Well rotorray, clearly there is no opportunity for a civil discussion with you since 1)you have fixated on preconcieved ideas of what people are saying 2) are completly convinced on what the you believe are the facts of not just this case but for all of law enforcement in general with no interest in open thought 3) conveniently disregard direct questions and discussions that validate opinions differing than your own and 4) cannot comprehend simple conversational statements and understand their meaning.
I think I've stated now for about the 5th time now that in now way am I praising Dorner. I am not calling him a hero. Nor have I said he was sane, rightful thinking or a benefit to society. Nor have I justified his actions. Go ahead, go back and read every single one of my posts... we'll wait for you to catch up. Yet you seem intent on arguing the idea that I (and others) have praised him and justified his actions, both of which I (or others) have
clearly not done. What I have done is simply explain "his reasons" behind his actions per his own manifesto. But you have a hard time understanding that concept and think that they are "my" reasons why he did what he did, hence point number 4 above. Secondly, you've conveniently skipped over and neglected to the actions of the police blatantly trampling and over-stepping their rights and powers as police officers. Both when they shot at completely innocent people in pursuit of apprehending Dorner and when they torched the cabin he was in.
You've clearly labeled him as an angry, murderous, heartless "thug" who was a danger to society. So using your own arguement against you, if that was clearly the case, why did he not kill the two maids that discovered him in the abandonded cabin. Instead he tied them up. If he was a heartless thug murderer with no regard to human life, why didn't he simply just kill them? Then, when he hijacked his last get away truck, why didn't he just shoot the driver? Instead he asked him to leave and he allowed him to take his dog with him. If he really was in the business of killing innocent people, then why did not kill more when he had the opportunitity and arguably the need to kill 3 more? That doesn't sounds like the remoseless killing machine you so myopically labeled him with. The fact is, he had no beef with killing just any civilian. In his head, he had specific targeted people who he felt were corrupt or wronged him. Those were his only targets. They were selective and very calculated. To just lump him in with a random killer like the Aurora shooter would be completely misunderstanding the entire course of events.
But then again, you probably think that trying to explain the difference between two type of shootings is somehow justifying and supporting his actions.
Well I'm done. Too bad, there could have been some good to come from the needless death of several innocent people. Understanding the reasons this occured, understanding his motivations and investigating possible causes and possible corruption could have at least helped the public better understand why these things occur and to possibly prevent future ones from happening. And who knows, quite possibly blow the lid off of an actual corruption issue in the police (LAPD or otherwise). But instead, the police got their execution, the whole event will get swept under the rug and lumped in as a senseless killing spress just like Aurora and Sandy Hook (which it clearly wasn't) and life will go one. Just like guys like rotorray and others in law enforcement want it.
- - - Updated - - -
I guess my point would be to see if you feel that those police officers, who almost intentionally murdered 3 people, are "thugs" as well? Did they have any justification for their actions? Why isn't there a public uproar in regards to the conduct of those officer's actions?
^Yes, this. That's exactly what I was thinking. As far as I could tell, it was very quickly and quietly swept under the rug both by police and media. To me that's insane. Could you imagine if they had actually killed one of them? What if they did? That would have been cold blooded murder and I guarantee you
NO police officer would have been charged with a crime. There would have been a 2 week paid suspension and ultimately the shooting would have been justified based on the "circumstances". Then the police would have used tax-payer money to pay for a settlement to the surviving family. Yet I believe it is no less forgivable than what Dorner did to innocent people. Except one carries a badge and has the protection of a system that has a lot of control over the justice system.
Umm.... hmmmm... sure sounds like the "abuse of power" and "protecting the Blue Line" that Dorner talked about in his manifesto doesn't it? I just can't see how people don't see that and make a bigger deal of it.