Police

Dorner Manhunt Reveals Police Contempt for Public Safety

It's sad when people are more worried about the police than they are about a murderer on the loose.

|

Police typically say that their top mission is to protect "public safety." That's the lingo. But the recently concluded manhunt for former Los Angeles Police Department officer Christopher Dorner, accused of murdering four people after releasing a manifesto decrying his 2008 firing from the force, suggests that concern about the public's actual safety sometimes is fairly low on the list of police priorities.

Last weekend, police opened fire on a 71-year-old newspaper carrier and her 47-year-old daughter who had the misfortune of driving a pick-up truck police thought might be Dorner's. The Los Angeles police detectives who opened fire on them, putting two bullets in the older woman's back, didn't do much double checking. The carriers' truck was a different make and color from Dorner's.

As the women's attorney told the Los Angeles Times: "The problem with the situation is it looked like the police had the goal of administering street justice and in so doing, didn't take the time to notice that these two older, small Latina women don't look like a large black man." This could be written off as a sad fluke, except that 25 minutes later different officers opened fire on a different truck—once again getting key details wrong. Can't officers at least check the license plate, and issue a warning, before opening fire?

"Nobody trains police officers to look for one of their own," said Maria Haberfeld, a police-training professor at John Jay College in New York, according to the Web site News One. "I wouldn't want to be in their shoes and I don't think anybody else would." We all understand the situation. But saying that we wouldn't want to be "in their shoes" is no excuse for such dangerous behavior. The police wouldn't excuse a member of the public for misusing a firearm, regardless of how stressed out that person felt.

News One also published the photograph of a gray Ford truck in the Los Angeles area with a hand-made "Don't Shoot, Not Dorner, Thank You" poster on the back window. T-shirts and bumper stickers have popped up to similar effect. Those are funny in a dark way, but police ought to recognize how poorly this reflects on them and their strategies. It's sad when people are more worried about the police than they are about a murderer on the loose.

"Simply put, the police culture in our country has changed," argued former San Jose Police Chief Joe McNamara, a Hoover Institution scholar, in a Wall Street Journal article in 2006. "An emphasis on 'officer safety' and paramilitary training pervades today's policing, in contrast to the older culture, which held that cops didn't shoot until they were about to be shot or stabbed."

Murders are sadly routine in the Los Angeles area. The massive police presence was the result of the killer targeting their own, thus leading to the reasonable conclusion that police pulled out the stops not because the public was in danger but because they were in danger. I don't blame police for their efforts, but I also understand why residents in, say, South Los Angeles, wondered why killings in their community don't rate the same attention.

With crime rates at 40-year lows, this is an opportune time for a debate about such police-priority issues free from excess emotionalism.

Media reports have focused on the rantings within Dorner's manifesto. But a lot of it is about bureaucratic indifference—about police officials who, in his mind, didn't care about the communities they are sworn to protect. Nothing justifies such violence and I'm sickened by people who are celebrating Dorner, but even the LAPD is re-opening the case of Dorner's firing. Perhaps the department will try to glean some broader lessons from this tragedy.

Currently, a case before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is evaluating the lengths to which police are required to go to protect innocent bystanders. The case involves Sacramento police who were trailing a suspect who had run from his car and then hid in a tree in a family's backyard. A police helicopter spotted him. So an officer released a police dog into the yard even though people were having a gathering in the backyard.

Police dogs are trained to bite and hold suspects, but they can't distinguish between law-abiding citizens relaxing with friends and police suspects. So Bandit attacked the first person it saw. Instead of instituting reform and settling with the family, Sacramento PD has been arguing that "officer safety" would be endangered by requiring a reasonable warning before releasing a vicious dog on private property.

It's frightening to think that police can use deadly force without taking even the most modest steps to protect innocent bystanders. It's even more frightening to hear people defend this approach. Yes, officer safety is important. But so is the public's safety. It's time to grapple with the proper balance.

NEXT: Mugabe Sets Date for Constitution Vote in Zimbabwe

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. They weren’t acting in malice. They were scared of newspapers.

    1. Even if they were acting in malice, all they have to say is they “felt” threatened and all will be fine. After all, and “reasonable” officer would have reacted the same way, and since what a “reasonable” officer would do is the threshold to uphold any police action, that’s what their report is gonna read like.

      Besides, the taxpayers can just write these women a blank check and all will be fine. There’s no reason to hold the officers or their department personally responsible for the actions of their members.

    2. Like my dog? No wonder Dorner was shooting them. Once a cop…

    3. up to I looked at the receipt which said $5735, I didn’t believe that…my… neighbours mother was like they say truley making money part-time on their apple laptop.. there uncles cousin started doing this 4 less than twelve months and just now cleard the debts on their villa and bought a great Chrysler. read more at, http://www.snag4.com

  2. The carriers’ truck was a different make and color from Dorner’s.

    Colors and Numbers ARE HARD! Have a lil respect for people with learning disabilities.

    1. It’s not these cops’ fault that they weren’t properly trained. Obviously, a $4 million color and number research and education department will have to be set up withing the police department. Officers will be tested on their colors and numbers and receive double overtime for all classes and testing. Officers that fail the colors and numbers test will have to repeat the training at quadruple overtime with specially trained tutors hired from the professor pool at UCLA.

      They’re taking a tough stance on this ‘colors and numbers’ thing.

  3. “Nobody trains police officers to look for one of their own,” said Maria Haberfeld, a police-training professor

    That just screams for a fucking federal law!

    1. Looking for “one of their own” is different than looking for anyone else?

      Let that mask slip!

      1. We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Police State…

    2. Police
      Among you hide
      So skilled, such pros, trainees
      Of Milford Academy: nor
      Seen, heard.

      1. this is why I hate poetry.

        1. Because of the police?

          1. Because of the poetry police.

            1. Almost as bad as these guys.

            2. The poetry police, they get inside of your head…

      2. Anyong?!

  4. The LAPD seemed to be on a mission to prove how little they give a fuck about anyone but themselves. Shooting up random civilians, killing the suspect like hit men, and stiffing people for the reward.

    A hundred “fuck-you’s” wouldn’t have been any clearer/

    1. Don’t forget blatantly lying about wanting to burn up the shack Dorner was hiding in.

      They’re default is to lie about the situation, even when they’re caught red handed and have no reason to lie because no one gives a shit anyway.

      That’s got to be a red flag for even the most dedicated cop-sucker.

      1. LAPD has its many faults, but it it was San Bernardino PD that handled the execution.

        1. Are you sure? The news made it sound like they surrounded the place and waited for LAPD SWAT to fly in and kill him.

    2. They’ve been on that mission for decades. It’s why they have riots from time to time.

      -jcr

  5. Those are funny in a dark way, but police ought to recognize how poorly this reflects on them and their strategies. It’s sad when people are more worried about the police than they are about a murderer on the loose.

    Do you think for a second they give a fuck? Read the comments on PoliceOne, where one must verify their police credentials before posting. It’s obvious that they place our safety a distant second to their own. Hell I’ve seen more than one comment that their K-9’s safety is more important than that of a “civilian.”

    1. Occupation armies aren’t typically interested in the well-being of the locals. They just want peace and compliance so they have less paperwork to deal with.

    2. Read the comments on PoliceOne, where one must verify their police credentials before posting.

      I think it is great that it can be read by the public.

      Not allowing ‘civilians’ delivers two benefits:
      – they don’t have to spend time & effort justifying themselves, can speak from the heart
      – they can’t claim that agent provocateurs/fifth columnists are intentionally ruining their image and/or reputation

      1. Yes, but we’ve been assured routinely that the words of those actual officers is not what cops really believe.

        It’s akin to saying Balloon Juice commentators are not indicative of far-left progressives or infowars commentators are not indicative of far-right nutballs.

        1. the words of those actual officers is not what cops really believe

          Only those cops who take the trouble expressing their beliefs.

          I was Googling Donna Watts, the FHP trooper who busted that MPD cop speeding. I wound up on a Canadian police chat site (I can’t recall the name of it offhand). Let’s say a half a dozen cops were having a discussion: one was reasonable (thought that she did the right thing by arresting him, even at gunpoint), around three thought that she was full of shit but expressed this just by accusing her of “lack of professional courtesy” and a couple of them were hopping mad, calling her all names and essentially taking the position that she’s a traitor to the brotherhood. It was very educational.

          1. 99% of cops give the rest a bad name.

      2. they can’t claim that agent provocateurs/fifth columnists are intentionally ruining their image and/or reputation

        I have to agree that allowing them to ruin their own reputation is a bonus.

        OTOH, I would like Cops to have to answer direct questions without a script written by the Media Office.

      3. Not allowing ‘civilians’ delivers two benefits:
        – they don’t have to spend time & effort justifying themselves, can speak from the heart
        – they can’t claim that agent provocateurs/fifth columnists are intentionally ruining their image and/or reputation

        I actually agree with this. Makes it a more direct route to the gallows with their comments.

    3. So, how did you verify your police “credentials”? Or do you really have them, in which case how are we to read the comments?

      1. “Civilians” can read the site, well most of it. But their admins require verification that one is a police officer/fed/corrections officer to register and comment. No way are these trolls.

    4. I’m pretty sure the word “civilian” in America means what “gook” or “hajji” means in other contexts.

  6. Until the police unions are abolished, qualified immunity is done away with and we have true civilian oversight there will never be equal protection or common-sense policing on America’s streets.

    You give people the right to place themselves above the law and that’s exactly what they will do.

    1. How many times has dunphy explained, there is no double standard. hth

      1. needs less proper punctuation and capitols

      2. smooches

        troll-o-meter

        0.1

        ive given you NUMEROUS pvas in the past and ydstgi that there is no ds regarding peace officers.

        once when i was walking the beat in BAGHDAD as a sfas we came upon a man wamd and the aad and was taken down. my partner who was a oppp was later decapitated by DB COOPER was made to attend sotss at his own cost. and you say there is a ds, guess you have to impress the BIGORATI somehow.

        1. for all those not in the law enforcement community:

          pva – police verified anecdotes

          ydstgi – you don’t seem to get it

          ds – double standard

          sfas – special forces army seal

          wamd – with a mean dog

          aad – assault attack dog

          oppp – olympic ping pong player

          sotss – sadistic officer therapy sessions

          hth

          1. That’s not gonna play well with either the sheepdog crowd or the unmitigated force for good crowd either. I’d advise watching your 6 regardless what your 20 is.

            1. We have a sheepdog crowd around here?

              1. The correct response to the sheepdog thing is to point out that sheepdogs protect sheep not for their own benefit, but for the benefit of the sheppard. When the sheppard decides it’s time to slaughter the sheep, the sheepdog will happily stand by while he does so.

  7. …former Los Angeles Police Department officer Christopher Dorner, accused of murdering four people…

    Dorner only murdered two real people. The others were just some kids.

  8. The irony of the situation is that Dorner would have fit perfectly in with the LAPD. It’s just his misfortune that he ratted on one of his own.

    1. Did you read his manifesto? He didn’t fit in at all. For example he was sickened that officers would intentionally allow people bleed to death because it meant overtime. He actually thought that they should help people. Can you believe it?
      No, he didn’t fit in one bit. He fancied himself to be a peace officer, but found himself in a sea of law enforcement.

      1. Yeah but a lot of coppers say they want to serve and protect but act differently once behind the badge. Dorner killed innocent people, despite what was in his manifesto.

        1. If you had read the manifesto you would know why he killed those people. I’m not trying to excuse what he did, but I do understand his point of view.

            1. Dorner is our father?

          1. I understand his anger. I will never understand his actions.

            In the age of the internet, he could have found a willing audience in any number of places. And if his stories are true, which I tend to believe they are, there eventually would have been an upswell of support for him and his crusade.

            The man was wronged, but he was also a piece of shit murderous bastard and I hope he burns in hell.

            1. I will never understand his actions.

              He had nothing to lose. His life was, in his eyes, over. Everything he had worked for was gone. He had lost hope. He didn’t care anymore. He gave up. So he got some revenge before committing suicide by cop.

              1. The daughter/husband goes beyond “reasonable” revenge. But I can “understand” someone being in that mind frame, just like I’m not just completely puzzled by the concept of a rabid dog.

                1. The daughter/husband goes beyond “reasonable” revenge.

                  I agree. They did not deserve to be punished for what someone else did. However the father will pay for the rest of his life for the wrong he did to Dorner. I understand Dorner’s point of view. I don’t agree, but I understand.

      2. Unfortunately his message was entirely fucked up by his actions.

        He railed against excessive force by ratcheting up the excessive force to factor 11.

        1. Yep. He took what could have been a legitimate discussion of the LAPD’s contempt for the people they “serve”, and turned it into the ravings of a mad man.

  9. I believe that one reason the cops were so eager to execute Dorner was that there was no way he would be allowed to testify in court. No way in Hell.

    If he had been allowed to flesh out the allegations he made in his manifesto, well, I don’t know what would have happened. Public trust is already swirling in the shitter. That would have flushed it completely down the tubes.

    1. I agree totally. This man was never going to see the inside of a courtroom.

      As to public trust, do you really think they give a fuck about public trust when public fear is so much more effective?

      Simple test: when you see a police car pull into traffic behind you, do you A) feel more nervous, B) feel safer or C) not feel any change?

    2. What was in his manifesto would never, NEVER enter the trial record: it’s completely irrelevant. The only thing that would come up at his trial is this: did he kill those people? Not why. Never why.

      1. A defendant on the stand is pretty much allowed to say what he wants, within very broad parameters having mostly to do with wasting the judge’s time.

        A defendant testifying about his motivation? He’d get hours of quality time before they shut him down.

        1. This is definitely not true when the federal government charges medical marijuana sellers with a federal drug crime. I have read about 2 cases now where the federal judge prevented the defendants from bringing up any state laws to justify their actions. I consider this prior restraint & a violation of the 1st Amendment. If we are not allowed to exercise our First Amendment rights in a court of law, we have lost all semblance of liberty.

  10. So what would happen to me if I pulled out a pistol and capped the police dog that was attacking a family member?

    1. Likely the same thing that would happen if you pulled a pistol and capped the cop that was attacking a family member.

    2. The story of your death would fuel a comment thread here until the next AM or PM Links.

      1. His would, but I bet Episiarch’s wouldn’t last three comments before we all got bored and moved on to a Ke$ha piss-drinking thread.

        1. lol

          line = crossed

        2. That hurts, Ken. I wish I could stop delivery on that box of chocolates I sent you for Valentine’s Day now.

          1. I shudder to ask in what shape the chocolates were formed.

            1. That’s why they’re so late. Epi had to wait for the mold he made to dry completely.

              1. God damn it Hugh. Since I was going to send out your chocolates today, I can stop that. So there.

                1. you know, i like DARK chocolate…just saying. Mold aesthetics not withstanding.

                  1. You just like dark chocolate to hide our racism, you devious fuck.

                2. That’s okay. The blu-ray of Willow I pre-ordered for you is still on its way.

                  1. “Calm down, Hitler. Do you think Ron Howard just wished Willow was great? No, and yet it was.”

            2. Let’s just say that I used a mold.

        3. You know, yesterday I successfully ended the Ke$ha piss-drinking thread, only to have it fucking resurrected this morning. Why? WHY?

          1. If I have to mansplain it to you, you wouldn’t understand.

          2. Just because you quenched those comments yesterday, doesn’t mean that there isn’t a new thirst for more.

            If you keep bringing it up there will be another stream of Ke$ha comments.

            1. Get the barf bags ready!

              Ke$ha!
              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..shoot.html
              And more Ke$ha!
              http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs…..ondon.html

              1. Well, if she kills off the hipster love for PBR with that one pic, I’ll have to call her existence worthwhile.

          3. I was kinda wondering if sloopy was nicole baiting. I guess I got my answer.

          4. I…I’m glad I missed that one actually.

            1. I’m with you on that, Hugh. I used to miss the AM Links; now I avoid them like the plague.

            2. I imagine drinking Ke$ha’s piss would sort of be like the adrenochrome scene in fear and loathing.

              “Just a tiny taste…”

  11. I don’t recall any obligation for the public to protect law enforcement, especially at personal risk. But I do recall this being the very job description of law enforcement. My how things have changed.

    1. You obviously haven’t read the latest version of the Social Contract.

      1. I generally don’t pay much mind to fictions of law.

  12. A poster of awesomeness.

    http://smallestminority.blogsp…..qus_thread

  13. Who kills the killers?

  14. I think it would be awesome (in my usual depraved, perverse, hateful way) if this Dorner thing spawned dozens of incidents of cop-on-cop violence.

    1. Not me. Those fuckers are lousy shots so it would likely end up with a bunch of dead civilians and some cops in a union contract-mandated anger management class.

    2. I’d like to see citizens standing up to the police. Some cop is beating the shit out of some poor dude in handcuffs, and instead of just watching in horror, a bystander walks up and caps his sorry ass.
      Repeat.
      Over and over.
      Until the cops start treating citizens like human beings.

      1. We could set up a civilian review board to ensure their actions were in accordance with the law our arbitrary policies! And we could staff it with gang-bangers and people that were wrongly convicted.

          1. We could elect mayors, governors, legislators, and presidents who will remind cops that they are public servants. Who will put them on a leash and demand professionalism.

            1. To DREEEEAM . . . the imPOSSible DREEEEAM.. . . .

            2. Hahahahahahahahahahaha….(plus a Hillary Klinton cackle).

            3. The Federal DOJ is fully supportive of all of this police violence. “No Cop Left Behind” and all that.

  15. http://www.buzzfeed.com/seancu…..ryone-5qqa

    There is a dating site for everyone.

  16. Warren v District of Columbia has established that the cops have no statutory requirement to protect you in any way. That’s all you need to know about cops.

    1. LAPD motto: To protect (ourselves) and to serve (our self interests)

  17. Also, can we discuss how it came to be that someone like Dorner ends up as a cop in the first place? Does the force transform everyone into a crazy asshole, or do they only recruit and accept crazy assuoles?

    1. He wanted to help people. He started to the edge when he found that his brethren would rather let a shooting victim bleed out than help them because helping would mean no overtime. He stood at the brink when he saw his brethren comparing pictures of carnage over beers after work. He teetered at the edge when reported a fellow officer for assaulting someone in handcuffs, and fell off when they fired him for lying when they all knew it was the truth.

  18. No Dunphy in this thread? I’m shocked.

    1. Again, Dumby is NO cop, rather only a fan club president. All you’d hear from Dumby is some sycophantic drivel designed to feed his fantasy. Think TONY fellating Obama.

  19. And now, another episode of “Crazy Things Pigs Actually Believe”:

    joe319 on Monday, February 11, 2013 02:13 PM Pacific
    Whose side are you on? Your comment sounds like you support Dorner? Do you even have an inkling of what lead up to the shooting? Did you even try and read the facts of this? Officers were guarding the home of one of the people on Dorner’s list and see this truck matching the description coming up the road then turn its lights off and is driving on one side of the street to the other. Try for a moment to put yourself in the position of these officers who stop the truck and perhaps see the occupant bending over.

    This was just an honest mistake and if YOU, dtowndpd or any other cop haters can’t see the split second decision the officers had to make believing this was the same man who had opened fire without warning on 2 Riverside officers killing one, well then that’s just too bad. Maybe you and dtowndpd should share your ESP and supercop ways with them!

    BTW – even the women’s attorney wasn’t critical of the officers and just wants the city to do the right thing. What does that tell your narrow minds?

    http://www.policeone.com/chief…..or-Dorner/

    1. see this truck matching the description

      Err, no.

      1. I remember when the cops stopped me on a bicycle while wearing a denim jacket saying I matched the description of someone on foot in a camouflage jacket.

        It seems “description” is a pretty loose term.

        1. You were a human, right? Bipedal, right? You were wearing clothes right?

  20. this tells me that the police believe they are of a separate and superior class than the rest of the civilians. Actually I think since Obama took office there has been a trend by the elected to essentially claim themselves as a superior class. In the past they created laws to protect themselves and be treated differnently then the rest but now they are actually claiming it.

    1. This man was a nut but that does not give the cops the right to burn a man to death. isn’t there something about cruel and unusual punishment not being allowed in this country. And of course this won’t help quell the conspiracies. And does this mean that any time a person is believed to have committed a murder we can now just burn their house down no questions asked. And who ever taught the cops to use fire as a means of suppression, fire is definately a weapon of war.

        1. Comments on PoliceOne:

          Free
          Barbeque
          Inside

          After
          The
          Fire
          (FBI-ATF Waco t-shirt)

          How do you like your Dorner: fried or extra crispy?

  21. Police typically say that their top mission is to protect “public safety.”
    That’s the lingo.

    Heh heh heh. Excuse me, sir.
    Citation needed.

  22. Police typically say that their top mission is to protect “public safety.”

    That’s just the sales pitch.

  23. Just saw this quote from Jack Vance’s The Star King (allegedly; it sounds vaguely familiar, but I don’t specifically recall it):

    The police mentality cannot regard a human being in terms other than as an item or object to be processed as expeditiously as possible. Public convenience or dignity means nothing; police prerogatives assume the status of divine law. Submissiveness is demanded. If a police officer kills a civilian, it is a regrettable circumstance: the officer was possibly overzealous. If a civilian kills a police officer all hell breaks loose. The police foam at the mouth. All other business comes to a standstill until the perpetrator of this most dastardly act is found out. Inevitably, when apprehended, he is beaten or otherwise tortured for his intolerable presumption. The police complain that they cannot function efficiently, that criminals escape them. Better a hundred unchecked criminals than the despotism of one unbridled police force.

    I’d say Jack (one of my favorite authors of all time) pretty much nailed it, no?

    1. Pretty much. And with the recent (post 70’s) militarization of law enforcement and federalization of almost everything, they (police) have taken on an even more threatening posture. At no time in history has local law enforcement approached such Rohm brownshirted behavior and nights of long knives occur ever more frequently.
      Their “training” is almost all physical and their knowledge of anything of the Constitution or even local ordinances is almost always learned “on the job”. With one simple psycological test you could weed out the Dunphys AND the Dorners. Hell, by limiting their total arsenal to a S&W .38 Police Special most of the chubby dicks would resign.

    2. With a twenty pound sledge.

    3. It’s only a matter of time before the police start recruiting from prison. You know, get people who have already proven that they can kill without remorse.

  24. In the wake of the Newtown shooting, LAPD assigned officers to visit local schools to provide a visible officer presence. As soon as Dorner threatened the brass, though, officers were pulled off that duty and assigned to protect officers (and their families) named in Dorner’s manifesto.

  25. And the careless disregard for public safety continued right up through the end of this black drama.
    Recordings of police radio transmissions confirm the intention to use “burners”, police slang for the most potent tear gas which often causes fires when used to drive a suspect out of a building. The potent gas is only capable of being generated quickly through the use of chemical reactions that produce intense heat which will quickly ignite flammable furnishings and wood frame structures, such as the cabin in which Dorner took refuge.
    At the time these incendiary devices were launched police were not sure whether there were any other occupants of the “cabin”, which was a substantial size house with a basement [where Dorners burned body was later found]. Video of the event, filmed by reporters on scene and actually in the middle of the firefight, show how quickly the structure caught fire and was fully engulfed in flame. No attempt was made to enter the structure and search for occupants as ammunition could be heard “cooking off” making it too dangerous for firefighters to attempt a search for any innocent victims.
    A serious examination and public debate needs to occur with respect to the circumstances where police are lawfully permitted to use devices such as these incendiaries as they represent a clear and present danger to the general public as well as an increased financial liability on the part of the public for the all to often “accidental” damage caused by their use.

  26. Why is it that liberal ran cities have the most racist of police departments?

  27. my classmate’s aunt makes $79/hr on the computer. She has been out of a job for seven months but last month her pay check was $15402 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here http://www.FLY38.COM

  28. Wow, cosmo-fucking tarianism. Cops sometimes makes mistakes. Why are they tereated as the worst thing in the world, as if it’s some conspiracy controlled by evil “cop culture” or whatever? And the cops are supposedly “racist.” The cops who supposedly said “nigger” were mexicans anyway, I say supposedly because I don’t automatically believe the black man’s “I’m persecuted I’m gonna shoot people up” sob story the way liberals and cosmos do. The people from “sotuh Los Angles” hate cops for the same reason they hate us, they blame whites for their failures in life.

    1. Yes, they make mistakes, and if/when they are not held accountable for the “mistake”, they make it again, and again, and again.

    2. I’ll probably care more about your opinions when you learn to spell.

    3. Are you denying the existence of an evil “code-of-silence” cop culture?

  29. Kendall. if you, thought Francisco`s stori is shocking, on tuesday I bought a great new Saab 99 Turbo after making $6459 this – 5 weeks past and just a little over $10 thousand this past-month. this is really the most financialy rewarding I have ever done. I started this 8-months ago and straight away was making more than $83, p/h. I follow the details here, http://WWW.FLY38.COM

  30. Here’s an interesting calculation:
    12 cops guarding each target x 24 hours a day x 50 targets = 14400 man hours.
    7000 total LAPD officers x (40 hours per week / 7 days) = 40000 man hours per day.
    14400 / 40000 = 36%

    36% of LAPD tied up by one man. One. Man.

    1. Overtime, sweet overtime, sweet taxpayer titty.

  31. Brick walls. Blindfolds. Some assembly required.

  32. like Vincent implied I’m in shock that a mom able to make $6936 in 1 month on the computer. have you seen this site link http://tiny.cc/uqtnsw

  33. “Yes, officer safety is important. But so is the public’s safety. ”

    “So is”? The only justification for police in the first place is public safety. When they put their safety first, they’re just another gang looting and terrorizing the populace. Correction – they’re the *most dangerous* gang looting and terrorizing the populace.

  34. If you think Edward`s story is something,, 5 weaks-ago my sister’s best friend basically brought home $6795 putting in a sixteen hour week from their apartment and they’re best friend’s mom`s neighbour has been doing this for 7-months and got a cheque for more than $6795 part time at there labtop. use the information on this web-site… http://www.fb26.com

  35. Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world

    http://www.iraaqna.com

  36. Justice is blind people! The cops were doing their best to serve justice by firing their guns off without looking at the color of any ones skin, sex, truck or overall disposition.

  37. – A person has to be impressively stupid to come up with the argument: Dorner has a blue Nissan Titan pickup; I see a blue Nissan Titan pickup; Therefore, I see Dorner.

    – Why on earth would you issue a firearm to such a person and delegate to them the authority to make arrests?

    – The general public’s worship of everyone with a uniform is annoying. (The more cops I know, the less respect I have for cops.) I suspect that the hero worship is partly caused by a lack of personal experience in public service. If more Americans served at some point (even if just the National Guard), I think they would be less susceptible to this bizarre fawning over Those Who Can Do No Wrong.

    – When you VOLUNTEER to do public service as policeman, fireman, or member of the military, then it should be “with your shield, or on it.” You take the brunt of it, not the public. It’s what you volunteered for.

  38. ice dogs are trained to bite and hold suspects, but they can’t distinguish between law-abiding citizens relaxing with friends and police suspects. So Bandit attacked the first person it saw. Instead of instituting reform and settling with the family, Sacramento PD has been arguing that “officer safety” would be endangered by requiring a reasonable warning before releasing a vicious dog on private property.

  39. “Nobody trains police officers to look for one of their own,” said Maria Haberfeld, a police-training professor at John Jay College in New York

    That’s true, but it’s a non-sequitur. Whether Dorner was “one of their own” or not does not resolve them from applying basic investigative techniques. If cops become incapable of doing their jobs every time they’re on the trail of a fellow officer, we’d better hope that no more officers commit crimes.

  40. ” but I also understand why residents in, say, South Los Angeles, wondered why killings in their community don’t rate the same attention”

    Dude. Anyone who has taken the wrong exit and toured that lovely area will be able to come up with some wild guesses as to why that might be.

    We want ‘Andy Griffith’ cops but we live in ‘Beyond Thunderdome’.

  41. Nicest chat and chat Iraqi entertaining Adject all over the world

  42. With crime rates at 40-year lows, this is an opportune time for a debate about such police-priority issues free from excess emotionalism.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.