Disturbing manifesto of a psycho ex-cop

[JLives]

There is no question in my mind Dorner was murdered by the *edit* police. There is also no question Dorner murdered others. I think it's time we either throw out out the rule of law or vigorously adhere to it. To paraphrase the role of the police (that is suitable for a topic itself) is to make sure justice is served, it's part of being a civilized society. That doesn't mean vigilante, rah-rah, shoot the bad guy justice but facing his consequences in a court of law. Why even have police? Why don't we all just hunt down and kill the bad guy who did us wrong? Think of all the tax dollars it could save!

[Nebula]

There is no question in my mind Dorner was murdered by the LAPD.

That sentiment would not be unanimous.

Was the LAPD even present at the cabin? How do you know he was murdered? There are reports that there was a single gunshot from inside the cabin shortly after the fire began. Will you change your mind if it is found that Dorner shot himself?

[Captain Awesome]

That doesn't mean vigilante, rah-rah, shoot the bad guy justice but facing his consequences in a court of law. Why even have police?

Well, I'm not sure what you expect police officers to do when they face an individual who proclaimed he will kill anybody who stands in his way - and he has an a rifle in his hands and he is shooting at them. Hug him to death? Will that be considered to be murder too?

I think some people have a very blurry idea of what 'murder' is. The state gives citizens and certain professionals right (and duty) to stop other people from breaking the law - even if it means by using lethal weapons. That's not murder, that's doing their job. Not to mention things like "self defense".

[JLives]

Anything they can possibly do to get him into court and face consequences. Consequences in a civil society are not the police will light you on fire or shoot you before knowing if you are even the subject they are hunting. They were ready to kill him before he ever went in that cabin as evidenced by the innocent bystanders in the hospital right now. Shoot first, apologize later. This is completely unacceptable behavioral in a civil society which is what I thought we (first world countries) were striving to be. What the suspect did or believed in should be irrelevant to the police. They need to bring him in and make sure justice is served. Is this really unreasonable? What is wrong with us?

[Captain Awesome]

Anything they can possibly do to get him into court and face consequences.

I don't know how it is possible to get him into court without getting more police killed. You know, since he promised to kill anybody wearing a uniform. And he had a rifle in his hands. And was shooting at them. Is there some magical way of arresting somebody like this that doesn't involve unicorn dust?

[JLives]

They weren't even trying. They were shooting anything that moved that may be him. Were the innocent bystanders shooting at the police? Were the police in danger then? The police were the ones that lit the building on fire and then didn't allow it to be put out so a just way to play out the situation was not able to unfold. Bringing him alive was never on the table and that is the problem. It is not their decision to make, that belongs to the court.

The consequences for murder is not being burned alive by police (if he shot himself or not).

[Nebula]

The consequences for murder is not being burned alive by police (if he shot himself or not).

You don't know he was burned alive.

[Captain Awesome]

They weren't even trying.

Once again, what would you like them to try? A sick individual who killed police officers already is shooting at them. What's the magical way of arresting somebody like this they should have tried?

Were the police in danger then?

Well...is being shot at with a rifle dangerous?

[zzontar]

So you're justifying him killing at least two completely innocent people because it may save other lives?

Now that is one twisted logic. Regardless of what the LAPD has or will do, killing anyone, let alone innocent victims cannot in any twisted version of morality be right.

Do you believe no military maneuvres that would have knowingly killed innocent people even if it was to save many should ever have been committed?

[JLives]

Well...is being shot at with a rifle dangerous?

The innocent bystanders were not shooting at the police. They posed no danger and people should be furious they were shot.

[Nebula]

Do you believe no military maneuvres that would have knowingly killed innocent people even if it was to save many should ever have been committed?

Do you really equate Dorner's actions to the military?

[Captain Awesome]

The innocent bystanders were not shooting at the police.

A mentally unstable individual was shooting at them. Was it dangerous to police officers? Was it their duty and right to shoot back to protect themselves and the public?

I notice you conveniently ignored my first question. Nothing to say?

[JLives]

I would like them to try everything, they tried nothing but killing.

[Nebula]

I would like them to try everything, they tried nothing but killing.

Again, you go off about the cops killing Dorner. You simply don't know that at this point.

[JLives]

A mentally unstable individual was shooting at them. Was it dangerous to police officers? Was it their duty and right to shoot back to protect themselves and the public?

I notice you conveniently ignored my first question. Nothing to say?

NOBODY was shooting at them in the incident I am referring to. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... an-71.html