Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Spy Drones Used To Hunt Down Christopher Dorner

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the eye-in-the-sky dept.

Crime 498

Hugh Pickens writes writes "The Express reports that as a task force of 125 officers continue their search for Christopher Dorner in the rugged terrain around Big Bear, it was revealed that Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil. 'The thermal imaging cameras the drones use may be our only hope of finding him,' says a senior police source. 'On the ground, it's like looking for a needle in a haystack.' The use of drones was confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed agents have been prepared for Dorner to make a dash for the Mexican border since his rampage began. 'This agency has been at the forefront of domestic use of drones by law enforcement.' Dorner, who was fired from the LAPD in 2008 for lying about a fellow officer he accused of misconduct, has vowed to wreak revenge by 'killing officers and their families.' According to San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon: 'To be honest, he could be anywhere right now. Torching his own vehicle could have been a diversion to throw us off track. Anything is possible with this man.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

not the first one (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861663)

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,2135132,00.html

"In June 2011 a county sheriff in North Dakota was trying to track down three men, possibly carrying guns, in connection with some missing cows. He had a lot of ground to cover, so — as one does — he called in a Predator drone from a local Air Force base. It not only spotted the men but could see that they were in fact unarmed. It was the first time a Predator had been involved in the arrest of U.S. citizens."

Re:not the first one (4, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861719)

Well, looks like we can just wipe our collective asses with the Posse Comitatus Act.

Re:not the first one (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861905)

The Posse Comitatus Act is coupled with, and defined by, the Insurrection Act of 1807. Basically, it limits the president's power. The North Dakota sheriff in question here is likely not the president.

President not specially limited by Posse Comitatus (5, Informative)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862437)

The Posse Comitatus Act is coupled with, and defined by, the Insurrection Act of 1807. Basically, it limits the president's power. The North Dakota sheriff in question here is likely not the president.

This is wildly inaccurate. The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits anyone from using the army or air force for law enforcement purposes without specific legal (Constitutional or statutory) authorization (18 USC Sec. 1385: "Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army or the Air Force as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. "); since the Insurrection Act grants specific powers to the President in this regard (see 10 USC Sec. 331-336), the Posse Comitatus Act, viewed in conjunction with the Insurrection Act, limits the President less than anyone else, not more.

Re:not the first one (5, Informative)

Amouth (879122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862007)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act [wikipedia.org]

"In December 1981, additional laws were enacted clarifying permissible military assistance to civilian law enforcement agencies and the Coast Guard, especially in combating drug smuggling into the United States. Posse Comitatus clarifications emphasize supportive and technical assistance (e.g., use of facilities, vessels, and aircraft, as well as intelligence support, technological aid, and surveillance) while generally prohibiting direct participation of Department of Defense personnel in law enforcement (e.g., search, seizure, and arrests). For example, a U.S. Navy vessel may be used to track, follow, and stop a vessel suspected of drug smuggling, but Coast Guard Law Enforcement Detachments (LEDETs) embarked aboard the Navy vessel would perform the actual boarding and, if needed, arrest the suspect vessel's crew."

Sounds to me like requesting assistance of an aircraft and intelligence support is perfectly fine as long as the Sheriff in question is who made the arrest and not someone from the Air-force.

Re:not the first one (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862173)

Well, looks like we can just wipe our collective asses with the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Posse Comitatus Act prevents the use of the military for law enforcement purposes without specific statutory authority.

There is also specific statutory authority providing specific protocols for military support to law enforcement, which are fairly broad when it comes to anything other than military troops actually directly making arrests or acting directly as armed enforcers.

I just want to point out... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861849)

....that making guns illegal for civilian use would not prevent evil cops like this one from murdering people.

Re:I just want to point out... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861943)

This is true. We should also not equip the evil cops with guns. We will have a form that we give them when they sign up with an alignment question.

Re:I just want to point out... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861957)

evil cops like this one

Christopher Dorner hasn't been a cop for four years.

Thanks for playing.

Re:I just want to point out... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862081)

He is still an evil cop.

Re:I just want to point out... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862561)

He's not an evil cop- he tried to report an evil cop who kicked a suspect in the face. The rest of the cops, who were also evil, kicked him out.

Re:I just want to point out... (1)

gmuslera (3436) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862359)

Or [latimes.com] this [photograph...acrime.com] ones [neontommy.com] . But how you distinguish evil cops from good ones? Because good ones don't lie [nytimes.com] ? And how you distinguish evil (or crazy, or plain stupid) civilians/cops from good ones when giving them a gun permit, if current tests/training don't work?

Uncomfortable (3, Informative)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861665)

This comes uncomfortably closely after the latest announcement of the drone authorisation map. [extremetech.com]

No different than helicopters (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861667)

That are equipped with similar sensors.

Re:No different than helicopters (4, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861761)

No different, except for the massive difference in operating costs. How much does a chopper pilot get paid, how much in dollar terms does the fuel cost, how much does the vehicle cost to build? How much does a drone cost in comparison? Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.

Re:No different than helicopters (4, Insightful)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861873)

What do drone "operator(s)" get paid compared to a helicopter pilot?

Re:No different than helicopters (3, Interesting)

0123456 (636235) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861981)

What do drone "operator(s)" get paid compared to a helicopter pilot?

The great thing about drone operators is that you can outsource the job to China or India. So probably not much.

Re:No different than helicopters (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862101)

A great thing about outsourcing drone operator jobs to China or India is that they have no compunction against firing on American civilians.

Re:No different than helicopters (2)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862263)

I think you've just hit on the operating principle around Echelon.

Re:No different than helicopters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862309)

The great thing about firing on American citizens is that it can be used to put the final nail into the rule of law coffin.

Yippee Kay Yay motherfuckers!

Re:No different than helicopters (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862025)

Having supported both manned and unmanned ISR platforms for DOD (and scientific sensors manned and unmanned for NASA), I can tell you that drones usually are more expensive to operate. The ground support personnel footprint for drones is FAR larger.

Re:No different than helicopters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862381)

Ubiquitous surveillance isn't necessarily a goal we want to aim for as a society.

The outrage seen here isn't about surveillance. It's about hating law enforcement.

We are quietly setting ourselves up for open-ended scrutiny [huffingtonpost.com] by government minders. Most of the same people here today getting wrapped around the axle about drones in this manhunt have nothing at all to say about the surveillance that is implied by Obamacare.

Selective outrage among malcontents. That's all it is.

Re:No different than helicopters (4, Insightful)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861763)

True – but helicopters are expensive to operate – drones are much cheaper. I am mindful of the slippery slope logical fallacy but it does bring us one step closer to 24 hour surveillance.

Re:No different than helicopters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862113)

No. For what you pay for this drone http://www2.l-3com.com/uas/tech_uas/viking_400.htm you can easily buy a small helicopter like a new Robinson R22 (or a used King Air fixed wing turbo prop or Robinson R44 helo).

Re:No different than helicopters (1)

alexander_686 (957440) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862447)

You have to consider total cost of operations – not just the initial capital layout costs.
          Drones tend to be lighter (no human pilot) so fuel costs are lower.
          Human costs are lower – one pilot can run multiple drones.
          Drones can operate for longer periods – so less downtime.
Etc.

Re:No different than helicopters (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862497)

To be fair, he claims to have access to shoulder launched air to ground missiles. The fact that less than a week ago he went through check in procedures at a naval base but never went through the check out procedures certainly gets my imagination going... especially if I were a helicopter pilot assigned to look for him. Though I of course understand that gaining access to the armory isn't the same as gaining entrance to the base.

This is NEWS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861681)

Guys, this has been making the rounds on Faceplant for the last three days now. While I give that it's news that matters, I'd have thought you guys would be more timely...

Re:This is NEWS? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861837)

First day on Slashdot, I see?

Re:This is NEWS? (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861853)

/. aggregates, it doesn't report. I get annoyed too, but then I have to take a deep breath and remind myself...

Fascinating stuff (5, Interesting)

paiute (550198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861683)

Christ, this whole thing is entertaining in a macabre way that I should not be enjoying, but I am. It's like bad guys vs badder guys. I don't know who to root against from day to day.

How do we know he was lying? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861759)

It's not as if police don't break the law, is it.

Re:Fascinating stuff (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861797)

I get where you're coming from. What the guy did was wrong, no doubt, shooting those cops, but the LAPD is notorious for abuses like the was fired for accusing the other cop of. He was likely unstable to begin with and being fired for trying to do the right thing probably caused him to snap. Everybody has a breaking point after which people behave differently than they ordinarily would. This guy reached his. Moral of the story: if you see a superior doing something wrong, like beating a homeless guy: don't report it.

Re:Fascinating stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861833)

Well... you could just... y'know... um... make that decision on a case-by-case basis?

PFFFFFFFFT HA HA HA HA HA nah, I'm just foolin' with you. Calculated, reasoned decisions? Who has time for THAT? That's not trendy! Them Versus Us, baby! It's efficient! It's controlled by herd mentality, directed by marketeers and hucksters, so there's no pesky thinking involved on your part! And best of all, any decisions reached in that manner are entirely guilt-free! After all, you can blame the guy next to you who agreed with the herd, too!

Re:Fascinating stuff (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861889)

I missed it, what is he seeking revenge for?

Re:Fascinating stuff (4, Informative)

realityimpaired (1668397) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861997)

He believes the LAPD ruined his life, because he accused his trainer of beating up a civilian while he was doing his first week mentorship, and those charges were dropped after an investigation revealed that they were false. The "ruining his life" part comes because the LAPD then dismissed him for making a false charge: they felt he was a risk to have on the force.

Regardless of whether the civilian in question was actually assaulted as he accuses, this incident kind of proves their point...

Re:Fascinating stuff (1)

rtb61 (674572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862137)

Kind of of sad that they have to offer a million dollar reward for the capture of this man, really indicates how unpopular the police have become. Apparently the public would is more likely to protect him so that he can continue his revenge against the police, so the police, are forced to offer a massive reward. This reward yet again reminds people how much the police in that jurisdiction value their lives over the lives of the general public.

Re:Fascinating stuff (5, Informative)

sjames (1099) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862595)

Also noted in TFA, police wounded a mother and daughter when they opened fire on a similar looking pickup truck without verifying their target. Perhaps that's why LAPD is so unpopular.

It's the sort of thing that makes one wonder if his report was actually false in the first place.

Re:Fascinating stuff (2)

vilanye (1906708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862163)

No it doesn't.

You could take a 60 year old who has never even thought of harming anyone, and mistreat him to the point where he would go on a rampage.

Re:Fascinating stuff (5, Insightful)

Blue Stone (582566) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862247)

>"those charges were dropped after an investigation revealed that they were false."

Alternatively, with more neutrality and less bias:

"those charges were dropped after an investigation concluded that they were false."

I mean ... unless you're certain that the LAPD would never cover up wrong doing to protect their own.

Re:Fascinating stuff (3, Interesting)

Holi (250190) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862601)

Yes they concluded that it was a false statement, while completely ignoring the fact that the victim and the victims father corroborated his story. Not that any of this excuses his actions in the slightest.

Re:Fascinating stuff (1)

sjwest (948274) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862067)

Remind you of the film the running man ?

Re:Fascinating stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862337)

Aside from the guy in Running Man not being a homicidal maniac, yes.

Re:Fascinating stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862369)

Other than the fact that this guy is the exact opposite of Ben Richards, it's just like The Running Man.

The OP is correct in that this is simply Bad Guys vs. Worse Guys.

Re:Fascinating stuff (2)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862107)

Christ, this whole thing is entertaining in a macabre way that I should not be enjoying,

This is the second problem America has which perpetuates the first problem.

Re:Fascinating stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862135)

This time you want the badder guys to prevail. This former cop is Going after family members who have no clue what their cop husband/dad or wife/mom did in the field (if anything).

Re:Fascinating stuff (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862617)

http://picosong.com/nFmD/

DUNN DUNN DUNN
He wants to be the very best
Like no cop ever was
To kill them all is his real test
To expose them is his cause
He will travel across L.A.
Searching far and wide
For each family to understand
The conspiracy that's inside
CHRIS DORNER
Is gonna kill 'em all
Who comes next he'll make the call
CHRIS DORNER
Ohh, he'll kill again
For the truth he must defend
CHRIS DORNER
Is serious fucking shit
Say nigger and you'll get hit
He'll chew you up into bits
CHRIS DORNER
He's so fucking bad
He could kill your dad
CHRIS DORNER

Re:Fascinating stuff (2)

LordLimecat (1103839) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862635)

You should root for the people who arent running around doing extra-judical killing sprees, and instead root for the people who are trying to catch him.

Just because the world isnt perfect doesnt mean you lose track of perspective and stop caring about whether a serial killer is caught or not. Do you really mean to imply that you think that the cops who have been killed all deserved it?

I wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861693)

They put this much effort into finding and punishing all of the crooked cops in the LAPD.
Sounds like he's killing crooked cops because no one else will handle the issue.
Are we supposed to feel sorry for these people?

Re:I wish (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861785)

He's killing family members too. Any level of sympathy or understanding for his position went out the window when he declared war on presumably innocent bystanders. He might have had a cause but he damned it by his own actions.

Re:I wish (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862127)

How many people did the crooked cops fuck over during their time at the LAPD. Sorry, but the LAPD deserves to be terrorized for a change.
Let the fuckers burn.

Re:I wish (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862159)

Every single war since the beginning of mankind's conscience has had collateral damage and in many cases it was planned. There's a reason the saying "nice people finish last" is so ubiquitous - it's true. Had Dorner followed all of the rules and did everything legally, his case, right or wrong, would have never entered the collective conscience of the American People. Now, there is practically no one that isn't aware of his situation.

His war tactics, the exact same war tactics of his nation, are helping his cause, whether you like it or not.

Re:I wish (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862215)

I presume you have taken the same stance on the 'war on terror'.

Re:I wish (2)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862275)

The body count in the war on drugs is pretty high too

Re:I wish (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862241)

You can be sympathetic to the position without being sympathetic to the person. If Hitler said he loved cats i'd be sympathetic to his position.

Re:I wish (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861803)

I'd like them to investigate police abuse in the LAPD when no one is shooting.

No problem (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861705)

Use drones. Keep shooting random civilians until you find this man. Whatever it takes.

Re:No problem (5, Informative)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862125)

Keep shooting random civilians until you find this man.

They're already way ahead of you
Victim 1: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209,0,4414028.story [latimes.com]
Victim 2: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story [latimes.com]

Re:No problem (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862235)

Sounds like the LAPD is making Dorner's point for them. Good job guys. Fuck tha Police.

The way it begins (5, Interesting)

Compaqt (1758360) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861709)

Of course, who could oppose using hundreds of drones to hunt down a cop-killer.

And the next suggestion will be, "Wouldn't it be a good idea for the drones to be able to fire, too?" So the next thing you know, you've got weaponized drones.

And after a decade or so, they won't be used to find mass murderers. Merely traffic offenders or people late on their alimony.

Re:The way it begins (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861765)

As long as they use the drones to find the cops that shoot up random civilian vehicles and punish the cops.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209

I'm all for purging the police with a little, nay a lot, of Police Style justice.

Re:The way it begins (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861961)

It's really hard to tell who is even a good guy any more in this situation. The fact that the police are pretty much shooting anything that *might* be him is even more disturbing.

Re:The way it begins (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862395)

I especially enjoy how ridiculously overzealous cops get when hunting down someone who killed 'one of their own'. They're like James Bond types with license to kill.

Pew pew pew.

Re:The way it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862691)

It's really hard to tell who is even a good guy any more in this situation. The fact that the police are pretty much shooting anything that *might* be him is even more disturbing.

Well, after all, the only defense against a Bad Guy with a gun is a Good Guy with a gun. Right?

Re:The way it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861825)

or dissent.

especially the kind that "hangs out with known terrorists", niether terrorist nor affiliate get trial.

Re:The way it begins (4, Insightful)

cornjones (33009) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861875)

YOu don't even have to weaponize them for this to be scary (not that they won't). "Look how useful, and much safer than helicopters.", "These are so cheap, we can keep them up all day", "More in the air means more criminals caught", "We could have caught him quicker if we recorded all of this"

Re:The way it begins (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861945)

+1 to Kurt Vonnegut.

Re:The way it begins (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862073)

Of course, who could oppose using hundreds of drones to hunt down a cop-killer.

And the next suggestion will be, "Wouldn't it be a good idea for the drones to be able to fire, too?" So the next thing you know, you've got weaponized drones.

And after a decade or so, they won't be used to find mass murderers. Merely traffic offenders or people late on their alimony.

Or (horrors!) people still bitterly clinging to their supposed to be confiscated firearms, or who are failing to carry their new American "Judenstern Abzeichen" signifying compliance with all the registration requirements...

Re:The way it begins (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862117)

Or better yet, to kill off the rioting hoards of people brought into the streets by economic collapse.

Re:The way it begins (1)

medcalf (68293) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862265)

Car wars? Really? I mean, I know about defensive driving, but your speculations might go a bit far down that road.

Think of the children (4, Interesting)

wbr1 (2538558) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861835)

We can find lost hikers, boy scouts, love struck teenage couples lost in the wilderness with this! Just look the other way when we use it to imprison or kill enemies of the state.

first human target (5, Insightful)

corporate zombie (218482) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861867)

Have the drones on the border only been going after sub-humans?

451 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861871)

I can't help but see Dorner as Guy Montag. With the endless stories of LAPD corruption I don't trust the official reprt that he was lying.

Satellites (1)

Mythran (2502540) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861893)

It may be that I can't differentiate fiction from non-fiction, but doesn't the US military have satellites with the capabilities of infrared viewing and detection that would perform the same task but with much greater efficiency, given the satellite(s) is/are in the area required to locate the individual, plus with a much greater scope or area that can be tracked at any given moment? I play Call of Duty darnit, and we all know that the Call of Duty franchise is based 100% in truth and doesn't lie! :P

Re:Satellites (2)

gstoddart (321705) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862093)

It may be that I can't differentiate fiction from non-fiction, but doesn't the US military have satellites with the capabilities of infrared viewing and detection that would perform the same task but with much greater efficiency

If that worked, they wouldn't have taken so long to find Bin Laden.

We're talking about LA, an absolutely huge area ... spotting an infrared signature isn't exactly a small task if you're looking for something specific.

It's not like they can just click in the "find me this guy" command (yet) -- you have to know where to look.

Besides, all of the satellites you mention spend most of their time looking down at nude beaches anyway. ;-)

You have to wonder (4, Interesting)

Lucas123 (935744) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861901)

Dorner kills and posts a diatribe about the LADP's corruption and abuse of the public, citing cases like Rodney King. I wonder if Dorner's plan all along was to create mayhem and then let the LADP step into it and bring their abuses to light through their own actions. Already, the LADP has opened fire on two people in cases of mistaken identity in the search for Dorner.

Re:You have to wonder (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862033)

two different groups of people. They shot up two women in a truck, and then in another incident rammed a man that in no way fit dorners description (thin white guy) in his truck and shot at him (he was not hit by any of the shots)

Re:You have to wonder (3, Funny)

Lucas123 (935744) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862075)

Well, they're are getting better. At least the second time the target was a man.

Re:You have to wonder (5, Funny)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862233)

Its interesting that the LAPD has shot at more innocent civilians than Dorner has. The primary difference is that the LAPD is so unprofessional they haven't successfully killed as many innocent civilians as Dorner, at least so far, although they're trying their best to even up the score. I have faith in the LAPD, they'll catch up soon enough.

Re:You have to wonder (5, Interesting)

LiENUS (207736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862293)

They shot up two women in a truck, and then in another incident rammed a man that in no way fit dorners description (thin white guy) in his truck and shot at him (he was not hit by any of the shots)

It gets better. They actually stopped him, talked to him, let him go then decided to ram him and shoot at him.

Re:You have to wonder (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862071)

Actually they've opened fire on three people but only hit two of them. The shot the two women in the truck and then later they rammed another truck and fired 3 shots at a man who was lucky enough to not get hit by the shots.

Re:You have to wonder (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862479)

If you read the whole manifesto, which is quite a feat, it starts out like a legit argument but by page 5 it gets really crazy (well, the whole thing was crazy) but it gets crazier as you read.

Of course, the national media and local media are not shedding light into LAPDs corruption, blatant disregard for public safety and plain old racism.

I have a feeling they will shoot him on site. It's an LAPD tradition for cop killers. I also call bull-shit on the 1-million dollar reward because, again, they will shoot him on site even if he is found bound and gagged.

Re:You have to wonder (2)

vilanye (1906708) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862535)

Cops are ill educated thugs, with very few exceptions.

Where I live a cop murdered a kid with autism that was trying to buy a candy bar off a false ID of a robber. Of course the local prosecutor declined to charge him so the feds had to step in. He was found guilty and 50 cops cheered him as he walked out of the courthouse. Him and those 50 cops should get life and spend it in the general population. Any cop that would support him is evil by definition.

That most pathetic thing is that every year there are 4-5 murders committed by cops every year and this prick was the only one charged. I don't even live in a big city, the town and surrounding area has maybe 300,000 max. That is not even mentioning the constant drag racing at 3 AM, charging innocent people with crimes, etc.

We need to double their pay but not until we quadruple the standards for hiring and retention. A four year degree that includes some legal training, along with a lot of psychology and sociology. Then a 6 week pre-police academy program where they are constantly stressed and rated on how well they respond. After the academy, every year they have to go through a 2 week review given by community representatives where they are either retained or fired.

Also 1 case of violating someone's rights results in instant termination and criminal charges.

The power hungry thugs that want to be cops to break skulls won't even be able to get a 4 degree much less get through the hiring process.

They also need to be demilitarized, treating someone in a house that has a search warrant as the enemy and charging in with assault weapons drawn has caused many cop deaths and homeowners being unfairly charged with murder.

Helicopters (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42861917)

Helicopters with FLIR systems do the exact same thing.

He's not there (1)

stevegee58 (1179505) | about a year and a half ago | (#42861949)

This is all cool and what-not but he's not there. He drove away in a car he left where the burned out truck was found.
This dude is scary as shit and they're not going to find him this easily.

If drones can't find him (1)

futhermocker (2667575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862021)

They probably ask Alex Murphy to give it a try

Re:If drones can't find him (1)

zzottt (629458) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862475)

But OCP does not have jurisdiction in California

Re:If drones can't find him (1)

futhermocker (2667575) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862669)

No problem, they just need to attach a couple of wings, and re-classify him, problem solved...

Scanning (1)

mutified (2792691) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862045)

I believe my house was scanned early this morning. Cheers

What the fuck is happening to my country? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862103)

Using drones that cause "collateral damage" to kill a suspect? What happened to the right to a fair trial, due process... ?

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country? (5, Insightful)

vlm (69642) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862297)

Using drones that cause "collateral damage" to kill a suspect? What happened to the right to a fair trial, due process... ?

911. The bad guys won.

Re:What the fuck is happening to my country? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862517)

Wait, they used a drone to kill the guy already? I thought they were using the drones to find him not kill him. Man, I'm behind the times. Even the article says the drone has no weapons just thermal imaging. The shit's gonna hit the fan once the media finds out they've already killed this guy with a weaponized drone. The liberal media though will play along like he hasn't been killed and probably talk about the thermal imaging on the drone meanwhile ignoring completely the hellfire missiles and vulcan cannon on the thing. I hear the LAPD has already firebombed an entire neighborhood!

Protip: To avoid angering the public (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862131)

One probably should not use the word, "target," in the same sentence as, "drone," and, "US soil." Even though technically accurate, tension is lowered by saying, "...it was revealed that Dorner has become the first human on US soil which airborne drones have attempted to locate. 'The..." Same thing I think.

Targeting connotates shooting/firing/use of force from the targeting platform. It makes me think of armed drones, not surveillance drones. The latter is not much different from using helicopters, while the former would be an escalation of tactics that would make me think I'm living in Pakistan or Yemen.

Why worry about the drones? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862143)

If your read the story, the cops on the ground are driving around shooting the wrong cars.

They've already labeled him a terrorist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862253)

What are the odds the drone has a patriot missile on-board?

Re:They've already labeled him a terrorist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862581)

None. A Patriot missile is a surface-to-air missile. Further, if it's a Predator (as an example), it can't even carry one Patriot missile. Max takeoff weight for a Predator is 2250 but the thing itself weighs 1130. 1130 + 2000 = 3130 > 2250. Maybe you're thinking of patriotic Griffin missiles which are Air-to-Ground. Those only weigh 45 pounds not 2,000 like a Patriot.

Drone strikes domestically? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862355)

Anyone remember the story last week about drone strikes on American citizens abroad: http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/04/16843014-justice-department-memo-reveals-legal-case-for-drone-strikes-on-americans?lite - which wound up killing a 16 year old citizen?

With events like this surrounding Christopher Dorner, we're only a short hop, skip, away from the above happening domestically.

I wonder what the breaking point event will be for the intelligent Slashdot community, where you will actually get mad rather than diverting the issue and believing nothing will be abused.

xkcd does it again. (3, Funny)

wcrowe (94389) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862367)

Once again, xkcd [xkcd.com] tells it like it is for would be survivalists.

I guess he should have bought one of these (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42862391)

http://youtu.be/hY5-j7MjecU

OK the real question is... (1)

s0litaire (1205168) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862449)

Where's Blue Thunder when you need it!!

Blues Brothers (4, Funny)

DarkOx (621550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42862553)

You know just over 30 years ago, "The use of unnecessary force has been approved" read over the police dispatch was a laugh line from a comedy. Now its apparent SOP in a completely serious way.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?