Christopher Dorner "fan club"?

[momeNt]

Plain, certainly, but I wouldn't say simple. While his methods were from the stand point of law, order, and civilization appalling, from a cultural perspective he is a hero. Don't misunderstand, I'm not defending or justify what he did, but look at it for a moment from the perspective of the common narrative motif.

If this story were to be pitched in Hollywood, would Dorner be the hero or the villain of the movie? Distinguished military veteran and policy officer stands up to abuse in his department has his life ruined by said department wages a one man war to bring down a corrupt and abusive government authority that maintains order with an iron fist and a shoot first and ask questions later methodology. Were this Hollywood, Dorner would not only have evaded capture but would have exposed the corrupt mayor/police chief, brought down the police department, and cleared his name.

Every rogue cop movie, every story of a rebellion vs. an empire (and honestly, where are you going to find something closer to a real life Imperial Storm Trooper in America than the LAPD?), every story about a man standing up to an unjust authority tells us he should be the protagonist of this story. Is it any wonder so many want to think of him as one?

This sums it up pretty perfectly. Captures exactly why the fan club caught on and why so many were cheering for him.

It reminds me of the movie Law Abiding Citizen.

Spoiler

Who at the end of the movie wasn't pissed off he got his bomb discovered and was rooting for him the whole movie! Very few people I would bet

 

[JulesMaximus]

Plain, certainly, but I wouldn't say simple. While his methods were from the stand point of law, order, and civilization appalling, from a cultural perspective he is a hero. Don't misunderstand, I'm not defending or justify what he did, but look at it for a moment from the perspective of the common narrative motif.

If this story were to be pitched in Hollywood, would Dorner be the hero or the villain of the movie? Distinguished military veteran and policy officer stands up to abuse in his department has his life ruined by said department wages a one man war to

Stop right there. Because that's where he starts targeting and killing innocent people. Game over... not a hero. Plain and simple.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

If this story were to be pitched in Hollywood, would Dorner be the hero or the villain of the movie? Distinguished military veteran and policy officer stands up to abuse in his department has his life ruined by said department wages a one man war to bring down a corrupt and abusive government authority that maintains order with an iron fist and a shoot first and ask questions later methodology. Were this Hollywood, Dorner would not only have evaded capture but would have exposed the corrupt mayor/police chief, brought down the police department, and cleared his name.

When I started reading this paragraph, I agreed in my mind that the story reminded me a bit of a season of "24".

But the difference is that the hero does everything in his power to bring justice to those who deserve it and to avoid harming innocents. And Dorner didn't do that.

If he really thought there were so many problems, the heroic action would have been to devote his life to exposing and fixing them. Not go out in a blaze of pointless "glory", taking a bunch of bystanders with him.

 

[randomrogue]

Lets assume for a moment you're a vigilante.

A police officer rapes, tortures, and kills your kids and S/O in front of you while you're tied up. You somehow survive and want to get revenge.

Could you see yourself punishing all police officers and everyone they love?

This is what Dorner might have felt.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Lets assume for a moment you're a vigilante.

A police officer rapes, tortures, and kills your kids and S/O in front of you while you're tied up. You somehow survive and want to get revenge.

Could you see yourself punishing all police officers and everyone they love?

This is what Dorner might have felt.

No, I could not, and that is not anything like what Dorner experienced.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

As Don Vito pointed out, that's not what happened here.

I just started to read his "manifesto" but stopped because it's incredibly long and filled with all sorts of details I cannot possibly understand due to lack of context. It's also based pretty much on his side of the story, and again, I have no way of judging whether his rendition is accurate or not.

Most people won't even try to read it. What they see is a former LAPD officer who "went nuts" and shot a bunch of people, including a completely innocent woman just for having a father who was a police officer.

Is that really likely to make them think Dorner's version of events about anything is more accurate than those who disagreed with him?

Have his actions really increased the likelihood of any real change happening in the organization he claims needs reform?

 

[randomrogue]

I used an extreme example to see if you could even imagine getting to the point where you would attack relatives of those who hurt you.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

I used an extreme example to see if you could even imagine getting to the point where you would attack relatives of those who hurt you.

Those examples do have value. They bring to mind that question posted to Dukakis in the 1988 debate about whether he would support the death penalty for a man who raped and killed his wife. And how he meekly ducked the question, making himself look like a wimp and arguably costing him the election.

I put myself in that position and thought about how I would answer. And it goes something like this: "If that happened to me, I would not only want the death penalty, I would want to rip apart the guy with my bare hands. But that doesn't mean either of those would be a good idea. We can't define our society based on emotional desires for revenge."

And well, same thing applies here. Yes, I can imagine an example situation where I might do what Dorner did (except for killing the daughter, an utterly senseless act). No, I cannot imagine society finding it justified.

 

[randomrogue]

And well, same thing applies here. Yes, I can imagine an example situation where I might do what Dorner did (except for killing the daughter, an utterly senseless act). No, I cannot imagine society finding it justified.

This is the thing. It's being discussed in the guy who killed the man who ran over his kids. I could absolutely see myself enacting horrible revenge on those who hurt my family. However I would accept responsibility for my actions since society says that's wrong.

Dorner surely knew that was he was doing was wrong since I think he mentions that his life is over and he knows that. He was beyond that though and trying to make a statement.

I don't quite understand what his plan was at all. He got caught in the most stupid way and was pretty far from where the LAPD has jurisdiction.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Taken what I believe youj mean I agree 100% with you!

But if you mean`t you have no respect for anybody believes his allegations against the LAPD have meirt......then I would say that you have no repsect for quite a few people.

As it is I also have no respect for those who take innocent lives!!

I firmly believe that LAPD should be investigated and anyone who violated the law/LAPD standards should be penalized.

Dorner killed people that had nothing to do with his grievance against LAPD and for that I have no respect for him nor anyone that supported him for doing so. There are far better means of getting LAPD investigated than going on a killing spree.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This is another case where the ends does not justify the means. And the messenger and the message have to be separated.Those lauding his actions, are doing so to promote their own agendas. Making a martyr of him, and characterizing him as a champion of justice or something, is slimy opportunism at its worst.

The discussion concerning effective methods of disseminating his message, is interesting. Is horrific violence one of a very limited set of choices the average individual has for being heard by society? Can we apply technology to solving the issue? Perhaps something like kickstarter, but for worthy issues that need to be addressed. People could vote on the issues they feel are worthy of attention. Then those with the most traction, could get crowd funding to pay into a fund established for the purpose of investigating, and pursuing the issue. Because it seems like funding is always the biggest impediment to getting an issue put under the microscope.

I would think whack jobs would quickly lose people's interest, and fail to get enough votes to move on to the funding stage. A criteria could be established for eliminating very fringe issues as well. For instance, 911 conspiracies and other "issues" of that type could be eliminated from consideration due to realistic limitations on the efficacy of any legal or investigative actions. And some issues would either precede, run concurrently, or overlap other major investigations of that particular issue. Making the funding of those that are not getting the attention and money thrown at them, the best choices for inclusion in voting.

Just some vague musings on how to apply technology to the the topic.

 

[Abraxas]

Stop right there. Because that's where he starts targeting and killing innocent people. Game over... not a hero. Plain and simple.

When I started reading this paragraph, I agreed in my mind that the story reminded me a bit of a season of "24".

But the difference is that the hero does everything in his power to bring justice to those who deserve it and to avoid harming innocents. And Dorner didn't do that.

If he really thought there were so many problems, the heroic action would have been to devote his life to exposing and fixing them. Not go out in a blaze of pointless "glory", taking a bunch of bystanders with him.

Again, I'm not saying he is, I'm just saying the fact that many are treating him as one is unsurprising given the level of overlap between hist story and the traditional American action hero rebel story. It is an almost Pavlovian type of conditioning built on what we expect of characters in the position the media has cast him. And yes, to most he is a character. Relatively few have any direct connection to the case and they get what little exposure they do have through the same boxes they watch Star Wars or Batman, it isn't real to them and in fiction he would be the story's protagonist, in particular since no other character has gotten any attention in the whole thing.

 

[Jaskalas]

Dozens of pro-Dorner protesters rally at LAPD HQ

Protesters told the Los Angeles Times they didn't support Dorner's deadly methods, but objected to police corruption and brutality, and believed Dorner's claims of racism and unfair treatment by the department. Many said they were angered by the conduct of the manhunt that led to Dorner's death and injuries to innocent bystanders who were mistaken for him.

• Reasonable protests?

The news article had a surprisingly honest second paragraph describing the protestors who do not support Dorner's violent acts, but who believe his claims of corruption against the LAPD. Claims which some say their acts verify.

• They shot innocent people.
• They burned down the cabin, giving him no chance to surrender.

If anything it'd be reasonable to protest their handling of the Dorner situation let alone the allegations he had. Is it possible for us to separate his actions from some very real issues? More amazing is if the media may do the same separation. I see the Drudge headline "Pro-Dorner protesters rally at LAPD HQ..." and I wonder how many people are going to click that link, how many will absorb the second paragraph instead of the headline?

The headline would have you believe they protest to support his acts of murder. That's how I'd take it, wouldn't you? I see a great deal of risk that few people will get the message.

• Has the media provided good context?

 

[Murloc]

I like this comment about this:

I agree. When I was fired from McDonald's, I really had no choice but to hunt down my boss's daughter's boyfriend and murder him. I also had to shoot every fast food worker I came across. I was planning on exacting my revenge on my boss's maid's dental hygienist when the police finally caught me. It gives me hope that shining beacons of morality and sanity, like you, see the glorious heroism in the actions of deranged serial killers.

Were this Hollywood, Dorner would not only have evaded capture but would have exposed the corrupt mayor/police chief, brought down the police department, and cleared his name.

Every rogue cop movie, every story of a rebellion vs. an empire (and honestly, where are you going to find something closer to a real life Imperial Storm Trooper in America than the LAPD?), every story about a man standing up to an unjust authority tells us he should be the protagonist of this story. Is it any wonder so many want to think of him as one?

were this hollywood, he wouldn't have gone and started killing slightly related people in a way that doesn't do anything to bring down the system.
Unless it's some tarantino-esque revenge movie in which the suspension of disbelief is pretty evident.

I don't agree with how this was handled, you don't shoot a pick-up because it might carry a dangerous criminal.

 

[Craig234]

When I started reading this paragraph, I agreed in my mind that the story reminded me a bit of a season of "24".

But the difference is that the hero does everything in his power to bring justice to those who deserve it and to avoid harming innocents. And Dorner didn't do that.

If he really thought there were so many problems, the heroic action would have been to devote his life to exposing and fixing them. Not go out in a blaze of pointless "glory", taking a bunch of bystanders with him.

However, we'd have never heard his name if he didn't kill people. His manifesto would have been an unread facebook 'blog'. Not justification but relevant.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What Dorner did was wrong. But how many innocents did the LAPD shoot in their "zeal" to kill Dorner? These incidents of incompetency are what angered me most....cowards who value their own lives more than those of the citizens they are sworn to protect.

 

[lotus503]

What Dorner did was wrong. But how many innocents did the LAPD shoot in their "zeal" to kill Dorner? These incidents of incompetency are what angered me most....cowards who value their own lives more than those of the citizens they are sworn to protect.

I agree with this, what Dorner did was wrong in every sense. But that does not mean the allegations were wrong or the actions of the LAPD were correct in connection with the case.

You have folks who flat out heard on police scanners they were going to burn it(the cabin), you have the LAPD shooting innocent people, it was the manifesto which gave rise to suspicion about LAPD and LAPD's own actions as this unfolded giving more weight to the allegations.

 

[Craig234]

So what's come of the reported controversy that the police apparently deliberately set the fires, but lied about it?