http://gma.yahoo.com/alleged-cop-killer … ories.html
Apparently an ex-cop has declare war well on just about everyone.
Here is the full manifesto. Interesting reading.
http://hiphopandpolitics.wordpress.com/ … er-dorner/
It sounds like something out of a Hollywood script. Still trying to get through the manifesto but something about this whole situation does not seem right. I also think they are out to kill him not arrest him.
WOW! This is happening practically in my backyard! Manifesto is right. Way too long to read it all. What I did read I believed though. Going around killing innocent people that never wronged you doesn't make much sense though. I've never been able to understand that.
He seems to have personal grudges on these people.
This isn't really a random shooter, he's got targets. Including... I assume if he makes it down the list... the head of the NRA. Which while I don't think he's gonna make it would still be pretty ironic.
Not the way to solve problems, unfortunately we're likely to see more and more of this until some major reforms happen.
I went back and read more of the manifesto. I have been very pro cop my entire life. The stuff he reveals in there is very depressing to say the least.
I'm pro-cop too. But I also recognize that they are human beings in a very stressful situation. There are both angels and devils among them.
Here's hoping he doesn't drop by my particular town...
Stay safe Para. I think he's pretty much got his s**t list though and I don't think you are on it.
I haven't found the list yet. Give me a search word?
lol it's in his long ass manifesto (second link)
I know. If I knew the right word, I could F3 it and find where. That light text is hard reading for me.
"Capt Phil Tingirides, Justin Eisenberg, Martella, Randy Quan, and Sgt. Anderson all new I was innocent but decided to terminate me so they could continue Ofcr. Teresa Evans career. I know about the meeting between all of you where Evans attorney, Rico, confessed that she kicked Christopher Gettler (excessive force). Your day has come."
I would say those seven are pretty screwed. Quan is one of the ones already killed.
It later goes on to talk about literally dozens of people... including an old school principal. But paradigmsearch was no where to be found... although strangely Ellen DeGeneres was.
Here's another quote:
Bratton, Beck, Hayes, Tingirides, Eisenberg, Martella, Quan, Evans, Hernandez, Villanueva/Gallegos, and Anderson. Your lack of ethics and conspiring to wrong a just individual are over.
Suppressing the truth will leave to deadly consequences for you and your family.
I see that he has mixed together those he likes and those he doesn't. I saw that bit about the principal.
I found myself absolutely devastated that no one has noticed the backward slide this man has taken mentally since 2009. WTF is up with that? How does someone become this ill without someone - anyone - noticing and trying to help? I can't believe that his friends or family just stood by and watched him deteriorate to this point. Did no one notice?
I think the LAPD is just as corrupt as he says it is. Doesn't give him carte blanche to start killing people and threatening their families.
He has a death wish, I think. And, if things continue for him the way they've been going, I think he'll get it.
My heart is broken.
I'm not pro- or anti-cop, but I'm pro truth.
Read that manifesto carefully. The syntax changes a number of times, indicating was written by more than a single person.
And why would a person go on a rampage for something that happened years ago?
And why aren't we hearing more details about the killings? Something doesn't add up here.
Plus, the cops are shooting on sight - innocent peoples - so I don't think they want to take him alive and let him tell his side of the story.
He started by killing the assistant coach of Calstate Fullerton and her fiancee while they were sitting in their car in Irvine, which is shocking, because Irvine is literally the safest city in America -- has been for eight years straight -- and its murder rate tends to be 0-2 a year.
Dorner killed Quan because she was the daughter of the first Asian-American LAPD officer, whom he mentioned in his manifesto: ""I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, I'm terminating yours. Quan"
So his first act was, just as he promised, to kill family members of cops.
It sickens me that he's getting a huge online following of fans. For THAT? She was just an innocent bystander and a quite likeable young lady, by all accounts, and her poor fiancee had only just proposed to her... So Dorner shot him for being engaged to the daughter of someone he had a grievance with.
But Dorner's standing up for his rights against authority, say his fans, so it's all good!
Of course, the LAPD has lost some of my sympathies with their response. During the first few hours of his rampage, when he was driving around LA opening fire on various police officers, a police patrol shot up and wounded a seventy-one year old mail carrier and her daughter because they were driving slowly and "weaving" from side to side on a street as the daughter tossed newspapers onto driveways. The truck they were driving was an electric blue Toyota Tacoma, which apparently looked enough like Dorner's silvery gray Nissan Titan that the cops started shooting first and asked questions afterward.
I understand that Dorner had just attacked two different sets of LAPD officers and started opening fire on them, killing one, so the police were in real mortal danger -- I had in fact already said "Be safe!" to an Irvine officer, who thanked me and said, "We're trying!" So there is no question that Dorner was an extreme threat: he'd vowed to kill any cop or their family members he met, and he'd already proved it with deeds. But still, opening fire on any truck vaguely matching the description (even if it was a totally different color -- we're talking electric blue vs. silver here!) and sending bullets riccocheting into neighboring cars and HOUSES was totally reckless. The cops shot at at least one other wrong truck as well, but there I don't know the details.
The only news source that has covered this story is the LA Times, and it was their own employees that were shot.
Greekgeek, there was another incident with a black Honda truck, it was rammed by police and then fired into as well, although the driver wasn't hurt in that case.
Okay, that's the other one I mentioned. I didn't know the details on that one.
Ramming it is a little over the top, but when they start shooting... That's when I say, "No. Even if he's trying to kill you and WON'T hesitate to open fire, you gotta make sure it's him." I understand that both incidents may have happened around dawn before it was fully light. Apparently in both cases they couldn't see the truck color?
All we knew for the first few hours was that a maniac was on the loose and shooting to kill if he saw anyone remotely connected with the police, and that his manifesto made it quite clear he was not gonna respond to police orders or come peacefully. I really don't have a problem with the police acting in self defense in those circumstances, but when they start shooting at little old ladies -- okay, get off the road, you're too amped on adrenalin to do your job!!!
Yeah, sorry, read too quickly and missed that important detail, then tried to quick-edit.
And I agree with you: the police go a little nuts after any officer is killed. I can see where they're coming from, this time -- they're stuck on duty, and they know this maniac is somewhere and could be hunting down their spouse and children RIGHT NOW.
So no wonder they were treating it like a personal war. On top of which they knew that if it was him, he'd be shooting to kill, so they had nanoseconds to act.
So I am not surprised that a few officers went too far in response. It's still wrong, and they'd danged well better make full reparations to all the property owners and innocent bystanders they hurt, but...really?
If I were a cop, under those circumstances, I might lose my head a little bit as well. Of course, this is why I'm not a cop!
Well, sounds like it's over. No real details yet, but apparently they caught him in a cabin, then set the thing on fire. Report of a single shot from inside the cabin makes it sound like he killed himself to keep from burning alive.
This is nice. One of the chiefs in charge said they were 'fairly confident' that he is in the cabin(they didn't even know), so they set it on fire(didn't know if he had hostages), and they are intentionally letting the house 'burn down into the basement'.
That's due process...
I'm sure if the dead deputy could speak - he'd tell you that the killer is (or was) in the cabin - when someone is shooting at you and killing people, due process isn't relevant.....
...and if you argue that they shouldn't burn the cabin down - what should they do - charge in all guns blazing and get a few more deputies killed? Sadly this seems to be the only way to ensure no one else dies - this man seemed to have a death wish! According to the reports they were smoke devices anyway - so it doesn't look like they intentionally burned down the cabin...
They didn't know if he was in the cabin or not. By their own words. They were reporting tracks leaving the cabin.
They had the perimeter secured, there was no shooting. Sorry, but it is not right to set fire to a building like that. You're fine with the police just burning people, and all the evidence that goes with them, alive like that?
I added more - they were smoke devices allegedly.
What do you suggest they do - he had already said he would not communicate with police or give in peacefully - he was holed up. Should the police risk life to get to him? Should they perhaps give him a chance to escape so he can kill more people? When faced with potentially more dead people I can't see any other option - is the only way a cop can defend himself by gun?
You do know that the police deal with criminals all the time. There are procedures for that kind of thing.
Swat can go in, or you can wait them out(he had little/no water or food, if he was in there).
They used incendiary smoke canisters, which are known to be capable of starting fires, inside a log cabin. Don't act like they didn't intend to burn it down when they fired in a dozen of those.
So it would be OK for SWAT to go in and kill him - maybe having a few dead SWAT in the process - but not OK to kill him by different means? Maybe that's procedure, but it seems a hell of a risk just to give him a chance....
SWAT goes in to try and apprehend the suspect. Not kill him.
When did it become proper for the police to just kill suspects who aren't presenting an imminent threat?
Let alone the fact that before the burn they admitted they didn't know whether or not he, or any hostages, were in there?
SWAT goes in to try and apprehend the suspect. Not kill him.[You and I both know that he would have shot at the SWAT team and therefore would have been killed - he himself stated he would not go peacefully]
When did it become proper for the police to just kill suspects who aren't presenting an imminent threat? [Never - but the line between imminent threat is very thin - he'd just killed one cop and injured another - when isn't a man like this an imminent threat?]
Let alone the fact that before the burn they admitted they didn't know whether or not he, or any hostages, were in there? [Agreed that doesn't make sense - however they probably had a good idea that there were no hostages - there was a question about an accomplice - and I guess the logic is that the accomplice would come out]
I don't actually disagree with what you are saying, I just do not honestly see any other way out of this other than the man being dead - and to ensure that, this was one method they used....
It doesn't matter if he would have fired or not. Police are not executioners. They are not entrusted as such. Like I said, they didn't even have to go in. They had the place surrounded and secured, they could have waited him out, set up snipers, sent in robots, there are many different approaches... I'm sorry, I don't want to live in a country where police are executioners.
Deliberately killing a suspect like that? Especially considering the extreme lack of intel?
We have laws. We have a Constitution. This went against both.
"They had the place surrounded and secured, they could have waited him out, set up snipers, sent in robots, there are many different approaches... I'm sorry, I don't want to live in a country where police are executioners" It's already common practise for snipers to kill people who are a threat - that's why I don't see this as being different than any other situation when a fugitive is killed....
"We have laws. We have a Constitution. This went against both." I'm not a legal expert but I know people have been killed when they have threatened or attacked the police and that is legal - the legal question is how long does the threat take to become a non-threat....
If he had walked out of the cabin and started shooting, the police can kill him.....
He has to be an imminent threat. If he walks out of the cabin with a gun in his hand, hand at his side, police will issue verbal commands. If he so much as twitches, they can fire.
If he walks out with his hands up, nobody can shoot him, he's not a threat.
Snipers don't kill people who aren't an imminent threat. If someone has a gun to a hostage's head, sure. If he's just standing there, absolutely not. Due process is due process. Laws are laws.
It's scary to see how far our country is going.
And that's the problem - in law the definition of imminent threat is probably broad enough to make this legal....and I'm sure that is what they will argue if it ever (which it won't) goes to court.
At the moment we don't know the 'facts' (and probably never will) so until we find out that he wasn't an imminent threat then we can't really argue more.
I do agree that if he's sitting there without a gun not doing anything then this shouldn't have happened - however, if he's sitting there with a loaded gun just waiting for a police man to appear then he is an imminent threat.
As I said though, we'll probably never get the full truth!
As for "imminent threat," how much more evidence do you want?
-- His manifesto says he intended to kill cops and their families. He has made good on that vow.
-- His first murder victims were the daughter of a police captain whom he named -- saying that he (Dorner) intended to deprive Quan of his family since Dorner didn't have one -- and her fiancé, while they were sitting in their parked car.
-- He's held hostages in their home for a few days and finally stole their car and tried to flee the mountain, when he was spotted.
-- He's shot and wounded two police officers and killed two more, and been in a shootout earlier today. He retreated into this cabin shooting all the way.
-- They know he has military and LAPD training. They know he's a good shot. And that he wants to take as many police officers as possible before he dies.
-- They know he doesn't expect to get out of this alive. His manifesto said so, boasted as much.
-- If they didn't set the fire, HE DID.
-- Our reporters can now hear the sound of ammunition exploding inside the cabin. He was loaded for bear.
So the SWAT teams and police have had the cabin surrounded for hours, waiting with guns pointed at it, and it was a standoff. Then our reporter heard a shot...and then smoke starts coming out of the house, and it starts burning.
The fire trucks are on hand, but they were afraid to send firefighters in when they could be shot. Not like that hasn't happened within the last two months, after all.
I've been listening to live coverage.
I have not heard anything about their setting the cabin on fire. For one thing, they've been keeping well back from it so as not to be shot. (Remember, two other deputies were shot a few hours ago when they intercepted him carjacking, and he killed one of them, then retreated to this cabin shooting all the way.) We're getting a play by play on the radio, whether we like it or not, and the police are STILL not approaching the cabin, just in case.
It appeared to our on-scene reporters that he set the home on fire and shot himself, which would be in keeping with his manifesto saying he did not expect to be taken alive, not to mention the fact that he already set his truck on fire.
I also just had to turn down the radio as they again played the sound of his shootout with other deputies as he retreated into the cabin. Several civilians were in the crossfire. One of them was our local TV station's reporter doing a live report, who ducked down behind the wheels of his car to keep from getting shot.
It's not like we don't have TV cameras aimed at this thing from every angle. It's been all over the local news here for a week. So the LAPD can't really keep a lid on it.
Not to mention that they forced all media copters to 7 miles away, and broadcasted on the radio to go through with their burn plan several times.
Greekgeek, imminent means imminent. It doesn't mean potential, or even likely.
Here's an example. Ft. Hood shooter, once he was shot and went down, he was no longer an imminent threat. Immediately, it became wrong to shoot him. We don't aim to kill people, we aim to stop an imminent threat.
If he walked out with his hands up, would you support the police shooting him because of what he had said and done?
And, for anyone thinking the fire was an accident, go listen to the scanner feeds. The police were recorded saying 'Burn that f$*@ing house down' and similar statements, multiple times, before the fire started. They even called it, on the scanner, 'the burn plan'.
Yeah, if he came out with hands up, and they shot him, due process ain't followed.
Likewise if they set the fire.
i've just seen so many conspiracy theories on the web at this point that my first response is to question. Forums seem to be a haven for crowdsourcing outrage, so I wanna know more.
And I say this while being fully aware that the police have been acting reckless and transgressing the rules while pursuing this guy -- I brought up the people they wrongfully shot in the first hours of the hunt for Dorner, news stories which the media is just not covering like it should.
What you're saying about the police scanner, etc does not sound good at all.
One more datum: Earlier in the day, the KNX chopper saw black smoke rise up and dissipate. At the time, the police said Dorner had thrown a smoke bomb trying to cover his escape so he could slip out.
Now, did they lie about that? Or was that part of the same stuff he was carrying, since he also set his truck on fire as a distraction (after he broke an axle, apparently; I don't think that was part of his original plan.)
Oh, I know. There's a never-ending number of conspiracies, I just got outraged watching this and listening to the scanner feed. When they started talking about their 'burn plan', i almost couldn't believe it.
I don't know how much of the truth we'll know now, assuming that was him in there... not going to be much evidence left at this point.
The problem also is that this has now been reported, but we don't (and probably never will) know if this was an official tactic or just a couple of rogue cops - we will never know if someone authorized this policy or if they shot it down (excuse the pun).
This I feel is one of the biggest problems of live media - once something gets reported it's very hard to prove or disprove it - it's taken 'as-is' and often out of context.
As you say - it seems that procedures were not followed - no due course etc. By the same token - this reporting has also 'convicted' the cops without any due course. Just because there is a tape that says 'burn the house down' doesn't actually mean the cops did it.
As this was such a public event it will be investigated - but the truth may never come out fully....
I'm not trying to be difficult - I'm on the fence with this one - and I cannot really make a true statement until I've seen or heard ALL the facts - sadly I doubt I ever will!
As I said yesterday - IF (and it's a very big if) there was an imminent threat - then I have no problem with using 'any means' to take someone out - as you pointed out 'potentially' there may not have been an imminent threat.
JaxsonRaine, sorry for bumping this, but I need to eat crow and apologize.
You were totally right.
I'm prone to be skeptical about the initial rumors and reports right after events happen, because nowadays, with our 24/7 media and Twitter world, the first few hours always seem to me like a garbled broken telephone game.
But the way the police dealt with this was stepping over the line. At least some of them were clearly trying to kill, not capture him.
There is a protest happening in LA over this, and I agree with you that this needs to be investigated.
It's a shame, because I think Dorner may have warranted the death penalty for what he did (depending on your views about the death penalty). His diaries show he was lying in wait for that poor basketball coach and her fiancé, and had been stalking them in order to murder them. But even so — that's for the courts to decide, not the police.
The thing is, he was not going to give himself up. He was shooting at police. They are saying he shot himself, but we will never know that for sure I guess.
On a related note, I'm sick of all the Facebook groups that have popped up treating him as a hero and a martyr. Once you turn to murder, you can no longer be called a hero.
by Ronnie wrenchBiscuit20 months ago
http://heavy.com/news/2015/10/nouman-ra … oting-cop/Another citizen has recently been murdered in Florida by a rogue cop. The Palm Beach Gardens Police Department said officer Nouman Raja was on duty...
by SpanStar4 years ago
Here in America we want to respect law enforcers and for the most part I believe many Americans do that yet time and time again we are sorely disappointed with some of their behaviors. I don't see anyone asking this...
by Evan G Rogers6 years ago
I keep getting into discussions about economics on these forums (mostly because I hunt for them...), and the same response keeps popping up: "well, what are YOUR economic credentials!?". This is said to me...
by deecoleworld2 years ago
What are your thoughts on Police Brutality? Especially about the recent death of Walter Scott
by PrettyPanther4 years ago
Yes, this is about guns. This is about guns that didn't exist when the right to bear arms was written into our constitution. I'm sick of hearing that every citizen has a right to own a weapon that can kill...
by errum fattah7 years ago
well, i don think that those r muslims cuz no muslim can kill a muslim when he's meeting with God( i mean prayer) i think that these r agendas of non_muslim powers..
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.