...make everything okay??!!

Link

I hope she sues LAPD for so much money, that they'll never do this again.  Get a big-name tort lawyer, and file multiple suits:  against the individual cops, against the police union, against the commanders, against the top brass, against the mayor and the city council for allowing the policies and procedures which led to this awful outcome.

Unlike PL, I don't believe there's some massive govt conspiracy at work.  I also don't believe that arming everyone will lead to civility or politeness, or the avoidance of this sort of tragedy.  At the same time, I believe in market forces, and I believe the severest financial and (if possible) criminal penalties, or perhaps a civil rights action (to get an outside entity to take over control of the dept [as has happened in Oakland]) are all completely appropriate.  Entrenched bureaucracies only react when threatened; taking away LAPD's $ and control/power are the kinds of threats they will react to.

mendicant98 wrote: ...make everything okay??!!

Link

I hope she sues LAPD for so much money, that they'll never do this again.  Get a big-name tort lawyer, and file multiple suits:  against the individual cops, against the police union, against the commanders, against the top brass, against the mayor and the city council for allowing the policies and procedures which led to this awful outcome.

Unlike PL, I don't believe there's some massive govt conspiracy at work.  I also don't believe that arming everyone will lead to civility or politeness, or the avoidance of this sort of tragedy.  At the same time, I believe in market forces, and I believe the severest financial and (if possible) criminal penalties, or perhaps a civil rights action (to get an outside entity to take over control of the dept [as has happened in Oakland]) are all completely appropriate.  Entrenched bureaucracies only react when threatened; taking away LAPD's $ and control/power are the kinds of threats they will react to.

You act like the LAPD has never been sued before.   It wouldn't surprise me if they're among the most sued police forces in the country.   Has that brought about some type of change that you approve of?    Apparently not.

I don't know what is so hard to digest that the members of ALL law enforcement in Southern California are now on high alert 24/7.   They're completely stressed out.

You act as if they need some type of training so the next time some police officer decides to target other police officers plus members of their family,  the police will respond in a more appropriate manner.

I'm completely mystified at your view of things.....


Michael Forrest

what mystery?  

woman and daughter sharing absolutely no attributes whatsoever to on-the-run ex-cop killer, get shot multiple times?

I expect professionalism, not something that looks like frightened vigilantism dressed in a uniform.  they may be a thin blue line, but I expect them to display discipline, and to hold that line, unless confronted by overwhelming force, not one crazed ex-colleague.

else, I expect continued work to fix the system until it's fixed.  just because they've been sued before, does not mean stop trying, give up, give in to 'the inevitable'.  Eloi.

Not sure I believe in a conspiracy (beyond police conspiring to kill the SOB on sight, but that is neither massive nor government). What I believe is that we have a certain set of animals who believe that they are more equal than the others, and that is merely a social phenomenon.

Phil Zimbardo demonstrated many years ago that evil deeds can come out easily when one set of people are offered absolute power over others without threat of retribution. What you are seeing on the streets of LA is simply the result of human nature.

As for arming people: there is nothing to say. If the women had shot back at the cops, even though the cops were Criminals, the women would be labeled cop killers. There is no win in the situation for the women, other than the financial one, and I don't think that violation of civil rights like this deserves a bonanza for the individual. What should happen is a criminal trial for the exact crime a private citizen would face for putting 60 shots into a private vehicle.

"on edge" or not, the police are professionals. We are increasingly trusting all of our well being to these guys. They have to be held to at least the same standard a private citizen should be held to, if not a much more stringent one.

Unfortunately we tend to lower the standards for those who should be held to the highest ones.

I have no problem holding police to the highest standard.

I do have a problem with people sitting in the comfort of their own home so sure about what it clear and obvious for those putting their lives on the line.   These are extraordinary circumstances.

I don't think anyone here has noted that there has ever been a circumstance that is similar?

You have a former police officer not only targeting current police officers, but their families as well.

Not exactly something that's covered in the training manual.   But that hasn't stopped some here who clearly distrust police from opining about what should be proper behavior.

We are in unchartered waters here...   completely unchartered.   A little attempt at understanding would be appropriate in my opinion.   This is not just another day at the office for law enforcement.

Michael Forrest

PersonalLegend wrote: Not sure I believe in a conspiracy (beyond police conspiring to kill the SOB on sight, but that is neither massive nor government). What I believe is that we have a certain set of animals who believe that they are more equal than the others, and that is merely a social phenomenon.

Phil Zimbardo demonstrated many years ago that evil deeds can come out easily when one set of people are offered absolute power over others without threat of retribution. What you are seeing on the streets of LA is simply the result of human nature.

As for arming people: there is nothing to say. If the women had shot back at the cops, even though the cops were Criminals, the women would be labeled cop killers. There is no win in the situation for the women, other than the financial one, and I don't think that violation of civil rights like this deserves a bonanza for the individual. What should happen is a criminal trial for the exact crime a private citizen would face for putting 60 shots into a private vehicle.

"on edge" or not, the police are professionals. We are increasingly trusting all of our well being to these guys. They have to be held to at least the same standard a private citizen should be held to, if not a much more stringent one.

Unfortunately we tend to lower the standards for thos echo should be held to the highest ones.

Amen.

This incident has almost certainly more to do with fatigue and frayed nerves than it does with departmental attitudes. You pay off the victim, and - if the facts warrant - you file involuntary manslaughter or other charges with a recklessness scienter. But you do so with at least a basic understanding of what the actual conditions are at a time like this.

As for the rest, please. The usual indifference to problems that the poster has never had to face. What amazing arrogance.

Sorry guys.  You don't get a pass for shooting like this just because these are "uncharted waters."   Police face uncharted waters every day of every week.  It comes with the territory.  Police put their lives on the line every day of every week. 

The police do NOT deserve the freedom to shoot indiscriminately at a perceived threat. So, stop offering it to them.

The real irony is the poster saying that I can't criticize these actions because I'm sitting in the comfort of my home and have never lived in the same circumstances, while at the very same time posting that these same circumstances are "uncharted waters" and "not in the training manual." 

Puh-leeze. 

The police in question were not under imminent threat of any sort.  They apparently opened fire on innocent civilians.  They deserve to be prosecuted just like any other private citizen for reckless endangerment, negligent discharge of a firearm, shooting into a vehicle, etc. etc. etc. etc.

We keep lowering our expectations and penalties for agents of the state, and raising the bar for private citizens.  Keep doing this, and the only way to avoid persecution will be to become a part of the state apparatus.  Sound familiar?

Genuine Realist wrote: What amazing arrogance.

It's amazing arrogance to expect more from trained, sworn professionals, but perfectly humble to say "just pay the victim" and move on?

Noted.   

You probably thought that Amadou Diallo had it coming for reaching for his wallet, too.

What amazing indifference to freedom.

Let me be clear:  I am fully in agreement with the argument that the current circumstances in LA cause significant stress for officers.  I'm just not in agreement that such stress makes it okay to start spraying bullets at the specter of a threat.  You wouldn't allow a private citizen to do this, so why allow a police officer? 

Thought exercise:  A woman gets a phone call from her estranged husband saying he's coming over now and going to kill her.  There is a knock at the door.  She shoots through the door, severely injuring the UPS guy.  Do her frayed nerves justify her actions? 

I ask this because the police in question (AT LEAST AS REPORTED IN THE FEW MEDIA REPORTS) just shot through the same hypothetical door with FAR less justification and imminence of threat; and you are justifying it with "nerves." 

Is this really something that is all that controversial?  I thought we would be arguing the depth of cover up or whitewashing. Instead, I get responses from Michael and GR that ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF whitewashing.

So these cops who make an error in judgment, possibly prosecutable, are heinous villains in your view? While the divorced mother who accumulates five automatic weapons in a household with a disturbed, sullen post adolescent male,  is an American citizen proudly exercising her rights and immune from regulation?

And I guess Dorner too had the right to gather all these weapons? Yeah, you'd be dead set against any inhibition of HIS right. And now that he's got the whole city on alert and murdered three people, with a stated intent to kill more, you choose to emphasize this sad incident as emblematic? As if this wasn't cause and effect, stimulus and response?

When writing about cops, I emphasize the rather ordinary human beings that do this job. They aren't supermen, and they aren't robocops. And - with the rarest exceptions - they sure as aren't Stanford graduates.

Right now, they have an all out manhunt going for a guy who has already killed d intends to kill again. They are likely pulling double shifts, and day-to-day duty. You can't train anyone for that. There IS no standard of professionalism that applies, any more than there is in untrained combat troops. There is no training that acclimatizes ordinary persons for combat, or this sort of stress.

You and mendicant, watching from the safety of your couch, write about this incident as if the cops went out to terrorize a couple of innocent drivers on an ordinary day in May.. They didn't. The incident is the product of extreme tension and fatigue. So you pay the damages and - if it drifts into criminality - you prosecute. (You did not see fit to quote that part of my post.) Diallo's shooters were prosecuted, and acquitted, by a jury that included four African-Americans (both the acquittal and the racial balance very much dismaying Al Sharpton).

As I have noted before, the cop critics on this board insists on all sorts of standards for a job which they have not the slightest interest in doing themselves, while at the same time denouncing the compensation that cops do receive. It really is amazing - sort of like the Downton Abbey folks complaining about the difficulty of getting high quality servants. Victims of severe over-privilege, and too often cut off from the real labor of making this society work.

And this is NOT a police state. It's an un-police state, the freest in human history. Partly that is because police do these jobs, mindful of the Constitution and believers in it.

So why don't you hike out to the range tomorrow and play with one of your toys, and pretend that has something, anything, to do with the maintenance of rights and stability in this society. It doesn't. The persons who REALLY do that job - in actuality, not some Second Amendment fantasia - are on duty tonight in Los Angeles and elsewhere.

If you don't think a having a police officer who has already murdered three people including another officer and has publicly stated his desire to kill other officers and their families and who knows and understands police tactics and strategy is "unchartered waters" then you and I might as well be on other sides of a solar system.

Please tell me of all the other police departments that have been under assault from  one of their own.

Feel free to provide a link to those recent events.

This is completely and totally unprecedented. 

Otherwise,  I don't know what to tell you....

For the record, I'm not excusing anyone.   I have no problem with the police having to write a big check to anyone who's a victim of police errors in judgement.  If this had happened to my wife and sister in law, I'd have already retained a lawyer.

But, I wouldn't be calling for blood.   And I wouldn't be trying to shape this as just another tough day at the office for police...  the kind they have all the time as you seem to be.

Things don't have to be so black and white.   The world is mostly shades of gray.

PersonalLegend wrote: Sorry guys.  You don't get a pass for shooting like this just because these are "uncharted waters."   Police face uncharted waters every day of every week.  It comes with the territory.  Police put their lives on the line every day of every week. 

The police do NOT deserve the freedom to shoot indiscriminately at a perceived threat. So, stop offering it to them.

The real irony is the poster saying that I can't criticize these actions because I'm sitting in the comfort of my home and have never lived in the same circumstances, while at the very same time posting that these same circumstances are "uncharted waters" and "not in the training manual." 

Puh-leeze. 

The police in question were not under imminent threat of any sort.  They apparently opened fire on innocent civilians.  They deserve to be prosecuted just like any other private citizen for reckless endangerment, negligent discharge of a firearm, shooting into a vehicle, etc. etc. etc. etc.

We keep lowering our expectations and penalties for agents of the state, and raising the bar for private citizens.  Keep doing this, and the only way to avoid persecution will be to become a part of the state apparatus.  Sound familiar?

When did this become about the second amendment?  This isn't about the second, it's about the 5th.  You of all people should know that.

Dorner has tried to make this about the 2nd, and he is staunchly anti-gun and anti-NRA--all irony aside.

What is this "if it drifts into criminality, you prosecute" mumbo jumbo.  Lilly-livered, either handedness that is unbecoming an internet board.     The police fired, by the accounts I have read, more than 40 rifle rounds at an occupied vehicle without verifying a threat or even the occupants of the vehicle, injuring both occupants in the process and endangering countless other people in their homes in the vicinity.

Saying that those actions might "drift into criminality" is like saying Paul Prudhomme might have once "drifted into obesity." You are being too soft given the available facts.  I'll always appreciate the need to keep the door open to the possibility that the "facts" may change, but let's discuss based on what we know.

As to the gun issue:  It smacks of a red herring that you keep wanting to toss out there.  I have no idea what weapons Dorner has accumulated (you state "all these weapons" but I frankly haven't studied it).  I do know that he either possessed them legally OR illegally before he committed his first murder.

Interesting thought, isn't it?  Either he possessed them legally, and he committed murder.  Or, he possessed them illegally, and committed murder.  Which one makes the murder worse?

As to my emphasis on the police "mistaken identity" shooting, I thought it appropriate since we all seemed to be in alignment about Dorner's mental state, apparent criminal acts, and our overall disgust for the circumstances; and I thought it was being glossed over in the media (less so now). I didn't feel the need to rend my garments about how awful the murders are, because...well...they are awful.

I will say this:  Dorner is doing plenty to dispel the myths of an omnipotent, elitely trained law enforcement apparatus that is there for all our safety, isn't he?

As to my "cop" bona fides, I'm betting my last patrol ride along is more recent than yours.  No need to test that hypothesis on these boards, but I only have to go back in my calendar in months to find mine.  I'm betting that your armchair QB'ing is even less well acquainted than mine.  I may be wrong given your past, GR, but you suppose absolute elitism where only some exists. 

GR, your nastiness has shown more and more on this board when the gun issue comes up.  Whether I play with toys at the range or you play with them in your bathtub matters not.  What matters is that you believe that you have outsourced more of your safety and security provision than I do. 

If you want proof of who is right, just watch the news.

I thought I stipulated that these are uncharted waters.  If it wasn't clear, let it be so now.

The irony that no-one has called out clearly in this "mistaken identity" thread is this:  By committing to attack a very specific set of people (LAPD and specific individuals' families to my understanding), Dorner has created a circumstance where his intended victims are actually more dangerous to the public at large than Dorner is.

Crazy, isn't it?

PersonalLegend wrote: As for arming people: there is nothing to say. If the women had shot back at the cops, even though the cops were Criminals, the women would be labeled cop killers. There is no win in the situation for the women, other than the financial one, and I don't think that violation of civil rights like this deserves a bonanza for the individual. What should happen is a criminal trial for the exact crime a private citizen would face for putting 60 shots into a private vehicle.

"on edge" or not, the police are professionals. We are increasingly trusting all of our well being to these guys. They have to be held to at least the same standard a private citizen should be held to, if not a much more stringent one.

Unfortunately we tend to lower the standards for those who should be held to the highest ones.

If they fired sixty shots and didn't kill their target, I wouldn't call them professionals.

You really think these cops that shot up the truck thought they were more equal than the people they protect?

They made a mistake; a tragic mistake.  They will be punished.  But this idea, after Rodney King, riots, Rampart division, lawsuits, etc., that LAPD collectively thinks they can get away with murder is ridiculous.

Cops know they have a literal target on them 24/7; plenty of SOCAL gangs give bonuses / honors / awards / prestige to cop killers; every citizen with a smart phone is documenting what they do; they are under tremendous scrutiny, every day - from the people trying to kill them as well as the people trying to catch them on video in an illegal, unethical, unprofessional act. 

PersonalLegend wrote: Not sure I believe in a conspiracy (beyond police conspiring to kill the SOB on sight, but that is neither massive nor government). What I believe is that we have a certain set of animals who believe that they are more equal than the others, and that is merely a social phenomenon.

Phil Zimbardo demonstrated many years ago that evil deeds can come out easily when one set of people are offered absolute power over others without threat of retribution. What you are seeing on the streets of LA is simply the result of human nature.

As for arming people: there is nothing to say. If the women had shot back at the cops, even though the cops were Criminals, the women would be labeled cop killers. There is no win in the situation for the women, other than the financial one, and I don't think that violation of civil rights like this deserves a bonanza for the individual. What should happen is a criminal trial for the exact crime a private citizen would face for putting 60 shots into a private vehicle.

"on edge" or not, the police are professionals. We are increasingly trusting all of our well being to these guys. They have to be held to at least the same standard a private citizen should be held to, if not a much more stringent one.

Unfortunately we tend to lower the standards for those who should be held to the highest ones.

Mick1 wrote:
If they fired sixty shots and didn't kill their target, I wouldn't call them professionals.

What we are learning in big city police shootings of this type is that firearms and firepower are tools of intimidation, not tools of defense of the public good. 

I think the average number of rounds fired in a "private citizen" self defense shooting (not involving police) is something like 2.

Navy:

Are the officers who did the shooting in jail or under arrest?  I haven't heard news of that.

You bet your life I would be under arrest if I had fired even one round at a vehicle, no matter what the circumstances.

Which brings up a good point:  One round is a mistake.  40 is a trend.

If there is one guy that fired off 40 or 60 rounds at the truck, you can hold him responsible. 

As far as anyone else at the scene - instinctive rules of engagement take over.  If the guy on either side of you is firing at a target, you better start firing too. 

Point being, the guy who fired the first shot was wrong; he misidentified the truck as a hostile target, when it was not.  The rest of the cops who fired were doing what every instinct of survival is telling them to do. 

I am not begging off responsibility for what happened; I am saying cop #2, # 3, etc., in a defensive position at zero dark thirty wired on stress and caffeine does not see the truck approach; in literally a fraction of a second he has to decide if the target his fellow cops are shooting at is legit or not, he is going to back up his partner's call on opening fire and follow suit. 

PersonalLegend wrote: When did this become about the second amendment?  This isn't about the second, it's about the 5th.  You of all people should know that.

Dorner has tried to make this about the 2nd, and he is staunchly anti-gun and anti-NRA--all irony aside.

What is this "if it drifts into criminality, you prosecute" mumbo jumbo.  Lilly-livered, either handedness that is unbecoming an internet board.     The police fired, by the accounts I have read, more than 40 rifle rounds at an occupied vehicle without verifying a threat or even the occupants of the vehicle, injuring both occupants in the process and endangering countless other people in their homes in the vicinity.

Saying that those actions might "drift into criminality" is like saying Paul Prudhomme might have once "drifted into obesity." You are being too soft given the available facts.  I'll always appreciate the need to keep the door open to the possibility that the "facts" may change, but let's discuss based on what we know.

As to the gun issue:  It smacks of a red herring that you keep wanting to toss out there.  I have no idea what weapons Dorner has accumulated (you state "all these weapons" but I frankly haven't studied it).  I do know that he either possessed them legally OR illegally before he committed his first murder.

Interesting thought, isn't it?  Either he possessed them legally, and he committed murder.  Or, he possessed them illegally, and committed murder.  Which one makes the murder worse?

As to my emphasis on the police "mistaken identity" shooting, I thought it appropriate since we all seemed to be in alignment about Dorner's mental state, apparent criminal acts, and our overall disgust for the circumstances; and I thought it was being glossed over in the media (less so now). I didn't feel the need to rend my garments about how awful the murders are, because...well...they are awful.

I will say this:  Dorner is doing plenty to dispel the myths of an omnipotent, elitely trained law enforcement apparatus that is there for all our safety, isn't he?

As to my "cop" bona fides, I'm betting my last patrol ride along is more recent than yours.  No need to test that hypothesis on these boards, but I only have to go back in my calendar in months to find mine.  I'm betting that your armchair QB'ing is even less well acquainted than mine.  I may be wrong given your past, GR, but you suppose absolute elitism where only some exists. 

GR, your nastiness has shown more and more on this board when the gun issue comes up.  Whether I play with toys at the range or you play with them in your bathtub matters not.  What matters is that you believe that you have outsourced more of your safety and security provision than I do. 

If you want proof of who is right, just watch the news.

40 is another 39 doing what virtually every cop would do if they saw their partners or fellow cops opening fire.

No time to consider whether or not partner / fellow cop made a good ID; once he opens fire, you better follow suit. 

PersonalLegend wrote: Navy:

Are the officers who did the shooting in jail or under arrest?  I haven't heard news of that.

You bet your life I would be under arrest if I had fired even one round at a vehicle, no matter what the circumstances.

Which brings up a good point:  One round is a mistake.  40 is a trend.

They were on duty, and made a mistake.  I am not saying they can't be tried, or shouldn't be convicted; I am saying that there is zero benefit to arresting them.  If the investigation warrants an arrest, they will be tried and arrested.  Between now and then, they deserve some consideration to get their affairs in order. 

PersonalLegend wrote: Navy:

Are the officers who did the shooting in jail or under arrest?  I haven't heard news of that.

You bet your life I would be under arrest if I had fired even one round at a vehicle, no matter what the circumstances.

Which brings up a good point:  One round is a mistake.  40 is a trend.

How would you feel if it were your relatives in that truck?  And how would you explain that to them?