Dormer

[IndyDave1776]

Well, now I know why aluminum foil is in short supply.

Aluminum foil? Why is it unreasonable to expect a trend which has reliably worked whenever started to fail this time? Accepting the definition of insanity generally attributed to Einstein of doing the same thing expecting different results, there is no other sane conclusion.

 

[griffin]

Reading through the comments leaves me with the conclusion that Officer.com has a pretty even blend of level heads and sociopaths--especially the one declaring belief that the attack on the two women delivering papers was a good shoot.

I'm not quite comfortable with the fact that a few of the officers here on INGO seem giddy with excitement that this murderer was burned to a crisp.

I keep saying the police perpetuate the "us-vs-them" mentality. If you doubt the veracity of this claim, go peruse the comments over at policeone.com or officer.com. Literally, pick any article, read any comment. You won't have to search at all, unless you're looking for comments not displaying an us-vs-them, anti-citizen attitude.

For instance, I just did that. First article, first comment. Some guy tried to lunge at a cop with a sword. Nobody got hurt, guy ended up committed to a mental health institution. Apparently that's not good enough for the police, however:

This type of verdict is EXACTLY why the Dorner case ended the way it should have, with him in a box instead of in front of 12 idiots.
Judge: Man who lunged at cop with sword not guilty​

Once you cross their line, you no longer have a right to a trial. You're fair game to be murdered.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Some guy tried to lunge at a cop with a sword. Nobody got hurt, guy ended up committed to a mental health institution. Apparently that's not good enough for the police, however:

This type of verdict is EXACTLY why the Dorner case ended the way it should have, with him in a box instead of in front of 12 idiots.
Judge: Man who lunged at cop with sword not guilty​

Once you cross their line, you no longer have a right to a trial. You're fair game to be murdered.

One wonders why the sour grapes over the fruit with the sword. The man was obviously nuttier than a bucket of filberts and got put in the nut house with no one being harmed. The umbrage over the nut not being convicted and the segue into yet another endorsement of field execution for Dorner does not do much for the argument that there was any chance of Dorner being able to surrender alive.

 

[qwerty]

Yeah, God forbid that an officer shoots anyone when their life is in danger....

You guys are all for personally shooting the suspect when he breaks the law, however when an officer shoots someone when their life is in danger, that is forboden? Talk about hypocrisy.

No doubt, there are bad shootings, officers f-ed up and were negligent, but you blur the lines, make it us-vs-them, lump them all together. So all the gun-toting civilians are a negligent as the guy walking into Kroger with his AR over his soldier....using the generalities that you throw around, I guess so.

Dorner was a nutcase that was going to die either by cop or by his own hand. He was a loon who two days after his military discharge, killed two people in a parking garage. Does not sound like a crusader against the LAPD to me, more like a very recent military guy who flipped his lid. Statistically, he would never be taken alive since most active shooters commit suicide.

 

[griffin]

Yeah, God forbid that an officer shoots anyone when their life is in danger.

I fail to see how some elderly Hispanic women delivering newspapers put the officers' lives in danger.

you blur the lines, make it us-vs-them, lump them all together.

I don't think anyone here thought Dormer was a hero or applauded his actions. On the other hand, there seem to be no shortage of LEOs who defend the actions of the LAPD.

It is the police who have the us-vs-them attitude. As I said, read any police forum.

So all the gun-toting civilians are a negligent as the guy walking into Kroger with his AR over his soldier

Perhaps I missed something. Did the Kroger AR15 guy threaten, injure, or kill anyone?

 

[qwerty]

I fail to see how some elderly Hispanic women delivering newspapers put the officers' lives in danger.I don't think anyone here thought Dormer was a hero or applauded his actions. On the other hand, there seem to be no shortage of LEOs who defend the actions of the LAPD.

It is the police who have the us-vs-them attitude. As I said, read any police forum. Perhaps I missed something. Did the Kroger AR15 guy threaten, injure, or kill anyone?

Again you blur the lines.... and continue to lump all LEO together and taking one incident of negligence and use it to justify your hypocritical reasoning.

The cops in the bad shooting involving the paper carriers (like I have said in earlier posts) were negligent and should be punished. I have not defended their actions, yet as you still continue to group together all LEO, I am vicariously authorizing their negligence....lunacy.

The Kroger guy was foolish and negligent. So all civilians who open carry are as foolish and negligent as he was if I was to use your same flawed logic.

 

[Vanguard.45]

Consistency

If we apply the same standards to law enforcement that the libs are trying to apply to civilians, then because one cop took high capacity magazines and assault weapons and committed crimes, I guess ALL law enforcement should have their high capacity magazines and assault rifles taken away, right?

Also, something interesting. When the "manifesto" was uncovered and the police discovered all of the people who had been threatened, what did they do? They dispatched heavily armed protective details with assault weapons and high capacity weapons to protect the families.

Don't they know assault weapons were not made to DEFEND lives, but rather, were simply made for KILLING PEOPLE and that their mere presence in and around those homes made those people LESS SAFE?????

As well, why would they need high capacity magazines to be protected from just ONE GUY??? The police don't need high capacity magazines!! How often do police, on average, get into gun fights where they fire more than ten shots, right??

Funny how the libs weren't making THESE arguments, huh?

Vanguard.45

 

[IndyDave1776]

Yeah, God forbid that an officer shoots anyone when their life is in danger....

You guys are all for personally shooting the suspect when he breaks the law, however when an officer shoots someone when their life is in danger, that is forboden? Talk about hypocrisy.

No doubt, there are bad shootings, officers f-ed up and were negligent, but you blur the lines, make it us-vs-them, lump them all together. So all the gun-toting civilians are a negligent as the guy walking into Kroger with his AR over his soldier....using the generalities that you throw around, I guess so.

Dorner was a nutcase that was going to die either by cop or by his own hand. He was a loon who two days after his military discharge, killed two people in a parking garage. Does not sound like a crusader against the LAPD to me, more like a very recent military guy who flipped his lid. Statistically, he would never be taken alive since most active shooters commit suicide.

First you say that we are wrong for expecting the police to refrain from shooting when threatened. First, with sword boy, our problem was with the police whining that shooting at the scene was preferable to a trial by jury--you know, that due process we are guaranteed in the Constitution that the participating officers swore to uphold. Police arguing after the fact for summary execution in a situation that has already been peacefully and effectively resolved is indicative of some officers who should be fired under circumstances that will prevent them from ever wearing a badge again. As for Dorner, what would have been wrong with forming a perimeter and waiting him out? He was outnumbered by over 1000 to 1, and he has to eat and sleep. Under the circumstances, he didn't have a chance to accumulate supplies in the house he occupied and likely would have ended the incident within a couple of days.

You skipped over to the guy who took his AR to Kroger and declared him negligent and suggested that he created an image problem. You think it doesn't create an image problem when we hear a chorus of police who support the notion of shooting first and asking questions later? The stupidity of a few is one thing. The stupidity of many justifying the actions of the few is downright scary. As that goes, the fact that Lon Horiuchi is still alive doesn't do much for my assessment of law enforcement. Given your avatar, you should understand why a cold-blooded serial murderer hiding behind a badge doesn't foster a sense of security.

Why is it that people labelled as professionals in any field other than law enforcement are held to standards far exceeding those of laymen, generally difficult and at times even impossible, yet police, who are supposed to be professionals, are so often the beneficiaries of arguments that they should be held to a lower standard than the rest of us. Had I opened fire on people in a case of mistaken identity, especially without making any attempt to ascertain their identity or giving any warning, I would have promptly found myself on the inside of the bars. Ditto for arson whether the house was occupied or not.

We hear a lot of whining about the 'us versus them' mentality. Sorry, but Team Blue started it and are at minimum collectively equally culpable in perpetuating it. There is no way to sugar coat this. If there were two sets of uniforms, one for upstanding officers and others for the POS scoundrels who give the profession a bad name it would be much easier. Until then, the rest of us are likely to see less of a divide when we no longer have to worry about getting our doors kicked in at 0300 because someone up the street sells drugs and the police can't find the right place. We will feel more comfortable when the police see the Constitution, due process, and the law as principles to live by and not obstacles to work around. Our views will be much more charitable when the police serve as keepers of the peace and not a de facto standing army as they are trending toward becoming. We may be less critical when we see monsters like Lon Horiuchi (and those who supplied his orders) executed rather than protected. We will be more charitable when we see the police maintaining order rather than serving as an alternate revenue stream by extorting money from random citizens rather than dealing with the more than sufficient criminals in circulation. We will take the attitude toward police that was prevalent with generations past when we can feel no concern about the presence of the police so long as we aren't harming anyone as was the case in generations past rather than having to worry about not opening the door for any billable offenses or in some cases worry about managing to walk away alive. After all, there are officers who have openly called opening fire on the innocent non-suspects in LA a good shoot.

 

[UncleMike]

It is the police who have the us-vs-them attitude. As I said, read any police forum.

LEO's reading INGO think exactly the same thing.
I gave up trying to get my friends to join here because of posts like yours.

 

[qwerty]

First you say that we are wrong for expecting the police to refrain from shooting when threatened. First, with sword boy, our problem was with the police whining that shooting at the scene was preferable to a trial by jury--you know, that due process we are guaranteed in the Constitution that the participating officers swore to uphold. Police arguing after the fact for summary execution in a situation that has already been peacefully and effectively resolved is indicative of some officers who should be fired under circumstances that will prevent them from ever wearing a badge again. As for Dorner, what would have been wrong with forming a perimeter and waiting him out? He was outnumbered by over 1000 to 1, and he has to eat and sleep. Under the circumstances, he didn't have a chance to accumulate supplies in the house he occupied and likely would have ended the incident withing a couple of days.

You skipped over to the guy who took his AR to Kroger and declared him negligent and suggested that he created an image problem. You think it doesn't create an image problem when we hear a chorus of police who support the notion of shooting first and asking questions later? The stupidity of a few is one thing. The stupidity of many justifying the actions of the few is downright scary. As that goes, the fact that Lon Horiuchi is still alive doesn't do much for my assessment of law enforcement. Given your avatar, you should understand why a cold-blooded serial murderer hiding behind a badge doesn't foster a sense of security.

Why is it that people labelled as professionals in any field other than law enforcement are held to standards far exceeding those of laymen, generally difficult and at time even impossible, yet police, who are supposed to be professionals, are so often the beneficiaries of arguments that they should be held to a lower standard than the rest of us. Had I opened fire on people in a case of mistaken identity, especially without making any attempt to ascertain their identity or giving any warning, I would have promptly found myself on the inside of the bars. Ditto for arson whether the house was occupied or not.

We hear a lot of whining about the 'us versus them' mentality. Sorry, but Team Blue started it and are at minimum collectively equally culpable in perpetuating it. There is no way to sugar coat this. If there were two sets of uniforms, one for upstanding officers and others for the POS scoundrels who give the profession a bad name it would be much easier. Until then, the rest of us are likely to see less of a divide when we no longer have to worry about getting our doors kicked in at 0300 because someone up the street sells drugs and the police can't find the right place. We will feel more comfortable when the police see the Constitution, due process, and the law as principles to live by and not obstacles to work around. Our views will be much more charitable when the police serve as keepers of the peace and not a de facto standing army as they are trending toward becoming. We may be less critical when we see monsters like Lon Horiuchi (and those who supplied his orders) executed rather than protected. We will be more charitable when we see the police maintaining order rather than serving as an alternate revenue stream by extorting money from random citizens rather than dealing with the more than sufficient criminals in circulation. We will take the attitude toward police that was prevalent with generations past when we can feel no concern about the presence of the police so long as we aren't harming anyone as was the case in generations past rather than having to worry about not opening the door for any billable offenses or in some cases worry about managing to walk away alive. After all, there are officers who have openly called opening fire on the innocent non-suspects in LA a good shoot.

...disregard

This is not going to go anywhere as long as you are generalizing an entire group of people because of the actions of a few.

I don't do it here when some OC'in civilian goes trotting around Kroger with an AR on his shoulder, I would expect the same from any other reasonable person.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Again, more hypocrisy, caterwauling and broad-brushing.

Police don't shoot when threatened, better to just let him hold up, but armed citizens can...how about armed citizens tell the criminal to hold up in a closet rather than shoot them, then the criminal will give up because he wants some food.

You broad-brush by using the bad shooting of the paper delivery folks to make your other arguments reeks of desperation to make a valid point, so just easier to lump everyone together.

Let's see...If I had 1000 well armed friends with a cornered criminal, I might have a little more leeway than I realistically have when confronting one alone. Besides, the police are supposed to be 'professionals'. In your analogy, I sure wouldn't set fire to my home over the presence of an intruder.

As for applying the broad brush, you just don't get it. The fact that it doesn't universally apply (nor do I claim that it does) doesn't change the fact that enough police are dangerous to the citizens of the nation that it severely inhibits any reasonable argument for placing one's trust in police, especially in terms of allowing them to establish a situation in which they have an insurmountable upper hand. I am just as attached to my habits of being vertical and breathing as you are. Not all police kick in doors and kill people in their own homes for unacceptable reasons, but enough do that it represents a very plausible threat. Not all police use their badges as tools of extortion, but enough do to represent a threat that must be kept in mind. Not all police are cold-blooded serial murderers, but having a few in circulation is enough to erode the trust the rest of us place in law enforcement, especially when those people are protected as they are.

In case you still don't get it, having even a significant minority of people who are given an ever-increasing legal upper hand over the people they are supposed to serve and protect is extremely dangerous, especially when the only legal recourse comes from within that group itself. In practice, justice is a request which may or may not be honored. As it stands right now, I consider the police to be a greater threat than the criminals. You can argue with that all you like, but I am entitled to my own opinion and my own review of my own experiences. Until I see the day I can consider the criminals a greater threat, so far as I am concerned, we have a major problem with the police.

 

[Denny347]

 

[Bunnykid68]

Denny, you look great in blue with a silver helmet

 

[Denny347]

Denny, you look great in blue with a silver helmet

Ummm...sorry but I'm the red guy.

 

[Bunnykid68]

Ummm...sorry but I'm the red guy.

My bad, didn't realize you were that out of shape

 

[reesez]

This thread needs locked.

 

[griffin]

The Kroger guy was foolish and negligent.

Foolish is personal opinion. How was he negligent?

 

[IndyDave1776]

Foolish is personal opinion. How was he negligent?

Perhaps he neglected to open fire on random pickup trucks?

 

[jamil]

Well, now I know why aluminum foil is in short supply.

Sand isn't. Help yourself.

 

[Mackey]

How do you really feel?
I'm thinking you feel like the red guy.
The guy in red always gets dead.