Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LAPD in the cross hairs (LAT Editorial)
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-dorner-lapd-20130214,0,3334374.storyEditorial
LAPD in the cross hairs
Christopher Dorner may be dead, but the police response to the crisis raises troubling questions.
February 14, 2013
The manhunt for Christopher Dorner in one sense ended successfully: Assuming that the body recovered from the burnt-out home in Big Bear is his, Dorner's rampage is over, and he won't harm anyone again. Yet it's hard to cheer an episode that left four people dead and that featured police officers firing wildly on innocent civilians in their determination to eradicate a man who had threatened them.
It's understandable that police would be enraged by Dorner. He openly declared war on all law enforcement officers and embarked on a killing spree specifically aimed at his former colleagues. But how does that justify the actions of the officers who shot into a truck driven by two newspaper carriers, Maggie Carranza and Emma Hernandez? Carranza is a 47-year-old Latina who was driving a blue Toyota with Hernandez, her 71-year-old mother; officers somehow mistook those two women for a burly African American man driving a gray Nissan. And, in their zeal or under the impression that any force would be tolerated in these circumstances, officers fired away, hitting Hernandez twice in the back. Both women lived, testament to the poor aim, not the good judgment, of the officers.
To be clear: Their actions would be worrisome even if Dorner had been behind the wheel of that truck. Force, including lethal force, is a necessary part of police work, but it may be used only to protect officers or others from harm. It is to be wielded to ensure safety, not to exact vengeance. While it is especially offensive to have that force used against innocent people, it's even improper to use it in this fashion against the guilty.
The Los Angeles Police Department has committed itself to reviewing Dorner's dismissal and the allegations he made in his loopy online manifesto. That's fine, though the results of that inquiry seem fairly obvious: It would shock any fair-minded observer of today's LAPD to discover that academy recruits were, as Dorner claimed, breaking into verses of songs of the Hitler Youth. Still, self-reflection is valuable and should offer a reminder that while racism is no longer openly practiced at the LAPD, eliminating even its vestiges should remain a priority for an institution once afflicted by it.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 1214 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (14)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
LAPD in the cross hairs (LAT Editorial) (Original Post)
jsr
Feb 2013
OP
defacto7
(13,485 posts)1. K&R and retweeted
This is the best conclusion that can be made after such a fiasco.