Dorner report finds concerns over bias within LAPD

Latimes

Los Angeles Police Department review of its discipline system prompted by the Christopher Dorner rampage found widespread concerns among officers and civilians that the agency discriminates based on gender, ethnicity and rank, according to a report reviewed by The Times.

The corruption of the PDs in California is pretty bad and this won't come as a surprise to most of you but here it is in all its glory.

Do I think Dorner should have killed everyone? Well of course not... But should we try listening to people when they cry out and try to help them? Yes, yes we should.
I'm glad that at the very least they have been willing to take a look at the problems with the PD in LA. Do I think anything will be done about it? No.

I am not convinced that Dorner killed anyone. They said they had CCTV footage that incriminated him.... Did they ever release it?

a reply to: butcherguy

I don't know man. There's a lot of criminal activity happening with that lot I've heard things from people who might have an idea I used to know a long time ago.

originally posted by: butcherguy
I am not convinced that Dorner killed anyone. They said they had CCTV footage that incriminated him.... Did they ever release it?

Dorner did the killings. He was 100% a cop killer. What he was not, was a terrorist and that's how he was treated. No trial, no due process, no attempt at apprehending him. Instead he was tracked by drones and burned alive on national television as a warning to the rest of us.

I think the LA officials are finally stating the obvious. Years of rumors can't all be wrong. Sad part is that nothing will probably change.

Dorner did the killings. He was 100% a cop killer.

Any evidence for this though? So far it's hearsay?

originally posted by: yourmaker

Dorner did the killings. He was 100% a cop killer.

Any evidence for this though? So far it's hearsay?

Even if you discount the letter and claim he didn't write it the only way you're going to be on the run and the subject of a manhunt is if you're being proactive, break the law, and then run. If they come for you first you're never going to be aware that it's time to bug out.

the only way you're going to be on the run and the subject of a manhunt is if you're being proactive, break the law, and then run.

There are many humans in past history who would disagree with that statement.

originally posted by: roadgravel

the only way you're going to be on the run and the subject of a manhunt is if you're being proactive, break the law, and then run.

There are many humans in past history who would disagree with that statement.

Like who? Name someone who is going to be the subject of a manhunt using over a thousand people, who is just some random innocent that didn't know he was going to be targeted.

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: roadgravel

the only way you're going to be on the run and the subject of a manhunt is if you're being proactive, break the law, and then run.

There are many humans in past history who would disagree with that statement.

Like who? Name someone who is going to be the subject of a manhunt using over a thousand people, who is just some random innocent that didn't know he was going to be targeted.

People with various beliefs in Germany - pre WWII, blacks in America - pre civil rights, gays in the Middle East or Russia, political dissidents, you get the idea. If a person is believed to be a to someone or government, they are in danger and if the person is aware of it then they are in some form of 'on the run'.

And of course not one has ever been framed, claimed to be a criminal and hunted down.

edit:

Do you believe Lee Harvey Oswald shot Kennedy?

a reply to: roadgravel

And in the examples you gave the person knew they were being targeted and could run. The whole point is that if you're someone of interest and you haven't done anything, you aren't going to be aware of it, and thus you won't be on the run.

a reply to: yourmaker

You both make a good point.

Should there be a trial to see who killed those people incase the killer is still out there and Dorner is innocent?

"This was a necessary evil. God bless you sir."

originally posted by: roadgravel
I think the LA officials are finally stating the obvious. Years of rumors can't all be wrong. Sad part is that nothing will probably change.

Change doesn't come from within, remember that. Are you ready to die?

Because history tells you that change comes from outside - Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, etc. Arguably, JFK and RFK got inside but were outsiders.

You try to change the system and you will be killed or dealt with by any means necessary. So I ask again, to people that really want change - are you ready to die?

Serpico

how many years was la established behind ny?

knapp commission

Shooting and public interest[edit]
Serpico was shot during a drug arrest attempt on February 3, 1971, at 778 Driggs Avenue, in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn. Four officers from Brooklyn North received a tip that a drug deal was about to take place.
Two policemen, Gary Roteman and Arthur Cesare, stayed outside, while the third, Paul Halley, stood in front of the apartment building. Serpico climbed up the fire escape, entered by the fire escape door, went downstairs, listened for the password, then followed two suspects outside.[7]
The police arrested the young suspects, and found one had two bags of heroin. Halley stayed with the suspects, and Roteman told Serpico (who spoke Spanish), to make a fake purchase attempt to get the drug dealers to open the door. The police went to the third-floor landing. Serpico knocked on the door, keeping his hand on his revolver. The door opened a few inches, just far enough to wedge his body in. Serpico called for help, but his fellow officers ignored him.[7]
Serpico was then shot in the face with a .22 LR pistol. The bullet struck just below the eye and lodged at the top of his jaw. He fired back,[8] fell to the floor, and began to bleed profusely. His police colleagues refused to make a "10-13", a dispatch to police headquarters indicating that an officer had been shot.[7] An elderly man who lived in the next apartment called the emergency services and reported that a man had been shot. The stranger stayed with Serpico.[7] A police car arrived. Unaware that Serpico was one of them, the officers took him to Greenpoint Hospital.

algebra?

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: roadgravel

And in the examples you gave the person knew they were being targeted and could run. The whole point is that if you're someone of interest and you haven't done anything, you aren't going to be aware of it, and thus you won't be on the run.

Not entirely true. There are lawyers that tip off people who are marked to be taken down. You have to remember the social circles they are in. If some action is going to be taken there is unofficial discussion and then there is official channels and process that has to be done.

So in theory someone like him could find out something is about to go down with him being the centre of it. Could he have been framed? Maybe not likely in this case but maybe he was.

It's very strange that the entire case wasn't explained fully. Or maybe it has but I never saw it. I don't really want to speculate on this case because I haven't followed it enough to give an informed opinion.

But I will say it's entirly possible if u are at odds with a higher up in the organization he was in, that someone like him could be framed and made public enemy number 1 overnight without a trial or even a solid case against them.

By the time the police took him down no one is going to want to go back on the actions they used to take him down. I don't think a single officer involved would want to question whether or not he was guilty becaus they essentially carried out a kill order on the guy.

Right now there are still probably a lot of checks and balances. But the more automated society becomes it's scary to think one day a simple push of a button and suddenly someone else becomes a public target without anything or anyone to say otherwise