Fired Cop On a Murderous Rampage in SoCal

[Simon_Jester]

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.

On the other hand, if Dorner's claims are false and he's a complete nut who happens to like killing policemen...

The nasty little thought "it would be better if I don't have to drive up level with him, look in his window, and maybe get shot" might creep into the minds of some officers.

Were they in the wrong? Absolutely, and very much so. They failed in their duty and hurt an innocent person, and as far as I'm concerned a murder charge would be justified- but I don't think we can take this as validating Dorner's allegations against the police, if that's where you're going.

[Vendetta]

Were they in the wrong? Absolutely, and very much so. They failed in their duty and hurt an innocent person, and as far as I'm concerned a murder charge would be justified- but I don't think we can take this as validating Dorner's allegations against the police, if that's where you're going.

The core of his allegations are that the LAPD is institutionally racist, lies to protect its own, is prone to use of excessive force, and has an "us vs. them" mentality when dealing with the public.

I mean those statements aren't even terribly contentious, we have news stories about those things on a semi-regular basis.

There's plenty of crazy in his manifesto, but some aspects of US police culture are so broken even a crazy person can see it.

And yes, some of his allegations are actually borne out by this event, the officers present used excessive force as a first recourse because they percieved a very wide class of vehicles (any blue pickup) as a threat and didn't regard the safety of anyone not on the force as important enough to verify who they were hosing with bullets.

[Dominarch's Hope]

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.

Yeah. LAPD. About half the internet is calling Mr.Dorner "Chocolate Rambo" and most mean it in a nice, if kinda racist, way.

Other than the usual "Fuck The Police" type of people, mostly everybody agrees cop killers are horrible scum. But now its LAPD getting killed in the spotlight.

That should tell a lot about how the LAPD is viewed today.

Oh and as far as the comments about him killing family and friends? If this shit explodes, do you honestly think the families and friends of LEOs, National Guard, and the rest of the US Military would be ignored out of some sense of honor? There are plenty of cowardly assholes who would rather raid the immediate areas around bases and on base housing than face down the US Military in open combat.

Even if it just explodes in LA, do you think it'll stay "Honourable"?

No. Hell no. Its really bad and brutal. But most of the type of people who would be willing to pull that kinda shit and fight in some sort of "Revolution" , arent going to pull jackshit for punches.

So lets have a moment of silence for those killed in this incident. But dont be surprised he killed whoever was available and vaguely related to the LAPD. There's a reason the Undercover cops are scared for their families.

[Vendetta]

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

They were clearly firing at a vehicle without knowing who its occupants were with an intent to kill those occupants. The officers intended to kill the occupant of that truck, and they were firing on the assumption it was Dorner.

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.

Except they didn't know and made no attempt to find out who was in the truck, they just started shooting. There is no possible justification for the actions of those officers. None. Even if it would be legal for them to shoot Dorner on sight that does not mean shoot any vaguely blue truck on sight, not even if it's the same make and model and colour as Dorner's because that's almost certainly not a unique vehicle in a city the size of LA.

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

No, it's how I define making allegations that the force is institutionally racist, protects its own (and we'll see how lightly these wankers get off, and being fired and losing their careers would be getting off lightly), uses excessive force, and regards the public as an enemy not an employer.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

I draw the line here with people like Dorner. He not only has stated his intention to kill any officer that attempts to apprehend him he has demonstrated that he will carry his stated intentions out when he murdered three people and attempting to murder one other person. The criminal code also draws the line at that point.

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.

A warning is only required if feasible. If a warning would endanger the officers then it is not required. That's how it is defined. I'm not sure why you think that makes the US not free. Due process has never been held to a higher standard than the lives of others.

[Kamakazie Sith]

They were clearly firing at a vehicle without knowing who its occupants were with an intent to kill those occupants. The officers intended to kill the occupant of that truck, and they were firing on the assumption it was Dorner.

I know they fucked up. What that isn't evidence of is the "silence him so he doesn't drag the department through shit" hypothesis.

Except they didn't know and made no attempt to find out who was in the truck, they just started shooting. There is no possible justification for the actions of those officers. None. Even if it would be legal for them to shoot Dorner on sight that does not mean shoot any vaguely blue truck on sight, not even if it's the same make and model and colour as Dorner's because that's almost certainly not a unique vehicle in a city the size of LA.

I agree. Still isn't evidence of is the "silence him so he doesn't drag the department through shit" hypothesis.

No, it's how I define making allegations that the force is institutionally racist, protects its own (and we'll see how lightly these wankers get off, and being fired and losing their careers would be getting off lightly), uses excessive force, and regards the public as an enemy not an employer.

None of which is a secret. The LAPDs history is well known when it comes to racism, self protection, and excessive force. The public being viewed as the enemy isn't a department view. It is a jaded officer view.

They will likely be charged with manslaughter. Specifically, voluntary manslaughter. Murder requires intent to murder the people in the vehicle. They intended on killing Dorner not the women in the vehicle which means their mental state could be viewed as reckless instead of intentional.

[Grumman]

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.

A warning is only required if feasible. If a warning would endanger the officers then it is not required. That's how it is defined. I'm not sure why you think that makes the US not free. Due process has never been held to a higher standard than the lives of others.

In your opinion, does the warning endanger the officers if they've got their gun pointed at him and he's unarmed? That's what Duchess is objecting to - that if you look like Dorner you're a dead man, no matter how non-threatening you are. Because we've already seen where that ends, with the police trying to execute three people so far who have done nothing wrong except own vehicles that are vaguely similar to Dorner's.

[Broomstick]

Donner has demonstrated a willingness to kill other people without warning. His targets are not limited to LEO's. Sure, it would be nice to give a proper warning but if the choice is between warning him giving him enough time to kill yet another person and shooting him without warning to save lives I think the latter may be justified.

What is NOT justified is opening fire without positive identification of the target. That is not acceptable. We are all in agreement about that, and the officers who shot two little old ladies instead of a large black man should be punished. As should any other officer acting in such a reckless manner.

There is precedent for opening fire on dangerous fugitives without giving them a warning first:

This was done by Texas lawmen during an ambush in Louisiana - in other words, out of their jurisdiction. The corner complained of the difficulty in embalming the corpses because they each had such a multitude of holes in them the embalming fluid wouldn't stay in them long enough to do the job. Then again, Bonnie and Clyde and their gang had murdered at least 9 police officers and several civilians during their "career". The prior LEO's who had yelled "halt!" or other warning at them had received a reply of bullets. Some people you can't reason with. If you insist on acting like a rabid dog then you just might be treated as one.

I would like to think Dorner could be captured without further bloodshed but he's made it clear he's willing to kill and his manifesto makes it sound like he has no intention of being taken alive. Sure, he's a folk hero to some - so were Bonnie and Clyde. They were still murderers. And now Dorner is a murderer. If they can't take him alive, or without more deaths, then this is a scenario where I could justify killing him on the basis of public safety.

[Formless]

If "precedence" justified anything, there would be no room for complaining about police behavior ever.

Frankly, shooting a man in the back is cowardly and vicious behavior I will never condone from law enforcement. If a civilian did it, they would get locked up for a decade. Cops have done it many times before without so much as a serious investigation into their own behavior (the behavior of the victim, that's another matter of course). When the police feel like they can execute people because they might shoot back, the courts and the laws are officially moot. But sadly, once you get a manhunt going, that's exactly what they do. Why shouldn't this mentality be questioned?

[Kamakazie Sith]

In your opinion, does the warning endanger the officers if they've got their gun pointed at him and he's unarmed? That's what Duchess is objecting to - that if you look like Dorner you're a dead man, no matter how non-threatening you are. Because we've already seen where that ends, with the police trying to execute three people so far who have done nothing wrong except own vehicles that are vaguely similar to Dorner's.

In that case I'd prefer a warning be given. However, studies conducted by Dr. Bill Lewinski of the Force Science Institute based out of Minnesota State University, Mankato indicate that when it comes to a trained individual that might not be a wise decision.

From this source under the Immediate vs Imminent Threat section is the following paragraph.

"Time-coded video of a slightly built woman who had never before handled a handgun revealed that she could draw from her waistband and fire faster than the average officer could react from a wide variety of 'ready' positions. Only .07 seconds elapsed from the time her was visible until she shot. Reacting officers were not able to beat her when she had to draw (average time 1.5 seconds) or even when their weapons were out in a low ready position, a close-ready, a belt tuck, a 'Hollywood high guard.' a behind-the-leg 'bootleg' position or 'freed up" in an unsnapped holster.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If "precedence" justified anything, there would be no room for complaining about police behavior ever.

Frankly, shooting a man in the back is cowardly and vicious behavior I will never condone from law enforcement. If a civilian did it, they would get locked up for a decade. Cops have done it many times before without so much as a serious investigation into their own behavior (the behavior of the victim, that's another matter of course). When the police feel like they can execute people because they might shoot back, the courts and the laws are officially moot. But sadly, once you get a manhunt going, that's exactly what they do. Why shouldn't this mentality be questioned?

It isn't a civilians job to go out and confront dangerous people and apprehend them. However, in many states you can shoot someone who has entered your home. Even if they are unarmed. A warning is also not required. You could even shot them in the back if they were running towards your childs room. You could not if they were headed for the front door.

The standard is not "might" shoot back. There needs to be established history. An officer couldn't shoot a person wanted for murder in the back especially without warning unless there was a history that this murderer has attempted to kill or has killed police during attempts to apprehend.

[TheFeniX]

Due process has never been held to a higher standard than the lives of others.

Higher than the officers? Or people like the lady they shot in the back? Your statement seems highly contradictory.

Donner has demonstrated a willingness to kill other people without warning. His targets are not limited to LEO's.

Once again, I'm sensing a bit of irony here: we have cops hunting for him acting the same way. I don't think anyone is actually demanding the cops channel "Demolition Man" and politely ask Donner to lay down OR ELSE!.

But claiming "Hey, there's Donner:" ::queue a hail of gunfire:: is a reasoned response is stupid. Cops shouldn't be allowed to kill someone on-sight because they're dangerous anymore so than they should be denied deadly force because the person shooting at them is an elderly nun. The situation should dictate the response, not the target.

Frankly, shooting a man in the back is cowardly and vicious behavior I will never condone from law enforcement. If a civilian did it, they would get locked up for a decade.

That's.... not really true. I don't care if I see back or front, if I caught an intruder near a loved one and he was between me and them, he's probably not long for this world and I doubt I'd ever see the inside of a prison cell. That however is a far-cry from what the cops deal with because it can be justified to shoot a fleeing person in the back. Especially if it's a escaped violent convict and you're afraid that, if they get away, they can cause more harm. The problem is making sure they're actually the person you're after.

If Donner was identified, then tried to flee, I don't see any ethical or legal implications with shooting him in the back considering, by his own admission, he will kill again. But that doesn't mean killing him no matter the circumstances is justifiable.

[Grumman]

From this source under the Immediate vs Imminent Threat section is the following paragraph.

"Time-coded video of a slightly built woman who had never before handled a handgun revealed that she could draw from her waistband and fire faster than the average officer could react from a wide variety of 'ready' positions. Only .07 seconds elapsed from the time her was visible until she shot. Reacting officers were not able to beat her when she had to draw (average time 1.5 seconds) or even when their weapons were out in a low ready position, a close-ready, a belt tuck, a 'Hollywood high guard.' a behind-the-leg 'bootleg' position or 'freed up" in an unsnapped holster.

That does not appear to be relevant, unless Dorner can draw, aim and pull the trigger faster than the cop can pull the trigger. We're not even talking about the cop holding his gun in a low ready position: when it's already pointed at Dorner's chest, is a warning a liability?

[Formless]

Are you two just dense, or are you purposefully trying to muddy the waters? Home invasion isn't what I'm talking about-- in which case, you should still do a threat assessment before opening fire, regardless of the law. A criminal's history doesn't mean that an officer should be able to just shoot up their car unprovoked like Bonnie and Clyde, who were ambushed no less. There are supposedly laws in place over state executions... that just happen to go right out the window in this kind of man hunt scenario. Does that sound right and just to you? To me it sounds like bullshit, and things like "history" and "precedent" look like pathetic excuses for vindictive behavior.

The invocation of Bonnie and Clyde's story to be a good example of just how unquestioned this is-- Clyde might have shot someone just for looking at him the wrong way, but Bonnie didn't deserve to get riddled full of holes just because she was an accessory to his crimes. Human beings are not rabid dogs no matter how many times that metaphor comes up, and the US is not a war zone where every tactical advantage must be exploited lest we "lose". The so called "Chicago Way" is something I am glad the country strayed from after the twenties and thirties as police procedure got standardized. Yet here we are, talking about a pair of police in that mindset who shot two people in the back who weren't even the right guy as if there was doubt that they did something felonious.

And TheFeniX, I sure hope that if that ever happened, you don't use a load that over penetrates and that you have a crack shot. For your family member's safety, since it doesn't matter who puts a hole in them once (if) they get to the hospital. Other than that, I think you and I agree on the general points.

[TheFeniX]

Home invasion isn't what I'm talking about-- in which case, you should still do a threat assessment before opening fire, regardless of the law.

The threat assessment in that situation is already done. But I'm not about to argue specifics of every possible combination of events that could unfold in a given home invasion. I will say that I have no qualms against shooting someone in the back and neither does the law depending on the circumstances. To expand, I'd club/stab/whatever someone in the back if my life or someone else's depended on it.

And I can think of a few other situations where shooting someone in the back is neither cowardly nor illegal, and could be done by a civilian in a public area. As for the rest, I agree with you.

And TheFeniX, I sure hope that if that ever happened, you don't use a load that over penetrates and that you have a crack shot. For your family member's safety.

I figured I'd fire blind with my Nitro Express. What's the worst that could happen?

[Formless]

(Pssst. I'm using "shot in the back" as a metaphor for the decision making process which you usually but don't always see on display when someone gets shot in the back. Technically, if you want to be overly literal Bonnie and Clyde took just as many shots from the front as from behind. Just a pro tip so you don't look like a pedant. )

[Kamakazie Sith]

Higher than the officers? Or people like the lady they shot in the back? Your statement seems highly contradictory.

You'll need to elaborate more on why it is contradictory because I'm not defending those officers in any way shape or form. I've made that clear yet it still continues to be brought up.

That does not appear to be relevant, unless Dorner can draw, aim and pull the trigger faster than the cop can pull the trigger. We're not even talking about the cop holding his gun in a low ready position: when it's already pointed at Dorner's chest, is a warning a liability?

A variety of ready positions is not from the holster, Grumman. Sorry, I should have explained that. Ready position means the weapon is out of the holster and in a position that allows the firearm to be brought on target quickly. The study shows us that an untrained female can pull from the waistband and fire before an officer at the low ready position can fire first. Dorner is rated as an expert with pistols and rifles. He is also believed to be wearing body armor - what level I'm not sure of.

Are you two just dense, or are you purposefully trying to muddy the waters? Home invasion isn't what I'm talking about-- in which case, you should still do a threat assessment before opening fire, regardless of the law. A criminal's history doesn't mean that an officer should be able to just shoot up their car unprovoked like Bonnie and Clyde, who were ambushed no less. There are supposedly laws in place over state executions... that just happen to go right out the window in this kind of man hunt scenario. Does that sound right and just to you? To me it sounds like bullshit, and things like "history" and "precedent" look like pathetic excuses for vindictive behavior.

You said "If a civilian did it, they would get locked up for a decade".

I gave an example of when a civilian can use deadly force without giving a warning and would not get locked up for a decade. You complained that had civilians opened up on the vehicle, like the officers did, they would be charged. That is true. A civilian isn't wearing a uniform and is not tasked with apprehending extremely dangerous people. So, why would a civilian be there in the first place? It isn't comparable.

The invocation of Bonnie and Clyde's story to be a good example of just how unquestioned this is-- Clyde might have shot someone just for looking at him the wrong way, but Bonnie didn't deserve to get riddled full of holes just because she was an accessory to his crimes. Human beings are not rabid dogs no matter how many times that metaphor comes up, and the US is not a war zone where every tactical advantage must be exploited lest we "lose". The so called "Chicago Way" is something I am glad the country strayed from after the twenties and thirties as police procedure got standardized. Yet here we are, talking about a pair of police in that mindset who shot two people in the back who weren't even the right guy as if there was doubt that they did something felonious.

Nobody here is attempting to say there was any doubt in the felonious behavior of those officers. The arguments being made are directed towards the idea that the officers mindset was to silence Dorner so he can't testify in court or bring the departments problems to light. Everyone here agrees that the officers conduct is unacceptable and deserves criminal charges.

As for Bonnie and Clyde from what I've read on the subject matter it is generally accepted that Bonnie never killed anyone but she did shoot at people.

[Broomstick]

If "precedence" justified anything, there would be no room for complaining about police behavior ever.

The point was that this is not new, nor is it limited to the LAPD. None of the men who ambushed Bonnie and Clyde went to jail.

When the police feel like they can execute people because they might shoot back, the courts and the laws are officially moot.

Except this is NOT a matter of "might" - Clyde, at least, did fire back. He had a history of opening fire on any cop who tried to apprehend him.

Dorner has fired on officers. It's not a hypothetical.

How many cops need to die before you're satisfied?

But sadly, once you get a manhunt going, that's exactly what they do. Why shouldn't this mentality be questioned?

Except.... most of the time manhunts aren't like this. The cops usually aren't this jumpy. Then again, most of the time manhunts don't involve someone with both military and police training specifically targeting cops and their families.

Donner has demonstrated a willingness to kill other people without warning. His targets are not limited to LEO's.

Once again, I'm sensing a bit of irony here: we have cops hunting for him acting the same way. I don't think anyone is actually demanding the cops channel "Demolition Man" and politely ask Donner to lay down OR ELSE!.

But claiming "Hey, there's Donner:" ::queue a hail of gunfire:: is a reasoned response is stupid.

NO ONE IS CLAIMING THAT! EVERY person who has mentioned the incident with the old ladies had made that perfectly clear, they are NOT condoning police action in that instance. How many times does that have to be repeated before you bother to read it?

The fact that the cops have searched the Big Bear area with drawn guns and NOT shot anyone demonstrates that what happened to those women was NOT typical police behavior, it was an aberration.

Fortunately, both women are now out of the hospital and recovering. The LAPD Police Chief has apologized to them in person. The department has promised to replace their truck. The officers involved have been removed from duty and are being investigated. What more do you want done at this point?

Cops shouldn't be allowed to kill someone on-sight because they're dangerous anymore so than they should be denied deadly force because the person shooting at them is an elderly nun. The situation should dictate the response, not the target.

The cops are not primed to shoot Dorner because he is a dangerous man in the ordinary sense of the term. They're primed to kill him because he's specifically targeting them and has already opened fire on them, killing one and putting another officer in intensive care.

The invocation of Bonnie and Clyde's story to be a good example of just how unquestioned this is-- Clyde might have shot someone just for looking at him the wrong way, but Bonnie didn't deserve to get riddled full of holes just because she was an accessory to his crimes.

She was a willing accomplice to over 100 felonies in two years, including eight murders, seven kidnappings, a half dozen bank robberies, various armed robberies, many car thefts, and one major jailbreak. She certainly did shoot at people, she just never managed to hit any. She was in no way an innocent bystander, even if she had not directly murdered anyone.

[Zaune]

Regarding something KS said earlier, I feel I should point out that the fact that this guy has clearly gone out of his gourd is not conclusive proof that he's wrong.

[Broomstick]

That is correct. Which is probably why there is now a new investigation into his firing and the accusations he made.

That doesn't erase the fact he has murdered three, wounded several more, and has stated his intent to "wage war" on the LAPD, their families, and apparently anyone else he feels like shooting.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I can suppose shooting to kill even against unarmed people if they're fleeing and escaped prisoners guilty of serious crimes, or observed in flagrante delicto committing a serious crime, though the rigour of the subsequent investigation should be sure. I understand this is legal in some Balkan countries. It has not been definitely proved that he committed the murders yet, however. If he was just holding a gun or the gun was visible, getting the draw on him by firing before he could draw it, I could also understand.

But if no firearm is visible in the present situation of doubt? Particularly when so many people are around, defending use of force on a couple of anecdotal studies like that seems dubious, particularly when there's no way the study applies to the real world where the person you're confronting is about as equally surprised (i.e., totally ready for murderous fighting, but not aware of immediate contact with you). This woman knows what her job is in the time lapse video--on signal, to draw a weapon very rapidly. But the signal will rarely be that obvious. The same source says .3 to .6 seconds is enough time for two to three additional trigger pulls, KS. It then also says that when she had to draw, it took 1.5 seconds. If you've already got your gun cleared and aimed, you've got 1.2 seconds lead to visually confirm whether or not a gun is being drawn and react with a shot.

The point is that, I'll be honest, "police hunting for rogue cop riddle random trucks full of bullets" just sounds like it comes out of Bogota or something, not the US. Whatever else you think about it, you've got to realize it's going to turn into a massive public relations problem for US law enforcement.

[Simon_Jester]

I'm looking and I haven't found anyone who approves of the "riddle random trucks full of bullets" part. The only thing that even seems to still be in question is whether the police would ever be justified in shooting first, without warning.

The people who say "yes" are pointing to cases of very dangerous criminals who react to warnings by trying to shoot their way out of the situation. The people who say "no" seem to be focusing on... two separate things. One is the right of the fugitive to a warning, the other is the risk of collateral damage.

Those aren't quite the same issue, though. It seems like you're more concerned about collateral damage, which is fair, especially after what just happened with the newspaper delivery women.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, no, I'm mostly concerned with the right of the fugitive to a warning when they've a reasonable presumption of it. I make a distinction between presumption of innocence systems and systems of civil law where blatantly overwhelming evidence (like already being confiscated and then escaping, or in flagrante delicto) could legally justify such things. I don't think a presumption of innocence is necessary for a healthy court system, since clearly Europe's mostly function well.

[Simon_Jester]

OK, I misunderstood.

In that case- does Dorner have reasonable presumption to a warning? Does one have that, if one has a history of reacting to warnings by shooting at the police who warned one?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Yes, he does, because as of yet there's insufficient evidence to show he committed the murders, and in our legal system, innocence is presumed.