This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Did they REALLY say that?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Magician22773
As you may or may not have heard (if you are not in the US), a former military, former LAPD police officer, went on a rampage earlier this week, killing 3 people, and vowing “I will bring unconventional and asymmetrical warfare to Los Angeles Police Department officers, on or off duty,”
The former officer is apparently disgruntled about being fired from the force 5 years ago, and decided that going on a murderous rampage would "clear his name".
The psychotic killer is now believed to be somewhere in the California mountains, presumably near the Big Bear ski resort where his pickup was found burned out, although no other signs have been found to positively indicate that he is actually there. So in effect, he
could
be anywhere at this time.
In response to this incident, California senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein (R. California) issued the
following statement
, via a Congressional intern:
Throughout the day, Senators Feinstein and Boxer made desperate pleas for their California constituents to
turn in
their guns and not confront the crazed gunman because this would be a perfect test of their anti-gun proposals.
“The Senators feel the best course of action is to remove all weapons from law enforcement and private citizens so no one else gets hurt,” said a Senate communications intern.
“When the gunman realizes that nobody else is armed, he will lay down his weapons and turn himself in…. that’s just human nature.”
Really?
This, my friends, shows just how disconnected from reality those in our government actually are. These women are actually calling, not just for citizens, but for
law enforcement
, who were specifically targeted and threatened by a crazed murderer, to not just lay down their weapons, but to
turn them in
.
Personally, I am.....stunned...at this statement. I realize that my views on guns and gun control are very different from many on this forum. But I have to ask, especially of those that are for gun control, do you find this "acceptable", that with a madman on the run, that has already killed 3 people, including opening fire on a police car killing one officer, that a representative of the government would actually ask
anyone
, let alone law enforcement, to surrender their weapons, because they believe that "human nature" will compel this killer to surrender if their is no perceived threat?
I can honestly say that this may be the single most absurd thing I have heard come from a member of the US government in my life....and I have heard a lot of absurd things.
Post by
gnomerdon
I shrugged off the statement as another dumb person saying some broad weird fantasizing stuff. I understand how dumb humans can get by just looking at myself in the mirror.
anyways, that aside. yes, that was rather extreme. i doubt it'll get enforced.. it's like saying pigs can fly.
Post by
OverZealous
I've followed the story closely, and I can agree that such a statement is
absurd
, almost hilariously so. I kind of feel that the government doesn't really understand what Dorner is after, and nor does the people who first heard about his "murderous rampage" on the news.
This
is his manifesto. I'm not saying I support his decision to go after innocent civilians, but so far the LAPD has fired at and harmed several civilians that were just as innocent. Naturally, I don't want anyone to get hurt let alone killed, but the LAPD has proven that they cannot handle this situation properly.
Edit: that is of course no reason for them to turn in their weapons and hope that a man targetting them and their families specifically will just turn himself in, but the situation isn't completely black and white.
Post by
Glanzman
It's a wonder how some politicians ever get elected.
Post by
pnkflffytutu
It's a wonder how some politicians ever get elected.
Money.
Post by
asakawa
These women
That struck me as a curious moment of specificity.
Post by
gnomerdon
Chief Beck, this is when you need to have that come to Jesus talk with Sgt. Teresa Evans and everyone else who was involved in the conspiracy to have me terminated for doing the right thing. you also need to speak with her attorney, Rico, and his conversation with the BOR members and her confession of guilt in kicking Mr. Gettler. I’ll be waiting for a PUBLIC response at a press conference. When the truth comes out, the killing stops.
The attacks will stop when the department states the truth about my innocence, PUBLICLY! I will not accept any type of currency/goods in exchange for the attacks to stop, nor do i want it. I want my name back, period. There is no negotiation. I am not the state department who states they do not negotiate with terrorist, because anybody with a
simple demands if he really means it.
give him his name back and apologize, when he comes out, arrest him for killing innocent people. he'll accept the consequences of that.
sounds too easy for him to follow through though.
Post by
Nathanyal
These women
That struck me as a curious moment of specificity.
Because he's talking about the two women, Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein. I don't think he's talking about Republican women as "these women".
Post by
Magician22773
Chief Beck, this is when you need to have that come to Jesus talk with Sgt. Teresa Evans and everyone else who was involved in the conspiracy to have me terminated for doing the right thing. you also need to speak with her attorney, Rico, and his conversation with the BOR members and her confession of guilt in kicking Mr. Gettler. I’ll be waiting for a PUBLIC response at a press conference. When the truth comes out, the killing stops.
The attacks will stop when the department states the truth about my innocence, PUBLICLY! I will not accept any type of currency/goods in exchange for the attacks to stop, nor do i want it. I want my name back, period. There is no negotiation. I am not the state department who states they do not negotiate with terrorist, because anybody with a
simple demands if he really means it.
give him his name back and apologize, when he comes out, arrest him for killing innocent people. he'll accept the consequences of that.
sounds too easy for him to follow through though.
There is a reason why our government has the rule of not negotiating with terrorists. This man (are you happy asakawa, or was that "rather curious" as well), is just that...a Terrorist.
It doesnt matter if he is right or wrong..in fact, he is probably right. I have seen police brutality. I have been a victim of law enforcement "trumping up" charges, just because they can. Is probably safe to say that most people have been a part of police overstepping their authority (ever drove through a DWI checkpoint? I believe those to be an abuse of power...stopping and searching without just cause), but that does not give me, or anyone else the right to kill people to illicit an apology.
Doing that would "justify" anyone else who feels they were wronged, and were willing to accept the punishment, the "right" to go kill to make a statement.
If he felt so strongly that he was slandered, we do have real rights that cover that. He had the right to Free Speech. He could have shouted his innocence from the rooftops. He could have told his story to hundreds of millions on the internet. He could have peacefully protested every day for the rest of his life right in front of the police station. Had he done that, I would have been sympathetic to his cause.
He had the right to sue those that he felt had wronged him. He would have been able to present evidence to a judge and jury. He had the right to representation of counsel. He could have presented his case, and let a jury of his peers "clear his name". Even if he had lost, he would have the right to appeal to a higher court. Had his case been strong enough, he would have had the right to present his case to the Supreme Court.
And even if after all that, he still had no justice, he still would have had the first right...to continue his Free Speech.
But, instead, he chose to kill people. He now has the right to remain silent, one way, or another.
Post by
hymer
@ Nat: Those two are senators from California. I extrapolate from that and their alleged talk of guns that they're Democrats. Small point, but still.
@ Mag: I think he still has all those rights you enumerated, I don't think you lose them because you're suspected of a crime. Another small point.
If you believe he's right, and if the problem is as widespread as you say it is, how could he possibly come through with any sort of lawsuit? Where would he get the money to even try? I'm not defending his killing people in the slightest, btw.
Post by
Nathanyal
@ Nat: Those two are senators from California. I extrapolate from that and their alleged talk of guns that they're Democrats. Small point, but still.
In response to this incident, California senators Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein (
R
. California) issued the following statement, via a Congressional intern:
Unless Magician made a mistake, that R stands for Republican.
Edit: I guess Magician meant something else with the R, I looked them up and they are Democrats.
Post by
hymer
Maybe the whole thing is a bogus tissue of lies (to quote Maxwell Q. Klinger). I can't believe California would elect
two
Republican senators. The 'statement' may well just be a 'joke'.
Edit: Just followed his link, it's a satire/comedy site.
Second edit: The two women are indeed Democrats, though Dianne is spelled with two n's, from a quick google search.
Post by
Magician22773
@ Mag: I think he still has all those rights you enumerated, I don't think you lose them because you're suspected of a crime. Another small point.
If you believe he's right, and if the problem is as widespread as you say it is, how could he possibly come through with any sort of lawsuit? Where would he get the money to even try? I'm not defending his killing people in the slightest, btw.
Yes, he does still have those rights...although one could argue they become quite a bit less effective after you decide to go on a killing spree. But I guess he could still exercise those rights, while rotting in prison.
And you are correct again, that it is extremely difficult to "properly" defend yourself via the judicial system with limited financial resources, but it is possible.
"Where there is a will, there is a way"
Had he staged peaceful protests, and used social media to spread the word of what happened, it is very likely would have caught the attention of at least 1 lawyer, if not hundreds, that would have been willing to take the case pro-bono or on contingency, or, if for nothing else, for the notoriety that a high profile case can bring to them and their firm.
And, no, I don't think you will find anyone (anyone that is not justifiably insane, that is), that would agree with him that this was an acceptable method to clear his name. Honestly, I do find it sad that a man that
should
be regarded as a hero for defending my country, and for serving as a law enforcement officer, chose this horrible method to bring attention to his cause. I hold nearly every person that places their life on the line to defend mine as a hero for that decision, and it makes it that much worse that one of those people decided to flush that away. But that is as far as my "sympathy" goes.
No innocent human life if worth making ANY point, no matter how right that point may be.
Post by
Nathanyal
That explains it, oh well.
Post by
Sas148
I was pretty sure this entire statement was created by a satire site as I have yet to see any mention of this on any primary/main news source, and you'd think Fox News would be all over it. Just curious is all.
Post by
557473
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
The only thing that I can find that Senators Boxer and Feinstein announced together was the following (
http://boxer.senate.gov/en/press/releases/020713.cfm
)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein (both D-CA) today wrote to Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood to call for stronger bus safety rules in the wake of Sunday’s tragic crash in San Bernardino County, California. The crash occurred when a tour bus lost control, crashed into two vehicles and rolled over. Eight people died as a result of the crash, and many more were injured.
In their letter, Senators Boxer and Feinstein wrote, “The greatest tragedy of Sunday’s accident is that it was not an isolated incident. Since 1990, there have been more than 180 motorcoach crashes and fires, which have killed 334 people and injured more than 3,000. Many of these tragic deaths and injuries were entirely preventable.”
In case it wasn't obvious enough, the same writer (i.e. Ace Cub Reporter Jimmy
Olsentwins
- seriously?) also penned this satirical article:
http://www.palookavillepost.com/2013/02/09/accused-gunman-christopher-dorner-issues-statement-its-not-me/
One commenter on their website says it best, in my opinion:
J says:
February 9, 2013 at 5:59 pm
I can think of a very logical reason: they never said any of it. The article is a fake, the quotes from virtually everyone are made up.
Its poorly written satire. And you appear to have swallowed it whole.
Post by
Sas148
So, in conclusion, "Did they REALLY say that?" No, no they didn't.
Post by
Magician22773
Hell, it spread far enough that it made it to yahoo news (although it is now gone). I really didn't look at the author name (olsentwins....har har). The article just showed up on a news feed.
I have to say, Boxer and Feinstein are far enough left wing that it actually seemed plausible, but even for them it was pretty crazy.
O well..they got me...and I am sure they got a lot of others with it making it to Yahoo for a time.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.