Slashdot Mirror


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.'"

67 of 498 comments (clear)

  1. not the first one by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    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."

    1. Re:not the first one by paiute · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    2. Re:not the first one by Amouth · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      '...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
  2. Uncomfortable by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 3, Informative

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

    1. Re:Uncomfortable by Darinbob · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "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.

    2. Re:Uncomfortable by maxwell+demon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As opposed to arming the helicopters?

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  3. No different than helicopters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That are equipped with similar sensors.

    1. Re:No different than helicopters by Dexter+Herbivore · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:No different than helicopters by alexander_686 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:No different than helicopters by synapse7 · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    4. Re:No different than helicopters by 0123456 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:No different than helicopters by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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).

  4. Fascinating stuff by paiute · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    1. Re:Fascinating stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Fascinating stuff by realityimpaired · · Score: 4, Informative

      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...

    3. Re:Fascinating stuff by Blue+Stone · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >"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.

      --
      Corporation, n. An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility. - Ambrose Bierce
    4. Re:Fascinating stuff by sjames · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    5. Re:Fascinating stuff by Holi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    6. Re:Fascinating stuff by 0111+1110 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    7. Re:Fascinating stuff by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    8. Re:Fascinating stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    9. Re:Fascinating stuff by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    10. Re:Fascinating stuff by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:Fascinating stuff by 0111+1110 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    12. Re:Fascinating stuff by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    13. Re:Fascinating stuff by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    14. Re:Fascinating stuff by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Fascinating stuff by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    16. Re:Fascinating stuff by DMUTPeregrine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Not a sentence!
  5. No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

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

    1. Re:No problem by lennier1 · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. Re:No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  6. The way it begins by Compaqt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    1. Re:The way it begins by cornjones · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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"

    2. Re:The way it begins by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  7. Re:I wish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  8. Think of the children by wbr1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
    1. Re:Think of the children by X0563511 · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  9. I just want to point out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    1. Re:I just want to point out... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

    2. Re:I just want to point out... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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!

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    3. Re:I just want to point out... by 0111+1110 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
    4. Re:I just want to point out... by Grishnakh · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    5. Re:I just want to point out... by xhrit · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    6. Re:I just want to point out... by Marful · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:I just want to point out... by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  10. first human target by corporate+zombie · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

  11. You have to wonder by Lucas123 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:You have to wonder by Lucas123 · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    2. Re:You have to wonder by vlm · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    3. Re:You have to wonder by LiENUS · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

  12. Re:What the fuck is happening to my country? by vlm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
  13. xkcd does it again. by wcrowe · · Score: 3, Funny

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

    --
    Proverbs 21:19
  14. President not specially limited by Posse Comitatus by DragonWriter · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  15. Blues Brothers by DarkOx · · Score: 4, Funny

    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.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
  16. Not so fast guys... by mad+flyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "' 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...

  17. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  18. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by flyneye · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
  19. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by GrumpySteen · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  20. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by Dishevel · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
  21. Sensationalist Headlines by Koreantoast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  22. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by ravyne · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  23. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by PeterM+from+Berkeley · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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

  24. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  25. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  26. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  27. Re:OK then what about the 2nd amendment? by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.