Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Still butt-hurt over Dorner’s suicide

Written By: Bob - Feb• 18•13

Uncle’s still mad that I called radical libertarians “morally repulsive” for wanting to give Dorner another chance at a final blaze of glory on his terms, where he might manage to make another cop’s wife into a widow.

I’ve arrived at the conclusion that we’re simply going to disagree, strongly, over whether or nor the San Bernadino Sheriff’s Office acted rationally and legally in the way they attempted to flush out Dorner.

If you still want to bitch, the comments are yours.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Phelps says:

    Going complete shill and full on partisan isn’t a good look for you.

    You never go full partisan.

  2. SayUncle says:

    When you call someone “morally repulsive”, you’re not simply disagreeing.

    • Bob says:

      You’re correct.

      People who expect officers to wait to become targets for a serial cop killer on his terms are morally repulsive to me. I may be in the minority, but that is how I feel.

      Some apparently think officers of the law aren’t entitled to bring a situation like this to a conclusion on terms that favor their survival over that of the serial murderer… as if being a cop relegates them to second class citizenship.

      I’ve never going to apologize for standing for what I feel is reason over dogma.

  3. CTD says:

    Really bad people don’t deserve due process. It’s perfectly fine for the cops to act as judge, jury and executioner and burn them alive, amirite?

    • Bob says:

      Last I checked the facts over the hyperbole, the only cop playing “judge, jury and executioner” was Christopher Jordan Dorner.

      The SBSO gave him every opportunity to surrender. He instead chose to eat a bullet rather than be forced from the cabin and surrender. His choice.

      • CTD says:

        OK Bob. If I set your house on fire, surround it with men who will shoot you dead if you set foot outside, and you make the decision not to burn to death, I’m in the clear, morally speaking. It was “suicide,” you see.

    • Mudlark says:

      Isn’t it the cops job to protect us from morally replusive folks who decide to act as judge, jury and executioner of innocent people?

      CTD you are obviously a Jim Jones follower.

  4. Elisheva says:

    I am a Libertarian and I agree with you. Dorner did indeed commit suicide by cop. That is, he admitted in his manifesto that he was guilty, then when he was confronted at Big Bear, he was ordered to surrender peacefully and instead started shooting at the police. Police officers do have the right to defend themselves, and self-defense is not aggression, but a response to it.

    There are a lot of libertarians who apparently have not thought beyond the sound bytes regarding Libertarian principles. There are others who call themselves libertarian, but who have no libertarian principles to think upon.

    • CTD says:

      I’m having trouble coming up with a scenario in which “defending myself” entails setting fire to a house with someone in it.

    • There has still been NO clear proof that Dorner killed the woman and her fiancé, or that he actually wrote the “manifesto.”
      Do I think it was a “false flag” op, designed to demonize and eliminate a whistleblower who wouldn’t shut up? I don’t know, but I haven’t seen any proof of his guilt on the original charges and the manifesto, and doubt we ever will.
      Do I think that “Law Enforcement” is above being capable of such actions? No.
      (Not all are, but some are, and the higher ups are purely political animals, which inherently makes them suspect for all sorts of corruption and misdeeds in my view.)
      Dorner was contained. They could have dealt with the situation in ways other than “pulling a Waco on him” with very minimal risk to other officers.
      Tearing the house apart with an armored vehicle and burning it down around a contained subject is murder, pure and simple.

    • Mudlark says:


      Pantywaists have difficulty envisioning the use of firearms period. They really have zero respect for the law or police too.

  5. Thomas says:

    My butt hurts from sitting in a chair doing reports all night. Really though guys he could have given up but he didnt. Sure they started a fire but he could have still left that cabin arms in the air to face trial.

    • From the previous behavior of “law enforcement,” (shooting up multiple vehicles with innocent passengers who bore absolutely no resemblance to Dorner) it was pretty clear that they were in a very definite “shoot on sight (or not)” mode.
      Is there any doubt that if he’d showed anything, they’d have riddled it with bullets?

      • Bob says:

        The San Bernadino Sheriff’s Office and LAPD are two separate and distinct law enforcement agencies, separated by more than 80 miles. I feel compelled to point that out, as the SBSO didn’t shoot anyone, much less kill anyone.

      • Mudlark says:

        I may have missed the class but when does one vehicle translate into multiple? Now the question is after killing four innocent people shouldn’t the police have trotted out a police band and offered him all the pizza he could eat while he was shooting at them?
        Carl, tell the truth, you are the head iof the Chicago Teacher’s Union aren’t you?

  6. Tom J says:

    Sorry Bob … I live in the LA area. The police (collectively) went overboard.

    The police in general did not impress during this episode. They acted from fear and paranoia rather than control and discipline. They shot at innocent people without provocation and stormed hundreds of homes without warrants and only the flimsiest of cause. They behaved like thugs, rationalizing because the manifesto listed cops as targets.

    I have no problem that they effectively executed the guy. My problem is that they did so recklessly and stupidly. They set fire to a townhouse, connected to another townhouse, in a mountain forest, surrounded by trees, during a heat wave. Abject stupidity and a crazy risk.

    I’m glad that they got the guy (we think), but as I said, I was not impressed.

    • Mudlark says:

      Tom J.
      I think you have mistaken the LAPD for the TSA. You forgot to mention the police raped thousands and fired wildly into schools.

      Please stop drinking with CTD, and for heavens sake, give up on the dope.

  7. Cole says:

    “You weep for [Dorner], and you curse the [Police]. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That [Dorner’s] death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don’t want the truth because deep down in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall, you need me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way, Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon, and stand a post. Either way, I don’t give a damn what you think you are entitled to.” – Col. Jessup, A Few Good Men

    Dorner was a killer and the cops did their job – they stopped him. Bravo. Bemoaning the death of this evil nutjob because of some misguided notion of due process is repugnant. Dorner had the same right to due process in that cabin that he’d have if he stormed into your house at 2AM. None. Are we still arguing methods? Because there’s one less violent leftist in the world. Too many of them sucking up my air. So you won’t see me shedding any tears that Dorner is extra crispy.

    • Seerak says:

      Dorner had the same right to due process in that cabin that he’d have if he stormed into your house at 2AM

      “Due process” constrains government, not private individuals. Rule of Law 101.

      Because there’s one less violent leftist in the world.

      Apart from the convenient “I think he was a Leftist, so feed him to the lions” rationalization, I read his “manifesto” (the version at SooperMexican’s blog) and in point of political particulars, it was really rather mainstream, only mildly Leftist.

      So you won’t see me shedding any tears that Dorner is extra crispy.

      Dorner concerns me far less than do the rust on those chains the Founders forged to keep government under control. If you’d like a sense of how Pyrrhic the victory over Dorner can potentially be, have a look at these numbers:

      • Mudlark says:


        Donner’s rant was mainstream only if you consider Pol Pot to be a moderate. Having labelled yourself for the rest of us, tell us why you loved Waco and Ruby Ridge.

        Do tell us why Obama’s gun running shouldn’t be cause for impeachment.

  8. Phillip says:

    I enjoyed some of the articles in the past on this site. I am a bit disappointed to discover the blogmaster is a cop apologist. What a shame.

  9. Gunnutmegger says:

    There is plenty of blame to go around here.

    Dorner was a mad dog, and set this entire event into motion. At every stage of this affair, he took the offense and escalated the violence. I am glad he is dead.

    After bending over backwards to let the grossly unqualified Dorner become a police officer (and then belatedly firing him “for cause”), the police then acted like paranoid scaredy-cat yahoos, shooting up innocent bystanders while trying to stop the Frankenstein monster they helped create. Any officer that fired at a civilian should be fired and charged with as many crimes as possible. And heads should roll in the LAPD management (but they won’t do any of these things)

    But I don’t see you people putting some of this blame where it belongs: on the people that created & encouraged racial set-asides, quotas, and minority-normed testing standards. That’s the only reason Dorner got his badge in the first place.

  10. Bill says:

    Sigh. Divide and conquer, folks.

    Dorner is not the hill to die on.

    • Klingonwork says:

      I agree…a murderer is not the hill…

      Although, it must be tough out there right now for 72 year old women not to be shot in the back, twice, being mistaken for serial killers.

      Dorner CHOSE his destiny.

  11. BillC says:

    Dorner didn’t plan on getting out of his killing exploits alive. He didn’t. It’s a win/win for everyone, once you get past the people he murdered and the families whose lives he ruined. Good riddance!

  12. Marty says:

    Flip it over. Dorner was a right-wing patriot who was fighting the good fight for freedom, justice and the American way.

    Do your opinions about his method of death still hold? If you can’t honestly answer 100% yes, you’re a hypocrit.

    • The Fatman says:

      Exactly correct! It is what Bob doesn’t want to see. Remember those articles about how unsecure our electrical infrastructure is? Bam, Bob is a terrorist, seditionist and has to be stopped. I will laugh my ass off when I hear the news that Bob got capped during a SWAT raid because he was a “threat” to officer safety.

      • Bob says:

        You’ll “laugh your ass off” if I’m gunned down in a SWAT raid?

        You and those radicals like you remind me of an old Emo Phillips joke:

        Once I saw this guy on a bridge about to jump. I said, “Don’t do it!” He said, “Nobody loves me.” I said, “God loves you. Do you believe in God?”

        He said, “Yes.” I said, “Are you a Christian or a Jew?” He said, “A Christian.” I said, “Me, too! Protestant or Catholic?” He said, “Protestant.” I said, “Me, too! What franchise?” He said, “Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Baptist or Southern Baptist?” He said, “Northern Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist or Northern Liberal Baptist?”

        He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist.” I said, “Me, too! Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region, or Northern Conservative Baptist Eastern Region?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region.” I said, “Me, too!”

        Northern Conservative†Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1879, or Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912?” He said, “Northern Conservative Baptist Great Lakes Region Council of 1912.” I said, “Die, heretic!” And I pushed him over.

        Fortunately, I have those that I would trust my life on who are built of sterner stuff than fair-weather friends.

      • The Fatman says:

        Good GOD! Bob actually responded to me. I hope you have good friends Bob. It will give the SWAT boys to like to fellate a much more “target rich” environment to work in. Judging by how poorly most of the “only ones” shoot, they need the practice. And I will have a hearty laugh when you get yours. It will be so sweet and ironic when you get capped by they thugs that you venerate as some sort of super-heroes for doing their job…poorly.

      • Bob says:

        Again, thanks for showing the world what kind of “ally” you’d make.

      • Bob,

        I dont’ wish you ill. We simply disagree on one issue.
        All we know about Dorner is what we’ve been spoon-fed by the agencies that killed him.
        Their behavior clearly implies that killing him at all costs was their objective.
        Do you really believe they would have allowed him to surrender peacefully if he’d tried? Ask the people they shot who didn’t even resemble Dorner what they think the police would have done if he’d stepped to the door of that cabin …

      • Mudlark says:

        Fatboy, tell us, who actually types your comments for you. I mean suitting in a closet somewhere while drooling into a shoe becayse of your over indulgence in drugs must make you incapable of the tasks at hand. Even your comments reflect your unstable state of rationality.

    • BillC says:

      “Flip it over. Dorner was a right-wing patriot who was fighting the good fight for freedom, justice and the American way.”

      Except he wasn’t. He was a murderer. He could have come out of the cabin, hands up, and he would have had his day in court. He could have turned himself in at any time before that and fewer would have been wounded and killed, but he didn’t. He could have gone to a reporter and arranged a surrender if he was concerned about not being able to safely surrender to police, but he didn’t. Instead he kept on killing till he was cornered. SBSD weren’t going to have anyone else killed, and so they did what they did.

      Ultimately though, he died by his own hand, sucking on the lead lollipop. Good riddance.

      • Jake says:

        He could have come out of the cabin, hands up, and he would have had his day in court.

        Maybe. If he had phoned ahead to let them know his intentions and set a time to do it, and then inched out very, very slowly while stark naked so they couldn’t say he was hiding any weapons. Maybe.

        But trying to surrender while getting out of a burning building, while being partially obscured by smoke? That would have just been another form of “suicide”.

      • Marty says:

        “Except he wasn’t. He was a murderer.” No, he was an alleged murderer. He was a fugitive, he was a “material witness”. Call him whatever you want. He was still entitled to the protections offered in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Common Law and legal precedents stretching back hundreds of years. What he “was” politically is (and should be) immaterial to the police in the performance of their duties.

        “On my honor, I will never betray my badge, my integrity, my character, or the public trust. I will always have the courage to hold myself and others accountable for our actions. I will always uphold the constitution, my community and the agency I serve.”

      • Phelps says:

        There is no way he could have surrendered. They already shot two unrelated citizens on the chance that they MIGHT have been Dorner, with no warning. They didn’t even wait long enough to see that the truck was nothing like dorners and the occupants were two women.

        They went there to kill dorner. There is no way they would let him out alive. That is why they ordered all the media out of the airspace. Not embargoing the love footage, not putting them on an altitude restriction — they wanted no video.

        They went there to kill him, with no other options. THAT is what I had a problem with. Even with OSAMA BIN LADEN, we went in to capture if possible. Dorner didn’t even get that.

  13. Jake says:

    Maybe they should have just called in a drone strike on the cabin. I mean, why even give him the chance to come out shooting?

    • I was frankly surprised that they didn’t do exactly that …

      • Jake says:

        I’m just a bit curious how Bob reconciles his current statements that killing him with fire without due process was “basic human decency” with his earlier statement that “where the government assumes it can kill American citizens ,at a distance on a whim, without due process” would be “cross[ing] a Rubicon in this nation”.

        The only differences are that the government was a bit closer and that Dorner was contained instead of roaming free.

      • Mudlark says:

        Jake somehow we all know what you’d say if this killer had your family captive. When neoMarxists whine it is so pathetic.

  14. mytralmann says:

    It is pretty easy to take the moral high road when you are at home reading Plato. No one with a .50 Sniper rifle is searching the comfy room you are on with a scope, looking to blow off your head, admittedly painless and humane, since you would not even know it had happened. Dorner got what he dearly wished and planned for: He was given the opportunity to commit suicide by pistol after committing multiple murders of the wholly innocent, which he did. He was not burned to death, which, I have to confess in my moral weakness, I would have preferred. But he did escape capture, which would have made him a celebrity on CNN for years. Too bad for him and the readers of Plato,

    • The Fatman says:

      How do you know? Chances are the shit-stain scoping my house with the .50 is in “Law Enforcement”. Same as the one that is scoping your house you neocon radical.

      • Mudlark says:

        Fatboy everyone here knows you’re take on reality is based on what you read at the DU. Give us a break you Mumia worshipper.

  15. Treker says:

    Dorner was a soldier for his cause . Soldiers die all the time by various means . The police too acted like soldiers and some of them died . The nation is in chaos, I expect a whole lot more death and destruction .
    The last gun show I attended people lined up at the ammo booth and asked for the ammo if they sniveled about the price it was handed to the person behind them who happily paid the price . Folks it’s time to toughen up we are at war.

  16. Bill says:

    Bob, you messed up on this one.

    I’ve read your blog for a while. Generally I agree with most of what you post. Not this time. They could have and should have waited. This was midieval in its procession. All we were missing was the pitchforks and torches, and the cops provided a torch.

    We had a great example of proper police work just a week or 10 days before, in the south, which is often maligned as being trigger happy. They waited and talked, and waited and talked, and when all the other options were exhausted, they acted. The outcome was the same, the bad guy died, but in that case he was given every opportunity to surrender.

    Bad guys in Southern California now understand that they have two options, go out in a blaze of glory, or go out in a fire. Most won’t choose to put a bullet in their own heads, they will come out blazing, and the very event you say you want avoided will occur. One of more cops are likely to die.

    This was poor police work, plain and simple.

    The facts are not yet in, which means the cops didn’t have the facts at the time. Not having all the facts leads to bad decisions. This was a bad decision.

    Top that with the obvious glee of some of the cops as caught on tape, and its apparent that these guys were not interested in acting in the best interest of the public, they wanted revenge.

    • Mudlark says:

      Aah poor Bill, after this scum killed four innocent people only a true believer, one who has drunk deeply of the Kool Aid, would expect wailing and crying by the police after they rid the world of someone boasting of his intent to kill dozens of people.

      Bill tell us, do you work from Nigeria and send emails offering people incredible deals if only they’ll send you a check?

  17. Drew says:

    This is how I saw this case
    Headline: Ted Bundy wages war on the Manson Family…
    John Wayne Gacy murdering the Children of the Corn…

    Now, I’m a little confused here Bob. I’m not sure I understand your opinion on this case. I know you’re not a solid apologist for police misconduct, but I don’t understand the lopsided animosity for only one of the bad guys in this case. Chris Dorner, if all the stories are true was a soldier for the empire. He was happy to wage war on our freedom, but he thought the other bad guys were doing it wrong.

    No doubt, Dorner was a bad guy. From the moment this whole episode started, his execution was inevitable. And for the most part, I say good riddance. What confuses me is the idea that he might get his day in court, had he surrendered peaceably. Watching the LAPD and surrounding departments simply start blasting at anything they thought might be him, it should be obvious that despite the lies told in the media, they were not interested in arresting Dorner. He was an embarrassment before, and a disaster after he started, showing just how effective a single motivated individual could be at “waging war” on the American battlefield with decent training.

    I’ve been reading your articles for a short time now, and I’ve been fairly impressed, so far. On the subject of the coming “revolution,” I think we should try to all get on the same page. We are already at war. We have been for a long time now. At present, it is mostly an information war, the primary weapons are keyboards and camcorders. There has already been blood spilled on both sides in mostly minor skirmishes, standoffs and sieges. When, not if, the conflict goes hot with the umpteenth strike of the match, who exactly do we think will be wearing the “red coats” in southern California?

    These people serve our common enemy. With a few exceptions, they are not our friends. They will gladly fight for their paychecks and pensions, not our freedom.

    • Bob says:

      I must have a bizarre relationship with law enforcement officers. I know more than a half-dozen, and I’ve hung out with a couple of them on occasion. I knew several (three to be precise) from childhood, long before they went into law enforcement.

      I’ve met a few who were jerks. I’ve met a few who are princes among men. All in all, I’ve found them to be normal human beings, no intrinsically better or worse than anyone else, with the same flaws and weaknesses.

      When I see you compare the Dorner’s deranged murder spree against police officers as “Ted Bundy wages war on the Manson Family,” I’m forced to wonder what sort of interactions you’ve had with law enforcement officers. Did you have some sort of real-life traumatic event where the cops id you wrong, or is there simply an adopted animus that causes you adopt the blanket view that cops are bad?

      To grasp my views on a officer-involved shooting (and I’ve written about more than a half dozen), there is no complicated calculus involved. I look at the sort of training you would expect an officer to pick up in BLET or the academy, and whether or not a normal human being, thrust into that particular situation with the sort of basic training you would expect a LEO to have acted within reason and within the law.

      In the cases of Jose Guerena and Erik Scott (just two examples), it was my opinion that officers wrongly shot and killed armed men that were not a threat to their lives. It is my opinion that in both of these instances, a reasonable person with a basic law enforcement training background should not have fired at these men, and when they did fire, they fired far more rounds that the situation could have possibly justified. In my opinion, the officers in each event should have been brought up on manslaughter charges.

      The situation involving Dorner featured no such ambiguity. He’d murdered the daughter of an officer and her officer fiance, had shot at one squad car and had inflicted minor injuries, then fired into a second squad car where he killed another officer and severely wounded another. Dorner then went to ground for the better part of a week.

      When he emerged, his first contact with law enforcement was another attempted ambush of state game and fish officers, and then he engaged SBSO officers that black his path, and retreated into a cabin, where he killed a SBSO deputy and severely wounded another. In the ensuring hours, he engaged in a second firefight with the SBSO and attempted to break out of the cabin, deploying smoke grenades to screen his movements. The SBSO returned fire, possibly wounding him, and drove him back into the cabin. The entire time, the SB Sheriff states Dorner continued to engage SBSO officers.

      SBSO deputies were under continuous fire from Dorner, at which point they breached the building and deployed tear gas in an attempt to force him to surrender. Dorner refused.

      SBSO then faced a day turning into late afternoon and the possibility that if the conflict continued into the night, Dorner, who might have had night vision gear the SBSO did not, might manage to shoot his way out of the cabin under the cover of darkness deployed “burners,” CS grenades, to bring the conflict to a conclusion in the daylight hours.

      You and others obviously think that it was wrong for SBSO to do anything other than sit there and continue taking fire from Dorner. I disagree. I think reasonable people in such a circumstance would do what was necessary to bring the situation to a close before Dorner could kill again.

      Jake wants to know how I can reconcile my comments about using drone strikes to assassinate Dorner with the events as they played out. There is nothing to reconcile. You can’t surrender to a drone. The SBSO called upon Dorner to surrender repeatedly, and he responded with continual barrages of gunfire before eventually committing suicide.

      • Jake says:

        SBSO deputies were under continuous fire from Dorner, at which point they breached the building and deployed tear gas in an attempt to force him to surrender. Dorner refused.

        Really? Just the other day you said:

        The large exchange of automatic fire occurred when Dorner popped a white smoke grenade and attempted to fight his way out of the cabin. There was no fire from the SBSO when the Bobcat breached the structure that I could hear.

        The SBSO then used regular tear gas to no effect. No shots fired by either side.

        The next and final shot occurred when Dorner (presumably) committed suicide after the CS grenades were tossed into the front of the structure.

        That doesn’t sound like “continuous fire” to me. Have you found new information since then to indicate that he had started shooting again when they decided to burn the cabin down?

      • Drew says:

        I appreciate the reply, Bob. I think I gave the wrong impression in my attitude toward the LAPD. I too, know more than a few officers and deputies, even a retired chief. Your description fits quite well, some wonderful people, some not.

        It isn’t the badge I care about, it’s the men and their attitudes. And the steroids. And the alcoholism. And the promotion of predatory behavior, the us-versus-them bunker mentality that seems to infest pretty much every segment of our government, not just police.

        As many have pointed out, police departments these days are paramilitary organizations. They don’t serve and protect, they fight the war on drugs, the so called “war on terror”, the war on gangs, the war on… you name it. Whether they like it or not, or even know it, these men and women are not peace officers, they’re soldiers, shock troops in the war on freedom. And every one of the rest of us is assumed to be the enemy until they determine we’re not, especially if they’ve had their federal training.

        My interaction with police in general has been kept to a tolerable minimum. Never had my dog shot for barking, my grandma wasn’t beaten for being unresponsive without her hearing aid in. Pretty much just the standard highway robbery most of us have to worry about. I’ve even lent a hand on a few occasions.

        Watching the coverage of the entire affair was laughable. Of course, we don’t have all the facts and we likely never will, but assuming for a moment that we have enough reliable info to work with, we do know a few things.

        Dorner’s “manifesto” pointed to a number of problems in the department, including racism, brutality and a culture of corruption, to include filing false statements against suspects and even each other. That his own firing apparently included this very corruption, with friends of the officer he accused presiding and ruling, predictably, against him is offered as evidence.

        That the response to these allegations was not to refute them, but going straight to calling him crazy and evil and anyone who believed or gave even a hint of credibility to his claims was basically a bat-shit crazy, tin foil hat wearing conspiracy nutjob, tells me the charges are not only true but probably much worse.

        Some call his tactics cowardly, but let’s be honest. There was never going to be a trial. Whether in a hail of gunfire, suicide in a burning building or an accident in the back of a police car after live capture, this man was pretty much dead from the beginning, and I’m not complaining about that. But I’m not going to complain that some of the men who were more or less actively hunting him became his targets. As for the ambushes, movie rules do not apply in real life. You do not walk down the middle of the street to your targets base of operations with a giant flashing neon sign overhead and wait for your targets to wander stupidly out to face you one at a time. The evil super villian’s ninja’s do not dance menacingly around the “hero” while he takes them out one by one.

        Anyone want to start a fist fight with someone like Mike Tyson, I value my teeth too much. Throwing rocks at tanks sound like a good idea to anyone? Surely I should have no problem going up against a battleship in a fishing boat?! These sound like dumb ideas because they are. Only an idiot would let a technically superior enemy in a conflict determine the nature of an engagement.

        Whether his cause was even remotely just or not, this man apparently believed he had been seriously wronged and denied justice going through the proper channels. He believed he had lost everything and it seems he saw only one solution to his problem. He declared his intent and at least started to carry it out. I’ve never been in his shoes, but with the direction this country is heading, we will probably all be there in the not too distant future.

        Of course, this case also tells me something else. One somewhat trained (anyone know his full training record?) man with intent and at least basic skills made over 7000 police and sheriff’s deputies completely lose their minds. Imagine what a five or even ten man unit would do working together… God forbid one or more of the gangs that plague the City of Angels worked up the nerve to try something.

        By the way, in the examples you gave of police misconduct, or any of the hundreds of others that might have come to mind, how many officers were fired, let alone prosecuted for criminal actions? Not many.

    • Mudlark says:

      Jake let us consider you evidence, reasoned logic, and the calm detachment and objectivity you have displayed against Bob’s.

      Ding, ding, ding. The only conclusion any reasonable objective observer might make is that you are aranid, partisan, leftwingnut who hates cops.

      Now go find a park you can do your business in.

  18. You know what I think, Bob. The problem is we don’t have a great deal of information. The published info makes it look like the SB Sheriff’s SWAT team burned the house down around the suspect’s ears. If they did that on purpose instead of cordon and wait him out, they were wrong. If that isn’t what happened, I hope we will be able to verify that when the official report comes out.

    Luckily for all of us, the suspect was black. That means that the Obama DOJ is more likely to look carefully into what happened. I’m still not totally confident about getting to the truth, but at least we’ll get a better shot at it.

    There’s a difference between an active firefight and a deliberate attack. I maintain that there is no reason for a police force to force entry on a barricaded suspect unless he has a hostage. Hostage rescue trumps. Every other situation should be waited out.

    Without knowing more, I can’t form a better opinion than that.

    • Mudlark says:


      You’re absolutley right. Since this mad dog was black we can bet on the fact that the DOJ will tear themselves away from investigating who was running guns to the drug cartels and have murdered a number of agents, who were not black, along the frontier.

      Just like they acted on the killing of four Americans in Benghazi.

  19. Gary Foster says:

    I’m with you Bob. He made the call, he had to die. He could have surrendered but instead he killed yet another police officer. Nope. He got what was coming to him. It was 100% legal and entirely appropriate.