Fired Cop On a Murderous Rampage in SoCal

[Mr Bean]

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.

Duchess is there not a sanity check? Even if you want to presume innocence for the original charges he has before witnesses shot his way out of police encounters twice now. Do the cops really need to keep saying "surrender criminal" before they can open fire if he keeps repeating this behavior of engaging the instant cops identify himself?

[Stark]

People need to take a good long look at this - they may care about legal process, rights, and the responsibility not to murder people LESS THAN DUCHESS OF ZEON.

Excuses for the heavy handed use of authority or force has been a big part on N&P since the war, but I'm 'glad' to see it in situations like this too.

[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.

Duchess is there not a sanity check? Even if you want to presume innocence for the original charges he has before witnesses shot his way out of police encounters twice now. Do the cops really need to keep saying "surrender criminal" before they can open fire if he keeps repeating this behavior of engaging the instant cops identify himself?

Maybe sometimes cops need to die to preserve our liberty, to put it bluntly. Maybe the route that makes the officer safest isn't always right, because a suspect deserves a chance to surrender. Policing is a hazardous job. If you don't want it to be--while we're at it, let's ban Alaskan King Crab because fishing for it is more dangerous than policing work. How is this any more different than making the decision that civilian ownership of firearms does mean a certain number of otherwise avoidable deaths? I accept this, and I also accept the idea that civil rights in police interactions may, occasionally, get police killed. Why does nobody else? If we're going to abrogate civil rights for safety, why don't we just summarily execute gang members to intimidate gangs and reduce the crime rate? What's the difference between that and deciding that someone is "too threatening" to provide with a chance to surrender?

[Mr Bean]

Maybe sometimes cops need to die to preserve our liberty, to put it bluntly. Maybe the route that makes the officer safest isn't always right, because a suspect deserves a chance to surrender. Policing is a hazardous job. If you don't want it to be--while we're at it, let's ban Alaskan King Crab because fishing for it is more dangerous than policing work. How is this any more different than making the decision that civilian ownership of firearms does mean a certain number of otherwise avoidable deaths? I accept this, and I also accept the idea that civil rights in police interactions may, occasionally, get police killed. Why does nobody else? If we're going to abrogate civil rights for safety, why don't we just summarily execute gang members to intimidate gangs and reduce the crime rate? What's the difference between that and deciding that someone is "too threatening" to provide with a chance to surrender?

Duchess that tracks far afield of my basic question.

Lets us play a hypothetical (That Dorner is one step away from making reality)
A man is charged with a crime and runs, the man is stopped by cops, the man shoots cops and gets away.
A man who is charged with a crime and has been witnessed shooting cops is stopped by more cops and shoots them to get away (This is where we are at with Dorner)
A man who has twice exchanged gunfire with cops is spotted again, are those cops still required to give him a chance to surrender
How about the next incident if they do ask him to surrender and he gets away again to be stopped by yet more cops?

Where is the break even point before you can remove the restriction of attempting to take him alive rather than simply engaging him when he's spotted? I'm not talking about dropping a Hellfire on his head from a Predator, but at what point after how many times and how much violence can the restriction of the verbal warning be lifted and he simply be engaged by any police forces.

[Kamakazie Sith]

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.

Definite proof is not required under the constitution. Probable cause is required. Officers need probable cause that issuing a warning will endanger their lives.

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 1.5 seconds is the amount of time it took officers to draw and fire. Not the amount of time it took her to draw and fire but that's good point. I've spent a quite a few hours reading the other studies conducted by this organization. In this study the time to fire is measured from a number of positions ranging from a level 3 holster to having sight on target and ready to fire. Here is that source; http://www.forcescience.org/biomachanics.html

1. Finger on trigger – simple, unsighted, reaction time - .35
2. Finger on trigger with a sight picture, reaction time - .38
3. Finger on frame – simple, unsighted, reaction time - .45
4. Finger on frame with a sight picture, reaction time - .54
5. Time to fire a second round in a series of three (with sight picture) - .38
6. Time to fire a third round in a series of three (with sight picture) - .36
7. Weapon in low-ready position (45 degree angle) with the finger on frame, raise the weapon, acquire sight picture, fire one round - .83
8. Weapon in tactical or a high/low-ready position with the finger on frame, raise the weapon, acquire sight picture, fire one round - .83
9. Time to move the weapon from the low-ready position on target - .64
10. Time to acquire a sight picture after moving the weapon from between 6 to 22inches to a position on target - .18
11. Close-ready to sight picture and fire – 1.0
12. Belt-tuck to sight picture and fire – 1.0
13. Hollywood high guard to sight picture and fire – 1.1
14. Bootleg position to a sight picture and fire – 1.3
15. Bootleg position to close contact (combat tuck) position and fire - .92
16. Draw and fire on round (start position was from, hand at the side of the body near the holster, weapon in holster, either snapped or unsnapped.)
• Level One Holster – off duty (snapped) – 1.87 (unsnapped) – 1.71
On duty (snapped) – 1.71 (unsnapped) – 1.61
• Level Two Holster - (snapped) – 1.92 (unsnapped) - 1.72
• Level Three Holster – (snapped) – 2.00 (unsnapped) – 1.78
17. Draw and fire one round from close contact/combat tuck position (start position was from hand at the side of the body near the holster, weapon snapped in holster)
• Level One off duty – 1.50
• Level One on duty – 1.31
• Level Two – 1.51
• Level Three – 1.70
18. Shotgun – from port to point and fire – 1.28
19. Shotgun – from low-ready to point and fire - .98
20. Shotgun – from high-ready to point and fire - .84

With this information I will concede on no warning when he appears unarmed. However, I don't agree with waiting for a gun to be visible before firing. I'll go with furtive movement. In other words they made a go for their waistband when ordered to get their hands up.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Maybe sometimes cops need to die to preserve our liberty, to put it bluntly. Maybe the route that makes the officer safest isn't always right, because a suspect deserves a chance to surrender. Policing is a hazardous job. If you don't want it to be--while we're at it, let's ban Alaskan King Crab because fishing for it is more dangerous than policing work. How is this any more different than making the decision that civilian ownership of firearms does mean a certain number of otherwise avoidable deaths? I accept this, and I also accept the idea that civil rights in police interactions may, occasionally, get police killed. Why does nobody else? If we're going to abrogate civil rights for safety, why don't we just summarily execute gang members to intimidate gangs and reduce the crime rate? What's the difference between that and deciding that someone is "too threatening" to provide with a chance to surrender?

That doesn't follow with the constitution though. You're now sacrificing their liberty. I'm not really sure where this misconception comes from. There is nothing in the constitution that says police have less expectation to live than anyone else. A suspect does deserve a chance to surrender but Dorner has that chance. He can surrender at any time but instead he continues to evade police.

Gang members are violent towards each other and that is usually the most prolific members. Not all gang members murder other gang members. That logic does not follow. Dorner on the hand has murdered defenseless civilians, ambushed two police officers and injured another.

People need to take a good long look at this - they may care about legal process, rights, and the responsibility not to murder people LESS THAN DUCHESS OF ZEON.

Excuses for the heavy handed use of authority or force has been a big part on N&P since the war, but I'm 'glad' to see it in situations like this too.

That's true. That's why studies of use of force scenarios should be conducted and not relying on our feelings.

[Vendetta]

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.

Duchess is there not a sanity check? Even if you want to presume innocence for the original charges he has before witnesses shot his way out of police encounters twice now. Do the cops really need to keep saying "surrender criminal" before they can open fire if he keeps repeating this behavior of engaging the instant cops identify himself?

Well, it would be nice if they'd at least make a positive identification of the criminal before opening fire.

Like, y'know, they already haven't once.

[Flagg]

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.

Duchess is there not a sanity check? Even if you want to presume innocence for the original charges he has before witnesses shot his way out of police encounters twice now. Do the cops really need to keep saying "surrender criminal" before they can open fire if he keeps repeating this behavior of engaging the instant cops identify himself?

Well, it would be nice if they'd at least make a positive identification of the criminal before opening fire.

Like, y'know, they already haven't once.

Twice. They did it twice.

[Simon_Jester]

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.

Then it seems like Dorner is benefiting from... call it abuse of the presumption of innocence.

Suppose that John Doe has warrants out for his arrest, for an infamous crime. Doe flees and escapes arrest, then tries to shoot his way out of every police attempt to bring him to justice.

If there is enough evidence to put warrants out for Doe's arrest, and police identify Doe and try to bring him into custody, and Doe responds by violently resisting arrest- at that point, the problem isn't that Doe hasn't been proven guilty of a crime. He could be totally innocent of the original charge and that wouldn't change the problem. The problem is that Doe has decided to violently resist arrest, which means the police are taking their lives into their hands every time they try to bring him in.

Resisting arrest is still illegal, even if you believe you are innocent of the crime you're being arrested for. There are good reasons for that.

So what do we do then? Does Doe get the right to shoot first every time he resists another arrest attempt? That's clearly not what 'innocent until proven guilty' is meant to cover.

[Stark]

Does imagining a world where what happened might make sense or be ok help you deal with the facts that it happens now and its not ok? Does creating a formula for acceptability dispel your lingering anxieties about the abuse of power and lack of responsibility?

Can I just tag on 'and then they think they see someone who sort of looks like Doe and shoots them one hundred times and then finds out it wasn't' to the end of your fairy tale to make it a bit more contemporary?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Does imagining a world where what happened might make sense or be ok help you deal with the facts that it happens now and its not ok? Does creating a formula for acceptability dispel your lingering anxieties about the abuse of power and lack of responsibility?

Can I just tag on 'and then they think they see someone who sort of looks like Doe and shoots them one hundred times and then finds out it wasn't' to the end of your fairy tale to make it a bit more contemporary?

This is a strawman. Nobody in this entire thread feels it is acceptable to shoot without warning or provocation someone that "looks like" Dorner or any hypothetical character. That is also not what the law deems acceptable.

For example. If instead of two old Asian ladies there was just one black male that fit the build of Dorner those officers would still NOT be justified because the vehicle was still the wrong make/model/color. So, your tag isn't what anyone here has said and it isn't what the law says.

[Dominarch's Hope]

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.

Duchess is there not a sanity check? Even if you want to presume innocence for the original charges he has before witnesses shot his way out of police encounters twice now. Do the cops really need to keep saying "surrender criminal" before they can open fire if he keeps repeating this behavior of engaging the instant cops identify himself?

Its not a matter of sanity, its how first world legal systems are supposed to work.

Presumption of Innocence in the courtroom. You have to prove GUILT, not innocence.

Once, if, it gets to the courtroom. NO. EXCEPTIONS.

The fontsized is for explicit emphasise.

However, he is most likely to be shot on sight. 4chan's been rambling off on it being by a drone to establish precedence.

Personally, long as an actual human is doing the 'firing' and not some filthy AI, it doesnt bother me too much.

[Alyrium Denryle]

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.

Last I checked, Intent Follows the Bullet. If I shoot to kill, but I hit the wrong person, I was not acting recklessly, I am committing murder.

I will be really really blunt here. The LAPD is not a police force. It has not been a police force for some time. It is an organized crime outfit with uniforms.

It murders civilians with impunity, obstructs the prosecution of those murderers, and is so corrupt it would make the roman senate under Commodus or for fucks sake the Minerals Management Service blush.

This is a police force that when confronted with some children who's mother dropped them off at the police station for their own protection (from her drug addiction), an action which is legal, went out to arrest her. They ended up beating her to death--including genital stomps, by the way. That was back in July. No charges. The tape has not been released as of december.

Their internal investigations are worth less than the paper they are printed on. Their integrity as witnesses is less than 0. Their competence when it comes to threat assessment is Nil. The department needs to be purged completely. Disbanded, anyone who is not squeaky fucking clean put on a no-hire blacklist, and the entire police department rebuilt from new recruits.

[Stark]

This is a strawman. Nobody in this entire thread feels it is acceptable to shoot without warning or provocation someone that "looks like" Dorner or any hypothetical character. That is also not what the law deems acceptable.

For example. If instead of two old Asian ladies there was just one black male that fit the build of Dorner those officers would still NOT be justified because the vehicle was still the wrong make/model/color. So, your tag isn't what anyone here has said and it isn't what the law says.

No, it'd be a strawman if I said anyone thought that. I'm simply commenting on poor Simon's attempt to rationalise events and make them ok by creating a fantasy. Of course nobody believes hosing down a random car with innocent people in it is right or correct or legal - but the LAPD did it. There's a gulf between understanding what led to that tragedy and any attempt to put a positive or acceptable spin on it.

However, I think the cops involved should go to jail, which is probably a more contentious opinion.

[Alyrium Denryle]

This is a strawman. Nobody in this entire thread feels it is acceptable to shoot without warning or provocation someone that "looks like" Dorner or any hypothetical character. That is also not what the law deems acceptable.

For example. If instead of two old Asian ladies there was just one black male that fit the build of Dorner those officers would still NOT be justified because the vehicle was still the wrong make/model/color. So, your tag isn't what anyone here has said and it isn't what the law says.

No, it'd be a strawman if I said anyone thought that. I'm simply commenting on poor Simon's attempt to rationalise events and make them ok by creating a fantasy. Of course nobody believes hosing down a random car with innocent people in it is right or correct or legal - but the LAPD did it. There's a gulf between understanding what led to that tragedy and any attempt to put a positive or acceptable spin on it.

However, I think the cops involved should go to jail, which is probably a more contentious opinion.

Yes it is. But only because it is not an expansive enough opinion. More than just those officers need to be in prison.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Last I checked, Intent Follows the Bullet. If I shoot to kill, but I hit the wrong person, I was not acting recklessly, I am committing murder.

Sounds like you were acting recklessly to me. I think you'll need to back that up with some case law.

I will be really really blunt here. The LAPD is not a police force. It has not been a police force for some time. It is an organized crime outfit with uniforms.

It murders civilians with impunity, obstructs the prosecution of those murderers, and is so corrupt it would make the roman senate under Commodus or for fucks sake the Minerals Management Service blush.

Therefore you declare that all officers who wear the uniform are criminals! In regards to the context of this thread what exactly is your point here?

This is a police force that when confronted with some children who's mother dropped them off at the police station for their own protection (from her drug addiction), an action which is legal, went out to arrest her. They ended up beating her to death--including genital stomps, by the way. That was back in July. No charges. The tape has not been released as of december.

That's terrible and vague. Why is it acceptable to post vague statements with no way for your opponent to research them in these police threads?

Their internal investigations are worth less than the paper they are printed on. Their integrity as witnesses is less than 0. Their competence when it comes to threat assessment is Nil. The department needs to be purged completely. Disbanded, anyone who is not squeaky fucking clean put on a no-hire blacklist, and the entire police department rebuilt from new recruits.

Because over reacting is a way to solve problems. When you say squeaky clean what do you mean?

I understand why you came to that conclusion. The LAPD has a very dirty history. Though I don't understand why you participate in these threads. There is simply nothing the LAPD could do to satisfy you.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Its not a matter of sanity, its how first world legal systems are supposed to work.

Presumption of Innocence in the courtroom. You have to prove GUILT, not innocence.

That does not reflect reality out in the field. In the courtroom you have presumption of innocence. However, when you're a wanted criminal that remains at large and continues to evade and kill police then your presumption of innocence does not override the right to life.

No, it'd be a strawman if I said anyone thought that. I'm simply commenting on poor Simon's attempt to rationalise events and make them ok by creating a fantasy. Of course nobody believes hosing down a random car with innocent people in it is right or correct or legal - but the LAPD did it. There's a gulf between understanding what led to that tragedy and any attempt to put a positive or acceptable spin on it.

Yes, LAPD officers did do it. Nobody here, even Simon, is attempting to rationalize that. The debate prior was the assertion that the LAPD officers opened fire to "prevent Dorner from testifying or exposing the truth". Simon is commenting on the discussion that officers can't open fire on Dorner without a warning. Not on someone that looks like Dorner.

In my opinion what led to the tragedy is a direct threat to the families of officers. The two elderly Hispanic women that were shot by LAPD. They were shot by officers that were on a guard assignment at the home of one of the threatened officers so when a vehicle that appeared to match the description showed up and behaved in a suspicious manner the officers recklessly engaged it without further inspection. I only say matching the description because it was during the early morning hours and the actual picture of Dorner's vehicle appears blue in the shade.

However, I think the cops involved should go to jail, which is probably a more contentious opinion.

Maybe somewhere that belief is contentious but not in this thread.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Sounds like you were acting recklessly to me. I think you'll need to back that up with some case law.

http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-scott-31779

http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nmlr/17/1/07_ ... iminal.pdf

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/ ... o-4319.pdf

You were saying?

Therefore you declare that all officers who wear the uniform are criminals! In regards to the context of this thread what exactly is your point here?

Not every officer no, but the institution itself is corrupt and even the good ones know it, and do nothing. So what is to be done? Allow the LAPD to continue existing as a corrupt body? No.

As for my point, I wanted to avoid saying it directly, because I know someone is going to pick a sentence out of its context and accuse me of supporting a crazed gunman. But what the hell?

While I (obviously) dont condone murder, I can understand why Dorner has basically gone insane (or more insane).

He started off idealistic, then saw how shit really is, sees himself as having been fired for trying to do the right thing, sees a person he thinks (rightly or wrongly though my bayesian priors are set to give considerable weight to the idea for the obvious reasons) unjustifiably beat the shit out of a mentally ill guy get promoted. A normal person would be very very very angry about this chain of events if it happened to be true. A normal person might write angry letters, go to the news media etc. Someone who is paranoid (and I suspect that is exactly what he is) might read this into a firing for other reasons. Or the reasons could be absolutely true, but his reaction taken out of proportion. Over the course of a few years, let that stew in a mentally ill brain and oh look. Mass murder. But that does not mean the fundamental complaint--namely, that the LAPD is as dirty as meth-addicted hooker after an oil refinery inspection orgy (read: the Minerals Management Service)--is incorrect.

The sad irony is that while he is absolutely correct about the LAPD, his very actions in response undermine his case. When most lunatics start killing, it is about some crazed paranoid delusion. In this case, the thing that has induced him to kill is something that is at least partially true. Makes discussing the matter somewhat difficult.

I understand why you came to that conclusion. The LAPD has a very dirty history. Though I don't understand why you participate in these threads. There is simply nothing the LAPD could do to satisfy you.

Sure there is. Stop being a bunch of dirty fuckers. Clean up their god damn act. If that is impossible, then frankly, the increased level of protection and trust society affords them ought be forfeit. They should not be treated by the law or society as police officers. Chris Dorner has gone insane (or more insane), he needs to be brought to justice--but not by the LAPD, because the LAPD is no longer competent to do so. That last part should be obvious, because they are shooting random people at this point.

[Simon_Jester]

People need to take a good long look at this - they may care about legal process, rights, and the responsibility not to murder people LESS THAN DUCHESS OF ZEON.

I've never thought I could model Duchess's opinions on a sliding scale from "total respect for life/due process all the time" to "no respect for it ever." She's more complicated than that. In this case I think I'm less respectful of those things than she is; some time next week roles will be reversed. [shrugs]

Well, it would be nice if they'd at least make a positive identification of the criminal before opening fire.

Like, y'know, they already haven't once.

That, I insist on. The LAPD needs enough hammerings, this can be one of them.

Does imagining a world where what happened might make sense or be ok help you deal with the facts that it happens now and its not ok? Does creating a formula for acceptability dispel your lingering anxieties about the abuse of power and lack of responsibility?

Can I just tag on 'and then they think they see someone who sort of looks like Doe and shoots them one hundred times and then finds out it wasn't' to the end of your fairy tale to make it a bit more contemporary?

No, it'd be a strawman if I said anyone thought that. I'm simply commenting on poor Simon's attempt to rationalise events and make them ok by creating a fantasy.

Police being incompetent and murderous and shooting up someone who isn't Public Enemy #1 after all has nothing to do with my question.

I was trying to communicate with people here who can be communicated with. So I asked- do police always have to call out a warning, after firmly identifying the suspect, before using violence?

And apparently you didn't want to answer the question directly so you swung back to some bullshit. I mean jeez. Last time, I almost got into this digression about blah blah what if the guys who ambushed Bonnie and Clyde had shot up a few cars full of civilians before getting the gangsters. But that would have been too irrelevant even for me; apparently it wasn't for you.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Sounds like you were acting recklessly to me. I think you'll need to back that up with some case law.

http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-scott-31779

http://lawlibrary.unm.edu/nmlr/17/1/07_ ... iminal.pdf

http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/ ... o-4319.pdf

You were saying?

All those involve situations in which the defendant attempted to murder one person but missed and murdered another. The situation with LAPD is potentially different. That's why I said the charges against the officers could range anywhere from attempted voluntary manslaughter to murder.

For example, it would be lawful for officers to use deadly force to prevent Dorners' escape if he tried to flee from them in his vehicle. (Strawman protection - I said Dorner...not someone that looks like him or a vehicle that is not his)

Not every officer no, but the institution itself is corrupt and even the good ones know it, and do nothing. So what is to be done? Allow the LAPD to continue existing as a corrupt body? No.

Well, the media is reporting that analysts and lawyers all say the LAPD has improved but I haven't read those actual studies. This article from CNN talks about it. Source

But they still do have a long way to go before they've cleaned up their record.

As for my point, I wanted to avoid saying it directly, because I know someone is going to pick a sentence out of its context and accuse me of supporting a crazed gunman. But what the hell?

While I (obviously) dont condone murder, I can understand why Dorner has basically gone insane (or more insane).

He started off idealistic, then saw how shit really is, sees himself as having been fired for trying to do the right thing, sees a person he thinks (rightly or wrongly though my bayesian priors are set to give considerable weight to the idea for the obvious reasons) unjustifiably beat the shit out of a mentally ill guy get promoted. A normal person would be very very very angry about this chain of events if it happened to be true. A normal person might write angry letters, go to the news media etc. Someone who is paranoid (and I suspect that is exactly what he is) might read this into a firing for other reasons. Or the reasons could be absolutely true, but his reaction taken out of proportion. Over the course of a few years, let that stew in a mentally ill brain and oh look. Mass murder. But that does not mean the fundamental complaint--namely, that the LAPD is as dirty as meth-addicted hooker after an oil refinery inspection orgy (read: the Minerals Management Service)--is incorrect.

The sad irony is that while he is absolutely correct about the LAPD, his very actions in response undermine his case. When most lunatics start killing, it is about some crazed paranoid delusion. In this case, the thing that has induced him to kill is something that is at least partially true. Makes discussing the matter somewhat difficult.

I think it's just an excuse he's using to justify his decision to murder people...especially those that are innocent.

Sure there is. Stop being a bunch of dirty fuckers. Clean up their god damn act. If that is impossible, then frankly, the increased level of protection and trust society affords them ought be forfeit. They should not be treated by the law or society as police officers. Chris Dorner has gone insane (or more insane), he needs to be brought to justice--but not by the LAPD, because the LAPD is no longer competent to do so. That last part should be obvious, because they are shooting random people at this point.

It isn't obvious actually. Those individual officers aren't competent, however, people should not be judged as a group by the actions of individuals. We'll see how the group handles the actions of these individuals. If they get off without being charged then I will agree that the LAPD is still as dirty as ever.

[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.

Then it seems like Dorner is benefiting from... call it abuse of the presumption of innocence.

Suppose that John Doe has warrants out for his arrest, for an infamous crime. Doe flees and escapes arrest, then tries to shoot his way out of every police attempt to bring him to justice.

If there is enough evidence to put warrants out for Doe's arrest, and police identify Doe and try to bring him into custody, and Doe responds by violently resisting arrest- at that point, the problem isn't that Doe hasn't been proven guilty of a crime. He could be totally innocent of the original charge and that wouldn't change the problem. The problem is that Doe has decided to violently resist arrest, which means the police are taking their lives into their hands every time they try to bring him in.

Resisting arrest is still illegal, even if you believe you are innocent of the crime you're being arrested for. There are good reasons for that.

So what do we do then? Does Doe get the right to shoot first every time he resists another arrest attempt? That's clearly not what 'innocent until proven guilty' is meant to cover.

If the police witness him in flagrante delicto shooting his way out of an ambush, taking him down is a different thing. This hasn't happened with Dorner yet.

[Kamakazie Sith]

If the police witness him in flagrante delicto shooting his way out of an ambush, taking him down is a different thing. This hasn't happened with Dorner yet.

Well, early morning on 2/7/2013 two LAPD officers were fired on by someone believed to be Dorner simply for just following him. I guess a citizen waved down these officers and reported he saw a man that resembled Dorner driving a pickup truck. The two officers found the pickup truck and followed it. The driver got out and fired on them with a rifle which grazed one officers head.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Do we know that was Dorner? I mean it's not like random shootings are uncommon in LA.

[Agent Fisher]

Random shootings of LAPD black and whites are pretty uncommon.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, early morning on 2/7/2013 two LAPD officers were fired on by someone believed to be Dorner simply for just following him. I guess a citizen waved down these officers and reported he saw a man that resembled Dorner driving a pickup truck. The two officers found the pickup truck and followed it. The driver got out and fired on them with a rifle which grazed one officers head.

Given what happened to the last people who were driving a vehicle that resembled Dorner's... some might call that justifiable self defense.

(Not serious there. It was just there... waiting to be said and I cannot resist a good straight line with which to deadpan.)

All those involve situations in which the defendant attempted to murder one person but missed and murdered another. The situation with LAPD is potentially different. That's why I said the charges against the officers could range anywhere from attempted voluntary manslaughter to murder.

For example, it would be lawful for officers to use deadly force to prevent Dorners' escape if he tried to flee from them in his vehicle. (Strawman protection - I said Dorner...not someone that looks like him or a vehicle that is not his)

Well thankfully the crime of manslaughter is defined by statute:

CA PENAL CODE
SECTION 187-199

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.

<<Snip Section on Fetuses>>

188. Such malice may be express or implied. It is express when
there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature. It is implied, when no considerable
provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing
show an abandoned and malignant heart.
When it is shown that the killing resulted from the intentional
doing of an act with express or implied malice as defined above, no
other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of
malice aforethought. Neither an awareness of the obligation to act
within the general body of laws regulating society nor acting despite
such awareness is included within the definition of malice.

OK. Now for Manslaughter

192. Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without
malice. It is of three kinds:
(a) Voluntary--upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.
(b) Involuntary--in the commission of an unlawful act, not
amounting to felony; or in the commission of a lawful act which might
produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection. This subdivision shall not apply to acts committed in
the driving of a vehicle.

<<Snip Vehicular>>

"Gross negligence," as used in this section, shall not be
construed as prohibiting or precluding a charge of murder under
Section 188 upon facts exhibiting wantonness and a conscious
disregard for life to support a finding of implied malice, or upon
facts showing malice, consistent with the holding of the California
Supreme Court in People v. Watson, 30 Cal. 3d 290.

<<SNip sentencing and more vehicular provisions>>

196. Homicide is justifiable when committed by public officers and
those acting by their command in their aid and assistance, either--
1. In obedience to any judgment of a competent Court; or,
2. When necessarily committed in overcoming actual resistance to
the execution of some legal process, or in the discharge of any other
legal duty; or,
3. When necessarily committed in retaking felons who have been
rescued or have escaped, or when necessarily committed in arresting
persons charged with felony, and who are fleeing from justice or
resisting such arrest.

So, the question is, did the police officers in question act with malice or gross negligence?

From the LAPD's own (much abused) Use of Force policy
http://www.lapdonline.org/assets/pdf/20 ... Report.pdf

Objectively Reasonable.
The legal standard used to determine the lawfulness of
a use of force is the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. See
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Graham states in part, "The
reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of
a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of
hindsight. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact
that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments - in
circumstances that are tense, uncertain and rapidly evolving - about the amount
of force that is necessary in a particular situation. The test of reasonableness is
not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” The force must be
reasonable under the circumstances known to the officer at the time the force
was used. Therefore, the Department examines all uses of force from an objective
standard rather than a subjective standard.

....

Deadly Force. Law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force to:
Protect themselves or others from what is reasonably believed to be
in imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury; or, Prevent a crime where the
suspect’s actions place person(s) in imminent jeopardy of death or serious bodily
injury; or, Prevent the escape of a violent fleeing felon when there is probable
cause to believe the escape will pose a significant threat of death or serious bodily
injury to the officer or others if apprehension is delayed. In this circumstance,
officers shall, to the extent practical, avoid using deadly force that might subject
innocent bystanders or hostages to possible death or injury.

....

Shooting At or From Moving Vehicles. Firearms shall not be discharged at a
moving vehicle unless a person in the vehicle is immediately threatening the
officer or another person with deadly force by means other than the vehicle. The
moving vehicle itself shall not presumptively constitute a threat that justifies an
officer’s use of deadly force. An officer threatened by an oncoming vehicle shall
move out of its path instead of discharging a firearm at it or any of its occupants.
Firearms shall not be discharged from a moving vehicle, except in exigent
circumstances and in the immediate defense of life.

So, what do we know? We know that any reasonable officer would know that there are a lot of blue pickup trucks and that if they were wrong, they might shoot and kill an innocent person. We also know that they are specifically prohibited from firing at a moving vehicle (outside really strange situations)

Manslaughter generally covers death during recklessly performed lawful actions where there was no intent to cause death (for example, unsafely operating heavy machinery where death is not intended but is a foreseeable consequence for a legally reasonable person), or unlawful actions where there was no intent to cause death (someone dying as a result of a bar fight). Their actions were not lawful actions (unjustified use of force).

Shooting at someone qualifies as intent to cause death. That moves the matter up to murder. They were not behaving with recklessness, but under CA state law, "with an abandoned and malignant heart". They were going to kill someone, they might have wanted a specific target, but did not give a damn if they hit someone else--which they knew was a strong possibility.

2nd degree murder.

But they still do have a long way to go before they've cleaned up their record.

Just to sting the article you posted a bit

A couple of decades of reform seemed to make things better. Officers of color were recruited, and the department worked on community relations. About a year ago, the force nailed one of its own: a female detective who killed her romantic rival in a cold case dating back 26 years.

They did indeed. After refusing to investigate the matter as a domestic one--despite the father of the victim begging them to--for 26 years. They instead blamed the killing on "unidentified latino male burglars".

Just saying.

I think it's just an excuse he's using to justify his decision to murder people...especially those that are innocent.

Only one type of person just "decides" to kill innocent people. Serial killers, and they start before their thirties and dont post manifestos. Spree killers who post up manifestos have reasons. They might even actually be good reasons (sometimes. Not always or even most of the time, but sometimes. Nor am I saying that the good reasons justify their actions, but rather, that the reasons themselves might be considered moral goods). They are just crazy and do not "express their discontent" through socially legally or morally appropriate channels (now THAT right there, is a euphamism and understatement). This may extend to very tenuous connections to the people who have wronged them (or "wronged" them).

If they get off without being charged then I will agree that the LAPD is still as dirty as ever.

Wager on it? If I am right, I owe you a drink the next time I am in SLC, if the converse is true, you owe me one? Say, set the benchmark for rightness on criminal charges being pressed? The terms there are of course negotiable.