Posted on 02/22/2013 3:37:46 PM PST by neverdem
Police typically say that their top mission is to protect “public safety.” That’s the lingo. But the recently concluded manhunt for former Los Angeles Police Department officer Christopher Dorner, accused of murdering four people after releasing a manifesto decrying his 2008 firing from the force, suggests that concern about the public’s actual safety sometimes is fairly low on the list of police priorities.
Last weekend, police opened fire on a 71-year-old newspaper carrier and her 47-year-old daughter who had the misfortune of driving a pick-up truck police thought might be Dorner’s. The Los Angeles police detectives who opened fire on them, putting two bullets in the older woman’s back, didn’t do much double checking. The carriers' truck was a different make and color from Dorner’s.
As the women’s attorney told the Los Angeles Times: “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.” This could be written off as a sad fluke, except that 25 minutes later different officers opened fire on a different truck—once again getting key details wrong. Can’t officers at least check the license plate, and issue a warning, before opening fire?
“Nobody trains police officers to look for one of their own,” said Maria Haberfeld, a police-training professor at John Jay College in New York, according to the Web site News One. “I wouldn’t want to be in their shoes and I don’t think anybody else would.” We all understand the situation. But saying that we wouldn’t want to be “in their shoes” is no excuse for such dangerous behavior. The police wouldn’t excuse a member of the public for misusing a firearm, regardless of how stressed out that person felt.
News One also published the photograph of a gray Ford truck in the Los Angeles area with a hand-made “Don’t Shoot, Not Dorner, Thank You” poster on the back window. T-shirts and bumper stickers have popped up to similar effect. Those are funny in a dark way, but police ought to recognize how poorly this reflects on them and their strategies. It’s sad when people are more worried about the police than they are about a murderer on the loose.
“Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed,” argued former San Jose Police Chief Joe McNamara, a Hoover Institution scholar, in a Wall Street Journal article in 2006. “An emphasis on ‘officer safety’ and paramilitary training pervades today’s policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn’t shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed.”
Murders are sadly routine in the Los Angeles area. The massive police presence was the result of the killer targeting their own, thus leading to the reasonable conclusion that police pulled out the stops not because the public was in danger but because they were in danger. I don’t blame police for their efforts, but I also understand why residents in, say, South Los Angeles, wondered why killings in their community don’t rate the same attention.
With crime rates at 40-year lows, this is an opportune time for a debate about such police-priority issues free from excess emotionalism.
Media reports have focused on the rantings within Dorner’s manifesto. But a lot of it is about bureaucratic indifference—about police officials who, in his mind, didn't care about the communities they are sworn to protect. Nothing justifies such violence and I'm sickened by people who are celebrating Dorner, but even the LAPD is re-opening the case of Dorner’s firing. Perhaps the department will try to glean some broader lessons from this tragedy.
Currently, a case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is evaluating the lengths to which police are required to go to protect innocent bystanders. The case involves Sacramento police who were trailing a suspect who had run from his car and then hid in a tree in a family’s backyard. A police helicopter spotted him. So an officer released a police dog into the yard even though people were having a gathering in the backyard.
Police dogs are trained to bite and hold suspects, but they can’t distinguish between law-abiding citizens relaxing with friends and police suspects. So Bandit attacked the first person it saw. Instead of instituting reform and settling with the family, Sacramento PD has been arguing that “officer safety” would be endangered by requiring a reasonable warning before releasing a vicious dog on private property.
It’s frightening to think that police can use deadly force without taking even the most modest steps to protect innocent bystanders. It’s even more frightening to hear people defend this approach. Yes, officer safety is important. But so is the public’s safety. It's time to grapple with the proper balance.
Whereas in A.T.'s mind, attempting to murder three peasants in cold blood is worthy of a long paid (by the taxpeasants) vacation, with a STRONGLY WORDED letter of discipline at the end.
AND FURTHERMORE - if the peasants had fired back, the LA prosecutor would have filed every charge in sight to "get" the uppity peasants for DARING to resist the King's Men.
Maybe you should read the thread title before you start spouting BS.
Since the King's Men were killed, any handy peasant can be killed in retaliation. Impeccable jackboot logic.
Notice how everyone is wrong, except for the Troll Beneath The Bridge To Nowhere...
OK, I went back and reviewed your posts. I found nothing where you explicitly said that the shootings at Surfer Dude and Hispanic Newspaper Ladies was understandable or appropriate.
Indeed, I did find your post where you said the cops should be criminally and civilly charged. Props for that.
However, you are quick to cite extenuating circumstances, and inability to distinguish color under low light conditions at post 163 on this thread.
I hereby retract my statement at post #185, you never actually said it was appropriate, although you did strongly imply that you thought it was understandable, without actually saying it in so many words.
You are a living master of mis- and partial quotes, of innuendo, out of context replies, and contemptuous remarks. My hat's off to you on that.
Still, I do owe you an apology for mis-characterizing your exact and carefully parsed words. Clinton's got nothing on you!
I'm sorry.
(But you're still the south end of an Alaska bound horse, at least on your good days.)
The “manhunt” is NOT the same thing as Dorner.
The cops showed disgusting and outrageous disregard for the safety of anyone but “their own”. They shot a 70+ year old woman twice in the back. She will NEVER recover from that. She will live in pain for the remainder of her life, and her life will probably be shortened by the pain and distress. I hope all these cops go to prison for violating the civil rights of these people, and never carry a gun again.
OH K.
Dorner Manhunt Reveals Police Contempt for Public Safety...
You are talking about anything but that...
Why do you have a problem with facts?
your exact and carefully parsed words.
You wouldn't need to apologize if you were as exact and careful, would you? I'm not an emotional person known for shooting from the hip. That usually gets people in trouble as this whole incident so plainly shows.
Who the hell was the object of the manhunt? Why?
I believe the subject has been discussed in as much depth as possible with the access to the "facts" that we have as they've been reported.
Would the police have revealed contempt for public safety if Dorner was able to murder another 4 innocent people before his demise? Dorner was the sole reason for the manhunt.
And innocent people were targeted....
Happy?
Where is your outrage against the cold blooded murderous POS that left a father without his daughter, wife a widow and young children without a father?
Are you sick? Why would anyone besides a psychopath be happy about the murder of 4 innocent people that left a family without a daughter, a young mother a widow and two children without a father?
Good grief. This article is about the cops’ actions, not about Dorner’s actions. You’re just using Dorner as a straw man to try to make the cops look better.
Who the hell was the object of the manhunt? Why?
Look, D*^*^head!
You won’t just call a spade, a spade and stick to the subject matter.
Honestly, I’d like to speak with you in person and have this discussion.
You don’t seem to grasp the gravity of your obtuseness or equanimity of what you are saying.
You ain’t dumb but, I can’t make sense of your proposition.
It’d be too easy to call you a jackass but, I don’t thin you are.
I think you are parsing laws of humanity and honest law, in some contrived suckass attempt to demonstrate your intellectual and moral highness.
Bottom line is the LEO’s fucked up innocent people.
You can’t say that? You don’t see that?
ping me...
I don’t get you on this.
I’m done with him, too.
Yes, yet they didn't kill anyone, leave a family without a daughter, make a young mother a widow or leave young children without a father, did they?
Why would anyone besides a psychopath be happy about the murder of 4 innocent people that left a family without a daughter, a young mother a widow and two children without a father?
Where is your contempt and outrage for the cold blooded murderous POS that left a father without his daughter, wife a widow and young children without a father?
I have every bit of comptemt for that ass Haat who killed “innecent” people.
Wish I could think of a more appropriate description than “people”.
It’s horrible what happened but, I can’t conflate the two.
The subject of this article is Callous disregard of the lives of three people, who deserve to live their lives without fear of being attacked by those who are entrusted to protect them.
Why can’t you admit you went off the wall or to another tangent, that is not germain or relevant to subject or proposition of the article?
You’re not a bad man or an evil Freeper but, you keep parsing the conversation for some odd reason and I’m at a loss understanding what your point is.
Bottom line: Dorner got his just dessert but, the innocent didn’t deserve what happened to them.
I would’ve offed Dorner, given the circumstance of responsibility.
I would not have shot at someone I was not absolutely certain was a danger.
Just won’t.
Nor would I. I've stated repeatedly that the cops involved should be held criminally and civilly responsible for their actions.
Apparently there are too many posters incapable of understanding plain English.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.