comment on Dorner.
The outcome was set in stone once the cops began looking for him. Unless he turned himself in to another county, with news media present, his demise was certain.
Was he innocent? probably not. But go HERE, follow the link, and read the transcript of the final moments.
You might begin to understand.
And keep shooting until the threat is stopped
So says the Lewis County Sheriff Steve Mansfield.
Good advice, I think.
It is bad enough that they use the dead children as props in their assault on your freedom.
But those who are allowing Gabby Giffords to be used as a tool in the fight for gun control should be beaten about the knees with a small ball peen hammer.
I want one.
Question for the police:
Since the LAPD seems to feel that they have the right to murder Christopher Dorner….The fact that they have attempted to do so twice, opening fire wildly on pickups that (sorta, in the fact that they are pickups) resemble Mr Dorner’s…..piloted by people who don’t resemble him at all demonstrates this.
Does Mr. Dorner have the right to due process? To the assumption of innocence until tried and convicted? Or do the police have the right to presumptively kill him to safeguard themselves? I realize that they think that he killed “one of their own”, but does that suspicion give them the right to kill him over that suspicion rather than attempt to arrest him?
Do you and I have that right? Can we preemptively unload the contents of our firearms in the general direction of someone we suspect may do us harm? Do we have the right to kill someone we think may have murdered a family member or friend? Or are we required to let the justice system work and let the State decide the punishment? Have we the right to take the law into our own hands?
Apparently the police do (or at least they THINK they do, and no one is stopping them). While it appears that Mr. Dorner has done some bad things, do the police have the right to gun him down without attempting to arrest him first? For all we know, he is innocent of the charges. (probably not, but until tried, do they have the right to execute him?). They act as if they DO have the right, if only to protect themselves. I disagree. If they are that afraid, the perhaps they are in the wrong line of work. If they cannot accept that the job has a certain amount of risk, then perhaps they should choose another profession.
The police DO NOT have the right to preemtively gun down a person suspected of a crime. Period. Be it against the police fraternity or any other citizen. They may (obviously) feel that they do, in order that they go home safe at the end of the day. Or to extract “Justice”. Too bad. They don’t have that right.
‘Cause if they have that right, then the rest of us do too. And truthfully, I think the police are as much a danger to me as any other people I meet on a daily basis. Which would make them legal targets for me. Which would turn out bad for everybody involved. Luckily, I don’t have that right….Neither should the police….nor do they.
I really don’t think that the LAPD is any different in attitude than most other police departments. Which should be a lesson for all of us.
Rumor has it that the Los Angeles Police have changed their procedures for stopping pickups.
After the two incidents (see below) the new procedure is to continue firing in order that there are no complaints about unjustifiable shootings.
No victims were available for comment.
Think about this:
Hundreds of people are killed in the greater LA area every year. Some, of course, are drug dealers killed buy other drug dealers and such. But many aren’t.
Yet the cops accept these killings of innocents as normal. Part of the day’s events. Just one of those things.
But some dude threatens cops and cop’s families. They mobilize EVERYONE. They shoot at shadows. Nearly kill anyone who they perceive (however wrongly, see my previous posts). The entire LA basin’s police force is focused on one thing, killing Chris Dorner.
Now I understand that they see him as a threat. But it looks to me like the police administration are willing to spend a great deal of overtime putting cops on the street looking for this guy, and in protective details for their own. But they can’t be bothered to do so for the “average” person on the street. No overtime to clean out the bad areas, no manhunts for folks who kill only ordinary citizens.
Why is that?
And another thought:
Christopher Dorner isn’t Superman. He doesn’t appear to have more than average skills with firearms. Nor does he seem to be any more dangerous than the average firearm owner anywhere else. Yet he has the cops peeing in their boots. Shooting at noises and shadows. Scared enough that they are shooting first and checking later. (and luckily, apparently not aiming either)
If people chose to, (and lets face it, there are more of us than there are of them, and it is a good thing that we are all decent law abiding citizens, at least so far) how much fear, chaos and damage could we citizens do to the police should we choose to make that happen? To emulate the example of Christopher Dorner? To go hunting?To target them? What happens when death comes from 600 yards away? When ambushes happen? What happens when the citizens grow tired of the abuses?
‘Cause the only thing that keeps us at bay is the rule of (and belief in) the law. Common decency and the fact that we respect (so far) the laws enough to overlook much of the behavior of the police.
Should that change, then what? What will they do? One dude has them scared. What happens when it becomes many people? People who have real serious skills, not cop level skills. People who practice for fun, not because it is part of the job. Think that’ll be different than ganging up 10-1 on some street level gang banger and his friends at night?
Methinks this needs pondering.