A quarterly magazine of urban affairs, published by the Manhattan Institute, edited by Brian C. Anderson.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
Crazy to Everyone but the New York Times « Back to Story
Showing 66 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
Crazy? Delusional? Emotionally Unstable?
Yes to all of the above. Which brings up a key point and a very important issue related to the LAPD's policy and procedures having been overlooked and buried within the undoubtedly deplorable and alleged murderous actions of Christopher Dorner.
That which was overlooked was Dorner's request for reintegration training and intervention after returning from his military duty and before being reassigned to street patrol.
Often there is high price to pay and lives lost or put at risk when official policies and procedures are not adhered to.
Was this an instance of "a penny wise and a pound foolish?"
From the DORNER v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT Appeals Court transcript.
It shows that when Dorner returned in July 2007 after a year absence to the street beat in San Pedro, his training officer [Sgt XXXXX] noted that he:
[Quote] "...had expressed to her the need for reintegration training because he had been away for a long time during his military deployment." [pg 4 paragraph 3]
The court transcript also details that Dorner, when testifying about the training officer stated that he:
[Quote] "...had asked Sergeant XXXXX several times for reintegration training after his deployment and had spoken with other officers about it, but he was told that probationary officers did not receive reintegration training." [pg 12 paragraph 3]
It is/was untrue that probationary officers cannot receive reintegration training.
Again, reading from the transcript Dorner, [Quote] "...gave Lieutenant XXXXXXXX a request for the training, and she said that he could attend." [pg 12 paragraph 3]
By this time the Board of Rights hearing was being planned and Dorner was placed on administrative leave. Told to check in from home.
What is this reintegration training?
Let's turn to a reading from the August 2010 FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, "The Returning Military Veteran"
The following information that is found specifically details the LAPD Military Liaison Program. Note the portions, "...a reintegration program to provide returning personnel retraining, physical and mental health assessments..." [and also] “The goal of the program is to ensure the veteran remains part of the LAPD family during their deployment and to look out for their mental health.”
---the entire paragraph cited below---
Created in 2003, the Los Angeles Police Department’s (LAPD) Military Liaison Program (MLP) strives to offer a central point of contact to handle the many concerns and inquiries from deployed officers’ families. The MLP has evolved to include assisting personnel before, during, and after their military leave with any of their needs, including benefits, promotions, and transfers. The department also has instituted a reintegration program to provide returning personnel retraining, physical and mental health assessments, and background checks.11 About 500 of LAPD’s 9,500 officers have been deployed to the war effort and have engaged the MLP since its inception. “The goal of the program is to ensure the veteran remains part of the LAPD family during their deployment and to look out for their mental health.”
Now let's go to the direct link to the official LAPD's Military Liaison Program.
So, the LAPD has a Division called the Military Liaison Office specifically established to handle these type of requests and issues. Yet, from reading the appeals court transcripts it appears that Dorner was not provided the opportunity to be assigned to the reintegration training upon his request.
What does all this mean and why does it make a difference? If the LAPD really wished to "take care of their own" as they always say they do, and if the LAPD had offered Dorner the reintegration training he requested, and specifically the mental health services and the psychological counseling that goes with it, Dorner may have not become further delusional and thereby five people could possibly still be alive today.
And... even if the reintegration of Dorner did NOT produce the desired results to assure safe duty within the Department and they decided to cash him out, it could have possibly been enough of an intervention allowing Dorner a way out with his pride and name intact.
Then again, I'm sure it's proven to the LAPD to have been more cost effective to simply dump his sorry self from the force and thereby use up thousands of police man-hours, spend untold millions of dollars chasing the dude all over the region and have five lives lost... In lieu of what, a few thousand bucks for reintegration training? A penny wise and a pound foolish.
Olin Fellow. Manhattan Institute.
Lostinla: I've wondered about the commnets as well, and have concluded that they come from retired or present university professors - the same ones over and over again. there is sometimes a similarity of expression that could lead one to believe that there are several people making the same comments over and over again.
And you are correct - these comments only follow Times articles and columns, and you see nothing like it anywhere else. The level of agreement and the language is almost zombielike. Bizarre!
In my paranoid moments I've wondered whether some of these are professional posters - I wouldn't put anything past today's Times. I'll leave it at that.
Upgrading the performance of your lovely car is a very pretty job. Exterior car accessories give your car luxury appearance and more function. The portable car refrigerator can provide you with fresh food or drinks. Car dvd player offer prefect music feast to you. Car seat covers and car mat make your drive a joy.
It's obvious that the Left is to blame for the Dorner rampage in several ways. The shooter was an chronic misfit; a typical entitiled Black with an axe to grind. He was just the kind of loser that the Left has redefined into a transcendently superior being: (Alienated, sullen, afraid, resentful, low-IQ).
These losers and misfits are told all their lives that the winners are to blame for their own misery. That they are losers is not even a little bit their fault.
They are taught by the Left and its ally, the entertainment/media industry, that to lash out at their perceived oppressors is heroic and fine. What this third-world savage was doing was simply following the mainstream Leftist narrative that glamorizes losers and deviants while telling them that they are victims who ae not to blame for who they are or what happens to them. It's all the fault of productive, Christian, successful Whites. The Left tells him so every day. And the left tells them that to violently lash out at their "oppressors" is a fine and heroic thing.
The affirmative-action parasite currently defiling the White House is another example of a criminal who feels that his illegal actions are heroic, when they are simply corrupt and evil. Obama is an accessory to murder because of Fast and Furious and he appears to have no guilt about this at all. He is the enemy of his own country, and appears to be quite happy about that. I'm sure his first thought about Dormer was to say that if Dormer was his son, he would look just like him. That sort of idiotic and literally insane statement by our Imbecile-in-Chief about Trayvon Martin (in ObamaCare we will have Trayvons as actual doctors. "I'm Dr. DeShawn Lexus and I'm fixin ta cure your White ass.) But even Obama isn't so stupid as to openly congratulate a cop killer.
And the behavior of the LAPD in their search for Dormer is a perfect example what what you get from several decades of Leftist hiring and training of police. Because of affirmative-action, lowering standards, hysterical response training and lax discipline the LAPD has become the perfect tool for Leftist tyranny. They have little or no interest in making judgement calls about people. The police have been told that in the interests of "equality" and the fraud of "disparate impact" that EVERY SINGLE person they deal with must be treated as the lowest-common-denominator of lively, vibrant, diverse, criminal scum. We are truly living in what the great Sam Francis called "annarcho-tyranny."
Read LA 56....or see the "Bad Cop" section@ www.familylawcourts.com
This article is strange to say the least.
Read LA 56....or see the "Bad Cop" section@ www lfamilylawcourts.com
This article is strange to say the least.
"How about his victims? Has anyone thought of them?" - ph16 (2-14-13)
Didn't some recently former Secretary of State say "What difference does it make?"
GOOD READ! A couple things struck a chord with me. Now, first and most obvious, The Times is a left agenda newspaper. If one can't see that, try venturing outside of NY ocassionly. Second, the word "memories." Memories of racism...Memories of fathers...just saying! Finally, the Dorner issue raises a double whammy with Liberals. If you support Dorner, then you support the Constitution and right to due process. Which leaves you asking why your own president flippantly disregards when it comes to human life. If you do not support Dorner, then you do support executions without trial then you are willingly submitting to communistic rule of government. Either way, Dorner+Benghazi+Constitution=Bad day at Obama household.
questioning assumptions by the times invites loyal readersahip, like yours truly and many kindred souls.
However legitimate his grievances are, I hope he doesn't get made into a poster child. There are several people who are fired unfairly for what they see as exposing corruption and don't go off on a rampage killing people. How about his victims? Has anyone thought of them?
Don't try to defend the LAPD. I am as conservative as they come, and I can still see that the criminal justice system in Califronia systemically exploits the poor and that most LEOs here should be incarcerated.
The LAPD is an empowered gang. Dorner's battle with them played out like the gang fight it was.
Trying to keep order in our crowded and morally bankrupt society using an utterly corrupt legal system has turned these sometimes well-intentioned agents of the law into criminal monsters who operate above the law and rule the streets with terror.
The rule of law in California is dead, there is only the rule of LEOs.
@Delmonico, I never claimed that Dorner had a point. I never supported his action. However, Dorner's actions, and the right outrage they provoke, does not mean that LAPD should get a free pass. Firing someone on trumped up charges is a serious thing, and whether it is against a cop who went crazy, or someone who had a more rational response, does not absolve LAPD of its duty. I would like that LAPD's internal investigations are fair, regardless of the response from the employee facing dismissal. You should not assume that Dorner's crazy actions automatically mean that LAPD was fair in its dealing s with him.
No, Timothy McVeigh's actions are not justified because of Ruby Ridge or Waco. However, at the same time, his actions do not mean that FBI should not have been investigated for Ruby Ridge and Waco. As a matter of fact, both were investigated.
From public documents I have read about Dorner, it appears that LAPD internal affairs had a bias against him, and were determined to dismiss his allegation, and then use false allegation charge against him to fire him from LAPD. For the sake of public trust, it is now upon LAPD to show in an objective and impartial way that it was not the case.
Do you have any thoughts on why the IA investigation never mentions testimony from the suspect whom Teresa Evans is alleged to have kicked?
Yes, of course, the NY Times is a liberal rag now , good for nothing more than provoking outrage by being extreme. But what do say about those comments that regularly follow these columns. These comments always follow in a nearly zombie like kind of conformity. Written ever so grammatically correct and mostly in a passive air of resignation, nearly 100% of the writers agree, that yes, once again the NY Times has " hit the nail on the head." Like Dorner, their writing seems to demonstrate they are not ill-informed or reactionary. They are like no one I have met but I am sincerely curious to find out how they came to be.
As for racism in the Rodney King case, one
question is still not answered by the liberal
media and its apologists: Why weren't the two
men in the car with King beaten as King was?
They are black. No one has heard a peep out
of them since. Were they paid off to keep
quiet while the Left went on a crusade against
the "racist" LAPD?
Have any of these Dorner enthusiasts considered what the police themselves might be thinking about these attempts to lionize this maniac?
After all, it is the cops who will be tasked with disarming the populace if their dream of banning firearms in the hands of private citizens is ever to be realized.
As for the cops, pay close attention. You will be "pigs' in the eyes of these sixties holdovers.
It's time for the NYT to rethink itself and the positions it takes. Who and what do they serve, anymore, anyway?
Great pervert minds think alike.
George Zimmerman: "White Hispanic". Tick RACISM.
Adam Lanza; his mother had firearms. Tick GUN CULTURE.
Christopher Dorner; grudge-afflicted. Tick VICTIM.
@Nathan; I think that you and the NYT completely miss the almost obscene nature of using Dorner and his actions as a "teachable moment". Is everyone who has lost a series of individual challenges against a large institution deserving of such attention and reconsideration of their case, or only those who are willing to draw attention to themselves by means of violent murderous outbursts?
Large public institutions tend to be self protective when they are challenged, even to the point of acting in such a way that makes public attention necessary. This is a fact of modern life, particularly in police forces and is one that calls for some balance. A force that is sure to never behave in such a way that some individuals feel that their rights were compromised is one that cannot threaten criminals. A good example is NYC, where "stop and frisk" is an issue with many who feel it is a violation of civil rights. However, as compared to Chicago, which is relatively free of such violations, deaths from firearms are relatively rare.
So there are always going to be ongoing abuses to investigate. So where should we find the impetus to investigate such incidents? There is also plenty of evidence that the Feds can overstep their bounds. Nathan, would it be obscene to express the idea that, because of Ruby Ridge and Waco, Timothy McVeigh "had a point". We saw the same sort of twisted logic when many pointed to bullying as being a "reason" for the Columbine rampage.
While there may be some minimal, trivial connection between such murderer's actions and their given reasons, I think that people who so easily buy in to the killer's logic show something of a moral emptiness in their thinking.
Richard Gettler was sitting on a bench outside the hotel when Evans and Dorner arrived to respond to a call by hotel employees of Double Tree Hotel. Gettler was arrested for failure to obey the orders of a police officer. What crime was he committing, and why was he asked to get up from the bench? What law did he break? Why did he have to be arrested in the first place. The report claims that he was abusive to police. It is important to find out when: was he abusive before or after the police asked him to get up from the bench.
Is it illegal to sit on a public bench?
I do not condone Christopher Dorner's (CD) action. He lost any credibility when he started shooting and killing people who were not connected to his case, like police officers in another city, the daughter of the officer assigned to defend him, and her finance, etc.
Having said that, the case against him, that led to his dismissal, seems to fail the smell test. Only three people can know truthfully if Teresa Evans (TE) kicked Richard Gettler (RG), these being CD, TE and RG. Of course, TE is not going to admit that she kicked RG, while he was being arrested. SHe would lose her job, wouldn't she, if it really happened? That leaves the testimony of RG. He claimed that he was kicked. LAPD's internal investigation concluded that RG's testimony was not reliable. That is very convenient, from TE's point of view. In fact RG had told his father that he was kicked, or hit with a club (a booted police officer's kick would feel like being hit with a kick, no doubt.) On what basis was RG's testimony excluded? I would think that when two out of three people who were perfect eyewitness say that TE kicked RG, for me that is a very strong case against TE.
Now about the hotel employees who testified that they did not see TE kicking RG. This is not convincing. These were hotel employees, who had called the police in the first place to get rid of RG. Why will they testify against LAPD, and in support of the guy whom they wanted thrown out of the hotel lobby? If they did, then will LAPD respond next time they need to throw out someone from their premises? What about the fear of retaliation by LAPD, if they did testify against TE? Even if these hotel employees did not see TE kicking RG, it DOES NOT PROVE THAT TE DID NOT KICK RG. Perhaps their view was blocked, perhaps they were not looking when she kicked RG. All these things could have been sorted out only at the internal investigation of LAPD, but the report that I read has none of the details. It does not even mention that RG had testified that he was kicked, nor does it mention RG's father's claim that his son had told him the night of arrest that he was kicked. Why is the evidence of hotel employees credible, despite their self interest, but not that of RG or RG's father?
The investigation concludes that they did not find any injury consistent with kicks, nor any evidence of it on RG's clothes. Are the investigators bloody serious? Do they expect to find this evidence two weeks after the incident? It is no wonder that people don't trust the internal investigation of LAPD to be credible. One wonders if the blue line, to serve and protect their own, exists even now.
Based on what I have seen of public documents, I, as a jury, would not have concluded that CD filed a false allegation against TE. I don't think the evidence shows that TE did not kick RG. Preponderance of evidence shows that she did kick RG.
Wow!!, the deeper you get into this, the more it stinks. If Beck is serious about opening the case, he should appoint an independent board, with members from LAPD, and independent judge and a member of civilian community to investigate this matter. If LAPD was right in dismissing CD, then this Board's findings will only enhance LAPD's credibility and that is worth a lot.
However, if the board determines that CD's allegations were true, then LAPD has a long way to go to earn public trust. And this is also worth knowing.
“You know, he just may have a point.” does not appear in the article MadDonald cites and links to.
Maybe the Grey Lady has Alzheimer's.
Seriously, does anybody with an above average intelligence who is not on the East or West coasts, drinking white wine and eating brie while listening to Bach instead of watching football and other truly American based cultural enjoyments, give two rips about what they NYT thinks? That rag gave up all credibility about 4 years ago. Its about a decade away from being a comic book length POS that is used for toilet paper when the roll is empty late at night. Think Im wrong? Seen Time lately? Hows that Newsweek experiment doing? If you are stupid enough to get your "news" from the Grey Lady, then you most likely heard the words "black" "LAPD" "killed other cops" and thought, well my oh my someone is finally sticking to the LAPD and I sure hope they do it for a while.
The liberal progressive media , university, and of course , minority communities somehow love The Manifesto while sane, common sense people see this black thug not only a horror but one who should have never been in the Academy in the first place! But, progressives, the MSM, MSNBC, Chris Matthews et al seem to think all protests, minorities are somehow pure and not responsible for anything they do....ala Obama huh?
Christopher Dorner's conduct over the last week thoroughly justifies the LAPD's judgement.
The New York Times reliably and consistently supports those who harm innoncents in the name of their perverted sense of social justice.
Not only are the writers there a disgrace, they are loony.
If Adam Lanza(D) had just posted a leftist manifesto there would be a Democrat/Occupy #TeamSandyHookShooter
3. The cops murdered him by setting the house he was in on fire.
1. He was armed and had killed four people. The notion that violence done to Dorner constitutes 'murder' cannot be taken seriously.
2. The owner of the cabin has said publicly she had stocked propane and firewood therein.
The New York TImes? I know it used to be relevant but does anyone with a brain even read it anymore?
Google "LADP retaliation" you might be surprised by what you find.
Alas, the New York Times long ago abandoned thorough, objective reporting in favor of "journalism" that furthers a certain world view not unlike NBC's editing of George Zimmerman's 911 call to make him appear to be a racist.
Yet another superb piece by Mac Donald. Thank you.
Generations of American kids were raised on Voltaire’s trite quotation: “I do not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it”. But, in retrospect, whatever was so vitally important about so-called free speech?
Understandably, the media holds freedom of speech as undeniably sacred - money and personal self-image drive self-interest in their case. But what about the rest of us? Finding blatant hypocrisy within our media outlets is about as startling as discovering taxpayers who cheat on their tax returns.
Free speech is hard to define and it becomes even harder to identify what personal freedoms it has ever secured. We have vigorously changed our Constitution in numerous ways over the years and if our Constitution is not all that sacred, how does free speech qualify as more so?
Today, a wise central government allows its citizens to babble on and freely speak their minds so long as they don’t act on their thoughts. And with the worldwide web technology, nowadays everyone is talking so nobody listens. Leave Big Media in peace and let them say whatever they believe readers want to hear. They’re running an actual business and supposedly understand their commercial market.
But “defending to the death” the New York Times’ or Fox News’ freedom to speak is incredibly childish, best left to idealists and other adolescents. I’d urge anyone not to defend to the death what I say here, our government is the only force we must individually deal with and needs to be taken seriously. Rightly or wrongly, the government executed this criminal, theoretically for all our sakes. That’s stark reality. Freedom of speech is an ephemeral notion which helps us to avoid dwelling on those not so abstract realities of modern day democracies.
The NY Times had the same attitude regarding Joe Stalin and Fidel Castro. For the Times, there are no enemies on the left.
All of the things you say are reasonable, except...
1. Cops shot two women multiple times without identifying who they were shooting at. LAPD have since offered to pay for the truck those women were in.
2. $1 million dollar bounty on this man's head, an unheard of amount of money and where did it come from? Does the LAPD have an extra million dollars??
3. The cops murdered him by setting the house he was in on fire.
These are behavior patterns of totalitarian government gone bad.
The cops captured him, convicted him and executed him. That is not how this country is supposed to operate.
NY Times, twisted, sick, a fortress of hate towards Normal People, aligning themselves with a racist, maniac killer. The paper of record and the signpost of just where contemporary leftism is. Murder is ok, it depends on who is murdered and who the murderer is. Just what you would expect from savages.nds
The utterly amazing thing is that the NYT thinks that a massacre by a violent lunatic should be treated like a "teaching moment" regarding racism.
Let's suppose for instant that there's some racism in the LAPD. Does the Times really want to imly that it somehow jusfies this massacre? This is beyond bad journalism -- it's outright sick.
You know what I find fascinating?
The very Lefties who are championing Dorner as someone who "fought the Power" are voting in every election to CONCENTRATE POWER into fewer and fewer hands.
And they're naive enough to believe that the government autocrats will be benevolent and wise, with proper Lefty views. In what universe??
The LAPD is about 70% nonwhite now: that's another glaring contradiction to their thesis, that Whitey still is the Power. "The Man" is the Hispanic mayor; the PD are mostly people of color.
So tell us again, comrades, why is Dorner your hero?
The NYT has not been a "news paper" for many decades. It is a lefty trash sort of rag that lets it's editorial "insights" leech over into it's "reportage". Why anyone would buy it or read it with all the credible alternatives is beyond understanding.
This is really a terrific article that captures quite well the widespread tendency of some to find racism where it does not exist. When subjected to any reasonable burden of proof, the unsubstantiated allegations that enjoy such a safe haven in the New York Times fail to stand up to scrutiny. Ms. MacDonald is to be applauded for her careful and thoughtful analysis.
How long will it take for the NYT and others to call for an investigation by the Civil Rights Division at Justice to determine whether in his demise, Dorner's Civil-Rights were violated?
I used to be one of those people who would drive 20 minutes while on vacation to get a copy of the daily NYT. That stopped some time ago when they outted banks in other countries helping us track terrorist funds, when several completely bogus stories made it to page one, and when reading every story required vigilance to sort bias from facts. The Dorner story is just a continuation of a long-standing and self-defeating pattern.
Anyone who gives the slightest credence to this "racism" spin needs to review the pictures of Mr.Dorners' victims. Why, if racism was any part of his justification, did he kill other black police officers ?
How exactly was the Rodney King arrest racist? King kept charging the officers (3 whites, 1 Hispanic) even after having been beaten and tasered. They told him repeatedly to stay down but he kept charging them. The three blacks in the car with King were not touched because they did not attack the cops. Apparently, racism means cops are not supposed to fight back when attacked by a black criminal.
Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
LAPD's attitude toward concealed carry is indeed racist and classist in outcome. Glitterati can have them. Nobody else need apply, and LAPD takes active steps to prevent ordinary people from applying.
That is "progressive" in the worst sense of the word.
As to other issues, I am happy to say I don't live in Los Angeles or go there to work since 1988. I don't miss downtown a bit. It will be nice to see the current mayor leave, a very useless man, but the likely replacements don't offer much if anything of improvement.
Whatever happened to Dorner, HE chose a path of murder and violence. He didn't have to, but HE did. The ending is very sad for all concerned.
The only good thing about it the exposure of people who support Dorner. They make a strong case for the 2nd Amendment and concealed carry for average law-abiding citizens. There are some very ill people out there who may try to emulate their hero some day.
i seldom buy the NYT anymore--only when the WSJ is absent. After this, absolutely never again
Do these clowns at the NYT really think that when minorities become the majority they will look favorably on them for being deferential and pandering? I don't think so. All they will see is another organization run by white folks and act accordingly.
There is no justifying what he has done. But I find the apparent reason for his rampage to be very interesting, to say the least. He was fired for lying in an offical police report alleging that he witnessed fellow LAPD officers using excesive force and brutality agaisnt a suspect. He was fired because the LAPD claim this is a lie. Being that this is the LAPD, a group with a long history of excessive force, I think it is highly credible to believe that he was fired as part of a coverup and did not lie. But even if that was the case, his actions are 100% completely, without exception, unjustified. The background to the story is just a little odd given the history of the LAPD.
The article is typical of the attitude among liberals at the NY Times, that there is "racism hiding underneath every rock". These people are hopeless and should be ignored. Such fools add nothing to the real monumental forward strides that have been made in this country over the years towards racial equality. Further, liberals see blacks as "perpetual victims" , who are constantly mistreated and cannot do for themselves. The liberal view of blacks as "helpless victims" is disgraceful but not surprising. This is just another example of the morally and intellectually bankrupt liberal mindset.
It's not the crimes committed; it's who committed the crime and who it was aimed at.
Perpetrators, if from the right privileged class, are always victims, regardless of the crime.
Victims, if from the wrong class, are always responsible for the perpetrator's acts.
As always, Heather MacDonald points out the ludicrous viewpoints of the left, as far too often propagated by the NYT's equally inane, faux reporters.
45 years ago the NYT was a daily staple and the Sunday Times was a family ritual. Grandfather read excerpts at the dinner table (usually Russell Baker) and the front section, the magazine, book review, and editorial section passed in order of seniority from grandparents, to parents, to children. No more. The paper has no credence. It's biased, sloppy, and ridiculously selective. Mom still does the daily crossword.
I'm afraid he's NOT crazy to everyone. The LA Times article cited below has comments running about 90% in support of this maniac.
Think about some of these people when the politicians attack the 2nd amendment...
Homicidal whackadoos always are reacting to some real or perceived unfariness.
For example: Amy Bishop was upset over an unfair tenure system, the Virginia Tech crazy was upset over economic inequality, the Binghamton U shooter felt that his grades were unfair.
Occasionally there is an actual wrong somewhere underneath the crazy -- after all, the world does not contain only nice people, rainbows, and lollipops -- but the key ingredient is the crazy, not the grudge.
Most people have been the victim of unfairness of some sort. Few of them go on killing sprees.
I guess the message from the media here is that if you kill people, we will pay attention to your whining. If you try to react to unfairness in a productive or non-violent way, we will ignore you. After all, the unfairness can't be that bad, if you didn't kill over it.
I guess the relatives of Dorner's victims are only "real" victims if they now get guns and start shooting strangers. Otherwise, we can ignore them, and just talk about the wrongs Dorner may or may not have endured.
The racist and irresponsible NYT would never have had the nerve to take such an obvious position of support had this guy been white.
This is kind of a chicken/egg thing:
Does a progressive become a progressive because they are unbalanced or does exposure to liberalism cause mental problems.
If anyone, minorities or otherwise, feel there is racism in law enforcement, why don't they suit up, get a badge, and make a difference instead of crying about how unfair it is? Even Dorner himself said folks need to stop focusing on bling, ho's and cars. Finish school, get involved. And, if it's as bad as Dorner claims, why did he fight so hard to stay with LAPD? It would be quite different if he had left his job voluntarily and then came out with these allegations. He is a man scorned and must be looked at as such.
The New York Times long ago lost its most valuable commodity - its credibility. The editorial policies of the paper now infect everything, and if the Times reports something as factual you simply can't trust it to be so.
The Times now bases its choice of stories, its presentation, the context, everything, premised on its overriding mission to promote liberal causes near and dear to the Democratic Party, and to denigrate anything it sees as being contrary to those causes. The paper has this become untrustworthy, and useless as a tool for finding out what is going on in the world.
Salzburger has made these changes incrementally - so that today the paper I remember growing up bears no resemblance to the propaganda journal that is the New York Times today. Given today's climate, perhaps there would not be any means to save the paper, but under the present grossly incompetent leadership, the paper's decline has been nothing less than shocking.
There is nothing worth reading in the Times these days, unless you are of the same narrow political, ethical and cultural stripe as those who run the paper. It has become THAT bad - I defy anyone to defend what has happened or to assert that the Times still maintains any sort of credibility. The argument of its editors that the "cosmopolitan" nature of its audience is a thin defense indeed.
The only question that remains is whether those who run the Times truly believe in the relative objectivity of its reporting. I remember taking a class at college in small group communications, and learning that in some circumstances small groups can actually convince themselves of just about anything. It's all that I can think of - the more logical explanantion is that those who run the Times know precisely what they are doing, but believe themselves to be on a mission to change the culture, and that mission is more important than maintaining credibility. That belief is wholly inconsistent with any notion of journalistic ethos, which is sadly not just lacking but totally absent at this once great institution.
In fact, what is reported on here is as a good an example as any of what has happened at the Times. It is likely that those at the paper involved in reporting this story reflexively acted the way they did since it was consistent with the Times present day mission. In short, hard as it is to bleieve, the people involved will be truly shocked at this article. It shows just how far the paper has fallen.
The old gray lady, once the unchallenged leader of the 4th estate, has morphed into 24/7 platform for 'progressive' causes. If there's a way to take a simple story and spin it into an attack on the establishment, the Times' editors will find it. For the editors of the Times, evidently, the message is more important than the facts.
Interesting point of view: "For a good part of a decade, the LAPD lived under the yoke of a gratuitous federal civil rights consent decree, spending hundreds of millions complying with its insanely burdensome paperwork requirements. The decree was lifted in 2008, when a federal judge belatedly declared the department in compliance with its constitutional obligations."
The claim here is that LAPD changed under this "inanely burdensome" whatever it was. That is the system that inflicted compliance with civil rights statutes. Gee, kiddo, it worked !!
But then, surprisingly, in 2013 the no-probable-cause attack on Margie Carranza and Emma Hernandez exceeded anything Dorner had claimed. The two gals were delivering newspapers in a Torrance a residential community when LAPD ambushed them. Six of seven officers on the scene fired dozens of bullets into their Toyota Tacoma truck.
Not one of these officers shot out a truck tire. Really, they forgot standard procedure. To what extent are LAPD officers trained for this kind of thing ??? At least Dorner got his fat xxx fired, based on evidence that he was lying. The bigger question is what the Hell is LAPD doing when they hire these people? Is it nothing but physiucal prowess? And do they have filters in place early on and then later to weed out incompetents, as well as mad men? (Shooting out the right-rear tire would normally have been Target # 1 in a hot-pursuit take down. On foot in Torrance, surrounded, if that had been him, Dorner wouldn't have lasted 5 seconds.)
I read a lot of comments to news stories around the country and when police actions are involved its always somewhat shocking to read the number of anti-police comments. On YouTube (I discovered quite by accident)a large volume of postings of police harrassment or brutality and the comments are nearly 100% anti-police. I've only viewed some of them and in some cases the police are clearly out of line and in others its either not clear or simply not what the poster claims it is. As citizens we do need to hold the police accountable but to claim that they're in a continual mode of criminal abuse is worrisome.
Useful insights in this article. Justifying insane ranting individuals and groups is becoming a dominant theme in US politics and culture so we should get used to dealing with them. Of course it is greatly facilitated by having a politically correct cause but you can take "you know, they just may have a point" and fit it with almost every insane rant, manifesto, and manifestering lunatic group out there. E.g Fox News on Ted Nugent: you know he actually just may have an actual point.
Maybe Dorner mistook gross misconduct for racism. That he was sick and deranged doesn't negate his claims of L.A.P.D. corruption, and misconduct. Here's a Reason post about one such case involving an L.A.P.D. officer: "Newly Released Surveillance Footage Shows LA County Sheriff's Deputy Fatally Shooting Jonathan Cuevas While He Was on the Ground" http://reason.com/blog/2012/09/18/newly-released-surveillance-footage-show
The spokesperson for the L.A.P.D. spins away any accountability and the cop is back on the beat.
NYT might as well just go ahead and sign a petition supporting Dorner's actions. To prate about how "he had a point", after what he's done, is to cross a line of sorts.