbit of information is true (a very big 'if,') I can actually comprehend why this is happening. Sympathy would be a bit of a strong word, but empathy would fit just fine.

No sympathy wouldn't be a strong word. His plight makes me sympathetic. That he has taken actions I don't condone doesn't change the fact that what BROKE him is some horrible shit to go through.


His story is hardly suspicious at all, this kind of shit happens constantly (The police lie and cover shit up like excessive force all the time)

Hell the police openly murder people and the cops involved get paid holidays.

You will forgive me if I find it hard to give a shit about the cops on his list getting killed.

The LAPD were the ones responsible for the Rodney King incident. that was barely more than 20 years ago.

Forgive me for not thinking much has fucking changed in that time.

Edit: Like fuck me snake, the LAPD are fucking brutal mother fuckers.

[Jagos]

Solid, FDR used Godwin's law.

He got four terms because he talked about their abuses (and because the Socialists and Communists were planning a revolution if he went in that direction)

Just saying, it's a good way to shut down debate but it's not historically accurate.

[rpgdemon]

Godwin's Law!
But, man, I find this opinion stupid and I don't even care much for cops. Let's not get all hyperbolic and exaggerate law enforcement officers into a political party that encouraged the intentional commission of genocide, shall we?

That being said that are a lot of specific details about this particular ex-cop's story that strike me as very suspicious. He apparently attempted to whistleblow cop abuse, and lost his career because he dared speak out. IF that tidbit of information is true (a very big 'if,') I can actually comprehend why this is happening. Sympathy would be a bit of a strong word, but empathy would fit just fine.

To be fair, there is this, which is illegal, but still prominent enough to have a wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Code_of_Silence

That said, I still cannot be sympathetic to someone who is murdering others. Every murderer has some sort of a reason, but murder is not how you handle the problem.

[rpgdemon]

Edit: I also don't see where any of the other police officers involved had mental illnesses.

Unless you are ascribing believing you are above the law and immune to such.
and that Hating on black people is a mental illness.

In which case all I can say is what.

Also, to respond to this, yes, I believe that being a bigot is a sign of mental illness. There is no reason a sane, rational person would believe that they can and should harm others for being different than themselves. A mentally healthy person will realize that they cannot harm others for problems that have happened to them, and that harming others will not help their problems.

Bigots and racists blame minorities for their problems, or have an irrational fear and hatred of them, for being different. That is totally a sign of mental illness. Violent racists especially.

I do not believe bigotry itself is a mental illness, but bigots are mentally ill.

[Kim]

Also, to respond to this, yes, I believe that being a bigot is a sign of mental illness. There is no reason a sane, rational person would believe that they can and should harm others for being different than themselves. A mentally healthy person will realize that they cannot harm others for problems that have happened to them, and that harming others will not help their problems.

Bigots and racists blame minorities for their problems, or have an irrational fear and hatred of them, for being different. That is totally a sign of mental illness. Violent racists especially.

I do not believe bigotry itself is a mental illness, but bigots are mentally ill.

Actually, this reflects some serious bigotry against the mentally ill on your part, and this sort of thinking contributes to a the culture of oppression against the mentally ill.

Way to go.

[Magus]

I can't have any sympathy for someone who targets families of people he has problems with or shoots at any random cop he can see. And in any case killing people for firing you or being racist is an extreme measure, especially since there's no evidence he tried to do anything else with all this information (which is quite detailed and extensive and would be useful in and of itself perhaps to help create change) such as getting a journalist to write a story about it.

Basically it's someone jumping to the most extreme of actions without even attempting anything lesser. Combine this with his history of deployment to Iraq and it comes off as the actions of someone with PTSD or a mental illness. As eloquent a "manifesto" as it was (I actually read the whole thing, it is, again, quite detailed and fairly well written for this type of thing), it doesn't justify his killings at all.

It's unfortunate because I'm very sympathetic to his story and if he wasn't murdering people I'd basically be in agreement with him. It's unfortunate that he felt there wasn't any other way to get the attention of the public for his story and details of the various egresses of the LAPD other than to murder people.

Actually, this reflects some serious bigotry against the mentally ill on your part, and this sort of thinking contributes to a the culture of oppression against the mentally ill.

Way to go.

How so? I'm pretty sure saying that people with violently racist thoughts are mentally ill is not saying that all people with mental illness are bigots.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why this is even in the conversation because this guy is not racist, but he does suffer from a mental illness, in my opinion...

[Solid Snake]

Dude. It's the LAPD. They would literally firebomb slums if they could get away with it.

...There's either a lot of context with the LAPD that I'm missing by virtue of having never lived in Los Angeles, or you have a very dark, cynical view on law enforcement agencies.

I had a long Snakewall planned that attacked this as an intellectually lazy insinuation, but then I decided, nah, fuck it, I'm not going to even indirectly side with a law enforcement agency. Criminal Procedure Bar prep has left me irrevocably jaded. But, don't you think attributing this degree of malice to the LAPD might be a little hyperbolic?

[Magus]

...There's either a lot of context with the LAPD that I'm missing by virtue of having never lived in Los Angeles, or you have a very dark, cynical view on law enforcement agencies.

I had a long Snakewall planned that attacked this as an intellectually lazy insinuation, but then I decided, nah, fuck it, I'm not going to even indirectly side with a law enforcement agency. Criminal Procedure Bar prep has left me irrevocably jaded. But, don't you think attributing this degree of malice to the LAPD might be a little hyperbolic?

Well as a bureaucracy they might have the decency to post notices that they are firebombing the slums at such-and-such a time if the residents would like to remove themselves from said slums before said firebombing.

The idea that they would firebomb slums if they were allowed doesn't sound farfetched to me, of course, the same could be said of multiple law enforcement agencies at various levels...

Seriously, though, the upper echelons of the LAPD is a terribly corrupt place with deep seated prejudices and hatreds and a long history of bending or breaking the rules in law enforcement. The average cop on the street committing brutality is just a symptom of a system problem within the LAPD heirarchy. The worst section of the LAPD is definitely Rampart division, though. They are the most corrupt and brutal. And, not surprisingly, that division is mentioned as part of the problem in this guy's manifesto.

The thing with Rampart division is for the few guys they have actually convicted of murder or corruption within it you can assume there are dozens more in senior positions who have never even been indicted who were or are equally culpable.

http://echopark.patch.com/articles/rampart-division-called-out-in-manifesto-of-disgraced-lapd-officer

As the manhunt continued for Christopher Jordan Dorner Thursday afternoon, the media and others were digesting the alleged killer's "manifesto."

Dorner became the target of a regional manhunt after he killed three and injured a fourth in two seemingly retaliatory shootings over the last few days.

Published to the Internet on Feb. 4, soon after the former LAPD officer killed two people in Irvine, the rambling document criticizes dozens of institutions and individuals--and invokes the Rampart Division corruption scandal of the late 1990s.

Dorner writes:

I know I will be villified by the LAPD and the media. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur within the LAPD and reclaim my name. The department has not changed since the Rampart and Rodney King days. It has gotten worse. The consent decree should never have been lifted. The only thing that has evolved from the consent decree is those officers involved in the Rampart scandal and Rodney King incidents have since promoted to supervisor, commanders, and command staff, and executive positions.

Dorner does not name any individuals currently affiliated with the Rampart Division, though Dorner does allude to several involved in the MacArthur Park May Day scuffle.

Much of the document points fingers at individuals from Dorner's troubled time at the LAPD's Harbor and Southwest Divisions, including the court case around his dismissal for making false statements about his LAPD training officer.

Over at the Rampart headquarters on Sixth Street in Westlake, just a single police car was stationed at the entrance early Thursday afternoon.

LAPD divisions and other possible sites of retaliation had been on alert since the early morning, when it was learned that Dorner had killed a Riverside police and injured a second person near Corona.

All the entrances to the LAPD Police Academy in Elysian Park were blocked by armed guards and had been since 6 a.m.

The LAPD Northeast Division also remained on tactical alert and, according to Capt. Joseph Hiltner there, "“Everybody’s working in a partner configuration. We have ample resources and ready back-up out there.”

In a news conference downtown Thursday morning, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck asked Dorner to turn himself in because "nobody else needs to die."

Several celebrities mentioned in Dorner's manifesto, including KFI's Bill Handel, also created similar video messages published by TMZ.com, claiming "his side of the story would be covered."

Again, he shouldn't be killing people. I wish he had thought through another way to effect change in the LAPD.

[rpgdemon]

How so? I'm pretty sure saying that people with violently racist thoughts are mentally ill is not saying that all people with mental illness are bigots.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why this is even in the conversation because this guy is not racist, but he does suffer from a mental illness, in my opinion...

I would also like to know this.

As to why it's in the conversation, from what I understand, the police were being racist, which is what sparked everything. He is also mentally ill, but that isn't why this point was being made. It was a conversation that sort of semi-happened on page 1.

[Solid Snake]

Well as a bureaucracy they might have the decency to post notices that they are firebombing the slums at such-and-such a time if the residents would like to remove themselves from said slums before said firebombing.

I think the difference of opinion here seems to be that you're attributing to an extremely, almost childishly inhuman malice what I'd attribute to an excessive degree of discretion offered to an authoritarian, bureaucratic agency.

The answer is almost always a lot more complicated than simply pointing your fingers at another human being and saying "They're scumbags; they'd choke babies to death if they could."

And I actually find the hyperbole a bit of a cop-out. We all enjoy feeling a bit holier-than-thou over conservatives and cops and senators and other individuals who we can demonize as netherworldly 'others' and hold beneath our contempt. How much more frightening would it be to conceive that their behaviors are human behaviors, their injustices are our injustices, and that they are in fact 'normal' people who've been blinded to their excesses by an unjust status quo?

It's like the people who demonize George W. Bush into some Antichrist who was sent by the conspiratorial nether-entities to enslave humanity under the rule of McDonalds and Nike and gleefully applaud as thousands upon thousands die. I hate George W. Bush as much as any decent progressive should, but recognizing that his crimes (and yes, he's committed them and should be imprisoned for them) were the result of human flaws and shortcomings leads to a far more productive discussion than just cursing him into oblivion.

EDIT: Don't you hate it when as you're typing a post, the post you're responding to is edited to the point where your new post seems completely disjointed and inaccurate?
...Because I hate that. New rule: No one can edit posts I'm responding to as I'm responding to them. Unless you're me, then you can edit all you want.

[Magus]

I don't think they would see it as childish. It's the same mentality when you hear people talk about how we should just firebomb or nuke other countries that bother us. Sure you can blame it on the human condition but then again you and I don't think this way. So it would be better to blame it on their own personal ignorance instead of the whole of humanity.

There are senior white officers in the LAPD who consider the Latinos and black people in that area to be subhuman and would, if they could, firebomb their houses to "clean them out". That is their mentality and their thought process and how they see the solution to the problem.

Like, I see what you mean, in many other instances it would be hyperbolic to attribute such an extreme mentality to members of an organization or the organization as a whole. But it is, sadly, probably not hyperbolic to attribute it to the LAPD, or at least large segments of it and a large portion of it's hierarchy.

[Solid Snake]

There are senior white officers in the LAPD who consider the Latinos and black people in that area to be subhuman and would, if they could, firebomb their houses to "clean them out". That is their mentality and their thought process and how they see the solution to the problem.

...Do you have a citation for this?
I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm genuinely intrigued and concerned about the possibility that this is something leaked documents or conversations have actually established. Because if it's not hyperbolic, I'd have to apologize for assuming that the concept was so outlandish that it couldn't possibly be true.

[Magus]

All I can cite is historical precedent with the presumption that most of the senior hierarchy still consists of people who were senior members in the' 90s (if at slightly lower stations). We are a mere ten years removed from this time and yet everyone tries to say the LAPD has fundamentally and unequivocally changed. CRASH members would have firebombed neighborhoods if they could, that is all I can say for certain. Many of them are still in the LAPD in senior positions. So...

I did try a Google search maybe for just straight-up racist statements from senior members but all I can get now are Chris Dorner stories.

EDIT: Like if someone had made the statement "the LAPD would firebomb Latino and black neighborhoods if they could" to you in the '80s or '90s you would not even had the thought "maybe this is hyperbolic." If you had heard it in the '70s you would have assumed they were already doing it.

ANOTHER EDIT: Plus keep in mind this is all with the modifier, "if they could" which is a large presumption--obviously many people are kept in check by basic civil law and the consequences of violence. BUT that is the only thing...and they continue to commit lesser crimes of brutality daily.

[Solid Snake]

One thing I will say is that it's shocking how far the police have gone with this manhunt after only three murders. The DC Sniper case had a far greater number of victims, but there was no overt sign that the DC Snipers were targeting anyone specifically, much less law enforcement, so there was a much more gradual buildup in the intensity of the manhunt. Either I'm used to a much lazier standard established by DC cops or the LAPD is really pulling out all the stops to keep Dorner silent.

[Magus]

Well he threatened several senior members by name and also said he would target their families. And in fact his first victims were the daughter of the officer who handled his termination appeal (he is now retired) and her fiancee. The third was just a random police officer in a car he pulled up next to and began firing his semi-automatic rifle into (of course, once again, we cannot talk about gun control at such an emotional time, I'm sure the NRA is saying in a new press release they are typing up feverishly).

BTW racism aside the LAPD is incredibly incompetent in this manhunt: two women driving a pick-up truck that looked similar to Dorner's were critically wounded when their truck was opened fire on (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/ex-cop-manhunt-newspaper-delivery-women-shot.html), and another couple of people had their truck fired on as well. All because they were driving blue trucks.

Seriously, look at how many bullets they fired into that truck. It's absolutely riddled. All without surmising that two tiny Latino women don't look very much like a big black man.

http://i47.tinypic.com/2d94i2s.jpg

Two women who were shot by Los Angeles police in Torrance early Thursday during a massive manhunt for an ex-LAPD officer were delivering newspapers, sources said.
The women, shot in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue, were taken to area hospitals, Torrance police Lt. Devin Chase said. They were not identified. One was shot in the hand and the other in the back, according to Jesse Escochea, who captured video of the victims being treated.

It was not immediately known what newspapers the women were delivering. After the shooting, the blue pickup was riddled with bullet holes and what appeared to be newspapers lay in the street alongside.

PHOTOS: Manhunt for ex-LAPD officer

Local, state and federal authorities are involved in a massive search for Christoper Jordan Dorner, 33, a former Los Angeles Police Department officer who is believed to have threatened "unconventional and asymmetrical warfare" against police in an online manifesto, and was suspected of shooting three police officers, one of whom died, early Thursday in Riverside County.

Dorner also is suspected of killing a couple in Orange County earlier this week.

Sources said the Los Angeles police detectives involved in the Torrance shooting were on protective detail for a police official named in the suspect's supposed manifesto, which was posted on what authorities believe is his Facebook page.

TIMELINE: Manhunt for ex-LAPD officer

A second shooting, involving Torrance police officers, occurred about 5:45 a.m. at Flagler Lane and Beryl Street in Torrance. No injuries were reported in that incident.

Chase said that in both instances police came across vehicles they thought were similar to the one Dorner is believed to be driving. Neither vehicle was Dorner's.
"Now it appears neither of them are directly related," Chase said. "In both of them, officers believed they were at the time."

INTERACTIVE MAP: Searching for suspected shooter

Freeway signs urged motorists to call 911 if they saw the suspect's 2005 Nissan Titan as officers patrolled the streets near one of the Riverside County crime scenes with rifles at the ready. Los Angeles police were put on a citywide tactical alert and the California Highway Patrol issued a "blue alert" for nine Southern California counties, warning that Dorner was considered "armed and extremely dangerous."

Hours after authorities announced they were looking for Dorner in connection with the double homicide this week in Irvine, the search intensified after three police officers were shot in Riverside County Thursday and Dorner was identified as a possible suspect.

The first police shooting occurred about 1:30 a.m. Thursday in Corona, where two LAPD officers were providing protection for someone mentioned in Dorner's manifesto, officials said. One officer suffered a graze wound to the head during a shootout and Dorner fled the scene, police said.

FULL COVERAGE: Sweeping manhunt for rampaging ex-cop

A short time later, two Riverside officers were shot at the corner of Magnolia Avenue and Arlington Avenue in Riverside. Riverside police Lt. Guy Toussaint said the officers were sitting at a red light when they were ambushed. One was killed, the other was still in surgery Thursday morning.

None of the officers involved were identified.
“Our officers were stopped at an intersection at a red light when they were ambushed," he said. "Because of the close proximity to the timeline, we believe there is a strong likelihood that former LAPD Officer Christopher Dorner was involved in our incident.”

DOCUMENT: Read the manifesto

In the online manifesto, Dorner specifically named the father of Monica Quan, the Cal State Fullerton assistant basketball coach who was found dead Sunday in Irvine along with her fiance, Keith Lawrence.

Randy Quan, a retired LAPD captain, was involved in the review process that ultimately led to Dorner’s dismissal. A former U.S. Navy reservist, Dorner was fired in 2009 for allegedly making false statements about his training officer. In the manifesto, he complained that Randy Quan and others did not fairly represent him at the review hearing.

“The violence of action will be high .... I will bring unconventional and asymmetrical warfare to those in LAPD uniform whether on or off duty," Dorner wrote.

Authorities said they believe Dorner attempted to steal a boat from an elderly man about 10:30 p.m. Wednesday at the Point Loma Yacht Club in San Diego, hours before the shootings in Riverside County.

The boat owner reported being accosted by a burly man who tied him up, threatened him with a gun and said he wanted the boat to flee to Mexico.

PHOTOS: Manhunt for ex-LAPD officer

But while they were trying to get underway, a rope became entangled in the propeller and the boat was inoperable, authorities said.

The suspect fled the scene and the boat owner was unharmed.

About 2 a.m., a citizen reported finding property belonging to Dorner on a street near Lindbergh Field, not far from the scene of the attempted boat theft. The property included a briefcase and Dorner's LAPD badge.

[Solid Snake]

BTW racism aside the LAPD is incredibly incompetent in this manhunt: two women driving a pick-up truck that looked similar to Dorner's were critically wounded when their truck was opened fire on (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/ex-cop-manhunt-newspaper-delivery-women-shot.html), and another couple of people had their truck fired on as well. All because they were driving blue trucks.


Yeah, that's what I was referring to. In the DC Sniper case, the cops weren't shooting every vehicle that remotely resembled the snipers' automobile into oblivion. To put it mildly, it's an aggressive reaction.

Here's hoping those ladies lawyer up with the best available attorneys once they get better.

[Magus]

The thing that gets me is how nonchalant the chief has been about both the mistaken shootings. I guess it's being overshadowed by the manhunt because in any other case two innocent people getting riddled with bullets by police officers for driving a truck that kind of looked like a suspect's and two others almost getting riddled would be the main story and would probably dominate a large amount of coverage for several days. As is it's barely mentioned on CNN or whatever.

[Jagos]

CNN got a package from the guy recently. But they're really masking this up to the point of being useless.

[Solid Snake]

CNN got a package from the guy recently. But they're really masking this up to the point of being useless.

I wish they'd actually show the 'evidence' on the CD that he sent out to Anderson Cooper.

[Jagos]

I wish they'd actually show the 'evidence' on the CD that he sent out to Anderson Cooper.

The same CNN that got Ruud of their investigative journalism team?

Oh, you're precious...

[Krylo]

Terrible person declares war on terrible people.

Innocent people get killed and wounded in the cross fire, thus proving each side as terrible.

Not really much more that needs to be said.

[shiney]

CNN is not ever to be trusted nowadays. I don't know why anyone would send anything to them. CNN was complicit in the massive coverup of the OWS protest which was enough for me to quit their site in disgust. Pretending like people weren't getting beaten in the street, because social change threatens their pocketbooks. It only shows me they would happily cover anything up if their paymasters told them to, which compromises their integrity in a way they may never recover from.

This guy threatens people's pocketbooks too. That's partially why they are running wild with the "crazed gunman manhunt" angle, instead of a nuanced exploration into exactly why this is happening. The other part being this = ratings and pageclicks.

As for the Godwinning of the thread earlier, come on man.

[Sifright]

Yeah, that's what I was referring to. In the DC Sniper case, the cops weren't shooting every vehicle that remotely resembled the snipers' automobile into oblivion. To put it mildly, it's an aggressive reaction.

Here's hoping those ladies lawyer up with the best available attorneys once they get better.

Aggressive?

Are you fucking kidding me?

It's a fucking mafiaesque shooting.

Pull up behind a vehicle and blast the occupants.

Sure sounds like the police protecting people yea?

[stefan]

As for the Godwinning of the thread earlier, come on man.

It's only "godwinning" if it's a deliberate attempt to torpedo discussion by bringing in nazis. I believe it to be an entirely legitimate comparison, and I dare you to claim otherwise if you look at the things the LAPD has done.

[Kim]

I would also like to know this.

"If you're racist, it must be because you're mentally ill."

reminds me of

"If someone steals something, they were probably black."

and

"If someone molests someone, they were probably gay."

in other words

"If someone does any bad thing they must belong to whatever marginalized group I can get away with grouping them into."

this is very old and tired and bigoted rhetoric

[Sifright]

"If you're racist, it must be because you're mentally ill."

reminds me of

"If someone steals something, they were probably black."

and

"If someone molests someone, they were probably gay."

in other words

"If someone does any bad thing they must belong to whatever marginalized group I can get away with grouping them into."

this is very old and tired and bigoted rhetoric

I'm with Kim on this one.

Bigotry has nothing to do with mental illness.

[pochercoaster]

It's also worth noting that people with mental illnesses are a greater risk of being victims of violent crimes, not of committing them.

Being an asshole is not a mental illness.

[rpgdemon]

"If you're racist, it must be because you're mentally ill."

reminds me of

"If someone steals something, they were probably black."

and

"If someone molests someone, they were probably gay."

in other words

"If someone does any bad thing they must belong to whatever marginalized group I can get away with grouping them into."

this is very old and tired and bigoted rhetoric

Except that it's nothing like that, because I'm talking about violence in regards to racism, as displayed by the cops in this situation. If someone is a violent racist, I am confident in saying that they are mentally ill, for the thought process that leads them to think that violence is a solution. I believe that anyone who truly believes that violence and murder will help with any problem needs to seek help. In the case of a violent racist: That person sees a "problem" that a minority is "stealing his jobs" or whatever, and decides to shoot up innocent members of that minority. Someone who believes these things is not healthy, and needs help. They're ALSO an asshole, but that is unrelated.

And nor am I saying that all mentally ill are violent, Pocheros. Saying that all squares are rectangles does not in any way imply all rectangles are squares.

[rpgdemon]

Like, if someone solves their problems with a shotgun, that is a sign that they need help.

If someone sees a certain race as a problem, and "solves" that "problem" with a shotgun, they are a violent racist.

Transitive Property: That person is in need of help, and is not mentally sound.

[pochercoaster]

Racism stems from ignorance and is counteracted with education.

Mental illness is a disease.

The help that racist people need is not the same help that mentally ill people need. Stop conflating the two.

[rpgdemon]

PLUS: Your analogy does not hold water, because while there is no correlation between skin color and crime, there -is- a direct correlation between mental health, and how you act. That is the definition of mental health.

There are plenty of people who are mentally ill who are not violent. That does not change the fact that people who solve problems with violence are mentally unbalanced.

Mental illness is a touchy topic for everyone, because it is such a vast swathe. A guy who was traumatized by a shooting is labeled as mentally ill, just the same as the guy who DID the shooting. That does not mean that the traumatized person is violent at all, but the fact that there exists someone who is not violent who is mentally ill does not change the fact that people who go out to inflict violence on others for their own pleasure or gain are mentally ill.

[Kim]

"If you're violent, you must be mentally ill."

Welcome to "Furthering the Stereotypes of Mental Illness That Plague Our Society and Contribute to Oppression" Corner. Here's your host, RPG.

Up next, "Just because I think all criminals are black doesn't mean I think all black people are criminals!"

[rpgdemon]

Racism stems from ignorance and is counteracted with education.

Mental illness is a disease.

The help that racist people need is not the same help that mentally ill people need. Stop conflating the two.

I can see that point. To solve racism, you can educate a person. And racism is not a mental illness, and I even explicitly said that. You can have a mentally sound racist, who talks all about how them minorities took his jobs. He's an asshole, and racist, but he is mentally sound, just uneducated.

But someone who sees violence as the solution is in need of help. And the people who act on their racism to murder someone are in need of help. If they didn't have a minority to attack, it would be someone else, because ultimately their violence stems from within themselves, not within their racism.

[pochercoaster]

The majority of violent people I know are not mentally ill.

I do know a lot of mentally ill people who were the victims of said violence though, so, HMM.

I know this is an anecdote, but uh, give me a second to expand on it...

People can become violent for any number of reasons, in any number of situations. Violence can be committed by anyone. Violence is often contextual. It does not discriminate based on mental illness.

[rpgdemon]

Welcome to "Furthering the Stereotypes of Mental Illness That Plague Our Society and Contribute to Oppression" Corner. Here's your host, RPG.

Up next, "Just because I think all criminals are black doesn't mean I think all black people are criminals!"

Do you believe that someone who would lynch someone doesn't need to be given help, because they don't see how lynching someone is a horrible thing to do?

Do you believe that they know how horrible lynching someone is, and do it anyway because they don't care?

Those are the only two options that I see as to why someone would lynch another human, and the first one demonstrates a disconnect from reality, and the second one is a violent sociopath*. Are both of those things not considered mentally ill? I'm seriously asking here, because that's what I think would be a subset of mental illness. Maybe I'm wrong.

*There are plenty of sociopaths who are not violent, as while they cannot empathize with people, there's no reason why they SHOULD be violent. That is not the point here, so if you steer the conversation to be about that, please have a reason that you explain well.

[Sifright]

Like, if someone solves their problems with a shotgun, that is a sign that they need help.

If someone sees a certain race as a problem, and "solves" that "problem" with a shotgun, they are a violent racist.

Transitive Property: That person is in need of help, and is not mentally sound.

or it's a sign that every other method has failed?

After all countries like USA solve their problems with violence all the time.

Want some sweet sweet oil? Invade Iraq.

Want some more sweet sweet oil?

Arm the rebel Syrian. (Interesting politics on this, the Syrian government tore up their oil contracts earlier in the year and were demanding more of a cut from the oil extracted, before nato intervened with the rebels coincidentally the rebels promised the previous oil prices )

Using violence isn't a sign of insanity. It's a sign that belief in any other method of compromise will not work.

Assholes are more likely to use violence because they don't empathize with the people they are going to hurt or just flat out don't care.

None of this makes you insane.

[rpgdemon]

The majority of violent people I know are not mentally ill.

I do know a lot of mentally ill people who were the victims of said violence though, so, HMM.

I know this is an anecdote, but uh, give me a second to expand on it...

People can become violent for any number of reasons, in any number of situations. Violence can be committed by anyone. It does not discriminate based on mental illness.

Anyone can be violent, that's true. Someone gets angry, they throw something, break a window, whatever, and feel like crap about it because they just did something bad, and they understand that they are an asshole. But someone who has a history of violence against a specific minority, and who does not feel any remorse for their actions, seems like they are mentally ill, whether or not they have been diagnosed, and whether or not it is something that IS diagnosed.

Like, do you think that someone who would commit violence against those who cannot defend themselves are mentally sound? I'm honestly confused. To me that seems like a huge flashing light that they need help, even if they are violent.

It almost feels like the point being made is that we need to help treat those who are mentally ill, except for the mentally ill who have already hurt someone, because those guys aren't sick, they're just assholes. That's the argument that I'm hearing coming back to me, and I'm almost positive that you guys can't honestly think that, because -that- is way more bigotted than the implication that those who hurt someone have to be mentally ill, and I'm reasonably sure that you're not bigots. So I'm trying to understand.

[Sifright]

Anyone can be violent, that's true. Someone gets angry, they throw something, break a window, whatever, and feel like crap about it because they just did something bad, and they understand that they are an asshole. But someone who has a history of violence against a specific minority, and who does not feel any remorse for their actions, seems like they are mentally ill, whether or not they have been diagnosed, and whether or not it is something that IS diagnosed.

Like, do you think that someone who would commit violence against those who cannot defend themselves are mentally sound? I'm honestly confused. To me that seems like a huge flashing light that they need help, even if they are violent.

It almost feels like the point being made is that we need to help treat those who are mentally ill, except for the mentally ill who have already hurt someone, because those guys aren't sick, they're just assholes. That's the argument that I'm hearing coming back to me, and I'm almost positive that you guys can't honestly think that, because -that- is way more bigotted than the implication that those who hurt someone have to be mentally ill, and I'm reasonably sure that you're not bigots. So I'm trying to understand.

People have committed violence against those who can't defend themselves since the beginning of time.

That doesn't make them insane. It makes them selfish bastards.

[Azisien]

Our entire planet was forged by violence (and occasional cooperation). I guess the core of humanity is mentally ill. It's in our genes! (http://phys.org/news140174454.html)

[pochercoaster]

Like, RPG, it seems like you're taking issue with my position because you're following "not all violent people are mentally ill" with "we should lock violent people up and/or commit acts of violence on them such as the ones presently employed in prisons and thus continue the cycle of violence," which I can see how you came to that conclusion because it's not uncommon for people to express such sentiments, but that is distinctly not what I'm arguing. Correct me if my interpretation is wrong.

One can acknowledge that violence can be committed by anyone, mentally ill or not, without advocating to cast either outside of society and punish them with further violence. One can then also better approach violence on both an individual and a societal level in order to successfully reduce it if one acknowledges that violence can be (and is) committed by anyone. Conflating violence with mental illness is an ineffective way to go about it that also stigmatizes people who are mentally ill and, to that end, actually feeds into more violence.

Edit: also, I didn't read the article in the OP. I'm speaking in generalities.

[Jagos]

My second conspiracy is up on the first page.

[Sithdarth]

Lets begin here shall we:
Also, to respond to this, yes, I believe that being a bigot is a sign of mental illness. There is no reason a sane, rational person would believe that they can and should harm others for being different than themselves.

For absolute starters rationality is in all likelihood an illusion our brain cooks up so that we can feel some measure of control and stability. I mean I'm a guy with a hard on for rationality and thinking rationally about my own behavior and I know my behavior isn't even a majority rational. If at the most basic level I could control my behavior in a completely rational way I wouldn't have to avoid rooms full of people because they make me uncomfortable. Nor would I be so petrified of rejection that it takes me like 3 weeks of regular contact with a person to have a conversation. On top of that almost the entirety of the social construct is not at its core rational. I won't even get into faith because what could be said there is patently obvious.

But putting that aside and pretending like it isn't true lets shift gears a little. If we assume that rational behavior is possible who defines what is rational? People are amazingly diverse entities even within a single culture let alone across cultural divides. The term would be undefinable and any sort of judgment would be entirely subjective. But let me play Devil's Advocate for the bigot for just a moment. The thought process might go something like this:

"I dislike things that are different because I've had bad experiences with new things."

"Therefore, things that are new and different are likely to be bad."

"That guy over there looks different and he's doing something strange."

"I've heard that people that look like him have done bad things and hurt people and I believe he might do that to me because of my previous bad experiences with new and different things."

"I should do anything I can to protect myself/my family."

And at that point irrationality definitely takes over and all bets are off. Being irrational doesn't make you mentally ill. Being irrational just makes you human.

A mentally healthy person will realize that they cannot harm others for problems that have happened to them, and that harming others will not help their problems.

And you're proof of this is where? Again you're thought process and mine will differ significantly from each other and any other person. The things that you realize and the things that anyone else realizes in any given situation can be vastly different. This is natural and it doesn't make a person mentally ill. At this point you're argument at its core is predicated on that fact that you think that someone with a thought process that differs significantly from yours on the subject of violence is mentally ill. In short, different equals a bad thing.

Bigots and racists blame minorities for their problems, or have an irrational fear and hatred of them, for being different. That is totally a sign of mental illness. Violent racists especially.

I'll just point out that as I've said before irrationality is not enough to diagnose a person with mental illness. If it was enough then everyone would be mentally ill and it would lose all meaning.

I would like to draw attention to this part of that quote:

Violent racists especially.

The semantic structure of this sentence is strongly indicating that you believe any racist is mentally ill. Basically, by singling out "Violent" racists with the word especially you imply that you also believe the statement to be true to a lesser degree for racists that are not violent. Best case scenario you are just really bad at making good word choices.

Then of course there is this:
I do not believe bigotry itself is a mental illness, but bigots are mentally ill.

Pretty clearly no mention of violence here. It is in fact a direct statement of the belief that to be a bigot one must first be mentally ill.

Now, at this point you might be wondering what the point to all this is and that point is right here:

And racism is not a mental illness, and I even explicitly said that. You can have a mentally sound racist, who talks all about how them minorities took his jobs. He's an asshole, and racist, but he is mentally sound, just uneducated.

You directly contradict what you at first implied and then out right said i.e. that racists(bigots) are mentally ill. Unless of course you happened to have redefined the word bigot to mean violent racists without mentioning it to anyone. Thus, you have acted irrationally either by directly contradicting yourself, or by realizing that you're word choice was poor (or your position untenable), and then by proceeding to attempt to hide from the mistake instead of accepting and owning it as rationality would probably dictate (depending on how far ahead one was thinking). In short, my initial point is proven directly. We humans cling to the idea of rationality even though it is mostly illusion and thought processes that differ from your thought process are not sufficient grounds for declaring mental illness in and of themselves.

[Magus]

Well, I would like an analysis from the specialists here: is a paranoid delusion a possible sign of mental illness? Discuss.

[Sithdarth]

Well, I would like an analysis from the specialists here: is a paranoid delusion a possible sign of mental illness? Discuss.

That depends entirely on if you happened to be high on something or not. A true persistent paranoid delusion (not brought on by some form of chemical) that remains despite repeated proof to the contrary is almost assuredly a sign of some form of mental illness.

Now in order to head of where I think this is going I'll say this; thinking that all the brown people are out to get you is not a paranoid delusion (even if it seems like one). It is not a paranoid delusion for at least two reasons I can think of right now. The first being is that racists/bigots will often have a token friend of the minority they are racists/bigoted toward or when pressed will admit that not every member of said minority is guilty of the things they are afraid of. Thus proving that the belief is not a delusion but simply a misguided belief based on what is probably poor reasoning and/or bad information. The second, and this ties directly into the first, is that a racist/bigot (should they be willing and not just stubborn) can be taught not to be a racist/bigot once again proving that it is a belief and not a delusion.

In short, thinking that a minority group is out to get you in and of itself does not qualify as a paranoid delusion and a true paranoid delusion is a symptom of mental illness.

[Token]

Well, obviously. The DSM has three different types of paranoia- paranoid personality disorder, paranoid schizophrenia, and persecutory delusional disorder. Dunno what the point of asking that was?

EDIT: or what sith said.

[CABAL49]

Racism can't be linked to mental illness or anything else other than social factors. I get what you are meaning to say RPG, but it is not only coming off as offensive it is completely wrong and you are better off dropping the point.

I mean, of course discrimination is dumb. APA did some good studies on racism, mixed with other studies on genetics to come to the nice conclusion that we are all more or less the same. That there is no inferior or superior race. So not only is racism morally wrong, it is unscientific. What the APA did determine is that social factors is a better explanation of why people behave certain ways and it is something that we've known for hundreds of years, which is social factors.

And Snake, stop making excuses for the LAPD. They are fascists.

And for everyone who suggests that this man had taken a different route, what would you have done?

[Krylo]

And for everyone who suggests that this man had taken a different route, what would you have done?

I guess not killed an innocent woman and her fiancee for the horrendous crime of being related to a police officer.

[Krylo]

Like I don't care what happened to him, or what options he had open. There is literally nothing in this world that justifies murdering two innocent people to hurt someone else who cares about them.

That you even seem to be attempting to do so with that sentence is actually physically sickening.

[Premmy]

Dude's literally behaving like a super-villain.
Stuff
Let's not forget that the society we live in likes to find new and creative ways to tell us that brown people are out to get you.You don't have to be mentally ill to be brainwashed.

[Jagos]

What I have to say about racism:

Racism generally becomes generalized as a post-facto rationalization (of course this is a dialectical process, what I mean is that the material justification for racism always precedes the first appearance of racist theories) of certain policies of oppression of one state against another, of one class against another, or of segment of a class against another. The historical evidence of this is pretty overwhelming, but just to give some examples:

Africans, in ancient times, were not discriminated against based on the color of their skin. For example, Romans were more than happy to consider Egyptians and other Sub-Saharan Africans as civilized citizens, while the Gauls and other European tribes were definitely seen as inferior. Skin color was for the most part irrelevant, with the civilizing factor being how close one was culturally and legally to Rome. Fast-forward a few centuries and the almost complete extermination of the native americans creates the demand for more slave labor in America. By proximity the West coast of Africa is the ideal place to get it, and thus racist theories about the inherent inferiority of black people becomes dominant.

For many centuries inter-European racism was basically non-existent. There was hardly any systematic oppression among Europeans, so no justification based on inherent traits had to be created. When the XX century Nazi Germany tried to create its own domestic Empire to the East, emulating by their own admission the American conquest of the West, suddenly all sorts of previously "white" races became "subhuman", like the slavic people, or definitely inferior races that could be subjugated to German will, like many Southern Europeans. Again we see how racism comes into existence to justify the material reality of some sort of systematic oppression, and not the opposite (ie, racism does not just exist and later breeds Imperialism). Related to this, note how modern day inter-European Imperialism is again resurrecting some of this rhetoric, with the EU-IMF-WorldBank policies against Southern Europe being in part justified by the inherent laziness, stupidity and in general inherent inferior status of its inhabitants. History repeats itself, etc.

The pattern is clear. Wherever racism shows up, you'll easily be able to find, hiding right behind it, a situation where one group of people is oppressing and exploiting another class of people. A rationalization for this state of affairs is needed, so all sorts of racist theories appear, in the end just being more or less ad-hoc constructs that show us how what we are seeing is not only to be expected, but a*natural*outcome of some inherent attributes of both oppressor and oppressed.

Source (http://kersplebedeb.com/newsite/divided-world-divided-class/)

Divide and conquer continues to be efficient for exploitation. Hell, just look at the last election and the treatment that Obama was given for the last four years. Think about the history of the US and race relations. It isn't changing until you change the system and make it less exploitative. No reforms, just an actual revolt.

[Solid Snake]

And Snake, stop making excuses for the LAPD. They are fascists.


*sigh*

Expressing that critics of an institution should actually establish their criticisms with facts as opposed to reacting with raw, undistilled and potentially hyperbolic emotion is not "siding with the institution."

What I wanted was a reason to be convinced that the LAPD are every bit as terrible as previously insinuated. With, you know, actual analysis as opposed to unsubstantiated normative statements.

[Magus]

Thanks Sif, I think that explains it. Racism is not necessarily a paranoid delusion because according to one of the requirements for a paranoid delusion, it requires that the delusion not have possible explanations in the person's own culture or belief system. If someone is raised to be a racist, then their being racist is not because of a paranoid delusion, but their own upbringing. And as pointed out, they can alter their beliefs through mere education as opposed to psychiatric counseling.

*sigh*

Expressing that critics of an institution should actually establish their criticisms with facts as opposed to reacting with raw, undistilled and potentially hyperbolic emotion is not "siding with the institution."

What I wanted was a reason to be convinced that the LAPD are every bit as terrible as previously insinuated. With, you know, actual analysis as opposed to unsubstantiated normative statements.

Well here is an article about the current culture of racism and sexism within the LAPD (http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/racism-sexual-harassment-lawsuits-prompt-shakeup-at-lapd-s-central/article_075fd83e-ef9c-11e0-a1e5-001cc4c03286.html). Couple this with the repeated reports of brutality against minority prisoners and you start to get a picture of them as a corrupt, racist organization when you consider past decades of even more flagrant abuse, (http://www.laprogressive.com/the-racist-legacy-of-the-lapd/) including, a mere 15 years ago flagrant murder and drug dealing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_P%C3%A9rez_%28police_officer%29). Consider the Rampart scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Scandal).

The Rampart scandal refers to widespread corruption in the Community Resources Against Street Hoodlums (or CRASH) anti-gang unit of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Rampart Division in the late 1990s. More than 70 police officers either assigned to or associated with the Rampart CRASH unit were implicated in some form of misconduct, making it one of the most widespread cases of documented police misconduct in United States history. The convicted offenses include unprovoked shootings, unprovoked beatings, planting of false evidence, framing of suspects, stealing and dealing narcotics, bank robbery, perjury, and the covering up of evidence of these activities.[1]

The Rampart Scandal is notable in popular culture because at least three LAPD officers implicated in the scandal were found to be on the payroll of hip-hop mogul Marion "Suge" Knight of Death Row Records, a convicted felon with known ties to the Bloods street gang. Moreover, LAPD investigators alleged Rampart CRASH officers Nino Durden, Rafael Pérez and David Mack were involved in the 1997 drive-by murder of recording artist Notorious B.I.G..[2]

The Rampart investigation, based mainly on statements of the admitted corrupt officer (Pérez), initially implicated over 70 officers of wrongdoing. Of those officers, enough evidence was found to bring 58 before an internal administrative board. However, of the officers named by Pérez, only 24 were actually found to have committed any wrongdoing, with 12 given suspensions of various lengths, 7 forced to resign or retire, and 5 fired.[3] As a result of the probe into falsified evidence and police perjury, 106 prior criminal convictions were overturned.[4] The Rampart Scandal resulted in more than 140 civil lawsuits against the city of Los Angeles, costing the city an estimated $125 million in settlements.[5]

Partly as a result of the scandal, Police Chief Bernard Parks was not rehired by Mayor James K. Hahn in 2001. Both the scandal and the de facto firing of Parks are believed to have precipitated Mayor Hahn's defeat by Antonio Villaraigosa in the 2005 election.[6]

As of 2013 the full extent of Rampart corruption is not known, with several rape, murder and robbery investigations involving Rampart officers remaining unsolved.[7][8]

This is several years after the Rodney King beating, by the way.

[Sifright]

So like Snake.

You ever hear of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Los_Angeles_riots

You know what sparked it?

The LAPD beating the shit out of Rodney King.

You know what happens to the police officers that did it?

They got off. Thats why there was rioting.

This kind of shit is typical all over America, the police are not held accountable for their actions.

The LAPD is just the absolute worst example of the police in USA.

Edit:

Like snake, instead of going "Bluh, bluh bluh, waaaah why you call the lapd mean facists" Why don't cha fucking google LAPD. You get a laundry list of their fucking awful shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Police_Department#Controversy

[Shyria Dracnoir]

I guess not killed an innocent woman and her fiancee for the horrendous crime of being related to a police officer.

Like I don't care what happened to him, or what options he had open. There is literally nothing in this world that justifies murdering two innocent people to hurt someone else who cares about them.

That you even seem to be attempting to do so with that sentence is actually physically sickening.

Krylo's already made my opinion for me.

[CABAL49]

Like I don't care what happened to him, or what options he had open. There is literally nothing in this world that justifies murdering two innocent people to hurt someone else who cares about them.

That you even seem to be attempting to do so with that sentence is actually physically sickening.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. How about you come up with some alternatives to this situation. So instead of sitting around playing the blame game, we can come up with some actual solutions.

[Sifright]

Terrible person declares war on terrible people.

Innocent people get killed and wounded in the cross fire, thus proving each side as terrible.

Not really much more that needs to be said.

Except thats bullshit, and your special brand of smug fuckery is entirely out of place here and more than a little disgusting.

This is a man, who has had to deal with racism his entire life. Who tried to do what was right and was punished for it.

The entire system around him has failed him over and over again as he sought every legal means to try and right the wrongs done to him over this.

That the man has snapped and gone off the deep end is reason to condemn his actions.

but to say that why this occurred isn't worth conversation and to label it as "Terrible person declares war on terrible people" is ludicrous and typical of a person who has never had to deal with that kind of systemic adversity

[POS Industries]

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. How about you come up with some alternatives to this situation. So instead of sitting around playing the blame game, we can come up with some actual solutions.
Well, one solution is not murdering two innocent people simply to hurt someone who cares about them.

I'm not saying that murdering innocents invalidates the complaint that the LAPD is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded street gang unto themselves, but the LAPD being nothing more than a bunch of corrupt thugs absolutely does not validate murdering innocents. It's not actually a good solution at all. Pretty much any alternative course of action would have been better.

[Kim]

Well, one solution is not murdering two innocent people simply to hurt someone who cares about them.

I'm not saying that murdering innocents invalidates the complaint that the LAPD is nothing more than a taxpayer-funded street gang unto themselves, but the LAPD being nothing more than a bunch of corrupt thugs absolutely does not validate murdering innocents. It's not actually a good solution at all. Pretty much any alternative course of action would have been better.

like if you've a grudge with the lapd and have come to the decision that they are a problem that can only be solved with violence, just killing members of the lapd.

that is a superior solution, even for people who don't think it's a good one.

[CABAL49]

Pretty much any alternative course of action would have been better.

Please be more specific as this can mean many things. Are you suggesting he picked different targets? To have gone on a Punisher style rampage "sparing" the innocent?

Or maybe he should have just shut up about everything, and let history have taken its course. Become a man who lives in a city that hates him because he tried to enact legal change in the LAPD.

Perhaps he should have become a charity or spokeperson for police violence.

I am not asking you to justify his actions. I am asking you to use whatever empathy you may have to try and understand why this man would do such a thing. A man with no history of mental illness. He is, after all a regular person, not some sociopath who is happy about killing people. So try to look through his eyes and try to come up with an alternative. Because if he is just a regular person, the conditions for his creation into a killer are still there and need to be addressed. Do we simply ignore the LAPD because they have been attacked? Or do we address the situation to ensure that something like this never happens again. Or are you going to continue to be an asshole and not contribute anything constructive to this?

[Sithdarth]

CABAL man I urge you to take some time to cool off and think for a bit on what people have actually been saying and the direction in which you are headed right now. It'll be better for all of us in the long run.

[rpgdemon]

He is, after all a regular person, not some sociopath who is happy about killing people.

Seriously?

Like, I just went over this, sociopaths don't enjoy killing, they just cannot empathize with people, which leads them to possibly kill someone and not care, because they are unable to empathize with the person they're killing. That doesn't mean they WILL kill someone because of that, because unless they've got reason to do so, they won't.

[pochercoaster]

How low of a standard do you have to hold for someone to think it's justified for them to kill innocent people? Really?

People who do evil shit always have reasons for the evil shit they do. It doesn't change murder unless it's in self defense, i.e. they've been presented with deadly force from someone else.

I mean, I've experienced countless instances of sexism and particularly sexual harassment my whole life, maybe I'll just start randomly killing men because I have a reason so it's okay lol

Edit: Like I don't give a tin plated shit that he dealt with racism, it doesn't change a damn thing about the murders he committed towards innocent people.

[Kim]

in fairness, killallmen.exe is the name of my garage band

[CABAL49]

Seriously?

Like, I just went over this, sociopaths don't enjoy killing, they just cannot empathize with people, which leads them to possibly kill someone and not care, because they are unable to empathize with the person they're killing. That doesn't mean they WILL kill someone because of that, because unless they've got reason to do so, they won't.

I did mispeak here and I apologize for that. I didn't mean to allude that sociopaths are all serial killers. I simply wanted to point out that Dorner is someone that we can understand.

CABAL man I urge you to take some time to cool off and think for a bit on what people have actually been saying and the direction in which you are headed right now. It'll be better for all of us in the long run.

I know what direction I am headed in. It is trying to actually understand this situation instead of putting labels on it and leaving it at that. That is what happened the Aurora shooter. It is what keeps happening with shootings. And what have we done to prevent it? Label them as just bad people that we can never understand. That is bullshit. We can understand them because we can empathize with their situation. If we focused more on cause rather than effect, we would see a lot less "bad people."

Edit: These outburst are a societal response. This is like, sociology 101.

[Kim]

We understand the situation perfectly fine.

We just don't empathize with the murder of innocent people as a means of attack against non-innocents.

[Sifright]

How low of a standard do you have to hold for someone to think it's justified for them to kill innocent people? Really?

People who do evil shit always have reasons for the evil shit they do. It doesn't change murder unless it's in self defense, i.e. they've been presented with deadly force from someone else.

I mean, I've experienced countless instances of sexism and particularly sexual harassment my whole life, maybe I'll just start randomly killing men because I have a reason so it's okay lol

I can sum this post up as "HEEEEEEERRRRP"

Because thats exactly the level of critical thought you've applied here.

When your entire life is destroyed for doing the right thing and you don't resort to murder you can make asinine comments like that.

This situation is a lot more nuanced than some racist wanker calling him a nigger and then the guy going OKAY MURDER TIME LOL.

you clearly indicated earlier you haven't read the op, this looks likely to still be the case because clearly you think he was just insulted a few times or some petty shit like that stuff which any black person suffers from constantly if that was all it took to set people off I assure you I and many other like me would be killers if that were the case.

Go read the manifesto he put out before you continue discussing this.

[CABAL49]

We understand the situation perfectly fine.

Great. I look forward to seeing your solutions.

We just don't empathize with the murder of innocent people as a means of attack against non-innocents.

Empathize does not equal sympathize.

[Kim]

I already posted a preferable alternative to what he's doing.

[pochercoaster]

I can sum this post up as "HEEEEEEERRRRP"

Because thats exactly the level of critical thought you've applied here.

When your entire life is destroyed for doing the right thing and you don't resort to murder you can make asinine comments like that.

This situation is a lot more nuanced than some racist wanker calling him a nigger and then the guy going OKAY MURDER TIME LOL.

you clearly indicated earlier you haven't read the op, this looks likely to still be the case because clearly you think he was just insulted a few times or some petty shit like that stuff which any black person suffers from constantly if that was all it took to set people off I assure you I and many other like me would be killers if that were the case.

Go read the manifesto he put out before you continue discussing this.

I did read the article and manifesto and came to my conclusion afterwards. Sorry to disappoint you. I still don't approve of murdering innocent people.

[Solid Snake]

Well here is an article about the current culture of racism and sexism within the LAPD (http://www.ladowntownnews.com/news/racism-sexual-harassment-lawsuits-prompt-shakeup-at-lapd-s-central/article_075fd83e-ef9c-11e0-a1e5-001cc4c03286.html). Couple this with the repeated reports of brutality against minority prisoners and you start to get a picture of them as a corrupt, racist organization when you consider past decades of even more flagrant abuse, (http://www.laprogressive.com/the-racist-legacy-of-the-lapd/) including, a mere 15 years ago flagrant murder and drug dealing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_P%C3%A9rez_%28police_officer%29). Consider the Rampart scandal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_Scandal).

You see, guys? This is how it's done.

[Sifright]

I already posted a preferable alternative to what he's doing.

I'd be perfectly okay with what he was doing if he was only targeting LAPD.

Like I'm with you that it's fucked up he is killing people that had nothing to do with what happened to him.

If you can't empathize and see how a person could be driven to madness in the way he was though I don't really see how we could discuss this further.

What I see when I read his manifesto was a man with deep seated ideals that were utterly crushed by reality. Is it surprising he has lost perspective on his own actions?

[Sifright]

I did read the article and manifesto and came to my conclusion afterwards. Sorry to disappoint you. I still don't approve of murdering innocent people.

No one is asking for approval of murdering innocents. Nice to see that any kind of nuance is lost on you.

So either he's a baby eating monster or a totally fine dude. got'cha

[Osterbaum]

Like I don't give a tin plated shit that he dealt with racism, it doesn't change a damn thing about the murders he committed towards innocent people.
Would it really be the same thing if he were going around killing random people for no reason at all? Seems to me that if that were the case, we wouldn't be having this argument.

The guy seems to be aggressively venting out his frustrations, and while I doubt any of us here would condone his actions, we can certainly try and understand what would drive a man to do such things.

[pochercoaster]

@ Sif: Like, are you incapable of imagining someone becoming disappointed and crushed by reality without resorting to murder?

[CABAL49]

I already posted a preferable alternative to what he's doing.

I already suggested this one as a possibility, so believe me when I say I am legitimately exploring this option with you.

Since this hasn't been clear before, allow me to say it this way: I am not endorsing any kind of action at this time.

So he decides to go through the town as the Punisher of dirty cops. For this we have to pretend he didn't kill two innocent people. What do you think the effectiveness of this would be exactly. He might be able to kill two, maybe three cops in a shootout. He doesn't have the supplies to really make a stand of any kind. No body armor or variety of guns like the LAPD has. Nor the know how to make explosives. So he is left with what he has. The police surround him and put him in a body bag and used as an excuse for the LAPD to crackdown harder. As he will probably be used for in this situation as well. So now what do we do?

[Sifright]

@ Sif: Like, are you incapable of imagining someone becoming disappointed and crushed by reality without resorting to murder?

When it destroys your life in the way that happened to him rips up your entire social anchor, Yea I'm not surprised that the guy has gone off the deep end.

Because thats EXACTLY what happened.

It's not just a case of being disappointed it's your entire life being literally destroyed.

The other response to this which is fairly typical is suicide. I guess that would be totally cool as well then we could have a 2 page thread on how sad it is life could go on and everything can continue to be a giant pile of shit.

Edit: Also lol at your description. 'disappointed and crushed by reality' could you ameliorate that any further? really?

[Azisien]

If he can get his Guilty:Innocent kill ratio back up to like 10:1, then I'd say we can go back to justifying the rampage. It's messy work, there's always going to be a little collateral damage.

[Solid Snake]

If you can't empathize and see how a person could be driven to madness in the way he was though I don't really see how we could discuss this further.


...Am I the only one here who thinks the whole idea of him getting "revenge" by killing folks is just a bad idea, period?

Given his background with the LAPD, even if he was only targeting crooked cops, he'd have to understand that the LAPD would use asymmetrical warfare in response to his demands and would likely kill innocents. And, given his prior involvement in both the armed forces and the LAPD, and given the kinds of things the LAPD and the armed forces are likely to teach their adherents, it seems likely to me that this guy's "solution" to his problem has been influenced by the pro-violence mentality of the very nefarious institution he's presumably fighting against.

...In other words, he's becoming the LAPD to take down the LAPD. Where the fuck's the justice in that?!?

Whatever happened to the Wikileaks solution to this issue? If he wants revenge so badly, given we live in the era of the interwebs, contact the Julian Assanges of the world. Post that DVD of evidence online. Send copies to websites that will actually give it the time of day. Publish a blog. Publish an article for a leftist website. The Huffington Post or Al Jazeera would love this. If this was done right he could be part of a solution of promoting systemic change or revolution. As is, he's assuring the promulgation of the status quo by giving the LAPD an easy excuse to eradicate him without addressing the underlying issue of corruption.

The fact that he killed an innocent person -- or even a cop who had nothing to do with the alleged crimes (I'd go one step further than Kim and say, 'ideally', if the shooter had to embark in homicides, he should've targeted cops he knew to be corrupt or whom he knew were personally involved in his dismissal) -- undermines the credibility of his assertions; they do not support the credibility of his testimony.

The sad thing may well be that I'd frankly prefer this guy have committed suicide to get his point across, as opposed to killing people in such a way as to guarantee Death By Cop. He's going to die either way; he's assured that outcome through his actions now.

And look, I'm not even against the idea that violent revolutionary action may well be necessary to change American policies. The issue here is really that Dorner isn't even promoting ideological change. He's selfishly trying to clear his name, and that's his sole objective. His ultimatum isn't demanding the LAPD to address its corruption meaningfully, change specific policies or anything of that nature.

I do feel sorry for the guy. It's very likely the LAPD screwed him over. He isn't a martyr, though. Let's not just toss about heroics to anyone who challenges "the system" no matter their motives or methodology.

EDIT:

If he can get his Guilty:Innocent kill ratio back up to like 10:1, then I'd say we can go back to justifying the rampage. It's messy work, there's always going to be a little collateral damage.

...I had no idea there were so many sociopaths on NPF.
(There, you see? I can use hyperbole too!)

[Sifright]

...Am I the only one here who thinks the whole idea of him getting "revenge" by killing folks is just a bad idea, period?

Given his background with the LAPD, even if he was only targeting crooked cops, he'd have to understand that the LAPD would use asymmetrical warfare in response to his demands and would likely kill innocents. And, given his prior involvement in both the armed forces and the LAPD, and given the kinds of things the LAPD and the armed forces are likely to teach their adherents, it seems likely to me that this guy's "solution" to his problem has been influenced by the pro-violence mentality of the very nefarious institution he's presumably fighting against.

...In other words, he's becoming the LAPD to take down the LAPD. Where the fuck's the justice in that?!?

Whatever happened to the Wikileaks solution to this issue? If he wants revenge so badly, given we live in the era of the interwebs, contact the Julian Assanges of the world. Post that DVD of evidence online. Send copies to websites that will actually give it the time of day. Publish a blog. Publish an article for a leftist website. The Huffington Post or Al Jazeera would love this. If this was done right he could be part of a solution of promoting systemic change or revolution. As is, he's assuring the promulgation of the status quo by giving the LAPD an easy excuse to eradicate him without addressing the underlying issue of corruption.

The fact that he killed an innocent person -- or even a cop who had nothing to do with the alleged crimes (I'd go one step further than Kim and say, 'ideally', if the shooter had to embark in homicides, he should've targeted cops he knew to be corrupt or whom he knew were personally involved in his dismissal) -- undermines the credibility of his assertions; they do not support the credibility of his testimony.

The sad thing may well be that I'd frankly prefer this guy have committed suicide to get his point across, as opposed to killing people in such a way as to guarantee Death By Cop. He's going to die either way; he's assured that outcome through his actions now.

And look, I'm not even against the idea that violent revolutionary action may well be necessary to change American policies. The issue here is really that Dorner isn't even promoting ideological change. He's selfishly trying to clear his name, and that's his sole objective. His ultimatum isn't demanding the LAPD to address its corruption meaningfully, change specific policies or anything of that nature.

I do feel sorry for the guy. It's very likely the LAPD screwed him over. He isn't a martyr, though. Let's not just toss about heroics to anyone who challenges "the system" no matter their motives or methodology.

EDIT:



...I had no idea there were so many sociopaths on NPF.
(There, you see? I can use hyperbole too!)

I deleted my original response.
All im going to say is that if wikileaks taught the world anything it's that whistle blowing gets you fucked and ultimately changes nothing.

Funny that this guy is fired for whistle blowing. You know the thing you want him to do.

[Solid Snake]

Suicide wouldn't have got his point across. We would have never heard his story at all.

As for the rest of your rambling post, all im going to say is that non-violence has failed completely in changing the system.

Time to try another approach.

Oh my God everyone here is a sociopath.
Do you feel even the slightest bit of remorse for the presumed innocent people you're willing to let die in order to "change a system" that WILL NOT even change as a result of this man's actions?!?

You're assuming this methodology would be successful when it clearly isn't. Deliberately targeting and killing innocent people is never a great idea to inspire others to come to your defense. It's only a convenient way to enable the institution you're combating to whitewash everything you've actually done and instead concentrate on the fact that you're killing innocent people.

EDIT: Buddy, there's a huge difference between whistleblowing within the LAPD, and whistleblowing to an outside, leftist source who'd be very eager to publicize the LAPD's dirty laundry.

[Sifright]

Oh my God everyone here is a sociopath.
Do you feel even the slightest bit of remorse for the presumed innocent people you're willing to let die in order to "change a system" that WILL NOT even change as a result of this man's actions?!?

You're assuming this methodology would be successful when it clearly isn't. Deliberately targeting and killing innocent people is never a great idea to inspire others to come to your defense. It's only a convenient way to enable the institution you're combating to whitewash everything you've actually done and instead concentrate on the fact that you're killing innocent people.

Did you even read any of my previous posts? Seriously.

[Sifright]

Oh my God everyone here is a sociopath.
Do you feel even the slightest bit of remorse for the presumed innocent people you're willing to let die in order to "change a system" that WILL NOT even change as a result of this man's actions?!?

You're assuming this methodology would be successful when it clearly isn't. Deliberately targeting and killing innocent people is never a great idea to inspire others to come to your defense. It's only a convenient way to enable the institution you're combating to whitewash everything you've actually done and instead concentrate on the fact that you're killing innocent people.

EDIT: Buddy, there's a huge difference between whistleblowing within the LAPD, and whistleblowing to an outside, leftist source who'd be very eager to publicize the LAPD's dirty laundry.



What leftist source?

There is no national media organisation in america that is leftist.

CNN is decidedly on the right of the spectrum see their coverage of OWS.

[rpgdemon]

If he can get his Guilty:Innocent kill ratio back up to like 10:1, then I'd say we can go back to justifying the rampage. It's messy work, there's always going to be a little collateral damage.

No, you can't. He's murdering people.

[rpgdemon]

And since when is even ONE innocent person being murdered acceptable collateral damage, even if you think that murdering "bad guys" is okay.

You approve of drone strikes, presumably?

[Jagos]

Hold it people...

We DON'T know if he killed those two. The deaths happened on Monday and he put up his manifesto on Wednesday.

The ONLY death we know that can be attributable to him would be the police officer.

The rest of this is mainly character assassination to get the public against this guy which is a trick that the powerful use to cover up their own misdeeds.

I need actual evidence of the guns used to figure out if he actually did do the deed. AsI explained in my second post, the guy might just be a fall guy, used to justify more gun control laws to turn the public against citizens having guns.

Not only did that come from the fact that there are two manifestos running around, but the government has ordered 2.1 million rounds of ammunition for whatever reason you see fit to say explains all of it.

Also, just as an alternative?

Move out of LA, link up with some other people, form an underground radio show, a TV network, wrote a book on corruption, go back to school for a law degree....

Shit, reading the manifesto, the guy had the intelligence to be a DA if he wanted to. I'm willing to think that if he had learned of other whistleblowers, he might have opted for the violence route, but the guy had options.

[Solid Snake]

Did you even read any of my previous posts? Seriously.

Yes. Your previous posts are nothing more than an angry, incoherent series of rants, often lacking an iota of actual analysis and instead riding solely the surfboard of your impressive degree of rage.

As an aside, I do find it ironic, or at least highly coincidental, that some of the very people who've supported institutional oppression and the suppression of criticism of racist / sexist / homophobic messages in previous NPF discussions are some of the most vocal in favor of rampant violence in response to institutional oppression here.

So let me get this strai tght: It's justifiable for Dorner to go on a rampage and kill people in a desperate attempt to prove LAPD corruption, and we'll accept causalities as necessary in that context; but it's unjustifiable for an NPFer to bring up in the context of a non-violent verbal conversation that your favorite videogame is kind of offensive on NPF without losing your cool over how kneejerk sensitive we all are.

...Can we just think that through, for a second? I'm trying to wrap my head around this, but I can't.

[Azisien]

And since when is even ONE innocent person being murdered acceptable collateral damage, even if you think that murdering "bad guys" is okay.

You approve of drone strikes, presumably?

No I approve of (and am one of the only ones aware of) sarcasm.

[Sifright]

Yes. Your previous posts are nothing more than an angry, incoherent series of rants, often lacking an iota of actual analysis and instead riding solely the surfboard of your impressive degree of rage.

As an aside, I do find it ironic, or at least highly coincidental, that some of the very people who've supported institutional oppression and the suppression of criticism of racist / sexist / homophobic messages in previous NPF discussions are some of the most vocal in favor of rampant violence in response to institutional oppression here.

So let me get this strai tght: It's justifiable for Dorner to go on a rampage and kill people in a desperate attempt to prove LAPD corruption, and we'll accept causalities as necessary in that context; but it's unjustifiable for an NPFer to bring up in the context of a non-violent verbal conversation that your favorite videogame is kind of offensive on NPF without losing your cool over how kneejerk sensitive we all are.

...Can we just think that through, for a second? I'm trying to wrap my head around this, but I can't.

You must be confused and think i'm Bells.

See i've never been on the side of the conversation you are accusing me of.

Also if you truly believe what you've said in that rant. All I got to say is "lol"

[CABAL49]

Oh my God everyone here is a sociopath.
Do you feel even the slightest bit of remorse for the presumed innocent people you're willing to let die in order to "change a system" that WILL NOT even change as a result of this man's actions?!?

No one has suggested this. I have even made the point that it will probably make the whole situation worse than it was. That is beside the point of mine, which is to have an honest discussion about what to do with this. Alternatives suggested to his actions have been useless at best.



No he hasn't. At no point neither Sif nor myself have championed his cause. No one has suggested that he has the moral highground.

[QUOTE]EDIT: Buddy, there's a huge difference between whistleblowing within the LAPD, and whistleblowing to an outside, leftist source who'd be very eager to publicize the LAPD's dirty laundry.

The dirty laundry of the LAPD is fairly well known. I am actually surprised you went this long without knowing it. But look at what has happened to named supporters of Wikileaks. Julian Assanage is essentially under House arrest and Bradly Manning is being tortured in prison, if his lawyer is to be believed. And what have we done about the what they have exposed anyways? The military is still shooting civilians and no one cares. This is not a viable alternative.

So what do you suggest?

[Solid Snake]

We DON'T know if he killed those two. The deaths happened on Monday and he put up his manifesto on Wednesday.

Think this through rationally. The LAPD wants to frame Dorner. So they're going to kill a police officer's daughter and her fiance? Like, if you're the LAPD. Wouldn't you target just about anyone else before targeting the daughter of the loyal, presumably corrupt LAPD officer who's helped you rid of Dorner? And why kill the girl just to silence a whistleblower who saw another officer KICK A CRIMINAL SUSPECT?!?

...Man, this conspiracy theory's all over the goddamn map.

[Jagos]

Solid, have you ever been discriminated against?

Have you ever seen the worst the system has to offer to the weakest citizen?

Have you ever wanted to fight back against that imbalance in any way?

That's the empathy to understand where the guy is coming from.

If he killed the people, he brought condemnation on his cause which is essentially a power struggle with the state.

But then, the LAPD gave him validation by shooting at random cars and injuring innocents.

The question right now is who do you believe? Why? It's not "let's support the cop-killer because he's defending the weak like a Rambo or Punisher in a crazy display of vigilante justice". It's a lot more shades of grey in trying to find out the right course of action here.

-e- And yes, that's why it's a conspiracy theory so as not to mislead anyone about if it's factual or not. I don't know if he killed the girl, I'm just reading the reports. If something comes out to contradict that, then I would update that.

[Sifright]

Let's be clear here Snake.

I'll spell it out for you.

I was massively incredulous that you were IGNORANT of what the LAPD has done.

A taskforce that is INFAMOUS across the world as one of the most corrupt in the western world.

I was shocked that you a citizen of your country could be ignorant of things that people in europe could tell you about.

That you deem none of my posts to have any substantive worth is entirely due to your warped perceptions of me and personally you can get fucked.

That you keep ascribing things i've not stated to me so you can knock them down doesn't surprise me.

That you are so in love with your own ego that you can't look things up your self on google when a cursory examination will find rafts of evidence of their misdeeds also doesn't surprise me because you are a narcissistic twat.

I don't agree with this guy murdering Innocents if that is what he has done.

But I can understand what has caused him to break.

There does that explain my position amply for you?

[Sifright]

Solid, have you ever been discriminated against?

Have you ever seen the worst the system has to offer to the weakest citizen?

Have you ever wanted to fight back against that imbalance in any way?

That's the empathy to understand where the guy is coming from.

If he killed the people, he brought condemnation on his cause which is essentially a power struggle with the state.

But then, the LAPD gave him validation by shooting at random cars and injuring innocents.

The question right now is who do you believe? Why? It's not "let's support the cop-killer because he's defending the weak like a Rambo or Punisher in a crazy display of vigilante justice". It's a lot more shades of grey in trying to find out the right course of action here.


Jagos, +1 internets.

[Solid Snake]

Solid, have you ever been discriminated against?

Have you ever seen the worst the system has to offer to the weakest citizen?

Have you ever wanted to fight back against that imbalance in any way?

I'm a very fortunate beneficiary of privilege, it's true. It's nice to finally see many of you who've previously blasted social justice terminology actually advance an attempt at a social justice argument, though.

Here are a few questions for you:

1: How many people in America are discriminated against in this country?

2: How many of those people, no matter their circumstances, subsequently resort to killing innocent people to prove the unjust corruption in the system?

Logically speaking, your arguments would give a blank check to anyone who feels oppressed to murder civilians. Now, think this through. Everyone has different definitions of what it means to be 'oppressed.' Many of those definitions are factually inaccurate; there are people in this country who'd believe that gun control regulations would oppress them. Nonetheless, your attitude would support their personal interpretation of that 'oppression' as a right to seek violent retribution.

Lots and lots of people illegitimately lose their jobs and, if they all respond like Dorner did, there'd be lots and lots of workplace shootings.

Even still, there's a huge difference between what Dorner's doing here, and what it'd be like if, for example, oppressed minorities gathered together and declared an armed revolution against privileged institutions. As I said before: Dorner has no ideological agenda. He is NOT seeking reform of the LAPD. He is merely seeking to clear his own name. His manifesto explicitly states this.

[Sifright]

I'm a very fortunate beneficiary of privilege, it's true. It's nice to finally see many of you who've previously blasted social justice terminology actually advance an attempt at a social justice argument, though.

Here are a few questions for you:

1: How many people in America are discriminated against in this country?

2: How many of those people, no matter their circumstances, subsequently resort to killing innocent people to prove the unjust corruption in the system?[/I][/B]

Good to see you are still not reading what people are saying.

Keep on attacking those strawmans.

I'm a very fortunate beneficiary of privilege, it's true.


It shows.

[Solid Snake]

I was massively incredulous that you were IGNORANT of what the LAPD has done.

I'm not from the Los Angeles metropolitan area and I've never even visited the state of California, unless you count an airport. Even assuming that my ignorance is in fact deplorable, why not do what Magus did and link me to substantive articles on the subject, as opposed to just continually insulting my intelligence like an immature preschooler?


That you deem none of my posts to have any substantive worth is entirely due to your warped perceptions of me and personally you can get fucked.

...Oh, I guess this is why. You're not interested in a discussion. You just want a flamewar.

[Sifright]

...Oh, I guess this is why. You're not interested in a discussion. You just want a flamewar.

Hahaha, you giant hypocrite

Yes. Your previous posts are nothing more than an angry, incoherent series of rants, often lacking an iota of actual analysis and instead riding solely the surfboard of your impressive degree of rage.

Hahahaaaaaaa Yea.

Snake buddy, if people in europe off the street could tell you about the LA race riots and what precipitated it and bunch of other shit forgive me for holding a US citizen to a higher standard.

[POS Industries]

Gonna go ahead and (possibly temporarily) close the thread. I think things are getting overly heated and it would be a fantastic idea for everyone to take some time to cool off before we decide to resume this discussion.

[synkr0nized]

I can sum this post up as "HEEEEEEERRRRP"

Because thats exactly the level of critical thought you've applied here.

That you deem none of my posts to have any substantive worth is entirely due to your warped perceptions of me and personally you can get fucked.

[...]

That you are so in love with your own ego that you can't look things up your self on google when a cursory examination will find rafts of evidence of their misdeeds also doesn't surprise me because you are a narcissistic twat.

Well.
Take some time to reconsider what it means to enjoy the privilege of posting here and of forming discussion rather than insulting other forum members.

[McTahr]

Please remember when discussing heavier topics that the people you are discussing with are just that: People. That person who you think is an utter monster cockbag horsefucker for believing the incredulous things you think they are saying is much less a monster cockbag horsefucker and much more a human being of dissenting opinion and possibly even just a monster cockbag horsefucker purely in your mind because of a misinterpretation on your part.

Just because this is the internet age and everything travels at the speed of information does not mean that you need to get your post out there as soon as possible. Take your time, read the posts of those whose opinions do not match your own more than once, and respond calmly and without derision. All of the rules still apply, especially:

Tone Argument: The tone of the forum as a whole and individual posts is the purview of the moderation staff and the moderation staff alone. When responding to a post by another user, regardless of how insulting you feel that post was, do not respond to the tone of the post. Do not call the other user a jerk or insinuate it. Do not suggest that the user should word their posts more nicely. Simply respond to the actual points the other user is making. If you feel that another user's tone is out of line report the post and a staff member will deal with it accordingly.

Flaming: Do not be aggressive towards or insult other forum members, whether actively ("John, you're a dick") or passively ("anyone who likes Pokemon must be retarded").

Trolling: Trolling: Do not make statements only to get angry responses. Also, do not reply to such statements, just report the post and leave it alone.

[synkr0nized]

Oh Christ, there's already a someone-is-leaving-'cause-the-mods-suck thread? My bad for not checking NPF every hour?

Regardless, if you cannot argue against someone's point without name calling and flaming, you're going to lose discussion privileges if not posting privileges altogether.