Women delivering newspapers shot in manhunt for ex-cop

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Two women who were shot by Los Angeles police in Torrance early Thursday during a massive manhunt for an ex-LAPD officer were delivering newspapers, sources said.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...omen-shot.html

This was the headline and lead for the article, but the real story is this (what the heck was the newspaper thinking!?):

Local, state and federal authorities are involved in a massive search for Christoper Jordan Dorner, 33, a former Los Angeles Police Department officer who threatened "unconventional and asymmetrical warfare" against police in an online manifesto, and was suspected of shooting three police officers, one of whom died, early Thursday in Riverside County.

In other words, it seems that law enforcement in the area is freaking out - probably justifiably - over a rogue ex-cop who wants to go out in a blaze of violence and has the knowledge and supplies to make it happen.

[LadyLockeout]

The guy they're after does sound pretty whacked.

http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-c...1360213161.pdf

What's going to be done about them shooting the women though?

[lord_feldon]

The LA Times has at least eight articles on "the real story":

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ve-ex-cop.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...-lapd-cop.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...x-cop-ff-.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ly-ambush.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...d-victims.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...on-guard-.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...alifornia.html

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lano...ds-to-die.html

There may be more. These are just the ones linked to on the front page.

[GenYus234]

I'm thinking two women being shot for (at least according to the lack of other detail in the article) driving a vehicle similar to a wanted vehicle is a pretty big story too.

[Stan The Man]

A bit more detail:

Police also were on edge Thursday around the area, including in Torrance, where Los Angeles police Chief Charlie Beck said LAPD officers guarding one of Dorner's alleged targets mistakenly opened fire on a blue pickup truck that resembled one Dorner is said to be driving.

Not that that justifies it, but if the cops are guarding a house, someone with a similar vehicle drives by and throws something towards the house...

[Wintermute]

Originally Posted by LadyLockeout

The guy they're after does sound pretty whacked.

He doesn't sound whacked at all. He sounds as if he is very angry and feels betrayed by the system. He's not talking about magical thinking or voices in his head or any other form of mental disorders.

He sounds like a man who was pushed past his limit by the system. Now who knows if he complaint is legit or not. Some of his complaints are pretty common complaints of LA pd.

If it turns out that he really didn't lie and lost both jobs then shame on the system. It doesn't justify what he is doing but I can understand a man being pushed to far.

Personally I would rather go after a whack job then a person like this. A person like this has thought it out, has a plan, and is VERY dangerous.

[Little Pink Pill]

Originally Posted by A Turtle Named Mack

In other words, it seems that law enforcement in the area is freaking out - probably justifiably

They really are, and I get it, but seriously, they need to stop charging around like chickens with their heads cut off. They shot at a third innocent civilian after deliberately plowing head on into his truck. Thankfully they missed both the driver and any number of neighbors who could have been hit.

Apparently the suspect's actual truck has been found burning in the mountains, so pickup owners all over Southern California can breath a sigh of relief.

[erwins]

Originally Posted by GenYus234

I'm thinking two women being shot for (at least according to the lack of other detail in the article) driving a vehicle similar to a wanted vehicle is a pretty big story too.

Seriously. Two women being shot by panicking police officers is a big and important story. The manhunt is also a big story. Luckily there is space in the paper for both stories.

Originally Posted by Stan The Man

Not that that justifies it, but if the cops are guarding a house, someone with a similar vehicle drives by and throws something towards the house...

Even if it had been the guy they were looking for, you can't justifiably shoot someone for throwing a newspaper at a house, even if the person is considered armed and dangerous. IOW, the police should not be shooting anyone who isn't actually imminently committing violence. If you can't tell what's happening, you shouldn't be shooting at anyone.

I totally get why they are freaking out, but seriously, they need to dial it back a couple of notches.

[crocoduck_hunter]

I don't really want to use something like this to score political points, but it does illustrate something rather important when it comes to gun control: we've got trained police officers who are panicking and shooting innocent civilians which really ought to drive home the problem of thinking that just giving people guns will make everyone safer.

[Alarm]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

I don't really want to use something like this to score political points, but it does illustrate something rather important when it comes to gun control: we've got trained police officers who are panicking and shooting innocent civilians which really ought to drive home the problem of thinking that just giving people guns will make everyone safer.

Seconded!

After the shooting, the blue pickup was riddled with bullet holes and what appeared to be newspapers lay in the street alongside.

When the cops are going around, shooting up the scenery like a Michael Bay movie, you can't count on civilians to do any better.

[diddy]

No, but this doesn't help the gun control advocates either because the pro gun lobby is just going to say that we either can't trust the cops in case they go crazy, or they will just say that the cops can't be trusted in general since they are no better than a responsible gun owner.

Frankly I am more worried about the first since the cops aren't supposed to be the bad guys and we trust them with a lot of knowledge about guns.

[Little Pink Pill]

Originally Posted by diddy

No, but this doesn't help the gun control advocates either because the pro gun lobby is just going to say that we either can't trust the cops in case they go crazy, or they will just say that the cops can't be trusted in general since they are no better than a responsible gun owner.

No one would call a gun owner "responsible" for shooting blindly at a car parked on the street. But I guess no one would call a driver responsible for deliberately colliding with a truck, either.

[Wintermute]

Originally Posted by diddy

Frankly I am more worried about the first since the cops aren't supposed to be the bad guys and we trust them with a lot of knowledge about guns.

This made me a smile a bit. You know most cops don't know any more about a firearm then you do. Firearms are a small part of the job of being a police officer. Very few officers I know could be labeled as gun nuts. Most the police officers I know only shoot when they are required by the department to shoot which is a couple of hours a year.

I think people need to get the concept that police are trained firearms experts. Police officers have some training on firearms but it is just one of many skills you must learn.

Now when you get to groups such as SWAT I would say the level of expertise goes up exponentially. My friend on SWAT spend several hours per WEEK shooting and practicing vs my several hours a YEAR.

We spent more time training on first aid, legal updates, driving, etc then we every did on firearms.

[JoeBentley]

Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter

I don't really want to use something like this to score political points, but it does illustrate something rather important when it comes to gun control: we've got trained police officers who are panicking and shooting innocent civilians which really ought to drive home the problem of thinking that just giving people guns will make everyone safer.

Yeah but we need to be clear here when you're saying "trained police officer" that doesn't necessary mean the person has some massive amount of training.

In some areas it doesn't take a lot of training period to become a police officer and again in some cases a surprisingly small percent of that training is in firearms.

The idea that the police are really heavily training on guns just isn't always true. From what I've read in some cases it is a little as 40 hours of mostly classroom with a little range time weapons training before being allowed to carry a service pistol. I've only maybe had 4 or 5 weeks of trained combined in my whole military career and I'm rated as a higher marksman then this Dorner fellow who's basically going Rambo from what the news is saying. (CNN reports him as expert in pistol and marksman in rifle (FYI the military scale is Qualified-Marksman-Sharpshooter-Expert) while I qualified Expert in both.)

There seems to be this.. well inflated idea of exactly how trained the police and even the military are with their weapons when people use the "Well only police and military should have guns because they are trained" argument.

And to be perfectly blunt guns aren't that complicated. On a purely intellectual level anyone that can operate a motor vehicle or change the ringtone on their phone can operate a gun effectively.

[E. Q. Taft]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

And to be perfectly blunt guns aren't that complicated. On a purely intellectual level anyone that can operate a motor vehicle or change the ringtone on their phone can operate a gun effectively.

Well, true, in terms of picking one up and firing it (sort of like "the pointy end goes into the other man" when it comes to swords), and even learning to fire accurately at stationary targets may not be all that hard. I assume that such training as the police get is less in terms of how to fire as when to fire...along with when not to fire, what to fire at, what you do after you fire (I would assume that pretty much any bullet fired off the shooting range results in paperwork), etc. In the military, you presumably get more tactical training, but I would suppose the typical policeman only gets very basic training in this area, unless he's assigned to a SWAT-type-unit.

I'm a bit embarrassed that this suspect is someone I agree with about a number of things. According to the manifesto being circulated, we like and respect a lot of the same people (Presidents Obama, Clinton, and Bush I, Hillary Clinton, Ellen Degeneres, etc) and dislike some others (Westboro Baptist Church). (I completely disagree with his condemnation of Fareed Zakaria, though.) He also makes points in favor of stricter gun laws, noting that most if not all of the weapons he is intending to use were legally obtained, and he doesn't think that should be possible. As for his specific claims about his dismissal and the LAPD in general, I'm not in a position to judge.

But the notion that he's going to "clear his name" by killing people is a bit on the twisted side, to say the least. I hope they stop him soon -- preferably by capturing rather than killing him, but I'm skeptical about that at this point. I just hope they don't shoot anyone else. (And given my approximate size and shape, I am very glad today that I am white and have a lot of hair. And no longer drive a pickup truck.)

[erwins]

Originally Posted by JoeBentley

I've only maybe had 4 or 5 weeks of trained combined in my whole military career and I'm rated as a higher marksman then this Dorner fellow who's basically going Rambo from what the news is saying. (CNN reports him as expert in pistol and marksman in rifle (FYI the military scale is Qualified-Marksman-Sharpshooter-Expert) while I qualified Expert in both.)

There seems to be this.. well inflated idea of exactly how trained the police and even the military are with their weapons when people use the "Well only police and military should have guns because they are trained" argument.

And to be perfectly blunt guns aren't that complicated. On a purely intellectual level anyone that can operate a motor vehicle or change the ringtone on their phone can operate a gun effectively.

I think the more important training they have (and should have) is in remaining calm and rational under pressure. Whether they are using guns or fists or batons, they should be making correct decisions about what level of force is appropriate in the circumstances. It isn't about how accurate of a shot they are. It's about whether they are making a snap decision to shoot at civilians.

[A Turtle Named Mack]

Isn't the LAPD rather notorious for regularly not displaying the calmness under pressure we would hope for law enforcement officers?

[Amigone201]

Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft

I'm a bit embarrassed that this suspect is someone I agree with about a number of things.

Sorry, what's that again?

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Wintermute

He doesn't sound whacked at all. He sounds as if he is very angry and feels betrayed by the system.

The fact that his actions may stem from an understandable motivation in no way demonstrates that he's not mentally unbalanced.

He's not talking about magical thinking or voices in his head or any other form of mental disorders.

Yeah, it's not as if publishing a multi-page manifesto and going on a killing spree could be indicative of any kind of mental disorder. Apparently Ted Kaczynski was the picture of mental health as well.

[ASL]

Originally Posted by Amigone201

Sorry, what's that again?

Did you read the rest of EQT's post?