Charlie Sheen, you're effin awesome.

LGBT community and supporters, the same way you have the right to voice your opinion on acceptance of gay marriage, Chick Fil-A has a right to voice their beliefs as well. That's what makes America so great. Freedom of expression. Don't be assholes and boycott/degrade their business and customers who patronize the locations. They make some damn good chicken! Vandalizing (graffiti) their locations does not help any cause.

me and kill people just to make their loved ones suffer."

Asshole.

I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, I’m terminating yours. -----, -----, -----, and BOR members Look your wives/husbands and surviving children directly in the face and tell them the truth as to why your children are dead.

I hadn't read any of that.. and, there are those defending him as an "alleged" killer. There is no excuse for evil.

going postal with mark ames

http://www.alternet.org/story/24796/a_brief_history_of_rage,_murder_and_rebellion

At least, none I have noticed.

That talk is nonsense--there's no reason to doubt that he did commit those murders.

But hey, whatever. I have yet to see one DU'er say he did not kill a soul.
Some of us, even for professional reasons, will use the words "suspected off" or "charged with."

You might want to check on this little thing of presumption of innocence. Or when exactly did the US adopt the Napoleonic Code?

Moreover, some of us have also read the "supporting FB pages." I know horrible. And except for one, there is an underlying theme to them about the exposure of LAPD corruption. Except for one, none is denying the charges...but you know what is a constant though? Things are at a boil in LA...I just hope they do not boil over. I guarantee you, it will not be pretty if they do.

By the way LAPD ain't helping with shooting up two women, nor Torrance PD with shooting a single 200 lb white guy. These are the kinds of thing though that happen often in LA, especially in the majority minority, lower income, areas of the city. Why those FB pages resonate, and even the manifesto does, as far as the culture of LAPD. These claims, shocking I know, are not new...at all.

So, some of us going...hum, hum, could be Rampart 2 (you should look into the original scandal) does not preclude wanting him arrested, and until proven guilty by a jury, he is suspected with, not has done it.

Perhaps some...sorry could not resist pulling a foxism, would prefer a street execution and Ley Fuga in this case. I am sure more than a few LAPD officers want that. Exhibit A their own behavior.

to public opinion and general consensus. You should probably read up on that distinction--it's a fallacy used by apologists to essentially mandate that any unflattering fact about the person they're defending be adjudicated in a court of law before being accepted as a fact.

Thus the doublespeak of the apologist--"I'm not doubting he did it, but my stance is that he's innocent."

But hey, I get it. With the abuses over the last ten years where people have been executed with no trial, chickens are coming home to roost, and so they will.

Those chickens are not cute...and if understanding a core principle of British law going to Magna Carta makes me an apologist, so be it. Blood lust does truly not belong in a civilized society.

I notice that you did not address LAPD's behavior, or Torrance for that matter.

Have a good life. Goodbye.

But, I also don't pretend that I'm a court of law that is completely ignorant of every fact under the sun until it's adjudicated.

I do not insist on a foolish consistency between the legal system's stance towards criminal defendants and my personal knowledge. I do not need to wait for a jury trial to process facts that are readily available. That is the stuff for smaller minds.

it, that the LAPD created him, etc.

and claim that we don't know THAT he killed anyone.

Dead giveaway.

It's very hard to articulate straight-up support for murder and not look like a bad person, even if you feel you have a good case for justifying it. So justification often gives way to the more socially acceptable argument of innocence. Sometimes this second approach is the end itself. Often people won't privately dispute how bad a killing is, but they'd prefer to see the person walk because they see it as a contest between the system and the people and they will never root for the system.

Normal person: The guy is a murderer
Apologist: Declaring him a murderer without due process is an assault on the presumption of innocence and a mob mentality!
Normal person: Do you have any doubt that he killed those people?
Apologist: Well, of course I'm not saying there's any reason to think he didn't kill them.

Hi, we're all crazy here, just go with it.

It's too late for that, jerkoff.

We never 'know' anything.

That said, the guy is clearly a murderous piece of filth, 100% 'proof' notwithstanding.

We'll never know, but he's clearly a murderer?

I don't know what part of that was too complicated to grasp.

But we're pretty damn sure it happens.

A scientific theory is as close to fact as one can get.

Not usually. There is a problem of verification.

Courts have had zero problems introducing them.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/technology-blog/facebook-court-ruling-share-facebook-admissible-evidence-165545087.html

Did you know that what you say on Facebook can be used against you in a court of law? If you're sharing something with your friends, you may as well be sharing directly with the judge and jury: A recent ruling in a U.S. federal court says that if you post something on Facebook, your friend can share that information with the police — it's not a violation of your privacy.

Accused gang member Melvin Colon had argued in court that investigators violated his constitutional right to privacy when they viewed his Facebook profile via one of his friends' accounts. But US District Judge William Pauley III ruled that Colon's messaged threats and posts about violent acts he committed were not private, and indeed fair game for prosecutors. To some extent, the ruling makes logical sense: When you say something publicly on Facebook, you're often sharing a thought with hundreds, maybe even thousands of people. There's not much that's private about that.

Or however the heck that went?

Now how do you make that sarcasm thingie?

I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, I’m terminating yours. -----, -----, -----, and BOR members Look your wives/husbands and surviving children directly in the face and tell them the truth as to why your children are dead.

You had me.

I'm hoping nobody says that for real.

and negates their right to due process under law,

I submit you are facially guilty of treason against the American People and the Constitution, and against the United States, and should be shot out of hand by the nearest armed citizen. The Constitutional requirement for two witnesses thereto does not apply to the likes of you, and none should heed it, nor any other law in order to remove you, now and forever, from this society.

You should simply die, and be buried, without benefit of law.

THAT is where your mentality leads. If we heed your words, and apply them, we end with chaos, anarchy, barbarism, and bloody brutality.

A nation of men, not of laws.

No, thanks.

without due process.

It does not mean that it's intellectually acceptable to pretend there is actual doubt over a factual matter where none exists.

We as private citizens are perfectly entitled to express the facts as we see them. Factually, there is no doubt in any reasonable person's mind that this guy has killed people. There is only the fig leaf of "nothing is a fact until a court of law says so."

and anyone openly holding an opinion regarding factual guilt or innocence during jury selection would be excused, and rightly so.

Thankfully, enough people in the US feel that way even now to allow for change of venue in trials, or in cases prior to trial, such as this one, which have received a great deal more publicity than normal. I refuse to watch corporate television and cable news, period; I rarely read our local print newspaper simply because I spend my time in other ways. While there is virtually no chance his trial's venue will be changed to where I am- if the bloodthirsty mob that's after him even allows a trial, which is nothing close to a sure thing- I'm still willing to hold the integrity of the process as a thing both solemn and fragile.

Perhaps that's because, outside of my coworkers, a very large percentage (I'd guess around 80%) of the people I personally know and count among my friends have had dealings of one sort or another with our justice system. Such a thing, I believe, leaves one with a sensitivity toward fairness in criminal justice that is markedly lacking among those whose personal friends and acquaintances have had no such court involvement.

Or maybe it's because I'm just more fair-minded.

But don't call me blind. That's Lady Justice herself.

or have you reached a conclusion as to whether he is guilty of war crimes?

In a court of law. Dorner doesn't put any credence in the legal system or its judgments.

his day in court, but outside of the courtroom we are all free to draw our own conclusions and we are not violating any legal principle by doing so.

You are completely free to idiotically tell anyone that they are guilty of treason. You are not free to act as judge, jury and executioner .

Your post is nonsense. Utter and complete. Thanks for that.

well, actually i can considering who some of these people are.

1) they know why the guy is killing people;
2) it's a bloodthirsty mob mentality to conclude the guy killed those people before he's had a trial; and
3) of course they know he killed those people and aren't seriously questioning it as a factual matter.

capture him and bring him to trial. Wish they'd stop shooting up old women delivering newspapers and bald surfers who drive different vehicles. Shooting people not properly identified makes the police look more like a posse out for revenge intent on killing someone than those dedicated to protecting the public. And honestly as a resident of LA that concerns me.

and entirely necessary change.

The one thing worse than a professional vigilante squad is a poorly trained bunch of ameteurs with guns.

legally entitled to DUE PROCESS.

You are familiar with the concept, right? If you won't grant it to all accused, you have no right to expect it for yourself.

LAPD has unclean hands in this matter, and they did even before they attempted to murder Dorner (and hurt two women instead).

I am not defending Dorner, mind you. He has killed and justice awaits him. I am defending the concept of DUE PROCESS. People who oppose due process need to leave the US and go live in Somalia or Saudi Arabia, where such silly little niceties don't exist.

and "we don't know whether he killed those people."

Those posting here that he's a murderer aren't going to gun him down or have any material adverse effect on him.

On the other hand, if he's determined to not be taken alive, then he won't be taken alive.

while they are fugitive.

Dorner has the right to a peaceful surrender. He has the right to submit himself to custody. Failure to submit himself peacefully to surrender and capture will earn him a response designed to counter lethal force.

Mr. Dorner is a fugitive, in flight. He has very few options left.

"I am defending the concept of DUE PROCESS. People who oppose due process need to leave the US and go live in..."


Who precisely is stating he should be denied due process by the courts?

Yes, Dorner needs to be captured and spend a lot of time in prison.

That doesn't mean there is no corruption in the LAPD.

Something set this guy off, after successfully not murdering people up until this point in his life. It would be good to see if it was the voices in his head, or actual corruption.

Which, btw, means not killing him. We've got plenty of prisons in which we can house him.

This guy seems to be determined to have his blaze of glory exit.

It's the LAPD who seem hell-bent on giving him a blaze of glory exit. Which makes me suspicious of their motives. Hence my desire for a more thorough investigation.

you're not gonna take me alive yada yada yada.

When dude went off the deep end, he really went off the deep end.

The cop that was sitting in his car at a red light.

Another law-abiding gun owner, until he wasn't.

Severely, disturbed individual gone over the edge..

There will be no reasoning with this man.

He didn't get this way overnight.

He has had to have been deteriorating before their eyes. Someone had to have noticed his decline.


He must have been obcessed. He had to have been talking about his delusions.

Clearly tragic, no matter how disturbed his thought disorder is, he seems to be a partly a product of his environment and society.

That manifesto is shocking in its bigotry.

Probably listening to hate radio.

Doesn't it. I'll bet she is terrorized knowing he is out there. The stress must be unbearable.

Do I need to post a poll to know his religion?

Bloodthirsty scumbag. Hope you're caught as soon as possible, you bigoted lowlife.

Was this "manifesto" brought into evidence by a prosecutor? Was this ever questioned bu a defense attorney in a court of law.

Till all is brought forth and argued in a court of law, till it is decided by 12 jurors, I will not care to believe one way or another about any of it.

Anyone can put up a website in someone else's name. Happens all the time.

corruption. You can't possibly know any of that.

met irl) accusing me (anonymous person, to you, on a web forum) of thinking and believing?

you can't have an opinion as to why he killed anyone.

just accept what a jury says?

Since Pol Pot was never tried, you must have no opinion on whether h committed war crimes. I certainly hope you don't go around calling Bush and Cheney or Henry Kissinger war criminals as well.

I believe that for all to keep our Rights and Laws that it needs to be for all, no mater what little we have to go may say. He has not had a day in court. We have yet to hear both sides. Till then, till all sides can be seen, heard and argued by the lawyers and in the jury room, I will not believe one way or the other.

All charges to be answered in a court of law, allow what makes this country the one so many want to come here for to work. Cheney and Kissinger are not above nor below our Rights and Laws. I want the whole story, that is something that comes out with the practice of our Rights and Laws for all.

own that subject?

Burden is on the state to prove guilt. Not the media.

Probably a moot point since he likely froze to death after his car broke down in the mountains and is a Dornercicle.

What is your suspicion?

What do you think PROBABLY happened? Which is MORE likely than the other...that he committed murder of human beings who were not presenting an immediate threat to his life and safety, or that he did not?

Even the new Manifesto by another LAPD Officer that came out via facebook is clouding more of the story up.

That is why it is a necessity for people to allow the 6th. to work. There is far more going on that needs to be brought to light. And it will only clear up is a full trial. Where all sides must answer all the questions. Till this happens, till all is out where all can see, I will not go one way or the other.

Sometimes very poorly. Ask Rodney King's family, or Nicole Brown's.

After all, he died BEFORE he was sentenced--so that judgment by a jury was therefore vacated.

Ken Lay died an INNOCENT man.

That's how it works if one just puts the blinders on and plows that furrow straight down the line--no looking left or right!

Doesn't mean anyone with two functioning brain cells believes it, though!

no crime!

Facebook doesn't play and unless the defendant admits to it, it can't be verified as reliable.

In both civil and criminal courts. And also twitter tweets.

I saw someone convicted to state prison for what she wrote on FB. As in, I was literally in court when it happened.

after "Just to be clear to the "innocent before
proven guilty" crowd". Statements like that have no place here, nor in the minds and mouths of civilized human beings.

Are you this outspoken when people call Henry Kissinger or Pol Pot war criminals?

Several of Pol Pot's underlings have been and are currently facing trials for crimes against humanity. While not war crimes, per se, it is, I think, what you were getting it. Pol Pot died in 1979, as I'm sure you're aware. Since he is already dead, I'm sure the priority is to prosecute those involved that are still alive, rather than a largely-symbolic posthumous conviction of Pol Pot himself. However, some have already been convicted, it is not hard to see that he would, in fact, be found guilty were such a show trial to be held.

I am afraid I'm not familiar enough with Henry Kissinger to pass judgement on him, but unless he has been tried in a court for such things than no, he is not a war criminal.

However, neither of those things changes the fact the this is a document written by a man with the intent for it to be publicly seen and have a degree of shock value. I don't consider it "evidence" yet.

Are you saying it's perfectly okay to discard due process, to toss aside the notion that everyone is innocent until proven to be guilty?

courts and juries and cops. We can process facts and come to our own conclusions.

And Henry Kissinger is a notorious war criminal who has a long list of countries he can't visit because they'd arrest him.

It's really that simple.

Someone is not a criminal until they are found to be a criminal in a court of law.

Legally, right now no one shot those people. Factually, someone did.

Similarly, Adam Lanza was never convicted. Stating that someone else committed the Sandy Hook atrocity is a PPR-level offense here.

Either he shot those people or he didn't. There are no facts indicating that the shooter was anyone other than Chris Dorner.

saying Chris Dorner shot anyone.

The point is that you are convicting him without a trial. The point is you wilfully undermining the central pillar of the American justice system.

If only people felt as strongly about that right as they do about RKBA.

exclusively to the legal system. It does not apply to what private citizens believe.

I exercise my right to use my brain when looking at cases like this rather than pretend that the truth is unknowable absent a court proceeding.

Fox News preemptively called the 2000 election for W?

We The People are the rules. It is all of us that must keep all of the Constitution and The Bill of Rights. If we do not we will losses all of our freedoms.

No one is above or below. They are OUR laws, we all are bound!

on whether this guy killed anyone. That is an ignorant claim.

It forbids the courts, law enforcement, legal system, and jurors from prejudging--but it imposes no such requirement regarding public opinion.

Chris Dorner murdered those people. Now go ahead and report me for committing a thought crime.

It is the way to loose all our rights and the law. Yet, it is people that believe the way you do that is slowly messing up the system. It is why corruption is creeping into the system. People that do not live for the higher principles will lose all.

We must not rush to any thoughts till a trial where all is brought to light.
You may wish to circumvent and condemn, I will not. You may wish to be an example to those that wish to mock our system, I will not.
You may try and mock me, but I know my way of thinking is right.