Disturbing manifesto of a psycho ex-cop

[zzontar]

zzontar wrote:

Nice to see you can debate with yourself.

Glad to think your so smart, however, the context of my quote, which was quite obvious to anyone but you, is in a civilian scenario, like this one. You asked me about my thoughts in a theater of war. I'm not stupid enough to know what you're trying to do. This was not a war scenario, regardless of the fact that Dorner said it was. The rules, both morally and legally are completely different and you're doing a poor job of convincing anyone otherwise.

You say your convictions remain the same. So do you think Dorner was justified in what he did?

Perhaps you should have said

killing anyone, let alone innocent victims cannot in any twisted version of morality be right, unless your government tells you it is

I've already answered whether I think what he did was right or wrong, but you have to do more reading than trolling to find the answer.

[zzontar]

zzontar wrote:

Lots of people went to war and killed people to take a stand. Do you agree with that?

What is the point you're trying to make with these dumb questions?

The question was asked to Nebula as part of the conversation we were having. You didn't get that so no use explaining the point as you wouldn't get it, but troll on.

[ferri]

please stay on topic. thanks!

[Graham Adder]

please stay on topic. thanks!

k

[goatboy]

Ok, given that you like to all others out on avoiding the question but feel perfectly fine avoiding the yourself I'll answer it for you. You are trying to relate Dorners actions to those of an army in wartime. Right? It's a two way street, you ask questions of others then be prepared to answer some yourself.
BTW, jut because someone calls out your logic doesn't make them a troll, but go ahead, I have thick skin.

[goatboy]

[quote="zzontar"]

Perhaps you should have said [quote]"killing anyone, let alone innocent victims cannot in any twisted version of morality be right, unless your government tells you it is"

No I shouldn't have because that's not what I meant. War time has a different set of moral and legal rules even though your trying very poorly to say otherwise.

[baconbits]

This interview discusses the police reaction aswell as the mainstream media's self-censorship.







Seems pretty evident to me that he was not actively shooting at authorities, and that they simply let fire go. In fact they wanted to make sure that house burn't right to the basement while he was in it.


Why is it that a guy can go in to a movie theatre and shoot up the place killing many strangers, and get takin taken into custody without incident where as with Dorner they we're intent on him not facing the justice system? Oh right because he killed one of they're own and they we're gonna teach him a lesson....

[Nebula]

[quote="baconbits"with Dorner they we're intent on him not facing the justice system? [/quote]
You don't know they were intent on him not facing the justice system.

[baconbits]

They havn't displayed any information to say that they we're.

All you can look at information available and by they're actions, and to me it is pretty evident to anyone with any common sense that they we're not planning on taking him alive. They supposedly arn't going to be giving the million to anyone either because he had to be captured.

[Fancy]

They havn't displayed any information to say that they we're.

All you can look at information available and by they're actions, and to me it is pretty evident to anyone with any common sense that they we're not planning on taking him alive. They supposedly arn't going to be giving the million to anyone either because he had to be captured.

Disagree and that opinion isn't based on common sense as police in most cases try to capture someone alive.

[Nebula]

All you can look at information available and by they're actions, and to me it is pretty evident to anyone with any common sense that they we're not planning on taking him alive.

Ah, nice. I love it when a poster claims anyone who doesn't agree with him lacks common sense.

[baconbits]

Well this was not "most cases"

If you can listen and watch all the media available to you and tell me that they didn't let fire burn to the ground intentionally, knowing that there was a human life inside that building?

[Nebula]

If you can listen and watch all the media available to you and tell me that they didn't let fire burn to the ground intentionally,

It is quite clear the cops let the fire burn. Of course they did. That does not equate to they never wanted to bring him in alive.

The guy had already murdered four people after making claims he would target cops. What exactly would you have had the cops do once the fire started? They sure weren't going to send firefighters in.

[baconbits]

Ah, nice. I love it when a poster claims anyone who doesn't agree with him lacks common sense.

I never said that.

[baconbits]

It is quite clear the cops let the fire burn. Of course they did. That does not equate to they never wanted to bring him in alive.

The guy had already murdered four people after making claims he would target cops. What exactly would you have had the cops do once the fire started? They sure weren't going to send firefighters in.

Good point, I guess that's a perfect plan then isn't it. Set the fire then they can't do anything about it.