I get it. Because they were pissed it was ok to go about randomly shooting innocent people.
What Difference Does it Make?
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.
Your acting out your jack wagon fantasies on fellow Freepers.
It’s not Kewel.
I’m drinking Vodka/Diet Coke. Wuz gonna have some delicious Oban but, didn’t feel like going to the bar.
Besides, sometimes brown liquor gives me a bit of a hard time the next morning.
As I have business to attend to I’m going with getting lit on Clear Liquids.
Maybe a cigar when I go for a walk in an hour or so.
What are you drinking?
Maybe time to move on.
Not CT freaks. Facts aren't important to them.
Further, they should have called in backup.
Where does it state that they didn't?
Further still, they should have ascertained who was in the vehicle. More Further, the vehicles weren’t even the same color.
It was dark. How good are you at seeing colors when it is dark? What do you suggest, walking up to a potential murderous fugitive and asking for a driver;'s license?
They had nothing more than a pickup truck as their target and then they tried to waste whoever was in the trucks.
No one is defending the actions of the cops. However, there are extenuating circumstances that explain their response. But don't let facts and circumstances get in the way of your emotional rant.
You sure sound like you are.
Kewl post time: 2/22 22:33:33
At least they didn’t set them on fire, sheesh what do they want?
You hear things? Where is the outrage against a murderous POS that left a father without a daughter, wife without a husband and two little girls without a father? Appears that is who you are defending.
Seems there are many who prefer not to see the facts or have the facts presented.
Seems like you think that matters. It doesn't. Not even our military in Afghanistan get to open fire with out being fired upon.
Facts and accuracy do to me. It's clearly apparent that neither is to a certain block of posters here.
I get it. Because they were pissed it was ok to go about randomly shooting innocent people.
What Difference Does it Make?
Neither two wrongs, nor might, makes right.
A murderous madman acted like a madman.
So did a police department.
That you cannot conceive of deploring one as being anything but defending the other indicates a certain defect in your thinking process.
Beside, unlike the paper throwers, he might shoot back, right.
What’s a CT freak?
to the point about backup, the surfer dude was t-boned and then the officer got out and shot up the vehicle.
To the chinese gals, they had several officers on scene and didn’t bother to ascertain “who” was in the vehicle.
Bottom line, they didn’t have reasonable or probable cause to use their arms.
No threat was presented and what they did, under color of law, is unlawful.
I am approaching this from a differen point of view than most on this board.
I spent 4 years as a Sheriff Explorer and went on every conceivable call and most of my ride alongs were at night.
They were on the hunt for a dangerous man, in the middle of the rest of us. Peaceful, non aggressive citizens.
LEO has the duty and oath to protect the innocent and uphold the law.
In this case, they went off half cocked and never even demanded compliance, so they could ascertain who was in the vehicle.
That’s manslaughter for you and me if we make a mistake and should be for them as well.
luckily, no one died but heck, I’d be wondering every time I saw a cop how my day or life might end after that ordeal.
As for it being dark that invites a controlled response to ensure they don’t kill an unarmed non agressor.
They absolutely should have demanded compliance.
for the Chinese gals, their backs were to the police, who had extreme advantage in that situation.
They simply opened fire.
They were looking for a 270# black man. Tiny little Chinese gals ain’t close.
As to the surfer dude again, they were looking for a 270# black man. The LEO rammed the guy, without determing who was in the vehicle and then attempted to waste him.
I have absolutely pulled over cars in Salinas when we were looking for a specific suspect and compliance was demanded of the drivers and passengers.
Upon inspection that vehicle and occupants were not the subject they were released on their merry way.
Doesn’t matter if the car is identical make and color, you ascertain who is in that vehicle and if they are the subject.
I’m getting the sense you are dismissing the cops actions as “understandable” and that is a very dangerous attitude which can only lead to “understandable” deaths at the hands of LEO who you pay to protect you.
They can’t turn the town into the OK Corral because of one guy. Otherwise we have a police state.
FK that. One does not excuse the other or give imprimatur to kill as a matter of consequence.
Dorner was a whack job who got what he deserved.
Surely you’re not saying those cops should get a pass for nearly killing those poor people?
It makes it look as if both were on murderous sprees...
Who claimed it was ok? Are you really that dumb?
I deplore both, but the one who murdered innocent people even more. You can't seem to grasp that. Why?
The women were Hispanic, despite the initial reports that they were Asian.
Rest assured, there would be no shooting back. Do you have any empathy at all for the people left without a daughter, a husband or a father by the cold blooded, premeditated murderer, Dorner?
Oh, I dunno, who is excusing it?
I had no idea that the surfer and the newspaper ladies were such maniacs...
Then why do you excuse the murderous actions of one?
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.