On the theme that only the police should be armed

[iiibbb]

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/07/16884539-cop-shot-killed-during-hunt-for-ex-lapd-officer-wanted-over-calif-slayings

hree officers were shot -- two in Riverside, one in Corona -- during the search early Thursday for a former Los Angeles Police Department officer wanted in connection with a double slaying in Irvine.

Police said two Riverside officers responded to Magnolia and Arlington after receiving a call for assistance. The response occurred during the search that began with a report of a vehicle matching the description of ex-LAPD Officer Christopher Dorner.

Both Riverside officers were shot and transported to a hospital, where one was pronounced dead. The second officer remained in surgery, police said.

Police could not confirm the gunman was Dorner.

When the police give up their guns... I'll give up mine.

[TreasonousBastard]

1. Sure, but you do realize that...

if you shoot a cop under any circumstances your life will undergo massive changes.

Really, really massive changes.

[iiibbb]

2. Not saying otherwise... just that the police are often held in front of us pleabians

as some sort of super trained, super ethical citizen.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

6. Except that you miss two things of importance

1. This is an EX-cop, not a cop. There is a reason he is no longer a cop. He no longer has any more authority or standing/status than you do. So your point about resisting cops or that they are held up as different is invalid.

2. You are wrong to shoot law enforcement. Period. You are wrong to shoot our military. Period. It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with them or the laws they are enforcing, shooting your fellow Americans - assuming here that you are a citizen - is wrong. It is illegal, immoral and unethical. (About the only bad thing shooting law enforcement or our military ISN'T is fattening.)

So, following your logic, you are really no better and no different than this ex-cop who is suspected of killing people. You think it is ok to do that, and so does he, according to some things he has apparently written.

Cops are better trained, tested and evaluated than civilians generally, and they have an authority (as does the military) to act in ways you - and I - do not. They are also backed up by a considerable number of other people with that authority, all the way to and through the courts, which you are not.

Neither you nor I nor anyone else - including law enforcement - gets to decide individually what actions are legal or what weapons we are allowed, no matter how strongly we may feel about it. That is determined by a process larger than any one individual. That is what being a nation under the rule of law means.

Apparently you believe, if I understand your statement correctly, that you are above the law? I hope that is not the case.

[iiibbb]

7. Yes... your is correct. I am arguing that I am above the law

That is all I have ever argued with you.

[clffrdjk]

8. 2 things

1. If your first point is true why are retired police officers exempted from AWB and concealed carry laws?

2 well your second point is such ridiculous nonsense that you should feel embarrassed just for posting it.

[iiibbb]

10. Retired police can carry concealed in places that I do not have that right... LEOSA

... they can do this over state lines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_Enforcement_Officers_Safety_Act


I can't do that. They are a class above me for some reason.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

12. still does not apply - this shooter is not 'retired'; he was 'fired', not laid off, etc.

It's on a par with the distinctions between honorable and dishonorable discharges.

I haven't seen anything which even remotely suggests he could conceal carry in that way, or that he has retained his service weapon for that matter.

This guy was a vet as well, yet you make no mention of that, focusing disproportionately on his having been in law enforcement.

Law enforcement has the occasional bad apple; they also have insurance to make whole, so far as possible, anyone they harm or cost.

You not only have not passed their standards to be entrusted with the authority of the law, you are not covered for the appropriate amounts of liability the way law enforcement is.

You are not law enforcement or the military; you have no similar duties or obligations that put you in harm's way, you have no similar obligation to follow either of those chains of command, and you have none of the resources that those organizations do if you mess up.

There are darned good reasons that civilians are different from LEO and military. You are not them.

You cannot claim parity.

[clffrdjk]

13. Cops are civilians period

[gejohnston]

14. closer to a general discharge

to get a dishonorable discharge, one has to be convicted of a felony by a general court martial.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

15. and to be fired their has to be some kind of screw up

You're not retired if you're fired.

This guy was fired, because clearly he was not suited to being a good cop, despite his supposed whistleblowing.

And clearly, the LAPD were right, given his current course of action.

Therefore, he should not have been carrying a gun like a retired cop in some preferred way.

And to be accurate, this guy was apparently in the naval reserve, and just given an HONORABLE discharge a week ago.

[gejohnston]

19. his military status is not relevant to his police job

retired cops should follow the same rules as the rest of us.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

20. cops enforce the law, but they are not above the law

an example of the special immunity that law enforcement is permitted is to exceed the speed limit in certain instances, so long as they are reasonably safe.

So while law enforcement does generally follow the same rules as the rest of us, they also very properly have some exemptions. Speeding with light and sirens on for emergencies or other legitimate reasons is just one example.

Law enforcement are not the same as the rest of us in some important regards that are essential to their jobs.

That can mean speeding when appropriate, it can mean carrying a gun where you or I are not allowed (for example near the President).

Deal with it; it is a reasonable necessity of life, and it is the reason sometimes the term civilian as distinct from law enforcement is used, and why the military or other government authority is sometimes described together, because they represent an aspect of governmental force.

The timing of the discharge of this cop may be relevant to his going rogue; we also do not, as of the time of this comment, know if there was some reason that WAS relevant to his police job or not. His badge was found near the base where he served.

I suspect both roles were an integral part of this rogue cops sense of self, of identity, but that is pure idle speculation on my part- more of a hunch.

His truck was found burned out some distance away; we don't know if that was his actions or if the truck was there in that condition because of someone else, unrelated.

[sarisataka]

23. Are you sure....

what would happen to civilians who did this?

LAPD, Torrance Police Shot At Innocent People In Frenzied Hunt For Former Cop Christopher Dorner
Officers from the Los Angeles and Torrance police departments engaged in two separate shootings Thursday morning in Torrance, Calif., reports KTLA. They had come across two different vehicles that were similar to the description of Dorner's getaway car, a gray 2005 Nissan Titan pickup.

The first shooting incident happened at 5:20 a.m. Officers from the Hollywood division of the LAPD shot two people who turned out to have no connection to Dorner's crimes. They were transported to the hospital with gunshot injuries.

The second incident occurred 25 minutes later and involved Torrance police. While shots were fired, there were no reported injuries.

In a press conference Thursday morning, LAPD Chief Charlie Beck confirmed that police shot innocent bystanders during the hunt for Dorner. He detailed the two victims' gunshot wounds:

"One has a minor gunshot wound and is in the process of being released. The second person is in stable condition, with two gunshot wounds," said Chief Beck. "Tragically, we believe this was a case of mistaken identity by the officers."

Sources tell the Los Angeles Times that the people shot by police were two women delivering newspapers. One was shot in the hand and the other in the back.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/07/lapd-shooting-at-innocent-people_n_2638701.html

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

24. cops are expected to make mistakes, not to be perfect

and they are held accountable as well when they do, including under the law.

This is closer to the area of lawfully speeding in response to an emergency or crime, even if there is a mistake in doing so.

That's why when cops make a mistake there are often compensation payments made, and disciplinary action.

There is no similar hierarchical authority or guarantee of compensation, such as the insurance policies by municipalities, or that there would be similarly deep pockets for same.

I'm assuming the assets of the city or county of Los Angeles exceeds that of most citizens.

[sarisataka]

27. A mistake??

This is closer to the area of lawfully speeding in response to an emergency or crime, even if there is a mistake in doing so.

Equivalent to speeding to a response? Give me a break.

They fired 46 rounds at two women, hitting both. That is not a mistake, that is an ambush; they had no idea who was in the vehicle just that it matched the description.

Isn't a major point put forth against civilian carry that being less trained than police a civilian might shoot at the wrong person?

I am also not to keen on the idea that money will make everything better. "Sorry we shot you in the back- have some cash. Look on the bright side. You are getting it instead of your next of kin."

I am willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt in many cases where people are screaming for blood. This I have no explanation for, nor can I conjure any excuse for their action.

[iiibbb]

18. Wait, some nutbag shoots up a school and civilian access to AR-15s

needs to end....

.... but this event is irrelevant to the issue of former police officers retaining rights, across state lines no less, that ordinary citizens can never have?

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

21. you are misframing the argument

Statistics show that there is an increasing problem with AR-15s being used in crime, and specifically with attacks on law enforcement.

The problems show a strong correlation to the rapid fire, very nearly at the rate of full auto, provided by use of large capacity magazines. This is not ONLY because of a private citizen shooting up a school, or another private citizen shooting up a theater, or another private citizen shooting up a mall, or a few more private citizens who were stopped from shooting up schools, etc. --- all with Bushmaster AR 15s.

However much you want to try to ignore the core of the reason for the banning of those items - assault or assault style weapons and expanded capacity magazines - the reason for such a limitation is clear, and in at least some jurisdiction pre-dates Sandy Hook, not because of it. Since you keep trying to ignore the growing elephant in the room, I've provided the justification AGAIN below, marking the most important parts in bold and/or underline from the NYT article on the DC assault style weapons and large capacity magazine ban decision of October 2011 - more than a year before Sandy Hook:

The District’s firearms law defines “assault weapon” to include rifles like the AR-15, which the Supreme Court once called “the civilian version of the military’s M-16 rifle.” The appeals court suggested that the only place where assault weapons, which are designed to spray bullets at a rapid rate, are necessary for self-defense is on a battlefield or the equivalent for police. Anywhere else their presence is an invitation to mayhem and puts police officers and all around at high risk.

It also concluded that “the evidence demonstrates a ban on assault weapons is likely to promote the Government’s interest in crime control in the densely populated urban area that is the District of Columbia.” The court reached the same conclusion about banning magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Those magazines increase the dangers of semiautomatic guns: they result in more shots fired, people wounded and wounds per person. The appeals court’s ruling is careful and convincing on this heated topic.

Law enforcement and retired law enforcement aren't you. Retired law enforcement often assists serving law enforcement, because their training and greater experience are still useful, and are different from what private citizens (aka civilians) have. Any differences from you and RETIRED NOT FIRED law enforcement have to do with public service and public safety benefit.

You are not law enforcement or the military; they are authorized to do things you are not, therefore they use equipment that you are not authorized to use. There is no 'parity' between you and cops or soldiers. THAT is why you are not going to carry the same weapons.

It is not difficult or complicated. You are not the same, you are not equal or equivalent - that is what parity means. It is true in every civilized country in the world and has been true throughout history. Why you think you should suddenly change that without any reasonable justification other than 'I wanna' is ridiculous, and not going to happen legally.

So you are left to decide if you want to be outside the law, and you want to risk losing all your gun rights as a criminal, that is of course your choice. But nothing is going to make that a good choice or a smart choice or an appropriate choice, no matter how much you whine that the cops are different than you are.

They are different; so deal with it.

[AtheistCrusader]

25. BUT he possesses weapons that can only be purchased by a police officer.

He used department letterhead and some fuckery with a notary to order a bunch of shit that *I* cannot purchase in this state at all. (Some of it, I cannot purchase nationwide)

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

28. Sure you can

all you have to do is become a cop, like he did.

Do you have a credible source that he did this?

It is not that easy to do 'some fuckery' with a notary btw.

If he legitimately bought the equipment as a cop, the difference is he was a cop at the time.

If he did not buy it legitimately as a cop, then he is in the same kind of trouble you would be in for weapons violations, fraud, etc.

So.........he possesses weapons you can't buy?

So what?

You are not a cop, you don't have parity as a cop. When and if you are a cop then you will have a different status or authority.

Law enforcement should not have to worry about being in an arms race with private citizens.

The courts recognized this in the DC assault weapons ban in 2011.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Why is a cop able to purchase these weapons at all?

Why take them home at night, off duty? Why aren't they procured, approved, by the department and held in the armory, when not checked out for use?

(He didn't specify when he purchased them, but he indicated he was up to something, if any of his screed is to be believed.)

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

30. Cops can't; factcheck.org busted false rumors about purchasing special weapons

So far as I can find there is no evidence that a cop can purchase these weapons.

The only indication so far is that he MIGHT have these weapons, not that he ever purchased such weapons legally, as a cop or private citizen.

The source for the fuss is that Dorner claims to have a 50 cal. machine gun; we don't know that he has one. I haven't found any source that documents such a purchase being made legally, including through some sort of funny business with a notary or letterhead stationary.

I doubt the LAPD has such weapons, and if they do have some specialized weaponry, you can be damn well sure they aren't taken home by law enforcement for personal use.

The source for the fuss over this appears to be the usual inaccurate right wing conspiracy theory crap that blows up around actual events. One source that debunks the larger gun nut paranoia was recently circulated by factcheck.org.

http://factcheck.org/2013/02/proposed-weapons-ban-exempts-government-officials/

[gejohnston]

31. the fact check was about guv officials

the rumor was that congress people, for example, would be exempt from the ban. Your source does say that LE would be exempt.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

37. the rumor was that members of congress would be able to get their hands on military grade weapons.

LEOs are not able to buy 50 cal rifles or machine guns legally any more than civilians, nor are they allowed to buy rocket launchers, etc.

What the military has the military keeps for military use; there is no taking a tank home, parking it in your driveway, or a 50 cal, and hanging it over the mantle on the fireplace.

LEOs would only have limited things banned available to them, pretty much what they have now, and properly so.

[gejohnston]

38. Have any evidence to back that up?

Do you know what the current federal laws are on those?

Actually, you can buy a tank and park it in your drive way. Affording and maintaining one is a different issue.

[AtheistCrusader]

35. I wasn't actually referring to the claim if the machine gun.

I was talking about high cap removable mags, suppressors, and SBR's, which LEO can buy, and if its a problem for non-LEO civilians, its a problem for cops as well, as this incident illustrates.

[tama]

26. What you miss

is that for example in Greece police are openly cooperating with neonazis against immigrants, LGBT and people demonstrating against banksters and corrupt government that gives tacit support to nazis. US police etc. is not different from Greece etc., many departments are totally corrupt (especially because of drug war), racist and fascist. They are immoral and unethical.

[alextenenbaum]

11. typical

using individual cases of insanity to back up arguments.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

16. there is no indication this guy is insane

as noted by criminologists, most mass shooters and guys who are disgruntled like this EX LAPD cop are just angry and out for revenge, they are not crazy.

So your point is incorrect.

Or were you making a comment about the original poster? Because while he is wrong, he is not so far as I can tell crazy.

[kudzu22]

3. I don't know who started the myth that cops are immune from going crazy

because clearly they're not. Any laws that apply to citizens should also apply to cops.

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

17. immune is an interesting phrase

immune has a medical definition, and then there is legal immunity.

Neither apply here.

We're talking about a pissed off ex cop who is taking revenge for being fired.

No one has established that he is in any way crazy, just another angry guy with a gun shooting people.

Laws mostly DO apply to citizens and cops equally, but there are some areas where any agent of a municipality or other larger government body do have certain kinds of special authority that citizens don't - the law gives them that authority - and they have certain kinds of immunity as well, to exercise that authority that you don't.

I'm not aware of any 'myth' that cops are immune from going crazy. You'd have to be silly to think that.

We're you trying to start one? Because this is the first I've heard of that.

Cops DO have to undergo routine testing and evaluations though, that citizens do not, but perhaps should to carry guns.

[SQUEE]

4. Anti gun, uses gun to prove point, this is a tragic situation and just insane.

This is purported to be his manifesto, WHOLE lot of WTF, guys a complete loon, hope he is neutralized soon.

http://boywithgrenade.org/2013/02/07/christopher-dorners-manifesto/

[Common Sense Party]

5. Holy crap, this guy is evil.

I never had the opportunity to have a family of my own, I’m terminating yours.

You got fired 4 years ago, so now you're gonna shoot innocent women and children and people you don't like? Wow.

[frylock]

9. needs more derp

[Dog Gone at Penigma]

22. derp?

please elaborate

[Tuesday Afternoon]

32. here, have some more derp:

They are different; so deal with it.

derp. derp. derpity-derp.

you deal with it.

[frylock]

33. don't know what the fuck you're going on about..

but if people are so stupid as to think that ALL guns are going to being banned, or that guns are getting confiscated then there's no point in trying to engage them in conversation.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

34. possbily replied to the wrong poster. maybe not. -

just pointing out more Derp in this thread, is all.

Have A Nice Day.

Peace Out.

[frylock]

36. no prob..

have a good weekend.