![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
He consistently and explicitly blames whistleblower retaliation for his predicament. 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 02:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
From an earlier revision of the article, as of now removed by an IP user:
"Revolutionary groups like Occupied Wall Street supported Dorner’s actions and called him a hero. Christopher Jordan Dorner Is A True Patriot Hero: LAPD Getting Everything It Deserves."
As the article is clearly marked as "not an official statement" on the website, I share the opinion of the IP user that this should not be included, but I'd like to place it here for debate. -- MCaecilius ( talk) 02:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I concur that this statement does not belong, as the linked OWS post is clearly labeled as anonymous user content on their website and obviously in no way is an official statement from OWS, which, to the original user who inserted that quote, stands for "Occupy" Wall Street, not "Occupied." Bosterson ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It was changed from "an admirable" to "a quiet." I changed it back to "admirable" because the article cited does say admirable (specifically, "admired"). And it mentions nothing of "quiet." Don't edit to fit your preconceived narratives; stick to the source information. Doesn't matter whether it sounds odd to you (it does to me, too). From the cited article:
(Currently citation #4.) 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 12:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Pretty sure Chris Dorner is part of the Dorner family. 74.79.239.198 ( talk) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
number of injured is 5 ( 2 police officers, 3 civilians )(2 of the civilians injured due to a incident of mistaken idenity) Ommi9 ( talk) 04:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) would you mind clarifying please, Ryan? 174.141.213.41 ( talk) 02:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The article will be improved, and more balanced, when Wikipedia begins to cover reactions to the police shooting of civilians. It has been over 48 hours since the two separate incidents of LAPD Police shooting at vehicles where they had made no serious identification of the suspect being in either vehicle, and had no license plate match; the vehicle just "sorta, kinda" matched the description of the vehicle of the primary suspect. This seems to be a rather obvious and eggegious case of police misconduct, or to keep it in the terminology of "alleged" and "suspect", of potential gross negligence by police.
Has there been no reaction by civil libertarians, police watch groups, etc.? Really? My sense is that surely there are notable statements by notable police watchdog groups, and some reliable source news coverage of the reaction to the police getting things so horribly wrong. Where is the police accountability, and is that not a valid topic for coverage on Wikipedia? N2e ( talk) 19:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it might need a new section, because I'm not sure where else it fits. But here are two artices on how these Dorner's have caused his case to be reopened by the LAPD, and how they are putting a spotlight on LAPD racism and abuses past and current.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fugitives-rant-puts-focus-evolving-lapd-legacy-18451078
Any suggestions on how to call the section? Does it fit under "reactions"? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The sections mentioning the third civilian attacked by police require change, according to this article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
First it needs to be clarified that the LAPD reported no **visible** injuries, instead of **no** injuries. Secondly it needs to be mentioned that he did get hurt, as a result of a police cruiser crashing into his car in an effort to stop him. The summary at the top of the article needs to be changed, as well as the last paragraph under "Police shootings of civilians". 178.3.166.254 ( talk) 17:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Right now, the article says: "In two separate incidents during the manhunt, police shot at three innocent civilians, mistaking them for Dorner. Two of these people were injured, while the third was not.[3][4]"
The LATimes reports that the third person was injured, he was not shot, but that he sustained injuries: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
"In Perdue's case, his attorney said he wasn't struck by bullets or glass but was injured in the car wreck, suffering a concussion and an injury to his shoulder. The LAX baggage handler hasn't been able to work since, and his car is totaled, Sheahen said. "When Torrance issues this ridiculous statement saying he wasn't injured, all they mean is he wasn't killed," his attorney said, referring to a press release reporting "no visible injuries" to Perdue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 ( talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
New section does not reflect the actual injuries and is not neutral. This description does not reflect the new reports: "Approximately 25 minutes after that incident, officers from the Hollywood Division of the LAPD struck and opened fire on another vehicle, but reported that there were no injuries due to the actual shooting.[37]"
Should add: "The occupant, however, reported a concussion and shoulder injury due to the crash." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
reference is http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 ( talk) 18:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Under Police shootings of civilians it says that it happened at about 5:30. However there doesn't appear to be any sources to back this claim up, and the sources I have read say that it happened at about 5:15 or 5:10.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/lapd-attacks-timeline/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_22548130/lapd-looking-dorner-accused-street-justice-opening-fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.204.35 ( talk) 19:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it is appropriate to use the term "accidental shooting" or "mistakenly fired" when it was very clearly intentional shooting. An "accidental shooting" might be where someone fires a weapon, but did not intend to. The same goes with "mistakenly fired". I do not think there is any source that suggests the firing of the weapons was mistaken. WHO they thought they were shooting was a mistake. But this was no accident and they weren't mistakenly fired weapons. More accurate would be "attempted assassination", but I'd settle for something at least true and neutral. Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 03:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be interesting to add: were they just shooting into an occupied vehicle with no idea who was in it or did they mistake 2 women for 1 300 pound bald man?
Should I delete this now that it's been changed? Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 20:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The media have been releasing heavily censored versions of Dorner's manifesto, which may or may not protect them legally (although I doubt it makes much of a difference) but it makes it difficult to google the names to figure out what happened in the incidents he's upset about. I was able to find an uncensored copy here. 71.215.66.32 ( talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
http://pastebin.com/TAzPRfPy is a more readable version. 71.215.66.32 ( talk) 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Who can say what is uncensored if the original page was taken down? The "more readable" version is labled as "scrubbed by the media" and identical to the "uncensored" one. Until consensus exists on what are the actual words of the accused perpetrator, the reference should be left out of the article IMHO. 70.36.212.48 ( talk) 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
-- for you guys/gals at Wikipedia to not mention Chris Dorner's decisively left wing views is not surprising. He is a Left-Wing Extremist/Terrorist. He should be identified in the opening paragraph of the article as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.216.234 ( talk) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Dorner's personal war against law enforcement, particularly the LAPD, is essentially a war on a local government, and his threats to all other law enforcement constitute, essentially, a war on government in totality. Note that "right wing" terrorist Timothy McVeigh has a section on his wikipedia article that identifies his religious and political beliefs. So should there not be a section on Dorner's article that identifies him as a left wing extremist agnostic (perhaps atheist) ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.216.234 ( talk) 20:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Quote from the manifesto include ' I’m not a fucking Christian '. He notes his support of most of President Obama's domestic policies as well. Praises Michelle Obama, and accuses Mitt Romney of being a sore loser.
er, this is wikipedia folks. You don't expect the FACTS about an Obama-supporting, left-wing spree killer to actually make into the article, do you? 72.37.249.60 ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have strong reason to think that the manifesto referenced is actually a badly edited copy of the one put up by Dorner; there's a few severely out-of-character points, such as the sudden shout of support for the Anonymous movement. PaseteBin is a haven for anonymously posting these sorts of things on the parts of e-activists. I have strong suspicion this was made by such an activist who wished to put words conforming to their ideology in Dorner's mouth -- some passages just read very differently and out-of-place. 86.21.137.79 ( talk) 23:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a lot of concern about the manifesto There appear to be at least THREE versions floating online from mainstream media sources one with redacted names one with names and the one referenced in this wiki article with names AND a lot of left wing stuff about guns etc We need to get 100% confirmation on this currently referenced manifesto that includes gun control references etc I have seen a lot online that CLAIMS this version is fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.196.253 ( talk) 11:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
A section called "Manifesto versions" (or something like that) should be added to the article, since many are floating around and I'm personally skeptical about the one with all the pop culture references.. from what I understand it was done by /b/ and news sources are citing it as accurate. The reason I find the longer version to be less credible is that it contains much more spelling mistakes, and seems to change style. Nonfaridere ( talk) 23:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Dorner's Nissan Titan is silver and the newspaper truck is a blue Toyota Tacoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.178.237 ( talk) 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Neither source 15 nor 16 include the following descriptions: "The vehicle did not have its lights on in the dark, and had tinted windows, obstructing officers' ability to see into the vehicle, which may have raised their suspicion." I removed that statement, but include it here in the event there is a neutral reference for it and it is deemed applicable information. 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 04:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw the vehicle. You can see the vehicle. It had tinted windows http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/07/16888732-women-shot-by-cops-were-just-delivering-papers#comments
The tint to me? Did they mistake the two women for 1 300 pound bald Dorner or were they unable to see what they were shooting at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.132.14.34 ( talk) 06:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
/b/ has inserted the last parts about tv-shows like shark week and personalities like Bill Cosby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.130.113.36 ( talk) 12:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we should leave the manifesto out for the time being. There appears to be a movement among some editors to link to it, and I believe that they are doing this to try and garner some kind of sympathy for Dorner. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 07:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
How about they open a case, or the silent supposedly "liberal" media "open a case," into the following frighteningly believable section of Dorner's "manifesto"?
I know, it's Wikipedia. But I mean good God. That's got to be "encyclopedia worthy" somehow. 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 09:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a fast-changing story. The LAT is printing new reports that should be included in this article
1. 7 officers opened fire. The neighborhood is pockmarked with bullet holes http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209
Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.
"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.
Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.
As bullets tore through the cabin, the two women "covered their faces and huddled down," Jonas said. "They felt like it was going on forever."
2. Lots of Shots - Sounded like fireworks http://redondobeach.patch.com/articles/gunshots-sounded-like-fireworks-torrance-shooting-witnesses-say
Neighbors reported hearing hearing more than a dozen rounds fired.
"The sound was surreal, sort of like fireworks!" said Lloyd Taylor, who owns Triathlon Lab in Redondo Beach. "As 30-40 shots were fired within sections at (approximately) 5 a.m.!"
In a comment left on Redondo Beach Patch, Alexander Starr also said the gunshots sounded like fireworks. "I woke up to the gunshots," he wrote. "Dozens of shots were fired, pop pop pop pop!"
"I shouldn't have peeked out my windows, but I did, and there were the cops in my driveway, shooting," Redondo Union High School chemistry teacher Linda Dillard told the school newspaper, the High Tide. "(Later) we just heard a lot of police orders, but the shooting was over."
Dillard told the High Tide that her and her husband's garage door and house were hit by bullets. The windows in her husband's car were hit, and her car had one bullet in it.
Also: http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/02/08/35886/attorney-two-women-shot-police-torrance-says-offic/
“It’s very unfortunate because they were just doing their job,” Goo said in an interview in front of his house. Goo, a cardiology technician, has lived in the neighborhood for eight years. He said he and his wife were in bed when they heard gunshots.
“We heard all this pop-pop-popping. And then I hit the ground, crawled around, dragged her out of bed, onto the floor and then laid on top of her,” he said.
When he called 911, Goo said the dispatcher told him the police were right outside his house and to stay in the back of his house until officers came to tell him it was clear. Several bullets from the shooting hit his house and cars. He believes between 30 and 50 rounds of shots were fired.
“When one of the ricochets hit off our glass door, I thought it had come through the door into our living room,” Goo remembered. “So I thought bullets were coming into the house."
3. Six Officers placed on admin leave
http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/02/08/35886/attorney-two-women-shot-police-torrance-says-offic/
Six LAPD officers who took part in the "mistaken identity" shooting of two women delivering newspapers in Torrance on Thursday were placed on administrative leave while the women — Margie Carranza, 47, and her 71-year-old mother, Emma Hernandez — were expected to survive.
The women's lawyer, Glen Jonas, argues that the officers did not follow protocol or the rules of engagement when using deadly force. "With no warning, no command, or no instructions, LAPD opened fire on their vehicle," Jonas said.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 ( talk) 17:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This section omits important and facts and appears to have been written by someone sympathetic to Dorner. It neglects to mention nearly all the evidence supporting Dorner's termination -- particularly the fact that Dorner initially said the use of force was justified. He later filed a complaint literally the day after receiving a negative performance review from the same officer he accuses of using excessive force. Also omitted is the victim's father's statement that he didn't think twice about the head wound because it wasn't serious. The Wikipedia article also mentions a videotaped interview with the alleged victim, mistakenly calling it a deposition. In the interview, the guy answers leading questions, appears to be coached by Dorner's attorney, and is never subjected to cross-examination. Much more relevant and important is the fact (omitted by Wikipedia) that the victim testified at the hearing and was described by the appeals court as "generally . . . incoherent and nonresponsive." And there's also the board that looked all these witnesses in the eye and decided Dorner was lying.
The appellate opinion is here: http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/christopher-dorner-v-lapd-case-file/
This article needs some serious revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.132.133 ( talk) 23:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
"Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil." [2] 71.212.251.104 ( talk) 00:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3122542803286291629&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5
CHRISTOPHER DORNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B225674. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.20.45.98 ( talk) 01:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Christopher Jordan Dorner#Proposed merger from 2013 Southern California shootings -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't this fit the definition of serial killing as opposed to mass killing? ScienceApe ( talk) 04:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The comment about the shot challenge coin implying that the shot was taken at 100m is no accurate. 1 moa means that the shooter is accurate to one inch at 100yards. It also means .5 inch at 50 yards, or 2 inches at 200 yards. 1 moa makes no implication as to how far away the shot was actually taken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.135.131 ( talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't the size of the coin, along with "1 moa" indicate how far away the shot was taken? E.g. if the target is a barn door, then 100m away is not 1moa. Likewise, if the target is a flea, then 1moa would occur at a distance shorter than 100m. I don't know how large the coin was, but I've been assuming that the size of the coin allowed for 1moa at 100m. 195.95.190.2 ( talk) 11:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the section on the "Suspect" is far, far too long as there exists a separate Christopher Dorner article. I think the section should a significantly reduced in size.
What do people think about replacing the entire "Naval Reservist" and "Career with LAPD sections" with 1-2 sentences each?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I'd propose in it's place:
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking at a photography of the shot vehicle of Maggie Carranza and Emma Hernandez I was able to count way over 35 bullet holes in the back of the car. No idea what is assumed to be reasonable force in this case, but that's more than a full clip of a modern assault rifle, almost two of them ... and some shots have obviously missed as the back is peppered side to side. I believe that this level of aggression should be mentioned in the report. -- 92.195.211.51 ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC) JB.
At some point recently, the article has been re-organized and re-written in a "time-line format" ... this might make it easier to add days with a diary of what happened on each day, kind-of like a rap-sheet. But, IMHO, this is not the best way to present this article in an informative manner (this is an encyclopedia, not a police diary). A time-line graphic, (perhaps vertical diagram on the right side of the page) or a table of dates and events would suffice under a stand-alone time-line section; but I feel that it is best to revert the body to a "Shootings" "Manifesto" and "Police Shootings" (etc.) structure for the main narrative. Comments?
Enquire (
talk)
21:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I made this request already at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Someone agreed with it, but no one made the change for me. I'm asking that the second paragraph be changed to read as below.
A manifesto posted [1] [2] [3] on Facebook, [4] which police say was written by Dorner, [5] declared " unconventional and asymmetric warfare" upon the Los Angeles Police Department, their families, and their associates, until the LAPD admitted publicly he was fired in retaliation for reporting excessive force.
Rybec ( talk) 23:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Another request, mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_off in why ammo is exploding, there's some confusion among why shots are going off. Dietcoketm ( talk) 00:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dorner's name is misspelled as Dormer under the Big Bear section. 174.141.213.44 ( talk) 02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The unchecked news report of "ammo exploding" is probably based on a local reporter hearing sounds and making assumptions. It is more likely "aerosol cans exploding" in the heat. For accuracy, this should be phrased as "explosions were heard from within the fire, possibly aerosol cans [ or ammunition, if that sensational turn of phrase is required]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.59.118 ( talk) 02:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Another Request, mention somewhere that the police may have intentionally burned the building down as recorded in scanner traffic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCdqybEfy9w EOD is mentioned as well as "burners" which could refer to "hot" tear gas grenades which are typically not to be used inside structures due to their ability to start fires. Officer heard saying "Were's going to go forward with the plan,.. with the burner.. On it, uh, like we talked about..." "Burners deployed and we have a fire." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Roach131313 (
talk •
contribs)
07:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
References
myFOXla_2013-02-06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ABC.au_2013-02-08
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).LAist_2013-02-07
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Would they count as "injured"-which would leave the total to 9-considering Dorner tied them down before stealing their car? CloudKade11 ( talk) 02:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The building identified by media as the cabin occupied by a person matching Dorner’s description appears to actually be the office for http://7oaksmtncabins.com/ and not an actual rental unit. [3] [4]
Oh and supposedly they’re open year-round. ― cobaltcigs 02:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The coverage on the last day... we nailed it in an extremely timely manner. Kudos to all. Kennvido ( talk) 03:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This just in from CNN, no body found, all such reports false. 04:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC) ( ProfessorTofty)
It is better for wikipedia to be two days behind than to look like a bunch of idiots writing wrong info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The info box lists 7 injured and names the suspect as Dorner. This is a BLP violation and a lie. The police shot and injured 3.
The paragraph on the final(?) standoff needs to establish the facts as far as they are known and as soon as we can find reputable sources to cite.
The facts of the case are more important than when media reported that there was / was not a body.
FWIW, the mention of Anderson Cooper is faulty. Currently reads
Should be restated. Cooper said on air: "The DVD shows testimony by a man who says he was kicked by an LAPD officer, [which] according to Dorner, confirm[s] his story, the story he says got him kicked off the force initially.” This appears to be a reference to the videotaped deposition of Gettler which is cited in another part of the article. Cooper does not say video of Dorner himself appears on the DVD. Hence, perhaps:
GlazeHurls ( talk) 10:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
"And had altercations with many students due to his race." The section of the referenced document (Dorner's) describing childhood altercations related to race offers no indication there were "many" such incidents. "Multiple times" is not sufficient for such an inference. I will remove the word "many" for that reason. In evidence, with apologies for the length, here is the entire applicable paragraph:
(I hope it is appropriate to include the paragraph here; apologies if otherwise.) 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 04:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The lead currently includes this: "police shot at three civilians unrelated to Dorner, mistaking their pickup trucks for the vehicle being driven by Dorner."
It is true that the police claimed to have mistakenly misidentified the truck, and it is true that multiple media sources ran with that story during the early hours after the incidents, but this is problematic for two reasons:
So I am proposing that this part of the lead be rewritten to better reflect what really went down, and to be more neutral with respect to both sides of the story, from both the police side, and the civilian victims of the police reaction to dark-colored pickup trucks driving down the street between 5 am and 6 am on a February morning. N2e ( talk) 16:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The cabin siege ended and police stated that his wallet and ID were there. How can this be when police report on Thursday the 7th that his wallet was found in San Diego? Diresgard, for a moment, the impracticalities of Dorner even needing an ID while in the woods (was he afraid he would get carded when trying to buy a pack of smokes?). How does an ID and wallet located in a San Diego police evidence room get to a a cabin in the mountains? Moreover, the cabin fire was so intense it forced first responders to stay back for several hours and it reportedly burned Dorner beyond recognition. The San Bernardino County Sheriff said the heat was so intense they had to wait 12 hours to enter. How could a fire so severe not destroy a plastic license and a wallet? It doesnt add up. Was Dorner beat and killed outside of the cabin and then placed in the cabin and burned to hide the beating? Was the ID then planted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwsu ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hatted forumy post gwickwire talk edits 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
After an by MathematicianO there is too much detailed information about the manifesto in the lead. I am therefore reverting it. If these details are too be included it must be in the body of the article. The lead is curently more detailed about the manifesto than the body, which is not how articles shall be written. There also seems to be a slight tendency to argue the case for Dorner in the mentioned edit. With regards, Iselilja ( talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The source of the manifesto is false; it has been modified from the original. The original manifesto can be located here: http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/616/02/616_1360213161.pdf 130.113.126.70 ( talk) 14:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
In WP, original research is forbidden (making up one's own theories). However, personal research is necessary or we're a bunch of idiots writing without thinking.
Dorner claims that one piece of evidence backing up his claim of falsely being accused of filing a false police report is that he wasn't charged, like other LAPD filing a false police report. Is this true?
I found this http://da.lacounty.gov/mr/archive/2012/072512c.htm Auchansa ( talk) 05:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC) LOS ANGELES – Two LAPD officers working on a DUI enforcement project have been charged with perjury and filing a false police report after they allegedly falsely claimed they stopped a suspected DUI driver during a 2010 checkpoint.
Craig Allen, 39, and Phillip Walters, 56, surrendered today at the Foltz Criminal Justice Center on a felony complaint for arrest warrant, said Deputy District Attorney Renee Chang with the Justice System Integrity Division. Their arraignment was set for Aug. 10 in Department 30. Judge Shelly Torrealba released them on their own recognizance.
--- The District Attorney never filed any charges against Dorner.
Whats is the lasting encyclopedic significance of this event, the article as it stands reads like one long news summary of event. How does this not fail WP:NOT#JOURNALISM ? What is the WP:LASTING consequences of this ? LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The current name, 2013 Southern California shootings, is accurate to this series of events, but also includes in its name all the other 2013 shootings in socal, which there will be a lot of. can we wedge in a word or two addressing how its police officer related? i dont have any bright ideas, but i think this name is way too generic. We can probably wait to see if the media comes up with a name, aside from the suspect himself.( User:Mercurywoodrose) 99.157.205.137 ( talk) 04:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I kind of agree. What happens god forbid.. If he kills anyone in another state or country?-- Ron John ( talk) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest 2013 Police Assassinations. It's more descriptive as it's not certain what the article's title is referring to. An uptick in police shootings in SoCal, or what? It's too vague. Elryacko ( talk) 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Name of article is absurd. There were and are more than just this "set" of killings and it is only February. Whistleblower Cop Rampage Killings is as descriptive. Wait for and then use whatever name sticks, and if no name does stick, just merge into article on Dorner. 2013 Southern California Police Assassinations almost works, but the young lady killed was not police. 2013 Rogue cop Vendetta works better, as he is doing more than killing. He is terrifying law enforcement throughout SoCal. Madame L'Auteur ( talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
What if it were titled LAPD Killer or LAPD Revenge Killings or LAPD Revenge Killer or something to that effect? Nearly everyone involved were in the LAPD or were related to the LAPD. The primary threat is against the LAPD. You could tack on 2013 for more specificity. Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 20:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The current article title of 2013 Southern California shootings has got to be a contender to win some sort of award for the most vague, mealy mouthed Wikipedia article title ever. Shootings occur in Southern California by the hour if not the minute. It's only 10 Feb 2013: there will be hundreds if not thousands more shootings between now and the end of 2013 in Southern California. Will all shootings in 2013 in Southern California henceforth be included in this article? In that case, then what about shootings in 2013 in Northern California; shootings in 2012 in Southern California and in all previous years; shootings in the rest of the fifty states of the USA, broken down region by region? No one looking for details about the alleged conduct of Christopher Dorner is going to search for 2013 Southern California shootings unless they already know the name of the article. An encyclopaedic article title needs to be precise, specific, and easily searchable and found. This applies to the Wikipedia article on Christopher Dorner by naming the article after the subject. In my view, this article needs to be merged, therefore, with that on Christopher Dorner. 58.165.123.47 ( talk) 10:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Title suggestion: Christopher Dorner manifesto and connected shootings 178.3.166.254 ( talk) 17:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Title suggestion: 2013 Manhunt for Christopher Dorner The difficulty with the title is connected to how the story has grown--and, in turn, how the focus of the story has shifted. (The following sentences omit some chronology for simplicity's sake.) Initially, the story was a shooting in Irvine with two fatalities. It was significant news in Orange County and Southern California in general, but not yet a nationally-notable event. Then, the LAPD name Dorner as a suspect in connection with the shootings, with all the attendant detail of his ex-LAPD past, Naval experience, etc. At that point, the focus of the story tends to shift from the initial shooting to Dorner himself and the related pursuit. The subsequent shootings of and by police officers in connection with this manhunt further distance the story from the initial shootings.
To that end, something along the lines of 2013 Manhunt for Christopher Dorner seems accurate and not an explicit BLP issue: there is no disputing the presence of the manhunt itself; referring to the manhunt does not necessarily imply guilt or complicity in the initial shootings. Maybe the term "manhunt" is a bit loaded, or overly dramatic, but I think that gets this article headed in the correct direction. The newsworthiness of the story—and I mean this solely in an editorial, zeitgeist-y sense—is that an ex-cop is being hunted across state and national lines in connection with etc., etc. The shootings were the precipitating event, and later an exacerbating one. The pursuit, however, is lasting, and more noteworthy. 63.146.101.45 ( talk) 20:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is bad for making up titles. The title should not be exempt from the WP requirement of reliable sources. The title should be the most common title used by reliable sources. We should not be making up names like it is a TV show episode title.
If we are making up names, the current title is not a good choice. 2013 Southern California shootings? How about the many other shootings in Southern California? Something about "LAPD Revenge Killings" (eventual titie) or "Dorner Termination from the LAPD" (currently ok per BLP) is possibly better, especially after the events become clear. These killings are a result of what Dorner believes is wrongful termination of employment. This seems to be the accepted theory (and we can phrase it as such). Auchansa ( talk) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Suggest changing the title to Christopher Dorner manhunt since that is what most of the article is about and the present title isn't very specific to this case. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think making that a section in the article is ok. Maybe leave it because the manhunt came as a result of the violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwsu ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This is chaos in what is going on as it is I just closed two merge/redirect discussions talking about the same thing asking people to come here and talk about it, now you guys want to have a page move discussion as well? I think we should wait for the merge results below to become final before a choice can be made here as it could impact the title change. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
SUGGESTIONS
CHRISTOPHER DORNER EMPLOYMENT CONTROVERSY
CHRISTOPHER DORNER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Dorner#Wikiproject:Dorner
I propose a Wikiproject:Dorner (temporary) that should last for 6 months then close. This Wikiproject could discuss handling of the Dorner article, shooting article, and any sub articles. The wikiproject would have a termination date of 6 months from now. There needs to be discussion to coordinate the articles and decide what goes where. I propose that the Dorner article limit it to his early background and Navy service. The shooting article, which is in the middle of a naming discussion, should do the hearing, timeline, shootings, police shootings of the two trucks, and last stand.
SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Dorner#Wikiproject:Dorner for a consolidated space for discussion. Auchansa ( talk) 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Dorner's shootings were the most high profile but there are many in 2013 so far. This article needs revision or spin off Dorners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Due to the unjustified police shootings of random people who do not fit Dorner's description, using the excuse that the person(s) fit the descripton of Dorner, many residents in California and throughout the United States are now terrified of the police. Specifically, they are afraid that any armed police officer or any police vehicle on the road is there to target whichever random law-abiding citizen(s) the police officer(s) feel like shooting or injuring using the excuse "I thought the person matched the description of Dorner." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.3.43 ( talk) 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
First paragraph: Irvine PD identified Dorner as the suspect in the first two homicides.
http://www.cityofirvine.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=1&Entry=1458 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.144.156 ( talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
My close read and parsing of the statements is this: The police fired on the two vehicles because they vaguely resembled the description of Dorner's vehicle. The persons were not fired on because they resembled Dorneer. The police lit up the vehicles. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The article said:
The sheriff's office announced that the autopsy showed that Dorner had died from a single gunshot wound to the head, evidence indicating that it was self-inflicted.
(changed in this edit).
I changed it back to say
The sheriff's office announced the autopsy showed Dorner died from single gunshot wound to the head and evidence indicates it was self-inflicted.
meaning there is (supposedly) some other evidence besides the mere existence of a single gunshot wound to the head. The version I changed it back to is supported by the sources. — rybec 06:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
He consistently and explicitly blames whistleblower retaliation for his predicament. 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 02:54, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
From an earlier revision of the article, as of now removed by an IP user:
"Revolutionary groups like Occupied Wall Street supported Dorner’s actions and called him a hero. Christopher Jordan Dorner Is A True Patriot Hero: LAPD Getting Everything It Deserves."
As the article is clearly marked as "not an official statement" on the website, I share the opinion of the IP user that this should not be included, but I'd like to place it here for debate. -- MCaecilius ( talk) 02:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I concur that this statement does not belong, as the linked OWS post is clearly labeled as anonymous user content on their website and obviously in no way is an official statement from OWS, which, to the original user who inserted that quote, stands for "Occupy" Wall Street, not "Occupied." Bosterson ( talk) 03:22, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It was changed from "an admirable" to "a quiet." I changed it back to "admirable" because the article cited does say admirable (specifically, "admired"). And it mentions nothing of "quiet." Don't edit to fit your preconceived narratives; stick to the source information. Doesn't matter whether it sounds odd to you (it does to me, too). From the cited article:
(Currently citation #4.) 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 12:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Pretty sure Chris Dorner is part of the Dorner family. 74.79.239.198 ( talk) 15:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
number of injured is 5 ( 2 police officers, 3 civilians )(2 of the civilians injured due to a incident of mistaken idenity) Ommi9 ( talk) 04:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
(outdent) would you mind clarifying please, Ryan? 174.141.213.41 ( talk) 02:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The article will be improved, and more balanced, when Wikipedia begins to cover reactions to the police shooting of civilians. It has been over 48 hours since the two separate incidents of LAPD Police shooting at vehicles where they had made no serious identification of the suspect being in either vehicle, and had no license plate match; the vehicle just "sorta, kinda" matched the description of the vehicle of the primary suspect. This seems to be a rather obvious and eggegious case of police misconduct, or to keep it in the terminology of "alleged" and "suspect", of potential gross negligence by police.
Has there been no reaction by civil libertarians, police watch groups, etc.? Really? My sense is that surely there are notable statements by notable police watchdog groups, and some reliable source news coverage of the reaction to the police getting things so horribly wrong. Where is the police accountability, and is that not a valid topic for coverage on Wikipedia? N2e ( talk) 19:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think it might need a new section, because I'm not sure where else it fits. But here are two artices on how these Dorner's have caused his case to be reopened by the LAPD, and how they are putting a spotlight on LAPD racism and abuses past and current.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/fugitives-rant-puts-focus-evolving-lapd-legacy-18451078
Any suggestions on how to call the section? Does it fit under "reactions"? -- Bob drobbs ( talk) 05:05, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The sections mentioning the third civilian attacked by police require change, according to this article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
First it needs to be clarified that the LAPD reported no **visible** injuries, instead of **no** injuries. Secondly it needs to be mentioned that he did get hurt, as a result of a police cruiser crashing into his car in an effort to stop him. The summary at the top of the article needs to be changed, as well as the last paragraph under "Police shootings of civilians". 178.3.166.254 ( talk) 17:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Right now, the article says: "In two separate incidents during the manhunt, police shot at three innocent civilians, mistaking them for Dorner. Two of these people were injured, while the third was not.[3][4]"
The LATimes reports that the third person was injured, he was not shot, but that he sustained injuries: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story
"In Perdue's case, his attorney said he wasn't struck by bullets or glass but was injured in the car wreck, suffering a concussion and an injury to his shoulder. The LAX baggage handler hasn't been able to work since, and his car is totaled, Sheahen said. "When Torrance issues this ridiculous statement saying he wasn't injured, all they mean is he wasn't killed," his attorney said, referring to a press release reporting "no visible injuries" to Perdue." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 ( talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
New section does not reflect the actual injuries and is not neutral. This description does not reflect the new reports: "Approximately 25 minutes after that incident, officers from the Hollywood Division of the LAPD struck and opened fire on another vehicle, but reported that there were no injuries due to the actual shooting.[37]"
Should add: "The occupant, however, reported a concussion and shoulder injury due to the crash." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 ( talk) 18:47, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
reference is http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130210,0,3955268.story — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 ( talk) 18:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Under Police shootings of civilians it says that it happened at about 5:30. However there doesn't appear to be any sources to back this claim up, and the sources I have read say that it happened at about 5:15 or 5:10.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/02/07/us/lapd-attacks-timeline/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_22548130/lapd-looking-dorner-accused-street-justice-opening-fire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.204.35 ( talk) 19:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I do not think it is appropriate to use the term "accidental shooting" or "mistakenly fired" when it was very clearly intentional shooting. An "accidental shooting" might be where someone fires a weapon, but did not intend to. The same goes with "mistakenly fired". I do not think there is any source that suggests the firing of the weapons was mistaken. WHO they thought they were shooting was a mistake. But this was no accident and they weren't mistakenly fired weapons. More accurate would be "attempted assassination", but I'd settle for something at least true and neutral. Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 03:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
It would be interesting to add: were they just shooting into an occupied vehicle with no idea who was in it or did they mistake 2 women for 1 300 pound bald man?
Should I delete this now that it's been changed? Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 20:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The media have been releasing heavily censored versions of Dorner's manifesto, which may or may not protect them legally (although I doubt it makes much of a difference) but it makes it difficult to google the names to figure out what happened in the incidents he's upset about. I was able to find an uncensored copy here. 71.215.66.32 ( talk) 21:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
http://pastebin.com/TAzPRfPy is a more readable version. 71.215.66.32 ( talk) 21:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Who can say what is uncensored if the original page was taken down? The "more readable" version is labled as "scrubbed by the media" and identical to the "uncensored" one. Until consensus exists on what are the actual words of the accused perpetrator, the reference should be left out of the article IMHO. 70.36.212.48 ( talk) 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
-- for you guys/gals at Wikipedia to not mention Chris Dorner's decisively left wing views is not surprising. He is a Left-Wing Extremist/Terrorist. He should be identified in the opening paragraph of the article as that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.216.234 ( talk) 20:17, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Dorner's personal war against law enforcement, particularly the LAPD, is essentially a war on a local government, and his threats to all other law enforcement constitute, essentially, a war on government in totality. Note that "right wing" terrorist Timothy McVeigh has a section on his wikipedia article that identifies his religious and political beliefs. So should there not be a section on Dorner's article that identifies him as a left wing extremist agnostic (perhaps atheist) ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.113.216.234 ( talk) 20:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Quote from the manifesto include ' I’m not a fucking Christian '. He notes his support of most of President Obama's domestic policies as well. Praises Michelle Obama, and accuses Mitt Romney of being a sore loser.
er, this is wikipedia folks. You don't expect the FACTS about an Obama-supporting, left-wing spree killer to actually make into the article, do you? 72.37.249.60 ( talk) 22:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I have strong reason to think that the manifesto referenced is actually a badly edited copy of the one put up by Dorner; there's a few severely out-of-character points, such as the sudden shout of support for the Anonymous movement. PaseteBin is a haven for anonymously posting these sorts of things on the parts of e-activists. I have strong suspicion this was made by such an activist who wished to put words conforming to their ideology in Dorner's mouth -- some passages just read very differently and out-of-place. 86.21.137.79 ( talk) 23:16, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
There is a lot of concern about the manifesto There appear to be at least THREE versions floating online from mainstream media sources one with redacted names one with names and the one referenced in this wiki article with names AND a lot of left wing stuff about guns etc We need to get 100% confirmation on this currently referenced manifesto that includes gun control references etc I have seen a lot online that CLAIMS this version is fake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.196.253 ( talk) 11:19, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
A section called "Manifesto versions" (or something like that) should be added to the article, since many are floating around and I'm personally skeptical about the one with all the pop culture references.. from what I understand it was done by /b/ and news sources are citing it as accurate. The reason I find the longer version to be less credible is that it contains much more spelling mistakes, and seems to change style. Nonfaridere ( talk) 23:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Dorner's Nissan Titan is silver and the newspaper truck is a blue Toyota Tacoma. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.178.237 ( talk) 07:20, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Neither source 15 nor 16 include the following descriptions: "The vehicle did not have its lights on in the dark, and had tinted windows, obstructing officers' ability to see into the vehicle, which may have raised their suspicion." I removed that statement, but include it here in the event there is a neutral reference for it and it is deemed applicable information. 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 04:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I saw the vehicle. You can see the vehicle. It had tinted windows http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/07/16888732-women-shot-by-cops-were-just-delivering-papers#comments
The tint to me? Did they mistake the two women for 1 300 pound bald Dorner or were they unable to see what they were shooting at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.132.14.34 ( talk) 06:24, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
/b/ has inserted the last parts about tv-shows like shark week and personalities like Bill Cosby. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.130.113.36 ( talk) 12:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I think we should leave the manifesto out for the time being. There appears to be a movement among some editors to link to it, and I believe that they are doing this to try and garner some kind of sympathy for Dorner. Prisonermonkeys ( talk) 07:04, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
How about they open a case, or the silent supposedly "liberal" media "open a case," into the following frighteningly believable section of Dorner's "manifesto"?
I know, it's Wikipedia. But I mean good God. That's got to be "encyclopedia worthy" somehow. 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 09:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This is a fast-changing story. The LAT is printing new reports that should be included in this article
1. 7 officers opened fire. The neighborhood is pockmarked with bullet holes http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/08/local/la-me-torrance-shooting-20130209
Law enforcement sources told The Times that at least seven officers opened fire. On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.
"How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?" said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.
Glen T. Jonas, the attorney representing the women, said the police officers gave "no commands, no instructions and no opportunity to surrender" before opening fire. He described a terrifying encounter in which the pair were in the early part of their delivery route through several South Bay communities. Hernandez was in the back seat handing papers to her daughter, who was driving. Carranza would briefly slow the truck to throw papers on driveways and front walks.
As bullets tore through the cabin, the two women "covered their faces and huddled down," Jonas said. "They felt like it was going on forever."
2. Lots of Shots - Sounded like fireworks http://redondobeach.patch.com/articles/gunshots-sounded-like-fireworks-torrance-shooting-witnesses-say
Neighbors reported hearing hearing more than a dozen rounds fired.
"The sound was surreal, sort of like fireworks!" said Lloyd Taylor, who owns Triathlon Lab in Redondo Beach. "As 30-40 shots were fired within sections at (approximately) 5 a.m.!"
In a comment left on Redondo Beach Patch, Alexander Starr also said the gunshots sounded like fireworks. "I woke up to the gunshots," he wrote. "Dozens of shots were fired, pop pop pop pop!"
"I shouldn't have peeked out my windows, but I did, and there were the cops in my driveway, shooting," Redondo Union High School chemistry teacher Linda Dillard told the school newspaper, the High Tide. "(Later) we just heard a lot of police orders, but the shooting was over."
Dillard told the High Tide that her and her husband's garage door and house were hit by bullets. The windows in her husband's car were hit, and her car had one bullet in it.
Also: http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/02/08/35886/attorney-two-women-shot-police-torrance-says-offic/
“It’s very unfortunate because they were just doing their job,” Goo said in an interview in front of his house. Goo, a cardiology technician, has lived in the neighborhood for eight years. He said he and his wife were in bed when they heard gunshots.
“We heard all this pop-pop-popping. And then I hit the ground, crawled around, dragged her out of bed, onto the floor and then laid on top of her,” he said.
When he called 911, Goo said the dispatcher told him the police were right outside his house and to stay in the back of his house until officers came to tell him it was clear. Several bullets from the shooting hit his house and cars. He believes between 30 and 50 rounds of shots were fired.
“When one of the ricochets hit off our glass door, I thought it had come through the door into our living room,” Goo remembered. “So I thought bullets were coming into the house."
3. Six Officers placed on admin leave
http://www.scpr.org/news/2013/02/08/35886/attorney-two-women-shot-police-torrance-says-offic/
Six LAPD officers who took part in the "mistaken identity" shooting of two women delivering newspapers in Torrance on Thursday were placed on administrative leave while the women — Margie Carranza, 47, and her 71-year-old mother, Emma Hernandez — were expected to survive.
The women's lawyer, Glen Jonas, argues that the officers did not follow protocol or the rules of engagement when using deadly force. "With no warning, no command, or no instructions, LAPD opened fire on their vehicle," Jonas said.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.211.186 ( talk) 17:22, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
This section omits important and facts and appears to have been written by someone sympathetic to Dorner. It neglects to mention nearly all the evidence supporting Dorner's termination -- particularly the fact that Dorner initially said the use of force was justified. He later filed a complaint literally the day after receiving a negative performance review from the same officer he accuses of using excessive force. Also omitted is the victim's father's statement that he didn't think twice about the head wound because it wasn't serious. The Wikipedia article also mentions a videotaped interview with the alleged victim, mistakenly calling it a deposition. In the interview, the guy answers leading questions, appears to be coached by Dorner's attorney, and is never subjected to cross-examination. Much more relevant and important is the fact (omitted by Wikipedia) that the victim testified at the hearing and was described by the appeals court as "generally . . . incoherent and nonresponsive." And there's also the board that looked all these witnesses in the eye and decided Dorner was lying.
The appellate opinion is here: http://leaksource.wordpress.com/2013/02/07/christopher-dorner-v-lapd-case-file/
This article needs some serious revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.15.132.133 ( talk) 23:56, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
"Dorner has become the first human target for remotely-controlled airborne drones on US soil." [2] 71.212.251.104 ( talk) 00:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3122542803286291629&hl=en&as_sdt=2,5
CHRISTOPHER DORNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B225674. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.20.45.98 ( talk) 01:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
See Talk:Christopher Jordan Dorner#Proposed merger from 2013 Southern California shootings -- Guy Macon ( talk) 23:26, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't this fit the definition of serial killing as opposed to mass killing? ScienceApe ( talk) 04:51, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
The comment about the shot challenge coin implying that the shot was taken at 100m is no accurate. 1 moa means that the shooter is accurate to one inch at 100yards. It also means .5 inch at 50 yards, or 2 inches at 200 yards. 1 moa makes no implication as to how far away the shot was actually taken — Preceding unsigned comment added by 167.102.135.131 ( talk) 20:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Doesn't the size of the coin, along with "1 moa" indicate how far away the shot was taken? E.g. if the target is a barn door, then 100m away is not 1moa. Likewise, if the target is a flea, then 1moa would occur at a distance shorter than 100m. I don't know how large the coin was, but I've been assuming that the size of the coin allowed for 1moa at 100m. 195.95.190.2 ( talk) 11:18, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
It seems that the section on the "Suspect" is far, far too long as there exists a separate Christopher Dorner article. I think the section should a significantly reduced in size.
What do people think about replacing the entire "Naval Reservist" and "Career with LAPD sections" with 1-2 sentences each?
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Here's what I'd propose in it's place:
-- Bob drobbs ( talk) 20:02, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Looking at a photography of the shot vehicle of Maggie Carranza and Emma Hernandez I was able to count way over 35 bullet holes in the back of the car. No idea what is assumed to be reasonable force in this case, but that's more than a full clip of a modern assault rifle, almost two of them ... and some shots have obviously missed as the back is peppered side to side. I believe that this level of aggression should be mentioned in the report. -- 92.195.211.51 ( talk) 02:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC) JB.
At some point recently, the article has been re-organized and re-written in a "time-line format" ... this might make it easier to add days with a diary of what happened on each day, kind-of like a rap-sheet. But, IMHO, this is not the best way to present this article in an informative manner (this is an encyclopedia, not a police diary). A time-line graphic, (perhaps vertical diagram on the right side of the page) or a table of dates and events would suffice under a stand-alone time-line section; but I feel that it is best to revert the body to a "Shootings" "Manifesto" and "Police Shootings" (etc.) structure for the main narrative. Comments?
Enquire (
talk)
21:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I made this request already at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard. Someone agreed with it, but no one made the change for me. I'm asking that the second paragraph be changed to read as below.
A manifesto posted [1] [2] [3] on Facebook, [4] which police say was written by Dorner, [5] declared " unconventional and asymmetric warfare" upon the Los Angeles Police Department, their families, and their associates, until the LAPD admitted publicly he was fired in retaliation for reporting excessive force.
Rybec ( talk) 23:21, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Another request, mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooking_off in why ammo is exploding, there's some confusion among why shots are going off. Dietcoketm ( talk) 00:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Dorner's name is misspelled as Dormer under the Big Bear section. 174.141.213.44 ( talk) 02:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The unchecked news report of "ammo exploding" is probably based on a local reporter hearing sounds and making assumptions. It is more likely "aerosol cans exploding" in the heat. For accuracy, this should be phrased as "explosions were heard from within the fire, possibly aerosol cans [ or ammunition, if that sensational turn of phrase is required]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.14.59.118 ( talk) 02:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Another Request, mention somewhere that the police may have intentionally burned the building down as recorded in scanner traffic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCdqybEfy9w EOD is mentioned as well as "burners" which could refer to "hot" tear gas grenades which are typically not to be used inside structures due to their ability to start fires. Officer heard saying "Were's going to go forward with the plan,.. with the burner.. On it, uh, like we talked about..." "Burners deployed and we have a fire." — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Roach131313 (
talk •
contribs)
07:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
References
myFOXla_2013-02-06
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).ABC.au_2013-02-08
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).LAist_2013-02-07
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Would they count as "injured"-which would leave the total to 9-considering Dorner tied them down before stealing their car? CloudKade11 ( talk) 02:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The building identified by media as the cabin occupied by a person matching Dorner’s description appears to actually be the office for http://7oaksmtncabins.com/ and not an actual rental unit. [3] [4]
Oh and supposedly they’re open year-round. ― cobaltcigs 02:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The coverage on the last day... we nailed it in an extremely timely manner. Kudos to all. Kennvido ( talk) 03:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This just in from CNN, no body found, all such reports false. 04:06, 13 February 2013 (UTC) ( ProfessorTofty)
It is better for wikipedia to be two days behind than to look like a bunch of idiots writing wrong info — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 ( talk • contribs) 08:19, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
The info box lists 7 injured and names the suspect as Dorner. This is a BLP violation and a lie. The police shot and injured 3.
The paragraph on the final(?) standoff needs to establish the facts as far as they are known and as soon as we can find reputable sources to cite.
The facts of the case are more important than when media reported that there was / was not a body.
FWIW, the mention of Anderson Cooper is faulty. Currently reads
Should be restated. Cooper said on air: "The DVD shows testimony by a man who says he was kicked by an LAPD officer, [which] according to Dorner, confirm[s] his story, the story he says got him kicked off the force initially.” This appears to be a reference to the videotaped deposition of Gettler which is cited in another part of the article. Cooper does not say video of Dorner himself appears on the DVD. Hence, perhaps:
GlazeHurls ( talk) 10:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
"And had altercations with many students due to his race." The section of the referenced document (Dorner's) describing childhood altercations related to race offers no indication there were "many" such incidents. "Multiple times" is not sufficient for such an inference. I will remove the word "many" for that reason. In evidence, with apologies for the length, here is the entire applicable paragraph:
(I hope it is appropriate to include the paragraph here; apologies if otherwise.) 74.67.54.145 ( talk) 04:39, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
The lead currently includes this: "police shot at three civilians unrelated to Dorner, mistaking their pickup trucks for the vehicle being driven by Dorner."
It is true that the police claimed to have mistakenly misidentified the truck, and it is true that multiple media sources ran with that story during the early hours after the incidents, but this is problematic for two reasons:
So I am proposing that this part of the lead be rewritten to better reflect what really went down, and to be more neutral with respect to both sides of the story, from both the police side, and the civilian victims of the police reaction to dark-colored pickup trucks driving down the street between 5 am and 6 am on a February morning. N2e ( talk) 16:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The cabin siege ended and police stated that his wallet and ID were there. How can this be when police report on Thursday the 7th that his wallet was found in San Diego? Diresgard, for a moment, the impracticalities of Dorner even needing an ID while in the woods (was he afraid he would get carded when trying to buy a pack of smokes?). How does an ID and wallet located in a San Diego police evidence room get to a a cabin in the mountains? Moreover, the cabin fire was so intense it forced first responders to stay back for several hours and it reportedly burned Dorner beyond recognition. The San Bernardino County Sheriff said the heat was so intense they had to wait 12 hours to enter. How could a fire so severe not destroy a plastic license and a wallet? It doesnt add up. Was Dorner beat and killed outside of the cabin and then placed in the cabin and burned to hide the beating? Was the ID then planted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwsu ( talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC) |
Hatted forumy post gwickwire talk edits 22:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
After an by MathematicianO there is too much detailed information about the manifesto in the lead. I am therefore reverting it. If these details are too be included it must be in the body of the article. The lead is curently more detailed about the manifesto than the body, which is not how articles shall be written. There also seems to be a slight tendency to argue the case for Dorner in the mentioned edit. With regards, Iselilja ( talk) 22:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
The source of the manifesto is false; it has been modified from the original. The original manifesto can be located here: http://content.clearchannel.com/cc-common/mlib/616/02/616_1360213161.pdf 130.113.126.70 ( talk) 14:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
In WP, original research is forbidden (making up one's own theories). However, personal research is necessary or we're a bunch of idiots writing without thinking.
Dorner claims that one piece of evidence backing up his claim of falsely being accused of filing a false police report is that he wasn't charged, like other LAPD filing a false police report. Is this true?
I found this http://da.lacounty.gov/mr/archive/2012/072512c.htm Auchansa ( talk) 05:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC) LOS ANGELES – Two LAPD officers working on a DUI enforcement project have been charged with perjury and filing a false police report after they allegedly falsely claimed they stopped a suspected DUI driver during a 2010 checkpoint.
Craig Allen, 39, and Phillip Walters, 56, surrendered today at the Foltz Criminal Justice Center on a felony complaint for arrest warrant, said Deputy District Attorney Renee Chang with the Justice System Integrity Division. Their arraignment was set for Aug. 10 in Department 30. Judge Shelly Torrealba released them on their own recognizance.
--- The District Attorney never filed any charges against Dorner.
Whats is the lasting encyclopedic significance of this event, the article as it stands reads like one long news summary of event. How does this not fail WP:NOT#JOURNALISM ? What is the WP:LASTING consequences of this ? LGA (was LightGreenApple) talk to me 11:33, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
The current name, 2013 Southern California shootings, is accurate to this series of events, but also includes in its name all the other 2013 shootings in socal, which there will be a lot of. can we wedge in a word or two addressing how its police officer related? i dont have any bright ideas, but i think this name is way too generic. We can probably wait to see if the media comes up with a name, aside from the suspect himself.( User:Mercurywoodrose) 99.157.205.137 ( talk) 04:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I kind of agree. What happens god forbid.. If he kills anyone in another state or country?-- Ron John ( talk) 06:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggest 2013 Police Assassinations. It's more descriptive as it's not certain what the article's title is referring to. An uptick in police shootings in SoCal, or what? It's too vague. Elryacko ( talk) 17:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Name of article is absurd. There were and are more than just this "set" of killings and it is only February. Whistleblower Cop Rampage Killings is as descriptive. Wait for and then use whatever name sticks, and if no name does stick, just merge into article on Dorner. 2013 Southern California Police Assassinations almost works, but the young lady killed was not police. 2013 Rogue cop Vendetta works better, as he is doing more than killing. He is terrifying law enforcement throughout SoCal. Madame L'Auteur ( talk) 07:14, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
What if it were titled LAPD Killer or LAPD Revenge Killings or LAPD Revenge Killer or something to that effect? Nearly everyone involved were in the LAPD or were related to the LAPD. The primary threat is against the LAPD. You could tack on 2013 for more specificity. Promontoriumispromontorium ( talk) 20:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
The current article title of 2013 Southern California shootings has got to be a contender to win some sort of award for the most vague, mealy mouthed Wikipedia article title ever. Shootings occur in Southern California by the hour if not the minute. It's only 10 Feb 2013: there will be hundreds if not thousands more shootings between now and the end of 2013 in Southern California. Will all shootings in 2013 in Southern California henceforth be included in this article? In that case, then what about shootings in 2013 in Northern California; shootings in 2012 in Southern California and in all previous years; shootings in the rest of the fifty states of the USA, broken down region by region? No one looking for details about the alleged conduct of Christopher Dorner is going to search for 2013 Southern California shootings unless they already know the name of the article. An encyclopaedic article title needs to be precise, specific, and easily searchable and found. This applies to the Wikipedia article on Christopher Dorner by naming the article after the subject. In my view, this article needs to be merged, therefore, with that on Christopher Dorner. 58.165.123.47 ( talk) 10:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Title suggestion: Christopher Dorner manifesto and connected shootings 178.3.166.254 ( talk) 17:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Title suggestion: 2013 Manhunt for Christopher Dorner The difficulty with the title is connected to how the story has grown--and, in turn, how the focus of the story has shifted. (The following sentences omit some chronology for simplicity's sake.) Initially, the story was a shooting in Irvine with two fatalities. It was significant news in Orange County and Southern California in general, but not yet a nationally-notable event. Then, the LAPD name Dorner as a suspect in connection with the shootings, with all the attendant detail of his ex-LAPD past, Naval experience, etc. At that point, the focus of the story tends to shift from the initial shooting to Dorner himself and the related pursuit. The subsequent shootings of and by police officers in connection with this manhunt further distance the story from the initial shootings.
To that end, something along the lines of 2013 Manhunt for Christopher Dorner seems accurate and not an explicit BLP issue: there is no disputing the presence of the manhunt itself; referring to the manhunt does not necessarily imply guilt or complicity in the initial shootings. Maybe the term "manhunt" is a bit loaded, or overly dramatic, but I think that gets this article headed in the correct direction. The newsworthiness of the story—and I mean this solely in an editorial, zeitgeist-y sense—is that an ex-cop is being hunted across state and national lines in connection with etc., etc. The shootings were the precipitating event, and later an exacerbating one. The pursuit, however, is lasting, and more noteworthy. 63.146.101.45 ( talk) 20:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia is bad for making up titles. The title should not be exempt from the WP requirement of reliable sources. The title should be the most common title used by reliable sources. We should not be making up names like it is a TV show episode title.
If we are making up names, the current title is not a good choice. 2013 Southern California shootings? How about the many other shootings in Southern California? Something about "LAPD Revenge Killings" (eventual titie) or "Dorner Termination from the LAPD" (currently ok per BLP) is possibly better, especially after the events become clear. These killings are a result of what Dorner believes is wrongful termination of employment. This seems to be the accepted theory (and we can phrase it as such). Auchansa ( talk) 05:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Suggest changing the title to Christopher Dorner manhunt since that is what most of the article is about and the present title isn't very specific to this case. -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 16:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
I think making that a section in the article is ok. Maybe leave it because the manhunt came as a result of the violence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billwsu ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
This is chaos in what is going on as it is I just closed two merge/redirect discussions talking about the same thing asking people to come here and talk about it, now you guys want to have a page move discussion as well? I think we should wait for the merge results below to become final before a choice can be made here as it could impact the title change. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 22:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
SUGGESTIONS
CHRISTOPHER DORNER EMPLOYMENT CONTROVERSY
CHRISTOPHER DORNER — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 ( talk • contribs) 23:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Dorner#Wikiproject:Dorner
I propose a Wikiproject:Dorner (temporary) that should last for 6 months then close. This Wikiproject could discuss handling of the Dorner article, shooting article, and any sub articles. The wikiproject would have a termination date of 6 months from now. There needs to be discussion to coordinate the articles and decide what goes where. I propose that the Dorner article limit it to his early background and Navy service. The shooting article, which is in the middle of a naming discussion, should do the hearing, timeline, shootings, police shootings of the two trucks, and last stand.
SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Christopher_Dorner#Wikiproject:Dorner for a consolidated space for discussion. Auchansa ( talk) 04:43, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Dorner's shootings were the most high profile but there are many in 2013 so far. This article needs revision or spin off Dorners. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 ( talk • contribs) 22:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Due to the unjustified police shootings of random people who do not fit Dorner's description, using the excuse that the person(s) fit the descripton of Dorner, many residents in California and throughout the United States are now terrified of the police. Specifically, they are afraid that any armed police officer or any police vehicle on the road is there to target whichever random law-abiding citizen(s) the police officer(s) feel like shooting or injuring using the excuse "I thought the person matched the description of Dorner." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.167.3.43 ( talk) 19:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
First paragraph: Irvine PD identified Dorner as the suspect in the first two homicides.
http://www.cityofirvine.org/civica/press/display.asp?layout=1&Entry=1458 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.144.156 ( talk) 21:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
My close read and parsing of the statements is this: The police fired on the two vehicles because they vaguely resembled the description of Dorner's vehicle. The persons were not fired on because they resembled Dorneer. The police lit up the vehicles. -- Naaman Brown ( talk) 21:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The article said:
The sheriff's office announced that the autopsy showed that Dorner had died from a single gunshot wound to the head, evidence indicating that it was self-inflicted.
(changed in this edit).
I changed it back to say
The sheriff's office announced the autopsy showed Dorner died from single gunshot wound to the head and evidence indicates it was self-inflicted.
meaning there is (supposedly) some other evidence besides the mere existence of a single gunshot wound to the head. The version I changed it back to is supported by the sources. — rybec 06:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)