02-16-2013, 02:25 PM
I'm trying to understand your take on this MS, but really don't get where you're coming from. Have you read Dorner’s manifesto and the legal documents associated his with his complaint/hearings?
It’s difficult for me to understand how anyone who’s read the documents can believe that Dorner was anything other than very self-serving in his version of events; an extreme narcissist who wanted to make others pay in the worst possible way for his failures and frustrations.
He didn't “snap”, his actions demanded planning and premeditation, which he actually documented in detail. I do believe that he was mentally ill and probably really believed that he had been wronged, just like the Columbine killers and other mass murderers who target their perceived enemies and anyone unfortunate enough to be connected to (or in the vicinity of) those enemies. No difference, imo.
He was respectful and didn't kill indiscriminately?
Shooting 4 police offers and killing 2, none of whom were amongst his stated targets (LAPD), is not indiscriminately killing?
Breaking into a couple’s home, binding them, covering their heads with pillow cases, stealing their car, and leaving them to fend for themselves is respectful?
Demanding a man turn over his truck and leaving he and his dog abandoned on a Big Bear road is respectful?
I don't define "respect" as any act short of killing/shooting another human being.
Rather self righteous and well-principled?
This wannabe martyr wrote at length in his manifesto about the need to ban assault weapons and stop gun violence. He even quoted one of his favorite celebrities, Mia Farrow, on the subject. But, clearly, what he felt was an undeniable imperative for everyone else did not apply to himself. Mr. Gun Control felt that he himself had the right to take guns to the streets and hunt/kill LEOs and civilians. Yeah, maybe he was just a bit self righteous.
He wanted action taken because a suspect had allegedly been criminally kicked during the process of being subdued/arrested? Sounds very well principled, indeed. Yet, he shot six people, killing four of them; I don't think that "well-principled" truly applied to Mr. Dorner when you look beyond his unsubstantiated self-serving words/claims and consider his actions.
Let's say you're right and Dorner was telling the truth about the mentally-ill man being kicked, and Dorner being the victim of some LAPD conspiracy because he refused to kiss ass. If he wasn't a madman, why not pursue any of the many non-lethal options available to him to fight injustice if he felt that the judges ruled incorrectly in his discrimination / wrongful termination cases? I guess it makes little sense to consider filing a civil suit, contacting the ACLU, submitting an article to the press, etc… when there was the quicker route of killing people and achieving global notoriety at the same time.
Blaze of glory?
I sure don’t see it that way. In his attempt to “clear his name”, which, to this outsider, looks a lot more like an attempt to garner sympathy and become famous, he left 4 people dead. And, he fucked up the lives and the name “Dorner” for his mother and every member of his family.
Being holed-up in a cabin very near where his truck broke down, cowering inside for days as the LEOs assigned to stop his killing spree happened to set up base right next door, and then running away when discovered is some pretty cowardly shit, imo.
He died in a fire, period. Nothing sort of glorious about how Dorner left this world, as far as I can see.
It’s difficult for me to understand how anyone who’s read the documents can believe that Dorner was anything other than very self-serving in his version of events; an extreme narcissist who wanted to make others pay in the worst possible way for his failures and frustrations.
(02-16-2013, 12:03 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: People snap in different ways.
Dorner doesn't seem like a madman, but he definitely felt wronged.
He didn't “snap”, his actions demanded planning and premeditation, which he actually documented in detail. I do believe that he was mentally ill and probably really believed that he had been wronged, just like the Columbine killers and other mass murderers who target their perceived enemies and anyone unfortunate enough to be connected to (or in the vicinity of) those enemies. No difference, imo.
(02-16-2013, 12:03 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Of course, killing people is never condoned, but I will say, in reading reports of people that interacted with him, he seemed respectful and made it clear his intent was not to indiscriminately kill.
He was respectful and didn't kill indiscriminately?
Shooting 4 police offers and killing 2, none of whom were amongst his stated targets (LAPD), is not indiscriminately killing?
Breaking into a couple’s home, binding them, covering their heads with pillow cases, stealing their car, and leaving them to fend for themselves is respectful?
Demanding a man turn over his truck and leaving he and his dog abandoned on a Big Bear road is respectful?
I don't define "respect" as any act short of killing/shooting another human being.
(02-16-2013, 12:03 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: He actually seems well principled, and didn't understand that keeping your job in a huge corporation like the LAPD, or the military, requires plenty of ass-kissing.
Sounds like he was rather self-righteous, but, determined to point out that someone else was guilty of a crime, and he wanted action taken.
Rather self righteous and well-principled?
This wannabe martyr wrote at length in his manifesto about the need to ban assault weapons and stop gun violence. He even quoted one of his favorite celebrities, Mia Farrow, on the subject. But, clearly, what he felt was an undeniable imperative for everyone else did not apply to himself. Mr. Gun Control felt that he himself had the right to take guns to the streets and hunt/kill LEOs and civilians. Yeah, maybe he was just a bit self righteous.
He wanted action taken because a suspect had allegedly been criminally kicked during the process of being subdued/arrested? Sounds very well principled, indeed. Yet, he shot six people, killing four of them; I don't think that "well-principled" truly applied to Mr. Dorner when you look beyond his unsubstantiated self-serving words/claims and consider his actions.
(02-16-2013, 12:03 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: I worked with a couple of loads in my days in the military. People that didn't deserve to be collecting paychecks, but, because of their rank and more importantly, whose butts they were kissing, they were protected.
Let's say you're right and Dorner was telling the truth about the mentally-ill man being kicked, and Dorner being the victim of some LAPD conspiracy because he refused to kiss ass. If he wasn't a madman, why not pursue any of the many non-lethal options available to him to fight injustice if he felt that the judges ruled incorrectly in his discrimination / wrongful termination cases? I guess it makes little sense to consider filing a civil suit, contacting the ACLU, submitting an article to the press, etc… when there was the quicker route of killing people and achieving global notoriety at the same time.
(02-16-2013, 12:03 PM)Midwest Spy Wrote: Dorner truly went out (sort of) in a blaze of glory.
Blaze of glory?
I sure don’t see it that way. In his attempt to “clear his name”, which, to this outsider, looks a lot more like an attempt to garner sympathy and become famous, he left 4 people dead. And, he fucked up the lives and the name “Dorner” for his mother and every member of his family.
Being holed-up in a cabin very near where his truck broke down, cowering inside for days as the LEOs assigned to stop his killing spree happened to set up base right next door, and then running away when discovered is some pretty cowardly shit, imo.
He died in a fire, period. Nothing sort of glorious about how Dorner left this world, as far as I can see.