Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics


Quote:

Christopher Dorner Fans On Facebook, Twitter Call Alleged Cop Killer A 'Hero,' Citing Police Brutality

Posted: 02/08/2013 5:21 pm EST  |  Updated: 02/08/2013 6:08 pm EST

Call it the "Dark Knight Complex." In the age of the Internet and social media, behind certain high-profile alleged murderers, there are loyal fans.

Supporters of Christopher Dorner, the former LA policeman turned "cop killer," have shown up online, with tweets and fan pages on Facebook. Some call Dorner a "hero" for writing a nine-page manifesto alleged on racism and corruption within the LAPD.

Numerous supporters on Twitter are calling the alleged murderer a "Dark Knight."One Facebook page calls him "the hero LA deserves, but not the one it needs right now ... He's a silent guardian, watchful protector against corruption, he's our Dark Knight."

The vast majority of Americans are horrified that Dorner declared "war" on the LAPD and has allegedly killed three individuals so far. But the public disgust seems to add fuel to the fire for his followers, as it does with skeptics of 9/11, the Aurora massacre and the Newtown massacre.

However, it is clear that Dorner's fans have a more issue-driven focus than, for example, the fans, or "Holmies," of alleged Aurora shooter James Holmes.

Dorner's supporters say the media should be focusing on police brutality and officer-involved deaths as much as they are on this alleged killer.

Police are desperately continuing a massive manhunt across three states and Mexico in search of Dorner, who claims he was fired by a racist, corrupt police force. In their search for the dangerous police- and military-trained man, officers accidentally shot two innocent Latina women Thursday. Some of Dorner's fans have criticized the incident as an example of the police's "shoot first, ask later" approach and say Dorner is giving police a taste of their own medicine..

"This is an intelligent man who has stared into the dark heart of corruption," Ruth Iorio, a 33-year-old LA screenwriter, wrote to HuffPost in a Facebook message. "Now he's taking vengeance upon it, trying to turn the LAPD into the victims they have persecuted, including Kendrec McDade, Alisia Thomas and Kelly Thomas."

Edward D., 25, told HuffPost that he started the Facebook fan page "Christopher Dorner" to "wake up the citizens and force police departments to change their ways. If they learn from this, it shouldn't happen again." He continued, quoting President Kennedy, in a Facebook message, "'Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.' -JFK"

The individual behind the Facebook page "I support Christopher Jordan Dorner" explained to HuffPost that he started the page to steer the conversation away from Dorner's mental health.

"I knew that the media was going to turn this into just another 'He's a psycho ex-cop ex-military that went insane' story, and wanted to show that there was more to what was going on than that," the individual, who wishes to remain anonymous, wrote in a Facebook message. "There is a huge underlying story of police corruption and the plight of a man that tried his best to do good but was relentlessly punished for it."

The page has over 1,600 likes as of Friday afternoon.

Click through other comments supporting Dorner and/or his plea to end police brutality and racism:

Support for Cop Killer
1 of 17
  • Next
 share
 tweet

by on Feb. 8, 2013 at 6:34 PM
Replies (161-170):
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 10:40 AM


Straw man tactic, much?

You don't see the problem having an Agency Police itself? You don't see any merits in having a third party handle these kinds of situations?

Or are you implying that the Police would never lie to get someone off the hook?

Quoting AMBG825:

This man's worshippers are funny. Now it's no longer a conspiracy by LAPD to ruin this man.

 

Now it's a conspiracy by Gettler's therapist, his family, the Doubletree Hotel, LAPD AND the entire judicial system. The entire city of LA conspired to get the man fired. It couldn't possibly be because the man actually did lie ....it was a conspiracy that everyone in the city was involved in.



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM


More lies. Can you point out where Gettler's father said that he was not kicked in the face?

Quote:


Gettler’s father stated that when the officers brought his son home on July 28, 2007, he asked Gettler if he had been in a fight because his face was puffy. Gettler told him that he was kicked at the hotel, so they drove around until Gettler directed his father to the DoubleTree, where Gettler pointed to the wall and indicated the incident happened near there. Gettler told his father he was kicked in the chest twice by a police officer, but his father decided not to report it because he assumed it was an accident and Gettler was not hurt.
Notice his father saying he came home with his face "Puffy"? And you notice the difference between he "assumed" the kicks were accidents is not the same as saying, "I don't believe they happened".



Quoting AMBG825:

 Actually the testimony of his therapist who has been treating him for his mental illness for year. And the testimony of his father who has lived and treated him his whole life.

 

Those weren't testimonies from the agency. The agency had nothing to do with his therapist writing a letter to the trial courts stating that Gettler's mental illness made him an unreliable witness. The agency had nothing to do with his father getting on the stand saying that he did not believe he was kicked in the face and that his injuries were accidentally sustained. The agency had nothing to do with the hotel employees testifying in court that no officer kicked the man.  The agency had nothing to do with the photos taken the night the man was arrested that dispute Dorner's claims. Nor did the agency have anything to do with the report Dorner filed the night of the arrest in which he made no mention of the kicks.

 

Ironic that the civilians who testified against Dorner just happened to state, under oath, in civilian court, the same exact thing Dorner stated in his original report of the incident.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Oh-The testimony of the person that was there, has the scar to prove he was kicked and supports Dorner's case was dismissed by them? How convenient.

Which just goes to show the problem with letting an Agency police themselves.  Want someone to be guilty? Just ignore any testimony that supports them. And if the people testifying against him are caught in a lie-Well that is okay.

Anyone who looks at Christopher Gettler can probably guess he doesn't have the capabilities to make up a lie like this.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And BTW - the representative was told by Gettlers therapist and his father that his testimony would be unreliable due to his mental illness. A statement as such was written by the therapist and by the investigator who did the interview and given to the judge. The testimony of Gettler was thrown out because of those write ups and because of the testimony from Gettler's father and the 2 civilian witnesses that testified in court.

 

It's all in the court documents.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

It is lying if you call it bullying because that is not what being a bully is. Someone was calling him a Nigger. He told him to stop. The person said they can call him a Nigger whenever they want. So then he chokes him out.

You can say, "See he has been violent before when people provoked him" but it is not being a bully.

"That kid is a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger"-Said no one ever.

Being a bully would be the other way around. If he was calling Officers honkies and the officer told him to stop and he said, "I can call you a honky if I want" and when the officer told him not to do it anymore then he beat him up. Then yes. That would be being a bully.

You also said that the father, "Testified that he didn't report the incident because he believe it was an accident and not intentional".

Another lie. He said he didn't report it because he ASSUMED it was an accident. Accident or not-The kicks existing would mean the kicks happened.



Were you kicked in the face? Yes.
How many times were you kicked in the face? 1
Do you remember where? Right here (Points to scare)
Do you remember what sex male or female? Female
Do you remember they were white or black ? Almost black
Do you remember if the female light hair or darker hair? Doesn't really remember
Do you remember being kicked? Yes.
How many times? 1
Do you remember where? This side (Points to the scar)

The person asking the questions is Dorners representative. Notice how he ask him about his face. How many times he was kicked in the face 1. And then after a bunch of other questions goes back to do you remember being kicked. And how many times? He answers 1-Likely thinking he is still talking about to the face since that is what he was talking about before.

This would make sense if it was the people trying to prove him wrong. It doesn't make sense for his representative to even try and clarify what he means. Especially since he is not all there in the head.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Actually no lying at all. He mentions the bullying in his manifesto. And if you go HERE the video is not the witness statement. The video was taken during the investigation and was determined that it was not a reliable witness to the events of the night of the kicking because even his therapist and his father told the interviewer that his mental illness prevented him from being a reliable witness.

 

the ACTUAL witnesses to the event all testified against Dorner in court. The doorman and the bellhop of the hotel testified against Dorner. The father of the man who was supposedly kicked testified against Dorner. The officers that Dorner claimed showed up in court and testified on his behalf - that was a lie. All of the officers testified that it did not happen. One of the officers even testified that he called him several weeks later saying that he was going to change his report from the night of the incident and the officer told him not to talk to him anymore about it.

 

You might want to learn to read.

Quoting brookiecookie87:



Quoting lokilover:



Quoting AMBG825:

 He did have his case filed in the legal system. But if he truly was fired for making claims against another officer, he would have done more by filing another claim rather than going on a killing spree. And being that he was a police officer, he would have known that.

 

My claim was that there was more to his firing than just filing a false report. And there was. There were other issues with Dorner before this one. He had reports of bullying other officers and had a low performance review. The bullying alone should have cost him his job, but apparently they let it slide. So he wasn't fired for filing a false report. That was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

And anyone who would support a man who threatens to shoot up a school is psychotic themselves.

Quoting lokilover:

I have not seen one person here who thinks his killings are justifiable. I was responding to your claims that because Dorner did not have case argued in the legal system, then his accusations must obviously be false. 

The LAPD have killed and harmed and killed more people than Dorner has or ever will. They should absolutely be reinvestigated and the officers who shot and wounded those two women in the truck should be punished. I don't see how any of that is unreasonable. 


 

You don't know that his accusations are false, so I don't understand why you keep stating that as though it is a fact. 

I also notice you didn't respond to the second part of my post, so I'll ask directly: What punishment do you think the officers who wounded those two innocent women should receive (if any)?

In case you don't have time to read the link. AMBG is lying. There was no case of Bullying. He did strangle another person. But this is after the other Person called him a Nigger. Then he told him to not do that and the other guy said he would call him a nigger whenever he wants. Standing up for yourself and getting into a fight is hardly the same thing as being a bully.

Have you ever heard someone say, "That kid is such a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger".  And the other "poor" performance were extremely minor things. Like not having the right shoes for a run, and what not. Not exactly the things a Police Officer is normally fired over.

When she mentioned what people said she left out some details (For obvious reasons).

Gettler's father didn't know it was unintentional. His statement said at first he assumed it was unintentional.  This is before his son told him, "I was kicked three times by the Police Officer"

She also leaves out that the other officer besides Dorner and Evans that said Gettler was never kicked was found to be lying about the event. He said he had to fix Dorners Tie that day but pictures and reality show that Dorner didn't wear a uniform that had a tie that day (What an odd thing to lie about as well...).

It wasn't as cut and dry as she wants to make it.

And if you look at the dispostion videos (They are 'leaked' online as well). You will see Dorners representative asking Gettler about his head and transitioning to the question about being kicked to which he answers 1 (The amount of times he was kicked in the head) and makes no attempt to ask the question again or clarify the point (Which would seem extremely important if you wanted the person you were representing to have a chance if you know he and the father of the person have said 3 times).


 



 



 



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

AMBG825
by on Feb. 10, 2013 at 10:43 AM

 Yes. I read it just fine. It was expressly clear that these were separate incidents. The incident where (supposedly) they were singing nazi songs was not the same incident in which he was called a racist name. There is even a paragraph break between the 2 paragraphs.

 

And in the 2nd incident detailed by him, it wasn't a case of someone using the word "nigger" and he told them to stop. He heard them use the word and choked them out. In his manifesto, in the 2nd incident of the first page mentioned, they said the word, he asked them "what did you say?" then started choking the person. No where did he say he told them to stop. No where did he say he reported it to anyone. He stated he heard it and started choking the guy.

 

If you're going to make stuff up, make stuff up that isn't directly refuted by the evidence you are citing.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Did you read what he said at all?  Again. Being a Bully is NOT the same as hearing someone use the word Nigger and telling them to stop. Then them telling you that they will do it whenever they want and then attacking them.

You understand that? Now if he was calling the Officers honkies and they said, "That offends us don't do it anymore" and then he tells them, "I will call you honkies if I want" and then attacks them. That would be being a bully.

Hearing someone say Nigger repeatedly and telling them to stop because it is offensive and them saying, "I will call people nigger whenever I want".  And then attacking them (In a vehicle full of at least 8 officers) is not exactly the same as being a Bully.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And read what he says. That is not the same incident that you are referring to in which he was called a racist name. The next paragraph in that manifesto (you know where there is a break between writing.) details a completely different incident in which he was called a racist name and responded to it violently.

 

 

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Pointing out your lies doesn't make me a liar.

For example. Did the situation you just mentioned:

Quote:


During the BOR, the department attempted to label me unsuccessfuly as a bully. They stated that I had bullied a recruit, Abraham Schefres, in the academy when in reality and unfounded dispostion from the official 1.28 formal complaint investigation found that I was the one who stood up for Abraham Schefres when other recruits sang nazi hitler youth songs about burning jewish ghettos in WWII Germany where his father was a survivor of a concentration camp.
Notice how what you said is a lie, and yet again, I am proving you lied?

Quoting AMBG825:

 Per his manifesto he was reprimanded after several cadets in the academy filed complaints against him for bullying. It had nothing to do with being called a racist name. It was a completely separate incident per him. So yes ...you are lying.

 

Just as you lied when you said other officers and civilians testified on his behalf. Court documents posted prove that they did not.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

It is lying if you call it bullying because that is not what being a bully is. Someone was calling him a Nigger. He told him to stop. The person said they can call him a Nigger whenever they want. So then he chokes him out.

You can say, "See he has been violent before when people provoked him" but it is not being a bully.

"That kid is a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger"-Said no one ever.

Being a bully would be the other way around. If he was calling Officers honkies and the officer told him to stop and he said, "I can call you a honky if I want" and when the officer told him not to do it anymore then he beat him up. Then yes. That would be being a bully.

You also said that the father, "Testified that he didn't report the incident because he believe it was an accident and not intentional".

Another lie. He said he didn't report it because he ASSUMED it was an accident. Accident or not-The kicks existing would mean the kicks happened.



Were you kicked in the face? Yes.
How many times were you kicked in the face? 1
Do you remember where? Right here (Points to scare)
Do you remember what sex male or female? Female
Do you remember they were white or black ? Almost black
Do you remember if the female light hair or darker hair? Doesn't really remember
Do you remember being kicked? Yes.
How many times? 1
Do you remember where? This side (Points to the scar)

The person asking the questions is Dorners representative. Notice how he ask him about his face. How many times he was kicked in the face 1. And then after a bunch of other questions goes back to do you remember being kicked. And how many times? He answers 1-Likely thinking he is still talking about to the face since that is what he was talking about before.

This would make sense if it was the people trying to prove him wrong. It doesn't make sense for his representative to even try and clarify what he means. Especially since he is not all there in the head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

AMBG825
by on Feb. 10, 2013 at 10:46 AM

 They didn't police themselves. Read the documents from the judge that oversaw his trial. Yes it went to the civlian trial courts when he appealed the decision from the BOR. The therapist was not part of the agency. the father was not part of hte agency. The Doubletree Hotel is not part of the agency. The trial courts are not part of the agency.

 

I have completely discounted all of the police testimonies so far. Are you saying that the Doubletree hotel and the person who has been Gettler's therapist for years AND Gettler's father are all secretly employees of LAPD?

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Straw man tactic, much?

You don't see the problem having an Agency Police itself? You don't see any merits in having a third party handle these kinds of situations?

Or are you implying that the Police would never lie to get someone off the hook?

Quoting AMBG825:

This man's worshippers are funny. Now it's no longer a conspiracy by LAPD to ruin this man.

 

Now it's a conspiracy by Gettler's therapist, his family, the Doubletree Hotel, LAPD AND the entire judicial system. The entire city of LA conspired to get the man fired. It couldn't possibly be because the man actually did lie ....it was a conspiracy that everyone in the city was involved in.

 

 

 






 

AMBG825
by on Feb. 10, 2013 at 10:49 AM

 And no injuries or dirt on his chest which included the fact that the man was wearing a white shirt.  And he testified that there was a scratch consistent with having fallen into the bushes.

 

What Gettler told his father is irrelevant to the father's assessment. He did not believe, and testified in court ....under oath ....to a civilian trial judge ....that he did not believe there was any intentionally inflicted injury.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

More lies. Can you point out where Gettler's father said that he was not kicked in the face?

Quote:


Gettler’s father stated that when the officers brought his son home on July 28, 2007, he asked Gettler if he had been in a fight because his face was puffy. Gettler told him that he was kicked at the hotel, so they drove around until Gettler directed his father to the DoubleTree, where Gettler pointed to the wall and indicated the incident happened near there. Gettler told his father he was kicked in the chest twice by a police officer, but his father decided not to report it because he assumed it was an accident and Gettler was not hurt.
Notice his father saying he came home with his face "Puffy"? And you notice the difference between he "assumed" the kicks were accidents is not the same as saying, "I don't believe they happened".



Quoting AMBG825:

 Actually the testimony of his therapist who has been treating him for his mental illness for year. And the testimony of his father who has lived and treated him his whole life.

 

Those weren't testimonies from the agency. The agency had nothing to do with his therapist writing a letter to the trial courts stating that Gettler's mental illness made him an unreliable witness. The agency had nothing to do with his father getting on the stand saying that he did not believe he was kicked in the face and that his injuries were accidentally sustained. The agency had nothing to do with the hotel employees testifying in court that no officer kicked the man.  The agency had nothing to do with the photos taken the night the man was arrested that dispute Dorner's claims. Nor did the agency have anything to do with the report Dorner filed the night of the arrest in which he made no mention of the kicks.

 

Ironic that the civilians who testified against Dorner just happened to state, under oath, in civilian court, the same exact thing Dorner stated in his original report of the incident.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Oh-The testimony of the person that was there, has the scar to prove he was kicked and supports Dorner's case was dismissed by them? How convenient.

Which just goes to show the problem with letting an Agency police themselves.  Want someone to be guilty? Just ignore any testimony that supports them. And if the people testifying against him are caught in a lie-Well that is okay.

Anyone who looks at Christopher Gettler can probably guess he doesn't have the capabilities to make up a lie like this.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And BTW - the representative was told by Gettlers therapist and his father that his testimony would be unreliable due to his mental illness. A statement as such was written by the therapist and by the investigator who did the interview and given to the judge. The testimony of Gettler was thrown out because of those write ups and because of the testimony from Gettler's father and the 2 civilian witnesses that testified in court.

 

It's all in the court documents.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

It is lying if you call it bullying because that is not what being a bully is. Someone was calling him a Nigger. He told him to stop. The person said they can call him a Nigger whenever they want. So then he chokes him out.

You can say, "See he has been violent before when people provoked him" but it is not being a bully.

"That kid is a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger"-Said no one ever.

Being a bully would be the other way around. If he was calling Officers honkies and the officer told him to stop and he said, "I can call you a honky if I want" and when the officer told him not to do it anymore then he beat him up. Then yes. That would be being a bully.

You also said that the father, "Testified that he didn't report the incident because he believe it was an accident and not intentional".

Another lie. He said he didn't report it because he ASSUMED it was an accident. Accident or not-The kicks existing would mean the kicks happened.



Were you kicked in the face? Yes.
How many times were you kicked in the face? 1
Do you remember where? Right here (Points to scare)
Do you remember what sex male or female? Female
Do you remember they were white or black ? Almost black
Do you remember if the female light hair or darker hair? Doesn't really remember
Do you remember being kicked? Yes.
How many times? 1
Do you remember where? This side (Points to the scar)

The person asking the questions is Dorners representative. Notice how he ask him about his face. How many times he was kicked in the face 1. And then after a bunch of other questions goes back to do you remember being kicked. And how many times? He answers 1-Likely thinking he is still talking about to the face since that is what he was talking about before.

This would make sense if it was the people trying to prove him wrong. It doesn't make sense for his representative to even try and clarify what he means. Especially since he is not all there in the head.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Actually no lying at all. He mentions the bullying in his manifesto. And if you go HERE the video is not the witness statement. The video was taken during the investigation and was determined that it was not a reliable witness to the events of the night of the kicking because even his therapist and his father told the interviewer that his mental illness prevented him from being a reliable witness.

 

the ACTUAL witnesses to the event all testified against Dorner in court. The doorman and the bellhop of the hotel testified against Dorner. The father of the man who was supposedly kicked testified against Dorner. The officers that Dorner claimed showed up in court and testified on his behalf - that was a lie. All of the officers testified that it did not happen. One of the officers even testified that he called him several weeks later saying that he was going to change his report from the night of the incident and the officer told him not to talk to him anymore about it.

 

You might want to learn to read.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

 

Quoting lokilover:

 

 

Quoting AMBG825:

 He did have his case filed in the legal system. But if he truly was fired for making claims against another officer, he would have done more by filing another claim rather than going on a killing spree. And being that he was a police officer, he would have known that.

 

My claim was that there was more to his firing than just filing a false report. And there was. There were other issues with Dorner before this one. He had reports of bullying other officers and had a low performance review. The bullying alone should have cost him his job, but apparently they let it slide. So he wasn't fired for filing a false report. That was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

And anyone who would support a man who threatens to shoot up a school is psychotic themselves.

Quoting lokilover:

I have not seen one person here who thinks his killings are justifiable. I was responding to your claims that because Dorner did not have case argued in the legal system, then his accusations must obviously be false. 

The LAPD have killed and harmed and killed more people than Dorner has or ever will. They should absolutely be reinvestigated and the officers who shot and wounded those two women in the truck should be punished. I don't see how any of that is unreasonable. 

 

 

You don't know that his accusations are false, so I don't understand why you keep stating that as though it is a fact. 

I also notice you didn't respond to the second part of my post, so I'll ask directly: What punishment do you think the officers who wounded those two innocent women should receive (if any)?

In case you don't have time to read the link. AMBG is lying. There was no case of Bullying. He did strangle another person. But this is after the other Person called him a Nigger. Then he told him to not do that and the other guy said he would call him a nigger whenever he wants. Standing up for yourself and getting into a fight is hardly the same thing as being a bully.

Have you ever heard someone say, "That kid is such a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger".  And the other "poor" performance were extremely minor things. Like not having the right shoes for a run, and what not. Not exactly the things a Police Officer is normally fired over.

When she mentioned what people said she left out some details (For obvious reasons).

Gettler's father didn't know it was unintentional. His statement said at first he assumed it was unintentional.  This is before his son told him, "I was kicked three times by the Police Officer"

She also leaves out that the other officer besides Dorner and Evans that said Gettler was never kicked was found to be lying about the event. He said he had to fix Dorners Tie that day but pictures and reality show that Dorner didn't wear a uniform that had a tie that day (What an odd thing to lie about as well...).

It wasn't as cut and dry as she wants to make it.

And if you look at the dispostion videos (They are 'leaked' online as well). You will see Dorners representative asking Gettler about his head and transitioning to the question about being kicked to which he answers 1 (The amount of times he was kicked in the head) and makes no attempt to ask the question again or clarify the point (Which would seem extremely important if you wanted the person you were representing to have a chance if you know he and the father of the person have said 3 times).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 10:50 AM


You do realize. I am not saying the two incidents were not the same, right? I pointed out one was not a case of being a bully. You said, "Not that one!" so I debunked the next one. You said, "Not that one! The other one!" So I then debunked that one.

You are lying again. He didn't hear someone use the word nigger and chock him out. He heard someone use the word nigger twice and said he explained that it was an offensive word that should not be used by anyone. The officer replied, "I'll say it when I want". Then that officer's friend said he will call anyone he wants a Nigger as well. That is when he attacked the other officer.

That is NOT being a bully. Unless Bullies are now the guys that try to stop others from being offensive and mean. This is an example of being violent. But not of being a bully.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Yes. I read it just fine. It was expressly clear that these were separate incidents. The incident where (supposedly) they were singing nazi songs was not the same incident in which he was called a racist name. There is even a paragraph break between the 2 paragraphs.

 

And in the 2nd incident detailed by him, it wasn't a case of someone using the word "nigger" and he told them to stop. He heard them use the word and choked them out. In his manifesto, in the 2nd incident of the first page mentioned, they said the word, he asked them "what did you say?" then started choking the person. No where did he say he told them to stop. No where did he say he reported it to anyone. He stated he heard it and started choking the guy.

 

If you're going to make stuff up, make stuff up that isn't directly refuted by the evidence you are citing.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Did you read what he said at all?  Again. Being a Bully is NOT the same as hearing someone use the word Nigger and telling them to stop. Then them telling you that they will do it whenever they want and then attacking them.

You understand that? Now if he was calling the Officers honkies and they said, "That offends us don't do it anymore" and then he tells them, "I will call you honkies if I want" and then attacks them. That would be being a bully.

Hearing someone say Nigger repeatedly and telling them to stop because it is offensive and them saying, "I will call people nigger whenever I want".  And then attacking them (In a vehicle full of at least 8 officers) is not exactly the same as being a Bully.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And read what he says. That is not the same incident that you are referring to in which he was called a racist name. The next paragraph in that manifesto (you know where there is a break between writing.) details a completely different incident in which he was called a racist name and responded to it violently.

 

 

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Pointing out your lies doesn't make me a liar.

For example. Did the situation you just mentioned:

Quote:


During the BOR, the department attempted to label me unsuccessfuly as a bully. They stated that I had bullied a recruit, Abraham Schefres, in the academy when in reality and unfounded dispostion from the official 1.28 formal complaint investigation found that I was the one who stood up for Abraham Schefres when other recruits sang nazi hitler youth songs about burning jewish ghettos in WWII Germany where his father was a survivor of a concentration camp.
Notice how what you said is a lie, and yet again, I am proving you lied?

Quoting AMBG825:

 Per his manifesto he was reprimanded after several cadets in the academy filed complaints against him for bullying. It had nothing to do with being called a racist name. It was a completely separate incident per him. So yes ...you are lying.

 

Just as you lied when you said other officers and civilians testified on his behalf. Court documents posted prove that they did not.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

It is lying if you call it bullying because that is not what being a bully is. Someone was calling him a Nigger. He told him to stop. The person said they can call him a Nigger whenever they want. So then he chokes him out.

You can say, "See he has been violent before when people provoked him" but it is not being a bully.

"That kid is a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger"-Said no one ever.

Being a bully would be the other way around. If he was calling Officers honkies and the officer told him to stop and he said, "I can call you a honky if I want" and when the officer told him not to do it anymore then he beat him up. Then yes. That would be being a bully.

You also said that the father, "Testified that he didn't report the incident because he believe it was an accident and not intentional".

Another lie. He said he didn't report it because he ASSUMED it was an accident. Accident or not-The kicks existing would mean the kicks happened.



Were you kicked in the face? Yes.
How many times were you kicked in the face? 1
Do you remember where? Right here (Points to scare)
Do you remember what sex male or female? Female
Do you remember they were white or black ? Almost black
Do you remember if the female light hair or darker hair? Doesn't really remember
Do you remember being kicked? Yes.
How many times? 1
Do you remember where? This side (Points to the scar)

The person asking the questions is Dorners representative. Notice how he ask him about his face. How many times he was kicked in the face 1. And then after a bunch of other questions goes back to do you remember being kicked. And how many times? He answers 1-Likely thinking he is still talking about to the face since that is what he was talking about before.

This would make sense if it was the people trying to prove him wrong. It doesn't make sense for his representative to even try and clarify what he means. Especially since he is not all there in the head.

 



 



 



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 10:53 AM


Yeah. Because every kick leaves dirt on the chest. You need to stop lying.

He didn't say, "I do not believe there was any intentionally inflicted injury". He said, "I ASSUMED the kicks were accidents". Notice that even as an accident those kicks actually exist?

Quoting AMBG825:

 And no injuries or dirt on his chest which included the fact that the man was wearing a white shirt.  And he testified that there was a scratch consistent with having fallen into the bushes.

 

What Gettler told his father is irrelevant to the father's assessment. He did not believe, and testified in court ....under oath ....to a civilian trial judge ....that he did not believe there was any intentionally inflicted injury.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


More lies. Can you point out where Gettler's father said that he was not kicked in the face?

Quote:


Gettler’s father stated that when the officers brought his son home on July 28, 2007, he asked Gettler if he had been in a fight because his face was puffy. Gettler told him that he was kicked at the hotel, so they drove around until Gettler directed his father to the DoubleTree, where Gettler pointed to the wall and indicated the incident happened near there. Gettler told his father he was kicked in the chest twice by a police officer, but his father decided not to report it because he assumed it was an accident and Gettler was not hurt.
Notice his father saying he came home with his face "Puffy"? And you notice the difference between he "assumed" the kicks were accidents is not the same as saying, "I don't believe they happened".



Quoting AMBG825:

 Actually the testimony of his therapist who has been treating him for his mental illness for year. And the testimony of his father who has lived and treated him his whole life.

 

Those weren't testimonies from the agency. The agency had nothing to do with his therapist writing a letter to the trial courts stating that Gettler's mental illness made him an unreliable witness. The agency had nothing to do with his father getting on the stand saying that he did not believe he was kicked in the face and that his injuries were accidentally sustained. The agency had nothing to do with the hotel employees testifying in court that no officer kicked the man.  The agency had nothing to do with the photos taken the night the man was arrested that dispute Dorner's claims. Nor did the agency have anything to do with the report Dorner filed the night of the arrest in which he made no mention of the kicks.

 

Ironic that the civilians who testified against Dorner just happened to state, under oath, in civilian court, the same exact thing Dorner stated in his original report of the incident.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Oh-The testimony of the person that was there, has the scar to prove he was kicked and supports Dorner's case was dismissed by them? How convenient.

Which just goes to show the problem with letting an Agency police themselves.  Want someone to be guilty? Just ignore any testimony that supports them. And if the people testifying against him are caught in a lie-Well that is okay.

Anyone who looks at Christopher Gettler can probably guess he doesn't have the capabilities to make up a lie like this.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And BTW - the representative was told by Gettlers therapist and his father that his testimony would be unreliable due to his mental illness. A statement as such was written by the therapist and by the investigator who did the interview and given to the judge. The testimony of Gettler was thrown out because of those write ups and because of the testimony from Gettler's father and the 2 civilian witnesses that testified in court.

 

It's all in the court documents.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

It is lying if you call it bullying because that is not what being a bully is. Someone was calling him a Nigger. He told him to stop. The person said they can call him a Nigger whenever they want. So then he chokes him out.

You can say, "See he has been violent before when people provoked him" but it is not being a bully.

"That kid is a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger"-Said no one ever.

Being a bully would be the other way around. If he was calling Officers honkies and the officer told him to stop and he said, "I can call you a honky if I want" and when the officer told him not to do it anymore then he beat him up. Then yes. That would be being a bully.

You also said that the father, "Testified that he didn't report the incident because he believe it was an accident and not intentional".

Another lie. He said he didn't report it because he ASSUMED it was an accident. Accident or not-The kicks existing would mean the kicks happened.



Were you kicked in the face? Yes.
How many times were you kicked in the face? 1
Do you remember where? Right here (Points to scare)
Do you remember what sex male or female? Female
Do you remember they were white or black ? Almost black
Do you remember if the female light hair or darker hair? Doesn't really remember
Do you remember being kicked? Yes.
How many times? 1
Do you remember where? This side (Points to the scar)

The person asking the questions is Dorners representative. Notice how he ask him about his face. How many times he was kicked in the face 1. And then after a bunch of other questions goes back to do you remember being kicked. And how many times? He answers 1-Likely thinking he is still talking about to the face since that is what he was talking about before.

This would make sense if it was the people trying to prove him wrong. It doesn't make sense for his representative to even try and clarify what he means. Especially since he is not all there in the head.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Actually no lying at all. He mentions the bullying in his manifesto. And if you go HERE the video is not the witness statement. The video was taken during the investigation and was determined that it was not a reliable witness to the events of the night of the kicking because even his therapist and his father told the interviewer that his mental illness prevented him from being a reliable witness.

 

the ACTUAL witnesses to the event all testified against Dorner in court. The doorman and the bellhop of the hotel testified against Dorner. The father of the man who was supposedly kicked testified against Dorner. The officers that Dorner claimed showed up in court and testified on his behalf - that was a lie. All of the officers testified that it did not happen. One of the officers even testified that he called him several weeks later saying that he was going to change his report from the night of the incident and the officer told him not to talk to him anymore about it.

 

You might want to learn to read.

Quoting brookiecookie87:



Quoting lokilover:



Quoting AMBG825:

 He did have his case filed in the legal system. But if he truly was fired for making claims against another officer, he would have done more by filing another claim rather than going on a killing spree. And being that he was a police officer, he would have known that.

 

My claim was that there was more to his firing than just filing a false report. And there was. There were other issues with Dorner before this one. He had reports of bullying other officers and had a low performance review. The bullying alone should have cost him his job, but apparently they let it slide. So he wasn't fired for filing a false report. That was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

And anyone who would support a man who threatens to shoot up a school is psychotic themselves.

Quoting lokilover:

I have not seen one person here who thinks his killings are justifiable. I was responding to your claims that because Dorner did not have case argued in the legal system, then his accusations must obviously be false. 

The LAPD have killed and harmed and killed more people than Dorner has or ever will. They should absolutely be reinvestigated and the officers who shot and wounded those two women in the truck should be punished. I don't see how any of that is unreasonable. 


 

You don't know that his accusations are false, so I don't understand why you keep stating that as though it is a fact. 

I also notice you didn't respond to the second part of my post, so I'll ask directly: What punishment do you think the officers who wounded those two innocent women should receive (if any)?

In case you don't have time to read the link. AMBG is lying. There was no case of Bullying. He did strangle another person. But this is after the other Person called him a Nigger. Then he told him to not do that and the other guy said he would call him a nigger whenever he wants. Standing up for yourself and getting into a fight is hardly the same thing as being a bully.

Have you ever heard someone say, "That kid is such a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger".  And the other "poor" performance were extremely minor things. Like not having the right shoes for a run, and what not. Not exactly the things a Police Officer is normally fired over.

When she mentioned what people said she left out some details (For obvious reasons).

Gettler's father didn't know it was unintentional. His statement said at first he assumed it was unintentional.  This is before his son told him, "I was kicked three times by the Police Officer"

She also leaves out that the other officer besides Dorner and Evans that said Gettler was never kicked was found to be lying about the event. He said he had to fix Dorners Tie that day but pictures and reality show that Dorner didn't wear a uniform that had a tie that day (What an odd thing to lie about as well...).

It wasn't as cut and dry as she wants to make it.

And if you look at the dispostion videos (They are 'leaked' online as well). You will see Dorners representative asking Gettler about his head and transitioning to the question about being kicked to which he answers 1 (The amount of times he was kicked in the head) and makes no attempt to ask the question again or clarify the point (Which would seem extremely important if you wanted the person you were representing to have a chance if you know he and the father of the person have said 3 times).


 



 



 



 



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

AMBG825
by on Feb. 10, 2013 at 10:57 AM

 You need to read that manifesto again. He admitted he choked out a fellow cadet. No where in his manifesto did he mention he explained to anyone about it being offensive.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

You do realize. I am not saying the two incidents were not the same, right? I pointed out one was not a case of being a bully. You said, "Not that one!" so I debunked the next one. You said, "Not that one! The other one!" So I then debunked that one.

You are lying again. He didn't hear someone use the word nigger and chock him out. He heard someone use the word nigger twice and said he explained that it was an offensive word that should not be used by anyone. The officer replied, "I'll say it when I want". Then that officer's friend said he will call anyone he wants a Nigger as well. That is when he attacked the other officer.

That is NOT being a bully. Unless Bullies are now the guys that try to stop others from being offensive and mean. This is an example of being violent. But not of being a bully.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Yes. I read it just fine. It was expressly clear that these were separate incidents. The incident where (supposedly) they were singing nazi songs was not the same incident in which he was called a racist name. There is even a paragraph break between the 2 paragraphs.

 

And in the 2nd incident detailed by him, it wasn't a case of someone using the word "nigger" and he told them to stop. He heard them use the word and choked them out. In his manifesto, in the 2nd incident of the first page mentioned, they said the word, he asked them "what did you say?" then started choking the person. No where did he say he told them to stop. No where did he say he reported it to anyone. He stated he heard it and started choking the guy.

 

If you're going to make stuff up, make stuff up that isn't directly refuted by the evidence you are citing.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Did you read what he said at all?  Again. Being a Bully is NOT the same as hearing someone use the word Nigger and telling them to stop. Then them telling you that they will do it whenever they want and then attacking them.

You understand that? Now if he was calling the Officers honkies and they said, "That offends us don't do it anymore" and then he tells them, "I will call you honkies if I want" and then attacks them. That would be being a bully.

Hearing someone say Nigger repeatedly and telling them to stop because it is offensive and them saying, "I will call people nigger whenever I want".  And then attacking them (In a vehicle full of at least 8 officers) is not exactly the same as being a Bully.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And read what he says. That is not the same incident that you are referring to in which he was called a racist name. The next paragraph in that manifesto (you know where there is a break between writing.) details a completely different incident in which he was called a racist name and responded to it violently.

 

 

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Pointing out your lies doesn't make me a liar.

For example. Did the situation you just mentioned:

Quote:


During the BOR, the department attempted to label me unsuccessfuly as a bully. They stated that I had bullied a recruit, Abraham Schefres, in the academy when in reality and unfounded dispostion from the official 1.28 formal complaint investigation found that I was the one who stood up for Abraham Schefres when other recruits sang nazi hitler youth songs about burning jewish ghettos in WWII Germany where his father was a survivor of a concentration camp.
Notice how what you said is a lie, and yet again, I am proving you lied?

Quoting AMBG825:

 Per his manifesto he was reprimanded after several cadets in the academy filed complaints against him for bullying. It had nothing to do with being called a racist name. It was a completely separate incident per him. So yes ...you are lying.

 

Just as you lied when you said other officers and civilians testified on his behalf. Court documents posted prove that they did not.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

It is lying if you call it bullying because that is not what being a bully is. Someone was calling him a Nigger. He told him to stop. The person said they can call him a Nigger whenever they want. So then he chokes him out.

You can say, "See he has been violent before when people provoked him" but it is not being a bully.

"That kid is a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger"-Said no one ever.

Being a bully would be the other way around. If he was calling Officers honkies and the officer told him to stop and he said, "I can call you a honky if I want" and when the officer told him not to do it anymore then he beat him up. Then yes. That would be being a bully.

You also said that the father, "Testified that he didn't report the incident because he believe it was an accident and not intentional".

Another lie. He said he didn't report it because he ASSUMED it was an accident. Accident or not-The kicks existing would mean the kicks happened.



Were you kicked in the face? Yes.
How many times were you kicked in the face? 1
Do you remember where? Right here (Points to scare)
Do you remember what sex male or female? Female
Do you remember they were white or black ? Almost black
Do you remember if the female light hair or darker hair? Doesn't really remember
Do you remember being kicked? Yes.
How many times? 1
Do you remember where? This side (Points to the scar)

The person asking the questions is Dorners representative. Notice how he ask him about his face. How many times he was kicked in the face 1. And then after a bunch of other questions goes back to do you remember being kicked. And how many times? He answers 1-Likely thinking he is still talking about to the face since that is what he was talking about before.

This would make sense if it was the people trying to prove him wrong. It doesn't make sense for his representative to even try and clarify what he means. Especially since he is not all there in the head.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

AMBG825
by on Feb. 10, 2013 at 10:59 AM

 If I'm standing in a planter full of dirt, and I kick you, it's going to leave dirt on your shirt. It will be even more noticable when that shirt is white.

 

It isn't a lie. It is exactly what the independent agency who reviewed the case (read the court documents) stated.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Yeah. Because every kick leaves dirt on the chest. You need to stop lying.

He didn't say, "I do not believe there was any intentionally inflicted injury". He said, "I ASSUMED the kicks were accidents". Notice that even as an accident those kicks actually exist?

Quoting AMBG825:

 And no injuries or dirt on his chest which included the fact that the man was wearing a white shirt.  And he testified that there was a scratch consistent with having fallen into the bushes.

 

What Gettler told his father is irrelevant to the father's assessment. He did not believe, and testified in court ....under oath ....to a civilian trial judge ....that he did not believe there was any intentionally inflicted injury.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

More lies. Can you point out where Gettler's father said that he was not kicked in the face?

Quote:


Gettler’s father stated that when the officers brought his son home on July 28, 2007, he asked Gettler if he had been in a fight because his face was puffy. Gettler told him that he was kicked at the hotel, so they drove around until Gettler directed his father to the DoubleTree, where Gettler pointed to the wall and indicated the incident happened near there. Gettler told his father he was kicked in the chest twice by a police officer, but his father decided not to report it because he assumed it was an accident and Gettler was not hurt.
Notice his father saying he came home with his face "Puffy"? And you notice the difference between he "assumed" the kicks were accidents is not the same as saying, "I don't believe they happened".



Quoting AMBG825:

 Actually the testimony of his therapist who has been treating him for his mental illness for year. And the testimony of his father who has lived and treated him his whole life.

 

Those weren't testimonies from the agency. The agency had nothing to do with his therapist writing a letter to the trial courts stating that Gettler's mental illness made him an unreliable witness. The agency had nothing to do with his father getting on the stand saying that he did not believe he was kicked in the face and that his injuries were accidentally sustained. The agency had nothing to do with the hotel employees testifying in court that no officer kicked the man.  The agency had nothing to do with the photos taken the night the man was arrested that dispute Dorner's claims. Nor did the agency have anything to do with the report Dorner filed the night of the arrest in which he made no mention of the kicks.

 

Ironic that the civilians who testified against Dorner just happened to state, under oath, in civilian court, the same exact thing Dorner stated in his original report of the incident.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

Oh-The testimony of the person that was there, has the scar to prove he was kicked and supports Dorner's case was dismissed by them? How convenient.

Which just goes to show the problem with letting an Agency police themselves.  Want someone to be guilty? Just ignore any testimony that supports them. And if the people testifying against him are caught in a lie-Well that is okay.

Anyone who looks at Christopher Gettler can probably guess he doesn't have the capabilities to make up a lie like this.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And BTW - the representative was told by Gettlers therapist and his father that his testimony would be unreliable due to his mental illness. A statement as such was written by the therapist and by the investigator who did the interview and given to the judge. The testimony of Gettler was thrown out because of those write ups and because of the testimony from Gettler's father and the 2 civilian witnesses that testified in court.

 

It's all in the court documents.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

It is lying if you call it bullying because that is not what being a bully is. Someone was calling him a Nigger. He told him to stop. The person said they can call him a Nigger whenever they want. So then he chokes him out.

You can say, "See he has been violent before when people provoked him" but it is not being a bully.

"That kid is a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger"-Said no one ever.

Being a bully would be the other way around. If he was calling Officers honkies and the officer told him to stop and he said, "I can call you a honky if I want" and when the officer told him not to do it anymore then he beat him up. Then yes. That would be being a bully.

You also said that the father, "Testified that he didn't report the incident because he believe it was an accident and not intentional".

Another lie. He said he didn't report it because he ASSUMED it was an accident. Accident or not-The kicks existing would mean the kicks happened.



Were you kicked in the face? Yes.
How many times were you kicked in the face? 1
Do you remember where? Right here (Points to scare)
Do you remember what sex male or female? Female
Do you remember they were white or black ? Almost black
Do you remember if the female light hair or darker hair? Doesn't really remember
Do you remember being kicked? Yes.
How many times? 1
Do you remember where? This side (Points to the scar)

The person asking the questions is Dorners representative. Notice how he ask him about his face. How many times he was kicked in the face 1. And then after a bunch of other questions goes back to do you remember being kicked. And how many times? He answers 1-Likely thinking he is still talking about to the face since that is what he was talking about before.

This would make sense if it was the people trying to prove him wrong. It doesn't make sense for his representative to even try and clarify what he means. Especially since he is not all there in the head.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Actually no lying at all. He mentions the bullying in his manifesto. And if you go HERE the video is not the witness statement. The video was taken during the investigation and was determined that it was not a reliable witness to the events of the night of the kicking because even his therapist and his father told the interviewer that his mental illness prevented him from being a reliable witness.

 

the ACTUAL witnesses to the event all testified against Dorner in court. The doorman and the bellhop of the hotel testified against Dorner. The father of the man who was supposedly kicked testified against Dorner. The officers that Dorner claimed showed up in court and testified on his behalf - that was a lie. All of the officers testified that it did not happen. One of the officers even testified that he called him several weeks later saying that he was going to change his report from the night of the incident and the officer told him not to talk to him anymore about it.

 

You might want to learn to read.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

 

Quoting lokilover:

 

 

Quoting AMBG825:

 He did have his case filed in the legal system. But if he truly was fired for making claims against another officer, he would have done more by filing another claim rather than going on a killing spree. And being that he was a police officer, he would have known that.

 

My claim was that there was more to his firing than just filing a false report. And there was. There were other issues with Dorner before this one. He had reports of bullying other officers and had a low performance review. The bullying alone should have cost him his job, but apparently they let it slide. So he wasn't fired for filing a false report. That was just the straw that broke the camel's back.

 

And anyone who would support a man who threatens to shoot up a school is psychotic themselves.

Quoting lokilover:

I have not seen one person here who thinks his killings are justifiable. I was responding to your claims that because Dorner did not have case argued in the legal system, then his accusations must obviously be false. 

The LAPD have killed and harmed and killed more people than Dorner has or ever will. They should absolutely be reinvestigated and the officers who shot and wounded those two women in the truck should be punished. I don't see how any of that is unreasonable. 

 

 

You don't know that his accusations are false, so I don't understand why you keep stating that as though it is a fact. 

I also notice you didn't respond to the second part of my post, so I'll ask directly: What punishment do you think the officers who wounded those two innocent women should receive (if any)?

In case you don't have time to read the link. AMBG is lying. There was no case of Bullying. He did strangle another person. But this is after the other Person called him a Nigger. Then he told him to not do that and the other guy said he would call him a nigger whenever he wants. Standing up for yourself and getting into a fight is hardly the same thing as being a bully.

Have you ever heard someone say, "That kid is such a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger".  And the other "poor" performance were extremely minor things. Like not having the right shoes for a run, and what not. Not exactly the things a Police Officer is normally fired over.

When she mentioned what people said she left out some details (For obvious reasons).

Gettler's father didn't know it was unintentional. His statement said at first he assumed it was unintentional.  This is before his son told him, "I was kicked three times by the Police Officer"

She also leaves out that the other officer besides Dorner and Evans that said Gettler was never kicked was found to be lying about the event. He said he had to fix Dorners Tie that day but pictures and reality show that Dorner didn't wear a uniform that had a tie that day (What an odd thing to lie about as well...).

It wasn't as cut and dry as she wants to make it.

And if you look at the dispostion videos (They are 'leaked' online as well). You will see Dorners representative asking Gettler about his head and transitioning to the question about being kicked to which he answers 1 (The amount of times he was kicked in the head) and makes no attempt to ask the question again or clarify the point (Which would seem extremely important if you wanted the person you were representing to have a chance if you know he and the father of the person have said 3 times).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 11:05 AM


YOU need to read the manifesto. I will help you.

Quote:


The internal affairs investigation in the academy involving Schefres was spurned by a complaint that I had initiated toward two fellow recruit/offifcers. While on a assigned patrol footbeat in Hollywood Division, Officers Hermilio Buridios IV and Marlon Magana (both current LAPD officers) decided that they would voice their personal feelings about the black community. While traveling back to the station in a 12 passenger van I heard Magana refer to another individual as a nigger. I wasn’t sure if I heard correctly as there were many conversations in the van that was compiled of at least 8 officers and he was sitting in the very rear and me in the very front.
This is the right incident, right? He is talking about the Academy. He hears someone mention the word nigger. He isn't choking anyone yet. Is there more? Yes. THere is more. Second paragraph.


Quote:

Even with the multiple conversations and ambient noise I heard Officer Magana call an indivdual a nigger again. Now that I had confirmed it, I told Magana not to use that word again. I explained that it was a well known offensive word that should not be used by anyone. He replied, “I’ll say it when I want”. Officer Burdios, a friend of his, also stated that he would say nigger when he wanted. At that point I jumped over my front passenger seat and two other officers where I placed my hands around Burdios’ neck and squeezed. I stated to Burdios, “Don’t fucking say that”.
Notice how he says that he explained that it was well known offensive word that should not be used by anyone? Notice how he then says that the reply is, "I'll say it when I want" and his friend says the same thing.

Now after reading a direct quote from his manifesto where he says he explained it. Do you still claim that no where did he say he explained that nigger is offensive?
Quoting AMBG825:

 You need to read that manifesto again. He admitted he choked out a fellow cadet. No where in his manifesto did he mention he explained to anyone about it being offensive.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


You do realize. I am not saying the two incidents were not the same, right? I pointed out one was not a case of being a bully. You said, "Not that one!" so I debunked the next one. You said, "Not that one! The other one!" So I then debunked that one.

You are lying again. He didn't hear someone use the word nigger and chock him out. He heard someone use the word nigger twice and said he explained that it was an offensive word that should not be used by anyone. The officer replied, "I'll say it when I want". Then that officer's friend said he will call anyone he wants a Nigger as well. That is when he attacked the other officer.

That is NOT being a bully. Unless Bullies are now the guys that try to stop others from being offensive and mean. This is an example of being violent. But not of being a bully.

Quoting AMBG825:

 Yes. I read it just fine. It was expressly clear that these were separate incidents. The incident where (supposedly) they were singing nazi songs was not the same incident in which he was called a racist name. There is even a paragraph break between the 2 paragraphs.

 

And in the 2nd incident detailed by him, it wasn't a case of someone using the word "nigger" and he told them to stop. He heard them use the word and choked them out. In his manifesto, in the 2nd incident of the first page mentioned, they said the word, he asked them "what did you say?" then started choking the person. No where did he say he told them to stop. No where did he say he reported it to anyone. He stated he heard it and started choking the guy.

 

If you're going to make stuff up, make stuff up that isn't directly refuted by the evidence you are citing.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Did you read what he said at all?  Again. Being a Bully is NOT the same as hearing someone use the word Nigger and telling them to stop. Then them telling you that they will do it whenever they want and then attacking them.

You understand that? Now if he was calling the Officers honkies and they said, "That offends us don't do it anymore" and then he tells them, "I will call you honkies if I want" and then attacks them. That would be being a bully.

Hearing someone say Nigger repeatedly and telling them to stop because it is offensive and them saying, "I will call people nigger whenever I want".  And then attacking them (In a vehicle full of at least 8 officers) is not exactly the same as being a Bully.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And read what he says. That is not the same incident that you are referring to in which he was called a racist name. The next paragraph in that manifesto (you know where there is a break between writing.) details a completely different incident in which he was called a racist name and responded to it violently.

 

 

Quoting brookiecookie87:


Pointing out your lies doesn't make me a liar.

For example. Did the situation you just mentioned:

Quote:


During the BOR, the department attempted to label me unsuccessfuly as a bully. They stated that I had bullied a recruit, Abraham Schefres, in the academy when in reality and unfounded dispostion from the official 1.28 formal complaint investigation found that I was the one who stood up for Abraham Schefres when other recruits sang nazi hitler youth songs about burning jewish ghettos in WWII Germany where his father was a survivor of a concentration camp.
Notice how what you said is a lie, and yet again, I am proving you lied?

Quoting AMBG825:

 Per his manifesto he was reprimanded after several cadets in the academy filed complaints against him for bullying. It had nothing to do with being called a racist name. It was a completely separate incident per him. So yes ...you are lying.

 

Just as you lied when you said other officers and civilians testified on his behalf. Court documents posted prove that they did not.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

It is lying if you call it bullying because that is not what being a bully is. Someone was calling him a Nigger. He told him to stop. The person said they can call him a Nigger whenever they want. So then he chokes him out.

You can say, "See he has been violent before when people provoked him" but it is not being a bully.

"That kid is a bully. He never lets anyone call him a nigger"-Said no one ever.

Being a bully would be the other way around. If he was calling Officers honkies and the officer told him to stop and he said, "I can call you a honky if I want" and when the officer told him not to do it anymore then he beat him up. Then yes. That would be being a bully.

You also said that the father, "Testified that he didn't report the incident because he believe it was an accident and not intentional".

Another lie. He said he didn't report it because he ASSUMED it was an accident. Accident or not-The kicks existing would mean the kicks happened.



Were you kicked in the face? Yes.
How many times were you kicked in the face? 1
Do you remember where? Right here (Points to scare)
Do you remember what sex male or female? Female
Do you remember they were white or black ? Almost black
Do you remember if the female light hair or darker hair? Doesn't really remember
Do you remember being kicked? Yes.
How many times? 1
Do you remember where? This side (Points to the scar)

The person asking the questions is Dorners representative. Notice how he ask him about his face. How many times he was kicked in the face 1. And then after a bunch of other questions goes back to do you remember being kicked. And how many times? He answers 1-Likely thinking he is still talking about to the face since that is what he was talking about before.

This would make sense if it was the people trying to prove him wrong. It doesn't make sense for his representative to even try and clarify what he means. Especially since he is not all there in the head.

 



 



 



 



Join us on the 99% Moms group!
The Ninety-Nine Percent Moms   

If they enforced bank regulations like they do park rules, we wouldn't be in this mess

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)