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 (171-180):
brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 11:07 AM


If you changed kicked to stomped. I would agree. But if you kick someone it doesn't mean you will leave a mark. Especially if you are kicking them with the front of your foot like most kicks to the ground are.


Quoting AMBG825:

 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).


 



 



 



 



 



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

lokilover
by Bronze Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 11:19 AM



Quoting AMBG825:

 And this is more common than people think. The days of protecting cops that speak out are gone for most departments now. Most departments highly encourage officers to speak out against other officers. Officers that report other officers for wrong doing are often promoted now even when unqualified for doing so.

 

Most of the cops you see on the news who are arrested or fired for wrong doing, are turned in by other cops. They aren't turned in by the general public anymore.

Quoting Whaaaaaa....O.o:

Quoting turtle68:




I do know those you speak of. And I never said they didn't exist. I hate corrupt cops for several reasons. One being they make my dh look bad. And most of all they put my dh's life at risk.

I am not naive. I know there is corruption. This is planet Earth after all. But I believe I read that the people he has shot aren't even involved in whatever issues he has going on.

I cannot bear to read the manifesto. In fact, I really shouldn't be following this story at all. Like I said, I already have nightmares. I've woken up literally screaming and drenched in sweat. But I love my dh. He is an amazing man and a terrific cop. And he is good at his job. His goal is really to protect and serve. But at the same time he would like to change agencies because of the supervisors and cheifs. His department has the opposite problem than LAPD. They hang their officers out to dry (even when the criminal tried to RUN OVER and officer while drunk) to stay "pc". Dh refused to unionize until this happened. Now we belong to 2 different unions. All to try to protect him from the corrupt higher ups.

 

The thin blue line still exists, and your claim that it doesn't is laughable. If you want any evidence, just look at how those officers who shot those two women will be handled. 

AMBG825
by on Feb. 10, 2013 at 11:21 AM

 According to Dorner she didn't kick him in the face. She kicked him in the shoulder and the chest. Both of which would have left boot prints on his WHITE shirt.

 

And you know how else I know he lied about how the arrest went down. The taser. According to Dorner, he was sitting on top of Gettler when she tasered him. Per his court testimony, the only reason he knew Evans used a taser on Gettler was because he heard the taser fired. Guess what? If he was sitting on top of Gettler while she tasered him, Dorner would have felt it. He would have been shocked too. Because if I'm holding you and you are being tasered, I'm getting tasered as well. There would have been no "i heard it so assumed she tasered him." It would have been "I heard it then felt the shock of the taser."

 

And pssst .....cops are required to be tasered before they are allowed to carry a taser. Since it was his taser (per his testimony) that Evans used he had been tasered before. He would know what it felt like to be shocked by a taser. Since Evans admitted she tasered Gettler before Dorner tackled the man and the hotel employees both stated they witnessed Evans taser the man BEFORE Dorner was sitting on Gettler, there is no question that the man was tasered.

Quoting brookiecookie87:

 

If you changed kicked to stomped. I would agree. But if you kick someone it doesn't mean you will leave a mark. Especially if you are kicking them with the front of your foot like most kicks to the ground are.


Quoting AMBG825:

 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).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 






 

AMBG825
by on Feb. 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

 WTF is it with illiterates trying to pretend they could read.

 

Didn't say it doesn't exist. I said it's becoming more common for officers to be turned in by other officers. I said departments are encouraging their officers to rat each other out. That in no way implies that there aren't officers out there who will lie for a fellow officer but they are slowly going away.

 

Your lack of reading skills is a lot more laughable.

Quoting lokilover:

 

 

Quoting AMBG825:

 And this is more common than people think. The days of protecting cops that speak out are gone for most departments now. Most departments highly encourage officers to speak out against other officers. Officers that report other officers for wrong doing are often promoted now even when unqualified for doing so.

 

Most of the cops you see on the news who are arrested or fired for wrong doing, are turned in by other cops. They aren't turned in by the general public anymore.

Quoting Whaaaaaa....O.o:

Quoting turtle68:




I do know those you speak of. And I never said they didn't exist. I hate corrupt cops for several reasons. One being they make my dh look bad. And most of all they put my dh's life at risk.

I am not naive. I know there is corruption. This is planet Earth after all. But I believe I read that the people he has shot aren't even involved in whatever issues he has going on.

I cannot bear to read the manifesto. In fact, I really shouldn't be following this story at all. Like I said, I already have nightmares. I've woken up literally screaming and drenched in sweat. But I love my dh. He is an amazing man and a terrific cop. And he is good at his job. His goal is really to protect and serve. But at the same time he would like to change agencies because of the supervisors and cheifs. His department has the opposite problem than LAPD. They hang their officers out to dry (even when the criminal tried to RUN OVER and officer while drunk) to stay "pc". Dh refused to unionize until this happened. Now we belong to 2 different unions. All to try to protect him from the corrupt higher ups.

 

The thin blue line still exists, and your claim that it doesn't is laughable. If you want any evidence, just look at how those officers who shot those two women will be handled. 

 






 

brookiecookie87
by Platinum Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Your lies know no bounds do they?

Quote:


Appellant was trying to grab Gettler’s right arm, which was pressed against the wall, but Gettler did not comply. Sergeant Evans went into the bushes, between the bushes and the wall, lifted Gettler by his hair, and told him to give appellant his arm. Appellant testified that Gettler did not have blood on his face at that point. Sergeant Evans then stood up and kicked Gettler twice in the left clavicle. Gettler yelled, and then Sergeant Evans kicked him on the left cheek, causing him to start bleeding. Gettler said, “Is this all you want?” and gave appellant his right arm to be handcuffed. Sergeant Hernandez then drove up, got out of his car, asked if they needed help, and helped pick Gettler up.

Notice where he says that Sergeant Evens kicked him on the left cheek? Do you think the left cheek is part of the shoulder?


Quoting AMBG825:

 According to Dorner she didn't kick him in the face. She kicked him in the shoulder and the chest. Both of which would have left boot prints on his WHITE shirt.

 

And you know how else I know he lied about how the arrest went down. The taser. According to Dorner, he was sitting on top of Gettler when she tasered him. Per his court testimony, the only reason he knew Evans used a taser on Gettler was because he heard the taser fired. Guess what? If he was sitting on top of Gettler while she tasered him, Dorner would have felt it. He would have been shocked too. Because if I'm holding you and you are being tasered, I'm getting tasered as well. There would have been no "i heard it so assumed she tasered him." It would have been "I heard it then felt the shock of the taser."

 

And pssst .....cops are required to be tasered before they are allowed to carry a taser. Since it was his taser (per his testimony) that Evans used he had been tasered before. He would know what it felt like to be shocked by a taser. Since Evans admitted she tasered Gettler before Dorner tackled the man and the hotel employees both stated they witnessed Evans taser the man BEFORE Dorner was sitting on Gettler, there is no question that the man was tasered.

Quoting brookiecookie87:


If you changed kicked to stomped. I would agree. But if you kick someone it doesn't mean you will leave a mark. Especially if you are kicking them with the front of your foot like most kicks to the ground are.


Quoting AMBG825:

 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).


 



 



 



 



 



 



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

AdellesMom
by on Feb. 10, 2013 at 12:09 PM
Forgive my ignorance. But, I have no clue who this man is. I haven't watched the news in a few days.
Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
lokilover
by Bronze Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 12:11 PM



Quoting AMBG825:

 WTF is it with illiterates trying to pretend they could read.

 

Didn't say it doesn't exist. I said it's becoming more common for officers to be turned in by other officers. I said departments are encouraging their officers to rat each other out. That in no way implies that there aren't officers out there who will lie for a fellow officer but they are slowly going away.

 

Your lack of reading skills is a lot more laughable.

Quoting lokilover:



Quoting AMBG825:

 And this is more common than people think. The days of protecting cops that speak out are gone for most departments now. Most departments highly encourage officers to speak out against other officers. Officers that report other officers for wrong doing are often promoted now even when unqualified for doing so.

 

Most of the cops you see on the news who are arrested or fired for wrong doing, are turned in by other cops. They aren't turned in by the general public anymore.

Quoting Whaaaaaa....O.o:

Quoting turtle68:




I do know those you speak of. And I never said they didn't exist. I hate corrupt cops for several reasons. One being they make my dh look bad. And most of all they put my dh's life at risk.

I am not naive. I know there is corruption. This is planet Earth after all. But I believe I read that the people he has shot aren't even involved in whatever issues he has going on.

I cannot bear to read the manifesto. In fact, I really shouldn't be following this story at all. Like I said, I already have nightmares. I've woken up literally screaming and drenched in sweat. But I love my dh. He is an amazing man and a terrific cop. And he is good at his job. His goal is really to protect and serve. But at the same time he would like to change agencies because of the supervisors and cheifs. His department has the opposite problem than LAPD. They hang their officers out to dry (even when the criminal tried to RUN OVER and officer while drunk) to stay "pc". Dh refused to unionize until this happened. Now we belong to 2 different unions. All to try to protect him from the corrupt higher ups.

 

The thin blue line still exists, and your claim that it doesn't is laughable. If you want any evidence, just look at how those officers who shot those two women will be handled. 

 

The way you say "rat each other out" gives a strong impression that you disagree with these supposed policies. Why would you refer to officers holding their fellow officers accountable in that way?

I can not name one case in the last few years where justice in a police brutality or corruption case was brought about by one office reporting another. Justice in these cases is always solely accomplished by media attention to the case, and activists who put the pressure on. Cops normally only "rat out" one of their own when their own neck is on the line, usually in the form of a plea deal (like with Perez and the CRASH scandal of the late 90's). 

Can you name even one case in the last 10 years where an officer was convicted solely on the basis of another officer coming forward and giving testimony? If it's really so common you should be able to name several.

viv212
by Gold Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 12:16 PM
No they don't obviously. But the officers who did the act don't get fired. The officer who does the accusing ends up getting fired or getting "bullied" in the locker room. It doesn't go farther than that.

Quoting AMBG825:

 And the onest that do, if they have as much evidence as this man said he had, files lawsuits. They don't go on shoothing sprees.


Quoting viv212:

Cops do get fired for trying to report of other officer wrongdoings. Or they get asked to resign. This is nothing new.


Quoting AMBG825:


 That is because they are incapable of critical thinking.



 



There is no way he was fired for blowing the whistle on another officer. If that is the case, he'd be a very rich man right now because there are laws that protect him from just that. He would have sued the city for violating the Whistleblower Protection Act. If the city came to him and told him he was being fired for ratting out a corrupt officer, he wouldn't be out killing cops right now. He'd be out picking out the mansion he's going to buy.



 



This guy was fired for something else. Judging by the fact that he completely lost his mind and went on a killing spree ...I'm going to say he was fired for psychological reasons.


 

Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Feb. 10, 2013 at 12:19 PM

Ladies, please try to cut the trees.  It is getting increasingly harder to follow this thread.

The thought that some seem to think that turning in another officer for wrong doing, attempting to hold them responsible, is some how wrong........truly baffles me.

The majority of police officers are good and decent men and women.  There are those that are not.  There are entire departments that are corrupt (LAPD) and those that are not.

It is getting harder and harder to determine who are the actual good guys in blue and who are not.  Part of this stems from the stigma placed on those officers who attempt to do the right thing and those who look down upon officers who dare to turn in another uniform.  Not to mention that less and less are held accountable for their actions.


Gracesgma
by Member on Feb. 10, 2013 at 12:20 PM

There's a lot of sickos out there, including Dorner and his "fans." God must weep when He sees what this country is becoming.

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)