patrick.net

If someone kills 3 people in LA, LAPD will make an investigation and catch/kill them if they stumble across them.
If the murders are within the Blue Line, the LAPD thugs (anybody who says they are not thugs has not dealt with them) just go straight nuts. Shooting civilians at random, sparing no expense, trampling civil rights, rampaging through the city.
Sure Dorner was dangerous, (to them) but what a contrast in response.

Dan8267 says

MsBennet says

When the house caught on fire, he could have come out the back of the house.

And who set that fire? The police. The same police who shot a hundred rounds into the vehicle of an innocent, non-threatening 71-year-old woman because they thought she was Dorner.

If Dorner had come out of the house, unarmed, hell, even nude with his hands up, he would have been riddled with bullets and the cops would have said he had a gun on him.

These police are first degree murderers, plain and simple. There was no capture him alive. Hell, if he had turned himself in, the police would have found a way to kill him before trial. Anyone who thinks different is fooling himself.

Mr. Dorner put himself in that position by ambushing innocent people for no good reason, including half a dozen officers who were not shooting at him. Mr. Dorner himself wanted to die. That was HIS plan. The cops couldn't get at him to shoot him, so he shot himself. He was in the end a coward. He didn't want to burn to death and he didn't want to get riddled with bullets and have to suffer. Straight shot to his own head, quick and painless. He wasn't having it any other way. He would never want to be captured. That was not in his plan at all. HIS plan.

MsBennet says

Mr. Dorner put himself in that position by ambushing innocent people for no good reason, including half a dozen officers who were not shooting at him.

The police put themselves in that position by ambushing innocent people for no good reason, including a 71-year-old woman who was not shooting at them.

I'm not saying Dorner was innocent. I'm saying the police were guilty of even worse crimes. They should get the exact same treatment.

Either you believe in open, just trials, or you believe in a police state. You cannot believe in both.

Dan8267 says

The police put themselves in that position by ambushing innocent people for no good reason, including a 71-year-old woman who was not shooting at them.

Your logic is failing me there. Dorner wasn't killing innocent people in revenge for police mistakenly shooting at the wrong people. So the police didn't "put themselves in that position" by making that mistake. Being fired from a job, no matter if justified or not, is not a reason for killing people. You are trying to blame everything on the cops and it ain't fly'in. Dorner WANTED TO DIE. Get it?

From Dorner to Waco to MOVE Bombing, A Look at Growing Militarization of Domestic Policing

Dorner needed to be stopped, and maybe he had decided on "suicide by cop," but there is also a dangerous pattern of government power being misused. Two wrongs do not make a right, and too many innocent people get shot and/or killed by their own government.

Transcript of CNN's live report from Waco:

Yes, that Waco group shot themselves in the head, too, or were shot by their fellow worhshipers.

I have respect for cops. If they tell me to do something, I do it. Of course, I am not a pedofile deluded cult figure. Heck, the cops didn't raid Guyana, yet but Jim Jones made sure he accomplished the same before the cops ever knew about a problem. These people WANT to die.

MsBennet says

Mr. Dorner put himself in that position by ambushing innocent people for no good reason, including half a dozen officers who were not shooting at him. Mr. Dorner himself wanted to die. That was HIS plan. The cops couldn't get at him to shoot him, so he shot himself. He was in the end a coward. He didn't want to burn to death and he didn't want to get riddled with bullets and have to suffer. Straight shot to his own head, quick and painless. He wasn't having it any other way. He would never want to be captured. That was not in his plan at all. HIS plan.

Irrelevant. This is America, not "Judge Dredd". Doesn't matter what he is accused of or what your opinion of him is - the police do not have the right to murder him. We have a Bill of Rights. The police are not supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner, even if they DO think they're dealing with a really bad guy. Not their call to make. Not yours either.

Get it?

MsBennet says

I have respect for cops.

So do I, but that isn't the issue. Read retired police chief Norm Stamper's comments, including that "there are still pockets in every police department that are very pernicious and very troubling and they need to be rooted out. There are some people who should not be police officers." Blind faith is not respect. Police are human, and need accountability for the same reasons everyone else does. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

BTW, regarding Waco, possibly the best comment was from the local sheriff. He said that when he rode around in his cruiser, he would often see Koresh jogging alone. I forget the sheriff's exact words, but basically he said "if the federal government wanted him brought in, they could have asked me and I could have picked him up any day. But one old sheriff in a cruiser isn't enough to justify the ATF agency budget." ATF created that whole fiasco by alerting a local TV station to get coverage of their big raid, "protecting" people from a heavily armed nut. Someone at the TV station tipped off a friend at the compound, and the rest as they say is history. There was no need for any ATF raid to begin with, those dead agents and the cult members were all killed by a federal agency trying to get more $ from taxpayers. Yet another example of how more GDP does not translate to higher standard of living.

MsBennet says

You are trying to blame everything on the cops and it ain't fly'in. Dorner WANTED TO DIE. Get it?

No, I am blaming the cops for committing first degree murder of a specific person as well as multiple attempted first degree murders of others like the 71-year-old woman they nearly killed. My charges are very specific.

Whatever Dorner did is completely irrelevant to the charges I levy against these specific police. Regardless of what Dorner did or whether or not Dorner "deserved to die", the fact remains that the shooting of the woman's car was a premeditated murder attempt. Nothing is going to change that indisputable fact. That 71-year-old woman didn't have a gun, was not threatening the police in any way, nor was she a danger or in the act of committing any crime. Nevertheless, the police put a hundred bullets in her car and it was only dumb luck she survived.

Similarly, the police planned to kill Dorner by burning him alive or in a hailstorm of bullets should he leave the cabin even if he was unarmed. This was premeditated murder. There's a big difference between charging a person with a capital offense, trying him in an open court with an objective jury, and sentencing him to death versus letting the police execute him on the spot.

"We saw this in the last couple weeks when we saw two separate incidents where we saw police officers open fire on vehicles that actually did not even look like the truck that Dorner was supposed to be driving. They were vaguely similar to the truck. In one case, the police officers filled an entire neighborhood with bullets — they found bullets in trees and garage doors and front doors, in addition to the pock-marked truck that we saw pictures of. And I think this is — we see this mentality reinforced in TV and movies, and it is this idea that once a police officer goes down, once someone kills a police officer, everybody’s rights are suspended at that point until they take care of the problem."

When NYPD shot Amadou Diallo 19 times by mistake, despite his being unarmed and having done nothing wrong, they missed 22 times in a densely populated neighborhood. That isn't respectable and it doesn't make anyone safer.

These are command decisions reinforced by a culture of loyalty, not entirely the fault of individual officers; "when you get out of the academy and you’re assigned to a field training officer, that is sort of a time when you are tested to see how much you can be relied upon to defend your fellow officers. It’s kind of the induction period to the blue code of silence." It doesn't make any rational sense to spray bullets all over a neighborhood, but it happens over and over again because the officers are proving their bravery and loyalty. Most of the participants might never do anything like that on their own, but they become part of a crowd (in uniform), and crowds tend towards extreme actions that the individual participants would not do on their own.

MsBennet says

I have respect for cops. If they tell me to do something, I do it.

So, if a group of cops are beating up a child and they tell you to turn off the camera, you do it?

MsBennet says

that Waco group shot themselves in the head, too

Who told you all about the Siege at Waco, Janet Reno? Through the Government spokesman Tom Brokaw?
You clearly have not delved too deeply into those events.

The police, per Supreme Court Decision in 2005, have no constitutional duty to protect citizens from harm. If the police show up to "render assistance", they will first and foremost do what is safe, right, and expeditious.......for them.
If it works out well for you too, thats OK.

"do unto others as you would have done unto you."

Dorner was a murderer. He gave no quarter and asked for none in return.

Regarding the police that shot the paper delivery ladies, they should lose their jobs and perhaps spend some time in jail. Dont worry about the ladies, they can afford now to "retire" from paper delivery thanks to the LAPD. Expect a quick and sizeable settlement.

inflection point says

Expect a quick and sizeable settlement.

Courtesy of the taxpayer. They act with criminal negligence, we pay.
Over and over.

inflection point says

"do unto others as you would have done unto you."

Dorner was a murderer. He gave no quarter and asked for none in return.

You are failing to understand the Golden Rule. It is a maxim that instructs us how to live our lives. It in no way, shape or form justifies retribution. Are you confusing it with "An eye for an eye" perhaps?