Chris Dorne
Yes, I'm going to get into the maze of this issue. Why? Because it's complicated, and I have an opinion that I'm not sure has really been expressed. So here goes:
First of all, Chris Dorner is NOT A HERO.
I don't care what your opinion is; you're reading my blog, and that's my opinion. So now, on to the argument:
The man's manifesto is intriguing. He clearly is a relatively intelligent person; he has put his time in and has tried, several times, to correct the flawed system of command in the LAPD. And here, I'll concede a point: I have no trouble believing that the LAPD is corrupt. Any measure of authority in this nation likely has some level of corruption, whether or not it is damaging to the organization's ability to function as it should. The LAPD is famous and infamous for the order they maintain; with a city so large, diverse, and in the right place at the wrong time, incredibly dangerous, they have to keep order with an iron fist. Such a measure, necessary to do the job you're entrusted with in such a situation and place, is inherently riddled with niches for corruption to hide.
However, the writing goes from reasonable argument and exposing the flaws in said organization to threatening innocent people. Not only innocent 'people'; innocent *children*. (I leave out mention of the women, because if we have gender equality, then they presumably aren't any more helpless than the men... hey, you asked for it, ladies!) At that point, any valid argument he made previously is thrown out. You can't do that. I don't care what injustices you've suffered at their hands; I don't care how many times your legal, justified actions within the system have been turned down and ignored; threatening to kill children is not justified. Not cool, dude.
So now, he's a crazy guy. No, there isn't a history of insane acts or concerns while he did his job; I think that the LAPD's blanket dismissal of his manifesto as a crazy man's ranting is more suspicious than reaffirming (more on that later); but a sane, healthy man doesn't threaten kids. If he was really an honorable man who'd served his country well in the military, he wouldn't stoop to such levels. There is no excuse I can think of to ever threaten children.
Chris Dorner isn't a vigilante; he isn't a masked crusader, or the Lone Ranger. He's a crazy homicidal person. I understand that the legal system wasn't a viable option for him, that he'd used it and found it corrupt... But that does NOT EXCUSE killing innocent people, and promising to kill more.
So now, the LAPD's side: almost as crazy as Dorner.
The LAPD not only completely dismissed the manifesto, they tried to make out like Dorner was insane, and instantly started a massive manhunt for him. Not just a 'hunt'; a 'shoot-on-sight mob'. LAPD killed and wounded innocent people trying to kill this man; again, suspect. I'm sorry, but no matter what the criminal is doing, when does it become priority to *kill* them, rather than capture? Even in hostage situations, with crazed, heavily-armed gunmen holding a group of civilians, the police first attempt negotiation; they try to talk them down, try to find other solutions. Only when talks break down and it seems that more innocents' death is imminent do they give the order to shoot.
I understand that when you're in charge and someone threatens your family, you'll go a little crazy. (well, as well as I can understand it without having my own family) I can easily see distraught fathers just wanting that man who was holding a gun to his child's head to *die*; and that's exactly why, when a situation like that occurs and it is clear that those in charge can't be trusted to make calm, rational decisions, they are temporarily relieved of that position. Instead, the LAPD gunned down some innocent people.
The final shootout:
I know what the media has been reporting on. The media, and most civilians, are hung up a LOT on the officers saying things like "Get the gas!"; "Burn it down!"; "Burn that motherfucker down!" and such. To which I say: So fucking what? It's incredibly easy to sit on your couch at home and say, "Oh, they shouldn't have done that!" and I don't agree with the "shoot-to-kill first, ask questions later" stance the LAPD seemed to take on this manhunt in general. However, they're facing a building where a heavily armed and trained man is hiding. A man who has publicly admitted, almost bragged about, killing people, and who has just gunned down one officer- probably a friend of yours- and wounded another. He is not coming out with his hands up; he has made it expressly clear that he is not going down alive. There is no way to sneak up on this guy now; he knows you're there, and he knows all the tricks you'd like to play.
I say again: HE IS SHOOTING AT YOU. He has KILLED YOUR FRIEND. He says that HE WILL KEEP ON KILLING more people.
FUCK YES, BURN THE MOTHERFUCKER.
Standing downrange, bullets whizzing around you, a man holed up in a building shooting at you, no one's really sure what to do but there's no way to safely approach the cabin.... and you see the gas can.
Let's put it this way:
Imagine Chris Dorner was in a glass-walled building, holding a gun to the head of some families- the entire family. He's calmly looking you in the eye and telling you he's going to kill them all. He's already pulled the trigger to two of the victims' heads, and his finger is tightening down. You have a sniper in the building behind you.
What do you do?
YOU TAKE THE FUCKING SHOT.
That's not even a question to most people; with minimal hesitation, they will answer 'pull the trigger'.
Again, I don't agree with the LAPD's handling of this entire situation. I do believe Chris Dorner's claims of corruption and injustice in the Police. However:
1) Killing innocent people is NOT okay.
2) Threatening to kill children is REALLY NOT OKAY.
3) The officers did what they had to, so that one man died instead of eight, or however many would have been lost had they attempted to seize the well-trained, well-armed, determined Chris Dorner.
Recently, we saw 20+ school children slaughtered; and not a word was said in defense of the shooter.
In Alabama, a man seized a 5-year-old boy and held him hostage in a bunker 4 feet below ground. Mr Dykes, the 65-year-old survivalist hostage-taker, was killed to save the child. The police talked for some time to him, trying to settle the situation peacefully, but were unable to do so; *after*talks*broke*down*, FBI entered the bunker and killed the man; and I have yet to hear a single word of sympathy.
The suspect in both cases was dismissed as violent and somewhat crazy. No one has questioned if maybe they were somehow justified in their actions, if they were trying to speak to a larger problem at hand. No, they were dismissed as better off dead.
If either of the perpetrators had posted a long, intricate description of why they were committing those heinous crimes online, going through the extreme corruption and their past futile attempts to rectify the situation through nonviolent means, would we have even half a mind to call them a hero, like some are seeing Chris Dorner?
I say again: whatever his past, however well he made his argument, the man's actions are enough proof for me to say that he was insane, and dangerous.
Also, again: the LAPD's actions are highly suspect. Instead of going about the matter by trying to bring the matter to a peaceful solution, they issued a blanket kill order on the man. I have no issue, no qualms, about the manner in which he was killed- if someone is shooting at you, you fucking kill them, and you don't worry about *how* you do it so that it's the most humane and publicly palatable manner- only with the fact that the LAPD immediately demanded his death. This, to me, says that there is something more behind this; that they wanted to silence him.
That's my little rant. I'm tired of hearing people arguing that Chris Dorner was a misunderstood, misrepresented, wronged, vigilante hero.
'Til next time....
No comments:
Post a Comment