The confused masses argue now over how they should view Chris Dorner. Should he be considered a villain, for killing 3 people, even though he was never taken to court and convicted? Should we see him as a hero, because he finally had the guts to stand up against the (well-known) corruption and racism in the LAPD? It has become quite obvious that the divisiveness over this issue may actually be the beginning of us all uniting?
"You're fuckin' loopy," my good friend said to me when I proposed this earlier. But hear me out.
Out of every conversation I've had, every post I've seen, the "official" story, seems to be in question. Which it should be. If this is a mass awakening, as I believe it may be, that would account for the differences in which part of the "story" should be in question. Was it really him who wrote the manifesto? Why were there two versions? Why did the police shoot other vehicles that resembled Dorner's after they found his burned up? Were the accusations Dorner made about racism and abuse in the LAPD true, or is this a case of a disgruntled former cop who lost his job and is out for revenge?
It is my belief that a vast majority of people believe that racism exists in the LAPD. With the torrid past Los Angeles has had with racism, (Watts, Rodney King, etc.), it has been notoriously implicated in several racially motivated/biased occurrences. As much as they try to say they have eliminated the problems, they can never control what is truly in a man's mind. Police brutality, a product of unruly suspects, or stress, or pick a "psychological" disorder, is a problem in nearly every major city. Any time a police officer uses unnecessary force (a.k.a. striking a suspect after they have been handcuffed, or without physical provocation), they break the law, and violate the 8th Amendment (see below).
So where does that leave us? What point is to be taken away from this?
IF Chris Dorner killed those three people, (remember, never proven in a court of law), the 6th Amendment to the Constitution, guarantees him the right to a speedy and public trial (see below). Not only that, the 5th Amendment guarantees him not to be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (see below). That means, if the members of the LAPD took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, it was their duty to bring Dorner in to stand trial, and face the crimes for which he was accused in a court of law.
As they had him trapped and surrounded in a cabin, a firefight ensued, resulting in two more officers being shot. Dorner was obviously not going to be taken peacefully, if at all. He was piling up the trouble he was already in, and he was laying it on thick. After hours of a standoff, San Bernadino police officials ordered the cabin to be burned, with Dorner inside. Justice for a cop killer, according to other cops, and supporters of law enforcement. But was justice really served?
We have to look at this very logically, in order to draw the correct conclusion to this infamous event.
Chris Dorner, ACCUSED cop killer, has been discovered and surrounded by police. 2 officers are shot in the initial moments of the ensuing firefight. After a perimeter is established by authorities, they are 90% in control. Officers have been stationed in safe and effective positions to respond to the ever evolving situation. Several more gunfire exchanges continue off and on over the next couple of hours, with tensions obviously building on both sides. The only thing the police are not in control of, is Dorner himself. They control the perimeter, the ability of Dorner to get fresh supplies, his ammunition supply, (there was no hidden gun/ammo store under the cabin), the inevitable outcome would be one of only a few possibilities. Dorner would a) use all his ammo trying to keep police at bay, making a non lethal apprehension possible, b), starve or dehydrate to death without fresh supplies, or c), take his own life.
They obviously had not thought of this.
Or never intended to in the first place.
The decision to purposefully burn the cabin down, with Dorner inside, was not only a rash, emotionally charged decision, it was in fact, criminal.
Or, it would be if you or I did it.
You see, by violating Mr. Dorner's 5th, 6th, and 8th amendment rights, the police violated their oaths they took to uphold them. Therefore, their actions would have set a "live" Chris Dorner free. If the same actions were committed by regular citizens, it would be called murder. When the order came across the radio to "send in the burners," it was accompanied by the words, "like we talked about before," meaning the idea to burn down the cabin was pre-determined. That phrase means that the officials in charge of the situation conspired beforehand to include a strategy that called for burning down the cabin if they found him in one.
The irresponsible handling of the entire situation by the police departments involved IS criminal. All officers involved should be brought up on charges of murder and conspiracy to commit murder. They violated their constraints as "public servants", and violated the Constitutional rights of an American citizen. Guilty or not, Chris Dorner still has the god given rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights.
If we as a country take anything away from this situation it MUST be this; We cannot allow this crime of murder to punish murder to stand without consequences. They will claim it is legal via the NDAA, and that is where we must make our stand. Two wrongs do not make a right, and if we do not enforce the constitution when "officials" violate it, it only leaves it open for them to violate it more, taking each step even further in the advancement of the police state.
This is not a country where "an eye for an eye" is the law. We have due process laws to protect the truly innocent, those who are not guilty of a crime, unjustly accused, and facing undue punishment. The second we don't apply the laws equally, we secede our rights little by little as well. We cannot be selective on who we enforce the law against. We cannot be selective on which cases we enforce the constitution in. Either we enforce the laws of the Constitution or we forsake it altogether. Either we apply the laws equally, or we do away with freedom altogether as well.
*Amendment V-- No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or Naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
*Amendment VI-- In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense
*Amendment VIII-- Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted
Check out our partner pages!
