.

Dorner Autopsy: Fatal Wound Appears Self-Inflicted

Coroner concluded Christopher Dorner died of a shot to the temple. But it's not been concluded who fired it, though it was just announced that it "seems to indicate" suicide.

A shot to the temple took quadruple-homicide suspect Christopher Dorner's life Tuesday at a burning cabin, and the preliminary conclusion is it "seems to be" self-inflicted, a sheriff's captain annouced Friday afternoon.

Still undetermined: who fired the shot.

Riverside County coroner's staff conducted the autopsy, which took about six hours on Thursday, San Bernardino County sheriff's Capt. Kevin Lacy said. The body of Dorner, 33, who'd allegedly vowed revenge on dozens of people in a was found in the ashes of a San Bernardino Mountains cabin in which he'd barricaded himself and shot at officers.

"Yesterday beginning at about 9 o'clock the Riverside County coroner's office began the autopsy of the unidentified body that was recovered from the mountains here in our county the previous day," Lacy said.

"The autopsy took about six hours and during the course of the autopsy, two significant findings were made," Lacy said.

"One was that we were able to identify through a dental examination that the body that we recovered was in fact that of Christopher Dorner," Lacy said.

"The second important finding that was made was something that we have not been talking about yet, and that is the cause of death," Lacy said. "During the autopsy yesterday, the doctor who conducted the process concluded that the cause of death was a single gunshot wound to the head.

"We are not at this point ready to speak about the manner of death and tell you whether or not it was as a result of a self-inflicted wound or another round," Lacy said.

"We will tell you that while we are still compiling the information, and putting our reports together, the information that we have right now seems to indicate that the wound that took Christopher Dorner's life was self-inflicted."

Authorities believe Dorner, who was fired by the Los Angeles Police Department in 2009, is accountable for four killings in the space of ten days: a former LAPD captain's daughter and her fiancé in Irvine on Feb. 3, Riverside police Officer Michael Crain on Feb. 7, and San Bernardino County sheriff's Detective Jeremiah MacKay on Feb. 12.

Crain was a Redlands High School graduate, a student at Crafton Hills College in Yucaipa, and a Beaumont resident. MacKay worked in the Big Bear area and Yucaipa and he was a resident of Redlands. Both men leave behind wives and young children.

Charred human remains found in a burned out cabin east of Angelus Oaks late Tuesday were positively identified with dental records as the remains of Dorner, the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department announced Feb. 14.

Related News:

Other stories about the Christopher Dorner manhunt and outcome:

  • Burned Body Positively ID'd as Christopher Dorner
  • Camp Tahquitz Ranger's Confrontation With Dorner
  • Dorner's Mom: Condolences to Those Harmed By Son
  • Officials: Manhunt Called Off; Cabin Fire Not Deliberate
  • Human Remains Found in Cabin; No Dorner ID
  • Woman Thought to be Dorner's Mother Seen Watching News Coverage at La Palma Restaurant
  • Social Media Following Dorner Manhunt
  • LAPD: Dorner May Have Visited Manhattan Beach Hotel
  • TMZ: Dorner Visited Sport Chalet Before Killings
  • Did Dorner Have an Accomplice?
  • Ex-Deputy Chief: Dorner May Target Command Posts
  • LAPD Issues All-Clear in Reported Northridge Dorner Sighting [Video]
  • Manifesto by Manhunt Target Christopher Dorner
  • Long Beach Woman Reportedly Was Married to Dorner
  • UPDATE: $1M Reward Offered for Dorner's Arrest
  • Police: Shootings Case of Mistaken Identity
  • Dorner's Suspected Trek Through California

Stay updated with Patch for local news with our daily newsletter and breaking news alerts, and follow us (and like us) on Facebook and Twitter. 


 

John B. Greet February 17, 2013 at 05:49 PM
"I expected such an answer from a former cop." Again, when confronted with a divergent point of view you resort to dismissiveness. This is intellectually lazy and is beneath you, or should be. "This is not a secret society, partner. Some people have inside information and know what goes on inside the police ranks. The understanding that cops cover for other cops is as widespread as knowing that bears poop in the woods. The mortal sin in law enforcement is snitching off another cop. And we saw what happened to Dorner as a result." These are your perceptions...your ideas of truth...and I respect your right to hold and to voice them. But that does not make them accurate...factual...and certainly not as a general rule or factual in all cases. Like many police critics, you observe comparatively rare occasions of police misconduct and proceed to paint an entire profession with the same broad brush of condemnation. This approach is not wisdom. It is ignorance. Yes, you have the right to speak *your* truth. But your doing so does not make it *the* truth. It only makes it *your* truth and that of others who share your view. As mentioned, truth is subjective. Not all of the available facts support your subjective idea of "truth." Consider paying more attention to provable facts (as many as you can perceive) and less to only those that support your prejudices, pre-dispositions, and biases.
JustUs February 17, 2013 at 06:07 PM
"Like many police critics, you observe comparatively rare occasions of police misconduct and proceed to paint an entire profession with the same broad brush of condemnation. This approach is not wisdom. It is ignorance." You have no idea what I know or what I can prove, pal. Snap out of your denial. Smarten up.
John B. Greet February 17, 2013 at 08:28 PM
"Snap out of your denial. Smarten up." Once again you descend into rhetorical fraud. The inference being that if I disagree with you I am somehow in "denial" and need to "smarten up." Is it truly that difficult for you to simply acknowledge a divergent point of view without offering insults or seeking to impugn a person's character? I have denied *nothing* other than an agreement with your point of view. Why do you seem to feel so threatened by that? Why do you seem to need to lash out on a personal level with those who happen to disagree with you? You have your views and I have mine. I can happily live with the differences between us yet for some reason you feel the need to denigrate and besmirch. You seem to take disagreement far too personally. There is nothing personal in my disagreement with you. Why do you feel so compelled to respond in such a personal manner? Nevermind, I fear the answers are fairly moot. I am not able to help you appreciate a different, though no less reasonable, point of view. You persist in seeming to feel threatened by by this difference. I do not. Enjoy your perspectives and, I have little doubt, the last word on the matter. Be well.
John B. Greet February 17, 2013 at 08:34 PM
"Now man up." Again with the personal nature of your responses. The apparent inference being that if I dare to disagree with you I somehow need to "man up." In my experience, folks who constantly resort to offerings of insult and personal jibes really are not that confident of their own positions. Because this is so, they are not content to simply allow their facts and opinions to stand the test of objective scrutiny, so they must often lace their responses with invective, innuendo, and offerings of personal insult. Let me know if you ever get past that unfortunate habit. You seem a pretty intelligent and mature person otherwise. Good luck in your future discussions!
Sicmarc February 18, 2013 at 12:31 AM
"Why he did it is anyone's guess nor does it matter" John, just because you want America to stop discussing police corruption, the way you desire to ignore the possibility that perhaps the criminal conspiracy by lapd might have in some way caused dorner to snap, utilize his training against them, yet still doing what ever he could to avoid civilian casualties. Can you say the same about lapd? No you can't, they were blowing off rounds in neighborhoods, ramming vehicles, shooting up a lowes with dorner ever being there. Yet you think we citizens should just ignore all of this without trying to figure out a way to avoid this sort of behavior in the future? It does"matter" John. This is a very serious issue that we have the guys with the weaponry acting like they don't even have to identify a person before shooting them. I for one am concerned. A lot of people are. We want to know " why he did it". If there is truth to what dorner wrote? We would like to see those responsible punished under the same laws as any other citizen. These are very serious times and America is talking about these issues in way like I have never seen before. I am wondering if America will ever be the same after watching that fire being set and listening that audio.
BTB February 18, 2013 at 12:53 AM
4:52 pm on Sunday, February 17, 2013 I know there are some ethical police officer. On the same note, there are some that aren't. Fact is, every officer is a reflection of the department they work for. Below are just (2) two sites that reflect the limited incidents that ever make the press. In no way do I condone the actions of Dorner. I do understand his frustration. I will also never condone the actions of any other officer that willfully violates the oath they took. What amazes me is how law enforcement and ex-law enforcement continually minimize and lie about what goes on. And they (LE) wonder why people don't trust them. http://www.policemisconduct.net and http://policethugs.com
BTB February 18, 2013 at 05:27 AM
I will not debate that what Dorner did was wrong. In time Dorner will be forgotten about while the problems he addressed within law enforcement agencies will continue to get worse.
JustUs February 18, 2013 at 06:05 AM
"We want to know " why he did it". If there is truth to what dorner wrote?" When he wrote his manifesto Dorner was a dead man walking. LAPD held a straight flush (since power settles everything) and Dorner called them. Dorner already knew the outcome. He had no reason to lie at that point. The cards were already dealt, the chips were bet and and the hand played. The only thing remaining was the shouting. Dorner felt egregiously wronged. A man with his stellar background would not have acted out unless those feelings were legitimate and had merit. His tolerance level was surpassed. His raged boiled over and the rest is history. I maintain that he is not the only man with blood on his hands here. IMO the ones holding the straight flush have a high degree of moral culpability that they will never 'cop' to. Immoral people do not admit to immoral acts. You are asking Frankenstein to take responsibility and apologize for his wrongdoings. It won't happen. Save yourself the aggravation of expecting it and living in disappointment. The fish has rotted from the head to the tail. You cannot 'unrot' a fish. It is what it is. Enjoy your evening.
JustUs February 18, 2013 at 06:11 AM
"In time Dorner will be forgotten about while the problems he addressed within law enforcement agencies will continue to get worse." This is what happens when empires decline. Those who hold positions in society that require the highest levels of integrity are as dirty as pigs rolling in the slop. Look at DC. Look at the State Capital. Look at the Catholic Church. Look at law enforcement. The beacons of integrity have collapsed. I would suggest to all > propogate the species at the risk of your own offspring. It won't get any better from here. God bless to all.
BTB February 18, 2013 at 03:06 PM
To John B. Greet ...7:43 am on Sunday, February 17, 2013 ...."he chose to resort to unlawful violence to impose his own definition of "justice" upon others. He chose to deny his many victims the very sort of due process that he claimed he, himself, had been denied." Sounds like you are talking about most law enforcement officers. I would ask you how many times you crossed that line in your own career, but, to get an honest answer would never happen.
John B. Greet February 18, 2013 at 04:10 PM
BTB: I will always offer an answer to anyone who offers a sincere and respectful question. This is what is known as common courtesy and I do my best to employ it whenever possible. I will happily answer you but there is never any guarantee that you will like the answers you receive. Professional police officers (PPO's) (which I believe to be in the vast majority) do not "resort to unlawful violence to impose (their) own definition of 'justice' upon others." PPO's do not use unlawful force at all or impose "justice" upon anyone. The force a PPO uses is authorized by law and it is only that which is necessary to bring a person into lawful custody so that he or she may have access to our justice system so as to answer any charges brought against him or her. Abusive cops exist. Like abusive doctors and lawyers, I believe abusive cops are in the vast minority in their profession and I believe they should be rooted out and booted from law enforcement as quickly as humanly possible. Anytime a cop commits misconduct it is wrong and, when proven, should be swiftly and severely punished, both as a violation of public trust as well as a clear message to others who may also be so inclined. As a PPO, I never used excessive force against anyone. Such a thing was alleged, of course, but no such complaint was ever sustained against me. You are free to accept this as an honest answer or not, as you choose. Any lack of acceptance, however, will not serve to falsify my claim.
John B. Greet February 18, 2013 at 04:30 PM
Thanks, Tim. This is the entire gist of my thesis. Thank you for perceiving it clearly. That there are mitigating and exacerbating factors surrounding and permeating this very tragic story is clear and stating that is, I think, nothing more than stating the painfully obvious. *My* point is as you have perceived it. Others have their points as well, equally valid and worthy of consideration, when appropriate, within the contexts of the various news articles and opinion pieces in which they are offered. Dorner clearly believed he had been wronged. This does not mean that he was correct in his belief. A court of law may well have found that Dorner *could* have been correct, but for this to have legal significance he had to be able to prove it to a well-established *objective* standard. This Dorner had *not* been able to do, neither during internal hearings, his civil court case, nor his court-filed appeal. Dorner could not prove his case. At that point he had essentially two options: 1. Accept the judgements of the court (which, btw, he *agreed to do* when he filed his case and his appeal) or take the law into his own hands and resort to unlawful force to impose his personal idea of justice upon others. Dorner chose the latter and became a vigilante. Dorner murdered four people and injured several others, none of whom had one thing to do with his firing from LAPD. There can be no excusing or understanding his choice. Not for anyone who is rational.
John B. Greet February 18, 2013 at 04:48 PM
Sic: Your assumption that I "want America to stop discussing police corruption" is entirely false. I think it is critical that we *never* stop discussing police corruption and seeking new and more effective ways to prevent and combat it. I am interested in ignoring no aspect of this story and I have never once done so. What seems missing from some folks' discussion, however, is a clear undersanding of context. In the context of whether it was right, understandable, or excusable for Dorner to have taken the actions he did, his stated reasons have no significance. Because there is *no* reason that would justify what he did, discussing them in that context is pointless. In the context of sometimes flawed and failing systems of justice, Dorner's alleged treatment has huge sugnificance. Acknowledged. In the context of the greater law enforcement profession, the existence, however limited, of corrupt cops has huge significance. Acknowledged. Those and other topics are well-worthy of discussion in the proper context. In the context of whether Dorner was right to do what he did, or whether what he did can be understood rationally or excused, those other topics are *not* worthy of discussion. What Dorner did was wrong. His reasons for doing it cannot possibly make what he did less wrong, more acceptable, or more understandable.
John B. Greet February 19, 2013 at 05:51 PM
"Dorner felt egregiously wronged. A man with his stellar background would not have acted out unless those feelings were legitimate and had merit." On what facts do you base this conclusion? Have you never met an otherwise respectable person who went left-rudder and chose to become a criminal? Have you never read even one of the many news stories of people with no criminal history or indication of mental or emotional illness who suddenly snapped and began to kill people? Why do you assume that Dorner was not just such a person? Dorner believed he was wronged. He appealed his discipline (agreeing to be bound by the findings of that system of review) and he lost. He filed a wrongful termination lawsuit (agreeing to be bound by the findings of that *independent* system of review) and he lost again. He appealed the court's decision (agreeing to be bound by the findings of *that* independent system of review) and he lost *again*. A balanced, rational, person with a "stellar" background would find some way to move on with his life in a productive manner. Other fired cops have managed to do so. Dorner chose otherwise. To claim that Dorner would not have acted out unless his feelings were legitimate and had merit is to ignore the facts as we know them. It is to seek to excuse his acts because, well, gee, he had a stellar background! Sure, he had a stellar background, right up until he started his murder spree.
JustUs February 19, 2013 at 06:14 PM
"On what facts do you base this conclusion?" Years and years of evaluating human behavior. "Have you never met an otherwise respectable person who went left-rudder and chose to become a criminal?" Exceedingly rare. "Have you never read even one of the many news stories of people with no criminal history or indication of mental or emotional illness who suddenly snapped and began to kill people?" Most are crimes of passion. But, again, exceedingly rare. "Why do you assume that Dorner was not just such a person?" The same reason that I expect not to win when I purchase a lottery ticket. Any more questions? The rest of your stuff is not worth my time to respond to. You are like an old broken phonograph. Come back when you have new material. Until then, so long...........
John B. Greet February 19, 2013 at 06:32 PM
"Years and years of evaluating human behavior." I asked upon what *facts* you based your conclusion. Your personal evaluations may not be accurate and, therefore, may also not be factual. I'll further clarify, on what objective, provable, facts do you base your conclusion? "Exceedingly rare." In your personal experience, perhaps. I will even concede that you might be honest in your claim. All this may mean, however, is that your personal experience is very limited. In the context of the entirety of human experience, I suggest that such occurrences are not nearly so rare as your own experience may inform you. "Most are crimes of passion. But, again, exceedingly rare." And again, perhaps rare according to your personal experience but not according to the totality of human experience. Perhaps you should consider expanding your research a bit. Who is to say Dorner's crimes were not primarily motivated by passion? He was certainly passionate throughout his rambling manifesto. Despite the calculated nature of his threats, those he actually killed had nothing to do with his grievances, and yet he murdered them from ambush anyway. Are these the acts of a dispassionate person? "The same reason that I expect not to win when I purchase a lottery ticket." Your analogy is specious. The lottery is entirely random (so long as one plays). There exist many non-random facts surrounding Dorner and his actions. Consider avoiding replacing logic and discernment with chance.
JustUs February 19, 2013 at 06:53 PM
"I asked upon what *facts* you based your conclusion. Your personal evaluations may not be accurate and, therefore, may also not be factual." The facts are already outlined in Dorner's background, clean record, successes and lack of run in's with those in authority, and the facts provided in his termination case and normal disciplinary methods (or lack thereof) that police agencies normally administer for similar offenses. I used my years of experience in evaluating human behavior to assimilate these facts and draw a logical conclusion based upon the facts we have. That's what humans do. You act as if your theory is 100%. Trust me, it's far from it. And it's time you acknowledged it. "All this may mean, however, is that your personal experience is very limited." You could be speaking about yourself here. Go find a mirror. "Who is to say Dorner's crimes were not primarily motivated by passion?" I was speaking of crimes of passion involving lovers or between those with familial ties. You cannot, in good faith, compare those crimes to the ones committed by Dorner in which he took on one of the largest police departments in the nation (world). The latter would not commit such an act without extreme hostility over a sense of being wronged and having his life destroyed. People are fired everyday but do not commit such acts. Dorner felt betrayed. And there was a high, high probability that he was. "Your analogy is specious." Mirror.
John B. Greet February 19, 2013 at 07:18 PM
Your conclusion, that "(a) man with his stellar background would not have acted out unless those feelings were legitimate and had merit", is not supported by a review of the facts surrounding only his personal background. Such a conclusion would require objective, provable facts surrounding other persons of similar background who have committed similar acts. You have not claimed to have conducted such a comparison. My challenge is with your choice of "would" rather than "may" or "might". What you conclude "may" be true, but you cannot possibly know it "would" be true absent considerable independently-reviewed study. You have not claimed to have conducted such a study nor gathered such objectively proven facts in comparison. What you *have* done is drawn a definitive conclusion with no independent, provable, comparative facts upon which to base it. You seem content with these sort of slip-shod, ad-hoc pronouncements. You apparently have that luxury. Unlike you, I have *not* drawn any conclusions as to how someone with a stellar background might have acted based upon the legitimacy or merits of his feelings. The only thesis (not conclusion) I have offered is that one has no right to employ unlawful force against others to impose one's personal view of justice upon them. "And there was a high, high probability that he was." On what provable, objective facts do you base *this* conclusion?
JustUs February 19, 2013 at 07:31 PM
You demand proof. Yet you cannot disprove anything I've said or prove anything that you've alluded to. You appear to just another biased ex-cop who looks at one small piece of the pie and then conclude that the rest of the pie must be exactly the same without any examination whatsoever. I think this might be why so many investigations get botched....they call it 'group think'. Sort of like playing with the facts to fit the story. The story comes first followed by the facts. heh. Mirror.
John B. Greet February 19, 2013 at 08:27 PM
"Yet you cannot disprove anything I've said..." It is not the place of the challenger to disprove an assertion, it is the place of the person making the assertion, once challenged, to offer objectively verifiable facts to support it. You have persistently failed to do so. I may very well agree with much of what you have said (and, how would you know, because I have never said one way or the other), but all intelligent and rational beings, of who I am aware, require proof of the accuracy of an assertion in the form of facts that support it. In truth, what you are asserting is your *opinion*, just as what I asserted in my own column is a thesis. "Yet you cannot...prove anything that you've alluded to." I have offered no proof of my thesis because no one has asked that I do so. You have already conceded, several times, that you agree. No one, least of all you, has *asked* me for proof. All you have said in response was, in essence: "yes, but..." or "I agree, however..." On 2/16 @ 1013am you wrote: "I agree that Dorner did the inexcusable. No doubt about it. Dorner was a murderer. I am an honest man and I will agree with that 100%." Where is my requirement for proof in the face of your agreement? I am not in the least concerned with how I "appear" to you. I have ignored no aspect of this tragic story. This is just your repeated and entirely false accusation. An accusation which you, again, fail to offer any facts to support.
JustUs February 19, 2013 at 08:49 PM
"I am not in the least concerned with how I "appear" to you. I have ignored no aspect of this tragic story. This is just your repeated and entirely false accusation. An accusation which you, again, fail to offer any facts to support." There is a great deal of effort that goes into hiding the truth by many government agencies. The truth fights to reach the surface but it's constantly beaten down by those who specialize in suppressing it. So if many FACTS are hidden from the public's view we can only employ the FACTS that we have on hand. And the FACTS exposed to the public, as I have read them, provide ample cause to believe that Dorner's manifesto contained important elements of truth that indicate he was wronged - and when one fills in the gaps with what we, as individuals and as a society, know to be true about human behavior, and what we know about how police department normally handle disciplinary matters re: 'filing false reports', there is a preponderance of evidence which shows major blame to BOTH sides of the equation here. But it's convenient for both sides to point fingers at one another and absolve themselves from blame. In Dorner's case we know the preponderance of evidence at this time shows he committed some pretty heinous murders. So I will point my finger at BOTH sides. So far I only see point the finger at ONE side when there is ample evidence that the side you seem to favor lit the fuse and pushed a man with a stellar background (cont)
JustUs February 19, 2013 at 08:53 PM
(cont) and history with no apparent disciplinary problems over the deep end, based on a case in which he apparently snitched off another cop, which most informed people understand is a mortal sin within the police ranks. That's my belief. I have mine. You have yours. You won't change mine unless you offer more FACTS that prove my beliefs wrong. And from what I've seen, you can't. So until you have new facts no more reason to discuss the matter. I think we've covered it A to Z. Enjoy your day.
John B. Greet February 19, 2013 at 09:48 PM
"There is a great deal of effort that goes into hiding the truth by many government agencies." There are also a great deal of legal safeguards in place that assist the people in uncovering the truth and preventing any unlawful obfuscation. "So if many FACTS are hidden from the public's view we can only employ the FACTS that we have on hand." How do you prove that any facts are being hidden in this case? The investigations are still in progress. Facts are still being collected and analyzed. Why consider the few facts that are currently available prematurely under the pretext that we might not have access to more later on? Why not allow the investigations to *conclude* and the recommendations to be offered based upon the totality of the facts collected, rather than leaping to false conclusions based upon limited facts? "...that indicate he was wronged" Indicate to you...perhaps to some...but not to others. "...and when one fills in the gaps with what we, as individuals and as a society, know to be true about human behavior, and what we know about how police department normally handle disciplinary matters re: 'filing false reports'..." In other words, fill in gaps of *fact* with conjecture and supposition. This is not the path to knowledge or wisdom. It is the path to ignorance. You already agreed with my thesis. You did not require any proof before doing so. Perhaps I tend to be a bit more...circumspect...in my considerations. Enjoy yours as well!
JustUs February 19, 2013 at 10:13 PM
"There are also a great deal of legal safeguards in place that assist the people in uncovering the truth and preventing any unlawful obfuscation." You mean like the Police Officer Bill of Rights??? heh. :^) "The investigations are still in progress." That's always a good one that makes me laugh. In other words "If we delay this long enough the emotions will die down and the peasants will forget all about it. So lets have a real long investigation and hide the facts from view and use the short human memory as our ally". heh. :^) "You already agreed with my thesis." No. I did not agree with all. Only a small part. In fact, if you played by the rules you want me to play by you would not conclude that Dorner committed murder because he was never convicted. Basically you are telling me not to rush to judgment with my thesis when that's apparently what you've done with yours. How can you prove that Dorner murdered anyone at this point in time? Are you one of the investigators with inside information? Sometimes I get the impression that some folks think they are are chatting with 3rd graders instead of adults who have actually participated in a diversity of human experiences and picked up information along the way. Break time.
John B. Greet February 19, 2013 at 10:34 PM
"You mean like the Police Officer Bill of Rights?" No, I mean like State and Federal FOIA laws and the right of people to elect County Sheriffs and local government representatives who, in turn, appoint, Chiefs of Police. The people -as represented by a majority of the electors and rightly constrained by the rule of law- remain in control of government, not the converse. That most folks seemto forget this or fail to act upon it cannot rightly be laid at the feet of the federal, State, or local governments they seem so willing to tolerate. "If we delay this long enough the emotions will die down and the peasants will forget all about it." No, meaning that we should never use emotion as a basis to enact or react to public policy. Laws should, as far as possible, be based in reason and in logic, and not in emotion. There are no peasants in a constitutional republic. There is only the people, and the governments they create or, through their apathy or inattention, allow to exist. "No. I did not agree with all. Only a small part." My thesis: There is *no justification* for a person to use unlawful force to impose his perception of justice upon others. Your comment: "I agree that Dorner did the *inexcusable*. No doubt about it. Dorner was a murderer. I am an honest man and I will agree with that 100%." You agreed with my thesis and that Dorner is a murderer. Thank you for having done so. (more)
John B. Greet February 19, 2013 at 10:44 PM
"How can you prove that Dorner murdered anyone at this point in time?" How can you? Because, as you may recall, you freely acknowledged that he is a murderer. Also, a person may be considered a murderer even though having never been convicted for that crime. Was Hitler ever convicted of the crime of murder? Do you deny that he was, in fact, a murderer? Still, if the lack of criminal conviction is troubling you I will happily amend any comment along those lines to include the term "alleged". Feel better? Sometimes I get the impression that some folks consider information as if they are 3rd graders instead of adults who should consider the information they may have experienced along the way in proper context with other factual information that is available or may reasonably become available, whether they personally experience it or not. The path of knowledge is circuitous and not all factual information is available first-hand. To avoid ignorance, one must be willing to be patient...to consider information in context...to seek and consider objectively verifiable facts, rather than merely adhere to one person's or another's entirely subjective (and thoroughly disputable) idea of "truth".
JustUs February 19, 2013 at 10:50 PM
"No, I mean like State and Federal FOIA laws..." Those are worthless while an investigation is ongoing. Perhaps that's why LAPD just intiated an investigation into Dorner's termination. To circumvent FOIA requests that would be rejected since an investigation is ongoing. heh. It's laughable that LAPD is doing it's own investigation. That stinks to high heaven. heh. "No, meaning that we should never use emotion as a basis to enact or react to public policy." heh. You mean like cops screaming "Burn the mother********* down"? Emotion like that? heh. "There are no peasants in a constitutional republic." I feel like I am chatting with an automoton. "My thesis: There is *no justification* for a person to use unlawful force to impose his perception of justice upon others." You added a ton of other ingredients to your thesis recipe. And you failed to add some incredients that produced the final outcome. I accepted those as part of your thesis as well. And most of that I rejected. I will wait for Part 2. But you never explained how you could conclude that Dorner is a murderer if he wasn't convicted in a court of law? How could you assume that as part of your thesis? I will wait.
John B. Greet February 19, 2013 at 11:04 PM
"Those are worthless while an investigation is ongoing." Here's a novel idea...wait for the investigations to conclude. Gasp! "It's laughable that LAPD is doing it's own investigation. That stinks to high heaven." It's laughable that you are complaining. LAPD didn't *have* to do any review at all! Their due processes on Dorner had long since been concluded. Also the wrongful termination suit. Also the appeal of the wrongful termination suit. Dorner lost his appeals at every turn, even in the courts...twice. When he ran out of appeals, he became a vigilante and decided to use unlawful force to impose his own ideas of justice upon others who had nothing to do with his firing. "You mean like cops screaming "Burn the mother********* down"? Emotion like that?" No, because I do not believe that was an example of using emotion to enact public policy. The officers' language was not professional. Conceded. The cabin didn't burn because of emotion. It burned because Dorner refused to come out when ordered to, even after they tried non-flammable means to coax him out. Dorner gave them no choice and he died at his own hand like the coward I believe he ultimately proved himself to be. "I accepted those as part of your thesis as well. And most of that I rejected." I cannot be responsible for what you "accepted". I stated my thesis directly, several times. Your misuderstanding is not my responsibility. Own it...for once.
JustUs February 19, 2013 at 11:15 PM
"Here's a novel idea...wait for the investigations to conclude. Gasp!" You know how that game is played, pal. heh. Let's chat with one another like grown adults, alright? ;^) Don't insult what intelligence I have. "LAPD didn't *have* to do any review at all!" Stop being redundant. I already addressed the intention of the investigation. Answer it or avoid it. Your choice. "No, because I do not believe that was an example of using emotion to enact public policy." Seriously, how do you come up with these answers anyway? heh. :^) "I stated my thesis directly, several times." Basically you addressed the color green in the rainbow while ignoring the other 6 colors. heh. Thesis? Call it what you want. I've got another name for it. Okay, this horse has been kicked enough. See ya.
John B. Greet February 19, 2013 at 11:37 PM
"Don't insult what intelligence I have." No one can insult you unless you give them that sort of power over your emotions. I neither desire such power nor offered any insult. "I already addressed the intention of the investigation. No, you addressed what you *believe* to be the intention of the investigation. Your belief does not suffice to prove your comment true. Offer some facts to support your belief, then perhaps we can discuss that like intelligent adults. "Basically you addressed the color green in the rainbow while ignoring the other 6 colors. heh. Thesis? Call it what you want. I've got another name for it." You can append whatever name you like to my thesis. Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of the term. Consider looking it up, won't you? Perhaps a little more knowledge will help to clear things up for you on this score. A thesis can be as limited or as broad as *the person proposing it* prefers. The broader the thesis, the more proofs required. I like to keep my theses narrow and tightly-focused for just the very reason you have so ably illustrated. Some folks are far too easily distracted by extraneous information and, particularly, by their own subjective agendas and biases. A narrow thesis statement generally helps to avoid such distractions. Generally. As we have seen, though, some folks have far more difficulty focusing than others. Ciao!

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »