Fired Cop On a Murderous Rampage in SoCal

[Kamakazie Sith]

The LAPD is an organization that still has one of the officers from the Rodney King incident as a captain commanding an entire police station. I am totally shocked that their investigation of themselves found the officer innocent especially after they threw out testimony supporting Dorner's claim.

You are shocked because you are ignorant. The police captain that Dorner is talking about is Rolando Solano. Rolando Solano did not participate in the beating and that is backed up by the film. He isn't seen in it.

Dorner's testimony was thrown out because the testimony of three independent witnesses absolved the Sgt of the claim.

[Losonti Tokash]

They also threw out the testimony of the victim and his father but I'm sure they didn't have anything important to say.

But sure, I'll buy that one of the first five people to arrive on scene didn't beat Rodney King, even though 4 were charged and only 2 convicted. But let's also remember the Rampart scandal, Oscar Grant, Richard Rodriguez, Kelly Thomas, and Occupy. I particularly like the Oscar Grant example, because a cop who executed a man begging for his life on camera served a whole 11 months in jail.

But we can totally trust the police to investigate themselves.

Edit: Forgot about the deputies getting fired for glorifying police shootings and getting tattoos after shooting someone! And these are just the rare occasions someone actually gets in trouble.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They also threw out the testimony of the victim and his father but I'm sure they didn't have anything important to say.

It wasn't thrown out, Los. Testimony of independent witnesses is much more valuable than that of those who are emotionally invested. That's just common sense, man.

What should have happened? Should the Sgt. be fired?

But sure, I'll buy that one of the first five people to arrive on scene didn't beat Rodney King, even though 4 were charged and only 2 convicted. But let's also remember the Rampart scandal, Oscar Grant, Richard Rodriguez, Kelly Thomas, and Occupy. I particularly like the Oscar Grant example, because a cop who executed a man begging for his life on camera served a whole 11 months in jail.

Do you know why only two were convicted? As for Solano, do you have evidence that he participated in the beating? I also like how you run off a list of incidents without providing content as evidence of what? That Dorner is telling the truth and the three witnesses aren't really independent.

But we can totally trust the police to investigate themselves.

Edit: Forgot about the deputies getting fired for glorifying police shootings and getting tattoos after shooting someone! And these are just the rare occasions someone actually gets in trouble.

We can't. However, that doesn't mean you get to invent things when you don't have evidence. You are part of the problem.

[Stark]

Are police killing innocent people to silence one of their own also part of the problem?

[Jub]

What about the fact that the US has such poor mental health screening for police that they didn't catch this before it happened. You'd think that it might be somewhere up there on the list of priorities to make sure the boys in blue have their heads on right.

[Broomstick]

LEOs specifically put their lives on the line in America

Funny - I thought that was the case everywhere and not just the US.

And dont get me wrong, its horrible, but if the LAPD end up making more casualties trying to apprehend find and kill him, Im going to cry.

I'm still not 100% clear that the officers doing the hair-trigger shooting were LAPD or not.

And then if anybody ever brings up how modern day trained police officers are to be trusted far more with firearms than the average citizen...[/quote
Actually, in this case, that might be part of the problem as this guy is more likely to hit his intended target than the average untrained thug.

Oh and he seems 100x times more competent than that guy who killed a dude at a party, then killed a park ranger and died barechested out in one of the state parks right about winter time in...2011 I think it was.

Or he thought this out more thoroughly than some drunk asshole who committed murder on the spur of the moment.

[Grumman]

Is this boy's/girl's club mentality still prevalent in other parts of the world?

The head of the state police here threatened a politician for suggesting that it's possible to both be a police officer and a racist (when arguing that giving the police the power to stop and search people on a whim is bad), so I'd say the answer is yes.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Are police killing innocent people to silence one of their own also part of the problem?

People that make vague posts are part of the problem. What incident are you talking about or are you just speakin in general terms?

To give you a general answer officers that break the law are also part of the problem. Like the shooting of the innocents during this man hunt. They need to be held accountable otherwise they are part of the problem. Though you can't be talking about this incident because the police didn't kill any innocents and they aren't trying to "silence" one of their own.

[Flagg]

KS, Stark is probably referring to the dumbshits who shot up a newspaper delivery truck with an elderly woman and her middle aged daughter in it (injuring one of them) in an attempt to commit first degree murder on a suspect. They weren't arrested, BTW.

[PeZook]

Funny - I thought that was the case everywhere and not just the US.

Far more so in America than anywhere else in the developed world, actually: the US has the highest rate of police killings, per capita, in the first world, so he is very much correct. Sure, it's a pretty dangerous job anywhere, but the risk of death is especially high in the US.

[Kamakazie Sith]

KS, Stark is probably referring to the dumbshits who shot up a newspaper delivery truck with an elderly woman and her middle aged daughter in it (injuring one of them) in an attempt to commit first degree murder on a suspect. They weren't arrested, BTW.

I figured but his description is false and an exaggeration of the facts.

The likely result is termination for these officers. Charges will depend on the total facts. FYI officer involved shootings take a while to investigate. Generally, an involved officer won't be interviewed until the next day.

[Vendetta]

The officers opened fire based on the appearance of a vehicle, apparently with no warning or attempt to investigate who the occupant was, Even if it had been the right make, model, and colour vehicle there was still no attempt to investigate whether the right person was driving it (since the truck has blacked out windows and was shot up from behind).

[Broomstick]

I think we're all in agreement that the actions of those officers was wrong. It amounted to an attempted execution. Such is illegal. I fully support punishing those responsible.

[Knife]

I think we're all in agreement that the actions of those officers was wrong. It amounted to an attempted execution. Such is illegal. I fully support punishing those responsible.

Agreed, but that hardly elevates it to 'trying to silence' this nutball. These particular cops are wrong and should be investigated, but in and of it self, doesn't create some sort of conspiracy to silence this nutbag.

[Vendetta]

I can see where the idea comes from though. If any part of the claims made by Dorner are true and might be damaging to the department, the nasty little thought "it would be better if he doesn't stand trial and drag all this out into the light" might creep into the minds of some officers.

Certainly shooting up a random vehicle which vaguely looks like a suspect's vehicle without making any effort to even identify the occupants demonstrates something beyond police officers firing because they feel imminently threatened.

The officers who fired on that truck wanted Dorner dead, there is no room in this scenario for the concept that they would accept an arrest, were that the case they would not have opened fire at the mere sight of something looking vaguely like his truck (and opened fire from behind the vehicle, given the picture, to ensure that the person in the vehicle could not see and respond to them).

So this is not an "officers lose their jobs" scenario, this is an "officers stand trial for attempted first degree murder" scenario.

[Dominarch's Hope]

LEOs specifically put their lives on the line in America

Funny - I thought that was the case everywhere and not just the US.

And dont get me wrong, its horrible, but if the LAPD end up making more casualties trying to apprehend find and kill him, Im going to cry.

I'm still not 100% clear that the officers doing the hair-trigger shooting were LAPD or not.

And then if anybody ever brings up how modern day trained police officers are to be trusted far more with firearms than the average citizen...[/quote
Actually, in this case, that might be part of the problem as this guy is more likely to hit his intended target than the average untrained thug.

Oh and he seems 100x times more competent than that guy who killed a dude at a party, then killed a park ranger and died barechested out in one of the state parks right about winter time in...2011 I think it was.

Or he thought this out more thoroughly than some drunk asshole who committed murder on the spur of the moment.

1. The country this takes place in and the subject matter is America. Fuck off on that, there is no smugging out to be ad.

2.hahano.

3. That refutes or disagrees eith exactly zero things I have said or stated.

[Broomstick]

Are you drunk, or did you just turn off the grammar and spellcheck?

[Broomstick]

I can see where the idea comes from though. If any part of the claims made by Dorner are true and might be damaging to the department, the nasty little thought "it would be better if he doesn't stand trial and drag all this out into the light" might creep into the minds of some officers.

If Dorner hadn't hurt anyone but was being pursued as public enemy number one his claims would have more weight, but he's killed three and wounded others with clear intent to kill. Right or not, he's a clear danger to others, and not just those he directly accuses of wrong-doing but also their (presumably) innocent relatives. His actions actually detract from his credibility in my view. He might still be right, and it's still worth looking into, but it's a very different situation than if he accused the LAPD of institutional racism and, without hurting anyone, was found swinging from a lamppost one day.

As it is, he's made it very easy for a cop to gun him down and claim self-defense or public good. If he had been in that truck that turned out to be newspaper delivery people, that's what the officers would have claimed and protests that he'd been shot in the back would likely not have had much traction even if true.

So this is not an "officers lose their jobs" scenario, this is an "officers stand trial for attempted first degree murder" scenario.

True.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I can see where the idea comes from though. If any part of the claims made by Dorner are true and might be damaging to the department, the nasty little thought "it would be better if he doesn't stand trial and drag all this out into the light" might creep into the minds of some officers.

Sounds like a typical conspiracy theory to me. Silencing him now is the worst thing they can do. He's crazy. His manifesto shows it. His actions demonstrate it. So, why would anyone believe anything he had to say in court. Sorry, I don't buy it. If he was a threat and there were officers willing to murder him they would have done it a long time ago.

Certainly shooting up a random vehicle which vaguely looks like a suspect's vehicle without making any effort to even identify the occupants demonstrates something beyond police officers firing because they feel imminently threatened.

Does it? Those officers were assigned to guard one of the targets that Dorner listed. You can seriously think of nothing else besides "oh look that's the truck! OPEN FIRE!"

The officers who fired on that truck wanted Dorner dead, there is no room in this scenario for the concept that they would accept an arrest, were that the case they would not have opened fire at the mere sight of something looking vaguely like his truck (and opened fire from behind the vehicle, given the picture, to ensure that the person in the vehicle could not see and respond to them).

I will give you scenario. The officers see the truck approaching. They attempt to stop it with guns pointed at the occupants. The occupants panic and try to leave which causes the officers to fire.

So this is not an "officers lose their jobs" scenario, this is an "officers stand trial for attempted first degree murder" scenario.

They may deserve that. They certain deserve some type of criminal charge regardless.

[Broomstick]

I will give you scenario. The officers see the truck approaching. They attempt to stop it with guns pointed at the occupants. The occupants panic and try to leave which causes the officers to fire.

I don't think you need to attribute panic to people who turn and go the opposite direction when guns are pointed at them, particularly if it might be dark enough they aren't sure who the people pointing the guns are. MY first reaction on seeing a gun pointed at me is "run like hell", not "stop and surrender". That's not panic, that's sense. Granted, if it IS the police yelling "STOP!" you probably should, and it probably won't be fatal if you do, but for just about every other scenario getting the hell out of dodge is the preferred course of action.

We don't really know what went down on that street, all the more reason to investigate thoroughly without rushing to judgement. Did the people turn and attempt to flee? Did the cops wait for the truck to pass and then open fire? Was any verbal warning given or not? (The occupants of the truck say not, but maybe the warnings weren't loud enough to hear?) We can speculate all we want (and speculation should be labeled as such) but none of us has direct access to facts and evidence.

Just curious - any word on how the two women involved are doing? And the people wounded by Dorner?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I will give you scenario. The officers see the truck approaching. They attempt to stop it with guns pointed at the occupants. The occupants panic and try to leave which causes the officers to fire.

I don't think you need to attribute panic to people who turn and go the opposite direction when guns are pointed at them, particularly if it might be dark enough they aren't sure who the people pointing the guns are. MY first reaction on seeing a gun pointed at me is "run like hell", not "stop and surrender". That's not panic, that's sense. Granted, if it IS the police yelling "STOP!" you probably should, and it probably won't be fatal if you do, but for just about every other scenario getting the hell out of dodge is the preferred course of action.

Well, that's basically what I mean. Those officers are wrong regardless, however, my point is that nobody has anywhere near the information to rush to conclude that they're looking to murder Dorner.

We don't really know what went down on that street, all the more reason to investigate thoroughly without rushing to judgement. Did the people turn and attempt to flee? Did the cops wait for the truck to pass and then open fire? Was any verbal warning given or not? (The occupants of the truck say not, but maybe the warnings weren't loud enough to hear?) We can speculate all we want (and speculation should be labeled as such) but none of us has direct access to facts and evidence.

Just curious - any word on how the two women involved are doing? And the people wounded by Dorner?

I agree.

I checked today and I haven't seen anything on their condition.

[Vendetta]

I can see where the idea comes from though. If any part of the claims made by Dorner are true and might be damaging to the department, the nasty little thought "it would be better if he doesn't stand trial and drag all this out into the light" might creep into the minds of some officers.

Sounds like a typical conspiracy theory to me. Silencing him now is the worst thing they can do. He's crazy. His manifesto shows it. His actions demonstrate it. So, why would anyone believe anything he had to say in court. Sorry, I don't buy it. If he was a threat and there were officers willing to murder him they would have done it a long time ago.

That was before he was visible on the public stage because he'd killed three police officers. Any trial now would be a media circus.

Certainly shooting up a random vehicle which vaguely looks like a suspect's vehicle without making any effort to even identify the occupants demonstrates something beyond police officers firing because they feel imminently threatened.

Does it? Those officers were assigned to guard one of the targets that Dorner listed. You can seriously think of nothing else besides "oh look that's the truck! OPEN FIRE!"

They riddled a truck with bullets from behind on the basis that it looked vaguely like Dorner's. Reports from the victim's attorney are that no warnings or instructions were issued, and the officers were obviously not close enough to the truck to tell a large black man from a 70 year old woman.

The officers who fired on that truck wanted Dorner dead, there is no room in this scenario for the concept that they would accept an arrest, were that the case they would not have opened fire at the mere sight of something looking vaguely like his truck (and opened fire from behind the vehicle, given the picture, to ensure that the person in the vehicle could not see and respond to them).

I will give you scenario. The officers see the truck approaching. They attempt to stop it with guns pointed at the occupants. The occupants panic and try to leave which causes the officers to fire.

Why are there bullet entry points in the back of the truck? In the picture of the truck in this thread there are 6 bullet entry points in the rear tailgate and a further 15 in and around the rear window. It's visible that these are points that bullets entered from the shadows around the top of the holes. This truck was not approaching the firers, it was moving away from them if at all. This is not consistent with attempting to stop an approaching vehicle unless they hosed it as it was moving past and moving away, hollywood style.

What it is consistent with is a couple of idiot yahoos with guns seeing the cop killer (who for bonus points wants to drag the department through the shit) and deciding that it's time he "resisted arrest".

So this is not an "officers lose their jobs" scenario, this is an "officers stand trial for attempted first degree murder" scenario.

They may deserve that. They certain deserve some type of criminal charge regardless.

[/quote]

They certainly do deserve it because on the face of it that is what they have done. Attempted to murder someone.

[Kamakazie Sith]

That was before he was visible on the public stage because he'd killed three police officers. Any trial now would be a media circus.

It's an assertion that can't be falsified unless they manage to take him alive which based off his own statements is an extremely unlikely outcome. Making such assertions without direct evidence is what fucks up these type of threads.

They riddled a truck with bullets from behind on the basis that it looked vaguely like Dorner's. Reports from the victim's attorney are that no warnings or instructions were issued, and the officers were obviously not close enough to the truck to tell a large black man from a 70 year old woman.

None of which is evidence for your conspiracy to murder hypothesis.

Why are there bullet entry points in the back of the truck? In the picture of the truck in this thread there are 6 bullet entry points in the rear tailgate and a further 15 in and around the rear window. It's visible that these are points that bullets entered from the shadows around the top of the holes. This truck was not approaching the firers, it was moving away from them if at all. This is not consistent with attempting to stop an approaching vehicle unless they hosed it as it was moving past and moving away, hollywood style.

Because had Dorner been in that vehicle they would be justified in using deadly force to prevent his escape. If the driver got scared and didn't realize the people with guns were police and tried to run.

Here is another piece of educational information. Due to the extreme threats made and his demonstration to carry these threats out an officer is not required to give a warning to Dorner. He can legally be shot on sight.

What it is consistent with is a couple of idiot yahoos with guns seeing the cop killer (who for bonus points wants to drag the department through the shit) and deciding that it's time he "resisted arrest".

Drag the department through the shit?! That is how you define threats to murder officers and their families. You are hilarious. Listen to yourself.

They certainly do deserve it because on the face of it that is what they have done. Attempted to murder someone.

I would like to see that but like I said before it depends on all the facts.

[TimothyC]

Here is another piece of educational information. Due to the extreme threats made and his demonstration to carry these threats out an officer is not required to give a warning to Dorner. He can legally be shot on sight.

So if the police have an honest belief that the person they are confronting is willing to kill them then they have the right to shoot first? I'm curious where you draw the line. Personally, I'd draw the line where the cops have a lot less discretion to shoot people.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

if Dorner can be shot on sight, then the US is not free. He should at least have to be holding a weapon in his hand, damnit.