Spy Drones Used To Hunt Down Christopher Dorner

Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Express reports that as a task force of 125 officers continue their search for Christopher Dorner in the rugged terrain around Big Bear, it was revealed that Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil. 'The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him,' says a senior police source. 'On the ground, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.' The use of drones was confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed agents have been prepared for Dorner to make a dash for the Mexican border since his rampage began. 'This agency has been at the forefront of domestic use of drones by law enforcement.' Dorner, who was fired from the LAPD in 2008 for lying about a fellow officer he accused of misconduct, has vowed to wreak revenge by 'killing officers and their families.' According to San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon: 'To be honest, he could be anywhere right now. Torching his own vehicle could have been a diversion to throw us off track. Anything is possible with this man.'"

Comments

not the first one

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2135132,00.html

"In June 2011 a county sheriff in North Dakota was trying to track down three men, possibly carrying guns, in connection with some missing cows. He had a lot of ground to cover, so — as one does — he called in a Predator drone from a local Air Force base. It not only spotted the men but could see that they were in fact unarmed. It was the first time a Predator had been involved in the arrest of U.S. citizens."

Re:not the first one

[paiute]

Well, looks like we can just wipe our collective asses with the Posse Comitatus Act.

Re:not the first one

[Anonymous Coward]

The Posse Comitatus Act is coupled with, and defined by, the Insurrection Act of 1807. Basically, it limits the president's power. The North Dakota sheriff in question here is likely not the president.

Re:not the first one

[Amouth]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act

"In December 1981, additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard, especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, and aircraft, as well as intelligence support, technological aid, and surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, a U.S. Navy vessel may be used to track, follow, and stop a vessel suspected of drug smuggling, but Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETs) embarked aboard the Navy vessel would perform the actual boarding and, if needed, arrest the suspect vessel's crew."

Sounds to me like requesting assistance of an aircraft and intelligence support is perfectly fine as long as the Sheriff in question is who made the arrest and not someone from the Air-force.

Re:not the first one

[DragonWriter]

Well, looks like we can just wipe our collective asses with the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of the military for law enforcement purposes without specific statutory authority.

There is also specific statutory authority providing specific protocols for military support to law enforcement, which are fairly broad when it comes to anything other than military troops actually directly making arrests or acting directly as armed enforcers.

Re:not the first one

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, lets assume that the government ignored the law.

So, what are you (as American citizens) going to do about it? What action should be taken against them? Who will hold them accountable? Who will be charged? With what? Who will enforce it?

Laws restraining the government mean nothing if nothing can be done to enforce them.

Re:not the first one

[Seumas]

Won't be the last, either. They need to setup a number of high profile incidents like this to justify use of drones to target these guys, once you and the media have fully riled up the fear level in the population. A handful more of these and we'll all be acclimated to the idea of their regular use and no longer debate it.

Re:not the first one

[Anonymous Coward]

No concerns here, it's all just part of President Obama's War on the Constitution. All active LE will just be federalized.

Re:not the first one

[Seumas]

Nothing can be done to enforce them. The idea that the population is somehow going to rise up and turn violent is absurd and outdated. The idea that it's merely a matter of voting the right guys is absurd as it hasn't happened in more than two centuries. The idea that we're supposed to be a system with three branches of government with checks and balances against each other and no one running and deciding everything is the right answer. Unfortunately, that concept has gone out the window in the last dozen years as the entire legislative branch have lost their spine and rolled over repeatedly, while granting more and more power to the executive branches during the Bush and then Obama presidencies.

Re:not the first one

[PhxBlue]

Exactly right. The government operates fusion centers for precisely this purpose. Whether they're effective at that purpose is another matter ... guess we'll find out.

Re:not the first one

[znapel]

The drones were stationed at an Air Force base, but were owned (and presumably operated) by the Customs and Border Enforcement folks. I believe the ones being used to hunt for Dorner are also Customs.

Re:not the first one

[anagama]

Absolutely correct. But for the authoritarians this is the perfect opportunity --- who is going to object to throwing these drones into catching Dorner? At the end of this there will official statements about how helpful the drones were and that will be that essentially. Public support will swell even if the ultimate intended use isn't good or reasonable.

  The real problem America faces, is not that authoritarians are grabbing power, it is that Americans want them to. Democrats and republicans only disagree on who should wield that power. Obama and GWB are perfect examples of this tribalism. Identical policies yet pure hatred by the opposing tribe. In the end it will lead to dictatorship, it has no where else to go and Americans for the most part crave that so long as their tribe wins. That's where the next civil war will come from. Not from civil libertarians fighting for freedom, but between the DNC and the GOP as they struggle to decide which party will be the last one to hold the dictatorship before the electoral rotation of seats ends.

Re:not the first one

[lennier]

In December 1981, additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies

That's interesting. So Posse Comitatus isn't a fundamental Constitutional principle at all and can be arbitrarily rewritten by Congress at whim. I presume a future Congress could "clarify" the Act further to say that the military doing anything in US domestic territory short of dropping a nuke is perfectly legal.

Re:not the first one

[Anonymous Coward]

in US domestic territory short of dropping a nuke is perfectly legal.

But how then would the military fight aliens if not using nukes in a domestic setting?

Re:not the first one

[Anonymous Coward]

it was a CBP reaper, not an air force reaper.

Re:not the first one

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, looks like we can just wipe our collective asses with the Posse Comitatus Act.

How is flying a drone at the proper altitude "law enforcement"?

Re:not the first one

[marnues]

Of course they can. That's the entire purpose of the Legislative branch of our government. It's the Judicial branch that is concerned with constitutionality.

Uncomfortable

[Dexter Herbivore]

This comes uncomfortably closely after the latest announcement of the drone authorisation map.

Re:Uncomfortable

[Darinbob]

"Drone" seems to have too many meanings. If it's ok to send a helicopter in the air to search for someone, what's wrong with sending a light unmanned vehicle into the air as well for the very same purpose? It's not like these are going to be firing missiles or calling in air strikes ala Afghan/Pakistan.

Re:Uncomfortable

[Anonymous Coward]

but now it is only one step away from arming the drones and calling in airstrikes ala Afghanistan/Pakistan.

give em an inch and they take a mile.

Re:Uncomfortable

[GameboyRMH]

Nothing, until they get cheap enough that they're swarming all over the place and everywhere has as much video surveillance as London.

Re:Uncomfortable

[maxwell demon]

As opposed to arming the helicopters?

Re:Uncomfortable

[EdZ]

as much video surveillance as London

So, most of the cameras are either broken or dummies, the vast majority of the rest are recorded at 1 fps with 4 cameras to a 320x240 MJPEG file, and none of these are networked to any centralised agency. Maybe 1% - or a fraction of - are both of useful quality, externally directable, and remotely addressable from a central agency or location.

Yeah, we've got a lot of surveillance. But it's almost all shit surveillance.

Re:Uncomfortable

[noobermin]

Because drones have a bad name.

Re:Uncomfortable

[fafalone]

It's not like these are going to be firing missiles or calling in air strikes ala Afghan/Pakistan.

Yet. They're not armed Yet. Do you honestly believe police will never try to get this power once drones are well accepted?

Re:Uncomfortable

[Darinbob]

No I don't. Police could call in missile strikes now if they could and it was practical. Drones add nothing new.

Re:Uncomfortable

[tehcyder]

You're in danger of spoiling the daily Slashdot Five Minute Hate against the UK CCTV surveillance nightmare.

Re:Uncomfortable

[Fallout2man]

What makes "Drone use" bad is when drones are capable of firing on targets. The distancing of the operator from the situation removes the human factor and enables one to open fire on people in ways they never would if they were there in person. Since they don't see the gory carnage themselves, just an arial view of little white dots.

That's the problem, armed drones could very well lead to even more excessive force problems if they're employed by our current PDs.

Re:Uncomfortable

[squiggleslash]

The only way to defeat a bad helicopter with a gun is a good helicopter with a gun.

No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

That are equipped with similar sensors.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Dexter Herbivore]

No different, except for the massive difference in operating costs. How much does a chopper pilot get paid, how much in dollar terms does the fuel cost, how much does the vehicle cost to build? How much does a drone cost in comparison? Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.

Re:No different than helicopters

[alexander_686]

True – but helicopters are expensive to operate – drones are much cheaper. I am mindful of the slippery slope logical fallacy but it does bring us one step closer to 24 hour surveillance.

Re:No different than helicopters

[synapse7]

What do drone "operator(s)" get paid compared to a helicopter pilot?

Re:No different than helicopters

[0123456]

What do drone "operator(s)" get paid compared to a helicopter pilot?

The great thing about drone operators is that you can outsource the job to China or India. So probably not much.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

Having supported both manned and unmanned ISR platforms for DOD (and scientific sensors manned and unmanned for NASA), I can tell you that drones usually are more expensive to operate. The ground support personnel footprint for drones is FAR larger.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

A great thing about outsourcing drone operator jobs to China or India is that they have no compunction against firing on American civilians.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

No. For what you pay for this drone http://www2.l-3com.com/uas/tech_uas/viking_400.htm you can easily buy a small helicopter like a new Robinson R22 (or a used King Air fixed wing turbo prop or Robinson R44 helo).

Re:No different than helicopters

[Dexter Herbivore]

I think you've just hit on the operating principle around Echelon.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

The great thing about firing on American citizens is that it can be used to put the final nail into the rule of law coffin.

Yippee Kay Yay motherfuckers!

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.

The outrage seen here isn't about surveillance. It's about hating law enforcement.

We are quietly setting ourselves up for open-ended scrutiny by government minders. Most of the same people here today getting wrapped around the axle about drones in this manhunt have nothing at all to say about the surveillance that is implied by Obamacare.

Selective outrage among malcontents. That's all it is.

Re:No different than helicopters

[alexander_686]

You have to consider total cost of operations – not just the initial capital layout costs.
          Drones tend to be lighter (no human pilot) so fuel costs are lower.
          Human costs are lower – one pilot can run multiple drones.
          Drones can operate for longer periods – so less downtime.
Etc.

Re:No different than helicopters

[MozeeToby]

To be fair, he claims to have access to shoulder launched air to ground missiles. The fact that less than a week ago he went through check in procedures at a naval base but never went through the check out procedures certainly gets my imagination going... especially if I were a helicopter pilot assigned to look for him. Though I of course understand that gaining access to the armory isn't the same as gaining entrance to the base.

Re:No different than helicopters

[cusco]

surveillance that is implied by Obamacare

Well this should be amusing. What the frack are you babbling about now?

Re:No different than helicopters

[AK Marc]

R22 doesn't work for government. You need a Bell turbine helicopter because nearly all government helicopters are multi-purpose. If it can't tow a water bucket for forest fires, hold 2 wounded for evac, and all that, then it isn't worth buying. So they spend $5,000,000 on a nice turbine helicopter, and only flight schools touch Robinson (and a few private pilots who desperately want to own a helicopter for personal use).

Re:No different than helicopters

[Darinbob]

These drones aren't going to be firing on anyone. They have cameras not weapons, and the operator isn't going to be calling in a missile strike.

Re:No different than helicopters

[CanHasDIY]

surveillance that is implied by Obamacare

Well this should be amusing. What the frack are you babbling about now?

Probably the clause that states physicians aren't required to or prohibited from asking about firearm ownership.

I read it myself, doesn't seem all that onerous - Of course, I'm one of the seemingly small handful of people who realize the medical industry is exactly the same as any other retail operation, and thus I have a right as a patient to tell any doctor who gets too nosy about my personal life to go fuck him/herself.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Darinbob]

A model airplane is technically a drone too...

Re:No different than helicopters

[Sarten-X]

Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.

Why not? Honestly, it's something I'm pretty okay with. I like the idea of being able to check on my house while I'm at the office, and be sure everything's as it should be. I like the idea of the police recording my house constantly, so if someone breaks in, there's a clear recording of what happened and where they went. I like the idea of being able to shout to my ever-listening surveillance system for help and have paramedics respond.

What I don't like is having that surveillance used for injustice. I don't like having the police watching everything I do, knowing that current law allows anything they see to be cause for a search or arrest. I don't like letting Google have broad permission to compile by browsing history into a single profile of my personality. I don't like letting anyone with a few hundred dollars in hardware be able to follow me from the sky 24/7.

Rather than complaining about current laws and fighting the political fights to get more modern privacy expectations into legislation, though, Slashdotters complain about the technology used. We can't have red-light cameras, can't have national health care, and can't have drones, but we can keep our laws broadly set the same as they were when voting was a privilege of white men.

It's an odd situation... We nerds usually love new technology, but yet here we'll rally against the technology, rather than the legislation that lets it be used against innocent people.

Re:No different than helicopters

[CanHasDIY]

To be fair, he claims to have access to shoulder launched air to ground missiles. The fact that less than a week ago he went through check in procedures at a naval base but never went through the check out procedures certainly gets my imagination going... especially if I were a helicopter pilot assigned to look for him. Though I of course understand that gaining access to the armory isn't the same as gaining entrance to the base.

According to the LAPD themselves, 2 rocket launchers were surrendered during the December "Turn in Your Guns" drive...

Re:No different than helicopters

[im_thatoneguy]

By that logic we should only be allowed to fly the least fuel efficient helicopters possible. Should the police only be able to drive 10mpg cars with a 30 mile range so that they can't abuse their authority?

Do we disagree with the notion that the police should be able to find and arrest a suspect? Is there a 'challenge level' that the police should be forced to overcome in routine police work and law enforcement? Should we give criminals a 2 minute head start?

I'm always a little confused by this angle of argument since the logical conclusion is that the police should be forced to pursue criminals on foot using 18th century technology and not employing any modern equipment since it makes them "too effective". What precisely is "too effective"?

Re:No different than helicopters

[X0563511]

Cost? Why does that matter? Are we only allowing the police to do something if it costs a bunch of money?

Drones are OK when used in this manner. Eg, they are looking for a specific person or are responding to a specific event.

Putting them up on patrols to look around and project presence however, is NOT OK.

Re:No different than helicopters

[RsG]

Actually, that one's a myth. What they got were discarded disposable launch tubes, with no rockets in them, probably brought back from the middle east.

Without an unfired rocket in the tube, the tube itself is essentially scrap metal. You can't reload it (hence "disposable"), and even if you somehow could, you can't acquire the rockets for it in the first place. The rockets are treated as restricted munitions, the tube (sans rocket) is not, and the regulations that draw that distinction are sensibly written.

To draw a non-rocket analogy, I can go to my local army surplus and buy a sawn in half grenade casing with no explosives in it. Without the part that goes BOOM, the metal bits that were once attached aren't weapons anymore.

Re:No different than helicopters

[cold fjord]

The great thing about drone operators is that you can outsource the job to China or India. So probably not much

Somehow I doubt the US Air Force, or local law enforcement for that matter, will be giving control over drones that are armed or simply used for surveillance to either the Chinese or Indians.

Slashdot: Comment is free - but it shouldn't be thought free.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Runaway1956]

Huh? WTF?

You're claiming that it takes more mechanical, communication, medical, electronics, and other support personnel to keep an unmanned craft in the air, than it takes to keep a piloted helicopter in the air?

I call bullshit. If the drones cost MORE, overall, then we wouldn't be seeing them used routinely. People would just hire a helicopter pilot!

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

No different, except for the massive difference in operating costs. How much does a chopper pilot get paid, how much in dollar terms does the fuel cost, how much does the vehicle cost to build? How much does a drone cost in comparison? Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.

It would seem more expedient to outlaw spying, than to force the government to spend more of your money to spy on you.

Re:No different than helicopters

[JDG1980]

No different, except for the massive difference in operating costs. How much does a chopper pilot get paid, how much in dollar terms does the fuel cost, how much does the vehicle cost to build? How much does a drone cost in comparison?

Dorner is a multiple murderer with a $1 million bounty on his head. The authorities in this case aren't worried about the financial costs of bringing him in. Now, it's certainly true that in other cases the use of automated surveillance might enable the cops to go further than they would if they had to do things manually, but this isn't really a good test case for that.

Re:No different than helicopters

[gmack]

It could also be the clause requiring the government create a "registry of implantable devices" which some of my more paranoid friends have somehow taken to mean "a chip implanted for tracking".

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not bullshit. Because unmanned vehicles are unmanned, the incidental items adds up to a lot. UAV's require a bigger airspace exclusion corridor due to the fact that they are unmanned. Safety systems, communication pathways, etc. also have to be maintained with sizable capacity margins, as having a UAV fall on a house in the US would be a political nightmare. Maintaining all this infrastructure adds up.

UAV's over international water and foreign countries without modern ATC requirements don't require this level of support, and the cost is cheaper (also when the pilot can remain in the US and you don't have to pay for travel, combat pay, etc.).

Armed UAV's are at least order of magnitude worse in all these aspects (even over water / etc). IMHO, this isn't going to happen in the US without a CONUS war footing (drug cartel actions are the only possibility I can think of in the near future, and those would NOT be done by DHS)

Re:No different than helicopters

[CanHasDIY]

Not new information to me, but if you read the article I linked to, the LAPD Chief specifically stated that they had acquired a rocket launcher - he did not note that they were useless tubes of composite.

Side note: Who the hell turns in a one-of-a-kind military artifact in exchange for a $100 Walmart card? I guess the word "heirloom" is not taught in CA schools...

Re:No different than helicopters

[fyngyrz]

Should the police only be able to drive 10mpg cars with a 30 mile range so that they can't abuse their authority?

Just put them on the street, walking. They get to know their little neighborhood, and vice-versa. The only need for cars is for traffic enforcement, and 99% of that is purest bullshit anyway.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be sure the money was used to buy meth

Re:No different than helicopters

[CanHasDIY]

It could also be the clause requiring the government create a "registry of implantable devices" which some of my more paranoid friends have somehow taken to mean "a chip implanted for tracking".

Well, that does cause my paranoia to flare up as well, albeit not for such a ridiculous reason.

Why would the government, legitimately, need a who's-who list of pacemaker/hearing aid users?

Re:No different than helicopters

[HornWumpus]

When I was kid we used to play with an empty LAW rocket launcher tube.

I bought it at a garage sale. It's likely still in my folks house somewhere.

I'll sell it to you for $100.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

No different, except for the massive difference in operating costs. How much does a chopper pilot get paid, how much in dollar terms does the fuel cost, how much does the vehicle cost to build? How much does a drone cost in comparison? Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.

So... um... you're advocating deliberate inefficiency as the solution to your privacy concerns? That seems... foolish to rely upon.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

And you'd be wrong to call bullshit, a news station can afford to use a helicopter to report the traffic. The average tourist can take helicopter tours for a couple hundred bucks. Helicopters are pretty damn cheap in comparison to most of the drones. It's easier and cheaper to have the operator of the machine physically present rather than doing it remotely. The military uses drones for a couple of reasons, they aren't putting pilots lives in danger by using them, and they have much longer mission times than a piloted aircraft.

In this case, the police are lucky that Edwards is around 50 miles from where they are searching. Those drones were being used for training missions anyway, they might as well be used for something productive while they are at it.

Re:No different than helicopters

[CrimsonAvenger]

I call bullshit. If the drones cost MORE, overall, then we wouldn't be seeing them used routinely. People would just hire a helicopter pilot!

Do consider that if the LAPD asks the military for drones to look for Dorner, the cost of the drones comes out of the US Military budget, whereas if the LAPD uses its helicopters (yes, it has some), then the cost comes out of the LAPD budget.

Plus, of course, drones are very fashionable. And if they catch this guy using drones, then their request for piles of extra money next year to get their own drones gets looked at more favourably.

Frankly, considering that Dorner has had at least three days to get away, he could be anywhere in North America by now, so looking for him near where he dumped his truck looks pretty pointless.\

Re:No different than helicopters

[CanHasDIY]

When I was kid we used to play with an empty LAW rocket launcher tube.

See, that's cool!

I bought it at a garage sale. It's likely still in my folks house somewhere.

Let me guess, base town (i.e., a town near a military base)? Out of curiosity, how much did you give for it?

I'll sell it to you for $100.

Better not, knowing me I'd probably find a way to get myself in trouble with it :)

Re:No different than helicopters

[Curunir_wolf]

surveillance that is implied by Obamacare Well this should be amusing. What the frack are you babbling about now?

He's probably talking about stuff like this and this and this, among other things.

Re:No different than helicopters

[cusco]

Recalls, mostly. Currently if there is a recall it filters from the manufacturer to the wholesaler to the reseller to the hospital or clinic and finally to the doctor. The real world isn't like CSI, you can't make a call and figure out that a pacemaker with serial #76468 was implanted in Alan Smythe with a two minute phone call, much less how to contact him to let him know that on the date 11/12/13 his heart is going to stop.

Re:No different than helicopters

[CanHasDIY]

Recalls, mostly.

That would seem the legitimate use case, but when you take into consideration that the government does not typically intervene in the recall process of other products, such as automobile*, that argument begins to get a bit shaky.

* Here's how automotive recalls happen, based on my experiences and education as an automotive technician:
1) the company is made aware of a major mechanical issue
2) company lawyers decide which is cheaper - performing the recall, or paying out on the inevitable lawsuits if they don't
3) if it's cheaper to let people die than to recall and repair the problem, no recall notice is issued.

Conversely, I can think of a number of nefarious purposes for such a list, especially considering that many of these implanted medical devices are now remotely accessible.

Re:No different than helicopters

[HornWumpus]

I was in grade school, so I'm guessing less then $1.

These days some Nelly would call the cops if they saw a cub scout walking down the road with a LAW.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Type44Q]

To be fair, he claims to have access to shoulder launched air to ground missiles.

To be fair, the incredibly corrupt and completely untrustworthy L.A.P.D. claims that he's claimed this...

Re:No different than helicopters

[45mm]

Considering the imagery delivered by the article, the "2 rocket launchers" were really spent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT4 canisters - they are one-shot weapons, and cannot be reloaded. Trophies, and basically worthless. The LAPD paid money for innocuous tubes - makes for sensational headlines, however.

Re:No different than helicopters

[tibman]

The drone might be cheaper but you have to remember that they are being controlled via satellite. The infrastructure required to operate drones is quite large.

Re:No different than helicopters

[arekin]

The drone might be cheaper but you have to remember that they are being controlled via satellite. The infrastructure required to operate drones is quite large.

Not exactly, The majority of satellites used in drone operation were in the sky for another purpose and have simply added "drone relay" to their list of functions. A minor firmware upgrade, so operating costs are as little as the cost of the code needed to upgrade the satellite.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Marful]

You do understand what "PR" means right?


Think about it; which one sounds better from a PR perspective?

Re:No different than helicopters

[fustakrakich]

Safety systems, communication pathways, etc. also have to be maintained with sizable capacity margins, as having a UAV fall on a house in the US would be a political nightmare.

You mean they would have to make the thing as safe as a manned vehicle? I say, pull the plug now.

Re:No different than helicopters

[fustakrakich]

...on the date 11/12/13 his heart is going to stop.

That's only if he's late on the payments.

Re:No different than helicopters

[superdana]

They're not all turbines. LAPD flies piston Enstroms too.

Re:No different than helicopters

[alexander_686]

Not necessarily.

Most drones can be controlled from the ground – in fact most drones are controlled from the ground when they are landing – too much lag time to go via the satellite. During the first Gulf War most of the drones were controlled, IIRC, UHF from local sites.

The reason why most are controlled via satellite today is that the military does not want to maintain lots of ground stations in a war zone. If there were routinely operating in the US – well I am sure they would build out the networking capacity to handle it.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

"Too effective" is a question that only six million can answer.

Re:No different than helicopters

[noobermin]

Why is this modded anything? Do you have some reasoning for your claim?

Re:No different than helicopters

[tibman]

I can agree with that but you can't handwave the satellites away. They are required for the larger drones. Like saying air traffic control towers already exist because of fixed wing.. so helicopters are a small addition. They are still a requirement.

Re:No different than helicopters

[tibman]

I can go for that for you have to admit that building out ground stations sound like required infrastructure. My original point was that though the drones themselves are cheaper, there is a lot of needed infrastructure to support them.

Hand held drones are probably the best bang to buck ratio but i don't think they would be as useful in this scenario. I'm guessing the thermal camera and high altitude is what they wanted.

It's very possible that helicopters are more expensive to operate, for all i know. But i think drones have an unrealistic reputation as dirt cheap robots that some bigwigs control with an iphone. Just to cherry pick, here's the GH: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Hawk#Specifications

Re:No different than helicopters

[alexander_686]

Umm – you know that your post covers everything from hand held drones to the top of the line jet powered drones, designed for multi-day missions with military strike capability. That’s a huge range.

So I will throw you this one – more in line with what a police department woudl run - powered by a snowmobile engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AAI_RQ-2_Pioneer

As for the costs – you would be amazed at the backed costs of running an airplane. Helicopters are even worse. Maintenance costs are very high. Pilots are expensive - and you need a lot of them because their flight hours are limited.

Re:No different than helicopters

[gmhowell]

You do understand what "PR" means right?

Think about it; which one sounds better from a PR perspective?

I believe it's a phrase meaning 'bullshit'. Commonly used in CA and the NE corridor from DC to NYC. Particularly strong on Madison Avenue.

Re:No different than helicopters

[formfeed]

The great thing about drone operators is that you can outsource the job to China or India. So probably not much.

Too expensive, try North Dakota.

Re:No different than helicopters

[tehcyder]

What do drone "operator(s)" get paid compared to a helicopter pilot?

The great thing about drone operators is that you can outsource the job to China or India. So probably not much.

That is one of the most retarded things on slashdot today, and as always there's fierce competition.

Do you seriously think that the US military would ever outsource their drone operators to China? if you don't see the problem, imagine if I said Russia or Iran instead.

Re:No different than helicopters

[tehcyder]

A great thing about outsourcing drone operator jobs to China or India is that they have no compunction against firing on American civilians.

Or American military targets, you utter imbecile.

Re:No different than helicopters

[tehcyder]

Should the police only be able to drive 10mpg cars with a 30 mile range so that they can't abuse their authority?

Just put them on the street, walking. They get to know their little neighborhood, and vice-versa. The only need for cars is for traffic enforcement, and 99% of that is purest bullshit anyway.

How would that work in somewhere like Los Angeles where the only pedestrians are people who have just been thrown out of their vehicles at gunpoint by carjackers?

Re:No different than helicopters

[tibman]

That system does look at lot cheaper and more in-line with something a local police force would use. But it's extremely limited range and inability to be automated (even the new versions) makes it a poor candidate to support your claim of 24/7 surveillance. I think you'll need something bigger for that. Something more expensive than a helicopter : )

Drones are planes with the pilot on the ground and more infrastructure. You cannot say maintenance on a plane/heli is expensive and not mention maintaining the drones too. The same goes for drone operators.

Re:No different than helicopters

[CanHasDIY]

You do understand what "PR" means right?

Think about it; which one sounds better from a PR perspective?

Are you sure you're responding to the right post?

Re:No different than helicopters

[arekin]

Of course, I'm simply stating that you couldn't really call it an additional cost (if that is what you were implying). Any option they took in this situation would require some infrastructure in place, be it roads, satellites, or even as you stated air traffic control.

Re:No different than helicopters

[EuclideanSilence]

In addition to what others have pointed out, I would prefer if police used more fuel efficient means, this is tax money they are spending.

I suggest that the standard should be "anything the police want to do that a regular civilian can't, they need a warrant for". If the police want to monitor with drones, then either we all can do it or the police need a judge-signed-with-reason-given warrant in every single case. This would fix many problems besides just drones. It would also being a start to putting police (especially Federal) back under the authority of the civilian populace.

There is no criminal more dangerous than a police officer.

Re:No different than helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

What I don't like is having that surveillance used for injustice.

Then you don't want ubiquitous surveillance.

Take a look at the countless corrupt governments throughout history. People in the government are corruptible humans, not perfect beings. I am not saying we should ban the technology, but it is not something we should allow the government to use on citizens just because they might catch a few bad guys and you want to feel safe.

Slashdotters complain about the technology used.

Stop pretending everyone on Slashdot is the same.

We can't have red-light cameras

Correct.

can't have national health care

I don't see why not.

and can't have drones

Right.

but we can keep our laws broadly set the same as they were when voting was a privilege of white men.

What?

This is NEWS?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guys, this has been making the rounds on Faceplant for the last three days now. While I give that it's news that matters, I'd have thought you guys would be more timely...

Re:This is NEWS?

[Anonymous Coward]

First day on Slashdot, I see?

Re:This is NEWS?

[Dexter Herbivore]

/. aggregates, it doesn't report. I get annoyed too, but then I have to take a deep breath and remind myself...

Fascinating stuff

[paiute]

Christ, this whole thing is entertaining in a macabre way that I should not be enjoying, but I am. It's like bad guys vs badder guys. I don't know who to root against from day to day.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

I get where you're coming from. What the guy did was wrong, no doubt, shooting those cops, but the LAPD is notorious for abuses like the was fired for accusing the other cop of. He was likely unstable to begin with and being fired for trying to do the right thing probably caused him to snap. Everybody has a breaking point after which people behave differently than they ordinarily would. This guy reached his. Moral of the story: if you see a superior doing something wrong, like beating a homeless guy: don't report it.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... you could just... y'know... um... make that decision on a case-by-case basis?

PFFFFFFFFT HA HA HA HA HA nah, I'm just foolin' with you. Calculated, reasoned decisions? Who has time for THAT? That's not trendy! Them Versus Us, baby! It's efficient! It's controlled by herd mentality, directed by marketeers and hucksters, so there's no pesky thinking involved on your part! And best of all, any decisions reached in that manner are entirely guilt-free! After all, you can blame the guy next to you who agreed with the herd, too!

Re:Fascinating stuff

[synapse7]

I missed it, what is he seeking revenge for?

Re:Fascinating stuff

[realityimpaired]

He believes the LAPD ruined his life, because he accused his trainer of beating up a civilian while he was doing his first week mentorship, and those charges were dropped after an investigation revealed that they were false. The "ruining his life" part comes because the LAPD then dismissed him for making a false charge: they felt he was a risk to have on the force.

Regardless of whether the civilian in question was actually assaulted as he accuses, this incident kind of proves their point...

Re:Fascinating stuff

[sjwest]

Remind you of the film the running man ?

Re:Fascinating stuff

[sl4shd0rk]

Christ, this whole thing is entertaining in a macabre way that I should not be enjoying,

This is the second problem America has which perpetuates the first problem.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

This time you want the badder guys to prevail. This former cop is Going after family members who have no clue what their cop husband/dad or wife/mom did in the field (if anything).

Re:Fascinating stuff

[rtb61]

Kind of of sad that they have to offer a million dollar reward for the capture of this man, really indicates how unpopular the police have become. Apparently the public would is more likely to protect him so that he can continue his revenge against the police, so the police, are forced to offer a massive reward. This reward yet again reminds people how much the police in that jurisdiction value their lives over the lives of the general public.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[vilanye]

No it doesn't.

You could take a 60 year old who has never even thought of harming anyone, and mistreat him to the point where he would go on a rampage.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Blue Stone]

>"those charges were dropped after an investigation revealed that they were false."

Alternatively, with more neutrality and less bias:

"those charges were dropped after an investigation concluded that they were false."

I mean ... unless you're certain that the LAPD would never cover up wrong doing to protect their own.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Aside from the guy in Running Man not being a homicidal maniac, yes.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Other than the fact that this guy is the exact opposite of Ben Richards, it's just like The Running Man.

The OP is correct in that this is simply Bad Guys vs. Worse Guys.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[sjames]

Also noted in TFA, police wounded a mother and daughter when they opened fire on a similar looking pickup truck without verifying their target. Perhaps that's why LAPD is so unpopular.

It's the sort of thing that makes one wonder if his report was actually false in the first place.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Holi]

Yes they concluded that it was a false statement, while completely ignoring the fact that the victim and the victims father corroborated his story. Not that any of this excuses his actions in the slightest.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

http://picosong.com/nFmD/

DUNN DUNN DUNN
He wants to be the very best
Like no cop ever was
To kill them all is his real test
To expose them is his cause
He will travel across L.A.
Searching far and wide
For each family to understand
The conspiracy that's inside
CHRIS DORNER
Is gonna kill 'em all
Who comes next he'll make the call
CHRIS DORNER
Ohh, he'll kill again
For the truth he must defend
CHRIS DORNER
Is serious fucking shit
Say nigger and you'll get hit
He'll chew you up into bits
CHRIS DORNER
He's so fucking bad
He could kill your dad
CHRIS DORNER

Re:Fascinating stuff

[LordLimecat]

You should root for the people who arent running around doing extra-judical killing sprees, and instead root for the people who are trying to catch him.

Just because the world isnt perfect doesnt mean you lose track of perspective and stop caring about whether a serial killer is caught or not. Do you really mean to imply that you think that the cops who have been killed all deserved it?

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

So... are you saying it's a bit like killing the child of an adult of combat age in a combat zone?

Re:Fascinating stuff

[realityimpaired]

I mean ... unless you're certain that the LAPD would never cover up wrong doing to protect their own.

I'm old enough to remember the testimony given by Sgt. Stacey Koon... your point is well taken. :)

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Rockoon]

Or you could indiscriminately fire 40+ rounds into a vehicle containing a 71 year old woman and her daughter without any warning at all, triggering otherwise rational people into considering a rampage.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[CanHasDIY]

Moral of the story: if you see a superior doing something wrong, like beating a homeless guy: don't report it.

Well, sure, if you're an honor-less piece of human detritus.

For men with honor, few as they may be, the moral is: report the abuse, get fired; take every legal avenue possible, get shut out by a system gamed against you; when all other options are exhausted, take your honor back by force.

Thank goodness the British Empire didn't have drones, or we'd all be having tea and crumpets right about now.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[CanHasDIY]

Also noted in TFA, police wounded a mother and daughter when they opened fire on a similar looking pickup truck without verifying their target.

Taking bets on the end result to that one - my money is on "paid administrative leave during 'investigation,' cleared of any wrongdoing, back on the streets in 2-3 weeks"

Re:Fascinating stuff

[0111 1110]

Not that any of this excuses his actions in the slightest.

I agree that killing the bad cops is an over-reaction, but otherwise he does sound like one of the good guys who got fired for violating the blue wall of silence.

The problem is that seeking justice against a cop is a problematic endeavor. Short of improbably convincing evidence that is quite rare in the real world, getting a DA to prosecute a cop for anything is nearly impossible. So our justice system doesn't punish them. Period. Not even for murder (well unless it's for the murder of another cop of course).

So if you are a justice minded person what do you do? Just accept that the system sucks and live with the injustice? Killing them may be an overly harsh punishment depending on what the cops actually did, but it is pretty much the only thing you can do against them. These guys are armed pretty much all the time. This is what happens when our justice system breaks down and seeks injustice instead. This is one of the practical problems with a corrupt system where a certain privileged elite are above the law.

It's also important to keep in mind that the murdered cops may have threatened Dorner's life. He may have had reason to believe that they would have murdered him, and of course got away with it, if he hadn't killed them first. The code of the Blue Wall may have allowed that. In their view he is a 'rat'. Think about what criminal gangs do to rats. Aside from the badges they carry, police are indistinguishable from criminal gangs and this guy turned against them.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[CanHasDIY]

You should root for the people who arent running around doing extra-judical killing sprees, and instead root for the people who are trying to catch him.

But I thought you said were weren't supposed to root for the ones engaging in extra-judicial killing sprees?

Oh, I see, the LAPD only wounded innocent people, so they're still the good guys, I guess?

Re:Fascinating stuff

[X0563511]

It's Fight or Flight, not just Fight. If they Flight, and you impede them, they will either turn to Fight or break down.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

This reminds me of Fahrenheit 451, when enemies of the state were hunted down on live TV for the entertainment of the masses.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[0111 1110]

For men with honor, few as they may be, the moral is: report the abuse, get fired; take every legal avenue possible

What legal avenues? I suppose he could have gone to the FBI, who are responsible for enforcing this sort of thing precisely because it is pretty obvious that, just like any gang and like the FBI themselves, the cops are always going to protect their own. The only question is whether or not the FBI considers the local cops to be one of their own as well. In which case reporting police criminal activity to them is just as useless as filing a complaint about it with the police.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

It was not a similar looking pickup truck. The vehicle shot was neither a Nissan Titan, nor was it grey. It was a blue Toyota Tacoma. And the police engaged the vehicle without issuing any orders to the occupants. No sirens, no verbal commands, nothing. Just *POW POW POW*. LAPD's mistake? They didnt kill the two occupants. Now they will face a civil lawsuit that they cannot win. Often if the victim is killed, then there are no first hand accounts of what happened. Its standard police procedure. If you mess up, leave no one alive to tell any tales.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Likely this is exactly what Dorner thinks he's doing...

Re:Fascinating stuff

[volxdragon]

I'm surprised this aspect isn't getting more press - did you see the pictures of their truck? We're not talking 1 or 2 bullet holes, it looks like it was in a war zone...

Re:Fascinating stuff

[fyngyrz]

Aside from the badges they carry, police are indistinguishable from criminal gangs and this guy turned against them.

Also, legislators, lawyers and judges, unfortunately. The entire system is corrupt from top to bottom.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[QuantumRiff]

Even more interesting, was 30 min later, they shot up another pickup, 2 blocks away from the first shooting..

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

At worst, they negligently wounded innocent people due to paranoia caused by Dorner killing their colleagues.
Dorner intentionally murdered people.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[CanHasDIY]

I never said any of them were viable, only that they are the "legal avenues."

Re:Fascinating stuff

[CanHasDIY]

I'm surprised this aspect isn't getting more press - did you see the pictures of their truck? We're not talking 1 or 2 bullet holes, it looks like it was in a war zone...

Yea, I noticed the little round-counting cards numbered to at least 46...

My guess is, the LAPD will try and keep that one on the DL until the whole Chris Dorner thing blows over, then, once the world is no longer paying attention, quietly sweep the whole mess under the rug.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Grand Facade]

And if you think for a minute that any "civilian" citizen is going to collect a single dime of that offered reward, you need to switch brands of KoolAide.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you are one of those "guilty unless proven otherwise within 15 seconds" guys. Did you even read his manifesto? Start there.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[vilanye]

Yup, funny how the cops rampage seems to be getting little attention.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[0111 1110]

They keep making those "mistakes". Perhaps one day they will fire their weapons intentionally. These are not upholders of the law who believe in any sort of principles like justice. They are sick, violent, criminals who don't believe in anything except might makes right and belong in jail themselves.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[vilanye]

Thank you for summing up my simple point.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Attila Dimedici]

The victim was an unreliable witness because of his mental problems, the victim's father based his testimony on the victim's statements (meaning that the father's testimony was of limited value). That being said, those statements lend credibility to Dorner's complaint. However, weighed against that is the fact that he made the allegation two weeks after the incident and the day after his mentor had given him an evaluation that critiqued him for certain aspects of his learning to do the job (the mentor evaluated him as "satisfactory" but it is likely that when they explained his evaluation to him they explained to him that his shortcomings were critical and failure to improve them could cost him his job).

Re:Fascinating stuff

[0111 1110]

The LAPD tried to intentionally murder people in the pickup trucks they shot up like swiss cheese. The fact that they didn't actually kill the mother and daughter is amazing. They certainly tried like hell. Cops without military training are notoriously bad shots.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

And you know what proves Dorner's point? The LAPD ramming vehicles and opening fire on anything that looks like his pickup. In fact, the LAPD so far has the higher hit count, and I don't see anyone "outraged" over the fact that they opened fire on two Asian women without ID'ing them first.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[0111 1110]

Anyone with any sort of real experience with the police, or anyone who has ever searched youtube for "police brutality" already knows who to believe. Why would a cop choose to bring a shitstorm upon himself for no good reason? No one would do that. Dorner's story is simply more plausible and far more likely to be the truth than yet another "false accusation". To the cops themselves every accusation is a false one. And he sure as hell isn't going on a rampage of revenge over a merely satisfactory evaluation. Give me a break. This is the result of the unjust system, of the Blue Wall of Silence, which protects police from their own violent, sadistic crimes.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[sjames]

In further reading, apparently all of the nearby homes and cars are also riddled with bullets. So, we can add reckless disregard for the safety of bystanders to the charges against the LAPD.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[sjames]

Certainly any other group of people who opened fire in a neighborhood would be sitting in jail right now. Given the reckless endangerment of everyone around, even a legitimate threat from someone wouldn't excuse the shooting.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Johann Lau]

http://laist.com/2013/02/07/christopher_dorners_manifesto_in_fu.php

Re:Fascinating stuff

[fatphil]

"Similar" as in "different brand, different colour, and with a different number of people of different gender in it"?

They're scared. They've got twitchy trigger fingers. And they certainly aren't professional. They're not the kind of people who I would want policing me, that's for sure.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not about police lives being worth more than the public's; it's about setting a harsher example for killing officers since they are flesh and blood too. They die just as easy as everyone else; the only difference is they have training, a vest, and are armed. If killing law enforcement had the same penalty as killing anyone else, there would probably be even more law enforcement deaths than there are now. You have to remember, the illusion of control has to be maintained, because let's face it: there's no way law enforcement could possibly control 100% of the population if they decided to revolt. The movie "The Warriors" caught hell with their ad slogan back in the 70's because it brought light to the fact that the NY gangs far outnumbered the NYPD, and remember, that doesn't count the other millions of citizens at could just decide one day that 7 million people is too much for even the military to handle.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[X0563511]

You missed that there's a path to breaking down, instead of fighting. That was my point (to your point)

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Attila Dimedici]

And he sure as hell isn't going on a rampage of revenge over a merely satisfactory evaluation.

No, he is going on a rampage of revenge over getting fired. If he had made these allegations in a format that did not suggest that he was a loose canon, I would agree with you. The police have lost the benefit of the doubt (especially the LAPD). However, Dorner has made himself even less credible than the LAPD (and that takes some doing).
Dorner's actions in this rampage indicate that the LAPD made the correct choice in firing him. There are already too many police officers who believe that they have the right to use the power of their position to enact revenge against they perceive as having wronged them. Now if only the LAPD would fire the rest of the megalomaniac officers.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[sjames]

They are exactly the people who shouldn't be allowed to carry a gun. They are exactly the people who will be exempt from any gun control measure.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[0111 1110]

You are assuming that the rampage is just over being fired? That if he had been fired for any reason at all he would have gone on a killing spree? I highly doubt that. Hell, I bet this wasn't his first job or the first time he's ever been fired.

I think a more plausible story is that his rampage is over what he was fired for: the injustice of being fired for ratting them out, for telling the truth, for trying to expose a sick fuck of a cop who beat and injured a helpless suspect. God knows what else the guy saw. All kinds of crimes probably. I'm betting that what really happened was something that would piss off any normal person, but instead it happened to a person who wasn't normal and he just lost it and went for pure revenge regardless of the consequences.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Trailer Trash]

The victim was an unreliable witness because of his mental problems, the victim's father based his testimony on the victim's statements (meaning that the father's testimony was of limited value)

Right. And this is the same LAPD that protected a murderer in their ranks - Stephanie Lazarus - for 25 years. At best, we just hit "even" on reliability.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[MozeeToby]

They fired their weapons without identifying their target. Where I come from, they teach 12 year olds not to do that the first night of hunters safety. Firing your weapon unprovoked at anyone should automatically land a cop a suspension, even if they think they're maybe shooting at someone dangerous.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Attila Dimedici]

He was fired in by the LAPD in 2008. Currently he appears to have killed his own attorney's daughter and her fiance as part of this rampage against the "injustice" of being fired over four years ago. His job with the LAPD appears to be his first job after completing his enlistment in the U.S. Navy. He waited over four years after he was fired to go on a rampage. As far as I can tell, he made no other attempts to get his allegations of police brutality addressed in the meantime. So, yes, I believe that it was just a matter of time until Dorner went on a killing spree, even if he was still a member of the LAPD. (Of course in that latter case, if his victims were not police officers, the LAPD would be covering up for him rather than attempting apprehend him).

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Attila Dimedici]

When I say that the victim was unreliable what I mean is that he had a tendency to answer "yes" to all yes-or-no questions. In addition, he described the officer who struck him as "almost black" with dark hair. The officer whom Dorner accused of kicking the victim was blonde with fair skin.
If Dorner had made these accusations in a rational manner (rather than the rambling insane "manifesto" which he released) and not after beginning a murderous rampage that included killing his own attorney's daughter and her fiance, I would be inclined to believe him, but considering the circumstances I am inclined to disbelieve him. This does not mean that I know and trust the LAPD, just that Dorner has demonstrated that, in this case, the LAPD acted appropriately in firing him.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Type44Q]

This former cop is Going after family members...

No. We're being told that that's what he's doing. It may be the same thing to you; my critical thinking skills (not to mention my awareness of the complete lack of credibility of the powers in question) tell me it's not.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[spire3661]

Im not sure who you are referring to here. Both parties are widely thought to have committed murders.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[HornWumpus]

Ratting them out 2 weeks later, after receiving criticism. It was a retaliatory complaint.

He's just a bad as any of them. Worse then most.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[undeadbill]

Well, considering that the local FBI office was the one that certified that LAPD could be released from federal supervision after the Rampart corruption scandal... I'd say that the FBI has at least as much to lose in terms of credibility over this whole fiasco.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[LordLimecat]

The LAPD tried to intentionally murder people in the pickup trucks they shot up like swiss cheese.

What a load of bull, if the intent was to kill them they would be dead. They tried to shoot who they thought was Dorner; otherwise youre going to have to explain why they didnt finish the job once it was clear who they shot.

It was stupid and probably illegal, but the LAPD is not generally going on a killing spree. You certainly cannot blame the dead cops for what others in the LAPD have done since their death, and you certainly cannot justify Dorner's actions just because there are some trigger-happy idiots in the LAPD whose actions injured some civilians.

Theres bad (police misusing potentially lethal force), and then theres serially murdering several people. If you cant see the difference, theres not much hope for you.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[DMUTPeregrine]

And not knowing how to aim.
There shouldn't have been any bullets fired, but if you're sure of your target* and going to fire at least hit the damn target. There should have been a nice big ragged hole where the driver's head is, not bullets all over the place.

*the vehicle shot was the wrong make and the wrong color. It looked nothing like the suspect vehicle. The police fired without warning. This is inexcusable. Not knowing how to aim is a training problem, firing on non-suspect targets should always result in jail time on felony charges of assault with a deadly weapon (or similar) and permanent removal from law enforcement.

There are 5 rules of gun use/safety. All are of equal importance.
        All firearms are loaded. - There are no exceptions. Don't pretend that this is true. Know that it is and handle all firearms accordingly. Do not believe it when someone says: "It isn't loaded."
        Never let the muzzle of a firearm point at anything you are not willing to destroy. - If you are not willing to see a bullet hole in it do not allow a firearm's muzzle to point at it. This includes things like your foot, the TV, the refrigerator, the dog, or anything else that would cause general upset if a hole appeared in it.
        Keep your finger off the trigger unless your sights are on the target. - Danger abounds if you keep your finger on the trigger when you are not about to shoot. Speed is not gained by prematurely placing your finger on the trigger as bringing a firearm to bear on a target takes more time than it takes to move your finger to the trigger. Negligent discharges would be eliminated if this rule were followed 100% of the time.
        Be sure of your target and what is behind it. - Never shoot at sounds or a target you cannot positively identify. Know what is in line with the target and what is behind it (bullets are designed to go through things). Be aware of your surroundings whether on a range, in the woods, or in a potentially lethal conflict.
      Take nothing for granted. Check everything by sight and touch. EVERY TIME!

Violation of any of the 5 rules should be grounds for mandatory retraining at the minimum.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[LordLimecat]

I dont think anyone is defending cops discharging weapons at unidentified vehicles.

Its just, thats really nothing like what Dorner is doing, and its a little disgusting that people are trying to equate the two. For one, the LAPD have killed noone so far. For another, there is a massive difference in intent.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[sjames]

Honestly, the whole incident more closely resembled gang violence than professionals using their firearms in the line of duty. So much so that they should be treated accordingly under the law.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Marful]

How is a "legal avenue" that will ultimately fail a "viable" avenue? You seem to be contradicting yourself...

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever honor he may have started with it is long gone.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[0111 1110]

So if you shot 60+ rounds into a vehicle without even bothering to look at who might be inside would you expect any of the occupants to be alive afterwards? Would you not be expecting body bags to arrive on the scene shortly afterwards? If shooting up an occupied vehicle like that isn't attempted murder I don't know what is. And, yes, attempted murder is a crime in this country. Well, at least if you are not a cop. Certainly shooting someone is at least assault and battery with a deadly weapon which is a felony with years of jail time. And no it doesn't matter if you claim that you thought they were someone else.

It's great how you say "probably" illegal. Just because you could have shot the victim even more times does not mean it wasn't attempted murder. Just because the police finally stopped firing after 65 rounds or whatever does not mean they were being merciful. Just because you haven't bothered to check the identity of the person you are riddling with bullets doesn't make it any less of a crime. Murdering a random stranger for no reason doesn't seem any better to me than murdering someone you know.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you get a reporter and offer them a juicy story on corruption. Make sure to add racial elements. Then you report it and get out of dodge. The politicians have their hands tied like it or not and have to fire those people. Then hire a sensationalist lawyer (they want to publicity, like Gloria Alread, etc) and you got even. You just got to be proactive and do it if that is the agenda.

But this guy is sick to kill people. But he is also very stupid to expect to somehow turn around parts of the LAPD by reporting incidents over and over. Nobody wanted to be near him and they blackballed him, so then he snapped. Instead he could of been vindicated and succeeded.

Right now they have a huge PR problem, because a lot of regular folks know there are elements of truth to what is going on to have this guy snap and go evil. The more it drags on, the more they will have to address it. And its sad for the countless good cops who do their job every day. Imagine coming home like you have to wash your hands because the public thinks your dirty.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[pongo000]

He believes the LAPD ruined his life, because he accused his trainer of beating up a civilian while he was doing his first week mentorship, and those charges were dropped after an investigation revealed that they were false. The "ruining his life" part comes because the LAPD then dismissed him for making a false charge: they felt he was a risk to have on the force.

He should have just applied for a job with Dallas PD.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[ineffablepwnage]

In his manifesto, Dorner states that there were several people on the board investigating the claim that were biased, an old partner, an old supervisor, etc. When he disputed this and asked for unbiased judges, he was ignored. I don't know whether this is true or not, but it is a believable claim.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing wrong with tea and crumpets, although personally I prefer to stick with water when I'm eating crumpets & save the tea for chocolate hob nobs.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[gl4ss]

Look at a picture of the fucking car.

They intended to kill. they didn't try to stop the car, they didn't try to arrest the people, they didn't have even visual on who was in the car. they just tried to kill everyone who happened to be in the car. certainly sounds like a bunch of guys who would kick someone in the head just to ensure he doesn't struggle - a bunch of guys who would risk lives of others over their own.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[rtb61]

Note they have upgraded Dorner to a domestic terrorist so that any accidentally executed by the LAPD can use the flimsiest excuse of conspiring to aid and abet terrorism. See those two women where aiding and abetting Dorner by acting as diversions and hence had to be shot, so remaining forces could focus on the actual threat. Basically the LAPD are going for a licence to kill anyone they believe might be aiding Dorner in any way shape or form, well and truly out of control.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[tehcyder]

The thing is, even if the LAPD did cover up the fact that one of their officers beat up a suspect, it still does not excuse the disproportionate level of violence used by Dorner

Re:Fascinating stuff

[tehcyder]

It's also important to keep in mind that the murdered cops may have threatened Dorner's life.

They may have done all sorts of things. Unfortunately, the fucknut Dorner has removed their ability to comment on any of them.

Re:Fascinating stuff

[CanHasDIY]

How is a "legal avenue" that will ultimately fail a "viable" avenue? You seem to be contradicting yourself...

I never said any of them were viable, only that they are the "legal avenues."

There's no contradiction in that statement.

I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

They put this much effort into finding and punishing all of the crooked cops in the LAPD.
Sounds like he's killing crooked cops because no one else will handle the issue.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for these people?

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

He's killing family members too. Any level of sympathy or understanding for his position went out the window when he declared war on presumably innocent bystanders. He might have had a cause but he damned it by his own actions.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd like them to investigate police abuse in the LAPD when no one is shooting.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

How many people did the crooked cops fuck over during their time at the LAPD. Sorry, but the LAPD deserves to be terrorized for a change.
Let the fuckers burn.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Every single war since the beginning of mankind's conscience has had collateral damage and in many cases it was planned. There's a reason the saying "nice people finish last" is so ubiquitous - it's true. Had Dorner followed all of the rules and did everything legally, his case, right or wrong, would have never entered the collective conscience of the American People. Now, there is practically no one that isn't aware of his situation.

His war tactics, the exact same war tactics of his nation, are helping his cause, whether you like it or not.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

I presume you have taken the same stance on the 'war on terror'.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

You can be sympathetic to the position without being sympathetic to the person. If Hitler said he loved cats i'd be sympathetic to his position.

Re:I wish

[vlm]

The body count in the war on drugs is pretty high too

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah hah! So you really do understand The middle East after all. There's hope.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

He's killing family members too. Any level of sympathy or understanding for his position went out the window when he declared war on presumably innocent bystanders.

FUnny, what you write above is EXACTLY what the US Military has been doing with drone
strikes for some years now.

But you have sympathy for them because you were TOLD to have sympathy for them,
don't you, you fucking halfwit.

Re:I wish

[CanHasDIY]

He's killing family members too.

Allegedly, but is there any proof beyond the word of the LAPD? Not that I've seen.

RE: the point - Would you consider Eva Braun innocent of Nazi atrocities, because she was "just" Hitler's girlfriend/wife? Why/why not?

Re:I wish

[ACE209]

If Hitler said he loved cats i'd be sympathetic to his position.

Unless you are german. In that case showing the slightest sympathy for cats would be prove that you are a nazi.

Re:I wish

[fyngyrz]

Any level of sympathy or understanding for his position went out the window when he declared war on presumably innocent bystanders.

And the families damaged by false arrests, unjust accusations and punishments? The individuals who can never get a decent job again, anywhere, what about their families?

Seems to me that's what the cops think is ok for them to do, is ok to do to them.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Godwin!

Re:I wish

[0111 1110]

No. It wasn't collateral damage. He was intentionally going after the families of the crooked cops. Not only is it an exceedingly cold-blooded thing to do, but it ignores the fact that most cops are sociopaths and probably wouldn't even care all that much if a family member gets shot. As long as it isn't them.

I was on his side until I read that he was targeting family members. That is both sick and pointless since it won't even hurt the cold-blooded cops all that much. At least nowhere near as much as it would a real human being with normal feelings. I would have supported a bad cop killing spree, leaving only the few honest, law-abiding, non-sociopathic, cops alive, but how can anyone support the killing of family members?

Re:I wish

[0111 1110]

None of that is nearly as bad as actual murder. And I don't think most cops will care all that much if a family member is shot. It may be hard for us to imagine not caring about such a thing, but it is important to remember that most cops are sociopaths. Sociopaths only truly care about one person: themselves. They don't even understand the idea of empathy. People are just things to be used to their advantage. Even their own family members. So all you have really accomplished by killing a family member is remove a strategic asset of theirs. And one that is replacable. There is no way that murdering the families of the corrupt, sadistic cops is justified in any way.

Re:I wish

[fyngyrz]

None of that is nearly as bad as actual murder.

I think that's rather a matter of individual perspective. A life of misery compared with a quick death? It's not cut and dry.

So all you have really accomplished by killing a family member is remove a strategic asset of theirs. And one that is replacable. There is no way that murdering the families of the corrupt, sadistic cops is justified in any way.

I think you're being more than a little disingenuous there. One of the things being accomplished, or at least how it looks from here, is that it is unsafe for everyone involved when a cop is being evil. Not only are they at risk, but their families as well. Now, while a cop may be a sociopath, the family now considers themselves at risk if he or she misbehaves, and additional pressure to behave may come out of that. And if not, well, good riddance to them anyway. Anyone who figures cops, legislators and lawyers should be free to do anything they want -- or who supports them in such fuckery -- should probably die in a fire anyway.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice Godwin there. Involving a name and section of history that naturally tends to evoke an emotional negative response is always a good way to ask a question. Lemme guess, you're a politician? Or maybe just 'that manager that everyone hates'.

In response to your question, I assume that there is documentation indicating that Evan Braun was involved in, or at least fully aware of the Nazi activities. If this is indeed the case, then at the bare minimum, she's guilty of doing nothing when she should have done something, or being an unparticipating accomplice. If she was participating, obviously she would be guilty of whatever it is that she would be guilty of.

However, unless you have unequivocal proof that she was taking place in the activities, or at least can unequivocally tell me that she wasn't completely blind and ignorant of them, then neither you nor myself (as I haven't researched this particular subject) can decry her as either guilty or innocent of anything. The fact that you're giving me a very leading question, with the obvious answer you're searching for being "she was guilty and deserved what other Nazis deserved" seems in my eyes to mean that you have already made up your decision regarding the family member killings, and inherently count them as being just as guilty of corruption and wrongdoing as the police officer.

I however side more with documented, verifiable-from-multiple-independent-sources proof, rather than emotional responses to things. At least as much as I can manage... obviously if something evokes a strong emotional response to me, I will be emotionally charged, but at that point I hope that I would be smart enough to realize this and inform those necessary that any response I give will be emotionally biased.

All that said, on the topic of the family members that were gunned down, there has been absolutely zero evidence that I've read that indicate they themselves are directly responsible for corruption, maintaining a blue wall of silence, or any kind of police atrocity whatsoever. In fact, I know so little about them, for all I know they spent their afternoons and weekends at a soup kitchen, attempting to "even out" the corruption that they saw in the police officer, perhaps even attempted to talk said officer out of being corrupt, and were nothing more than saints to the community. They could act like anyone under the sun, I have no way of knowing right now.

So therefore, the fact that you've already mentally declared these people to be guilty, with the punishment being death, says a lot more about your character than anything else, and I'd rather have nothing to do with you in all reality. You seem to be somewhat delusional, horrendously naive, easily manipulated, and place absolutely no value on a conscious, self-aware human life. And for that, I pity you.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

do you not understand the concept that sometimes a person's brain - their reality matrix, the way they make sense of the world, etc - can become fractured by serious trust/reality breaking events, such as what he claims to have experienced? Which is to say, if the guardians/protectors are themselves badguys, he witnesses and reports it, nothing happens - that itself could have broken who he was. Who he is now is different.

Conjecture and such, but hey. Maybe we should do as he asked, and study his brain after he dies.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't just believe it because the press or the police are saying it. There are a lot of odd things going on with this.

Why would he attempt to charge several police officers for abusive conduct on others, then go off and kill some people?

Why would he burn out his own truck, that already has tones of DNA evidence of him since it was HIS?

Why would a police department that says they don't have any money come up with $1 Million?

Why would such a high price be placed on his head, when there are bigger suspects out there?

There is a lot of odd stuff going on, and there are several theories. Some believe he is already dead, and they are using him as a scapegoat. Others say it is a destraction from other events. Others say they are trying to get the people use to the idea of drones being used on American soil.

It has been posted on the internet for a couple of years that any use of drones to kill an American on American soil would cross a line, and many would respond with military force.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

Which position exactly are you sympathetic to?

I'm guessing you mean that you think he exposed actual police corruption.

The man killed the daughter and fiance of his defending attorney, neither of whom were police or had anything to do with him. According to his manifesto he's "bringing asymmetrical war to the LAPD" to in an attempt to "clear his name". So in his world, killing the daughter and fiance of his defending council is fine, but call him a liar and that's a bridge too far. This man's testimony is more than suspect, it's screaming for doubt.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

He's killing family members too. Any level of sympathy or understanding for his position went out the window when he declared war on presumably innocent bystanders. He might have had a cause but he damned it by his own actions.

I agree - the targeting of innocents is heinous and benefits absolutely nobody. But I'm going to be honest here: Any level of sympathy or understanding for the LAPD's position went out the window when they started shooting at bystanders who are CERTAINLY innocent.

And I am going to throw at least a little responsibility on the cop. Being a cop is dangerous. You're putting yourself in the line of fire when you put on that badge. And when you go and have a family, you're putting them in the line of fire, too. If having a family was what you wanted, maybe you should have chosen a different career.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

No. It wasn't collateral damage. He was intentionally going after the families of the crooked cops. Not only is it an exceedingly cold-blooded thing to do, but it ignores the fact that most cops are sociopaths and probably wouldn't even care all that much if a family member gets shot. As long as it isn't them.

I was on his side until I read that he was targeting family members. That is both sick and pointless since it won't even hurt the cold-blooded cops all that much. At least nowhere near as much as it would a real human being with normal feelings. I would have supported a bad cop killing spree, leaving only the few honest, law-abiding, non-sociopathic, cops alive, but how can anyone support the killing of family members?

One could argue that the problem with the police isn't the sociopaths on the force, it's the normal ones with feelings and no fear of accountability who cover up for the sociopaths. Maybe they'll learn. I'm surprised this hasn't happened sooner - or at least that we hadn't heard about it more widely before.

Re:I wish

[shutdown -p now]

RE: the point - Would you consider Eva Braun innocent of Nazi atrocities, because she was "just" Hitler's girlfriend/wife? Why/why not?

I would consider her not guilty, because 1) there is no evidence that she was aware of the atrocities, and 2) even if she were, she was not a part of the chain of command, and could not have issued an order to stop them.

Re:I wish

[Anonymous Coward]

None of that is nearly as bad as actual murder. And I don't think most cops will care all that much if a family member is shot. It may be hard for us to imagine not caring about such a thing, but it is important to remember that most cops are sociopaths. Sociopaths only truly care about one person: themselves. They don't even understand the idea of empathy. People are just things to be used to their advantage. Even their own family members. So all you have really accomplished by killing a family member is remove a strategic asset of theirs. And one that is replacable. There is no way that murdering the families of the corrupt, sadistic cops is justified in any way.

I may not be the most embracing of authority, but you're forgetting the people behind the jobs are probably still people. They may not be the true shining light of justice they think they are by far (I'm sure I would know more about all the accusations if I was just like half of everyone else here who faps to conspiracy sites), but off the job, they still (I would hope) care about their families. Killing the various men of the force simply dwindles as a petty act of revenge as compared to truly exposing any corruption by leaking data he had learned or found out, but killing people who aren't involved in this intentionally is just condemnable.

Yes, I know the cops kill civilians quite often, but honestly, praising this guy for killing relatives that had nothing to do with the incidents he speaks of is akin to praising Hitler's forces for destroying cities that weren't related to their campaign just because it "promotes their goals and aims".

Why not start, yknow, actually thinking about others' emotions and feelings for once?

No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Use drones. Keep shooting random civilians until you find this man. Whatever it takes.

Re:No problem

[lennier1]

Keep shooting random civilians until you find this man.

They're already way ahead of you
Victim 1: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story
Victim 2: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like the LAPD is making Dorner's point for them. Good job guys. Fuck tha Police.

Re: No problem

[EdmundSS]

That'll be why there's a $1M reward -- cheaper to pay that than pay damages for all the innocent people they shoot by mistake...

Re:No problem

[gmuslera]

At least is in US, hopely won't be thousands of victims because this hunt like in other places. Entire (big) cities has been hit indiscriminately by rockets because a few insurgents were there, or countries were invaded because terrorist were hidden or "had ties" with their government even when all was pointing in other direction. But is ok, winners are the ones that write history, if there are more victims surely were collaborating with the killer.

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the casualty count on both sides in this case? At what point has the LAPD killed more people indiscriminately looking for Dorner than Dorner did to begin with?

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

It is completely beyond me how those two stories have not garnered more press. Thats bigger than the Dorner case considering it's basically giving rights to the LAPD to open fire on absolutely anybody and get away with it.

Re:No problem

[xhrit]

It is completely beyond me how those two stories have not garnered more press. Thats bigger than the Dorner case considering it's basically giving rights to the LAPD to open fire on absolutely anybody and get away with it.

They already do open fire on absolutely anybody, and they get away with it. Police are not here to protect the people, they are here to protect the government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rampart_scandal

Re:No problem

[Anonymous Coward]

LAPD indeed appear to working the laws of averages on this particular case. Black/White, Male/Female, Grey/Pink/Blue pickup, they obviously no longer give a f**k who they are shooting at here:

"As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.."

- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story

"David Perdue was on his way to sneak in some surfing before work Thursday morning when police flagged him down. They asked who he was and where he was headed, then sent him on his way.

Seconds later, Perdue's attorney said, a Torrance police cruiser slammed into his pickup and officers opened fire; none of the bullets struck Perdue. His pickup, police later explained, matched the description of the one belonging to Christopher Jordan Dorner — the ex-cop who has evaded authorities after allegedly killing three and wounding two more. But the pickups were different makes and colors. And Perdue looks nothing like Dorner: He's several inches shorter and about a hundred pounds lighter. And Perdue is white; Dorner is black.."

- http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story

The way it begins

[Compaqt]

Of course, who could oppose using hundreds of drones to hunt down a cop-killer.

And the next suggestion will be, "Wouldn't it be a good idea for the drones to be able to fire, too?" So the next thing you know, you've got weaponized drones.

And after a decade or so, they won't be used to find mass murderers. Merely traffic offenders or people late on their alimony.

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as they use the drones to find the cops that shoot up random civilian vehicles and punish the cops.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209

I'm all for purging the police with a little, nay a lot, of Police Style justice.

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

or dissent.

especially the kind that "hangs out with known terrorists", niether terrorist nor affiliate get trial.

Re:The way it begins

[cornjones]

YOu don't even have to weaponize them for this to be scary (not that they won't). "Look how useful, and much safer than helicopters.", "These are so cheap, we can keep them up all day", "More in the air means more criminals caught", "We could have caught him quicker if we recorded all of this"

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

+1 to Kurt Vonnegut.

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really hard to tell who is even a good guy any more in this situation. The fact that the police are pretty much shooting anything that *might* be him is even more disturbing.

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course, who could oppose using hundreds of drones to hunt down a cop-killer.

And the next suggestion will be, "Wouldn't it be a good idea for the drones to be able to fire, too?" So the next thing you know, you've got weaponized drones.

And after a decade or so, they won't be used to find mass murderers. Merely traffic offenders or people late on their alimony.

Or (horrors!) people still bitterly clinging to their supposed to be confiscated firearms, or who are failing to carry their new American "Judenstern Abzeichen" signifying compliance with all the registration requirements...

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Or better yet, to kill off the rioting hoards of people brought into the streets by economic collapse.

Re:The way it begins

[medcalf]

Car wars? Really? I mean, I know about defensive driving, but your speculations might go a bit far down that road.

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I especially enjoy how ridiculously overzealous cops get when hunting down someone who killed 'one of their own'. They're like James Bond types with license to kill.

Pew pew pew.

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

It's really hard to tell who is even a good guy any more in this situation. The fact that the police are pretty much shooting anything that *might* be him is even more disturbing.

Well, after all, the only defense against a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun. Right?

Re:The way it begins

[phantomfive]

Wow, are you familiar with the slippery slope fallacy?

"First you look at porn. Then it's not enough so you want to rape someone. Then that's not enough so you want to kill them." Happened with Ted Bundy, it'll happen to you.

Do you understand how you are falling into the same fallacy?

Re:The way it begins

[c]

And after a decade or so, they won't be used to find mass murderers. Merely traffic offenders or people late on their alimony.

So, are you saying to want the terrorists to win, Mr. or Mrs. Compaqt? Please step closer to the window as you think about your answer.

Re:The way it begins

[hamburger lady]

1) first they came for murderous psychopaths, but i said nothing because i wasn't a murderous psychopath.
2) ????
3) then they came for my overdue parking tickets...

Re:The way it begins

[CanHasDIY]

It's really hard to tell who is even a good guy any more in this situation.

That's probably because there aren't any.

Re:The way it begins

[ACE209]

Until they find a good guy, some more bad guys with guns will have to do.

Re:The way it begins

[fyngyrz]

Or better yet, to kill off the rioting hoards of people

Wait, what? Who is hoarding people? Oh, wait. You meant "horde." Sorry.

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

I said the same thing when they just needed to stop a few terrorists.

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, are you familiar with the slippery slope fallacy?

You've never been the victim of a technology planning meeting, have you? A deluge of "Wouldn't it be nice if..." and "Why can't it also..." questions isn't something you simply plan for. It's something intrinsically woven into the very nature of the beast.

Re:The way it begins

[Anonymous Coward]

"So, are you saying to want the terrorists to win, Mr. or Mrs. Compaqt"

        No I want the cop terrorists to lose. I've been waiting to see what happens when the corrupt cops fuck with veterans. I guess they know now.

Re:The way it begins

[jklovanc]

Like ever slippery slope argument this one is invalid. The second anyone proposes arming drones in US airspace it the proposal will be shot down (pun intended). Having drones in US airspace is a good thing. Having armed drones in US airspace is a bad thing. Stopping a good thing from happening because it may lead to a bad thing happening is stupid. By protesting the good thing happening you are just sounding like the tinfoil brigade and any subsequent arguments you attempt are weakened. Unarmed drones do not inevitably lead to armed drones. We have had unarmed helicopters on partol for decades and they have yet to be armed even though there are plenty of armed helicopters.

Re:The way it begins

[fatphil]

The closest to a good guy is Charlie Sheen!

How do we know he was lying?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not as if police don't break the law, is it.

Think of the children

[wbr1]

We can find lost hikers, boy scouts, love struck teenage couples lost in the wilderness with this! Just look the other way when we use it to imprison or kill enemies of the state.

Re:Think of the children

[X0563511]

That's just it. We really could use this technology, but abuse is so damn likely.

Re:Think of the children

[Anonymous Coward]

And profitable! Don't forget the number one reason why anything like this is done... someone, somewhere is profiting a crazy amount from it.

I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

....that making guns illegal for civilian use would not prevent evil cops like this one from murdering people.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is true. We should also not equip the evil cops with guns. We will have a form that we give them when they sign up with an alignment question.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

evil cops like this one

Christopher Dorner hasn't been a cop for four years.

Thanks for playing.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

He is still an evil cop.

Re:I just want to point out...

[gmuslera]

Or this ones. But how you distinguish evil cops from good ones? Because good ones don't lie? And how you distinguish evil (or crazy, or plain stupid) civilians/cops from good ones when giving them a gun permit, if current tests/training don't work?

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not an evil cop- he tried to report an evil cop who kicked a suspect in the face. The rest of the cops, who were also evil, kicked him out.

Re:I just want to point out...

[AK Marc]

But how you distinguish evil cops from good ones?

Same way you distinguish between good politicians and bad ones. Oh wait, there aren't any good ones. The good ones all quit. The system requires evil because the system is run by bad ones.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

But how you distinguish evil cops from good ones?

Same way you distinguish between good politicians and bad ones. Oh wait, there aren't any good ones. The good ones all quit. The system requires evil because the system is run by bad ones.

I know some things most people don't know about stuff the Feds have done. No, I won't give details
here because I don't want the motherfuckers coming to snatch me up in the night and "disappear" me.

Let's just say that your above remark is dead on. If you had any idea how truly correct you are, you
might never sleep well again.

-

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Did he? DID HE? did the officer in question really "kick" or merely trip over the suspect?

now all joking aside, the police are not the military as much as they would love to be. The LAPD is almost like a small military in and of itself.

Re:I just want to point out...

[X0563511]

Sounds like a Lawful vs Chaos to me, not Good/Neutral/Evil.

Re:I just want to point out...

[maxwell demon]

No, he's an evil ex-cop. He might have been an evil cop before, but since he isn't a cop any more, he's not an evil cop now.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Redmancometh]

Someone claiming privelaged knowledge of the fedgov online, and an AC to boot.../yawn.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Runaway1956]

Let ME point out, that LAPD are civilians. I get so tired of hearing cops refer to citizens as "civilians". And, when citizens go along with the designation, that only makes it worse.

Veterans and active duty of the armed forces commonly refer to "civilians". Police departments aren't veterans, and they employ relatively few veterans. Dorner is a veteran, so he can refer to you as civilians.

To your point - if a civilian cop can have a weapon, then any civilian who is of sound mind, and not a convict, should have access to the same weapons. You are ALL civilians!

Re:I just want to point out...

[0111 1110]

What really happened is, from a prone face up position, the suspect head butted the boot of the officer, multiple times, staining it with his blood and injuring the officer. He had to go home and get a foot massage from his doting wife who kissed it to make it better. The officer only had his foot above the face of the suspect because he was innocently tying his bootlaces.

Re:I just want to point out...

[0111 1110]

Is it evil to seek justice?

Re:I just want to point out...

[maxwell demon]

So it is justice if he kills the daughter of a police officer? Even if you think that killing random police officers is justified for whatever reason, I can't even think of the most twisted argument that makes killing their families justified.

Re:I just want to point out...

[0111 1110]

I didn't realize he had gone after the families of the bad cops. I agree that that is not just wrong, but pretty sick. So basically you have a guy going after the cops' families vs a bunch of cops who have no problem with blindly shooting up every pickup truck that resembles Dorner's, not caring who they kill. Who actually shot a mother and daughter in doing so. The cops who did that should be arrested and put in jail, but is that going to happen? Of course not. These are not men that I feel the slightest bit of sympathy for. They are disgusting, evil human beings themselves. But unlike Dorner they are cowards afraid of going up against anyone armed without absurdly superior numbers, body armor, and all kinds of other unfair advantages. Evil vicious cowards.

The fact that Dorner has proven himself bad despite ignoring the Blue Wall of silence and reporting the sadistic beating of a helpless suspect shouldn't really be that surprising. Most people who become cops are violent people, bullies, sadists, and amoral sociopaths. This incident just makes me more certain that the vast majority of police are like that. When it comes to US police even the 'good' guys are themselves sick and evil.

As far as going after 'random' cops, those random cops have proven willing to shoot him on sight. And not just on sight of him, but on sight of anything which holds any chance of him being inside. I'd say that is pretty close to self-defense. In a shoot-out being first to pull the trigger is everything and he knows the cops will shoot him.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it evil to seek justice?

Yes.

~E. Holder - US DoJ

Re:I just want to point out...

[Johann Lau]

Well, read the manifesto or something.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Grishnakh]

Sorry, no. Police are not civilians; that's why the police call non-police citizens "civilians". Obviously, they wouldn't use that term if police were also civilians.

Police (in the USA) are a paramilitary force. That means they're neither full military, nor civilian. For parallels, read up on the Brownshirts and the SS.

Re:I just want to point out...

[xhrit]

Citizen-organized militia groups are a paramilitary force as well, but that does not mean they are not comprised of civilians.

Re:I just want to point out...

[anagama]

I didn't realize he had gone after the families of the bad cops. I agree that that is not just wrong, but pretty sick.

Not in America it isn't sick -- certainly not according to Obama administration's explanation for why it killed Al Alwaki's innocent 16yo Colorado born son: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

So, if it is the position of the President of the United States, that the sins of the father are the sins of the children, how could it be sick for Dorner to believe the same thing? If it is sick for Dorner to believe as Obama does, is Obama sick?

Re:I just want to point out...

[sumdumass]

I had a cop say something similar. He threw me against the wall and in his response to the complaint I filed, he said that he put both his hands up making the universal halt sign with both of them while verbally telling me to stop. I then stumbled into them, lost my balance and fell into the wall.

The video told a different story. It even included a chapter about his describing my mother being a whore. Well, he has a new career writing fiction for another town's police force now. It amazes me that he was still allowed to work on law enforcement. But that's the justice system. From their perspective, it is pronounces just us.

Re:I just want to point out...

[i kan reed]

American police are paramilitary, and would be considered combatants in almost any invasion scenario. They are only civilians as far as the U.S. DoD is concerned

Re:I just want to point out...

[maccodemonkey]

To your point - if a civilian cop can have a weapon, then any civilian who is of sound mind, and not a convict, should have access to the same weapons. You are ALL civilians!

Huh? How does this work. Your argument is that all civilians should be allowed to carry weapons, followed by a list of civilians that you're arguing should not be allowed to carry weapons.

If you're arguing that certain civilians should not be allowed to carry weapons, the logical leap to only law enforcement civilians being allowed to carry weapons is a small one.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

as more and more of the "good" cops retire we will see this sort of activity grow, every encounter i've had with younger rookie cops has lead me to the above potential conclusions about the majority of law enforcement. I live in CT and have noticed a drastic change in police behavior over the last decade, they simply have too many excuses they can use to justify their unconstitutional actions. and just remember who writes the police reports when you try to stand up to them, i didn't :( your word against some narcissistic wacko with a distorted view of society, right and wrong.

Re:I just want to point out...

[DMUTPeregrine]

He murdered two innocent people. He's an evil (ex) cop.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Like that washes the stink off him!

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't realize he had gone after the families of the bad cops. I agree that that is not just wrong, but pretty sick.

Not in America it isn't sick -- certainly not according to Obama administration's explanation for why it killed Al Alwaki's innocent 16yo Colorado born son: "I would suggest that you should have a far more responsible father if they are truly concerned about the well being of their children."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/24/robert-gibbs-anwar-al-awlaki_n_2012438.html

So, if it is the position of the President of the United States, that the sins of the father are the sins of the children, how could it be sick for Dorner to believe the same thing? If it is sick for Dorner to believe as Obama does, is Obama sick?

Yes.

Re:I just want to point out...

[fustakrakich]

It amazes me that he was still allowed to work on law enforcement.

The universe rewards the big and strong.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Marful]

That's why the police in CA have all sorts of exemptions from the penal code:
Like the ability to purchase Off-Roster Handguns that aren't on the California Approved "Safe Handgun List" for personal use despite their department issuing them their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
The ability to buy standard capacity magazines that hold more than 10 rounds for their personal firearms despite these magazines being provided with their duty weapon. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).
Or the ability to purchase an Assault Weapons after the end of the registration period for personal use, despite their department providing Assault Weapons (or even actual Assault Rifles...) for their use in each squad car. (Non LEO-Citizens cannot).

That is just one area where LEO's gain more "privilege" that us mere citizens, think of how LEO's can get out of traffic tickets, can disobey the law, get preferential treatment with all the discounts (despite making six figures...) and can perjure themselves on their official documents and/or in court at whim with impunity.

No, the Police are a Privileged class of citizen above and beyond a mere civilian.

And if you have ever heard LEO's talking to each other about us mere peasants, you'd realize how much contempt they have for, and how much they consider themselves above us mere civilians.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Marful]

The difference, in case you missed it, is that most citizens-organized militias openly recognize they are civilians where as the police do not consider themselves civilians.

Do you see the distinction?

Re:I just want to point out...

[jklovanc]

In Al Alwaki's case it was known that the US was taking out al' Quada leaders using drones but Al Alwaki still allowed his son to be near him and thereby putting him at risk. In the Dorner case the "suspect" found and killed two innocent people. The person Dorner was mad at was nowhere near. In the Al Alwaki case the missile was targeted at Al Alwaki killing him and his son was close enough to the blast to be killed as well. In the Dorner case, Dorner directly targeted the family. There is a big difference.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

He murdered two innocent people. He's an evil (ex) cop.

The police murder innocent peoples every day. If you condemn him for that, you have to condemn all the other cops the same. Fuck off.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whatever happened to jury nullification?

It won't happen because too many people have toys to lose. It's called attachment.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

The video told a different story. It even included a chapter about his describing my mother being a whore. Well, he has a new career writing fiction for another town's police force now.

I wonder what percentage of police PR people are lose cannons like this who will perpetuate the blue line crap.

Re:I just want to point out...

[DMUTPeregrine]

And I DO condemn all other cops for the same. I just take issue with somehow excepting him from being in the group of evil cops because he's fighting other evil cops. They're all evil.

Re:I just want to point out...

[anagama]

Don't be a retard. Al Alwaki was dead for two weeks before they killed his son. In fact, he hadn't even seen his dad in two years. Murdered by Obama without any evidence of wrongdoing on the kid's part. I mean, how deep do you want to deep throat that Federales Uber Alles propaganda cock? Here's an advance "thank you" for the police state we are soon to have where you can be jailed at the president's whim, murdered at the president's whim -- all of it based on "secret laws". How Soviet of you.

Seriously, click on the link I posted. It only takes the most minuscule effort -- way less then it takes to rationalize the gutting of the Constitution. Oh wait, you're too lazy and stupid to actually learn anything about what's going on. Here's a quote and a rag to wipe that DC jizz out of your eye -- once you can see again, read:

Gibbs wasn't entirely familiar with the situation, and didn't know that al-Awlaki's son was killed two weeks after his father was killed ...
***
He was a boy who hadn't seen his father in two years, since his father had gone into hiding. He was a boy who knew his father was on an American kill list and who snuck out of his family's home in the early morning hours of September 4, 2011, to try to find him. He was a boy who was still searching for his father when his father was killed, and who, on the night he himself was killed, was saying goodbye to the second cousin with whom he'd lived while on his search, and the friends he'd made. He was a boy among boys, then; a boy among boys eating dinner by an open fire along the side of a road when an American drone came out of the sky and fired the missiles that killed them all.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

uhh... how do you identify evil and have you ever bought a gun? Do you know about Federal Background Check called DROS? Where they check if you were ever convicted of a felony, are a wife beater, mental health, etc. its on the form and then the DOJ "background checks". -- Its just not done effectively.

And fuck the paperwork test. The problem is mental health in this country and accepting that the world is not perfect. -- You can't stop people who snap and then go evil. The mental health industry does everything to prevent people from getting help, unless they have money. That and these people are not identified sooner as a result because there is no national system in place. That is the problem.

Lastly, we as a society got to stop trying to idealize making this perfect society. And politicians love to help out to fulfill that fantasy. -- There will ALWAYS be loonies, evil cops, and pyschopaths. In China and Russia it happen a lot too if you read international news and guns are illegal there big time, along with all sorts of draconian measures.

Dorner is a sick evil individual who thinks he is in a Jason Bourne Movie and somehow he will be vindicated by journalists.

Re:I just want to point out...

[jklovanc]

Sorry I got the names wrong. The missile was targeted at Ibrahim al-Banna, an Egyptian believed to be a senior operative in Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. So it was not Al Alwaki who was at fault but al-Banna. The missile was still targeted at a known and confessed terrorist and not the child. The kid went to see his uncle, also a known terrorist, and the uncle allowed him to stay thereby putting the child in danger.

By the way, insults and name calling are the weapons of someone with a weak argument. If you can write calmly you have much more chance of convincing people of your point if view.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Khyber]

"I agree that that is not just wrong, but pretty sick"

You kill my chances of having a family, I'm most certainly depriving you of yours. That's the golden rule, motherfucker. Don't like it, get the fuck off this planet, or die and put yourself under the ground so you can serve some use as fertilizer.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Livius]

Civilian is not synonymous with non-military. Members of the clergy are not civilians either.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

He's not an evil cop- he tried to report an evil cop who kicked a suspect in the face. The rest of the cops, who were also evil, kicked him out.

He's an evil cop now. Killing a girl just because she's family to a cop, plus her bystander fiance, plus a RIVERSIDE police officer who was not even from the LAPD. Yep, I think he's an evil cop now.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Runaway1956]

So - you're in favor of allowing psychotics, manic depressives, and violent convicts to have weapons? Really? Such people shouldn't even be permitted to drive cars.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Runaway1956]

No, what's obvious is, the police wish to differentiate themselves from regular citizens. And, citizens permit this to happen. I have never talked to a policeman, or permitted a policeman to talk to me, as anything but an equal. Do you permit a cop to talk down to you?

Re:I just want to point out...

[0111 1110]

Has it not occurred to you that the family members may hate the sadistic cop as much as anyone else? Going after the family is tribal thinking. They are not in any way responsible for the actions of the violent cop. They are individuals.

Re:I just want to point out...

[fafalone]

'and not a convict'

Sorry I missed the part of the second amendment where it says 'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, unless you were convicted of minor non-violent or victimless crime several decades ago'. Unless you're actually convicted of a violent crime (or the state can prove, through the courts, that their access to firearms presents a direct threat to the safety of others), there's no legitimate interest in denying that right.
Deny an armed robber gun rights? Sure. But someone in on tax fraud? Or pot? Or criminal copyright? Please.

Re:I just want to point out...

[formfeed]

This is true. We should also not equip the evil cops with guns. We will have a form that we give them when they sign up with an alignment question.

Like for immigration?
Did you commit any war crimes? Do you want to kill the president?

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

thank you. enough with that shit about cops not being civilians. PS people could have the right to own police weapons, but their insurance should be about $10,000 a year, as they are not authorized state employees (unless they are part of a state militia unit), with LOTS of loopholes to protect the insurer (didnt lock your cabinet? there goes your home) and if the gun goes missing and they dont report it, they go to prison for a least a year. names and addresses of all citizens with guns, including police officers, available as public record. sell a gun without reporting the sale, or without doing background check? 5 years state prison, get on the permanent registry like sex offenders. Oh, and gun store owners, and 2nd amendment advocates who ignore the "well regulated militia" should be socially shunned: noncooperation with evil, per gandhi. otherwise, no problems.

Re:I just want to point out...

[shirisaya]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but you're telling me that the police wouldn't misuse a word to make themselves seem more important? These are the people who brought the word "surveilled" into existence because they didn't know that "surveillance" was a noun without a verb form. They just didn't want to say "watched" or "observed".

Re:I just want to point out...

[Anonymous Coward]

Aww, is someone uncomforable and incapable of thinking as an individual?

lol. Go fuck yourself, sheep.

Re:I just want to point out...

[StrongGlad]

In the Al Alwaki case the missile was targeted at Al Alwaki killing him and his son was close enough to the blast to be killed as well.

Sorry, but that's simply false. In fact, Al Alwaki's son was killed in a separate drone strike two weeks later:

http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/abdulrahman-al-awlaki-death-10470891#ixzz2ABHMgELN

Re:I just want to point out...

[jklovanc]

If you read the post I wrote a while ago you would see that I admitted that it got it a bit wrong. The missile that killed the kid was aimed at his uncle Ibrahim al-Banna. It was still aimed at a known al Qaeda leader I just named the wrong one.

Re:I just want to point out...

[StrongGlad]

Sorry; I hadn't seen your other post.

Re:I just want to point out...

[DarkOx]

I think this is actually a serious issue; that needs to be looked at in the "gun control" debate. Police and frankly any not uniform military, such as ATF, FBI, etc. I think ought to be restricted from possessing (accept as evidence) any weapon the general public is restricted from owning.

There should be no such thing as a SWAT team. Seriously if special weapons and tactics are required to resolve a situation its not something local PD should be dealing with. It should be considered a rebellion and the Governor should be calling up the Gaurd to handle it. I wonder how many suspects that could be apprehended are killed because cops want to go in guns blazing and can because they have the hardware to do it?

I also think the relationship between the public and police would be improve by finding a new equilibrium where cops have to assume anyone they are harassing is likely to be as well armed as they are.

Military weapons should be for military forces, not policing force.

Re:I just want to point out...

[DarkOx]

I don't have a problem with being designated a 'civilian' because I am one. I think the problem is that many in our police forces seem themselves as something else; and that is further aggravated by their idea that something else is above 'civilian'

Re:I just want to point out...

[tehcyder]

I have never talked to a policeman, or permitted a policeman to talk to me, as anything but an equal. Do you permit a cop to talk down to you?

Golly gee, you're so tough.

In most situations where you are talking to a cop, it is not in your best interests to try and provoke them by showing how cool and clever you are. They don't care, they've seen it all before. If they want the answers to some questions, they can always get them by arresting you for obstructing the police or something vague like that, and leaving you in the cells for a few hours to reflect on your fraternal misapprehensions.

Re:I just want to point out...

[tehcyder]

He's not an evil cop- he tried to report an evil cop who kicked a suspect in the face. The rest of the cops, who were also evil, kicked him out.

Even if that's true, it doesn't excuse murdering other people in revenge, and most especially not women and children who aren't even cops.

Re:I just want to point out...

[tehcyder]

Is it evil to seek justice?

The evil suspect-beating cops didn't shoot two people in cold blood. His retaliatory actions are far worse than those of the people he says were acting evilly in the first place.

An eye for an eye, remember? Even if you think he is entitled to his own form of extra-judicial action against these cops, it should only go as far as beating them up, not shooting them dead.

Re:I just want to point out...

[tehcyder]

they are cowards afraid of going up against anyone armed without absurdly superior numbers, body armor, and all kinds of other unfair advantages. Evil vicious cowards.

You could say exactly the same thing about anyone in the military. We don't fight wars by engaging in manly one-to-one combat you know.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Grishnakh]

Maybe, but remember, the English language is defined by its usage. So if they use it that way long enough and often enough, it becomes correct usage. Your "surveilled" word is a good example of this.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Khyber]

If they hated said cop, they'd better get the fuck away from them.

Golden Rule. It's that simple, yet you seem to not understand.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Fallout2man]

That's ridiculous! Are you saying I, with my C-class Driver's license should be allowed to drive a Big-rig professionally because both I and Commercial Drivers have "The same" (as in issued by the same government agency for comparably similar purposes) driver's licenses (despite Class C and Class A having vastly different requirements and different training programs) and thus are both equally qualified to drive all street-legal vehicles?

What are you smoking dude? I want some! ;p
Something tells me that despite your parsing of semantics regarding the word "Civilian" that the LAPD still are trained in ways that still make their capacity with firearms functionally distinct from your average gun owner. At least as much as a Class A from Class C driver's license. They have strict professional needs for weapons (due to their line of work) the average person does not. The average person is not expected to diffuse violent conflicts of all sizes nor manage large unruly crowds (Without unnecessarily injuring them), etc...

Re:I just want to point out...

[Runaway1956]

Can you tell us exactly when the government started training programs and academies for truck drivers? And, can you tell us how men and women learned to drive big trucks before that date? HINT: My own first three driver's licenses had zero restrictions on them. None. Such restrictions did not exist, there were no Class A, Class D, or Class M drivers licenses. Obviously, then, that date is within living memory.

(There WAS a "chauffer's license" available then, which was required for persons who drove "professionally" - taxi drivers, couriers, truck drivers, all lumped together.)

If you can answer my above questions, can you tell me WHY the government decided to do all these training programs for truck drivers? Give us the politics behind it, not the publicized rationalizations, please.

Okay, now, if you've wrapped your mind around all of that, let's take a look at firearms. Let's forget about grenade launchers and shoulder launched rockets and missiles. Let's not include any explosive weapons, but restrict ourselves to ballistic weapons, that are cartridge fed, and not crew served.

How much "training" do you think it takes to be competent to handle them? (as opposed to below)
How much do you think it takes to reach a novice level on them?
How much do you think it takes to become competent to use them?
How much "training" is required to become proficient to use any of these weapons?

My own training exceeds that of most police officers on any class of such personal weapons and sidearms. There are literally millions of American citizens who can say the same.

I'm sorry, but you have failed to make any valid justification for your local policeman to have weapons that I cannot have legal access to.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Fallout2man]

1: The point is irrelevant, yes ONCE UPON A TIME anyone could drive a big truck. Once UPON A TIME I could also buy slaves and nobody would think twice about it. Similarly once upon a time automatic weapons were legal...do we see where this is going? Just because things were once done that way does not mean that the old way PRODUCED QUANTIFIABLY BETTER RESULTS than the new way.

2: By arbitrarily removing grenade launchers, explosives, missiles, and rockets you already start to discredit your argument. Why are they exempt but not other firearms? Sounds like special pleading to me. ;)

3: I'm not qualified to determine how much firearms training makes someone competent, I have no experience in that field.

4: Your own training does? Well bravo, but training is not a legal requirement. I'm of the opinion guns should be like cars in that we require a serious level of instruction before we just give someone the ability to use them just to be safe.

5: You've also gotten your burden of proof ass backwards. You were the one who made the original claim that any civilian should be able to own and operate any armament used by police departments. I am challenging you by arguing that A) PDs use many weapons that the average person simply has no practical need for (when a less powerful tool will do the same job just as well) and B) that barring cases of necessity I see no reason why citizens should be given unfettered access to firearms and C) You already had to knock out entire classes of special equipment and armarments used by the modern day police, who are largely a paramilitary force now. This already underscores that no, there is no de-facto presumption of tolerance or acceptability any more with owning a type of firearm. We do not let people fire automatic weapons, purchase C4, and all kinds of other tools precisely for the same reasons I have outlined. I see no reason why this should not further extend down into the range of semi-automatic firearms as well.

If a gun has serious legitimate use as a tool for self-defense or hunting then fine. But otherwise I think the modern day presumption should be that something is disallowed unless it's built specifically for one of those legitimate uses. This is to distinguish between existing firearms like the AR-15 which while they CAN be used for legitimate purposes do not inherently posses any specific features which actually make it a critical tool in self-defense, preventing home invasions nor hunting. Existing rifles will function for hunting, pistols always win for self-defense on the person and a shotgun is worth its weight in gold for home defense.

The AR-15 in specific being legal does not dramatically improve anyone's ability to stay alive and the Assault Weapons Ban's statistics from the FBI's crime report do show an appreciable drop in gun homicides during the ban. it's only 1-2% but that was for a largely "toothless" ban that just banned the production of new guns and I don't even think prevented sales of existing stock at the time of passage. Given that, it seems senseless to argue people should be able to own such a thing, the ban saved lives, reinstating it doesn't significantly impair anyone's ability to obtain a gun sufficient for hunting or self defense, so why not?

Re:I just want to point out...

[Fallout2man]

Also, that 1-2% is still thousands of lives or more saved each year. It's a small percentage but it's of a number so large that it's still significant.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Runaway1956]

1. I don't do the "once upon a time" thing. You're dismissing the possibility of making any convincing arguments for or against any position, by dismissing historical data.

2. So, you see no difference between personal weapons and so-called "weapons of mass destruction"? You're going to use the possible possession of tanks to present an argument against rifles, pistols, knives, rocks, etc? Preposterous. I subscribe to the portion of the second amendment which refers to a "well regulated militia". That doesn't mean what most people seem to think it means. See, every single male between the ages of 18 and 40 ARE MEMBERS OF THE MILITIA! Gun ownership proponents argue with me, when I insist that we should be WELL REGULATED. We, the militia, have failed to regulate ourselves. For that reason, I approve of background checks, I approve of restrictions on the sale of weapons, I approve of sensible laws requiring weapons to be secured. I DO NOT approve of depriving members of the militia of lawful ownership of weapons.

3. You admit that you're not qualified to judge competence with weapons - yet you have opinions on the subject? That's democracy for you . . .

4. Training is not a legal requirement? Huh? WTF? To get a driver's license, you must demonstrate competence to drive a vehicle. You're not interested in making competence a requirement to own a weapon? See above - a well regulated militia isn't going to hand over weapons to personnel who are unqualified to handle them. Such as, a grenade launcher. (note that the competence level required to get a driver's license is absolute minimum already - most drivers on the road are incompetent by any reasonable standards)

5. Burden of proof? Police departments use weapons that civilians have no need for? You're missing the point. The second amendment was meant to guarantee that the government DID NOT OUTCLASS THE PEOPLE WITH WEAPONS!! That police department should not have grenades, flashbombs, etc, unless the population is also permitted to own those weapons. Don't want those potential weapons of mass destruction in use in your neighborhood? Then take them from the government, as well.

Finally, I ask a question. Where do the most violent deaths occur, in the United States? Where are the most people shot to death?

I will answer that question for you. Those deaths occur mostly in cities which have imposed the most stringent gun control laws. New York and Chicago lead the list. Passing ever more restrictive gun control laws do not solve the problems that you are attempting to solve. Statistics prove that.

How do you define insanity? A very famous, very intelligent person defined insanity as doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results. We have proven that gun control ultimately promotes lawlessness. It's proven. The history is available for those who are willing to look at the numbers, and analyze them unemotionally.

When a city or region passes strict gun control laws, crime statistics immediately go higher. When a city or region relaxes gun control laws, crime statistics DROP!

I'll repeat an oft repeated phrase: an armed society is a polite society.

Re:I just want to point out...

[EuclideanSilence]

I prefer the old fashioned view of this: there are no good cops, there are no good people. Start with the assumption that we all would want to abuse the power a police officer has, and would all do it if given the opportunity. Then we can stop being surprised when we see police problems.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We have to constantly be monitoring our own police and setting standards of acceptable behavior. That actually takes work. Most slashdot viewers (minus the shills) are at least going to be the type to pay attention to problems and try some way to fix them (voting, talking to people, etc). Unfortunately, the majority of the population can't be bothered until it becomes a problem for themselves directly.

The best thing to do at this point is really to constantly monitor things, talk to everyone you know when there's a problem, and raise hell with whoever is responsible. Also many judges are directly elected, and they have a strong hand in deciding what is acceptable police behavior.

Re:I just want to point out...

[EuclideanSilence]

I don't see the part of the 2nd amendment that says an armed robber can have his rights denied either. Two things I'll say:
1) Many (most?) amendments are directly in place to protect the accused or convicted. The 8th amendment would actually not even make since if it was applied to anyone besides a convicted criminal. Would you remove a convicts freedom of speech? Religion? Denying a constitutional right because a person is convicted is a terrible standard. Next thing you know convicts won't even be allowed to vote, or have any privacy at all. Hmm....

2) If someone is convicted and shown that they can't be trusted with a gun, then why are they out of jail at all? They can get a gun by illegal means, or use many legal lethal weapons. Why compromise at all? Do you realize that a person who committed armed robbery was literally putting themselves in a position to force the death of another individual? We can make an exception to the constitution for them and let them out of jail before we are confident they are safe, or we can just leave them in jail and possibly (if you are not against it) execute them.

I've really never seen a good reason to ever have an exception to any constitutional amendment. It's not really a right if exceptions can be made.

Re:I just want to point out...

[AK Marc]

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. We have to constantly be monitoring our own police and setting standards of acceptable behavior.

Most cops are protected from civilian review for "minor" problems. If you can't prove a felony (in a system designed to protect cops), then the chance of real punishment for wrongdoing is tiny.

The system prevents vigilence. Good cops are pushed out, and foxes watch the henhouse. Civilian oversight boards are generally powerless, and there's no opportunity for regular people to have any power in the system.

Re:I just want to point out...

[Stuarticus]

Yes and they should be forced to fill in the same forms when they discharge those weapons and be accountable for it's loss with their jobs and freedom.

first human target

[corporate zombie]

Have the drones on the border only been going after sub-humans?

Re:first human target

[X0563511]

You must have missed the part where it was talking about US Citizens specifically. Citizens generally don't try to escape over the border from Mexico unless they are trying to smuggle something/someone.

Re:first human target

[PortHaven]

Nah, I wager illegal aliens have some sort of protection under the law that prevents the President from ordering their assasination by drone. ;-)

Re:first human target

[tftp]

All wars are "us" vs. "them." Police already has a derogatory term "civilians" that they use on non-police citizens. Police officers are civilians as well (not the standing army, I hope.)

If things turn to worse, expect more definitions to fly by, all intended to separate "the good guys" from " the bad guys" in a way that favors one faction or another.

You have "sand n!ggers" in Afghanistan; you have some subhumans on the border; you will have yet another kind in ghettos, then they will discover militia terrorists in suburbs, then they will turn their attention to farmers and ranchers who cling to their guns and Bibles... there is a label for everyone.

Re:first human target

[AK Marc]

They weren't used to find "a person" but to find "any person". That apparently makes a large legal difference.

451

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't help but see Dorner as Guy Montag. With the endless stories of LAPD corruption I don't trust the official reprt that he was lying.

Re:451

[Anonymous Coward]

Weren't innocents shot by the authorities looking for Montag?

Satellites

[Mythran]

It may be that I can't differentiate fiction from non-fiction, but doesn't the US military have satellites with the capabilities of infrared viewing and detection that would perform the same task but with much greater efficiency, given the satellite(s) is/are in the area required to locate the individual, plus with a much greater scope or area that can be tracked at any given moment? I play Call of Duty darnit, and we all know that the Call of Duty franchise is based 100% in truth and doesn't lie! :P

Re:Satellites

[gstoddart]

It may be that I can't differentiate fiction from non-fiction, but doesn't the US military have satellites with the capabilities of infrared viewing and detection that would perform the same task but with much greater efficiency

If that worked, they wouldn't have taken so long to find Bin Laden.

We're talking about LA, an absolutely huge area ... spotting an infrared signature isn't exactly a small task if you're looking for something specific.

It's not like they can just click in the "find me this guy" command (yet) -- you have to know where to look.

Besides, all of the satellites you mention spend most of their time looking down at nude beaches anyway. ;-)

Re:Satellites

[sjames]

Given the way LAPD has handled this so far, he would probably just replace the picture of him with one of the Mayor (just like Bugs Bunny did when farmer Elmer sicced the robot on him).

Why not, we've already seen the cops turn into jackasses twice in this manhunt.

Re:Satellites

[Mythran]

And yet they are using drones to do the same thing that the satellites "may" be able to do...albeit afaik, the drones scan a much smaller surface area....but I'm making assumptions here, and not stating any facts...well...this is /. after all.

Re:Satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

If that worked, they wouldn't have taken so long to find Bin Laden.

You actually believe they did not know where Osama was earlier ?

Apparently you're one of those people who believes everything the "news" reports.
How sad for you.

Osama was "found" at a time which was politically very useful for Obama. Intelligent
readers can fill in the blanks on the rest of the story.

Re:Satellites

[X0563511]

Meet 18 U.S.C. section 1385, otherwise known as the Posse Comitatus Act.

Re:Satellites

[cusco]

First, the satellite has to be on station above the desired target, and not many of them are going to be stationed above the US (maybe borrow the Russian's?) Next, the satellite needs an unobstructed view, no clouds, no trees blocking things in the desired area.

Biggest issue would be getting permission to use the military satellites, which would almost certainly take months of bureaucratic wrangling. Once you got that permission you would only be able to view a highly-degraded version of what it was actually capable of, since they don't want "the enemy" to know its true capabilities.

After that, yeah, it's probably a breeze.

Re:Satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

we've already seen the cops turn into jackasses twice in this manhunt.

No, actually what you've SEEN is the cops REVEAL themselves to be the jackasses
they have been ALL ALONG.

The cops are not there to serve the common man. Only idiots believe this is the case.
The cops are there to preserve power for those in power. Threaten that status quo
and you might find yourself having an "accident".

Re:Satellites

[Anonymous Coward]

US military have satellites with the capabilities of infrared viewing and detection that would perform the same task but with much greater efficiency, given the satellite(s) is/are in the area required to locate the individual, plus with a much greater scope or area that can be tracked at any given moment?

Spy satellites operate in low orbits to score detailed imagery. To track someone for more than a few minutes at a time before a satellite is out of range requires a higher orbit where it won't be able to see shit no matter how good your optics are.

You have to wonder

[Lucas123]

Dorner kills and posts a diatribe about the LADP's corruption and abuse of the public, citing cases like Rodney King. I wonder if Dorner's plan all along was to create mayhem and then let the LADP step into it and bring their abuses to light through their own actions. Already, the LADP has opened fire on two people in cases of mistaken identity in the search for Dorner.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

two different groups of people. They shot up two women in a truck, and then in another incident rammed a man that in no way fit dorners description (thin white guy) in his truck and shot at him (he was not hit by any of the shots)

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually they've opened fire on three people but only hit two of them. The shot the two women in the truck and then later they rammed another truck and fired 3 shots at a man who was lucky enough to not get hit by the shots.

Re:You have to wonder

[Lucas123]

Well, they're are getting better. At least the second time the target was a man.

Re:You have to wonder

[vlm]

Its interesting that the LAPD has shot at more innocent civilians than Dorner has. The primary difference is that the LAPD is so unprofessional they haven't successfully killed as many innocent civilians as Dorner, at least so far, although they're trying their best to even up the score. I have faith in the LAPD, they'll catch up soon enough.

Re:You have to wonder

[LiENUS]

They shot up two women in a truck, and then in another incident rammed a man that in no way fit dorners description (thin white guy) in his truck and shot at him (he was not hit by any of the shots)

It gets better. They actually stopped him, talked to him, let him go then decided to ram him and shoot at him.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

If you read the whole manifesto, which is quite a feat, it starts out like a legit argument but by page 5 it gets really crazy (well, the whole thing was crazy) but it gets crazier as you read.

Of course, the national media and local media are not shedding light into LAPDs corruption, blatant disregard for public safety and plain old racism.

I have a feeling they will shoot him on site. It's an LAPD tradition for cop killers. I also call bull-shit on the 1-million dollar reward because, again, they will shoot him on site even if he is found bound and gagged.

Re:You have to wonder

[vilanye]

Cops are ill educated thugs, with very few exceptions.

Where I live a cop murdered a kid with autism that was trying to buy a candy bar off a false ID of a robber. Of course the local prosecutor declined to charge him so the feds had to step in. He was found guilty and 50 cops cheered him as he walked out of the courthouse. Him and those 50 cops should get life and spend it in the general population. Any cop that would support him is evil by definition.

That most pathetic thing is that every year there are 4-5 murders committed by cops every year and this prick was the only one charged. I don't even live in a big city, the town and surrounding area has maybe 300,000 max. That is not even mentioning the constant drag racing at 3 AM, charging innocent people with crimes, etc.

We need to double their pay but not until we quadruple the standards for hiring and retention. A four year degree that includes some legal training, along with a lot of psychology and sociology. Then a 6 week pre-police academy program where they are constantly stressed and rated on how well they respond. After the academy, every year they have to go through a 2 week review given by community representatives where they are either retained or fired.

Also 1 case of violating someone's rights results in instant termination and criminal charges.

The power hungry thugs that want to be cops to break skulls won't even be able to get a 4 degree much less get through the hiring process.

They also need to be demilitarized, treating someone in a house that has a search warrant as the enemy and charging in with assault weapons drawn has caused many cop deaths and homeowners being unfairly charged with murder.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wonder if Dorner's plan all along was..."
don't look for conspiracy when it can be explained by plain stupidity

"..and bring their abuses to light through their own actions."
you still need more light??

Re:You have to wonder

[sjames]

I'm not sure which was worse! From a human standpoint, it was clearly that they opened fire on innocents TWICE, but it also doesn't say much fro them that they had the guy immobilized at close range and managed to miss repeatedly.

If the results weren't so bad for the civilians, it would be comical in a Keystone Cops sort of way.

Re:You have to wonder

[sjames]

Excellent! Now they can graduate and go to 3 year old preschool where they can start learning their colors!

Somehow, the LAPD is looking like it is exactly as good of an idea as giving a loaded gun to a toddler.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

...LADP's ... LADP ... LADP ...

I know they're both bad, but this is about the Los Angeles Police Department, not the Los Angeles Democrat Party.

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

they can start learning their colors!

If only they didn't recognize color...

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Pfft, you're way off base. There's no WAY a toddler would have been able to unload that many rounds into a vehicle. I'd honestly feel FAR safer giving a loaded handgun to a toddler than I would driving anywhere within 50km's of the police station Dorner was fired from.

Re:You have to wonder

[sjames]

I'm going to have to grant you that point.

Re:You have to wonder

[CrimsonAvenger]

They also need to be demilitarized, treating someone in a house that has a search warrant as the enemy and charging in with assault weapons drawn has caused many cop deaths and homeowners being unfairly charged with murder.

Cops don't use "assault weapons", they use "assault rifles".

Difference being that the latter are selective fire, not semi-auto only.

Re:You have to wonder

[fatphil]

Google yields the obvious from a search for ``LAPD guide to vehicle identification''. e.g. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022347147

Re:You have to wonder

[Anonymous Coward]

Details: I think it was a unit down the street that told him to turn around and go the other way, turning around he ran into the other unit that shot him.

Makes it sound like the same cops that stopped him, but at this point they look like trigger happy goons.

Re:You have to wonder

[shutdown -p now]

So they're incompetent and poorly trained?

Re:You have to wonder

[AK Marc]

Where I live a cop murdered a kid with autism that was trying to buy a candy bar off a false ID of a robber.

Where do you live? The case sounds so unusual that it should have come up on a search of "autistic cop shooting candy bar" unless your details were wrong or you were making up things, hoping that something so outlandish (why would someone need a fake ID to buy a candy?) wouldn't get questioned.

Re:You have to wonder

[vilanye]

My google search came up with quite a few incidents, here and Chicago to name two. Cops do outlandish things every single day. A cop killed a kid in NY a logn time ago because he mistook a three musketeer bar for a gun. There have been incidents of cops tazing elementary kids, like ages 8 and 10. There is nothing too outlandish for a cop to do. This is the incident I was talking about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Otto_Zehm#Federal_indictment_and_trial Yes he was 36 but in no way was he an adult. tl;dr autisitic guy goes to ATM two stupid women report him to the cops for stealing from said ATM. cops confront him in a stop and rob trying to buy candy autistic kid doesn't respond to cop orders cops beat and tazer him repeatedly cop hog ties him and blaces an oxygen mask on him, said mask is not connected to O2 guy dies local prosecutor who is owned by the police union refuses to prosecute feds step in and prosecute scum sucking judge gives this pig 51 months for murdering a helpless person

Re:You have to wonder

[AK Marc]

Ah, he didn't use any false ID. He was falsely reported as having committed a crime. The cops are all investigated by cops, so cops never get in trouble unless the feds step in. Note the cops were acquitted in Rodney King as well. The issue being that the general public doesn't think that flinching when being beat is fighting back, but the police do, and convinced a jury of that. They bring up a line of cops to explain that the reaction was reasonable, even when we all know it wasn't.

That most pathetic thing is that every year there are 4-5 murders committed by cops every year and this prick was the only one charged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_killings_by_law_enforcement_officers_in_the_United_States

Looks like the number of police killings is more than 100 times your number, though "unjustified killings" is harder to quantify. The number killed by police should be zero, except cases where there was also a police officer who received life threatening injuries.

The real problem is that if we accept that police should be killing suspects, we can save so much more (anyone who runs from the police in a high speed chase should be immediately shot as a danger to others), but a suggestion like that is immediately shot down, so people obviously believe that there should be no police killings, but there are hundreds every year.

Re:You have to wonder

[vilanye]

I meant in my area. Very few of them are ever justified. Another egregious case was a cop was trespassing on private property to view alleged suspicious activity across the street in an unmarked car. Owner comes out to investigate and owner gets murdered. No charges filed, cop get a few weeks paid vacation.

A while back the local Sherrif claimed that kids tried to ambush cops by putting a log in the road and calling 911 to report a bunch of kids fighting in the middle of the night. End result a cop car flips over when it allegedly hit the log. Never mind that there were multiple paths to the site of the alleged fight and only one alleged obstacle. AFAIR, the 911 tape was not released, no evidence of a log produced, just weak excuses for get the cop off for speeding. How fast would a cop car have to go that when it hits an obstacle it flips ass to front?

I have no issue with justified shootings, you pull a gun on a cop, you get whats coming. My problem is the unjustified murders, framing innocent people, lying in court, shooting up houses for no reason, reckless driving, taxing unarmed children and adults etc that they get away with every day across the country.

Re:You have to wonder

[AK Marc]

Read through the list of cop killings. There are some "he pulled a gun, shot at cops, and was killed" on the list. But most were the killing of unarmed people. I googled a few of those, and most were investigated and cleared, though a few then had follow-up federal cases against them. But an obscenely large number initially read as completely unjustified.

Helicopters

[Anonymous Coward]

Helicopters with FLIR systems do the exact same thing.

He's not there

[stevegee58]

This is all cool and what-not but he's not there. He drove away in a car he left where the burned out truck was found.
This dude is scary as shit and they're not going to find him this easily.

If drones can't find him

[futhermocker]

They probably ask Alex Murphy to give it a try

Re:If drones can't find him

[zzottt]

But OCP does not have jurisdiction in California

Re:If drones can't find him

[futhermocker]

No problem, they just need to attach a couple of wings, and re-classify him, problem solved...

Scanning

[mutified]

I believe my house was scanned early this morning. Cheers

Re:Scanning

[pkbarbiedoll]

There's a scanner in my toilet, to watch me take a bath.

Re:Scanning

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a scanner in my toilet, to watch me take a bath.

Ewww; if that's where you bathe I don't want to know what you use your tub/shower for...

What the fuck is happening to my country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using drones that cause "collateral damage" to kill a suspect? What happened to the right to a fair trial, due process... ?

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[vlm]

Using drones that cause "collateral damage" to kill a suspect? What happened to the right to a fair trial, due process... ?

911. The bad guys won.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait, they used a drone to kill the guy already? I thought they were using the drones to find him not kill him. Man, I'm behind the times. Even the article says the drone has no weapons just thermal imaging. The shit's gonna hit the fan once the media finds out they've already killed this guy with a weaponized drone. The liberal media though will play along like he hasn't been killed and probably talk about the thermal imaging on the drone meanwhile ignoring completely the hellfire missiles and vulcan cannon on the thing. I hear the LAPD has already firebombed an entire neighborhood!

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[tonywong]

+100 to this comment.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[Khashishi]

In this case, the drones are probably more accurate in their target acquisition than the cops. Though, maybe that's the idea behind the recent shootings by the LAPD. Randomly shoot at people, and the drones will look good by comparison.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[CanHasDIY]

Wait, they used a drone to kill the guy already? I thought they were using the drones to find him not kill him.

Find him, so they can kill him.

Just because the platform for the weapons is not the drone itself, does not necessarily mean the drone isn't weaponized - in this case, the armaments consist of the heavily-armed paramilitary group on the ground who are awaiting a target designation.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[Anonymous Coward]

Using drones that cause "collateral damage" to kill a suspect? What happened to the right to a fair trial, due process... ?

911. The bad guys won.

"All that we have to do is to send two mujahedin to the furthest point East to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda, in order to make the generals race there to cause America to suffer human, economic, and political losses without their achieving for it anything of note other than some benefits for their private companies.

"This is in addition to our having experience in using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition to fight tyrannical superpowers, as we, alongside the mujahedin, bled Russia for ten years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat... So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy." -- OBL

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[jklovanc]

He will in all probability be killed as there is near zero chance he will surrender peacefully.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[CanHasDIY]

He will definitely be killed as there is near zero chance he will be allowed to surrender peacefully.

FTFY.

You're probably right that he wouldn't surrender (to the LAPD) peacefully, but don't fool yourself into thinking that there are any good guys in this situation - the LAPD wants Dorner to die just as badly, if not more so, as he wants them to do the same.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[jklovanc]

Dorner won't surrender to anyone peacefully. He could walk into a newspaper office right now and have them call the local police if he wanted to surrender. He won't do that because is is a delusional psychopath. Remember he is the one who stated in his rant that two police officers who used the word nigger in his presence should have been killed.

On another point, "the LAPD" is not a monolithic entity. There are thousands of individuals working for the LAPD. Some are very good, some are very bad and most are in between. Referring to such a diverse group as one entity is invalid as each individual is different. Until you know the mind of every LAPD employee the statement " the LAPD wants Dorner to die just as badly" is just a generalization and not fact. In all probability most of the people in the LAPD want him dead but I bet there are at least a few who don't.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[CanHasDIY]

On another point, "the LAPD" is not a monolithic entity.

So, your main argument is a semantic one.

Sorry, I don't play those games. You know what I meant.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[jklovanc]

Actually no I don't. Many people see every member of a group as the same and paint them all with the wrongdoings of some of them. Too many people use the terms "the Government", "the media", "the police", "politicians", etc as if they all acted the same. All they see is the uniform or title and think they know everything about the person. If you meant "some members of the LAPD" then why didn't you say it.

As an interesting aside I think it is strange how bad things that happen are usually attributed to the whole organization but good things that happen are usually attributed to the person that did it.

That wasn't even my main point which was that it is difficult to peacefully apprehend someone who is shooting at you.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[CanHasDIY]

That wasn't even my main point which was that it is difficult to peacefully apprehend someone who is shooting at you.

It's also quite difficult to surrender peacefully when the people you must surrender to won't stop shooting at you.

As I've said many times during this debacle, there are no good guys here.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[jklovanc]

He does not have to surrender directly to a police officer. All he would have to do is call local media telling them where he is, cuff his own hands behind his back and lay face down in an open area with his feet crossed. The media will arrive and then call police. He would be completely safe. Or her could call any public defender and surrender to them.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[CanHasDIY]

He does not have to surrender directly to a police officer. All he would have to do is call local media telling them where he is, cuff his own hands behind his back and lay face down in an open area with his feet crossed. The media will arrive and then call police. He would be completely safe. Or her could call any public defender and surrender to them.

This makes me think you're an idealist.

I'm just hard pressed to believe that the LAPD has any intention of letting him live to see a trial, considering, regardless of if or how he turns himself in.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country?

[jklovanc]

Just as your statements make me believe you are a pessimist. An idealist would have said he could walk up to any officer and turn himself in. I am under no illusions that any police officers who see him will shoot first and ask questions later. Notice that I suggested that he make himself helpless and have witnesses. Again, please use accurate language. IE "Many of the LAPD have no intention of letting him live". There are at least a few people in the LAPD that want him alive so he can spend the rest of his life rotting in prison. It does not matter what the intentions of some of the LAPD; they still have to follow the law and will not shoot a defenseless man in front of witnesses.

Protip: To avoid angering the public

[Anonymous Coward]

One probably should not use the word, "target," in the same sentence as, "drone," and, "US soil." Even though technically accurate, tension is lowered by saying, "...it was revealed that Dorner has become the first human on US soil which airborne drones have attempted to locate. 'The..." Same thing I think.

Targeting connotates shooting/firing/use of force from the targeting platform. It makes me think of armed drones, not surveillance drones. The latter is not much different from using helicopters, while the former would be an escalation of tactics that would make me think I'm living in Pakistan or Yemen.

Why worry about the drones?

[Anonymous Coward]

If your read the story, the cops on the ground are driving around shooting the wrong cars.

They've already labeled him a terrorist...

[Anonymous Coward]

What are the odds the drone has a patriot missile on-board?

Re:They've already labeled him a terrorist...

[Anonymous Coward]

None. A Patriot missile is a surface-to-air missile. Further, if it's a Predator (as an example), it can't even carry one Patriot missile. Max takeoff weight for a Predator is 2250 but the thing itself weighs 1130. 1130 + 2000 = 3130 > 2250. Maybe you're thinking of patriotic Griffin missiles which are Air-to-Ground. Those only weigh 45 pounds not 2,000 like a Patriot.

Re:They've already labeled him a terrorist...

[CanHasDIY]

So... are you trying to derail the point by arguing semantics, or are you just that stupid?

Honest question.

Drone strikes domestically?

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone remember the story last week about drone strikes on American citizens abroad: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite - which wound up killing a 16 year old citizen?

With events like this surrounding Christopher Dorner, we're only a short hop, skip, away from the above happening domestically.

I wonder what the breaking point event will be for the intelligent Slashdot community, where you will actually get mad rather than diverting the issue and believing nothing will be abused.

xkcd does it again.

[wcrowe]

Once again, xkcd tells it like it is for would be survivalists.

Re:xkcd does it again.

[21mhz]

A more practical link for the less paranoid of us.

Re:xkcd does it again.

[DCFusor]

Well, I believe you can still be into responsibility and readiness without being an outright enemy of the government. At least you can in my eyes. Theirs? Dunno. You can become a suspect for merely having a lot of food stashed. Almost all the old-time farmers/gardeners are therefore now "terrorists" by that definition. WTF? Most of 'em have guns too - handy tool when varmints are messing with your stuff (4 legged kind). So now we have the DHS saying that the safest, salt of the earth people, on whom we all depend to eat - fairly important - share considerable characteristics with "terrorists"? This is not the country I grew up in. It WAS the land of the free, the home of the brave. We are obviously no longer free, and evidently no one is brave enough to stop this developing tyranny in its tracks. Clearly, Dorner is at least half a nut-case. Does that justify hurting all these truly innocents, now and from now on? Ever seen the government give back a power, ever in your life? Not me, and I'm no spring chicken.

Re:xkcd does it again.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Free Shit Army has elected their 'I'll give you free shit by taking it from the eeevil rich and the eeevil corporations" president, and a sizeable majority of voter pandering 'free shit' legislators. The Free Shit Army is in control. You, prepper type, working type, so called 'responsible' type. will work, and scrimp, and be forced to pay high taxes so the Free Shit Army can get its Free Shit from Obama and all the other panderers.

Just suck it up; if you don't then you're an evil racist who wants all the children to starve, unless they first choke to death on polluted air or die from smelling cigarette smoke.

I guess he should have bought one of these

[Anonymous Coward]

http://youtu.be/hY5-j7MjecU

President not specially limited by Posse Comitatus

[DragonWriter]

The Posse Comitatus Act is coupled with, and defined by, the Insurrection Act of 1807. Basically, it limits the president's power. The North Dakota sheriff in question here is likely not the president.

This is wildly inaccurate. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits anyone from using the army or air force for law enforcement purposes without specific legal (Constitutional or statutory) authorization (18 USC Sec. 1385: "Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. "); since the Insurrection Act grants specific powers to the President in this regard (see 10 USC Sec. 331-336), the Posse Comitatus Act, viewed in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, limits the President less than anyone else, not more.

OK the real question is...

[s0litaire]

Where's Blue Thunder when you need it!!

Re:OK the real question is...

[El_Oscuro]

"Come on, you piece of shit" - most memorable line ever. 30 years later, I probably use it about 10 times a day on my computer at work.

Blues Brothers

[DarkOx]

You know just over 30 years ago, "The use of unnecessary force has been approved" read over the police dispatch was a laugh line from a comedy. Now its apparent SOP in a completely serious way.

How to retire in a day

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Go to Los Angeles
2. Get shot by the LA Police: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story
3. Sue
4. Retire

Re:How to retire in a day

[Quila]

2.5 Don't die

Running Man.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is just sparkly story stuff to sell Drones in America.

It's fun to watch! It's got a real Bad Guy! It gets your blood up!

It's fucking Running Man/Hunger Games rolled into one.

And when all is said and done, the popular approval for Drones and Domestic Assassinations will be waaaay up.

This is theater and advertising.

And that is sick.

The fact that nobody seems to recognize that this is blatant manipulation is the part which I find most depressing. People so easily manipulated deserve to have terminator drones flying over their lives.

Not so fast guys...

[mad flyer]

"' Dorner, who was fired from the LAPD in 2008 for lying about a fellow officer he accused of misconduct"

You seems to be drinking the cool aid too easily. Every other source, the lapd over reaction and Dorners manifesto lead to believe that corruption coverups and raw incompetence was the name of the game for Lapd.

Ok Dorner is enemy public #1
but the LAPD looks like a fitting enemy public #2 and not just because they are shooting at anyhthing looking even remotely like a Nissan Pickup truck...

Re:Not so fast guys...

[fatphil]

Indeed. And it seems as if the details he recounted in his screed (it's not a manifesto) about the case (such as the comment about wearing a tie) are in the official police record (which has been leaked), and which imply that there were definitely some untruths being told and covered up.

Re:Not so fast guys...

[Pecisk]

Not so fast about *what*?

When it become justified to kill anybody just because you got fired? Sorry, I see this concrete case. There's no sistematical abuse to this guy, he just snapped because he thought he is right. Sorry, but he is enemy #1 right now and that's what matters.

Has lot of PD has problems with violence, internal audits, etc. etc? You bet it does. As any authorative structure it has people who wants to abuse power, who wants to user power for their goals, etc. Guess what - that's life.

This Slashdot libertarian thinking is getting to my nerves. You people don't have a clue about real life, do you. It sucks. So get over it.

That's what you get for electing

[Dainsanefh]

King Obama.

Re:That's what you get for electing

[ub3r n3u7r4l1st]

"I wonder what the breaking point event will be for the intelligent Slashdot community, where you will actually get mad rather than diverting the issue and believing nothing will be abused."

Wait until one day the civilian national security force in their brown uniforms, armed with 1.6 billion rounds of ammo start marching on the streets the same time the King announcing the suspension of the Constitution.

When Slashdot is full of people like these , you will understand why history keep repeating itself.

OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[mozumder]

So where are all the gun-nuts now?

Here's your government tyranny: Corrupt police railroading a cop that tried to expose their corruption, but because the law enforcement itself was corrupt, he uses 2nd amendment solutions.

Are all the gun-nuts going to start shooting the LAPD now? Why not? Are you for or against government tyranny?

Would it help if he was white?

Or are all the freedom-loving libertarians actually complete pussies, and only want to have 2nd amendment rights not to fight tyranny, but to keep an artificial sense of security for themselves by thinking they can fight a government armed with nuclear missiles and Hellfire-equipped drones?

Really, you're not doing a good job of promoting the 2nd amendment if you're not actually using it to fight tyranny. Might as well get rid of it, since you don't need it.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[fyngyrz]

Are all the gun-nuts going to start shooting the LAPD now? Why not? Are you for or against government tyranny?

This is about someone using weapons to fight out of control government. In this case, he's the only one who knows the facts, so it's appropriate that he's the one doing the fighting, taking the risks, etc. Before you can co-opt large numbers, you have to do a lot better job of establishing your case than anecdotes. Even if he's 100% right, no one else can really know that.

This is simply not the kind of issue where you'd see a revolt. It is neither serious enough, well documented enough, or of consequence to a wide enough spectrum of people.

It is, however, the kind of thing that will happen from time to time, as the powerful crush the lives and dreams of the (relatively) little guy. When you takes actions that ruin someone's life, you'd better be sure they've got plenty of reasons left not to go off the reservation, as it were.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[flyneye]

Ahh a tyrrany fight.
But just right now we are watching our low I.Q. boys shoot it out.
I just wonder how many more will get shot up in the name of this obviously personal battle. Two last I checked. Does anybody know what the Vegas line on this is?
Adding an armed drone could hike the casualty count nicely, more if it is cops and not military running the show. I don't care how much training you give a rock, it's still only smart as a rock, but with combat training. Police commonly exclude very high above average I.Q.s as independent thinkers and do not hire them.
Mustn't have anyone making decisions and judgement calls on their own now. I notice it doesn't stop corruption though. I think it would be o.k. to hire a few rocket scientists for a change.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[GrumpySteen]

Corrupt police railroading a cop that tried to expose their corruption, but because the law enforcement itself was corrupt, he uses 2nd amendment solutions.

How does murdering a basketball coach and her fiancé fit into that?

I don't really like gun nuts, but only the loopiest ones would say that Dorner is doing anything other than trying to get revenge for his perceived persecution.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Dishevel]

I could support this man if he had not started out by killing a cops daughter and fiance.
Killing of the innocent should be avoided when possible.
And they should NEVER the targets.

He fucked up right there in my book.

Hope he takes out a couple of those murdering Fullerton PD cops before he gets killed or get put away forever though.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[mozumder]

You're implying that you would be along for the fight if he went ahead and shot his police peers instead?

Besides, civilians are always targeted during war. That's why we bombed Hiroshima. There actually isn't any rule for war, there are only guidelines. That is because war does not have a higher policing authority.

So, why aren't you out fighting government tyranny?

Does government tyranny need to affect you directly to fight back? Or should victims of tyranny be the only ones that should fight tyranny?

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[ravyne]

I'm 100% against the use of drones, but lets not confuse this guy with someone who's using his 2nd Amendment rights to fight tyranny. Firstly, because even if he was railroaded, corruption in and of itself is not tyranny. Secondly, and more importantly, he lost claim to the moral high ground by targeting the family of those he has a grudge for -- two of the three victims were the daughter of someone he holds a grudge against and her fiancee. There's nothing heroic about that. That's murder, plain and simple.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[PeterM from Berkeley]

Fighting a government? This guy murdered some cop's innocent kid and the cop's kid's fiancee. This wasn't collateral damage or some kind of mistake. He stalked them and murdered them.

How is that any sort of legitimate fight against a government?

--PM

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are all the gun-nuts going to start shooting the LAPD now? Why not? Are you for or against government tyranny?

Concidering that the "gun-nut" in this case is a liberal democrat, I would say no. I think we need a law against all liberal democrats from owning guns. They are the only ones who go off the reservation and shoot up innocent people.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[fyngyrz]

How is that any sort of legitimate fight against a government?

Cops murder people all the time. And they send innocent people off to their slaughterhouse prisons to die all the time. And they ruin innocent people's lives all the time. Families are hurt by that all the time. How is that a legitimate fight against crime? And why should their families be immune from the effects of their malfeasance, if the lives of the families of the people they abuse are not?

Actions have consequences. That's the lesson here. Not "omg, innocents!" And where were you when the lives of innocents were being ruined by these cops? Eh? Have you been pointing the finger at the cops for their daily, nay, hourly, maltreatment of innocents?

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[0111 1110]

I agree that it is not a fight against the government as a whole, just a very tiny speck of it: a group of corrupt, violent LAPD officers and unfortunately their families as well. The killing of family members is certainly not the part of any "legitimate" fight, but he is probably assuming that the cops in question will be hurt by such killing, which may or may not be true. He certainly isn't just randomly killing people. His overall intent seems to be to fight against the corrupt cops that he witnessed committing cruel crimes and getting away with it. To bring them to justice in the only way he knows how. If it weren't for the targeting of family members I'd personally consider the guy a hero. Killing off all the bad cops is certainly one way to clean up our massively corrupt police force.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

The weirdest thing is that his nutjob manifesto is more anti-gun than any gungrabber group out there. A hypocrite worthy of being employed as a cop.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[mozumder]

How is that any sort of legitimate fight against a government?

Because civilians have always been a target in war - hiroshima, etc. You do what you need to do to achieve your objective, including killing civilians.

War has no higher authority to police its combatants.

War has no rules, only guidelines.

The only people that say war has rules, are those that try to legitimize and promote it.

"It's ok.. we won't deliberately kill sweet innocent people.. we will only kill bad guys.. so please support this war."

Sorry, but soldiers need to understand that if government told them to shoot a child in the back of the head, they're supposed to do that. This is the kind of decision they will face when they are about to lose a war, where desperation causes rules to turn to guidelines. You think the guy that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima didn't know they were targeting kids? And yet he was completely fine with it.

Given that, why aren't you out killing people (LAPD/civilians/etc) to fight government tyranny along with this guy?

Do you want your wars to be safe and easy? Maybe they could put a "Bad Guy" sign to help you find "legitimate" targets?

Really, 2nd amendment supporters are all pussies. Straight-up 100% pussies, no beating around that fact. Christopher Dorner called them out on that.

These dipshit jackholes can talk all they want about fighting government tyranny, but when it interferes with their Starcraft tournament or American Idol, well.. lol

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Golddess]

why should their families be immune from the effects of their malfeasance

My dad killing your kid does not justify you killing me. Go after my dad, but leave me out of it, or my siblings may decide they need to take you out before they become targets, and your remaining kids go after my siblings, and it just goes on and on and on...

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[sacrilicious]

This guy murdered some cop's innocent kid and the cop's kid's fiancee.

Can you prove that? What if it was done by someone intending to frame him? At this point we only have our presumptions about what he may or may not have done.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[fyngyrz]

My dad killing your kid does not justify you killing me.

You, and all your generations.

or my siblings may decide

Not if there aren't any siblings left. See how that works? Turns out your dad's best bet is not to kill my kid. You'd be the first one to tell him so.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

He certainly isn't just randomly killing people. His overall intent seems to be to fight against the corrupt cops that he witnessed committing cruel crimes and getting away with it.

Then his execution is intolerable. He killed the daughter and fiance of his defending council. Do you think that man is part of the group of cops whose crimes Dorner witnessed?

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your assumption is that a corrupt cop killed the daughter and fiance of Dorner's defending council? To what end exactly? So they can kill Dorner before he exposes the police? He already submitted his testimony. Say Dorner was telling the truth about his supervising officer kicking a disabled man. How does killing those two people benefit the conspirators? It allows them to kill Dorner with less scrutiny? It prevents the closed case from reopening? It prevents Dorner from exposing worse behavior? If there is worse behavior, why didn't Dorner lead with that information during his hearing?

Killing those people if anything made Dorner's hearing higher profile, not lower. How exactly do the nebulous conspirators benefit?

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[czth]

Why aren't you out fighting it? Clearly you understand it exists.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

The guy himself is a raging nut against the 2nd Amendment, it says right there in his "manifesto". The sooner he's dealt with, the better. The police are showing their true colours as well. No innocents in this fight unfortunately, only the tragedy of murdered bystanders.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[jklovanc]

Hope he takes out a couple of those murdering Fullerton PD cops before he gets killed or get put away forever though.

By that logic I guess you are for Iraqis coming over and killing "murdering Americans" in retaliation for civilian deaths in Iraq. There may be cops on the Fullerton PD that committed murder but that does not justify picking random Fullerton cops and killing them. There are probably some very good cops in Fullerton and a few bad ones.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 3 kinds of cops in a bad department.
1) Bad Cops. (Fuck Them)
2) New Cops.
3) Cops who have not done bad things but know of officers who have.
        (Fuck them just as hard.)
They take an oath. The cop that Murdered Kelly Thomas is a fuckwad who should die slowly in a fire.
The cops that were there and watched a murder be committed in their presence are just as bad.
The cops on the force who work with any of the above afterward should die quickly in a fire.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[quantaman]

How is that any sort of legitimate fight against a government?

Cops murder people all the time. And they send innocent people off to their slaughterhouse prisons to die all the time. And they ruin innocent people's lives all the time. Families are hurt by that all the time. How is that a legitimate fight against crime? And why should their families be immune from the effects of their malfeasance, if the lives of the families of the people they abuse are not?

If you want to be righteous and violent then their families are fair game, and then you'll get a lot of other opportunities to be a hero when they re-escalate in response.

If you want to actually reduce the violence and killing, of both the cops and innocents, then you need to show restraint and fight them within the system. Killing bad cops won't get rid of bad cops so only the good ones are left, it will just turn good cops borderline and borderline cops bad.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[shutdown -p now]

My support for the 2nd Amendment is dictated mainly by the utility of guns as self-defense tools. Just because it lists "security of a free state" as a rationale for its existence, doesn't mean that it doesn't cover all other use cases for guns.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Areyoukiddingme]

I think it would be o.k. to hire a few rocket scientists for a change.

Good luck with that. Who'd WANT the damn job? Oh sure, it's all Law & Order out there, detectives investigating homicide and the case is solved in 44 minutes.

Pfft. As if. The unsolved cases far outnumber the solved ones, and it's not for lack of intelligence. It's for lack of evidence. No amount of smarts can actually zoom in that fucking far. I'm sorry, but you just can't. What is it actually like? Most cops are uniforms, and the highlight of their night is getting called out to deal with Stupid Fucker #1 vs Stupid Fucker #2 outside some bar, and hoping they can keep the peace without getting shot, stabbed, bludgeoned, or run over. Is it really any wonder that so many of them turn so severely cynical and turn into chiseling thieving bullying bastards? It's not an atmosphere conducive to niceness.

When you get down to it, what you want on the job are people with high empathy, and people with high empathy are exactly the ones who just can't take that job.

Oh, and a population gets the police force it creates. If the population goes out of its way to drive every cop with a shred of decency out of the force, what you have left is not going to be very nice. And yet, there's plenty of poor slobs on the job who will still give your sorry ass the benefit of the doubt one more time in your stupid-ass he-said she-said argument with your dumbass cousin. Fewer of those every year though.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[0111 1110]

That part is just bizarre. It's hard to imagine a motive. Maybe he figures that killing someone you love is worse than killing the person themselves. Something worse than murder. Obviously he must have disliked his defense attorney for some reason and now that he has nothing to lose and considers himself as good as dead is killing off the loved ones of anyeone he's ever had a grudge against. He probably figures none of it matters because he himself only has days or even hours to live.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

"gun nuts"?? -- WOW, you would think VERY differently if you spent your childhood years in a socialist state to really know what is is to be free. Sadly many Americas simply take freedom for granted like its a birthright. That stuff you read in social studies about the 3 branches of gov checking each other is bullshit. Our founders were so concerned about our government swaying to tyranny they chose to put that as point #2 (after free speech) and were very specific about it.

People in the higher echelons of power all fear mass rebellion. That is their #1 concern. Why do you think they constantly have opinion polls? They want to keep you happy to get re-elected and keep power. If they could they would try a power grab or coup, but fear a mass armed rebellion. That will go out of control real fast. So right now they are in check. Do you honestly think they wouldn't try? oh... they just need to slowly rewrite some fundamental laws.... and they are doing that aren't they? Our founders even warned us about the evils of central banks (like 250 years ago, I mean these guys had insight)... and now we are all bitches paying 1/3 of our salary to them.

Right now you have 40% of US households own one and we have the lowest violent crime in 20 years (trending even lower). So thank your neighbors and vets for your freedom. Remember that every country that has banned them, the crime shoots up, people demand authoritative measures and the country goes socialist. It happened throughout history so... so... so... many times.

Besides this guy wrote in his manifesto he loves Feinstein and banning guns.... see for yourself. Yet that solves no problem but creates countless others like higher crime, inability to defend yourself, fear of the state, a huge black market, which introduces mafia, etc... Just look at England along with Russia, China, all have much higher per capita violent crime. Research it yourself. History and government stats are unbiased and don't lie.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Khyber]

"My dad killing your kid does not justify you killing me"

Perhaps you should go back to middle school and learn what a 'blood feud' is.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[fyngyrz]

If you want to be righteous and violent then their families are fair game, and then you'll get a lot of other opportunities to be a hero when they re-escalate in response.

No, it actually works like this.

If you want to actually reduce the violence and killing, of both the cops and innocents, then you need to show restraint and fight them within the system.

The system doesn't work. As this fellow has been telling you. Also, he tried to use the system. It chewed him up and spit him out, as it tends to do when it is challenged in any way. He's moved on to another methodology now. The system has only itself to blame.

Killing bad cops won't get rid of bad cops so only the good ones are left, it will just turn good cops borderline and borderline cops bad.

That's an assumption, one that goes counter to the ones this society is based upon. It has its corollary in "executing criminals and the consequent huge collateral damage to their families won't deter crime, it'll just turn others borderline and the borderline into criminals."

But in fact, what it does is breeds restraint and caution, which moves the borderline away from criminality, and keeps those who weren't even borderline well aware that living right is worth the candle. And when we execute the criminal, they stop committing crimes.

What you want to avoid doing is executing the innocent (or doing anything else to them, for that matter) because they and their families tend to get righteously pissed. Whereas the families of murderers and rapists also get hurt and pissed, but generally speaking, at the criminal, not the system. "YOU brought this on us!" "How could you!" and similar reactions.

Now, if the cops know that engaging in fuckery will get them targeted, and that everyone will suffer if they act like jackasses, not just them, and their families know that such fuckery will also likely get them targeted, the most likely result is that they will begin to actually do their jobs as they were intended to be done.

This is the way of war against something. You go after everything to do with the enemy that has besieged you. You take out the infrastructure, you blockade supplies, you drop on cities and you drop on industry and you drop on troops. You make the cost of being your enemy so high that no one wants to be your enemy. You do it until the other side cries "no more, no more" and convinces you they mean it. Then you occupy them and watch them for a while. In the interim, everyone else watches and goes "good grief, I don't want to be their enemy!"

This guy hasn't decided to play tit-for-tat. He's gone to war. And I'm not talking about modern, trained-to-fail warfare designed to use up munitions and equipment and keep the trough full for the military industrial complex; I'm talking about fuck-we're-facing-hitler-and-tojo all-out nuke-em burn-em where they stand war. And just like that war, the boys in blue started this one. He's already done far more damage to them than they can do to him; will he be able to do enough to make a difference in the sick, decayed culture of police officers? Remains to be seen. I rather think he may have already done so. Odds are good there's at least a spark of awareness already circulating among the police (and not just in LA) that when you step on people unjustly, they may bite back in a way the system can't insulate them from. The more so, now that a powerful example is being set.

It's revolution, writ small. Been a long time coming.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Golddess]

I know exactly what a blood feud is. My whole point was that blood feuds are stupid.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Golddess]

You'd be the first one to tell him so.

Why do you assume I did not already? Why are you assuming I am on his side?

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[quantaman]

That's an assumption, one that goes counter to the ones this society is based upon. It has its corollary in "executing criminals and the consequent huge collateral damage to their families won't deter crime, it'll just turn others borderline and the borderline into criminals."

But in fact, what it does is breeds restraint and caution, which moves the borderline away from criminality, and keeps those who weren't even borderline well aware that living right is worth the candle. And when we execute the criminal, they stop committing crimes.

What you want to avoid doing is executing the innocent (or doing anything else to them, for that matter) because they and their families tend to get righteously pissed. Whereas the families of murderers and rapists also get hurt and pissed, but generally speaking, at the criminal, not the system. "YOU brought this on us!" "How could you!" and similar reactions.

Well I don't think it's well established that executions deter crime, and there's a lot to criticize in the US justice system, but in general punishing criminals with a fair punishment works.

Trouble comes up when people feel they've been treated unfairly. The problem with the bad cops is they don't necessarily think they're doing wrong, they think the public doesn't realize how bad the all the low lives and repeat offenders are so they feel justified in pushing the boundaries and throwing in some beatings, even the ones who get dirty and steal some drug money probably think they're justified for the stuff they're dealing with (and they're still better than the criminals). So when you try to punish them you don't make them afraid and cautious, you just give them more justification to do whatever the hell they want.

I'm sure you've heard of agent provocateurs, the reality is if someone is really looking to take your rights away they're not going to take away your guns, they're going to try to goad you into using them. That was the entire game plan of Bashar at the start of the revolution in Syria, commit atrocities until the revolution turns violent, then all of Bashar's backers dig in because they're terrified of what the revolutionaries will do if they get power. When you fight back violently that gives them the pretext to step up their game by restricting speech, imprisoning borderline individuals, or in this case, letting the cops use spy drones.

He's already done far more damage to them than they can do to him; will he be able to do enough to make a difference in the sick, decayed culture of police officers? Remains to be seen. I rather think he may have already done so.

Except I'm not worried about him, I'm worried about us, we've just lost the right not to be policed by drones, good cops have lost some ability to speak up about abuse without colleagues comparing them to this guy, and we've lost some right to walk down the street without being shot by some crazy cop. Guys shooting cops didn't give me freedom, they took away my right to relax and not worry about my hands if I get pulled over, just like the 9/11 bombers made airports a hell of a lot less free. Police will rightly just write him off as a one-off nutjob, if others pick up his cause and start shooting cops the response from the cops won't be "wow, we better clean up our act", it will be "ok, interact less with the public, and if anyone freaks you out shoot first and ask questions later".

This isn't a war you'll win, the most you'll do is create an enemy.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Golddess]

Additionally, what makes you think I even know anything about what my dad has done? Since I am speaking hypothetically, "I" could be a snot-nosed little 2 year old who knows absolutely nothing about anything. You clearly find it despicable when one person ruins the life of an innocent (as do I), yet for some reason you seem to think it ok for another innocent life to be ruined just because they are related to the perpetrator of the initial act.

Blood feuds are always stupid.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Pseudonym]

This is simply not the kind of issue where you'd see a revolt. It is neither serious enough, well documented enough, or of consequence to a wide enough spectrum of people.

As a matter of curiosity, what would it take? Rounding up over 100,000 American citizens and relocating them in camps, perhaps?

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[fyngyrz]

Well I don't think it's well established that executions deter crime

It is 100% certain that an executed criminal will not commit another crime. So yes, execution deters crime.

I'm sure you've heard of agent provocateurs, the reality is if someone is really looking to take your rights away they're not going to take away your guns, they're going to try to goad you into using them.

So... you figure his trainer was kicking that homeless person in the head in order to goad the (then) trainee cop into later attacking the police department? I have to say, that's a stretch. Not buying it. :)

we've just lost the right not to be policed by drones

We never had such a right. After all the flowery verbiage dissipates, rights actually exist only in the context of someone with violent recourse available to them willing to stand up for a claim to a right. Almost always a group standing up for a member; (this case is particularly interesting because it's a member standing up for a group.) That's never been the case with drones; the government has repeatedly said it's ok to use them, and, they were already in use. When people start shooting drones down (and it's an absolute certainty that they will), that's when you'll develop some rights in the matter.

good cops have lost some ability to speak up about abuse without colleagues comparing them to this guy

As clearly demonstrated, there was no ability to speak up, to be lost. There can only be a gain in this department.

we've lost some right to walk down the street without being shot by some crazy cop

No, again, we didn't have any such right. Happens all the time. Rarely is there any blowback to the cop. And then there's this.

just like the 9/11 bombers made airports a hell of a lot less free

No, that was your legislature. Had nothing to do with the bombers, other than as an excuse. It'll backfire anyway. I stopped flying then; so did a lot of other people. We keep electing stupid, rich people. We keep getting stupid laws designed to benefit the rich. Eventually the public will figure it out.

This isn't a war you'll win, the most you'll do is create an enemy.

Not my war; it's this cop's. And near as I can tell, he's already won. He got his message out, he's generated a huge upwelling of sympathy, there's a lot of discussion of just how bad the cops really are, they haven't even caught him but he's already done more damage to them than remains available to do to him, he may yet do more, and the very, very large number of people who have been handled unfairly by the cops are all watching, no doubt while they take notes. A *lot* of people perceive him as a hero.

Finally, the police have been the enemy for many decades, and we didn't create the situation. They did. From bashing heads in Chicago to the "silent blue line" to beating "suspects", to confiscating people's cameras, money and property, they created the enemy that is them. Now some reaping comes, and in the final analysis, I can't say I'm the least bit surprised, except perhaps only in that it took so long.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[SilenceBE]

Maybe you should ask that question to the organisations that trained him. It wouldn't surprise me that the whole psychological warfare is something that he has picked up. You guys do live in a country that proudly can put their name with nord korea, china,etc regarding torture and other pretty things in "war".

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Pseudonym]

Sorry, but soldiers need to understand that if government told them to shoot a child in the back of the head, they're supposed to do that.

No. They're supposed to disobey an unlawful order.

You think the guy that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima didn't know they were targeting kids? And yet he was completely fine with it.

Much can be said (and has been said) about the motives and morality of that particular event. Nonetheless, the guy who dropped the bomb knew that there was some moral difference between an intended target (the city) and collateral damage (kids).

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[marnues]

The system doesn't work. As this fellow has been telling you. Also, he tried to use the system. It chewed him up and spit him out, as it tends to do when it is challenged in any way.

He was using the wrong system. He's moved on to another wrong system.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[marnues]

It is 100% certain that an executed criminal will not commit another crime. So yes, execution deters crime.

Non-sequitor. It is _not_ 100% certain that an executed criminal would have committed more crimes.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well I don't think it's well established that executions deter crime

It is 100% certain that an executed criminal will not commit another crime. So yes, execution deters crime.

It is 100% certain that executed none-criminals will not commit any crime too. I say we take off, and nuke the populace from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[quantaman]

Well I don't think it's well established that executions deter crime

It is 100% certain that an executed criminal will not commit another crime. So yes, execution deters crime.

Well the alternative to execution is generally life in prison (if they're not exonerated) so even if they commit more crimes it will just be against other criminals (which I'm guessing you wouldn't mind).

I'm sure you've heard of agent provocateurs, the reality is if someone is really looking to take your rights away they're not going to take away your guns, they're going to try to goad you into using them.

So... you figure his trainer was kicking that homeless person in the head in order to goad the (then) trainee cop into later attacking the police department? I have to say, that's a stretch. Not buying it. :)

Yeah... I wasn't saying that. You're saying a violent escalation makes the authorities afraid and keeps them in line, I'm saying agent provocateurs are proof that the government will actually encourage violent escalations against them in order to discredit you or take away your rights.

we've just lost the right not to be policed by drones

We never had such a right. After all the flowery verbiage dissipates, rights actually exist only in the context of someone with violent recourse available to them willing to stand up for a claim to a right. Almost always a group standing up for a member; (this case is particularly interesting because it's a member standing up for a group.) That's never been the case with drones; the government has repeatedly said it's ok to use them, and, they were already in use.

I didn't mean a literal legal right, I meant a strong social more against them being used regularly, but I could be mistaken and that was already the case.

When people start shooting drones down (and it's an absolute certainty that they will), that's when you'll develop some rights in the matter.

Uhhh no, that's when boatloads of people will start getting prosecuted for shooting down drones.

good cops have lost some ability to speak up about abuse without colleagues comparing them to this guy

As clearly demonstrated, there was no ability to speak up, to be lost. There can only be a gain in this department.

we've lost some right to walk down the street without being shot by some crazy cop

No, again, we didn't have any such right. Happens all the time. Rarely is there any blowback to the cop. And then there's this.

Neither are binary problems, you can make them a little better, or a little worse, this dude made both worse.

just like the 9/11 bombers made airports a hell of a lot less free

No, that was your legislature. Had nothing to do with the bombers, other than as an excuse. It'll backfire anyway. I stopped flying then; so did a lot of other people. We keep electing stupid, rich people. We keep getting stupid laws designed to benefit the rich.

Nah, your legislature, I'm Canadian (not that much better but we're not the ones driving it). And yes, the bombers were an excuse, just like this dude might be, are you starting to get it.

Not my war; it's this cop's. And near as I can tell, he's already won. He got his message out, he's generated a huge upwelling of sympathy, there's a lot of discussion of just how bad the cops really are, they haven't even caught him but he's already done more damage to them than remains available to do to him, he may yet do m

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[mozumder]

No. They're supposed to disobey an unlawful order.

No. Soldiers are supposed to win. That is their job.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[GrumpySteen]

You've suffered several major comprehension failures.

1) "Gun nut" was the terminology used by the post I was replying to. I used it to make a point.

2) I didn't say that Dorner was a "gun nut." In fact, I said that gun nuts generally wouldn't support him.

The fact that you managed to completely misread a two sentence post is beyond me. Maybe you were too busy concocting your drawn out rant to notice that I didn't say any of the things you were objecting to?

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[GrumpySteen]

I'm quite certain that "the organizations that trained him" could not explain why the person that I replied to thought that Dorner was in any way exercising 2nd amendment rights. I was calling that person out for saying something stupid. I'm not sure how you interpreted my post as anything else, but congratulations on completely missing the point.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[DarkOx]

First of let me state that all the known facts indicate this guy is a murdering lunatic nothing more and nothing less.

Still in the hypothetically speaking if he or someone one were fighting a government than I would argue that civilian police forces, and government personnel and their families could be considered legitimate targets. That might even include people in roles like teacher or librarian if they are spreading pro government propaganda. These people would be collaborators.

You have to demoralize and terrify when you are fighting a better organized and superior force. We attacked the families of British and Hessian officers during our revolution. What exactly do you think Washington was crossing the Delaware to do on the 25th of December?

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Cops murder people all the time. And they send innocent people off to their slaughterhouse prisons to die all the time. And they ruin innocent people's lives all the time. Families are hurt by that all the time. How is that a legitimate fight against crime? And why should their families be immune from the effects of their malfeasance, if the lives of the families of the people they abuse are not?

Trying to defend the actions of a murderous nutjob as freedom-fighting, because you dislike the rule of law embodied by cops, is not a terribly good argument except to appeal to fellow morons.

We all look forward to seeing the SWAT teams prying your weapons from your cold, dead hands.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[tehcyder]

In a civilised society, you don't resort to shooting people when you get frustrated.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry dude, but you've got it backwards. This is a war they can't win. Sure, I'd agree if it was us (the world) punishing them. But this is one of their own. He's not some nut job, he's one of them. He knows exactly what they've done, and he's holding them accountable. They can frame that message however they like, but good cops at the end of their rope now have an example. Bet you a dollar he won't be the last to do this. You authoritarians think everyone thinks like you. We don't. For some of us, the principle is more important than the consequences. We will die to free the rest of you. Been that way forever.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[fyngyrz]

Look up recidivism rates. This tells you what will actually happen.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the dumbest thing I've heard today. Civilization does not exist unless someone is shooting someone else. As far as I can tell, humans are not capable of living together in peace without a gun to their head. And yes, dummy, all you amerikans have a gun pointed to your head. Break one of your silly laws and find out.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

You, they'll just make kneel down and blow them, cause you don't have any guns. I prefer death to giving blow jobs to cops. There really is only one problem with amerika, and that's that you are all so stupid. It's no wonder you can't control your government. All it takes is one preacher to say blowing cops is good, and you all line up.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[fyngyrz]

Well the alternative to execution is generally life in prison (if they're not exonerated) so even if they commit more crimes it will just be against other criminals (which I'm guessing you wouldn't mind).

You've wandered off topic by following my comparison into a new conversation. You had originally said:

Killing bad cops won't get rid of bad cops

While the point I was making when I said "And when we execute the criminal, they stop committing crimes." was: dead cops will not commit more abuses; they're dead.

agent provocateurs are proof that the government will actually encourage violent escalations against them in order to discredit you or take away your rights.

Well, in that case, I'm saying that doesn't seem relevant to this situation.

Uhhh no, that's when boatloads of people will start getting prosecuted for shooting down drones.

The one does not preclude the other.

Neither are binary problems, you can make them a little better, or a little worse, this dude made both worse.

Disagree.

Cheers. :)

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[fyngyrz]

In a civilised society

Well, there's your mistaken assumption right there. In a civilized society, cops don't kick homeless people in the face; they don't rally 'round the abuser and protect them when someone reports such an act; they don't fire the person reporting the act, and they don't intentionally wipe out their reputation. In a civilized society, all of the above go differently.

But in the society we actually have, this kind of thing, and this, is endemic, and eventually the people being abused, while being told to act civilized by the people committing the abuses, will decline to co-operate, and then the rest of us start having discussions like this one.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't a legitimate fight against the government. It's his personal fight against those that wronged him who happen to be LAPD or any other LEO that gets in his way. Remember, he said he will fight asymmetrically. That means he won't follow any prescribed notion of fairness and will be of his own time and his own choosing to attack any target on his hit list. I don't agree with him at all and I think he's a coward and a lunatic, but it is what it is. I imagine if he is still alive that he is planning his next attack.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Freddy Kreuger deterrent. It's not enough to go after the cops involved because the point isn't just about physical warfare or violence it's about psychological warfare and about attacking something more abstract. It's about attacking racism and thoughtless cruelty WITHIN the police. If corrupt cops fear that their entire extended family will be put at risk by their actions they may think twice about roughing up a suspect in cuffs.

Cops can't be everywhere at all times, and by making a target out of the only people someone is guaranteed to value (culturally speaking we still assume strong nuclear family bonds) he is creating a seriously visible deterrent towards future police misbehavior. I can't say I really like that this is the way this all is happening but at the same time I'm at a loss to suggest any other way to seriously reform the police. Politics around "Law and Order" are still a paralyzing weakness to many.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[marnues]

Proving my point, it's not 100%.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[ananthap]

How is that any sort of legitimate fight against a government?
In a sense, it is worse.
(1) The weapons are the at least as powerful as that of anyone else.
(2) He has vowed to kill the families of specific government officers - but not the country as such.
(3) So the debate, even though he is more of a clear danger.

OK

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[EuclideanSilence]

I wonder about what you said. If Dorner had killed the police officer, who would suffer more, the officer or his family? Dorner stated in his manifesto that he personally wasn't afraid to die anymore, and that the police had ruined his relationships with his family. While I am aware that you are advocating the common view of things, perhaps Dorner thought a bit more seriously about his actions and decided that the family would suffer less if they died and the officer had to live with it. It's pure speculation, but if Dorner survives this then we might find out.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to old testament morality, just as stupid now as it ever was.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

When two fuckwits are shooting at each other they're both "defending themselves".

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Danilushka]

The LAPD shot 4 innocent people in their vehicles while searching for Dorner. By my count (3 Dorner, 4 LAPD) plus the fact Dorner had a list and the LAPD just shot people, I'd they are more dangerous to us than Dorner.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

he's the only one who knows the facts

# alias opinions = 'facts'

FTFY.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[shutdown -p now]

No, since one of them had to shoot first.

Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fighting a government? This guy murdered some cop's innocent kid and the cop's kid's fiancee. This wasn't collateral damage or some kind of mistake. He stalked them and murdered them.

How is that any sort of legitimate fight against a government?

--PM

It's precisely the sort of legitimate fight waged by the government against it's citizens. It's time to call a spade a spade and let the government reap what they've sown.

PROJECT MAYHEM

[Anonymous Coward]

If Dorner's smart, he's already gone. He's kicked the hornet's nest, all he has to do is sit back and watch everything fall apart as the LAPD flies further off the handle in their rabid attempt to get him.

In a year or two, if they haven't cleaned up their corruption, he can come back and hit them again when they're not on alert. Assuming he's not some ego-driven, self-destructive type like all the rest of these types.

The real question

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is whether this guy will become the first US citizen killed by a drone on US soil. All the keywords are in place. He is a US citizen. He has declared the equivalent of jihad against the LAPD. The reward for information leading to his capture is at the level it is because he has been defined as a terrorist.

So, he is a us citizen terrorist on US soil. Will they kill him if they get him in the sites of an armed drone?

Granted, his motivations, intentions and actions are pretty clear but once you allow this guy to be taken out without a trial, except in the media, then who's next and for what crime?

Likely, they'll start targeting people with MP3 players as they likely have pirated music on their players. :^D

tinfoil hat MFs

[Anonymous Coward]

Grief, talk about a bunch of tin foil hats, this is a spy drone, not a HK drone, and there's a warrant for his arrest.

The problem occurs when the surveillance drones are used without a warrant or HK drones are used as a part of law enforcement avoiding due process.

How about picking intelligent fights and not undermining your cause?

Re:tinfoil hat MFs

[0111 1110]

and there's a warrant for his arrest.

Are you serious? Unless this guy is unusually good at being on the lam he may as well already be dead. Did you fail to miss the vehicles the LAPD have already shot up? They aren't seeking to capture him. They are an assassination squad. This is about revenge for killing members of their gang. That is in addition to the crime of violating the Blue Wall of Silence, of trying to rat them out. Dorner has no chance of ever seeing the inside of a court room. Unless he has already fled the country at best he will take out more cops before he dies. I certainly hope he does at least.

Re:tinfoil hat MFs

[MozeeToby]

He's trying to show how corrupt and incompetent the LAPD is, them shoot up random citizens because they are driving a similarly shaped and colored (not, not the same make, model, or color - just similar) is doing a pretty good job of it. As for him being a dead man walking... yep, but then, he knew that when he started out, said as much in his 'manifesto'. If the guy hadn't started killing the families of those involved I might almost have a modicum of pity for him... instead now I just pity the innocent people who are getting caught in the crossfire by both Dorner and the LAPD.

Re:tinfoil hat MFs

[0111 1110]

If the guy hadn't started killing the families of those involved I might almost have a modicum of pity for him... instead now I just pity the innocent people who are getting caught in the crossfire by both Dorner and the LAPD.

Agreed. For me he went from hero to zero when he started killing innocent people. Once a cop always a cop I guess. For cops or ex-cops killing innocent people is like catnip to a cat.

Re:Protip: To avoid angering the public

[CanHasDIY]

Targeting connotates shooting/firing/use of force from the targeting platform.

No it doesn't - think of the laser designators used by the military to 'paint' targets for airstrikes. The targeting body (laser designator on the ground) is not the weapons platform.

This is basically the same situation, with roles reversed - the aircraft will provide the targeting mechanism, while the 'troops' do the killing.

I can smell their fear from here.

[Anonymous Coward]

So many cops squatting and pissing like a girl.
pssssssss I can hear that from here too.

Now everyone can see who and what they really are.

In Drone news

[PortHaven]

After the successful Patriot anti-missile system, America launches the anti-Patriot missile system.

consider that...

[Anonymous Coward]

If he'd shot anyone other than cops the LAPD would be yawning rather than spending millions of taxpayer dollars to find him.

Sensationalist Headlines

[Koreantoast]

Sensationalist headline on multiple levels. First, law enforcement has been using drones already, ranging from cattle theft to border patrol. Second, the headline is trying to conflate the image with that of an ARMED drone which is extremely misleading; it's like saying that a law enforcement agency is targeting people with helicopters then posting a picture of an AH-64 Apache. This is not to negate the very real concerns that unmanned platforms introduce for law enforcement and civil liberties, but we shouldn't let hysteria get in the away of creating smarter policies.

drones

[Anonymous Coward]

drones to not belong on usa soil.

Re:drones

[Anonymous Coward]

Drones have been in use for a while now. They are mainly used by the cops to
spy on Madonna while she is nude sunbathing. If they were really capable of
hunting anyone dangerous down, then we wouldn't have such a large GANG
problem in LA, now would we? I think the bounty on Chris Dorner just went
from $1,000,000.00 to $1,100,000.00 and it is climbing by the hour. If only
we had that German bounty hunter from "Django Unchained", he would have been
dead or behind bars by now. The real issue here as I see it, is the Mayor
and Police Chief ARE negotiating with a terrorist by re-opening his
dismissal case. We'll be all the way back to the 1970's when just about
every other plane was diverted to Cuba for hostage hell any minute
now. Seriously, unless this guy makes a left turn in a "No Left Turn Between
7am-9am Mon-Fri" at 8am on a Tuesday, they aren't going to catch him.

fuel costs vs operator costs

[Anonymous Coward]

What do drone "operator(s)" get paid compared to a helicopter pilot?

Both get paid peanuts; it's the fuel costs that make the difference. http://www.rotoruadailypost.co.nz/news/fuel-cost-hits-rescue-helicopter-training/1523209/

Give me crumpet any day

[Platinumrat]

You guys don't know what you're missing. I love Tea'n'crumpet in the morning.

Re:Give me crumpet any day

[CanHasDIY]

Ugh.

Earl Grey should be considered a chemical weapon, and be banned per the Geneva Conventions.

Re:Give me crumpet any day

[HornWumpus]

A little bit of Crumpet is always nice.

WARNING

[Anonymous Coward]

It has long been established, that the day a drone is used to actually kill an American on U.S. Soil, would constitute as an act of war against the American people.

They better not do it, otherwise people will likely react to it.

A slippery slope

[Anonymous Coward]

Law enforcement in the US has been militarized for a while. Now we have drones that track the average citizen. When are these drones going to be armed? If we don't object to what is happening now, don't be surprised if the local police can take you out from the air.

Why do we have the most people imprisoned in any 1st world country?
Why are we spending $100,000+(at leaset in CA) for each prison guard?
Why are more prisons than universities being built?

Is that all good for society?

Indeed.

[denzacar]

Just put them on the street, walking. They get to know their little neighborhood, and vice-versa. The only need for cars is for traffic enforcement, and 99% of that is purest bullshit anyway.

Indeed.

According to New York City Department of Transportation, there are about "6,300 miles of streets and highways" in NYC.
Walking at 3 miles per hour, 6 hour shifts, a two cop team would be covering about 18 miles of street per shift.
That means that, theoretically, you could cover the entire New York city with only 2800 cops working in four shifts.
Which is a hell of a lot less than 34,500 police officers in NYPD today. Clearly, they're just there to get fat on the taxpayer's money.

You'd only have to accept certain compromises of such a "lean local law enforcement".
Like... A police station every 18 miles (I'm sure no one would mind all the taxes to build, equip and maintain all that), a response time of an hour or so (that is unless there is already a crime in progress somewhere down the road - then you'd just have to wait your turn), cops not dealing with cases where there are more than two suspects - until their backup arrives on foot from the next station over, or not responding at all if it is raining or snowing, no actual detective work as these are after all just beat cops and the detectives will arrive (on foot) when they find the time.
And naturally, you could completely cripple your local police force for hours by breaking a traffic light at an intersection. And there are 12000 signalized intersections in NYC.

But yeah, sure.
I see no reason why cops shouldn't still operate the way the god intended them too - like the 17th century Bow Street Runners.
All criminals are pedestrians anyway, right?

Re:Indeed.

[fyngyrz]

Which is a hell of a lot less than 34,500 police officers in NYPD today.

I didn't suggest reducing their numbers. You did. Straw man.

You'd only have to accept certain compromises of such a "lean local law enforcement".

No, you wouldn't; these compromises arise from your cutting the workforce. I didn't suggest that.

All criminals are pedestrians anyway, right?

Irrelevant. Criminals can have access to all manner of faster transport, that doesn't mean we provide the cops with same. Furthermore, chases cause tons of collateral damage. We need those to stop as well.

a response time of an hour or so

Oh, you mean like now? LOL. There's a truism about cops: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." I submit to you and all that if they're minutes late or hours late, it makes no substantial difference. They're always there after the crime is done; catching criminals in the act requires being on the street and paying attention to the neighborhood, not insulated in a car, windows up, AC on, radio squawking, looking to deal out a traffic ticket. The cop on the street will learn to know what looks right, who's normally cheerful, who's normally taciturn, what businesses are busy and which aren't, etc. All the things they've completely lost touch with. That at least gives the cop an edge if the officer is in the area when something goes down. If not, it's no different than now.

And there are 12000 signalized intersections in NYC.

Remove them. Studies show they work better that way anyhow. Anyone can direct traffic if need be, but probably, it isn't needed anyway.

Re:Indeed.

[denzacar]

No, you wouldn't; these compromises arise from your cutting the workforce. I didn't suggest that.

No, those compromises arise from the fact that the human world record in running is 27.79 mph, set by Usain Bolt, while average walking speed is about 3 mph.
3 mph times 6 hour shifts equals 18 miles of street per policeman per shift.
And it is rather obvious that you won't be seeing them jogging during all those 6 hours, running from one crime scene to the other.
In fact, at best you'd get 3 crime scenes per shift - say, if it's a case of shoplifting or purse-snatching and they're just there to write up the complaint after the criminal is long gone.

You can increase the number of policemen all you want, have 20 of them covering those same 18 miles - they'd still be moving at around 3 mph. Meaning that they'd still need ~1-6 hours to answer to an emergency.

Irrelevant. Criminals can have access to all manner of faster transport, that doesn't mean we provide the cops with same. Furthermore, chases cause tons of collateral damage. We need those to stop as well.

Tracking should do fine in most cases. Like with drones. Or helicopters.
Problem is, you can't always have access to those.
So, unless you're advocating that police should let criminals and offenders go free cause it is "hard" to chase them...

Oh, you mean like now? LOL. There's a truism about cops: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

So the solution is to have them move slower, letting the cases they didn't even get to check pile up until it's days before they get to take a peek at the crime scene - cause it takes 6 hours for them to walk from one side of their beat to the other?
Right.

The cop on the street will learn to know what looks right, who's normally cheerful, who's normally taciturn, what businesses are busy and which aren't, etc. All the things they've completely lost touch with. That at least gives the cop an edge if the officer is in the area when something goes down. If not, it's no different than now.

You seem to have a vision of all cops walking along a busy city street minding the shops so beggars and street urchins don't steal anything. That's rent-a-cop's job.

Domestic violence alone is around 210000+ cases (yearly) in a city like Chicago - you don't get to anticipate that or see it "go down".
It's not even happening "on the street" but in people's homes where cops can't just barge in anytime they please.
They can walk the beat all day long and not see a damn thing happening on the second floor of the building they're camping in front of, not to mention 5th, 10th or 15th floor. Or behind closed doors. Or drawn curtains.
Still, they must respond to those calls.

Same way they must respond to calls from someone complaining that their neighbors are trying to kill them by reflecting light through their windows.
Or to a case of someone's kid being lost.
Or to a drunk driver wrapping his car around a telephone pole.
Or to someone lying drunk in front of a bar.
Harassment. Assault. Rape. Property damage. Suicide...

None of those are foreseeable and there is no "lost touch" to be found again. Yet, cops must respond to ALL those cases.
At 3 miles per hour.

Remove them. Studies show they work better that way anyhow. Anyone can direct traffic if need be, but probably, it isn't needed anyway.

Citation needed.
Oh and... make sure those studies include into account existence of pedestrians, bicycle riders and other forms of transportation AND the effects of such unregulated traffic on ALL commuters, not just the car drivers.

Besides, I was presenting you with a case that a cop must respond to, keeping him/her busy while a more serious crime takes place elsewhere.
Replace breaking a traffic light with someone ramming a car through a store window causing cops to gather the

In a word... WRONG

[garyoa1]

"The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him"

That doesn't say they are using them. Just says they may be their only hope.

Re:In a word... WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

Being smart, and ex-military, this guy is probably nowhere near where his car was torched... in fact, he's probably no more than a mile away from LAPD police HQ, the last place they would think of looking for him... while they bankrupt themselves on a multi-state-wide manhunt...

Domestic Terrorist?

[locke_00]

Hmmm... is that why LAPD deemed him a domestic terrorist? To qualify for military support? (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/10/ex-cop-manhunt-continues/1906999/

What is he seeking revenge for?

[Anonymous Coward]

The timing of events suggests that former Lt Dorner was reacting to the trauma of having been forcibly separated from the military, effective 01 February 2013, as a result of having been (fraudulently) cashiered by the LAPD. He lost his security clearance, as well as his pension, I'd guess.

Like many people, he held his legal counsel and coworkers responsible for the abuse he suffered in the workplace and the failure to achieve compensation. It's possible, even likely, that his legal counsel, and peer employees, placed their own career ahead of Officer Dorner's career.

It's not impossible to suggest that a rationalizing mind might conclude, under stress, that these other parties were active threats to, say, the United States, itself... seeing as they were sabotaging the war effort, by robbing The State of one of its assets - a trained warrior - as it were.

Notably absent in this epic are any references to a father. It seems likely that former Lt Dorner grew up in a family with no father, perhaps even a family where the missing father was referred to as 'a liar' ... leading to an obsession with truth, and integrity, on the part of the fatherless son.

If this analysis is correct then it is also worth pointing out that fatherless men are just what the military seeks, because they are easily molded to regard the upper ranks as their - until now, missing - disciplinarian/father figure.

And so we can expect more cases like this, where cops go 'Rambo'.

Re:not the first one on the Kill List

[Anonymous Coward]

How long will it take for our Dear Leader to add Chris Dorner to the "Kill List" and just have a drone take him out.
Of course, it's an ethical decision, now isn't it?

Re:President not specially limited by Posse Comita

[Anonymous Coward]

The Posse Comitatus Act is coupled with, and defined by, the Insurrection Act of 1807. Basically, it limits the president's power. The North Dakota sheriff in question here is likely not the president.

This is wildly inaccurate. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits anyone from using the army or air force for law enforcement purposes without specific legal (Constitutional or statutory) authorization (18 USC Sec. 1385: "Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.
"); since the Insurrection Act grants specific powers to the President in this regard (see 10 USC Sec. 331-336), the Posse Comitatus Act, viewed in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, limits the President less than anyone else, not more.

None of this matters - flying a drone, observing and reporting is not enforcing state law any more than a mall rent-a-cop is. It's good training for drone operators. Also from what I've read the law does not say "law enforcement purposes" it says "enforce State law". I'm not a lawyer, but I know words are important to one.

Fall report. Drones not being used

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/news/2013/02/11/12506/lapd-manhunt-rumor-control-drones-sightings-and-wh/

Express misquoted Dorner.

Its Only Just Begun

[Anonymous Coward]

Just think of it.

In the near future, months, the President of the United States of America, Governors, Mayors of metropolitan and State, County/Burrow and City Police Chiefs will have the ability to Kill At Any Time Anyone.

So, for instance, a call comes in to the White House, President Obama answers, and ends the call. Then he makes another call. "I Grant Killing Of Person xx yyyy zzzzz at once. Do IT God Damn It or Die".

1:05 hrs later the White House receives another telephone call: the call is directed to President Obama. "KILLED." and the connection is disconnected.

So in the months ahead, CEOs of Companies in the USA will have the ability to 'KILL ON CAUSE.' This opportunity is far reaching and pervasive.

So, for instance, Bill aka "William B." Gates has a telephone conversation with Steven Balmer.

Gates: "Stevie, This Proposal is Shit, SHIT !"

Balmer: "OH YEAH ! SHIT HEAD ... A ... HERES IS SOME SERIOUS SHIT OVER YOUR CHILDREN'S WORTHLESS HEADS ... ASS WHIPE."

And Bill Gates' home in the hills of Washington State is reduced to ashes.

And in the USA Courts, Balmer Walks !

Thank George [Johnny] Walker Bush and his Congress for this !

Why won't you allow nukes for law enforcement?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you an anarchist?

Fahrenheit 451 anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Didn't the government in that book shoot and kill a random citizen on television when they couldn't find the protagonist/who they were actually looking for?

It appears we're just one step from that.

"I'm no spring chicken."

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, good. They're terrorists.

"people will likely react to it"

[Anonymous Coward]

By changing the channel. You really don't know where you are, do you?

You miss the point.

[Anonymous Coward]

It isn't about this one event. It's about where drone use could go. You can't have even a few helicopters flying over Los Angeles at all times looking for undesirable conduct, but some day you might be able to have dozens of drones or more. They don't require as much fuel as carrying a person with safety gear does. Some day not far, they probably won't even require a remote human controller until they've found something.

It's about the slow normalization of it. Unarmed drones abroad. Then armed drones abroad. Then drones abroad killing Americans abroad. Now unarmed drones domestically. You don't see the road map?

Dorner is perfect for this. His cause would have garnered some sympathy, but now that he has killed innocents, it's not just him but his cause too that are tainted.

And I'm not even the "OMG, the government is out to eat my brain" type. The people that are there now, generally aren't out to get you. Many are incompetent and many are corrupt in that they seek personal benefit, but they're not Nazis and even the incompetent or corrupt still tend to block the truly dangerous sort. But this is the slope we're going down, and when we get to the bottom those tools may prove irresistible to the wrong sort of politician and all we need then is the wrong sort of "cleaning house".

ALLEGEDLY

[Cyfun]

"Dorner, who was fired from the LAPD in 2008 for lying about a fellow officer he accused of misconduct..."

He ALLEGEDLY lied about the misconduct. C'mon Slashdot, the first thing I learned in my journalism class in college was that you can NEVER outright accuse anyone of anything. Plus, the whole damn reason behind him going postal was because he ALLEGES that he was telling the truth about the misconduct, that he was fired as a result of corruption and ass-covering, and is now taking justice on the corrupt police officers involved.

And british tabloid press strikes again

[Pecisk]

Apparently it's have been pulled out of British press ass. Their tabloids really don't waste time with checking facts.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/future_tense/2013/02/12/christopher_dorner_manhunt_faa_dhs_say_no_drones_are_being_used.html

Of course this could be false in event that you say that huge amount of people in government are lying about official record.

I don't care if they watch me

[romons]

as long as they don't have weapons... they can look, but no touching.

Re:I don't care if they watch me

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like the cops are exchanging gunfire with him now in Angeles
Oaks/Big Bear. He is holed up inside a cabin. Another law enforcement
officer reportedly killed. They were following up on a stolen vehicle.

Dorner, who was fired from the LAPD ... for lying

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Pickens, you have lost most of the respect I had for you.

Irony

[Anonymous Coward]

What if he has a drone?