The treatment of the bloodthirsty, animalistic Dorner story has been interesting. Manifesto hijinx plentiful. So many probabilities and ways to spin this to serve the agenda. Gun control and other platforms asserted by 'manhunted', downplayed or ignored? Ignoring because its ranting and raving by a lunatic? Ignoring to protect and serve? Protect those serving. Hunt they who endanger those serving to protect. Hunting any who commit the supreme crime considerably higher than that of normal human-on-human murd3r, that of the C0p persuasion. Bringing out the heavies, pulling out all stops to track and capture this so-called 'animal'.
Now that this story has simmered for a few days, a few ideas regarding this media event have materialized. Some have questioned the LAPD's role in Dorner's firing. Some have questioned the use of drones to track down suspected criminals. And that damning police scanner audio is another useful aspect of this story. Suspected is an interesting and important keyword to recall later. Surely there are questions that must be asked. Although justice will never be accomplished in this case.
When I state that justice will never be served, I imagine a voice countering with "Justice was served though. Dorner is dead. End of story". But what exactly is justice then? Is it public satisfaction? Is it a statement by police that justice was served? A statement by the media? Is it a personal belief or feeling of accomplishment? Is justice served when the accused is put to death without being given their day in court? Even the Baghdad Queen Hussein was given a proper trial, and subsequent execution, and that was in IRAQ! Perhaps some context is required to fill out these definitions and better complete the word picture..
(Dictionary.com) Justice -
1. The quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness:to uphold the justice of a cause
2. Rightfulness or lawfulness, as of a claim or title, justness of ground or reason
3. the moral principle determining just conduct
4. Conformity to this principle, as manifested in conduct, just conduct, dealing, or treatment
5. The administering of deserved punishment or reward
6. the maintenance or administration of what is just by law, as by judicial or other proceedings
7. judgment of persons or causes by judicial process
Now for a quick and filthy primer on the Magna Carta..
"The 1215 charter required King John of England to proclaim certain liberties and accept that his will was not arbitrary—for example by explicitly accepting that no "freeman" (in the sense of non-serf) could be punished except through the law of the land, a right that still exists.
Magna Carta was the first document forced onto a King of England by a group of his subjects, the feudal barons, in an attempt to limit his powers by law and protect their privileges. It was preceded and directly influenced by the Charter of Liberties in 1100, in which King Henry I had specified particular areas wherein his powers would be limited."The Magna Carta was a critical document in the centuries-long fight for civil liberty. The king was forced to admit and adhere to a doctrine stating that his will, his word, is NOT immutable or free from question or challenge. The United States of America regards herself as the beacon of hope in a skyline of darkness. The United States is supposed to be a country whose governing figures are bound by a code. A colorblind codex of justice and reason. But all of these holy and high concepts mean nothing when civil victories from eight centuries past are ignored, all in pursuit of JUSTICE.
I suppose that the LAPD murdering Chris Dorner technically does fall under one of the definitions for justice, ' The administering of deserved punishment or reward', however definitions are a tricky matter.. Chris Dorner's death could be considered justice, or justified, if indeed the punishment or reward was deserving. But here the contradictions are plainly evident. One cannot assert that punishment was justly administered unless the justice system is allowed to operate and deduce the verity of claims against a suspect. There is a rule of law for a reason. The rule of law and the machinations of the justice system are there as a matter of reason. Suspects have rights under the law because they have not yet been proven or condemned guilty. When those processes occur(this is not to say that this system is perfect, it has its problems) at least one could make a claim that a reasoned process occurred and that justice was sought and attained in a justified manner.It is not legal to burn down a neighbor's home because you simply SUSPECT they stole something. It should not be legal to burn down a SUSPECT in boiling blood for suspected transgressions. As it turns out, there is even a basis for protection against this manner of violence in international law, for whatever thats worth.. "Fucking Burning This Motherfucker" preemptively without trial or negotiation, that 'motherfucker' has been robbed of justice, whether he was a terrorist, a thief, or even a suspected cop killer.
The real danger made apparent by this story is not even the civilian operation of drones in American territory, although this fact is definitely high up on the concern scale. The real danger lies in public worship of those in positions of authority. That full public confidence is given to a police force whose body count by the end of the fugitive battle almost equalled the SUSPECTED killer's. The idea that the police, or the politicians, or the military generals KNOW BETTER simply because of their position in the stratum of society. [Sensible American Voice] Well, we know Chris Dorner committed those crimes because the police are chasing him, the chase is justified. The fugitive chase is justified, the cops murdering innocent bystanders in their pursuit is justified, and the eventual order to murder a SUSPECT was also justified, because after all, he did it, right? The excuse given by the LAPD regarding terminology and mistaken public understanding of it is absolutely weak and ridiculous. The impassioned roar from the brave cop, I believe it went something like "Fucking burn this motherfucker!" is all the examination necessary to flout claims of confusion. It is also worthy to note that in the entire Dorner drama, from early reporting to the untimely murder of Dorner, no civilians were injured by Dorner. Some can make the argument that his first two alleged victims were civilians and innocent. Civilians, not exactly. Innocent, clearly one does not advocate that these murders were justified, or that Dorner was necessarily innocent. But it was never proven in court. In the courts of justice. In a system of justice. There was no justice in this story, not for Dorner, not for the LAPD, and not for the innocent civilians gunned down by panicked patrollers.
A final thought on this. The Dorner story is novel in that his manifesto stated his intentions, and his intentions were directly aimed at law enforcement. During his claimed fugitive adventures, he crossed paths with at least two different groups of civilians he could have easily killed or damaged far more severely (no disrespect to any of the victims either). It is notable that he did not. His actions appear in accordance with his manifesto dictates, consider this..
While P.O.s may believe they are above the law, and superior, they are not. Many, if not most officers in L.E. are probably decent and ethical people. There are some that get away with dirty deeds, miscarriages of justice, mistaken identity tragedy but they are constrained by law and civil procedure. This discussion is not necessarily about any specific outrages, but more about a culture being drenched by a lake of authoritarian ideology and deference based upon location on the authority power pyramid. One who becomes an officer of law enforcenment agrees to payment to perform a service: serve and protect. A police officer is allowed conscious choice, they can decide to or not to write a ticket, to discontinue chasing a SUSPECT when there is significant danger to the public. I do not care how far up the pyramid one resides in the authoritarian paradigm, reality is reality. This was not a cavalier, dashing rescue or protection mission for lowly civilian life. The police were keenly aware of the threat Dorner posed to THEM, the threat had to be neutralized. Sure, the public can be warned and made to worry about the merciless, morally-abject killer on the loose, but evidence in this case bears out that not being the truth. Dorner went after who he thought was the monster. The residual mess left by the LAPD is what happens when their protected, superior, AUTHORITARIAN class is threatened, and makes me question the definition of monstrosity. And although I state these claims about police being equals to every other human, in the blind eye of justice, another truth is revealed...
"In 2005, The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm." -Wikipedia.org
This is the perfect statement of clarity on authority and rule of law. Police do not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, but be damned scared when one of their own is threatened.