If he had stuck strictly to cops, we'd be all good, but one of the first people he murdered wasn't one.
Going after the families of bad people when they really didn't play any role in the bad person's actions is abhorrent and indefensible. Kids shouldn't have to pay for the sins of the father and all that.
It doesn't completely invalidate the good he did do/say, but it's definitely a black mark on his record and why I can't really get fully behind him, even for meme reasons.
I've brought him up before, but I think Micah Xavier Johnson is overall a better example. Apparently he was a sexual harasser when he was in the military, which is obviously terrible, but at least you can say when he went on his spree that he didn't go for any non-cops.
When fighting monsters, one must be careful not to become one themselves. I can understand how one passionate enough and angry enough to fight back could have their morality twisted and see taking children from people who have taken our children as fair play, but we should absolutely lay it down in stone that it is NOT okay. Rip the monsters apart, don't hurt innocents around them.
When fighting monsters,
he was just a disaffected worker not a crusader lol
I'm not saying his killing of a cop's single kid is comparable to all the people cops kill, I'm just saying that it's wrong regardless.
Agreed. Saying that Dorner was bad isn’t taking the side of cops. Dorner was bad, unequivocally. No revolutionary can defend the slaughter of innocents.
I forget, is revolution a tea party? There was someone who said something about what revolution was and was not... but I've forgotten what they said
Well make sure it's at least 90% wool. Bonus for tweed.
Killing an innocent as a mistake is different from deliberate targeting of an innocent. It’s bad enough when someone innocent dies in an explosion. It’s worse if you mean to target innocents entirely
That's what I was trying to convey, sorry if it wasn't clear. Bystanders always die in armed conflicts such as revolutions, that's just the fact of the matter, though attempts should be made to minimize it. I think that's categorically different from just sadistically targeting people who have nothing to do with the conflict, however.
Every destroyed financial imperialist skyscraper is a victory for God against satan
If you are talking about an actual little kid, absolutely that is beyond fucked under any circumstances I can think of. But looking at the facts of what happened in this case again, the daughter was in her late-20's, and had just gotten engaged to a school cop, who her cop father was trying to get a job as a real cop, surely on her behalf. I think it's a different context if she was some kind of blue lives matter bootlicker who wanted to start a cop family and have cop babies like a litter of Kyle Rittenhouses. That wouldn't make Dorner necessarily justified, but it's fair to wonder if she was to some extent a police collaborator and not just a hapless bystander.
Without knowing more details, like did she ever have any kind of contact with Dorner prior to the shooting (if so, what was said), did she spam police shit on Facebook, what was her level of involvement or support or collaboration with the police, if any? I have no clue. Maybe Dorner didn't either. But if, hypothetically, if she ever had any kind of altercation with him or taunted him over his case or whatever, or some shit like that, or if she was involved more deeply than just by happenstance she is going to marry a cop, etc. etc. Idk. I just don't feely very sympathetic toward collaborators or even apologists.
Maybe that wasn't the case at all, and she was just a lovely high school coach with no particular affiliation or affinity with police other than being related to one, who was murdered in cold blood to get back at her asshole dad. If that's the case, then I agree 100% about it being a black mark on Dorner's record. But if it was more in the other direction of her being a bootlicker and collaborator and maybe even an agitator, then I find myself a lot more indifferent. Not condoning, just kind of indifferent.
I am also trying to imagine if she had been hard in the opposite direction: some kind of police reform anti-corruption activist, estranged from her father since she grew up seeing all the dirty shit he did, and of course, not affianced to a cop who she was sitting next to at the time of the murder. Would Dorner still have done it? If she would have been part of a resistance, maybe a sense of solidarity, does it make any difference? Would he still have killed to get back at the father?
And as for her father, I think he bears some responsibility, too. It doesn't shift any blame off Dorner, but if you make your career out of ruthlessly fucking people's lives over... you are putting your family at risk. You just are. You fuck over the wrong person and they could totally snap and do god knows what. Though it's hard to imagine anything much worse than the sociopath sick shit cops do, who don't mind to shoot anyone's son, father, brother, mother, sister, or anyone else who isn't a gun-toting mega chud.
Since there really isn't any actual solid evidence that she was either a Blue Lives Matter freak who literally worshiped cops or had some sort of negative personal interaction with Dorner, I'm running under the assumption of innocent until proven guilty.
I think getting engaged to a school cop and trying to have her father pull strings to get him a job a full-time job on the police force is evidence of some kind of pathology.
All that is is hypotheticals tho, and making assumptions about her motivations when odds are we'll never truly know since she's, ya know, dead.
I'm going off of the facts that we do know, and they don't lead me to believe that she was asking to be murdered.
No, that part was reported in the newspapers. Not an inference.
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/usc-slain-officer-christopher-dorner.html
Lawrence joined the university's campus safety department in August after Quan's father called Thomas, an old LAPD acquaintance, to recommend him.
"I've known Randy Quan for about 25 years. We were both on LAPD. Called me about a year ago and says 'J.T., I've got this great possible candidate who you ought to take a look at if you get a chance. His name is Keith Lawrence and he's dating my daughter. I think he's an outstanding young man,'" Thomas said.
I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about you theorizing about her hypothetical "pathology".
For all we know, she could've just been any other lib who believed the typical "cops are good guys who serve the community" propaganda. Ya know, the propaganda that the vast majority of people in this country believe. That I, and probably you, believed at one point. I believe those people deserve to be called out/criticized/etc., but I don't think they all deserve death.
I mean, anything is possible. I guess maybe if this was only of the 8% of police that are libs and not MAGA dudes. And she just happened to meet a nice cop young man. But I mean, realistically what do you think are odds of a cop's daughter marrying a cop... gonna start a 2nd generation cop family... and not being on some thin blue line bullshit?
And I agree she didn't deserve death. But I don't feel terrible about it, either. Maybe I should? I really don't know where the moral line is, if you have someone who maybe collaborating, or maybe they're neutral? Which side do they take if there is violence? In this case, we are not waging a revolution and Dorner was not a revolutionary, but I think the moral question is worth teasing out, because I don't think a path to and through revolution, if we ever get there, is going to be full of moral bright lines. But I am certainly no kind of expert who has read every theory book, I am asking as much as I'm thinking out loud.
No, she was the daughter of the lawyer, Randal Quan (Also a former police captain), who represented Dorner during his dismissal in 2008.
She was just a basketball coach.
I'm guessing you based that off the Wikipedia article, right?
Cuz it's understandable, that sentence is very poorly worded and makes it sound like she was the lawyer when she wasn't.
Non-combatants are those who aren’t fighting or armed. Children, for example. Or the elderly.
Bezos, the billionaire who has already initiated violence via underpaying and abuse of employees? He’s already a combatant
And you're an asshole who's okay with killing people purely on guilt by association and nothing else.
