Ex-LAPD Cop's Alleged Serial Shootings - $1 Million Bounty if Found!

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#301 Posted by QuebecNationale (152 posts) -

[QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"] Age is an indicator of immaturity. "Justice" wasn't being measured, maturity was.

Also, did you know that most officers never fire a shot (much, much less kill anyone) while in the line of duty? I suppose not, because you've never even bothered to research that. Shake off your "anti-establishment" preconceptions and accept the fact you are supporting a violent murderer simply because he's acting against authority.

SilentFireX

Except for that the fact that age is not a sufficient indicator of immaturity when dealing with people ages 16+. When did I say justice was being measured? I simply stated that it doesn't matter what age you are as long as you support justice.

Don't be so shortsighted. I'm talking about the cop's who have "killed" people, in which I stated that they're no different than serial killers or other murders who are currently incarcerated murderers, except for the fact that they have a shiny piece of metal encased in leather(Their badge).

 

If you think I'm anti establishment/authority then you're severely mistaken. I simply support justice.

No, you don't. You advocate this man's actions, and he has clearly stated that he seeks to murder the families of officers, as well as officers who had nothing to do with the corruption he claimed... which he has since followed through with. They had nothing to do with any of it, and yet, you deem their murders "justice"? You cannot honestly tell me that you believe that.

I advocate this man's actions in which his said actions represent justice in It's purest form. The death of the corrupt cop's families are collateral as far as I'm concerned, and even if they aren't, the family holds some of the blame for supporting a corrupt cop. If I found out my girlfriend or boyfriend was a corrupt authority figure, I would probably(Depends on the circumstances) be calling for his or her death. 

Just think about it for a second, you're an ex cop who is fighting corruption so who do you kill/target? You go after their loved one's for ransom or to send a message, and you go after cop's themselves since they knowingly serve a corrupted organisation.

 

I'm sorry if you don't see the logic in this.

#302 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -
[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Let me ask you something, if a so called good officer see another officer doing something corrupt and doesn't report him, what does that make the good officer?

No, it doesn't. Contrary to your belief, most officers cannot stand corruption. It makes them all look bad, and they know they are already hated enough. What you fail to realize is that none of the facts corroborate this murderer's story. In reality, all of them serve as reasons why he was rightfully terminated. A man like this has no business in any police department.

Great. Now actually answer my question this time. If a good officer sees a another officer in criminal activity and doesn't report him, what does that make the "good" officer? Would he not be in violation of the law he swore to uphold?

Is there a law that says crime must be reported?
#303 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

When you can't get to the main source you kill the next best thing... Bucked20
This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post.

#304 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"] You're not arguing this dude is right in his actions are you? I honestly don't remember. You don't jump out at me like a couple others users do.....LJS9502_basic
I've said that I agree with his sentiments (i.e. the hatred he has for the LAPD's corruption and abuse of power), but that I don't agree with how he's acting upon them by targeting the family members of police officers and random police officers he doesn't know are corrupt or not. I've also said that targeting police officers he knows are corrupt is understandable.

No. It's not understandable for any individual to set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner.

Just to be clear, when I say "understandable," I don't mean "worthy of empathy or sympathy." I simply mean that it's rational/ logical. To target cops who are known to be corrupt and/ or were involved in him being fired for telling the truth is logical/ rational. They are his enemies. I'm not saying that I condone doing so (there are alternate, peaceful ways of getting back at his enemies), but neither am I saying it's wrong. However, I do think it's wrong to target their families and cops he does not know are corrupt or not.

#305 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

Except for that the fact that age is not a sufficient indicator of immaturity when dealing with people ages 16+. When did I say justice was being measured? I simply stated that it doesn't matter what age you are as long as you support justice.

Don't be so shortsighted. I'm talking about the cop's who have "killed" people, in which I stated that they're no different than serial killers or other murders who are currently incarcerated murderers, except for the fact that they have a shiny piece of metal encased in leather(Their badge).

 

If you think I'm anti establishment/authority then you're severely mistaken. I simply support justice.

QuebecNationale

No, you don't. You advocate this man's actions, and he has clearly stated that he seeks to murder the families of officers, as well as officers who had nothing to do with the corruption he claimed... which he has since followed through with. They had nothing to do with any of it, and yet, you deem their murders "justice"? You cannot honestly tell me that you believe that.

I advocate this man's actions in which his said actions represent justice in It's purest form. The death of the corrupt cop's families are collateral as far as I'm concerned, and even if they aren't, the family holds some of the blame for supporting a corrupt cop. If I found out my girlfriend or boyfriend was a corrupt authority figure, I would probably(Depends on the circumstances) be calling for his or her death. 

Just think about it for a second, you're an ex cop who is fighting corruption so who do you kill/target? You go after their loved one's for ransom or to send a message, and you go after cop's themselves since they knowingly serve a corrupted organisation.

 

I'm sorry if you don't see the logic in this.

Logic? There is no logic in this. No one person has the right to decides who is guilty. No one person has the right to take another life. It's disgusting that you think this is fine. It smacks of psychopathy.....
#306 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"] I've said that I agree with his sentiments (i.e. the hatred he has for the LAPD's corruption and abuse of power), but that I don't agree with how he's acting upon them by targeting the family members of police officers and random police officers he doesn't know are corrupt or not. I've also said that targeting police officers he knows are corrupt is understandable.

BluRayHiDef

No. It's not understandable for any individual to set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner.

Just to be clear, when I say "understandable," I don't mean "worthy of empathy or sympathy." I simply mean that's it's rational/ logical. To target cops who are known to be corrupt and/ or were involved in him being fired for telling the truth is logical/ rational. They are his enemies. I'm not saying that I condone doing so (there are alternate, peaceful ways of getting back at his enemies), but neither am I saying it's wrong. However, I do think it's wrong to target their families and cops he does not know are corrupt or not.

No. It's not right for any individual to decide to take the laws into their hands. If he has so much evidence of corruption....there are many NON VIOLENT means to bring it to light.
#307 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="SilentFireX"] Zeus dammit. READ THE ORIGINAL STORY AND HIS MANIFESTO. He has already killed multiple unarmed people, and seeks to murder the families of the police officers that he blames. They are the very definition of innocent.

Harboring a criminal is a crime under both federal and state statutes and a person who harbors a criminal is an accessory after the fact. crim·i·nal /krimnl/ Noun A person who has committed a crime. We've got a police department who abuses it's power. Several members of the department have been reported for excessive force, and yet the commanding officers refuse to dole out consequences for such things. The police are hiding their own, Dorner called them out on it. He was then labeled as a liar, stripped of his job, and lost his place on the reserves. Him calling the LAPD out, for what they did, cost him his job, his family, his friends. They ruined his reputation, and he's ****ed. I'm simply annoyed people such as yourself accept that officers beat civilians, and you ignore it.
#308 Posted by SilentFireX (1951 posts) -

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Let me ask you something, if a so called good officer see another officer doing something corrupt and doesn't report him, what does that make the good officer?JJ_Productions
No, it doesn't. Contrary to your belief, most officers cannot stand corruption. It makes them all look bad, and they know they are already hated enough. What you fail to realize is that none of the facts corroborate this murderer's story. In reality, all of them serve as reasons why he was rightfully terminated. A man like this has no business in any police department.

Great. Now actually answer my question this time. If a good officer sees a another officer in criminal activity and doesn't report him, what does that make the "good" officer? Would he not be in violation of the law he swore to uphold?

You keep failing to acknowledge the most important part of the story. ALL THE FACTS POINT TOWARDS HIS FALSE TESTIMONY. He was lying, and civilian eye-witnesses refuted his delayed testimony.

Answer me this. If an officer supposedly sees another officer kick a suspect, fails to initially report it, reports it later, then has his testimony contradicted by civilians, is fired for giving false testimony, and four years later decides to go on a rampage killing officers and their families' because they didn't believe his tale... does that make if a good officer?

#309 Posted by PannicAtack (20928 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Please elaborate on how Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence were "harboring a criminal."

Just putting it out there.
#310 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] No, it doesn't. Contrary to your belief, most officers cannot stand corruption. It makes them all look bad, and they know they are already hated enough. What you fail to realize is that none of the facts corroborate this murderer's story. In reality, all of them serve as reasons why he was rightfully terminated. A man like this has no business in any police department.

Great. Now actually answer my question this time. If a good officer sees a another officer in criminal activity and doesn't report him, what does that make the "good" officer? Would he not be in violation of the law he swore to uphold?

Is there a law that says crime must be reported?

For some jobs, yes. If you're a social worker, or a doctor, and a child tells you their parent/guardian has been doing pedophilia type stuff, you're required by law to report that. For police officers, yes, they're required to report any crimes they see.
#311 Posted by JJ_Productions (1064 posts) -

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] No, it doesn't. Contrary to your belief, most officers cannot stand corruption. It makes them all look bad, and they know they are already hated enough. What you fail to realize is that none of the facts corroborate this murderer's story. In reality, all of them serve as reasons why he was rightfully terminated. A man like this has no business in any police department. SilentFireX

Great. Now actually answer my question this time. If a good officer sees a another officer in criminal activity and doesn't report him, what does that make the "good" officer? Would he not be in violation of the law he swore to uphold?

You keep failing to acknowledge the most important part of the story. ALL THE FACTS POINT TOWARDS HIS FALSE TESTIMONY. He was lying, and civilian eye-witnesses refuted his delayed testimony.

Answer me this. If an officer supposedly sees another officer kick a suspect, fails to initially report it, reports it later, then has his testimony contradicted by civilians, is fired for giving false testimony, and four years later decides to go on a rampage killing officers and their families' because they didn't believe his tale... does that make if a good officer?

So why did the victim also complain that he was kicked? Why did the victims father report that his son was indeed kicked.
#312 Posted by SilentFireX (1951 posts) -
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] Zeus dammit. READ THE ORIGINAL STORY AND HIS MANIFESTO. He has already killed multiple unarmed people, and seeks to murder the families of the police officers that he blames. They are the very definition of innocent.

Harboring a criminal is a crime under both federal and state statutes and a person who harbors a criminal is an accessory after the fact. crim·i·nal /krimnl/ Noun A person who has committed a crime. We've got a police department who abuses it's power. Several members of the department have been reported for excessive force, and yet the commanding officers refuse to dole out consequences for such things. The police are hiding their own, Dorner called them out on it. He was then labeled as a liar, stripped of his job, and lost his place on the reserves. Him calling the LAPD out, for what they did, cost him his job, his family, his friends. They ruined his reputation, and he's ****ed. I'm simply annoyed people such as yourself accept that officers beat civilians, and you ignore it.

In this country, you're innocent until found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Every fact pointed towards Dorner giving false testimony and lying about the incident, and so he was fired for it. In what way does that make the murdered officer a criminal? Furthermore, harboring even a known and wanted criminal does not equal the death penalty. You have a remarkably screwed up sense of justice.
#313 Posted by Bucked20 (6951 posts) -

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]When you can't get to the main source you kill the next best thing... Pirate700

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post.

Ahhhh,that's what he did though,he couldn't get to the main source so he killed his daughter to send a message
#314 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No. It's not understandable for any individual to set themselves up as judge, jury, and executioner.LJS9502_basic

Just to be clear, when I say "understandable," I don't mean "worthy of empathy or sympathy." I simply mean that's it's rational/ logical. To target cops who are known to be corrupt and/ or were involved in him being fired for telling the truth is logical/ rational. They are his enemies. I'm not saying that I condone doing so (there are alternate, peaceful ways of getting back at his enemies), but neither am I saying it's wrong. However, I do think it's wrong to target their families and cops he does not know are corrupt or not.

No. It's not right for any individual to decide to take the laws into their hands. If he has so much evidence of corruption....there are many NON VIOLENT means to bring it to light.

You are blending law and morality; the two are related, but are not identical. So to say that it is not right (i.e. immoral/ not moral) for someone to take the law into their own hands is foolish. I was arguing from a strictly moral standpoint, not a legal one. So "law" has no place in this argument.

#315 Posted by JJ_Productions (1064 posts) -
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Great. Now actually answer my question this time. If a good officer sees a another officer in criminal activity and doesn't report him, what does that make the "good" officer? Would he not be in violation of the law he swore to uphold?

Is there a law that says crime must be reported?

For some jobs, yes. If you're a social worker, or a doctor, and a child tells you their parent/guardian has been doing pedophilia type stuff, you're required by law to report that. For police officers, yes, they're required to report any crimes they see.

According to him, if its not against the law then there is nothing morally wrong with not reporting other corrupt police officers who may have committed murder, extortion or robbery.
#316 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]When you can't get to the main source you kill the next best thing... Bucked20

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post.

Ahhhh,that's what he did though,he couldn't get to the main source so he killed his daughter to send a message

The fact that there's people with your mindset loose in society is troubling.

#317 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Please elaborate on how Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence were "harboring a criminal."

Just putting it out there.

Monica Quan's father was the Officer who neglected to deal with a situation Dorner reported, where Dorner witnessed his superior kicking a disabled boy in the face. Dorner felt such an action was unnecessary, however upon reporting it, he was called a liar and told not to report such minor issues.
#318 Posted by PannicAtack (20928 posts) -
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]

[QUOTE="Bucked20"]When you can't get to the main source you kill the next best thing... Bucked20

This may be the dumbest thing I've ever seen you post.

Ahhhh,that's what he did though,he couldn't get to the main source so he killed his daughter to send a message

Between this and that gay agenda" thread, I'm adding you to the list of people to watch for laughs.
#320 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Is there a law that says crime must be reported?JJ_Productions
For some jobs, yes. If you're a social worker, or a doctor, and a child tells you their parent/guardian has been doing pedophilia type stuff, you're required by law to report that. For police officers, yes, they're required to report any crimes they see.

According to him, if its not against the law then there is nothing morally wrong with not reporting other corrupt police officers who may have committed murder, extortion or robbery.

Of course! They're police officers, not human beings.
#321 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -
[QUOTE="SilentFireX"]

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Great. Now actually answer my question this time. If a good officer sees a another officer in criminal activity and doesn't report him, what does that make the "good" officer? Would he not be in violation of the law he swore to uphold?JJ_Productions

You keep failing to acknowledge the most important part of the story. ALL THE FACTS POINT TOWARDS HIS FALSE TESTIMONY. He was lying, and civilian eye-witnesses refuted his delayed testimony.

Answer me this. If an officer supposedly sees another officer kick a suspect, fails to initially report it, reports it later, then has his testimony contradicted by civilians, is fired for giving false testimony, and four years later decides to go on a rampage killing officers and their families' because they didn't believe his tale... does that make if a good officer?

So why did the victim also complain that he was kicked? Why did the victims father report that his son was indeed kicked.

Not accurate. The father did not. From CNN.....But Gettler's father's statements conflicted with his son's, and Gettler's mental illness "affected his ability to give an accurate account of the incident," as the Court of Appeals of California put it in October 2011. Meanwhile, the board found that Dorner may have had a motive to make a bogus complaint: Evans testified that Dorner "was going to receive an unsatisfactory probationary rating if he did not improve his performance," and the kicks were reported the day after Dorner received an evaluation.
#323 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"] Just to be clear, when I say "understandable," I don't mean "worthy of empathy or sympathy." I simply mean that's it's rational/ logical. To target cops who are known to be corrupt and/ or were involved in him being fired for telling the truth is logical/ rational. They are his enemies. I'm not saying that I condone doing so (there are alternate, peaceful ways of getting back at his enemies), but neither am I saying it's wrong. However, I do think it's wrong to target their families and cops he does not know are corrupt or not.

BluRayHiDef

No. It's not right for any individual to decide to take the laws into their hands. If he has so much evidence of corruption....there are many NON VIOLENT means to bring it to light.

You are blending law and morality; the two are related, but are not identical. So to say that it is not right (i.e. immoral/ not moral) for someone to take the law into their own hands is foolish. I was arguing from a strictly moral standpoint, not a legal one. So "law" has no place in this argument.

Law is based on morality dude.  Not that I'm confusing the two.  In the US and most other countries individuals do not have the right to take the law into their own hands and when they do....such as this case....they are the criminals. 

#324 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

So why did the victim also complain that he was kicked? Why did the victims father report that his son was indeed kicked.LJS9502_basic
Not accurate. The father did not.

Richard Gettler, the schizophrenic man's father, gave testimony that supported Dorner's claim. After his son was returned home on July 28, 2007, Richard Gettler asked "if he had been in a fight because his face was puffy" and his son responded that he was kicked twice by a police officer.

#326 Posted by SilentFireX (1951 posts) -
[QUOTE="SilentFireX"]

[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"] Great. Now actually answer my question this time. If a good officer sees a another officer in criminal activity and doesn't report him, what does that make the "good" officer? Would he not be in violation of the law he swore to uphold?JJ_Productions

You keep failing to acknowledge the most important part of the story. ALL THE FACTS POINT TOWARDS HIS FALSE TESTIMONY. He was lying, and civilian eye-witnesses refuted his delayed testimony.

Answer me this. If an officer supposedly sees another officer kick a suspect, fails to initially report it, reports it later, then has his testimony contradicted by civilians, is fired for giving false testimony, and four years later decides to go on a rampage killing officers and their families' because they didn't believe his tale... does that make if a good officer?

So why did the victim also complain that he was kicked? Why did the victims father report that his son was indeed kicked.

I've answered numerous hypotheticals of yours, while you have ignored mine in return. I will not answer any more of yours until you have the same respect for my questions.
#327 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -
Richard Gettler, the schizophrenic man's father, gave testimony that supported Dorner's claim. After his son was returned home on July 28, 2007, Richard Gettler asked "if he had been in a fight because his face was puffy" and his son responded that he was kicked twice by a police officer.Nibroc420
Wrong. I just quoted the CNN site that said his father did not. His father wasn't even there.
#328 Posted by PannicAtack (20928 posts) -
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Please elaborate on how Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence were "harboring a criminal."

Just putting it out there.

You are never going to answer this, are you?
#329 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="JJ_Productions"][QUOTE="SilentFireX"] You keep failing to acknowledge the most important part of the story. ALL THE FACTS POINT TOWARDS HIS FALSE TESTIMONY. He was lying, and civilian eye-witnesses refuted his delayed testimony.

Answer me this. If an officer supposedly sees another officer kick a suspect, fails to initially report it, reports it later, then has his testimony contradicted by civilians, is fired for giving false testimony, and four years later decides to go on a rampage killing officers and their families' because they didn't believe his tale... does that make if a good officer?

SilentFireX
So why did the victim also complain that he was kicked? Why did the victims father report that his son was indeed kicked.

I've answered numerous hypotheticals of yours, while you have ignored mine in return. I will not answer any more of yours until you have the same respect for my questions.

Some Questions have more value than others. We'll get to answering all the questions one day, however for now we have to start with the most important ones. Leave your silly questions for last ;)
#330 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Please elaborate on how Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence were "harboring a criminal."PannicAtack
Just putting it out there.

You are never going to answer this, are you?

Who are you talking with here?:?

#331 Posted by Pirate700 (46465 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Just putting it out there.LJS9502_basic
You are never going to answer this, are you?

Who are you talking with her?:?

This is one of those times where you nod and slowly walk backwards...then start running. :P

#332 Posted by QuebecNationale (152 posts) -

[QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

[QUOTE="SilentFireX"] No, you don't. You advocate this man's actions, and he has clearly stated that he seeks to murder the families of officers, as well as officers who had nothing to do with the corruption he claimed... which he has since followed through with. They had nothing to do with any of it, and yet, you deem their murders "justice"? You cannot honestly tell me that you believe that.LJS9502_basic

I advocate this man's actions in which his said actions represent justice in It's purest form. The death of the corrupt cop's families are collateral as far as I'm concerned, and even if they aren't, the family holds some of the blame for supporting a corrupt cop. If I found out my girlfriend or boyfriend was a corrupt authority figure, I would probably(Depends on the circumstances) be calling for his or her death. 

Just think about it for a second, you're an ex cop who is fighting corruption so who do you kill/target? You go after their loved one's for ransom or to send a message, and you go after cop's themselves since they knowingly serve a corrupted organisation.

 

I'm sorry if you don't see the logic in this.

Logic? There is no logic in this. No one person has the right to decides who is guilty. No one person has the right to take another life. It's disgusting that you think this is fine. It smacks of psychopathy.....

 

It's not my fault you lack the necessary skills to comprehend logic and common sense. You're basically trying to combine morality, ethics and governing law into one broad statement. Ok, so if the ex cop doesn't have the right to bring justice to corrupt cop's then why do judges have the right to sentence a person and take their life? Because they have a piece of paper or a shiny badge with them? :lol:

It's not psychopathy if you support justice.

#333 Posted by The_Gaming_Baby (6335 posts) -

Wouldn't surprsie me if he kills himself

#334 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

I advocate this man's actions in which his said actions represent justice in It's purest form. The death of the corrupt cop's families are collateral as far as I'm concerned, and even if they aren't, the family holds some of the blame for supporting a corrupt cop. If I found out my girlfriend or boyfriend was a corrupt authority figure, I would probably(Depends on the circumstances) be calling for his or her death. 

Just think about it for a second, you're an ex cop who is fighting corruption so who do you kill/target? You go after their loved one's for ransom or to send a message, and you go after cop's themselves since they knowingly serve a corrupted organisation.

 

I'm sorry if you don't see the logic in this.

QuebecNationale

Logic? There is no logic in this. No one person has the right to decides who is guilty. No one person has the right to take another life. It's disgusting that you think this is fine. It smacks of psychopathy.....

 

It's not my fault you lack the necessary skills to comprehend logic and common sense. You're basically trying to combine morality, ethics and governing law into one broad statement. Ok, so if the ex cop doesn't have the right to bring justice to corrupt cop's then why do judges have the right to sentence a person and take their life? Because they have a piece of paper or a shiny badge with them? :lol:

It's not psychopathy if you support justice.

No. This is actually about the law. So unless you can show me a law that allows individuals to judge and execute people....you're talking out of your ass. So...where is this law in your make believe world?
#335 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Richard Gettler, the schizophrenic man's father, gave testimony that supported Dorner's claim. After his son was returned home on July 28, 2007, Richard Gettler asked "if he had been in a fight because his face was puffy" and his son responded that he was kicked twice by a police officer.LJS9502_basic
Wrong. I just quoted the CNN site that said his father did not. His father wasn't even there.

Wrong? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/christopher-dorner-manhunt-los-angeles_n_2638023.html Quit making things up LJS, we CAN check these things you know...you do know that right?
#336 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"]Richard Gettler, the schizophrenic man's father, gave testimony that supported Dorner's claim. After his son was returned home on July 28, 2007, Richard Gettler asked "if he had been in a fight because his face was puffy" and his son responded that he was kicked twice by a police officer.Nibroc420
Wrong. I just quoted the CNN site that said his father did not. His father wasn't even there.

Wrong? Quit making things up LJS, we CAN check these things you know...you do know that right?

I pasted the quote from CNN above. As for HP....nah. Find a better source.  Though your source does not list the father as having been there to witness it anyway. 

:lol:

#337 Posted by PannicAtack (20928 posts) -

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Just putting it out there.LJS9502_basic

You are never going to answer this, are you?

Who are you talking with here?:?

Nibroc has rationalized the murder of Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence by saying that they were "harboring a criminal." He has yet to back this assertion.

#338 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

No. This is actually about the law. So unless you can show me a law that allows individuals to judge and execute people....you're talking out of your ass. So...where is this law in your make believe world?LJS9502_basic

Welcome to the real world...

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/manhunt-newspaper-carrier-icu-shot-by-police.html

The officers riddled the women's blue pickup with bullets in the 19500 block of Redbeam Avenue. Carranza was also hit, according to attorney Glen T. Jonas, and received stitches to a finger.

"The problem with the situation is it looked like the police had the goal of administering street justice and in so doing, didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man," Jonas said.

Jonas said the women's vehicle was also "the wrong color and the wrong model" compared to Dorner's.

6a00d8341c630a53ef017ee8532be3970d-640wi

 

 

So LJS, WHERE IS that law that states someone can determine guilt and execute someone on the spot?

#339 Posted by BluRayHiDef (10837 posts) -

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. It's not right for any individual to decide to take the laws into their hands. If he has so much evidence of corruption....there are many NON VIOLENT means to bring it to light. LJS9502_basic

You are blending law and morality; the two are related, but are not identical. So to say that it is not right (i.e. immoral/ not moral) for someone to take the law into their own hands is foolish. I was arguing from a strictly moral standpoint, not a legal one. So "law" has no place in this argument.

Law is based on morality dude.  Not that I'm confusing the two.  In the US and most other countries individuals do not have the right to take the law into their own hands and when they do....such as this case....they are the criminals. 

You've failed to understand. I never said that law wasn't based on morality; in fact, I said the two were related (though not identical). There can be cases in which the law is immoral (consider the sexist and racist laws of the past). There can also be cases in which the law is inadequate in exacting true justice, which is the case of the story we're discussing now; Dorner tried to expose the corruption in the LAPD using legal means, but they failed him, hence his war against the LAPD. In other words, the law failed to coincide with morality in this case, so Dorner has taken morality (not the law) into his own hands. Yes, it is illegal to murder, but it is not necessarily immoral to do so. I argue that murdering those who abuse power, commit injustice, and silence the truth is not immoral (though illegal). 

#340 Posted by QuebecNationale (152 posts) -

[QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Logic? There is no logic in this. No one person has the right to decides who is guilty. No one person has the right to take another life. It's disgusting that you think this is fine. It smacks of psychopathy.....LJS9502_basic

 

It's not my fault you lack the necessary skills to comprehend logic and common sense. You're basically trying to combine morality, ethics and governing law into one broad statement. Ok, so if the ex cop doesn't have the right to bring justice to corrupt cop's then why do judges have the right to sentence a person and take their life? Because they have a piece of paper or a shiny badge with them? :lol:

It's not psychopathy if you support justice.

No. This is actually about the law. So unless you can show me a law that allows individuals to judge and execute people....you're talking out of your ass. So...where is this law in your make believe world?

Again, you ignore blatant facts that are right infront of your eyes. Judges are sworn in by law which allows them to sentence(Decide who is guilty) and kill people, so in essence, the law grants these judges the ability to kill and determine guilt without following proper trials and procedures.

Nice try LJ but you can't argue against facts and common sense.

#341 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]You are never going to answer this, are you?PannicAtack

Who are you talking with here?:?

Nibroc has rationalized the murder of Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence by saying that they were "harboring a criminal." He has yet to back this assertion.

I actually did, a couple pages back.
#342 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

 

It's not my fault you lack the necessary skills to comprehend logic and common sense. You're basically trying to combine morality, ethics and governing law into one broad statement. Ok, so if the ex cop doesn't have the right to bring justice to corrupt cop's then why do judges have the right to sentence a person and take their life? Because they have a piece of paper or a shiny badge with them? :lol:

It's not psychopathy if you support justice.

QuebecNationale

No. This is actually about the law. So unless you can show me a law that allows individuals to judge and execute people....you're talking out of your ass. So...where is this law in your make believe world?

Again, you ignore blatant facts that are right infront of your eyes. Judges are sworn in by law which allows them to sentence(Decide who is guilty) and kill people, so in essence, the law grants these judges the ability to kill and determine guilt without following proper trials and procedures.

Nice try LJ but you can't argue against facts and common sense.

You seem to ignore blatant facts here. First a judge has to conduct a trial. They cannot decide who is guilty WITHOUT a trial. Second....you cannot compare the average individual to a judge. Nice try but you can't argue against facts and common sense. Well...you can try. But youcome off just like a moron.

#343 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
But you just like a moron.LJS9502_basic
LJS, in a moment of terror, unable to further rationalize his non-sense, falls back on an old favorite. Nice grammar btw.
#344 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -

You've failed to understand. I never said that law wasn't based on morality; in fact, I said the two were related (though not identical). There can be cases in which the law is immoral (consider the sexist and racist laws of the past). There can also be cases in which the law is inadequate in exacting true justice, which is the case of the story we're discussing now; Dorner tried to expose the corruption in the LAPD using legal means, but they failed him, hence his war against the LAPD. In other words, the law failed to coincide with morality in this case, so Dorner has taken morality (not the law) into his own hands. Yes, it is illegal to murder, but it is not necessarily immoral to do so. I argue that murdering those who abuse power, commit injustice, and silence the truth is not immoral (though illegal). 

BluRayHiDef

Do you have a clue what this case is about?  The dude was fired.  He lied.  They fired him.  They did not consider him a good candidate to be a police officer.  And judging by these subsequent actions...they were right.  Period.  And he didn't come up with the story about the kick until after he failed his evaluation.  They did investigate.  Three hotel employees that witnessed the event said no kick happened.  Who do you think is telling the truth?

#345 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] But you just like a moron.Nibroc420
LJS, in a moment of terror, unable to further rationalize his non-sense, falls back on an old favorite. Nice grammar btw.

Called a typo. You are just a troll and not someone to take seriously in adult discussions. So find someone else willing to put up with your stupidity.
#346 Posted by QuebecNationale (152 posts) -

[QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. This is actually about the law. So unless you can show me a law that allows individuals to judge and execute people....you're talking out of your ass. So...where is this law in your make believe world?LJS9502_basic

Again, you ignore blatant facts that are right infront of your eyes. Judges are sworn in by law which allows them to sentence(Decide who is guilty) and kill people, so in essence, the law grants these judges the ability to kill and determine guilt without following proper trials and procedures.

Nice try LJ but you can't argue against facts and common sense.

You seem to ignore blatant facts here. First a judge has to conduct a trial. They cannot decide who is guilty WITHOUT a trial. Second....you cannot compare the average individual to a judge. Nice try but you can't argue against facts and common sense. Well...you can try. But you just like a moron.

Except the Judge doesn't actually have to pay attention to the trial and they alone determine if the person is guilty; hardly a fair system if you support justice. Actually, I can compare a normal person to a judge because as I stated before, the ONLY difference is one of them has a paper signed by a corrupt organisation while the other person does not, they're both normal people in essence but a piece of paper somehow grants one person immunity.

What about the US sentencing US citizens to death without a trial? Did you forget about that whole incident? Of course not, you simply ignore facts that don't suit your agenda.

#347 Posted by SilentFireX (1951 posts) -

[QUOTE="BluRayHiDef"]

You've failed to understand. I never said that law wasn't based on morality; in fact, I said the two were related (though not identical). There can be cases in which the law is immoral (consider the sexist and racist laws of the past). There can also be cases in which the law is inadequate in exacting true justice, which is the case of the story we're discussing now; Dorner tried to expose the corruption in the LAPD using legal means, but they failed him, hence his war against the LAPD. In other words, the law failed to coincide with morality in this case, so Dorner has taken morality (not the law) into his own hands. Yes, it is illegal to murder, but it is not necessarily immoral to do so. I argue that murdering those who abuse power, commit injustice, and silence the truth is not immoral (though illegal). 

LJS9502_basic

Do you have a clue what this case is about?  The dude was fired.  He lied.  They fired him.  They did not consider him a good candidate to be a police officer.  And judging by these subsequent actions...they were right.  Period.  And he didn't come up with the story about the kick until after he failed his evaluation.  They did investigate.  Three hotel employees that witnessed the event said no kick happened.  Who do you think is telling the truth?

Honestly, LJS, it's no use. They are convinced that all officers are dirty and deserve death (except this one officer who for some reason was given their approval to kill anyone he deems guilty.)
#348 Posted by MrGeezer (56020 posts) -
And to anyone defending the guy because he's going after "criminals", f*** off. None of these alleged "crimes" warrant execution. Someone convicted of harboring a criminal doesn't get sentenced to death. Someone convicted of kicking a mentally disabled person doesn't receive the death penalty. No judge is going to hand out the death penalty for "corruption". Even if every one of the victims was a "criminal" (and they aren't), that still is no excuse to go out and murder them. This ex-cop doesn't have the right to decide the appropriate punishment and then carry it out. And if you think he does, then by extension you're implying that it's okay when the cops do the same exact thing. If some cop arrests a person for a minor offense and then beats them silly, how is that any different?
#349 Posted by LJS9502_basic (149985 posts) -

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="QuebecNationale"]

Again, you ignore blatant facts that are right infront of your eyes. Judges are sworn in by law which allows them to sentence(Decide who is guilty) and kill people, so in essence, the law grants these judges the ability to kill and determine guilt without following proper trials and procedures.

Nice try LJ but you can't argue against facts and common sense.

QuebecNationale

You seem to ignore blatant facts here. First a judge has to conduct a trial. They cannot decide who is guilty WITHOUT a trial. Second....you cannot compare the average individual to a judge. Nice try but you can't argue against facts and common sense. Well...you can try. But you just like a moron.

Except the Judge doesn't actually have to pay attention to the trial and they alone determine if the person is guilty; hardly a fair system if you support justice. Actually, I can compare a normal person to a judge because as I stated before, the ONLY difference is one of them has a paper signed by a corrupt organisation while the other person does not, they're both normal people in essence but a piece of paper somehow grants one person immunity.

What about the US sentencing US citizens to death without a trial? Did you forget about that whole incident? Of course not, you simply ignore facts that don't suit your agenda.

If the judge does not go by the law then the case will be overturned on appeal. Do you understand the court system or are you just making things up to corroborate your anti social opinion that individuals should have the right to decide if someone should die for perceived trespasses?
#350 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
They are convinced that all officers are dirty and deserve death SilentFireX
You and LJS are perfect together. Maybe you two can take a class on forming logical, coherent arguments. LJS is full of ad-hominems, and you're super into those strawmen.