- 6,346
- 1,111
If I left something out just revise the top one with the details I left out so I can see the argument you're making.
Ex LAPD officer going around killing other cops. WILD STORY
- 693
- 78
Did these cops think that Dorner was the only one with a pick up trick with that model and color, I don't get how you can make a mistake with shooting at a truck, that's a different color and had two women in it, let alone anyone in it that wasn't Dorner.
- 1
- 10
LL cool j?
mrbrown
Banned
- 3,558
- 699
son you are late
- 1,826
- 220
Idk if the logic of consequentialism should be applied. We can make an argument that it was the BOR and the female officer's fault that all of this happened.
edit. nvm I see you adressed someone else's faulty logic
Last edited:
- 6,921
- 16,919
The Southern California media are always taking the side of law enforcement which is astounding because the largest audience for most local news shows are older black and brown people, people who were adults during the Rodney King Era and even the Watts Riot Era. It is also astounding because most journalists in Los Angeles are not good ole' boy law and order conservatives by any means. I suppose they are either lazy, intimidated by LEO's or perhaps even blackmailed.
Police have always protected each other and Los Angeles police have a long history of basically acting as an occupying army in black and brown parts of town. What is different is that the police in Southern California are more militarized than ever. They used to carry revolvers and they usually would beat up young, poor and colored suspects but now they see the streets as war zone, they carry assault weapons and they choose to shot first and ask questions later.
To make matter even worse is that state and local politics, the police and liberal democratic politicians work hand in glove whereas progressives of the past used to be willing to criticize their most outrageous and impossible to coverup malfeasance.
Police have always protected each other and Los Angeles police have a long history of basically acting as an occupying army in black and brown parts of town. What is different is that the police in Southern California are more militarized than ever. They used to carry revolvers and they usually would beat up young, poor and colored suspects but now they see the streets as war zone, they carry assault weapons and they choose to shot first and ask questions later.
To make matter even worse is that state and local politics, the police and liberal democratic politicians work hand in glove whereas progressives of the past used to be willing to criticize their most outrageous and impossible to coverup malfeasance.
celticsfan9783
Banned
- 5,318
- 665
they didnt run the plate when the shot the truck?
They screwed up on so many levels it's not even funny.
- 20,641
- 10,696
This thread is just full of geniuses.
heatpinoyboy
Supporter
- 3,487
- 808
What's the condition on the two Latina women who were shot yesterday?
- 1,820
- 2,105
Yes, because the ethical theory you are stating is without fault. And how does this particular ethical theory apply in my argument exactly? Are you talking about ethical egoism or utilitarianism or hedonism? Consequentialism is the argument that the right action is the one that produces the most intrinsic good. Where am I talking about anything remotely close to that? I am stating that his actions indirectly resulted in the two women being harmed.
Let's start from the beginning.
- Dorner commited a double homicide.
- Police discover information that he is a the potential suspect.
- Police inform other officers that Dorner is a large, African-American male with license plate XXXXXXX and is presumed to be driving a 2005 Nissan Titan truck.
- Police discover his manifest and he points out several police officers by name who are potential targets.
- Police dispatch undercover cops to protect the police officers and their families who are potential targets, one of which is located in Torrance.
- The two women go to deliver newspaper in a Torrance cul-de-sac, the same exact neighborhood where one of the targets reside. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE. They have been delivering newspaper to this neighborhood in the past, present, and may still deliver in the future.
- Undercover police recklessly shoot at the said women because they are in a truck and are near one of Dorner's targets.
Dorner is indirectly responsible. He didn't intend for the cops to shoot at innocent women in the wrong truck. And you can't argue that it was his intention for the cops to "prove" him right by shooting at the women. His intention is to harm those who have wronged him as clearly stated in his online posting.
Now, if you say that Dorner chose not to the commit the crime, then the result would be the same? Those same undercover officers would be there and would decide to shoot the women's truck? Remember, these women are delivering the newspaper in that area and that will not change.
Those particular officers may shoot someone else in the future but it wouldn't be on this particular night at these particular women.
Last edited:
- 133
- 20
That's the point though!! He is choosing to change things. Other people accept/succumb to their issues of being taken advantage of, he said that is not in his DNA. Everyday people feel like they have to accept it cause they know even if they fight it the "right" way nothing happens. I'm on the fence right now but I can see how this pushed him over the dge.
- 133
- 20
You acted irrational from the get go. Should gave hired a lawyer and go from there. In dorners case he didn't act the way you did. Seems like he took everything in stride and had evidence to clear his name but they still With all the evidence refused to reinstate him. He still took them through their court system never acting irrational but still no reinstatement. So your situation is completely different.
- 12,266
- 12,025
We all know those cops who shot the two women are A) ******ed, B) negligent, C) trigger happy. That can be agreed upon. To assume that Dorner never shot anyone, would those two women still be shot at.
- 1,820
- 2,105
I'm pretty sure not everyone just accepted the hand they were dealt. They chose to go about it differently whether it was to continue to go through legal means or whatever. He is doing things differently by murdering. That was NOT his only option. He BELIEVES it is his only option.
- 14,244
- 5,474
how are people missing this ??
CHRISTOPHER DORNER, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents.
B225674
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed: October 3, 2011
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS120439)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David P. Yaffe, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of David J. Duchrow, Jill A. Piano and David J. Duchrow for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Gregory P. Orland, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.
Page 2
Appellant Christopher Dorner, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), made a complaint against his field training officer, Sergeant Teresa Evans, accusing her of kicking a suspect, Christopher Gettler (Gettler). The Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights (Board) found that appellant's complaint was false and therefore terminated his employment for making false statements. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, seeking to overturn the decision of the Board. The superior court denied his petition, and he now appeals. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged in a formal written complaint with three counts: count 1, on August 10, 2007, making false statements to Sergeant D. Deming, who was conducting an official investigation; count 2, on October 9, 2007, making false statements to Detectives S. Gallegos and T. Lai, who were conducting an official investigation; count 3, on August 10, 2007, making a personnel complaint that he knew or should have known was false. The Board held a series of hearings at which the following witnesses testified: appellant, Captain Donald Deming, Sergeant Evans, Sergeant Leonard Perez, Sergeant Eddie Hernandez of the Los Angeles Port Police, Sergeant Phil Jackson, Sergeant Julie McInnis, Detective Shelly Villanueva (formerly Gallegos), Christopher Adrid, Ashlye Perez, Christopher Gettler, and Richard Gettler.
Page 3
Testimony of Captain Deming1
In August 2007, Captain Deming was a sergeant assigned as an assistant watch commander at the Harbor Division of the LAPD. On August 10, 2007, appellant spoke with Captain Deming about an incident on July 28, 2007, involving the use of force during Gettler's arrest at a DoubleTree Hotel in San Pedro.
Appellant told Captain Deming he had something bad to report, and he "expressed remorse that he failed to report what he believed to be misconduct (unnecessary kicks applied to an arrestee) that he witnessed approximately two weeks prior." Appellant said that he had handcuffed the suspect and was struggling with him when Sergeant Evans (Officer Evans, at the time) kicked the suspect twice in the left shoulder area and once in the face. Appellant had not told Sergeant Jackson about the kicks when Sergeant Jackson conducted a use of force investigation, and Sergeant Evans later discouraged appellant from disclosing she had kicked the suspect. Appellant was unsure what to write about the incident on the arrest report, so Sergeant Evans completed the report, "omitting any reference to the kicks." Appellant was visibly upset when he spoke with Captain Deming, and Captain Deming believed this was caused by fear of repercussions for reporting misconduct by a training officer. Because of his fear of repercussions, appellant told Captain Deming, "Promise me you won't do anything." Appellant testified that the reason he asked Captain Deming not to do anything was that he knew Sergeant Evans had a child to support and he did not want her to lose her job.
CHRISTOPHER DORNER, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents.
B225674
COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR
Filed: October 3, 2011
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
(Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BS120439)
APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, David P. Yaffe, Judge. Affirmed.
Law Office of David J. Duchrow, Jill A. Piano and David J. Duchrow for Plaintiff and Appellant.
Carmen A. Trutanich, City Attorney, Claudia McGee Henry, Assistant City Attorney, and Gregory P. Orland, Deputy City Attorney, for Defendants and Respondents.
Page 2
Appellant Christopher Dorner, an officer with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), made a complaint against his field training officer, Sergeant Teresa Evans, accusing her of kicking a suspect, Christopher Gettler (Gettler). The Los Angeles Police Department Board of Rights (Board) found that appellant's complaint was false and therefore terminated his employment for making false statements. Appellant filed a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, seeking to overturn the decision of the Board. The superior court denied his petition, and he now appeals. We affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Appellant was charged in a formal written complaint with three counts: count 1, on August 10, 2007, making false statements to Sergeant D. Deming, who was conducting an official investigation; count 2, on October 9, 2007, making false statements to Detectives S. Gallegos and T. Lai, who were conducting an official investigation; count 3, on August 10, 2007, making a personnel complaint that he knew or should have known was false. The Board held a series of hearings at which the following witnesses testified: appellant, Captain Donald Deming, Sergeant Evans, Sergeant Leonard Perez, Sergeant Eddie Hernandez of the Los Angeles Port Police, Sergeant Phil Jackson, Sergeant Julie McInnis, Detective Shelly Villanueva (formerly Gallegos), Christopher Adrid, Ashlye Perez, Christopher Gettler, and Richard Gettler.
Page 3
Testimony of Captain Deming1
In August 2007, Captain Deming was a sergeant assigned as an assistant watch commander at the Harbor Division of the LAPD. On August 10, 2007, appellant spoke with Captain Deming about an incident on July 28, 2007, involving the use of force during Gettler's arrest at a DoubleTree Hotel in San Pedro.
Appellant told Captain Deming he had something bad to report, and he "expressed remorse that he failed to report what he believed to be misconduct (unnecessary kicks applied to an arrestee) that he witnessed approximately two weeks prior." Appellant said that he had handcuffed the suspect and was struggling with him when Sergeant Evans (Officer Evans, at the time) kicked the suspect twice in the left shoulder area and once in the face. Appellant had not told Sergeant Jackson about the kicks when Sergeant Jackson conducted a use of force investigation, and Sergeant Evans later discouraged appellant from disclosing she had kicked the suspect. Appellant was unsure what to write about the incident on the arrest report, so Sergeant Evans completed the report, "omitting any reference to the kicks." Appellant was visibly upset when he spoke with Captain Deming, and Captain Deming believed this was caused by fear of repercussions for reporting misconduct by a training officer. Because of his fear of repercussions, appellant told Captain Deming, "Promise me you won't do anything." Appellant testified that the reason he asked Captain Deming not to do anything was that he knew Sergeant Evans had a child to support and he did not want her to lose her job.
- 14,244
- 5,474
thing is it was no where near the same model.
toyota tacoma and honda ridgeline?
the only thing in common is that they are both japanese cars.
how can a cop (who sees cars everyday) not tell the difference?
also, it is quite clear that they are not trying to capture him and put him on trial. they trying to silence him
25thhour
Banned
- 563
- 117
Wow. Dude was whistleblowing for the longest and of course the ******g pigs cover it up and terminate him. Absolutely ridiculous and passive citizen will do **** about this 
thadocta
Banned
- 5,952
- 1,144
i heard he tried to jack a boat
mobilepet
Banned
- 115
- 25
- 9,511
- 524
I've pretty much kept up with this thread.
I dont think anyone is condoning killing the innocent. But its easy to tell some of u have been sheltered and are niave as hell.
The chris rock skit explains it best: "I'm not sayin he should've killed em, but I understand"
I dont think anyone is condoning killing the innocent. But its easy to tell some of u have been sheltered and are niave as hell.
The chris rock skit explains it best: "I'm not sayin he should've killed em, but I understand"
mr marcus
Banned
- 26,572
- 5,415
Another ignorant one...sorry I don't refresh my phone every minute you peasant
and thanks for the address
Last edited:
- 133
- 20
he certainly can't now
. dude, you really think this ***** the only one come back from serving a war his country started to find there's nowhere for him to go? or the only one to come correct only to be abandoned and left with nothing? if every guy or gal out there took it upon themselves to exact vigilante style ********, this would be happening literally every day. there's right, and there's wrong. there's some wiggle room in there but by and large once you drop that ******g bomb, well you drop that ******g bomb. he could have gone to ia, he could have gone to the press, he could have used his experience to get a bodyguard or bouncer or some other private sector job where his skills would be valued. he didn't do any of that and chose to take out his pain on others. not a good look, no matter what you're going through. what HE'S going through? there are familia out there right now going through much worse - losing their loved ones for one guy's pain. sorry bruh bruh, but your point isn't very valid. one man is not more important than the next man.
Hahaha at bodyguard or bouncer. The guy had second highest security clearing you can get. That's like saying a doctor getting fired and medical license taken away for doing nothing wrong getting a job as a dental assistant after a decade in med school and years inthe workforce making a name for himself. Plus its just being speculated that he killed quan and her fiance. Do I believe he did it? Maybe and yes he had a motive but the justice system works off of evidence which I don't think they have.
