Very true. I am one of those people who sometimes have difficulty letting things go, but not to the point that I go on a muderous killing spree.

The trick, I think, is to be a “happy” warrior. Mr. Dorner, although smiling in almost every photo they have shown of him, obviously did not fall into that category…

Role MODELS, I mean. Like, say, Piers Morgan. Or Obama.

Not to mention the dozen or so people who were shot four of whom died.

As a total stranger I would hardly describe Chris Dorner as a person who was psychologically fragile or lacking in resourcefulness in dealing with failure.

As a total stranger I look at the results of the strategy he employed to deal with failure and describe him in precisely that way — at best.

Flip side is that sometimes the ‘nut in the lobby’ is not nutty at all. As a former staffer at Penn State staffer I can tell you ten years ago there was one former employee of the athletic department claiming Sandusky had problems with little boys. We all called him a “nut“

“Clearly, this man was trained to be a killer and to use violent methods as the ultimate arbiter of conflict.”

Your statement is as presumptive and misguided as you imply Stacy’s conclusion to be.

Hmmmm? How do I reach this conclusion?

You say Dorner is “clearly” a “trained killer”. Trained by whom? The LAPD? The Navy? Piers Morgan and other leftie hacks spewing hatred? Or was his family life filled with violence as a prime example?

I hate to break it to you, pal, but a lot of killers aren’t “trained”. They aren’t always prior military, or a former cop. Often, they are ordinary looking people who decide to take a human life for some reason. For money. For fun. For revenge. Because they are mentally ill. They find a way, be it knife, gun, baseball bat, gasoline, rope, or bare hands, and do it.

Learning to handle a firearm does not make one a trained killer. It means that one is able to kill if necessary. “Trained killer” implies a purpose in life, and that’s something that I disagree with in regards to Dorner. He was brutal and clumsy, but not trained. If he were trained, he wouldn’t have been cornered and killed so readily.

And Piers Morgan fans like Chris Dorner?

Well! We have a disappointed Dorner fan in the house.

Alas, Dorner was anti-Second Amendment. And carried a “high powered rifle”. So this troll needs a new model to wave about.

You should know better. Whenever Matthews appears to be correct, it only means you haven’t looked deep enough.

Dorner was no “nut in the lobby” or aggrieved civil servant beset by esoteric and Kafkaesque bureaucratic rulings. He falsely accused a fellow officer of a felony, was caught and fired for it. As with many Departments, LAPD continued to pay him through a lengthy and arduous appeals process which he lost.

Dorner was a wrongdoer – a criminal – who was caught and paid the price with his job. He could have been criminally prosecuted and sued by the officer he defamed. He got off easy.

To compare the average nut in the lobby to Dorner is libelous to the nuts.

Making a “nut in the lobby” out of their targets is exactly the game Rauhauser and company are up to. It’s pitifully easy to set someone up like they do, and force them to either crash and burn with the system or work like hell to become the greater bully.

And this is exactly one reason why government bureaucracy fails at so many levels. We have people on the inside of the bureaucracy that make snap decisions, like that idiot judge did with Aaron Walker, and they treat the man exactly like the nut in the lobby.

So when those guys get up to their mischief, the only choices their victims have is to hide, try like hell to carry on without hiding, or become the greater bully and hit back twice as hard.

Janet Reno, is that you?

While that phrase sets my teeth on edge, too, it’s typical of those who never handle firearms. Something about those who do is a real mystery to them. Like thinking of a gardener as a “shovel ninja” because he can handle garden tools or something.

By his own words, even those who knew him best, his family and friends turned away. By his own words, he justified the killing of those he knew were innocent in retaliation of those he believed had wronged him. His weak manifesto was a martyrs farewell, an epitaph rather than a tale of honor or courage through adversity . In his own words, the most important thing to him, his “good name”, had been destroyed by “others”, through no fault of his own. But in the end, it was he alone who chose the way in which a lifetime reputation would be dishonored, he chose the way in which his name would forever be remembered.

Ahhhhh, never waste a crisis with real dead people to interject lies into a conversation. Go back and read the mans manifesto….he was the poster child for people just like you.

Heh! Who knows, it might be Barack incognito.

Based on my admittedly cursory glance at Dorner’s history when this story first broke, it seems two linked events led to Dorner’s firing: (1) he reported his female supervisor for kicking a detainee in the head and chest; and (2) a panel composed of police professionals held it was okay to fire Dorner because it regarded his testimony as less credible than his supervisor’s testimony. I.e., in the panel’s view Dorner lost the “he said, she said” contest.

It appears Dorner sought, but was denied, the ability to bring a court case — which presumably would have allowed him to present the issue to a jury. The appellate court denied leave to file a lawsuit on the basis that the police panel had sufficient evidence to fire Dorner, because it was entitled to believe his supervisor’s testimony over Dorner’s.

If Dorner was telling the truth, then one can begin to understand how being fired could have eaten into him — he was fired for truthfully reporting abuse by his supervisor, and the system in place punished his admirable behavior by branding him a liar without ever giving him a chance to present his case to an impartial jury. Obviously Dorner’s violent actions in response to what happened to him (even if it went down this way) can’t be condoned, but perhaps a better situation for handling such situations would bar a whistleblowing cop from being terminated in such a situation absent a finding by an impartial jury that the whistleblower clearly lied.

How can we expect any cop to whistleblow in the future at the risk that he or she will be fired if a police panel, which might act based on political or personal considerations, finds that he or she likely lied, and no impartial jury can ever review that determination?

Once he killed a kid, he crossed the line of deserving an honest inquiry into what made him snap. It doesn’t matter anymore. It only matters that whatever-his-name was is dead, so we can begin the process of forgetting his existence.

I think a LOT of patent cases are like this. I know of several guys who just gave up and let them go because they couldn’t afford the fight against unjust taking of their work.

The ones who shrugged it off are much happier than some of the ones I’ve seen fight on for years, only to get a couple million in settlement. (I don’t do law, I do creativity, that’s how I know those guys.)

It’s obvious from his manifesto that he had isolated himself, that he’d turned his back on humanity and was sustained by his burning need for justification and rehabilitation. His, and our, problem is that his morality was solely internal and completely disconnected from a sense of shared humanity.

This was a guy who chased his grievances down a rat hole until there was nothing left but killing rage masquerading as a demand for justice. It looks as if the only autonomous actor in his universe was himself.

I am not a psychologist, nor do I play one on TV, but it seems to me that Dorner believed that he had lost everything that gave his life meaning and formed his sense of self.

More to the point, he believed that powerful external forces had taken that from him. That I can understand to some extent (because it’s difficult and painful to accept ownership of your life if it doesn’t go the way you want), but not to the point where murdering the daughter of somebody he thought responsible, and her fiance, would balance accounts.

No, not a “happy warrior.” The only word that fits for me is “deranged.” In every sense of the word.

Emphasis on ‘red’.

Your wrong assumption – made without malice – does not invalidate your sentiment at all.

Thanks!