Ex Cop, now cop killer on loose in L.A. Careful.

[Lew Archer]

The wild card is whether there is someone now helping him...someone who was able to give him a ride from Big Bear and then shelter him somewhere else.

If so, burning the car and leaving weapons behind could have been intended to mislead LE into thinking he was alone and afoot.

I thinks it's unlikely...but a possibility the investigation must explore.

 

[Northdallas7]

People getting nervous in L.A. As the great voice of the L.A. Lakers Chick Hearn used to say......"It's nervous time at the Forum." Check out the Drudge Report:

DRUDGE REPORT 2013®

 

[crofoot629]

The more I think about it the broken axel is a red herring.

My guess is the tow truck broke it.

He's somewhere warm and plotting his next murder.

Emory

 

[MaximumLawman]

The police in this incident:

• used deadly force without properly identifying their target.
• acted in a way contrary to any reasonable behavior.
• caused grievous bodily harm to the victims.

Whatever trying to justify these shootings accomplishes, I suspect that it's 180 degrees what those doing it want. It displays a contempt for innocent life.

The justifications for Dorner and the cops who shot the women (and the cops who tried to shoot the man) are intellectually and morally indistinguishable. They're attempts to excuse violent criminal behavior to further an ideological agenda.

The 70+ year old woman who was "shot twice in the back" was already released from the hospital an was at home. What is the statutory definition of "grievous bodily harm" that makes this crime, lacking in intent, a felony in the legal circles in which you run? Plus, you need a complainant for all intents and purposes to initiate criminal charges. These women are getting a band new truck from the cops to replace the one they shot up. Doesn't sound like they're pursuing any criminal charges to me.....But back to your assertion that they committed a felony based on the elements you posted.....What is the definition of "grievous bodily harm" that you're talking about, and how did you surmise what the womens injuries were? I need a search warrant to get that stuff in the absence of a waiver from the victim. How did you manage it?

 

[MaximumLawman]

What was that movie with Charles Bronson where he was running around in the snow and there was some RCMP Mountie flying around in a biplane?

 

[venomballistics]

The more I think about it the broken axel is a red herring.

My guess is the tow truck broke it.

He's somewhere warm and plotting his next murder.

Emory

findings have been reported ... the axle broke prior to the fire so saith the reports

 

[feralmerril]

Thats very interesting. So much for all his plans. I think they will just find his carcass this spring or before. The movie you were trying to recall with charles bronson and lee marvin. "Death hunt". Bronson played albert johnson. Weasel head pete of the frozen waste.
A more likely movie as I posted earlier was "High sierra". Humphry bogart, and ida lupino made 1n 1941. Bogart played a gangster boxed up similar to dorner above mt whitney. Real similar to the way this thing might play out. Dorner doesnt have a GF like ida lupino or a dog like bogart did. Actualy, the dog was bogarts personnal dog in real life.

 

[Chubbs103]

What was that movie with Charles Bronson where he was running around in the snow and there was some RCMP Mountie flying around in a biplane?

Death Hunt. I loved that movie growing up. I was just thinking about it as I have been looking at getting some snow shoes.

Chubbs

 

[hatt]

If I were on the run and my truck broke down, I'd just flag down someone to help me and take their car. Seeing as how this is a tourist area, it may take a little while for them to be missed. I'm sure not heading off on foot and unprepared into the snowy mountains.

 

[feralmerril]

You guys are too young. If you get a chance see "High sierra".
High Sierra (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[rags]

If I were on the run and my truck broke down, I'd just flag down someone to help me and take their car. Seeing as how this is a tourist area, it may take a little while for them to be missed. I'm sure not heading off on foot and unprepared into the snowy mountains.

Me either, but they haven't found him yet.

 

[bitstream]

The 70+ year old woman who was "shot twice in the back" was already released from the hospital an was at home. What is the statutory definition of "grievous bodily harm" that makes this crime, lacking in intent, a felony in the legal circles in which you run? Plus, you need a complainant for all intents and purposes to initiate criminal charges. These women are getting a band new truck from the cops to replace the one they shot up. Doesn't sound like they're pursuing any criminal charges to me.....But back to your assertion that they committed a felony based on the elements you posted.....What is the definition of "grievous bodily harm" that you're talking about, and how did you surmise what the womens injuries were? I need a search warrant to get that stuff in the absence of a waiver from the victim. How did you manage it?

Um, I'd say those Officer had all kinds of Intent when they opened up; they sure intended to kill the occupant of the truck. You don't shoot that many rounds at a truck just to ask them to stop and talk. In my world, shooting first is pretty clear intent you mean to kill somebody.

That said, I don't see criminal charges on the Officers, other than possibly gross negligence. I don't care how hopped up they were, they are supposed to be professionals and command the occupant(s) of the vehicle to surrender. You aren't allowed to open the discussion with a volley of fire.

As for bodily harm, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that getting shot twice in the back and requiring a stay at the hospital is pretty good evidence of harm. Seems to me that those bullets could just have easily been deadly if they hit her and penetrated. Just a matter of placement. Those cops are really lucky.

Again, no bashing here. I don't fault the department or all cops, just the one who shot first. That cop was clearly negligent and deserve some punishment. The truck was the wrong make, wrong model, wrong color, and didn't have a roof rack. The occupants were two ladies, not one large back male. You can't simply brush this under the rug if you want the public to respect the police. I'll go along that the other officers simply responded to whoever shot first. Find that guy and give him the punishment.

 

[cmort666]

The 70+ year old woman who was "shot twice in the back" was already released from the hospital an was at home. What is the statutory definition of "grievous bodily harm" that makes this crime, lacking in intent, a felony in the legal circles in which you run? Plus, you need a complainant for all intents and purposes to initiate criminal charges. These women are getting a band new truck from the cops to replace the one they shot up. Doesn't sound like they're pursuing any criminal charges to me.....But back to your assertion that they committed a felony based on the elements you posted.....What is the definition of "grievous bodily harm" that you're talking about, and how did you surmise what the womens injuries were? I need a search warrant to get that stuff in the absence of a waiver from the victim. How did you manage it?

1. I don't know about where you live, but here the GOVERNMENT brings criminal charges, NOT the individual. If the GOVERNMENT chooses not to bring charges the private citizen victim is SOL.
2. So what you're saying is that the woman was TRIVIALLY wounded in the back with a firearm?
3. The government is trying to buy the victim off with a new truck? If I shoot somebody up in their vehicle, can I do that?

Trivializing the actions of the police who shot up these two vehicles and the harm to the occupants will definitely have an effect... just not the one intended.

 

[cmort666]

As for bodily harm, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that getting shot twice in the back and requiring a stay at the hospital is pretty good evidence of harm. Seems to me that those bullets could just have easily been deadly if they hit her and penetrated. Just a matter of placement. Those cops are really lucky.

I guarantee you that if all three victims had been killed (they actually shot up TWO vehicles), the enablers would be singing the same tune:

• It's the victims' fault.
• This is normal behavior for police.
• The victims were <insert pejorative buzzword>.

Condescension towards the victims of these sorts of crimes is monotonously par for the course, in exactly the same way that support for murderers like Dorner is. It comes from the same place in the human heart. The Germans have a word for it, "Schadenfreude".

 

[Delos]

Death Hunt

Death Hunt. I loved that movie growing up. I was just thinking about it as I have been looking at getting some snow shoes.

Chubbs

Apparently the movie Death Hunt was (loosely) based on a real story. I believe I first read it in Alaska Magazine back in the 1960's or 70's. They put in old stories of interest.

If I recall correctly the Mounties went out to arrest a guy for something serious. He was living in a double logged log cabin. Small and hard to build but the only way to get extra insulation long ago. Anyway he would not come out to be arrested. The Mounties shot most of their bullets and ate most of their food, Then had to return for supplies. When they returned he was gone. They began following his tracks in the snow.
He was a man of the North well accustomed to bad weather and walking on snowshoes. They even used an airplane to spot him when weather permitted.
If memory serves his eyelids and lips were pretty much gone by the time they got him.

Death Hunt (1981) - Trivia - IMDb
(About 7 paragraphs down)
The manhunt that this movie is based on was the first time that airplanes were used by authorities in Canada to track down a wanted fugitive. The type of plane used was a a Bristol open cockpit bi-plane and a real-life replica was constructed for this movie.

 

[williamlayton]

Lew
The two women in the truck delivering papers were not part of this either.
Innocents are going to be hurt if it works out to my considerations.
Let's say ---just for talking---that he is correct in all he wrote. Solving a problem is not on his agenda. It is just plain and simple, old time retribution.
Crazy---well, that will be dbatable---PO is not.
As for his girl friend, i wonder how many have said that about me when I dumped them?
I don't know anything but I do understand being mad very intimately. It took some time to put this together, it is nort harem scareum.
All any of us can do is watch and find out.
Blessings

 

[cmort666]

Lew
The two women in the truck delivering papers were not part of this either.

Neither was the guy in Torrence who was in his truck when it was rammed and shot up. He managed to avoid being shot, but suffered a concussion and other injuries. Police in Torrence are trying to buy his silence as well.

We've gone past "isolated incident" to "pattern of behavior". Neither vehicle nor its occupants met the description of the vehicle being sought in ANY way, apart from them being trucks. Now that Dorner no longer has his truck, will the ad-hoc rules of engagement become even more nebulous and self-fulfilling?

How many more of these incidents will happen before Dorner is captured or killed?

 

[MaximumLawman]

As for bodily harm, I'll go out on a limb and suggest that getting shot twice in the back and requiring a stay at the hospital is pretty good evidence of harm.

So...what's the legal definition in CA of the level of injuries they suffered?

Does CA define injuries along these lines with respect to the elements of various crimes? Did the women's injuries rise to the felony level? Do your or Mort even know the elements of the "negligence" crimes you're talking about? What about the elements of specific intent? In short, what is the specific crime you would like the officers to be charged with? And can they be reasonably charged with this crime if the women who were shot do not wish to cooperate as victims? Please be specific and don't just make up a crime like Mort likes to do: "Uh, Recklessly Shooting With Intent to Kill Recklessly!"

For example, here's the definition of "serious injury" in my state. What is it in the state Mort is talking about and did these women's injuries reach this level? Or is it assumed they did because "My God, they were SHOT! By the POLICE!"

(a) Loss of a limb or loss of use of a limb.

(b) Loss of a foot, hand, finger, or thumb or loss of use of a foot, hand, finger, or thumb.

(c) Loss of an eye or ear or loss of use of an eye or ear.

(d) Loss or substantial impairment of a bodily function.

(e) Serious visible disfigurement.

(f) A comatose state that lasts for more than 3 days.

(g) Measurable brain or mental impairment.

(h) A skull fracture or other serious bone fracture.

(i) Subdural hemorrhage or subdural hematoma.

(j) Loss of an organ.

I'll go along that the other officers simply responded to whoever shot first. Find that guy and give him the punishment.

Seriously? If one guy is wrong in shooting, the other guys who shoot afterwards are in the clear because of a Pavlovian Response?

How many more of these incidents will happen before Dorner is captured or killed?

Eight. And, might I add: Won't somebody think of the CHILDREN?!?!!?

We've gone past "isolated incident" to "pattern of behavior".

Really? So if police in different cities who work under different administrations, screw up, their collective screw ups constitute a "pattern of behavior" from Maine to California? Maybe every police department in the country should consequently be operating under Federal consent decrees.....How on earth did we spot these "patterns" before the internet was invented?

 

[cmort666]

So...what's the legal definition in CA of the level of injuries they suffered?

I'm betting that even in California, shooting somebody is deadly force, regardless of where they're hit, be it in the back or the earlobe. Here that would be aggravated assault at a minimum.

The attempts to justify these crimes will have an effect. It's highly doubtful that it'll be the one desired.

"Yeah we shot her in the back, TWICE, for no reason, but not 'SERIOUSLY'."

• Blame the victim.
• Trivialize the harm.
• "Everybody does it."

That'll win the public over...

 

[cmort666]

Do your or Mort even know the elements of the "negligence" crimes you're talking about?

Quote me using the words "negligence". You CAN'T.

This goes WAY beyond mere "negligence". The shootings were reckless and wanton acts.

What about the elements of specific intent?

Those cops INTENDED to shoot SOMEBODY. They were aiming at the women. They hit them.

If Dorner meant to shoot somebody OTHER than the people he shot, would that make his murders just "misdemeanors"?

Attempts to minimize the harm and blame the victims send a message.