4 ms·

"Thus Eric Holder's position would be that a weaponized drone strike against him would be authorized." Considering police likely intentionally burned Dorner al

"Thus Eric Holder's position would be that a weaponized drone strike against him would be authorized." Considering police likely intentionally burned Dorner alive [1], a drone strike doesn't seem like that big of a stretch. [1] http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-christopher-dorner/ http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/02/13/the-execution-of-chri...

tptacek 14y ago
What do you think of this article? Christopher Dorner shot and killed an unarmed 28 year old woman, along with her unarmed fiancee. The woman was the daughter of an LAPD official. Dorner was killed in that woodland cottage after he shot and killed a San Bernardino County sheriff's officer.
- samstave 14y ago
  Although, there is a ton of missing context in your post. The way you posted it sterilizes the story. * Dorner took a revenge killing on the daughter of the retired police-officer-turned-attorney who he felt was a plant in the hearing he had. * The police were recorded conspiring to burn down the cabin in a pre-meditated attack against Dorner. Both were outright murders. Both were wrong, however one presentation sways blame away from the "officials". The cops who were recorded as saying "Burn it like we talked about" "Burner deployed, we have a fire" and "Copy; burner deployed, we have a fire" should all be tried for murder.
  - tptacek 14y ago
    Do you care why Dorner deliberately targeted and shot to death an innocent unarmed woman and her fiance in a car? If so, I respectfully submit that you should spend a little less time on the Internet. Dorner was a monster. The reason I brought this up was the Counterpunch article, which really does go out of its way to try to make Dorner more sympathetic.
    - samstave 14y ago
      First, why is of paramount importance. So, yes I do care why. I never defended his murder of those two people. I am not saying he is not a monster. What I am saying is that too many people, and it would seem yourself included, use that as justification for the state to murder people. Do you care why the LAPD shot up the two newspaper delivery ladies? What about the ramming and injuring of hte white surfer guy? DO you care why the LAPD was able to justify warrantless entry to ~400 homes in their manhunt? What we are seeing is that the LEOs and the Fed would like to leave the structure of our system at the door whenever they have a threat to their power. Context is critically important. Having both truthful facts and full context does not threaten the reality of the situation. Obfuscating either, however, has far too much potential for abuse. In this case, the LAPD pulled out all the stops in going after someone who pulled out all his own stops in his effort to fight against what he perceived as an insurmountable injustice against him. I am not defending his actions - I am pointing out what the facts of the situation were. I am not sympathetic to Dorner, nor am I sympathetic to the LAPD. I am sympathetic to the fact that there were multiple people murdered, this is inclusive of Dorner himself. (because allowing the LAPD/Sheriff to murder people because they are 1) embarrassed 2) angry 3) scared 4) incompetent 5) arrogant with their power, is never OK.)
      - tptacek 14y ago
        No, I don't think the killing of Dorner is comparable to his murder of Monica Quan. Quan was targeted, stalked, and deliberately killed while unarmed. The officers surrounding Dorner were in a confrontation with an armed suspect who had pledged to trade his life for the opportunity to kill police officers and who had just that day outside that exact cottage killed another police officer. He was not an inert submissive object inside the building; he was trying to kill them with more diligence and intent than they him.
        samstave 14y ago
        I am not comparing the two. Both are murders. Burning down a house and being recorded on tape as having "talked about" it (i.e. planned it) is not ok. I was not saying he was inert or submissive - but sorry LEOs are supposedly trained to take on all situations. They are extremely well armed and equipped. Burning down random property to get their guy is not an OK tactic.
- tlrobinson 14y ago
  This is typical of responses I got when I posted about it before, and it misses the point. * I'm not defending Dorner. The police have a right to kill someone who's actively trying to kill them. But what level of force is acceptable? Obviously guns are ok. Maybe setting fires is ok too? What about drone strikes? * If it's acceptable, why would police deny it was intentional, and under what other circumstances would it be acceptable? Is it ok because he killed a cop? * How certain were they no one else was in the building? As we saw earlier that week when they shot up two cars that resembled Dorner's they weren't exactly being careful to avoid collateral damage.

tptacek 14y ago

What do you think of this article? Christopher Dorner shot and killed an unarmed 28 year old woman, along with her unarmed fiancee. The woman was the daughter of an LAPD official. Dorner was killed in that woodland cottage after he shot and killed a San Bernardino County sheriff's officer.

samstave 14y ago
Although, there is a ton of missing context in your post. The way you posted it sterilizes the story. * Dorner took a revenge killing on the daughter of the retired police-officer-turned-attorney who he felt was a plant in the hearing he had. * The police were recorded conspiring to burn down the cabin in a pre-meditated attack against Dorner. Both were outright murders. Both were wrong, however one presentation sways blame away from the "officials". The cops who were recorded as saying "Burn it like we talked about" "Burner deployed, we have a fire" and "Copy; burner deployed, we have a fire" should all be tried for murder.
- tptacek 14y ago
  Do you care why Dorner deliberately targeted and shot to death an innocent unarmed woman and her fiance in a car? If so, I respectfully submit that you should spend a little less time on the Internet. Dorner was a monster. The reason I brought this up was the Counterpunch article, which really does go out of its way to try to make Dorner more sympathetic.
  - samstave 14y ago
    First, why is of paramount importance. So, yes I do care why. I never defended his murder of those two people. I am not saying he is not a monster. What I am saying is that too many people, and it would seem yourself included, use that as justification for the state to murder people. Do you care why the LAPD shot up the two newspaper delivery ladies? What about the ramming and injuring of hte white surfer guy? DO you care why the LAPD was able to justify warrantless entry to ~400 homes in their manhunt? What we are seeing is that the LEOs and the Fed would like to leave the structure of our system at the door whenever they have a threat to their power. Context is critically important. Having both truthful facts and full context does not threaten the reality of the situation. Obfuscating either, however, has far too much potential for abuse. In this case, the LAPD pulled out all the stops in going after someone who pulled out all his own stops in his effort to fight against what he perceived as an insurmountable injustice against him. I am not defending his actions - I am pointing out what the facts of the situation were. I am not sympathetic to Dorner, nor am I sympathetic to the LAPD. I am sympathetic to the fact that there were multiple people murdered, this is inclusive of Dorner himself. (because allowing the LAPD/Sheriff to murder people because they are 1) embarrassed 2) angry 3) scared 4) incompetent 5) arrogant with their power, is never OK.)
    - tptacek 14y ago
      No, I don't think the killing of Dorner is comparable to his murder of Monica Quan. Quan was targeted, stalked, and deliberately killed while unarmed. The officers surrounding Dorner were in a confrontation with an armed suspect who had pledged to trade his life for the opportunity to kill police officers and who had just that day outside that exact cottage killed another police officer. He was not an inert submissive object inside the building; he was trying to kill them with more diligence and intent than they him.
      - samstave 14y ago
        I am not comparing the two. Both are murders. Burning down a house and being recorded on tape as having "talked about" it (i.e. planned it) is not ok. I was not saying he was inert or submissive - but sorry LEOs are supposedly trained to take on all situations. They are extremely well armed and equipped. Burning down random property to get their guy is not an OK tactic.
tlrobinson 14y ago
This is typical of responses I got when I posted about it before, and it misses the point. * I'm not defending Dorner. The police have a right to kill someone who's actively trying to kill them. But what level of force is acceptable? Obviously guns are ok. Maybe setting fires is ok too? What about drone strikes? * If it's acceptable, why would police deny it was intentional, and under what other circumstances would it be acceptable? Is it ok because he killed a cop? * How certain were they no one else was in the building? As we saw earlier that week when they shot up two cars that resembled Dorner's they weren't exactly being careful to avoid collateral damage.