Ex-Navy LAPD Officer Wages Guerilla War Against Former Employers

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

cthulhuspawn82:

Smagmuck_:

A few minutes later, a truck slowly rolled down the quiet residential street.

As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn't gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn't Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.

Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.

"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.

Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.

Source

I made a post just recently about how cops are too jumpy and paranoid.

This is the reason why the second amendment is so great, if we can adequately defend ourselves, we can start getting rid of the cops. You know things have gone too far when you are following a story like this and you almost start to feel like you should be cheering for the bad guy. If it weren't for the fact that this guy is also targeting the families, I probably would be cheering for him about now.

Well I could give you another reason to not cheer this guy if you took out the family murder aspect; he's ambushing cops and shooting them without verifying that their "corrupt" or anything like he specified in his manifesto. So the cops who are most likely to get killed are the ones who aren't jumpy and paranoid. So really, he'd be making the problem worse by killing the cops who do show restraint and encouraging a shoot-first attitude from other cops.

Jux:

Ryotknife:
Latinos mostly. Any effort to tighten the border will mean less illegal immigrants. While they are not the majority, they hold a significant voting bloc (that gets stronger with every generation) so that (most rational) politicians are hesitant to do anything to tick them off.

Then overhaul the way immigration works too. Make the path to citizenship accessible. The whole point of border patrol isn't going to be stopping immigrants, that'll just be a by product.

Ryotknife:
Also, we cant minimize it, not now at least. Any effort to directly attack gun ownership will make the crime situation significantly worse without tackling the underlining reasons of why guns are used.

In what way do you think things will get worse? Is there evidence to support that?

Ryotknife:
But we cant attack those underlining reasons because it would either make our wars look like a speed bump when it comes to cost (with resources that we dont have anymore), it would be heavily resisted by various communities and you wont get any kind of significant traction politically, or it is just impossible without some very extreme and morally questionable tactics.

What do you feel the underlying reasons are, and why do you think think it would be resisted?

Ryotknife:
It is an extremely unrealistic goal at this point and irresponsible to tackle it when there are problems just as significant that we CAN solve right now. Especially since crime has been going DOWN for over 50 years, so it is not actually a problem. It is just getting a lot of limelight lately, but statistically we are doing a hell of a lot better.

Our homicide rate has dropped by 50% since the 70's, so the problem is getting better on its own without any assistance as it is.

What goals do you think are more important? And how do you feel that the costs of dealing with the underlying causes would be cost prohibitive if it is already in decline? Looking at the statistics, yes, it looks like we're doing better now than we were before, but how are we measuring up against the rest of the world, specifically other westernized countries?

Let me put it to you this way.

- the border is on a desert. Where 100F+ heat is common. No sane construction crew will create an actual defensible wall on the cheap. Much less guards to maintain it. The money to even convince people to build and staff it would make the border wall the most expensive project since the hoover dam.

- There are border tunnels. underground walls are practically unenforceable. The people we are trying to catch are rich enough to create more than one permanent tunnel. All due to the drug trade.

- "border control" is a word, in America, often linked to "we hate the darkies." You have to be very convincing to persuade people you aren't doing this to keep America's "whiteness"

Border control is expensive, unpopular, and there is a reason no one wants to tighten the border. It would be easier to legalize drugs and cut off the insane amount of profits that are used to buy guns.

Ultratwinkie:

Border control is expensive, unpopular, and there is a reason no one wants to tighten the border. It would be easier to legalize drugs and cut off the insane amount of profits that are used to buy guns.

The biggest problem with the bolded is that it counts on the idea that legalising drugs will result in non-cartels picking up the slack instead of the cartels just dealing using the cover of legality instead of in secret. The cartels aren't going to just take this laying down, they'd still work to get as much money as they can, and law enforcement will have a harder job because now they have to figure out a way to differentiate between legally-sold drugs and illegally-sold drugs.

Shaoken:

Ultratwinkie:

Border control is expensive, unpopular, and there is a reason no one wants to tighten the border. It would be easier to legalize drugs and cut off the insane amount of profits that are used to buy guns.

The biggest problem with the bolded is that it counts on the idea that legalising drugs will result in non-cartels picking up the slack instead of the cartels just dealing using the cover of legality instead of in secret. The cartels aren't going to just take this laying down, they'd still work to get as much money as they can, and law enforcement will have a harder job because now they have to figure out a way to differentiate between legally-sold drugs and illegally-sold drugs.

That's assuming we won't fight cartels, which we are actually lready doing but dealing with them with kid's gloves.

If we attacked the cartels like we did Al Quaeda, legalization would be much more possible. It would have helped more if we did this before they became entrenched, but it must be done sooner or later.

Just read it on facebook - is it true they are using those military drones to track him down? If that's true, that's a very dangerous precedent.

TheBelgianGuy:
Just read it on facebook - is it true they are using those military drones to track him down? If that's true, that's a very dangerous precedent.

Depends. If they are using military resources for a police matter, yeah.

If they are just using surveillance drones of the same kind as the military uses, that's not much different from the police using helicopters of a design also used by the military.

Then again, the US has decided it can bomb people who are suspected of things, and applying that to US citizens in the US seems a logical next step.

TheBelgianGuy:
Just read it on facebook - is it true they are using those military drones to track him down? If that's true, that's a very dangerous precedent.

The LAPD has tried to replace helicopters with Drones, because they can't afford the gasoline for them anymore.

So technically yes.

cthulhuspawn82:
This is the reason why the second amendment is so great, if we can adequately defend ourselves, we can start getting rid of the cops. You know things have gone too far when you are following a story like this and you almost start to feel like you should be cheering for the bad guy. If it weren't for the fact that this guy is also targeting the families, I probably would be cheering for him about now.

Well, considering wanting to cheer for the murderer comes from suffering from an irrational hatred against any form of government, which makes no sense at all and is based purely on prejudice and ignorance, and it's a sentiment that's exclusive to ultra-right wing extremists who even have their own form of terrorism, I'd say it's not very relevant, and the best advice on the matter is that those who feel that way should ask their doctor to give them a reality check, because they've evidently lost touch.

So LA Times did a report on what the hearing about his firing/training officer abuse, detailing what happened in court. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lapd-dorner-20130211,0,2498334.story

Though the beginning part should be noted. The LAPD is reopening the hearing case to see if Dorner's firing was justified or wrong. I remember reading in other news that the case will be looked at by the FBI, the US field marshal's office, and what is practically the rest of southern California's police departments. I can see at least four situations this brings up.

1) All departments rule that Dorner was correct and his firing was not justified, in which the entire LAPD is thrown under the bus.

2) All departments go with situation #1, but the focus is solely on the Internal Affairs and the disciplinary panel at the time.

3) All departments rules that there was no account of abuse and Dorner's firing was justified.

4) For some weird reason, all departments conclude differently, making this a major problem when different departments believe Dorner was correct or was making false accusations.

Either way, this is gonna be a long, long few weeks it seems.

cthulhuspawn82:

This is the reason why the second amendment is so great, if we can adequately defend ourselves, we can start getting rid of the cops. You know things have gone too far when you are following a story like this and you almost start to feel like you should be cheering for the bad guy. If it weren't for the fact that this guy is also targeting the families, I probably would be cheering for him about now.

Am I the only one who noticed this? Anyone?

You do know how fucked up it is when you say "getting rid of cops", right?

Shooting at police officers is insane. Completely and utterly insane. If anything they should invest in higher standards and better training for police officers.

cthulhuspawn82:

This is the reason why the second amendment is so great, if we can adequately defend ourselves, we can start getting rid of the cops. You know things have gone too far when you are following a story like this and you almost start to feel like you should be cheering for the bad guy. If it weren't for the fact that this guy is also targeting the families, I probably would be cheering for him about now.

Ok, no dude. Just no. I agree that guns are not the problem, that people should be able to own most types of guns (how it is in my native Kansas is fine, IMO), but I am calling bullshit here. I am rooting for the LAPD, hands down, and I chalk the shootings up to "We are shitting ourselves scared right now."

This instance does not change my opinion that people should be allowed to own guns: He stole this assualt rifle from a military armory, so laws were worthless. But the LAPD is in the right here.

LordOfInsanity:
So LA Times did a report on what the hearing about his firing/training officer abuse, detailing what happened in court. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lapd-dorner-20130211,0,2498334.story

It deserves mention that the supposed victim of the kicking incident Dorner made up, couldn't even remember it happening, described the officer as nearly black with dark hair, while she's caucasian and light hair, even after being coached by Dorner's defense.

Also, a smoking gun as to why he filed the fake charges:
"Records show that Dorner reported the kicks a day after he received an evaluation in which Evans noted that he needed to show improvement in three categories, including the time it took to write reports, officer safety and use of common sense and good judgment."

So that was the day after he basically heard he wouldn't make it through training, after waiting for weeks after the incident.

Frission:

cthulhuspawn82:

This is the reason why the second amendment is so great, if we can adequately defend ourselves, we can start getting rid of the cops. You know things have gone too far when you are following a story like this and you almost start to feel like you should be cheering for the bad guy. If it weren't for the fact that this guy is also targeting the families, I probably would be cheering for him about now.

Am I the only who noticed this? Anyone?

You do know how fucked up it is when you say "getting rid of cops", right?

Shooting at police officers is insane. Completely and utterly insane. If anything they should invest in higher standards and better training for police officers.

When I said getting rid of police officers I didn't mean shooting them. Although I can see the confusion given the subject of the thread, and my post. What I meant was possibly reducing their numbers and their influence in our lives. We will always need cops, but will good self-defense, we don't need them marching up and down the street causing problems for people. They cant be more like firemen who wait in there building until they are needed.

cthulhuspawn82:

This is the reason why the second amendment is so great, if we can adequately defend ourselves, we can start getting rid of the cops.

What BS. Yes, let's arm ourselves and get rid of cops. Hello lynch mobs and vigilante justice! Mob justice is incorruptible, as has been proven throughout history.

Dijkstra:

cthulhuspawn82:

This is the reason why the second amendment is so great, if we can adequately defend ourselves, we can start getting rid of the cops.

What BS. Yes, let's arm ourselves and get rid of cops. Hello lynch mobs and vigilante justice! Mob justice is incorruptible, as has been proven throughout history.

Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with self defense. Lynch mobs and vigilantism involves people going out to track someone down and kill them rather than killing a person who has come after them. Your post didn't just make a connection between self defense and lynch mobs, it implicitly claimed that self defense = vigilantes and lynch mobs.

So if I defend myself, by shooting an attacker, I am a crazed vigilante. But if I was accepted into the police force a minute before shooting my attacker, it would be justified. A badge isn't a magical medallion that justifies all your actions. An action, such as gunning down innocent people, isn't legal just because a cop does it, and an action, such as killing in self defense, isn't criminal just because a civilian does it. A badge is just a piece of metal with no real power or effect.

cthulhuspawn82:

Dijkstra:

cthulhuspawn82:

This is the reason why the second amendment is so great, if we can adequately defend ourselves, we can start getting rid of the cops.

What BS. Yes, let's arm ourselves and get rid of cops. Hello lynch mobs and vigilante justice! Mob justice is incorruptible, as has been proven throughout history.

Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with self defense. Lynch mobs and vigilantism involves people going out to track someone down and kill them rather than killing a person who has come after them. Your post didn't just make a connection between self defense and lynch mobs, it implicitly claimed that self defense = vigilantes and lynch mobs.

So if I defend myself, by shooting an attacker, I am a crazed vigilante. But if I was accepted into the police force a minute before shooting my attacker, it would be justified. A badge isn't a magical medallion that justifies all your actions. An action, such as gunning down innocent people, isn't legal just because a cop does it, and an action, such as killing in self defense, isn't criminal just because a civilian does it. A badge is just a piece of metal with no real power or effect.

All I am seeing is you admitting that you didn't realize that the police did more than come to defend you from attacks and running with this odd misconception to create words for me out of nothing.

CNN reports right now that police have gotten into a firefight with someone in Big Bear believed to be Dorner, and brings images of, well, snow, trees, more snow. Will be far more exciting on the ground though. Hope they get him without anyone getting hurt.

cthulhuspawn82:
So if I defend myself, by shooting an attacker, I am a crazed vigilante. But if I was accepted into the police force a minute before shooting my attacker, it would be justified.

Don't be purposely obtuse, it's not constructive. You also understand how it works, and how arming the mob is a bad idea.

Dijkstra:

cthulhuspawn82:

Dijkstra:

What BS. Yes, let's arm ourselves and get rid of cops. Hello lynch mobs and vigilante justice! Mob justice is incorruptible, as has been proven throughout history.

Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with self defense. Lynch mobs and vigilantism involves people going out to track someone down and kill them rather than killing a person who has come after them. Your post didn't just make a connection between self defense and lynch mobs, it implicitly claimed that self defense = vigilantes and lynch mobs.

So if I defend myself, by shooting an attacker, I am a crazed vigilante. But if I was accepted into the police force a minute before shooting my attacker, it would be justified. A badge isn't a magical medallion that justifies all your actions. An action, such as gunning down innocent people, isn't legal just because a cop does it, and an action, such as killing in self defense, isn't criminal just because a civilian does it. A badge is just a piece of metal with no real power or effect.

All I am seeing is you admitting that you didn't realize that the police did more than come to defend you from attacks and running with this odd misconception to create words for me out of nothing.

I was not just making words out of nothing. Let me explain where I got those words from.

I only mentioned self defense, and how the second amendment helps accommodate self defense. From that simple statement alone, you pulled out vigilantism and lynch mobs. I never mentioned are even implied the act of hunting people down and lynching them, but that's where you took my argument for self defense, as if that were the only place that it could go. So the implicit message of your argument was self defense = vigilantism.

If you don't believe that self defense is criminal vigilantism, then why would you call my support of self defense support of vigilantism.

Blablahb:
CNN reports right now that police have gotten into a firefight with someone in Big Bear believed to be Dorner, and brings images of, well, snow, trees, more snow. Will be far more exciting on the ground though. Hope they get him without anyone getting hurt.

Too late. Sources say Dorner is pinned down within the area, although it is not clear if it is him or someone else.

cthulhuspawn82:

Dijkstra:

cthulhuspawn82:

Nothing you mentioned has anything to do with self defense. Lynch mobs and vigilantism involves people going out to track someone down and kill them rather than killing a person who has come after them. Your post didn't just make a connection between self defense and lynch mobs, it implicitly claimed that self defense = vigilantes and lynch mobs.

So if I defend myself, by shooting an attacker, I am a crazed vigilante. But if I was accepted into the police force a minute before shooting my attacker, it would be justified. A badge isn't a magical medallion that justifies all your actions. An action, such as gunning down innocent people, isn't legal just because a cop does it, and an action, such as killing in self defense, isn't criminal just because a civilian does it. A badge is just a piece of metal with no real power or effect.

All I am seeing is you admitting that you didn't realize that the police did more than come to defend you from attacks and running with this odd misconception to create words for me out of nothing.

I was not just making words out of nothing. Let me explain where I got those words from.

I only mentioned self defense and getting rid of cops, and how the second amendment helps accommodate self defense. From that simple statement alone, you pulled out vigilantism and lynch mobs. I never mentioned are even implied the act of hunting people down and lynching them, but that's where you took my argument for self defense, as if that were the only place that it could go. So the implicit message of your argument was self defense = vigilantism.

If you don't believe that self defense is criminal vigilantism, then why would you call my support of self defense support of vigilantism.

Correction in bold Now look back and see how silly your conjecture and original statement are.

The Gentleman:
Too late. Sources say Dorner is pinned down within the area, although it is not clear if it is him or someone else.

Ja, pretty much as I typed that they broadcast that he supposedly shot and wounded two deputies at a roadblock. Didn't want to edit as it was 'we've been told' kind of stuff at that point.

If they got him barricaded in some cabin and there's still a firefight going on, chances are slim it'll proceed without any more injuries or deaths. Psychos like Dorner tend to not go 'surrounded, guess I'd better surrender and save everyone some trouble' either.

Blablahb:

The Gentleman:
Too late. Sources say Dorner is pinned down within the area, although it is not clear if it is him or someone else.

Ja, pretty much as I typed that they broadcast that he supposedly shot and wounded two deputies at a roadblock. Didn't want to edit as it was 'we've been told' kind of stuff at that point.

If they got him barricaded in some cabin and there's still a firefight going on, chances are slim it'll proceed without any more injuries or deaths. Psychos like Dorner tend to not go 'surrounded, guess I'd better surrender and save everyone some trouble' either.

Quick update: the cabin which Dorner ran into appears to be engulfed in flames following what sounds like an attempted raid on the cabin. The source of the fire is unknown.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/report-ex-cop-fugitive-shoot-police-213309749.html

Eh, hopefully it isn't some innocent person. Still wouldn't be pleased if it were Dorner inside, was hoping they'd take him alive so he could be put on trial.

The guy is a left leaning hypocrite who supports gun control, but carries sa-7 man pods. Police officer now SGT (Name withheld) I think is said to have beaten a guy with a mental disorder. He however destroyed his inccecce, and now just wants pointless revenge.

Ultratwinkie:

Jux:

Ryotknife:
Latinos mostly. Any effort to tighten the border will mean less illegal immigrants. While they are not the majority, they hold a significant voting bloc (that gets stronger with every generation) so that (most rational) politicians are hesitant to do anything to tick them off.

Then overhaul the way immigration works too. Make the path to citizenship accessible. The whole point of border patrol isn't going to be stopping immigrants, that'll just be a by product.

Ryotknife:
Also, we cant minimize it, not now at least. Any effort to directly attack gun ownership will make the crime situation significantly worse without tackling the underlining reasons of why guns are used.

In what way do you think things will get worse? Is there evidence to support that?

Ryotknife:
But we cant attack those underlining reasons because it would either make our wars look like a speed bump when it comes to cost (with resources that we dont have anymore), it would be heavily resisted by various communities and you wont get any kind of significant traction politically, or it is just impossible without some very extreme and morally questionable tactics.

What do you feel the underlying reasons are, and why do you think think it would be resisted?

Ryotknife:
It is an extremely unrealistic goal at this point and irresponsible to tackle it when there are problems just as significant that we CAN solve right now. Especially since crime has been going DOWN for over 50 years, so it is not actually a problem. It is just getting a lot of limelight lately, but statistically we are doing a hell of a lot better.

Our homicide rate has dropped by 50% since the 70's, so the problem is getting better on its own without any assistance as it is.

What goals do you think are more important? And how do you feel that the costs of dealing with the underlying causes would be cost prohibitive if it is already in decline? Looking at the statistics, yes, it looks like we're doing better now than we were before, but how are we measuring up against the rest of the world, specifically other westernized countries?

Let me put it to you this way.

- the border is on a desert. Where 100F+ heat is common. No sane construction crew will create an actual defensible wall on the cheap. Much less guards to maintain it. The money to even convince people to build and staff it would make the border wall the most expensive project since the hoover dam.

- There are border tunnels. underground walls are practically unenforceable. The people we are trying to catch are rich enough to create more than one permanent tunnel. All due to the drug trade.

- "border control" is a word, in America, often linked to "we hate the darkies." You have to be very convincing to persuade people you aren't doing this to keep America's "whiteness"

Border control is expensive, unpopular, and there is a reason no one wants to tighten the border. It would be easier to legalize drugs and cut off the insane amount of profits that are used to buy guns.

Let me ask you this. Do you think people have the right to just break into countries just because they happen to come from a countries which is somewhat poor-(Compared to Africa, and since i think your talking about Mexico) Are all those unskilled workers going to help our economy like those from Europe after world war one? We have laws, and borders for a reason just like every other country.

If we legalize drugs we get people who will get addicted, because we don't have the media support to condemn it enough like smoking to get people not to do it, because those drugs have dangerous side effects, and are more likely to be used in heavy doses. And if we legalized ALL drugs which no nation in the west has done then now we would be a black market for cartels to transport drugs to other countries.

Border Control is NOT unpopular, most people in America want Border control.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/23/poll-majority-of-americans-say-border-control-is-more-important-to-immigration-reform/

If the immigrants were not unskilled then maybe we would accept them like Australia does with skilled workers, but they aren't skilled so The US would gain very little in doing so which is why Americans want border control.

I still want to know how much was spent on the man hunt, how it's going to be paid for and how the hell the LAPD is going to pay for the people they shot at.

Note to LAPD officers. Refrain from screaming "Burn this motherfucker down" over an unsecured network.

Just saying...

Gergar12:
The guy is a left leaning hypocrite who supports gun control, but carries sa-7 man pods. Police officer now SGT (Name withheld) I think is said to have beaten a guy with a mental disorder. He however destroyed his inccecce, and now just wants pointless revenge.

What on earth are you one about? Are you sure this isn't a paste that should've gone in another topic? None of it seems related to this case other than a police officer being mentioned.

Anget Colslaw:
I still want to know how much was spent on the man hunt, how it's going to be paid for and how the hell the LAPD is going to pay for the people they shot at.

Their budget is public and they got a 'contact us' desk, so that shouldn't be hard to find out.

The man is dead now. Apparently he killed himself and set the cabin he was in on fire. I still can't shake the feeling that it wasn't exactly that simple.

Something about this whole thing just doesn't seem quite right at all. Also, they said they found his body, then later they recanted saying they haven't found a body at all yet. How can you get that wrong? I have a really bad feeling about all of this.

What I really don't get is how the hell that fire started. I keep hearing reports where the fire started AFTER he apparently killed himself with a single gunshot. Also, on their body recovery, on top of flip-flopping despite VIDEO of them taking something out, they just gave an excuse of "its still too hot to examine". That fire better have been hell fire because I don't buy it.

Now, obviously I'd hope that they don't kill but aprehend him, put him on trial and let the justice system punish him appropriately.
That said, hopefully it's actually him. Remember how he ditched his car and burnt it? What if he killed another innocent and staged that whole thing to try to throw people off his trail until forensics are done? I'm waiting for confirmation of who that was.

So no body yet? Or they even sure they were shooting at Dorner, or is this another case of them attacking some random person they think is him?

In any case, Dorner faces the same problem as Bin Laden. He will not be taken alive. He is the type of individual where the police will make sure that does not happen. If he fights they will have to kill him, if he surrenders he will be shot while "resisting arrest".

BlackConservative:
Something about this whole thing just doesn't seem quite right at all. Also, they said they found his body, then later they recanted saying they haven't found a body at all yet. How can you get that wrong? I have a really bad feeling about all of this.

Misquoted/someone at the scene saying they found his body, either mistakenly or as a question, a game of chinese whispers happens and it gets reported on the news as fact.

As it stands, the LAPD never got a confirmation on who was shooting at them and killed one of their officers, and said while it might be him, they'll wait until they have the body before announcing it.

So he may very well be still alive and they just killed another gun-trotting madman by conincidence.

Gergar12:
The guy is a left leaning hypocrite who supports gun control, but carries sa-7 man pods. Police officer now SGT (Name withheld) I think is said to have beaten a guy with a mental disorder. He however destroyed his inccecce, and now just wants pointless revenge.

Ultratwinkie:

Jux:

Then overhaul the way immigration works too. Make the path to citizenship accessible. The whole point of border patrol isn't going to be stopping immigrants, that'll just be a by product.

In what way do you think things will get worse? Is there evidence to support that?

What do you feel the underlying reasons are, and why do you think think it would be resisted?

What goals do you think are more important? And how do you feel that the costs of dealing with the underlying causes would be cost prohibitive if it is already in decline? Looking at the statistics, yes, it looks like we're doing better now than we were before, but how are we measuring up against the rest of the world, specifically other westernized countries?

Let me put it to you this way.

- the border is on a desert. Where 100F+ heat is common. No sane construction crew will create an actual defensible wall on the cheap. Much less guards to maintain it. The money to even convince people to build and staff it would make the border wall the most expensive project since the hoover dam.

- There are border tunnels. underground walls are practically unenforceable. The people we are trying to catch are rich enough to create more than one permanent tunnel. All due to the drug trade.

- "border control" is a word, in America, often linked to "we hate the darkies." You have to be very convincing to persuade people you aren't doing this to keep America's "whiteness"

Border control is expensive, unpopular, and there is a reason no one wants to tighten the border. It would be easier to legalize drugs and cut off the insane amount of profits that are used to buy guns.

Let me ask you this. Do you think people have the right to just break into countries just because they happen to come from a countries which is somewhat poor-(Compared to Africa, and since i think your talking about Mexico) Are all those unskilled workers going to help our economy like those from Europe after world war one? We have laws, and borders for a reason just like every other country.

If we legalize drugs we get people who will get addicted, because we don't have the media support to condemn it enough like smoking to get people not to do it, because those drugs have dangerous side effects, and are more likely to be used in heavy doses. And if we legalized ALL drugs which no nation in the west has done then now we would be a black market for cartels to transport drugs to other countries.

Border Control is NOT unpopular, most people in America want Border control.
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/02/23/poll-majority-of-americans-say-border-control-is-more-important-to-immigration-reform/

If the immigrants were not unskilled then maybe we would accept them like Australia does with skilled workers, but they aren't skilled so The US would gain very little in doing so which is why Americans want border control.

Unskilled? America doesn't accept any degree outside the US. All immigrants coming have have their degrees invalidated and have to pay more to have them reinstated. On a low wage salary. If we actually did care about getting skilled workers, we wouldn't turn every immigrant into an unskilled immigrant at the damn border in the first place. Even though our education system is a joke and foreign education is far outpacing us.

Secondly, these aren't thieves, they aren't breaking in. They are running away from gangs that will kill them if they stay. These are refugees who either get into the US or stay and get killed. And you are the one denying refugees and leaving them to their death, with no other solution other "not my problem" even though America created those cartels.

The rule of law and "dominion" crap doesn't work here. Because I don't see anyone caring about enforcing any other law than a law that keeps the "darkies out of America."

Cocaine, pot, opium. All of these were legal in America at a certain time. Do you know what big commodities the cartels have? Cocaine and pot. Opium is considered an old timey drug, and outdated because cocaine exists.

The only reason we illegalized these drugs is because drugs and alcohol were "the devil's work." Only Alcohol escaped that fate currently.

cthulhuspawn82:
So no body yet? Or they even sure they were shooting at Dorner, or is this another case of them attacking some random person they think is him?

It's a case where someone attacked them while they were looking for him. One officer is dead, others wounded, so whoever died was no innocent bystander.

In any case, Dorner faces the same problem as Bin Laden. He will not be taken alive. He is the type of individual where the police will make sure that does not happen. If he fights they will have to kill him, if he surrenders he will be shot while "resisting arrest".

Care to prove the last part? It's better for the LAPD to take him alive and have a trial to systematically destroy the myth that's built up around him being a victim of corruption.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked