HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Dorner admitted to killin...

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:04 PM

Dorner admitted to killings, targeting lesbians for being 'misandrist' and defended Chick Fil-A

Just to be clear to the "innocent before proven guilty" crowd who pretend not to know Chris Dorner is a murderer and those who pretend that this guy was some whistleblower who got railroaded, please read these excerpts from his bizarre manifesto:

He admits that he committed the crimes he's accused of committing:

I know most of you who personally know me are in disbelief to hear from media reports that I am suspected of committing such horrendous murders and have taken drastic and shocking actions in the last couple of days. You are saying to yourself that this is completely out of character of the man you knew who always wore a smile wherever he was seen. I know I will be vilified by the LAPD and the media. Unfortunately, this is a necessary evil that I do not enjoy but must partake and complete for substantial change to occur within the LAPD and reclaim my name. The department has not changed since the Rampart and Rodney King days. It has gotten worse. The consent decree should never have been lifted. The only thing that has evolved from the consent decree is those officers involved in the Rampart scandal and Rodney King incidents have since promoted to supervisor, commanders, and command staff, and executive positions.


He stated his intent to kill the CHILDREN of people he was angry at:

I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, Iím terminating yours. -----, -----, -----, and BOR members Look your wives/husbands and surviving children directly in the face and tell them the truth as to why your children are dead.



He threatens to continue the murders:

-----, this is when you need to have that come to Jesus talk with Sgt. ----- and everyone else who was involved in the conspiracy to have me terminated for doing the right thing. you also need to speak with her attorney, -----, and his conversation with the BOR members and her confession of guilt in kicking Mr. -----. Iíll be waiting for a PUBLIC response at a press conference. When the truth comes out, the killing stops.


Two paragraphs later:


The attacks will stop when the department states the truth about my innocence, PUBLICLY!!! I will not accept any type of currency/goods in exchange for the attacks to stop, nor do i want it. I want my name back, period. There is no negotiation. I am not the state department who states they do not negotiate with terrorist, because anybody with a Secret or TS/SCI has seen IIRís on SIPR and knows that the US state department always negotiates by using CF countries or independent sovereign/neutral country to mediate and compromising.


Later on:



The Violence of action will be HIGH. I am the reason TAC alert was established. I will bring unconventional and asymmetrical warfare to those in LAPD uniform whether on or off duty. ISR is my strength and your weakness. You will now live the life of the prey. Your RDís and homes away from work will be my AO and battle space. I will utilize every tool within INT collections that I learned from NMITC in Dam Neck. You have misjudged a sleeping giant. There is no conventional threat assessment for me. JAM, New Baíath party, 1920 rev BGE, ACM, AAF, AQAP, AQIM and AQIZ have nothing on me. Do not deploy airships or gunships. SA-7 Manpads will be waiting. As you know I also own Barrett .50′s so your APC are defunct and futile.
...

Outside agencies and individual officers on patrol. If you recognize my vehicle, and confirm it is my vehicle thru a dmv/want warrant check. It behoves you to respond to dispatch that your query was for information purposes only. If you proceed with a traffic stop or attempt to notify other officers of my location or for backup you will not live to see the medal of valor you were hoping to receive for your actions. Think before you attempt to intervene. You will not survive. Your family will receive that medal of valor posthumously. It will gather dust on the fireplace mantel for years. Then one day, it will go in a shoe box with other memories. Your mother will lose a son or daughter. Your significant other will be left alone, but they will find someone else to fill your void in the future and make them just as happy. Your children, if you have them, will call someone else mommy or daddy. Don't be selfish. Your vest is only a level II or IIIA, think about it.




He names groups whom he will target, including whites, blacks, Latinos, Asians, and . .. lesbians.

Those lesbian officers in supervising positions who go to work, day in day out, with the sole intent of attempting to prove your misandrist authority (not feminism) to degrade male officers. You are a high value target.


And he even defends ... Chik Fil-A:

LGBT community and supporters, the same way you have the right to voice your opinion on acceptance of gay marriage, Chick Fil-A has a right to voice their beliefs as well. That's what makes America so great. Freedom of expression. Don't be assholes and boycott/degrade their business and customers who patronize the locations. They make some damn good chicken! Vandalizing (graffiti) their locations does not help any cause.



This man is a killer, and will keep on killing until he's killed. That's all we really know about him. And we do know it.



171 replies, 11583 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 171 replies Author Time Post
Reply Dorner admitted to killings, targeting lesbians for being 'misandrist' and defended Chick Fil-A (Original post)
geek tragedy Feb 2013 OP
zappaman Feb 2013 #1
randome Feb 2013 #2
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #3
Cha Feb 2013 #12
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #14
Cha Feb 2013 #17
tiny elvis Feb 2013 #129
SunSeeker Feb 2013 #4
quinnox Feb 2013 #5
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #6
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #20
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #23
nadinbrzezinski Feb 2013 #29
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #32
cali Feb 2013 #7
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #9
RZM Feb 2013 #27
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #30
Eleanors38 Feb 2013 #151
NightWatcher Feb 2013 #8
LeftinOH Feb 2013 #10
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #11
RedCappedBandit Feb 2013 #13
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #16
RedCappedBandit Feb 2013 #48
Dreamer Tatum Feb 2013 #49
RedCappedBandit Feb 2013 #51
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #103
RedCappedBandit Feb 2013 #127
morningfog Feb 2013 #91
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #104
morningfog Feb 2013 #106
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #110
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #148
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #112
Comrade Grumpy Feb 2013 #15
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #18
RZM Feb 2013 #31
Occulus Feb 2013 #19
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #24
Occulus Feb 2013 #57
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #62
Zoeisright Feb 2013 #95
dkf Feb 2013 #137
cali Feb 2013 #25
Initech Feb 2013 #21
sibelian Feb 2013 #22
JI7 Feb 2013 #26
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #28
abelenkpe Feb 2013 #33
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #34
abelenkpe Feb 2013 #35
kestrel91316 Feb 2013 #36
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #38
msanthrope Feb 2013 #55
LanternWaste Feb 2013 #132
jeff47 Feb 2013 #37
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #39
jeff47 Feb 2013 #41
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #42
jeff47 Feb 2013 #45
LisaL Feb 2013 #46
jeff47 Feb 2013 #47
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #50
libodem Feb 2013 #40
yardwork Feb 2013 #52
libodem Feb 2013 #53
yardwork Feb 2013 #54
libodem Feb 2013 #56
yardwork Feb 2013 #58
libodem Feb 2013 #63
yardwork Feb 2013 #70
dkf Feb 2013 #84
libodem Feb 2013 #88
greiner3 Feb 2013 #43
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #44
robertkdem1965_h89 Feb 2013 #59
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #60
shcrane71 Feb 2013 #61
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #67
shcrane71 Feb 2013 #71
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #75
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #65
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #68
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #69
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #76
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #79
morningfog Feb 2013 #94
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #100
FrodosPet Feb 2013 #139
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #146
morningfog Feb 2013 #93
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #101
MADem Feb 2013 #113
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #117
morningfog Feb 2013 #92
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #102
morningfog Feb 2013 #105
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #111
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #169
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #168
theKed Feb 2013 #64
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #66
theKed Feb 2013 #72
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #74
theKed Feb 2013 #77
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #78
theKed Feb 2013 #82
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #85
theKed Feb 2013 #97
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #98
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #116
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #115
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #83
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #86
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #121
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #122
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #124
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #125
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #147
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #114
Lady Freedom Returns Feb 2013 #123
Honeycombe8 Feb 2013 #73
Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #80
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #81
Agnosticsherbet Feb 2013 #87
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #89
morningfog Feb 2013 #96
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #107
morningfog Feb 2013 #90
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #99
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #130
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #133
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #140
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #145
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #157
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #158
WinkyDink Feb 2013 #109
morningfog Feb 2013 #120
dkf Feb 2013 #138
morningfog Feb 2013 #142
dkf Feb 2013 #144
morningfog Feb 2013 #149
dkf Feb 2013 #150
morningfog Feb 2013 #152
dkf Feb 2013 #153
morningfog Feb 2013 #154
dkf Feb 2013 #159
morningfog Feb 2013 #160
dkf Feb 2013 #163
morningfog Feb 2013 #164
Fla_Democrat Feb 2013 #108
darkangel218 Feb 2013 #118
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #119
tblue37 Feb 2013 #126
dtom67 Feb 2013 #128
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #134
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #141
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #143
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #155
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #156
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #165
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #166
Bluenorthwest Feb 2013 #170
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #171
randome Feb 2013 #135
DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2013 #131
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #136
ButterflyBlood Feb 2013 #161
geek tragedy Feb 2013 #162
obamanut2012 Feb 2013 #167

Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:06 PM

1. The CTers have that covered already...


http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022347397#post34

"Do you think Dorner really did it? I'm starting to question everything out there.
How can the police not catch him? He returned 8000.00 in lost money to a N. Korean church in 2002, gets fired for turning in a fellow officer for brutality, and then FIVE years later goes off the deep end? That seems rather bizarre, as did the so-called "manifesto".

Another retired LAPD officer on RT television said that the writing styles in the letter change, and it appears to have been written by several different people.


Monica Quan's killer should be found and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I pray for her family."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:07 PM

2. Wow. I knew he was a loon but I didn't know HOW looney.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #2)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:09 PM

3. If you wade through the babbling, you get gems like

Charlie Sheen, you're effin awesome.



LGBT community and supporters, the same way you have the right to voice your opinion on acceptance of gay marriage, Chick Fil-A has a right to voice their beliefs as well. That's what makes America so great. Freedom of expression. Don't be assholes and boycott/degrade their business and customers who patronize the locations. They make some damn good chicken! Vandalizing (graffiti) their locations does not help any cause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #3)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:42 PM

12. "Yeah, just be an asshole like

me and kill people just to make their loved ones suffer."

Asshole.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cha (Reply #12)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:49 PM

14. From the manifesto

I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, Iím terminating yours. -----, -----, -----, and BOR members Look your wives/husbands and surviving children directly in the face and tell them the truth as to why your children are dead.


This is an evil man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #14)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:02 PM

17. Oh no..

I hadn't read any of that.. and, there are those defending him as an "alleged" killer. There is no excuse for evil.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to randome (Reply #2)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:18 AM

129. makes it easy to gun him down and carry on

going postal with mark ames

http://www.alternet.org/story/24796/a_brief_history_of_rage,_murder_and_rebellion

I finally linked the two, workplace and school rage murders. These weren't the works of psychopaths -- they were people fighting against something intolerable that many of us know is there, but hasn't been named yet. There isn't a Marx to give a name to post-Reagan middle-class pain. How do you fight against something horrible, oppressive, and debilitating before it even has a name? Especially when everyone, especially middle-class people, sneer at it and refuse to believe it's valid.


Later I looked at the details of these American rage murders -- they were all similar, mostly normal Middle Americans attacking seemingly "at random." If they weren't psychopaths, which they aren't, then that meant their attacks were very deliberate, that they were attacking something as a response. That's when I decided that it was the culture which was viewing the murders "at random," the culture which refused to see the purpose.

I simply assumed, from experience in Russia, and from looking at modern rage rebellions, that early slave rebellions would be completely misunderstood in their day as random acts of crazed evil just as modern "rage rebellions" are, and from the evidence I uncovered, it seems they were.


how does a loon get in the lapd?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:13 PM

4. He is a sick man. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:14 PM

5. I don't think anyone is arguing he is a good guy or saint

 

At least, none I have noticed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:19 PM

6. Plenty of people raising doubt as to whether he's actually killed anyone.

That talk is nonsense--there's no reason to doubt that he did commit those murders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #6)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:19 PM

20. That reminds me of the fox routine of "some people."

But hey, whatever. I have yet to see one DU'er say he did not kill a soul.
Some of us, even for professional reasons, will use the words "suspected off" or "charged with."

You might want to check on this little thing of presumption of innocence. Or when exactly did the US adopt the Napoleonic Code?

Moreover, some of us have also read the "supporting FB pages." I know horrible. And except for one, there is an underlying theme to them about the exposure of LAPD corruption. Except for one, none is denying the charges...but you know what is a constant though? Things are at a boil in LA...I just hope they do not boil over. I guarantee you, it will not be pretty if they do.

By the way LAPD ain't helping with shooting up two women, nor Torrance PD with shooting a single 200 lb white guy. These are the kinds of thing though that happen often in LA, especially in the majority minority, lower income, areas of the city. Why those FB pages resonate, and even the manifesto does, as far as the culture of LAPD. These claims, shocking I know, are not new...at all.

So, some of us going...hum, hum, could be Rampart 2 (you should look into the original scandal) does not preclude wanting him arrested, and until proven guilty by a jury, he is suspected with, not has done it.

Perhaps some...sorry could not resist pulling a foxism, would prefer a street execution and Ley Fuga in this case. I am sure more than a few LAPD officers want that. Exhibit A their own behavior.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #20)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:26 PM

23. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal concept, not one that applies

to public opinion and general consensus. You should probably read up on that distinction--it's a fallacy used by apologists to essentially mandate that any unflattering fact about the person they're defending be adjudicated in a court of law before being accepted as a fact.

Thus the doublespeak of the apologist--"I'm not doubting he did it, but my stance is that he's innocent."







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #23)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:32 PM

29. I prefer a country where this is understood.

But hey, I get it. With the abuses over the last ten years where people have been executed with no trial, chickens are coming home to roost, and so they will.

Those chickens are not cute...and if understanding a core principle of British law going to Magna Carta makes me an apologist, so be it. Blood lust does truly not belong in a civilized society.

I notice that you did not address LAPD's behavior, or Torrance for that matter.

Have a good life. Goodbye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #29)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:38 PM

32. I do not defend the indefensible re: LAPD or Torrance.

But, I also don't pretend that I'm a court of law that is completely ignorant of every fact under the sun until it's adjudicated.

I do not insist on a foolish consistency between the legal system's stance towards criminal defendants and my personal knowledge. I do not need to wait for a jury trial to process facts that are readily available. That is the stuff for smaller minds.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quinnox (Reply #5)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:30 PM

7. Lots of people claiming it's not his fault, that he was pushed into

it, that the LAPD created him, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #7)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:33 PM

9. The same people who will claim to know WHY he killed will then turn around

and claim that we don't know THAT he killed anyone.

Dead giveaway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #9)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:30 PM

27. That's a common one

 

It's very hard to articulate straight-up support for murder and not look like a bad person, even if you feel you have a good case for justifying it. So justification often gives way to the more socially acceptable argument of innocence. Sometimes this second approach is the end itself. Often people won't privately dispute how bad a killing is, but they'd prefer to see the person walk because they see it as a contest between the system and the people and they will never root for the system.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RZM (Reply #27)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:34 PM

30. Typical conversation:

Normal person: The guy is a murderer
Apologist: Declaring him a murderer without due process is an assault on the presumption of innocence and a mob mentality!
Normal person: Do you have any doubt that he killed those people?
Apologist: Well, of course I'm not saying there's any reason to think he didn't kill them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #9)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:52 PM

151. It's called moral hedging.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:32 PM

8. A Chick Fil A defender, wha wha wha? Send in the Hellfire Drones

Hi, we're all crazy here, just go with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:33 PM

10. He says he's wants to "reclaim my name"..?!

It's too late for that, jerkoff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftinOH (Reply #10)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:33 PM

11. "I'm a murderer, not a filer of false reports!" nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:43 PM

13. Written confessions don't really prove anything

We never 'know' anything.

That said, the guy is clearly a murderous piece of filth, 100% 'proof' notwithstanding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:00 PM

16. Did you read what you wrote?

We'll never know, but he's clearly a murderer?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:25 PM

48. We will never know anything for certain

I don't know what part of that was too complicated to grasp.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #48)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:08 PM

49. The part where it said "I'm not sure, but I'm sure." nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #49)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:47 PM

51. Can't prove evolution with 100% certainty.

But we're pretty damn sure it happens.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #51)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:12 PM

103. Comparing a known fact to a theory. Good one, Dr. Logic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #103)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:34 PM

127. Yes, thank you.

A scientific theory is as close to fact as one can get.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dreamer Tatum (Reply #16)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:39 PM

91. Facebook posts are not admissible as criminal evidence.

Not usually. There is a problem of verification.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #91)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:13 PM

104. Not if the author admits to his authorship.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #104)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:15 PM

106. Sure, under oath. If they have a defense lawyer worth a damn, they won't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #106)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:18 PM

110. He'd best not at any time, under oath or not, if he wants the prosecutor not to bring it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #91)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:28 PM

148. They get used against people routinely.

Courts have had zero problems introducing them.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/facebook-court-ruling-share-facebook-admissible-evidence-165545087.html

Did you know that what you say on Facebook can be used against you in a court of law? If you're sharing something with your friends, you may as well be sharing directly with the judge and jury: A recent ruling in a U.S. federal court says that if you post something on Facebook, your friend can share that information with the police ó it's not a violation of your privacy.

Accused gang member Melvin Colon had argued in court that investigators violated his constitutional right to privacy when they viewed his Facebook profile via one of his friends' accounts. But US District Judge William Pauley III ruled that Colon's messaged threats and posts about violent acts he committed were not private, and indeed fair game for prosecutors. To some extent, the ruling makes logical sense: When you say something publicly on Facebook, you're often sharing a thought with hundreds, maybe even thousands of people. There's not much that's private about that.


Sure, you can try to deny that the Facebook posts from your account weren't written by you, just like people can try to claim that someone else logged onto that email or that you have no idea how those drugs got in your pants pocket. But Facebook knows when you posted it, where you posted it, from what IP address you posted it, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RedCappedBandit (Reply #13)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:20 PM

112. Will you next argue that we are all in a cave and "know" only shadows?

Or however the heck that went?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 03:56 PM

15. I was wavering on Dorner until you mentioned Chick-Fil-A. That's a game changer.

Now how do you make that sarcasm thingie?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:04 PM

18. Well, there is the part where he talks about his plan to kill children

I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, Iím terminating yours. -----, -----, -----, and BOR members Look your wives/husbands and surviving children directly in the face and tell them the truth as to why your children are dead.


But apparently that part's too nuanced for some of those who decry the 'lynch mob' mentality of his critics.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #15)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:35 PM

31. LOL. Nicely done

 

You had me.

I'm hoping nobody says that for real.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:15 PM

19. If what the presumed guilty writes abolishes their legal presumption of innocence prior to trial,

and negates their right to due process under law,

I submit you are facially guilty of treason against the American People and the Constitution, and against the United States, and should be shot out of hand by the nearest armed citizen. The Constitutional requirement for two witnesses thereto does not apply to the likes of you, and none should heed it, nor any other law in order to remove you, now and forever, from this society.

You should simply die, and be buried, without benefit of law.

THAT is where your mentality leads. If we heed your words, and apply them, we end with chaos, anarchy, barbarism, and bloody brutality.

A nation of men, not of laws.

No, thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:28 PM

24. The presumption of innocence means that the state can't punish you

without due process.

It does not mean that it's intellectually acceptable to pretend there is actual doubt over a factual matter where none exists.

We as private citizens are perfectly entitled to express the facts as we see them. Factually, there is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that this guy has killed people. There is only the fig leaf of "nothing is a fact until a court of law says so."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #24)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:19 PM

57. On the contrary; to prospective jurors, that's exactly what it *must* mean

and anyone openly holding an opinion regarding factual guilt or innocence during jury selection would be excused, and rightly so.

Thankfully, enough people in the US feel that way even now to allow for change of venue in trials, or in cases prior to trial, such as this one, which have received a great deal more publicity than normal. I refuse to watch corporate television and cable news, period; I rarely read our local print newspaper simply because I spend my time in other ways. While there is virtually no chance his trial's venue will be changed to where I am- if the bloodthirsty mob that's after him even allows a trial, which is nothing close to a sure thing- I'm still willing to hold the integrity of the process as a thing both solemn and fragile.

Perhaps that's because, outside of my coworkers, a very large percentage (I'd guess around 80%) of the people I personally know and count among my friends have had dealings of one sort or another with our justice system. Such a thing, I believe, leaves one with a sensitivity toward fairness in criminal justice that is markedly lacking among those whose personal friends and acquaintances have had no such court involvement.

Or maybe it's because I'm just more fair-minded.

But don't call me blind. That's Lady Justice herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #57)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:38 PM

62. I am not a potential juror. Could you serve on Dick Cheney's jury

or have you reached a conclusion as to whether he is guilty of war crimes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #62)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:44 PM

95. Niiiiice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #24)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:43 AM

137. Irony is this entire vendetta is because he refutes being found guilty of being a liar

 

In a court of law. Dorner doesn't put any credence in the legal system or its judgments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Occulus (Reply #19)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:29 PM

25. presumption of innocence is a legal concept. No one is saying that Dorner shouldn't have

his day in court, but outside of the courtroom we are all free to draw our own conclusions and we are not violating any legal principle by doing so.

You are completely free to idiotically tell anyone that they are guilty of treason. You are not free to act as judge, jury and executioner .

Your post is nonsense. Utter and complete. Thanks for that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:22 PM

21. Holy crap. This guy makes the Unabomber look sane by comparison.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:25 PM

22. Yeah, well.


Figures.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:29 PM

26. i can't believe people think this guy has any credibility

well, actually i can considering who some of these people are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JI7 (Reply #26)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 04:31 PM

28. Well, they simultaneously argue:

1) they know why the guy is killing people;
2) it's a bloodthirsty mob mentality to conclude the guy killed those people before he's had a trial; and
3) of course they know he killed those people and aren't seriously questioning it as a factual matter.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:00 PM

33. He admitted to murder so it's the LAPD's job to

capture him and bring him to trial. Wish they'd stop shooting up old women delivering newspapers and bald surfers who drive different vehicles. Shooting people not properly identified makes the police look more like a posse out for revenge intent on killing someone than those dedicated to protecting the public. And honestly as a resident of LA that concerns me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to abelenkpe (Reply #33)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:05 PM

34. The LAPD doing its job on a number of fronts would be a welcome

and entirely necessary change.

The one thing worse than a professional vigilante squad is a poorly trained bunch of ameteurs with guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #34)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:14 PM

35. So true! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:31 PM

36. NONE of which justifies his extrajudicial killing by any LEO. ALL accused in the US are

legally entitled to DUE PROCESS.

You are familiar with the concept, right? If you won't grant it to all accused, you have no right to expect it for yourself.

LAPD has unclean hands in this matter, and they did even before they attempted to murder Dorner (and hurt two women instead).

I am not defending Dorner, mind you. He has killed and justice awaits him. I am defending the concept of DUE PROCESS. People who oppose due process need to leave the US and go live in Somalia or Saudi Arabia, where such silly little niceties don't exist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:36 PM

38. There's a world of difference between "due process must be followed"

and "we don't know whether he killed those people."

Those posting here that he's a murderer aren't going to gun him down or have any material adverse effect on him.

On the other hand, if he's determined to not be taken alive, then he won't be taken alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #36)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:12 PM

55. Well, let me tell you that the law does not allow for fugitives to claim due process rights

while they are fugitive.

Dorner has the right to a peaceful surrender. He has the right to submit himself to custody. Failure to submit himself peacefully to surrender and capture will earn him a response designed to counter lethal force.

Mr. Dorner is a fugitive, in flight. He has very few options left.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #36)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:22 AM

132. Who precisely is stating he should be denied due process by the courts?

"I am defending the concept of DUE PROCESS. People who oppose due process need to leave the US and go live in..."


Who precisely is stating he should be denied due process by the courts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:36 PM

37. One does not have to be sane, nor a saint to be a whistleblower

Yes, Dorner needs to be captured and spend a lot of time in prison.

That doesn't mean there is no corruption in the LAPD.

Something set this guy off, after successfully not murdering people up until this point in his life. It would be good to see if it was the voices in his head, or actual corruption.

Which, btw, means not killing him. We've got plenty of prisons in which we can house him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #37)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:37 PM

39. If he'll let himself be captured.

This guy seems to be determined to have his blaze of glory exit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #39)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:00 PM

41. At this point, he seems to mostly be running

It's the LAPD who seem hell-bent on giving him a blaze of glory exit. Which makes me suspicious of their motives. Hence my desire for a more thorough investigation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #41)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:03 PM

42. If you read his manifesto, he repeatedly says he's not afraid to die,

you're not gonna take me alive yada yada yada.

When dude went off the deep end, he really went off the deep end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #42)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:05 PM

45. Sure, he wrote that. But he's not charging towards the cops guns blazing (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #45)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:13 PM

46. He is already accused of killing a cop.

The cop that was sitting in his car at a red light.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LisaL (Reply #46)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:16 PM

47. Yes, which isn't a "blaze of glory" like the other poster was talking about. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #47)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:33 PM

50. He wants to take as many with him as possible.

Another law-abiding gun owner, until he wasn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 05:54 PM

40. Severely

Severely, disturbed individual gone over the edge..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #40)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:49 PM

52. Yes. I agree. He's severely disturbed and he's gone over the edge.

There will be no reasoning with this man.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #52)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 07:59 PM

53. What a mess

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #53)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:01 PM

54. I am sure that some of his relatives noticed this gathering.

He didn't get this way overnight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #54)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:13 PM

56. Yes

He has had to have been deteriorating before their eyes. Someone had to have noticed his decline.


He must have been obcessed. He had to have been talking about his delusions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:21 PM

58. It's very sad. All these people dead and he will die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #58)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:38 PM

63. Yes

Clearly tragic, no matter how disturbed his thought disorder is, he seems to be a partly a product of his environment and society.

That manifesto is shocking in its bigotry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #63)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:55 PM

70. It almost seems like he was picking up bits and pieces of popular culture.

Probably listening to hate radio.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libodem (Reply #56)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:24 PM

84. His ex-girlfriend did....years ago.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #84)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:32 PM

88. That about says it all

Doesn't it. I'll bet she is terrorized knowing he is out there. The stress must be unbearable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:04 PM

43. With all his hate;

Do I need to post a poll to know his religion?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Reply #43)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 06:04 PM

44. Assholitarian. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:24 PM

59. This revelation only makes me hate the guy even more

 

Bloodthirsty scumbag. Hope you're caught as soon as possible, you bigoted lowlife.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:33 PM

60. Was this said in a court of law?

Was this "manifesto" brought into evidence by a prosecutor? Was this ever questioned bu a defense attorney in a court of law.

Till all is brought forth and argued in a court of law, till it is decided by 12 jurors, I will not care to believe one way or another about any of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:35 PM

61. +++1,000,000,000

Anyone can put up a website in someone else's name. Happens all the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shcrane71 (Reply #61)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:46 PM

67. So, you also doubt that he was wrongly fired and was motivated by LAPD

corruption. You can't possibly know any of that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #67)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:56 PM

71. Please use linear arguments. Now just what are you (anonymous person I've never

met irl) accusing me (anonymous person, to you, on a web forum) of thinking and believing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shcrane71 (Reply #71)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:00 PM

75. Point being, if you don't have any opinion as to whether he killed anyone, logically

you can't have an opinion as to why he killed anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:43 PM

65. So, you don't examine facts using your own mind, but rather

just accept what a jury says?

Since Pol Pot was never tried, you must have no opinion on whether h committed war crimes. I certainly hope you don't go around calling Bush and Cheney or Henry Kissinger war criminals as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:53 PM

68. I believe in the 6th.

I believe that for all to keep our Rights and Laws that it needs to be for all, no mater what little we have to go may say. He has not had a day in court. We have yet to hear both sides. Till then, till all sides can be seen, heard and argued by the lawyers and in the jury room, I will not believe one way or the other.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #68)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:55 PM

69. So, you don't believe Cheney and Kissinger are war criminals then. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #69)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:09 PM

76. What I believe is that there needs to be a trial in a court of law.

All charges to be answered in a court of law, allow what makes this country the one so many want to come here for to work. Cheney and Kissinger are not above nor below our Rights and Laws. I want the whole story, that is something that comes out with the practice of our Rights and Laws for all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #76)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:16 PM

79. Do you know who shot the children of Sandy Hook or have an opinion

own that subject?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #79)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:43 PM

94. You are asking a different question than who is "guilty."

Burden is on the state to prove guilt. Not the media.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #94)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:07 PM

100. If there's ever a trial, then the legalities will matter more.

Probably a moot point since he likely froze to death after his car broke down in the mountains and is a Dornercicle.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #68)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:54 AM

139. Even if you don't have a belief

What is your suspicion?

What do you think PROBABLY happened? Which is MORE likely than the other...that he committed murder of human beings who were not presenting an immediate threat to his life and safety, or that he did not?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Reply #139)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:20 PM

146. To much iffy, hear say to say anything.

Even the new Manifesto by another LAPD Officer that came out via facebook is clouding more of the story up.

That is why it is a necessity for people to allow the 6th. to work. There is far more going on that needs to be brought to light. And it will only clear up is a full trial. Where all sides must answer all the questions. Till this happens, till all is out where all can see, I will not go one way or the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:42 PM

93. This is getting more telling. Fuck juries! LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #93)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:09 PM

101. Juries don't create facts, they only look at them.

Sometimes very poorly. Ask Rodney King's family, or Nicole Brown's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #65)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:23 PM

113. Ken Lay was innocent! Innocent, I tell you!! Pure as the driven snow!

After all, he died BEFORE he was sentenced--so that judgment by a jury was therefore vacated.

Ken Lay died an INNOCENT man.

That's how it works if one just puts the blinders on and plows that furrow straight down the line--no looking left or right!

Doesn't mean anyone with two functioning brain cells believes it, though!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #113)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:29 PM

117. OJ Simpson caused Nicole Brown's death by slashing her throat, but he committed

no crime!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #60)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:41 PM

92. Facebook posts are not admissible or reliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #92)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:09 PM

102. Under what rule of evidence? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #102)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:14 PM

105. They can't be verified as authentic.

Facebook doesn't play and unless the defendant admits to it, it can't be verified as reliable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to morningfog (Reply #105)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:37 AM

169. Incorrect -- admissible in both civil and criminal cases

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #92)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:36 AM

168. They most definitely are

In both civil and criminal courts. And also twitter tweets.

I saw someone convicted to state prison for what she wrote on FB. As in, I was literally in court when it happened.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:43 PM

64. Sorry, I turned off

after "Just to be clear to the "innocent before
proven guilty" crowd". Statements like that have no place here, nor in the minds and mouths of civilized human beings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #64)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:45 PM

66. Oh, so you don't pay attention to facts unless they've been adjudicated in a court of law?

Are you this outspoken when people call Henry Kissinger or Pol Pot war criminals?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #66)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:56 PM

72. Nice.

Several of Pol Pot's underlings have been and are currently facing trials for crimes against humanity. While not war crimes, per se, it is, I think, what you were getting it. Pol Pot died in 1979, as I'm sure you're aware. Since he is already dead, I'm sure the priority is to prosecute those involved that are still alive, rather than a largely-symbolic posthumous conviction of Pol Pot himself. However, some have already been convicted, it is not hard to see that he would, in fact, be found guilty were such a show trial to be held.

I am afraid I'm not familiar enough with Henry Kissinger to pass judgement on him, but unless he has been tried in a court for such things than no, he is not a war criminal.

However, neither of those things changes the fact the this is a document written by a man with the intent for it to be publicly seen and have a degree of shock value. I don't consider it "evidence" yet.

Are you saying it's perfectly okay to discard due process, to toss aside the notion that everyone is innocent until proven to be guilty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #72)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:59 PM

74. I'm saying that we as private citizens are not bound by the rules surrounding

courts and juries and cops. We can process facts and come to our own conclusions.

And Henry Kissinger is a notorious war criminal who has a long list of countries he can't visit because they'd arrest him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:10 PM

77. No, we cannot

It's really that simple.

Someone is not a criminal until they are found to be a criminal in a court of law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #77)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:14 PM

78. Legally and factually are different concepts.

Legally, right now no one shot those people. Factually, someone did.

Similarly, Adam Lanza was never convicted. Stating that someone else committed the Sandy Hook atrocity is a PPR-level offense here.

Either he shot those people or he didn't. There are no facts indicating that the shooter was anyone other than Chris Dorner.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #78)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:21 PM

82. There is no criminal conviction

saying Chris Dorner shot anyone.

The point is that you are convicting him without a trial. The point is you wilfully undermining the central pillar of the American justice system.

If only people felt as strongly about that right as they do about RKBA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #82)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:25 PM

85. I'm not convicting him. I am looking at the facts. The presumption of innocence applies

exclusively to the legal system. It does not apply to what private citizens believe.

I exercise my right to use my brain when looking at cases like this rather than pretend that the truth is unknowable absent a court proceeding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #85)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:45 PM

97. How do you feel about

Fox News preemptively called the 2000 election for W?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #97)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:00 PM

98. What about it? First Amendment. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #97)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:27 PM

116. Hey, I'm calling sunrise tomorrow! Your point?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to theKed (Reply #77)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:26 PM

115. Legally. But only lobotomies can prevent people from thinking otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #74)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:23 PM

83. That is where you a wrong.

We The People are the rules. It is all of us that must keep all of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. If we do not we will losses all of our freedoms.

No one is above or below. They are OUR laws, we all are bound!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #83)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:28 PM

86. The law does not require private citizens to abstain from forming a factual belief

on whether this guy killed anyone. That is an ignorant claim.

It forbids the courts, law enforcement, legal system, and jurors from prejudging--but it imposes no such requirement regarding public opinion.

Chris Dorner murdered those people. Now go ahead and report me for committing a thought crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #86)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:38 PM

121. We, so that the system can truly work ,must not rush to judgment.

It is the way to loose all our rights and the law. Yet, it is people that believe the way you do that is slowly messing up the system. It is why corruption is creeping into the system. People that do not live for the higher principles will lose all.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #121)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:41 PM

122. Yes, people who think for themselves are destroying democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #122)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:52 PM

124. People who don't know all the facts, and we will not know all till a trial, are.

We must not rush to any thoughts till a trial where all is brought to light.
You may wish to circumvent and condemn, I will not. You may wish to be an example to those that wish to mock our system, I will not.
You may try and mock me, but I know my way of thinking is right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #124)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:02 PM

125. The world is full of people who know their way of thinking is right. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #125)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 03:23 PM

147. And I am glad to know my way is seen as right due to 2 great documents.n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lady Freedom Returns (Reply #83)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:23 PM

114. You are completely, 100% incorrect re: trials, jurors, and the general public.

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies ONLY to the former two entities.

That is why the word "proven" is used.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #114)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:45 PM

123. It goes,"Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law."

There has been no trial. There has not been any arguments done by prosecutors or defense attorneys.Till I see that, I will not believe one way or another.

Others may wish to throw away our rights and laws, I will not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 08:58 PM

73. Wow. He is sicko. He thinks that murdering will vindicate him. Makes no sense. Filled with hate...

of coworkers. It shows that what he thinks .... isn't true.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:16 PM

80. He is the "alleged murderer" because he is innocent until found guilty by a court

of law.

The manifesto is likely to be evidence in a trial by jury, should he be captured alive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:21 PM

81. Legally, sure, but the legal world is a distortion of the real world.

Legally, OJ Simpson caused the death of his ex-wife by slashing her throat (civil trial) but wasn't guilty of murdering her (criminal trial). Legally the cops who beat Rodney King committed no crime.

Facts are facts. Courts are not divine oracles of reality.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #81)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:30 PM

87. Trials are every bit as perfect as the people involved in them.

The theory of being innocent until proven guilty is where the world alleged comes from. I, personally, think is it a good way to look at things. My opinion is that he is a rabid revenge killer. If I were called to sit in trail over him, unlikely unless there is a change of venue, I would have to check my opinion at the door if I did make it through the jury selection.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #87)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:32 PM

89. That's fair. Also fair would be for someone like me to be excluded from

his jury pool, as I've already made up my mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #89)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:44 PM

96. That is a respectable admission on your part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Agnosticsherbet (Reply #80)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:15 PM

107. People not on the jury can call him guilty as hell if we want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 09:38 PM

90. LOL at your "innocent before proven guilty crowd."

I don't doubt he has killed, but under the law he is innocent. As is stands now, he is innocent. He has made abhorrent statements and the evidence is overwhelmingly against him. It sure seems to reach beyond a reasonable doubt. But, until he is tried or until he pleads guilty, knowingly and voluntarily, he is innocent. He is innocent right now and will be until one of those occur.

I have little sympathy for the guy. Regardless of what has happened to him and regardless of how legitimate his grievances, his choice of action is the worst imaginable. But, he is still innocent until proven guilty. The burden is on the state.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:04 PM

99. Legally, I agree. But there are people accusing those who state that he did kill those

people of undermining the US jurisprudential system. Because of what is said at DU.

There's also a number of people who claim to know that he was victimized by the LAPD, but then claim to not know whether he killed anyone. I mean, come on--that's naked apologism.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #99)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:16 AM

130. Dorner is one of the bad guys in this story. A stone cold killer who needs to got to trial.

I would like you to know what I think when I read anyone take lightly the notion that LAPD is corrupt. I also want you to know why I do not cotton to defense of LAPD.
I lived in LA for years, I have a few stories about the cops, the one where they shoot a woman 7 times and hit some bystanders who they told to 'fuck off' is not the worst of them.
Here is the story I think of when I read a line like 'claims he was victimized by LAPD'.
So I'm walking down a street in Hollywood years ago, I come across a woman passed out on the sidewalk, her clothing is askew and not covering her private areas. To me, she looked like a crime victim. I tried to wake her. I had seen a cop a block or so away and I ran back to alert him. I told him a half naked woman was passed out on the sidewalk, she needed help. Here is what that 'officer' told me to do: 'take a free shot'. I had no idea what he meant, so he elucidated...told me she was a junkie whore so if her wares were hanging out there, I should rape her. I was stunned. He refused to radio for help, told me to rape the woman, and walked off laughing. I found a phone and called 911.
When I went to report the cop, his supervisor asked me why I didn't 'take a free shot'.

Just so you know, any words that so much as hint that LAPD is to be taken on their word, or respected in any way cause me to hear, in my mind, that cop saying 'take a free shot'.
There are no good guys in this story, no matter how bad the one is. The desire to make binary calls does not suit this issue.
So I just wanted you to know that for me, the seeming defense of LAPD is absolutely equally offensive as any defense of murder on the part of the former cop. Those who stand up to claim LAPD would never victimize anyone, or who so much as imply that, well, to me they are standing with cops saying 'take a free shot'. That's just how it is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #130)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:25 AM

133. I see where you're coming from, but if I in any way seemed to

endorse or defend the LAPD, that was certainly not what I meant to communicate. The LAPD would be the worst PD in the country, but for New Orleans and Oakland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #133)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:09 AM

140. But you sure seem to be defending LAPD. Not a critical word toward the cop in my story, not a

word of empathy to me or the woman laying in the street.
And I do note that you had zero specific reaction to that vicious cop in my story.
'I see where you are coming from'. Do you? What do you see?

I think you are jumping up and down because many here know LAPD to be corrupt, you want them to see a 'good guy vs bad guy' situation, the 'take a free shot' cops are your good guys. If anyone says they are all bad guys, you level accusations of murder apology. If I use the same metrics for your posts, well, I just told you a very nasty story about LAPD and your reaction was to say you did not mean to defend them. But you also failed to condemn that cop I told you about. You condemn people who support our legal system and innocent until proven guilty, but not the 'take a free shot' cop. Why not condemn that cop? The silence you offer is definitive.

Do unto others as you'd have others do unto you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #140)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:36 AM

145. It's definitive only if you're determined to put words in people's mouths.

It should go without saying that a cop that abuses his authority in a sadistic manner should be behind bars rather than wearing a badge. I wasn't aware that this was a contested point around here.

I have no interest in defending the LAPD, the LA County sheriff, etc. Their reputation for thuggery goes back decades, pre-Rodney King. As I said, they'd be the worst in the country but for NO and Oakland.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #145)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:00 AM

157. I put no words in your mouth, nor did you. It was your lack of words, your silence that I find

to be disturbing in the context of the story told. And I still do. Every other human being I have told that story to asks me what happened to the victim in the end. You did not. Some things, they don't go without saying.
The reason I told that story was to impress upon you the level of disgust many have toward abusive police behaviors. To be blunt, an organization that would allow anyone to go around suggesting rape of women deserves every single shred of distrust it gets from the public. No scorn is deep enough for such men. I assumed before I posted it that you would agree strongly, and perhaps find understanding for those here who are not as quick to believe the LAPD are righteous in this case. I was wrong about that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #157)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 12:28 PM

158. I do agree strongly, It just seems so obvious that it goes without saying.

Kind of like someone describing the act of drinking battery acid--the presumption shouldn't be that one finds it okay just because they don't offer commentary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #90)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:16 PM

109. This is a discussion board and not a trial, in case you missed that salient tidbit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #109)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:30 PM

120. Oh, I didn't miss it. But, when someone rails against those

who support positions like "innocent until proven guilty," I tend to push back.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #90)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:45 AM

138. And the state has declared he is guilty of being a liar.

 

If that was the end all and be all of innocence or guilt then why all the sympathy?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #138)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:25 AM

142. What? Your post makes no sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #142)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:36 AM

144. Dorner is mad because he is was found guilty by a court of lying about Evans kicking Gettler.

 

This is the reason for his firing and the reason for his rampage.

You state he is innocent of the killings until found guilty in a court of law.

By that standard, he is guilty of the earlier offense and not guilty of the murders (yet).

Ironic...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #144)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:33 PM

149. What court found him guilty of lying?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to dkf (Reply #150)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 09:59 PM

152. Did you read that? Do you understand civil suits?

He was not charged with lying nor was he found guilty of lying. You on the other hand, lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #152)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:24 PM

153. He was charged with making false accusations.

 

And was found to have done so by the board and that was upheld by the court of appeals.

What else do you call it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #153)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:42 PM

154. He was not found guilty of lying in a court.

His suit challenging the Board's findings failed. The courts were asking if there was sufficient evidence before the board to support their findings. They held there was. Evidentiary standards before an administrative body are not the same as a criminal charge. You confused the issue.

He has not been found "guilty" of being a liar. Words have specific meaning. I see the point you were trying to make, you just missed the mark.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #154)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 09:53 PM

159. So why did he need to clear his name?

 

He was found to have done what by the board?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #159)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:00 PM

160. You are changing the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to morningfog (Reply #160)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 12:03 AM

163. You say I can't say he was found guilty of lying by a court.

 

I am wondering what I am supposed to call the finding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dkf (Reply #163)

Thu Feb 14, 2013, 08:26 AM

164. The court found there was not sufficient evidence to overturn the administrative decision.

The court was not looking at whether he lied. The court was only looking at whether the administrative body reached a conclusion that was contrary to the evidence available.

He was not charged with anything in a court, he was not the defendant in the case, hence he could not be found guilty of anything. Guilty has a specific meaning in court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:16 PM

108. Vandalizing (graffiti) their locations does not help any cause.

From a person killing people to help his cause....















Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:29 PM

118. I hope they apprehend him and stop him from hurting anyone else.

He's a murderer. Dead or alive, he needs to be caught.

That still leaves a very corrupted LAPD. Hope an internal affair investigation will clean things up, but I don't hold my breath.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #118)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 10:30 PM

119. Agree 100%. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Mon Feb 11, 2013, 11:21 PM

126. He thinks that killing people will help him restore his "good name."

Even if it turned out that he was 100% correct about being railroaded, it wouldn't matter, because he has done a kind of damage to his own name and reputation that can't be undone in any way.

His madness is demonstrated by the statement that he wants his reputation back and that these killings are the means he will use to get this reputation back.

He has his reputation already; it is quite solid--no one and nothing will ever change it: the reputation of a vicious serial murderer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 01:52 AM

128. in the America I grew up in...

You are innocent until proven guilty. Period.
In this day and age, we applaud torture, the killing of children, and the creation of the police state.
I hate to use the word sheep, because it would be unfair - to the sheep.
Just remember,before you all saddle up your high horses; I would support th same rights if it was you who stood accused. That is the point; if you deny him his rights, you are also denying you own. If he is guilty, let him be tried as the law requires.

Of course, we all know that won't happen. This man has no chance of surrender. He will be shot on sight.

I just think it is unreal how many people just turn their back on what is right, just so they can get their "indignation " on. Yes, due process is what is right.

Don't worry,though. You all will get the blood you crave. And as a bonus, you won't have to think too hard....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dtom67 (Reply #128)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:28 AM

134. Yes, yes you're right, the real victim here isn't Monica Quan, it's Chris Dorner.

And the real villain isn't Chris Dorner, it's people at DU who hold the uncontroverted view that he killed people.

Maybe you should change your avatar picture to Dorner's in solidarity with this victim of a conspiracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #134)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:17 AM

141. How you took that from what the other poster said is incomprehensible.

The other poster said no such thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #141)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 11:31 AM

143. The person said that we don't know that he's guilty, and won't know

because the authorities are going to murder him.

You are innocent until proven guilty. Period.
In this day and age, we applaud torture, the killing of children, and the creation of the police state.
I hate to use the word sheep, because it would be unfair - to the sheep.
Just remember,before you all saddle up your high horses; I would support th same rights if it was you who stood accused. That is the point; if you deny him his rights, you are also denying you own. If he is guilty, let him be tried as the law requires.

Of course, we all know that won't happen. This man has no chance of surrender. He will be shot on sight.

I just think it is unreal how many people just turn their back on what is right, just so they can get their "indignation " on. Yes, due process is what is right.

Don't worry,though. You all will get the blood you crave. And as a bonus, you won't have to think too hard....

In this narrative, Dorner is being unfairly convicted by a bloodthirsty public, and will be murdered by authorities before he can get due process and a chance to clear his name.

Poor Chris Dorner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #143)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 09:01 AM

155. Characterization. We can read what others write. Upthread you accuse me of putting words in

your mouth when what I said was that your silence was definitive. Then you put words into the mouths of others, using extensive verbiage that only proves that when you have something to say, you can say it, but when you are told a story of horrid police behaviors, you come up with this-'I see where you're coming from'. Definitive, as is this lengthy rewording of another person's post.
Just odd that you can hear a story like the one I told you and have such an apathetic reaction to it. I rarely share that story because it is so disturbing that most who hear it become furious. Your reaction was unique among those who have heard that story.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #155)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 10:44 AM

156. Honestly, your story was so disturbing I didn't know how to react.

Hard to say anything in those circumstances that doesn't sound trite or lame or whatever.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #156)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:02 AM

165. And it was that passivity and silence that I found objectionable. Yet you claimed I put words

in your mouth. What I said was you had no reaction to that story 'I see where you're coming from...BUT' does not indicate that you were disturbed, nor does you instant return to speaking only of yourself and the police. The fact that you say you see BUT indicates a desire to argue the point in spite of what you had just been told.
You understand but....but what? That story is not mitigated by 'but' anything. That cop was a monster.
You had a reaction, and that reaction was to answer that story with 'I get where you are coming from....but...'
Most hearing that story get really angry at the cop. You got huffy with me. This is something to consider. Your passive reaction to a story of rape culture like that disturbs me. Don't like that? Then don't remain passive in the face of such horrors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #165)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:23 AM

166. I am not your monkey. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #166)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:30 AM

170. Talk about putting words into the mouth of another. When response fails you, you accuse others.

I told you that story from my heart because I thought, having read other posts from you about rape culture, that such a story might cause you to reflect upon why others are extremely critical of LAPD. I am surprised to see you shrug that off.

The thread is here to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #170)

Sun Feb 17, 2013, 11:32 AM

171. Yes, you say something and then try to grade the responses because they did not

give the answer or perspective you deemed to be the correct one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dtom67 (Reply #128)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:28 AM

135. His victims had no chance of surrender, either.

Hey, it's an Internet forum. We can judge the guy guilty all we want because we are not the jury.

And I challenge you to find anyone on DU who 'applauds' torture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:09 AM

131. We have To Find Reasons To Hate This Clown

He shot an innocent Asian woman and African American man sitting in a car.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #131)

Tue Feb 12, 2013, 10:29 AM

136. If you hate this guy and assume he killed them (because of his own admission)

you're a sheep who's undermining America and Democracy as we know it.

Things we learn at DU.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to ButterflyBlood (Reply #161)

Wed Feb 13, 2013, 11:13 PM

162. Well, Chik Fil-A has fewer supporters here than Dorner does. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Original post)

Sat Feb 16, 2013, 11:31 AM

167. K&ring this

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread