Manhunt in SoCal, suspect is surrounded in a cabin, two officers down.

Do you know what the definition of "matches the description of the suspect's vehicle" actually is?
Apparently "blue truck" was all that was needed for them. Which is about 10% of the actual description of the truck they are looking for...
Paid administrative leave?! Well, that certainly puts some weight on the things said in this nutballs manifesto.. Seriously, those guys should've been fired permanently on spot with black mark.

👍
 
why do you think that changes anything?
Because he's not some seventeen-year-old wannabe gang-banger who held up a bottle shop and fled the scene after shooting a police officer attending the robbery. He is a highly-trained former police officer and naval reservist who is acknoweldged as a skilled pistol shot. He had already ambushed two separate police units earlier that night, killing one officer and injuring two. He is not running scared, but instead has a plan and is evidently sticking to it, and has threatened to continue killing police officers their families and associates until his demands are met. As a former officer, he would undoubtedly be familiar with the standard police procedures for carrying out a manhunt, and will have almost certainly factored these into his plans.
 
Except he just might be running, or already ran. He did after all try to hijack a boat.

Still does not change a thing, he's not targeting the general public, he's targeting police, ...... so let the police shoot innocent old ladies?

ffs common now.
 
Yes but when has the ever been a manhunt of a cop-killing cop who weighed 270 lbs in February?

Nobody could be prepared for such a unique set of circumstances.

They are looking for a dangerous murderer. We've danced this dance before without shooting old ladies in the back.
 
The easy way out of this, just get the LAPD give in to the man's demand, a full investigation on everything that contained in the manifesto by an independent agency ( Internal Affairs or the Feds), the results will be made public, maybe he will give himself up voluntarily and survive the trial, but I doubt that, the cops would kill the man even if he is cuffed, and declared he was resisting arrest to save them from further debacles.
 
Except he just might be running, or already ran. He did after all try to hijack a boat.
He is suspected of trying to hijack a boat.

Still does not change a thing, he's not targeting the general public, he's targeting police, ...... so let the police shoot innocent old ladies?
Where did I ever say that police were entitled to shoot innocent old ladies? You, Zenith, Justin and Azuremen have all been putting words into my mouth.

I simply said I understood why the police might have opened fire prematurely. They are faced with a fugitive who has promised to kill any police he finds through "unconventional and asymmetric warfare", and knows their tactics for running a manhunt. If they continue to use those tactics, then they leave themselves open to attack because the suspect will not simply anticipate what they will do, but will plan for them to do it. When the police were briefed on the situation, they undoubtedly adjusted their tactics so as to be prepared for the suspect should he present himself. From the sounds of things, the police involved in the shooting took those new tactics too far.

But, no. Because I didn't jump on the bandwagon and condemn them for it immediately, you have taken the position that I am making excuses for them. I am not. I have never said that what they did was justified; in fact, I have repeatedly said the opposite.

Ironically enough, you all claim that the suspect's background makes no difference in how the police would carry out the manhunt. If you actually were running the manhunt, then I'd be very concerned for your well-being and/or your reputation since the person your would be chasing knows exactly what you will do and will take steps to evade you. So he'd either evade you long enough to embarrass you publicly, or he'd ambush you.
 
Last edited:
The problem is that there's no need for your point to be brought up, we know they're human, we don't think this is some movie playing out with evil cops. The main bad aspect isn't that these cops decided to shoot, it's that it's a result of the way the administration decided to set up everything and completely go out of line in order to apprehend this guy.

Of course we know those cops were scared for their lives, but bad stuff as a result of paranoia happens like that happens all the time and with way more horrible results, we know.

The main issue is that this department, no matter what the consequence, see their actions as necessary when they are not. They're supposed to serve and protect the public, not themselves first. Explain that.
 
They obviously thought they were serving the public when they opened fire on the truck. They didn't shoot it up because they were bored. They evidently felt that the truck matched the description of the suspect's truck and didn't double-check.
 
Or they were just following orders providing security detail, while at the same time they were edgy to get through the day without incident, when they saw a truck nearby, they quickly concluded, "this must be it, that must be the truck we are looking for, no lights and suspicious, let's open fire just to be on the safe side, we are not going to take risks with another cop killed by Dorner ", "no need for backup, just open fire, a few dozen of bullets will make sure of it" ..... that's how I picture the incidents ;) then when they realized the women screams - opening the truck's door ... "damn, a case of mistaken identity, that's what the chief will say" Time for paid leave and some shrink sessions.
 
They should be punished for their actions anyway, regardless of what their intentions were.
 
When was the last time a cop-killing killer cop was the subject of a manhunt?

Since you seem to be hung up on this, care to research it out a bit more?

As I've said before, and others have echoed, you just keep tossing straw men up.
 
As I've said before, and others have echoed, you just keep tossing straw men up.
And you keep trying to put words into my mouth. I know exactly how to deal with that - it's the ignore list for you. Maybe once you demonstrate that you are capable of reading everything that I post, as opposed to reacting to the first two words, I'll bother paying attention to anything you have to say.
 
Why do people announce ignore list activation?

EDIT:

zBikXuT.gif
 
Last edited:
Perhaps because it means I won't be responding to his posts, which could be interpreted as me trying to pretend that the points he raises in future don't exist. Instead, this way he knows why I am not responding, and so won't waste time or effort trying to get a response out of me, or holding up my failure to respond to him as proof that my argument is invalidated.

Of course, that would actually require him to read my posts, which he hasn't done yet.
 
And you keep trying to put words into my mouth. I know exactly how to deal with that - it's the ignore list for you. Maybe once you demonstrate that you are capable of reading everything that I post, as opposed to reacting to the first two words, I'll bother paying attention to anything you have to say.

Oh god, the irony. So glad you are not a mod anymore.

EDIT: I'll elaborate on this a bit more. I've read all of his trash posts, and all I've seen is him claiming we'd do no otherwise in the same situation and calling us desk critics. The fact he has the most posts in this thread and those have mostly consisted of arguing trivial details and pointing to why the officers may have such a gross failure of judgement while not really condemning them. Which is more hilarious when you look at his other posts often jumping on the US for violence, gun control, and so on. The fact he ignores people that call him on his bs (which I've done for a while now) without actually supporting himself beyond repeating what he has already said is just absurd, and shameful seeing how he is an educator.
 
Last edited:
The fact he ignores people that call him on his bs (which I've done for a while now) without actually supporting himself beyond repeating what he has already said is just absurd, and shameful seeing how he is an educator.

This part would not bother me if I knew/believed he simply taught a curriculum and didn't try to seed ideology. When my kids where growing up I learned that 2 + 2 = hug a tree, who knew lol.
 
This part would not bother me if I knew/believed he simply taught a curriculum and didn't try to seed ideology. When my kids where growing up I learned that 2 + 2 = hug a tree, who knew lol.

Well, the icing on the cake is he just always resorts to telling us that we aren't/can't read what he writes. Maybe if he cut a bit of condescension and "what would you actually do" lecturing and made actual points it wouldn't be so bad. This attitude is found in most all his posts, ranging from video games to education. But people in hell want ice water I imagine...
 
Last edited:
I think Dorner might have fooled every cop there, he might have been somewhere else, making his move for the next target, they said keep your friend close, but keep your enemy closer, the cops won't look into their own home court, Dorner could strike anytime ...reminds me of that movie Shooter starring Mark Wahlberg :) Dorner is the real life Bob Lee Swagger with different story/motivation, a revenge, a demand for justice .. I hope it ends like in the movie ;) the real bad guy loses.
 
I'm gonna put on my tin foil hat, and suggest that maybe this ex cop has dirt on the chief and the chief wants him eliminated at all costs.

This does sound like a Michael Bay movie in a few years.
 
^^^ you people see too many movies. Whatever happened to this ex-cop, just or unjust, doesn't allow his latest course of action. To kill a captian's daughter and her boyfriend (if I understood this right) shows a total lack of respect towards innocent humans (or civilians if this was war). In short, he is nothing but a miserable terrorist, one that kills persons oblivious to his personal quest and with no connection to it. And his quest isn't even because of "greater values" (take that with a pinch of salt) like the oppression of his people or the murdering of his family. He killed innocents because he thinks he unfairly lost his job and was racially mocked. Really.
 
The shootings of those two officers on the women must have taken some sort of attention away from the man they're actually trying to track down. A lot of people seem to be talking more about that than the manhunt. I absolutely agree that they should be punished to the fullest extent, none of this 'paid leave' and 'mental health care'. They commited murder. It doesn't matter if they are the law or not, in my opinion, they should be treated the exact same way as any civillian would if they had shot at two women, killing one.

...In short, he is nothing but a miserable terrorist, one that kills persons oblivious to his personal quest and with no connection to it.

He killed innocents because he thinks he unfairly lost his job and was racially mocked. Really.

Indeed. And the list that he's made with up to 40 names on it of the people he intends on killing, too. I don't believe he'll last that long.
 
Back