mobilepet
Banned
- 115
- 25
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What happened.
I underestimated Anonymous.
RIPmy pops bet me a stack they wont find this dude. hes convinced hes no where near big bear.
im with the ppl sayin this story will fade into bolivian until he strikes again... they embarrased
The reopening of his case seems like nothing more than an attempt to lull him into a false sense of security.
damn they really did **** him over with his career and everything.....no wonder he lost it.Anonymous stays backing dude, I'm glad at least someone is trying to get truth out therehttp://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/christopher-dorner-v-lapd-case-file/
anonymous just put that out there.. **** CNN
I do have one question and I'm not sure if it's been answered yet so pardon me:
Isn't it unconstitutional for them to basically have a "terminate on sight" order? He still is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers, right?
There's no such thing as "terminate on sight". If he fires at them, they'll fire back. My guess is this guy takes his own life when he gets cornered, and then we can look forward to 8,000 conspiracy threads on NT about how the cops are the ones that really killed him.
There's no such thing as "terminate on sight". If he fires at them, they'll fire back. My guess is this guy takes his own life when he gets cornered, and then we can look forward to 8,000 conspiracy threads on NT about how the cops are the ones that really killed him.
They shot up a couple random cars with people that don't even come close to fitting the description and you think they'll wait for him to fire for them to shoot?
There's no such thing as "terminate on sight". If he fires at them, they'll fire back. My guess is this guy takes his own life when he gets cornered, and then we can look forward to 8,000 conspiracy threads on NT about how the cops are the ones that really killed him.I do have one question and I'm not sure if it's been answered yet so pardon me:
Isn't it unconstitutional for them to basically have a "terminate on sight" order? He still is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers, right?
That's why I put "terminate on sight" in quotation marks, dummy.There's no such thing as "terminate on sight". If he fires at them, they'll fire back. My guess is this guy takes his own life when he gets cornered, and then we can look forward to 8,000 conspiracy threads on NT about how the cops are the ones that really killed him.I do have one question and I'm not sure if it's been answered yet so pardon me:
Isn't it unconstitutional for them to basically have a "terminate on sight" order? He still is innocent until proven guilty by a jury of his peers, right?
I wish there was a way we can help him get away.