7 ms·

Man hunt for ex-soldier who shot police chief's daughter and killed policeman

22 points by dsl 14y ago

asynchronous13 14y ago
This article is terrible. It's clearly designed to make people think that the suspect is targeted for execution via drone. The reality is that they're just trying to find him. They'll have an IR camera in the air to help search in the woods where the guy is hiding. The guy claimed that he has a shoulder-launched surface to air missile and that he'll shoot down any helicopters that come looking for him! It's no wonder that police would rather use an unmanned aircraft instead of putting one of their pilots at risk! Here's an article that includes actual news, rather than inflammatory headlines: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-ex-soldier-who-shot-police-chief-s-daughter-and-killed-policeman http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-ex-s...
- tptacek 14y ago
  Look at the comment threads here to see why a story like that sells; plenty of people on HN really want to believe that Obama is deploying drones armed with ABEMSPKEROIII2#$* missiles against random people in the United States, because that's convenient for them. They think we live in a Tony Scott movie.
logn 14y ago
So if Obama give the thumbs up we can just execute the suspect on the spot. Edit: sure, downvote me, but what I said is actually 100% true. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-jus... The legal reasoning supporting execution of Al Queda leaders who are US citizens overseas holds true completely for any anti-American people on US soil
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- sologoub 14y ago
  Don't see anything about these drones being armed. However, I'm sure there is some obscure way to justify it either because of his prior use of deadly force or military training or both... This is a really disturbing case on many levels. Drones are just extra food for speculation and media attention.
  - djloche 14y ago
    There's no justification for killing an innocent man. The 'manhunt' is of an innocent man, which status he maintains until found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. That's the standard. Or at least it was once the standard. Now the "legal" system of the USA seems to be all about coercing guilty pleas and adding people to secret lists while sweeping corruption and fraud under the rug. The government is more likely to fire an APKWSII based missile from a drone in an attempt to kill him from the air than it is to bring him in alive for a trial.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      The 'manhunt' is of an innocent man, which status he maintains until found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. ITT: cops aren't allowed to use deadly force against anyone who refuses to be brought to trial because they haven't been found guilty at trial
- _djo_ 14y ago
  These drones are unarmed.
- anigbrowl 14y ago
  No it isn't, and you're mistaken. Go read the White Paper in which the legal reasoning is laid out; Dorner would not fall within the scope of the AUMF.
  - logn 14y ago
    The victims of US executions are not required to be covered under AUMF: "the Department does not believe that US citizenship would immunize a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces from use of force abroad authorized by the AUMF or in national self-defense". So, the "or in national self-defense" clause would apply here. And also a careful reading reveals that nothing hinges on it being Al Qaida specifically. Attacking US law enforcement would easily be reason. And none of this requires due process so this whole argument is moot anyhow.
    - chc 14y ago
      That passage still explicitly applies to citizens associated with al-Qa'ida. Killing police officers does not associate someone with al-Qa'ida. This interpretation of the law is entirely in your head and has never been espoused by any US official in words or in practice.
      - logn 14y ago
        They say Al Qaida but none of the legal reasoning relies on it being Al Qaida. It's all about anyone who threats the US, whether an immediate one or not, and they even say such threats need not have clear evidence. "an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future" "A lethal operation against an enemy leader undertaken in national self-defense [...] would fall within a well established variant of public authority justification and therefore would not be murder" ... no mention of Al Qaida. Again, the theory behind this has nothing to do with them.
    - codex 14y ago
      I disagree; the word "abroad" above implies this justification only holds off of U.S. soil. "National self-defense," further, implies a national security threat, which one fugitive clearly is not. He is also not a member of al-Qa'ida, and I that language seems specific to that organization. I agree with your point about due process; it does not take a presidential order to kill an alleged cop-killer; cops kill suspects all the time in the name of self defense or danger to others.
- tptacek 14y ago
  No, it is absolutely not true. Even in the fictional universe in which armed drones had been deployed, Obama does not have the authority to use them against Americans unaffiliated with Al Qaeda or while they are on American soil even if they are affiliated with Al Qaeda. The power Obama has to order drone strikes derives from the AUMF that put us at war in Afghanistan and is structurally identical to the power FDR used to order bombings in Europe during WW2. You are more or less parroting conspiracy theories from the Internet.
  - enoch_r 14y ago
    You're absolutely right, and people are being very hyperbolic. However: Obama's power to launch a targeted strike against an American citizen does not exactly "derive from the AUMF." It derives from the Obama administration's interpretation of the AUMF (and other law). That interpretation may or may not be constitutionally correct, and at no point was this administration forced to argue the constitutionality of the strike before carrying it out. Even if we accept that the AUMF granted Obama the right to kill an American citizen abroad, Obama is making constitutionally controversial decisions without oversight. Although the white paper justifying the Aulaqi assassination did not argue that the assassination of non-Al-Qaeda citizens within the U.S. would be justified, many people are concerned that this sort of oversight-free executive decision-making sets a bad precedent, and that eventually some president might use similar arguments to justify drone strikes against American citizens.
    - tptacek 14y ago
      I think I mostly agree with you, and if we diverge, it's because where you trace the problem back to an overreaching executive branch, I trace it to a legislative branch that was willing to declare war on a state of mind rather than a sovereign state.
dmishe 14y ago
It's merely another camera in the sky, what's the big deal, they're not firing (yet?)
- neotek 14y ago
  (yet)
  - dmishe 14y ago
    Exactly, then it will be news, now it's nothing
tzs 14y ago
The border patrol has been using drones for quite a while to track humans on US soil. The only real difference in this case is they are trying to keep someone in instead of keep someone out.
enoch_r 14y ago
Just happened to read this[1] article today--apparently the first was back in 2011: 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 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2135132-4,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2135132-4,0...
notatoad 14y ago
other than drones being a hot subject in the media right now, how is this in any way different to using a search plane to look for somebody?
- icambron 14y ago
  Not only that, but the general touchiness about drones is misplaced anyway. The problem with drone strikes isn't the drones per se, it's being aggressive about killing people and the collateral damage that causes. It doesn't really matter whether there's a guy in the airplane or not.
- rtpg 14y ago
  it isn't. Most people seeing the title, myself included, about the drone used (falsely) assumed it was armed. It's being used to look for a guy in a mountainous area.
beedogs 14y ago
What the hell is happening up there? This is not the country I remember growing up in. (But it is the one I left.)
- tptacek 14y ago
  We've been taken over by armed drones. Also we outlawed kale. Send help.
anigbrowl 14y ago
According to the article they're using drones to look for him. I would be extremely surprised if they were to attack him with one. In any case, Obama does not have, or claim the authority to take him down with a drone; his actions against terrorists elsewhere are based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which is explicitly limited to members of the organization involved in the 9/11/2001 attacks.
- adventured 14y ago
  Obama has been ordering attacks on supposed terrorists that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 during his entire presidency. There's nothing limiting drone attacks to just members of organizations involved in the 9/11 attacks.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I think you're conflating drone strikes against foreign nationals with the (very few) strikes that implicated American citizens. The former set is not bounded by Al Qaeda membership. The latter set is.
- starpilot 14y ago
  The drones they're using are unarmed. Right now though the only US armed drones employ missiles, and southern California isn't exactly Afghanistan. I can't imagine them risking the massive collateral damage in LA or Big Bear from firing a missile (meant for attacking structures or armor) at a single human.
- belorn 14y ago
  > explicitly limited to members of the organization involved in the 9/11/2001 attacks. that has not been true for a long time.
krzyk 14y ago
It's a pity they don't include his full manifesto ( http://christopher-dorner.com/christopher-dorners-manifesto-full-unedited-copy/ http://christopher-dorner.com/christopher-dorners-manifesto-... ). He has a lot of support on the internet and in the LA community. I've heard him being called black Rambo (the one from Rambo I). Basically he is on a revenge rampage on corrupted LAPD officers.
- tptacek 14y ago
  He deliberately murdered an unarmed woman because she was a blood relative of an LAPD official. Anyone who says they support him has revealed something unbecoming about themselves.

22 points by dsl 14y ago

This article is terrible. It's clearly designed to make people think that the suspect is targeted for execution via drone. The reality is that they're just trying to find him. They'll have an IR camera in the air to help search in the woods where the guy is hiding. The guy claimed that he has a shoulder-launched surface to air missile and that he'll shoot down any helicopters that come looking for him! It's no wonder that police would rather use an unmanned aircraft instead of putting one of their pilots at risk! Here's an article that includes actual news, rather than inflammatory headlines: http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-ex-soldier-who-shot-police-chief-s-daughter-and-killed-policeman http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/376732/Man-hunt-for-ex-s...

tptacek 14y ago
Look at the comment threads here to see why a story like that sells; plenty of people on HN really want to believe that Obama is deploying drones armed with ABEMSPKEROIII2#$* missiles against random people in the United States, because that's convenient for them. They think we live in a Tony Scott movie.

logn 14y ago

So if Obama give the thumbs up we can just execute the suspect on the spot. Edit: sure, downvote me, but what I said is actually 100% true. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-jus... The legal reasoning supporting execution of Al Queda leaders who are US citizens overseas holds true completely for any anti-American people on US soil

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
sologoub 14y ago
Don't see anything about these drones being armed. However, I'm sure there is some obscure way to justify it either because of his prior use of deadly force or military training or both... This is a really disturbing case on many levels. Drones are just extra food for speculation and media attention.
- djloche 14y ago
  There's no justification for killing an innocent man. The 'manhunt' is of an innocent man, which status he maintains until found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. That's the standard. Or at least it was once the standard. Now the "legal" system of the USA seems to be all about coercing guilty pleas and adding people to secret lists while sweeping corruption and fraud under the rug. The government is more likely to fire an APKWSII based missile from a drone in an attempt to kill him from the air than it is to bring him in alive for a trial.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    The 'manhunt' is of an innocent man, which status he maintains until found guilty in a court of law by a jury of his peers. ITT: cops aren't allowed to use deadly force against anyone who refuses to be brought to trial because they haven't been found guilty at trial
_djo_ 14y ago
These drones are unarmed.
anigbrowl 14y ago
No it isn't, and you're mistaken. Go read the White Paper in which the legal reasoning is laid out; Dorner would not fall within the scope of the AUMF.
- logn 14y ago
  The victims of US executions are not required to be covered under AUMF: "the Department does not believe that US citizenship would immunize a senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or its associated forces from use of force abroad authorized by the AUMF or in national self-defense". So, the "or in national self-defense" clause would apply here. And also a careful reading reveals that nothing hinges on it being Al Qaida specifically. Attacking US law enforcement would easily be reason. And none of this requires due process so this whole argument is moot anyhow.
  - chc 14y ago
    That passage still explicitly applies to citizens associated with al-Qa'ida. Killing police officers does not associate someone with al-Qa'ida. This interpretation of the law is entirely in your head and has never been espoused by any US official in words or in practice.
    - logn 14y ago
      They say Al Qaida but none of the legal reasoning relies on it being Al Qaida. It's all about anyone who threats the US, whether an immediate one or not, and they even say such threats need not have clear evidence. "an 'imminent' threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future" "A lethal operation against an enemy leader undertaken in national self-defense [...] would fall within a well established variant of public authority justification and therefore would not be murder" ... no mention of Al Qaida. Again, the theory behind this has nothing to do with them.
  - codex 14y ago
    I disagree; the word "abroad" above implies this justification only holds off of U.S. soil. "National self-defense," further, implies a national security threat, which one fugitive clearly is not. He is also not a member of al-Qa'ida, and I that language seems specific to that organization. I agree with your point about due process; it does not take a presidential order to kill an alleged cop-killer; cops kill suspects all the time in the name of self defense or danger to others.
tptacek 14y ago
No, it is absolutely not true. Even in the fictional universe in which armed drones had been deployed, Obama does not have the authority to use them against Americans unaffiliated with Al Qaeda or while they are on American soil even if they are affiliated with Al Qaeda. The power Obama has to order drone strikes derives from the AUMF that put us at war in Afghanistan and is structurally identical to the power FDR used to order bombings in Europe during WW2. You are more or less parroting conspiracy theories from the Internet.
- enoch_r 14y ago
  You're absolutely right, and people are being very hyperbolic. However: Obama's power to launch a targeted strike against an American citizen does not exactly "derive from the AUMF." It derives from the Obama administration's interpretation of the AUMF (and other law). That interpretation may or may not be constitutionally correct, and at no point was this administration forced to argue the constitutionality of the strike before carrying it out. Even if we accept that the AUMF granted Obama the right to kill an American citizen abroad, Obama is making constitutionally controversial decisions without oversight. Although the white paper justifying the Aulaqi assassination did not argue that the assassination of non-Al-Qaeda citizens within the U.S. would be justified, many people are concerned that this sort of oversight-free executive decision-making sets a bad precedent, and that eventually some president might use similar arguments to justify drone strikes against American citizens.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    I think I mostly agree with you, and if we diverge, it's because where you trace the problem back to an overreaching executive branch, I trace it to a legislative branch that was willing to declare war on a state of mind rather than a sovereign state.

dmishe 14y ago

It's merely another camera in the sky, what's the big deal, they're not firing (yet?)

neotek 14y ago
(yet)
- dmishe 14y ago
  Exactly, then it will be news, now it's nothing

tzs 14y ago

The border patrol has been using drones for quite a while to track humans on US soil. The only real difference in this case is they are trying to keep someone in instead of keep someone out.

enoch_r 14y ago

Just happened to read this[1] article today--apparently the first was back in 2011: 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 http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2135132-4,00.html http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2135132-4,0...

notatoad 14y ago

other than drones being a hot subject in the media right now, how is this in any way different to using a search plane to look for somebody?

icambron 14y ago
Not only that, but the general touchiness about drones is misplaced anyway. The problem with drone strikes isn't the drones per se, it's being aggressive about killing people and the collateral damage that causes. It doesn't really matter whether there's a guy in the airplane or not.
rtpg 14y ago
it isn't. Most people seeing the title, myself included, about the drone used (falsely) assumed it was armed. It's being used to look for a guy in a mountainous area.

beedogs 14y ago

What the hell is happening up there? This is not the country I remember growing up in. (But it is the one I left.)

tptacek 14y ago
We've been taken over by armed drones. Also we outlawed kale. Send help.

anigbrowl 14y ago

According to the article they're using drones to look for him. I would be extremely surprised if they were to attack him with one. In any case, Obama does not have, or claim the authority to take him down with a drone; his actions against terrorists elsewhere are based on the Authorization for Use of Military Force, which is explicitly limited to members of the organization involved in the 9/11/2001 attacks.

adventured 14y ago
Obama has been ordering attacks on supposed terrorists that had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11 during his entire presidency. There's nothing limiting drone attacks to just members of organizations involved in the 9/11 attacks.
- tptacek 14y ago
  I think you're conflating drone strikes against foreign nationals with the (very few) strikes that implicated American citizens. The former set is not bounded by Al Qaeda membership. The latter set is.
starpilot 14y ago
The drones they're using are unarmed. Right now though the only US armed drones employ missiles, and southern California isn't exactly Afghanistan. I can't imagine them risking the massive collateral damage in LA or Big Bear from firing a missile (meant for attacking structures or armor) at a single human.
belorn 14y ago
> explicitly limited to members of the organization involved in the 9/11/2001 attacks. that has not been true for a long time.

krzyk 14y ago

It's a pity they don't include his full manifesto ( http://christopher-dorner.com/christopher-dorners-manifesto-full-unedited-copy/ http://christopher-dorner.com/christopher-dorners-manifesto-... ). He has a lot of support on the internet and in the LA community. I've heard him being called black Rambo (the one from Rambo I). Basically he is on a revenge rampage on corrupted LAPD officers.

tptacek 14y ago
He deliberately murdered an unarmed woman because she was a blood relative of an LAPD official. Anyone who says they support him has revealed something unbecoming about themselves.