Talk:Christopher Dorner/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Hearings

This article sorely needs a very detailed account of the hearings. Otherwise, we look biased either toward Dorner or the police. Bamler2 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You could add a sourced 'Hearings' section. Timeline format? It shouldn't be reverted, just edited, I assume.

I tried to start it and it was reverted. You may have to seek consensus to include it now.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

A lot of information about the hearings is contained in this link: CHRISTOPHER DORNER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS ANGELES POLICE DEPARTMENT et al., Defendants and Respondents. No. B225674. Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Four. Filed October 3, 2011. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Dig down to the lower court hearing, where Dorner lost, and which led directly to the appeal. His judge was David P. Yaffe. People remember that it was this same Judge Yaffe who put 70 year old attorney Richard Fine behind bars for daring to challenge the county's legal system for corruption, and caused him to lose his license (fired?). He refused to back down, and refused to pay a penalty to the court. This so enraged Yaffe, that he had Fine arrested and put into solitary confinement under the awful conditions of Mens Central Jail, and ordered him to stay there until he agreed that he was in the wrong, and paid the penalty. Fine stayed put in solitary there for a year and a half before being released last year. He never did give in. Here's his petition to be released from jail: where he protested his coercive commitment by Judge Yaffe. Fine went the civilized route to look for justice. Fat lot of good it did him, and it probably shortened his life. These are facts that belong in the final accounting. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

That's extremely interesting, to say the least. Thanks. You say to "dig down to the lower court hearing". Where is that "lower court hearing" information contained? Do you have a link that we can click? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

To read all the briefs and orders in Dorner's pro per L.A. Superior Court case would cost over 200 bucks, so I haven't done it. Dorner vs. April Carter. Better to read his free opening brief in the COA: Dorner opening brief COA

Dormer certainly did jump through all of the hoops available to us citizens in our Constitutionally protected system of justice. Whether he got it, only time will tell. Regardless, he's doing what others only fantasize to do. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for posting these links. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I've added his opening brief to external links on the article page. I think it belongs there. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I think that this is highly relevant to this article that judge David P. Yaffe, who presided over the Christopher Dorner appeal, later resigned due to the corruption charges. Better reference can be found, but here is one. Wanted former cop, Dorner's LAPD firing case hinged on credibility (section JUDGE YAFFE RESIGNS) Yurivict (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Good post. I corrected your link so it works. BTW, Yaffe did not preside over the appeal, he presided over the lower court, and it was his input that brought about the appeal. Interesting that Dorner did not go to the higher level of the state Supreme Court. Only about 3% get to be heard, the rest are simply denied. Yeah, been there done that. JohnClarknew (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Here's another useful link for those interested. As the article progresses, there may be room for this kind of thing. Judge Yaffe resigns JohnClarknew (talk) 19:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Judge David Yaffe and the Los Angeles Superior Court

The judges: Judge (Ret) David Yaffe and the case of the false imprisonment of former US prosecutor Richard Fine have been the subject of complaint of widespread public corruption and abuse of rights under the color of law. Richard Fine exposed, publicized, and rebuked the taking by Los Angeles judges of "not permitted" payments (called by media "bribes"). As a result, then Governor Schwarzenegger had to sign "retroactive immunities" (called by media "pardons") for all such judges. Two weeks later, Richard Fine was arrested by the Sheriff of Los Angeles County Lee Baca, and later held for 18 months in solitary confinement. No valid booking records were ever discovered for the arrest and holding of Richard Fine. Sheriff Lee Baca insisted, even after inquiry by Los Angeles County Supervisor Michael Antonowitch, on producing booking records which stated that Richard Fine was arrested on location and by authority of the "Municipal Court of San Pedro". No such court existed. Sheriff Lee Baca refused to correct such false and misleading booking records, even after the falsehood was repeatedly pointed out to him. Therefore, such booking records should be deemed fraud, and the holding of Richard Fine - false imprisonment. [2]

The complaint against David Yaffe, Lee Baca, and others involved in the case of Richard Fine was filed with the US Attorney Office in Los Angeles. The US Attorney refused to take any action, or even confirm receipt of the complaints.

The US courts, starting from the US District Court, Central District of California (Magistrate Carla Woehrle and others), US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit (Chief Judge Alex Kozinski and others), and the conference of the Supreme Court (and in particular Justice Kennedy) all colluded in cover up of the corrupt practices of California Judge David Yaffe. [3-4]

The case of Richard Fine was also part of the Human Rights Alert (NGO) submission to the United Nations Human Rights Council. The submission was incorporated into the first ever UN official report on Human Rights in the United States with a note referring to "corruption of the courts and the legal profession and discrimination by law enforcement in California".

As was repeatedly pointed out in various investigations of the Rampart scandal, conduct of the courts - both the California and the US courts - is the true source of the corruption in LA County. [5]

Joseph Zernik, PhD Human Rights Alert (NGO)

LINKS: [1] Fresh questions over Christopher Dorner's dismissal as hunt continues_Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/feb/11/christopher-dorner-lapd-grievance-judge [2]10-07-08 Complaint-Filed-with-US-Attorney-Office-Los-Angeles-against-Judge-David-Yaffe-and-Sheriff-Lee-Baca-for-Public-Corruption-and-Deprivation http://www.scribd.com/doc/34057033/ [3] 10-07-12 Complaint for Public Corruption against US Magistrate Carla Woehrle and Others at the US District Court, Central District of California http://www.scribd.com/doc/34194403/ [4] 11-04-23 Habeas Corpus in the United States - the case of Richard Isaac Fine http://www.scribd.com/doc/24729084/ [5] 11-08-01 Zernik, J: Los Angeles Superior Court - widespread corruption and refusal of US government to take action, 16th World Criminology Congress presentation http://www.scribd.com/doc/61351469/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.32.112 (talk) 16:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no doubt that objections will be raised stating that this information does not belong here. However, I strongly support the inclusion, because it goes to the heart of the Dorner article in that Yaffe started him on his quest, by denying him the legitimate solution of his problems in a court of law, and provoking Dorner as each door banged shut in his eyes. The story is gathering strength, and beginning to look like the Hydra monster. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

I also support this and any other relevant information that provides a political context for Dorner's actions. Dorner was a terrorist. The Government called him a "terrorist", used anti-terror weapons such as predator drones, and extra-legal tactics to kill him vs. arrest him, replete with the "collateral damage" of innocent civilians shot by LAPD officers, and all of the other trappings that go with the "war on terror". Failure to include a political context and explanation for his actions would be biased. I think this is the kind of "recalibration" he was talking about.Jonny Quick (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Dorner was a terrorist. I would change the word "was" to "became" for the sake of clarity. That's the whole point of his life and death. Before civilized society rejected him, he was anything but a terrorist, he was a proud and loyal American. He left a lesson for us all, for those willing to see it, that is. JohnClarknew (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Using the sources about Yaffe that don't mention the Dorner case would be a violation of WP:No original research. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Reopen for Editing

Now that Dornan has died, much of the views discussed to include, delete has become outdated. I support reopening the Christopher Dornan page for editing from objective persons and to keep the entry separate from any merger.76.209.138.114 (talk) 22:27, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia states Dorner's entire final motivation was due to racism; however, it is clear that he believed Police corruption itself was a significant factor--thus it should be included in this summation of "last straw snap." The two issues are separate and entwined to the case at hand. 67.164.175.235 (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC) New User

Hi, where does the article say that his final motivation was due to racism? Also, was your comment intended to be part of this Reopen for Editing section, or were you responding to a different discussion? Regards. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Obituary not manifesto

I'm now controversially convinced that Dorner knew that it was over for him. Therefore, it will go down in history and referred to as a self-written obituary, not a manifesto with its political implication. His name will not be forgotten. It will hang there, not exactly like Saint Joan, killer of her enemies and burned alive by the "religious" power of her society, but killer of his enemies and almost burned alive by the equal "judicial" power of our society. JohnClarknew (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi John, I'm confused if you are arguing that Dorner's missive should not be called a manifesto in this article, or if you are making a prediction about what his missive will be called in the future. If it's the former, I don't quite understand the details of your argument, that it will improve the article. If it's the latter, we shouldn't tailor articles to conform to predictions. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm saying that to call it his "manifesto", which has a political slant, is to infer that he didn't know it was the end for him. To call it his obituary might be closer to the truth, but we cannot really know. Therefore, I would propose a more neutral label, an all-embracing "declaration" to the world. JohnClarknew (talk) 06:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Career as a naval reservist

I noticed that other editors have a disagreement over whether he was a naval reservist or ex-naval reservist. I added a cleanup tag to the article. Perhaps it would be better to discuss it here instead of in edit summaries? —rybec 20:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with this disagreement but note that the George W. Bush article for example, does not call him an ex-president or former politician. I can't think of a graceful way to reword this to reflect this style and not imply he was a reservist/officer at the time of the shootings. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 02:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

This probably shows unintentional pov. The guy is bad so smear him. He was a naval officer much like Bush was President. People will read the full article. If you really want to show the reader that he was not an active duty police officer, you could say that he was accused of several shootings done as retaliation for being fired from the police force.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamler2 (talk • contribs) 09:42, March 14, 2013‎

There seems to be two issues in dispute. The first is whether any version of "former" or "ex-" should be used to describe Dorner's LAPD status military status in the lead section. The second (and lesser issue) is whether or not "ex-" implies dishonor. In edit summaries you (Bamler2) have stated, "fairness means no former or ex in intro. We do not say Washington was an ex-president" and "ex means dishonorably discharged, which the criminal was not"

1) The point of a lead is to provide a concise overview of the subject.

2) Dorner's dismissal from LAPD is central to his notability.

3) It is not inherently unfair to state facts about Dorner that existed at the time he became a notable figure.

4) The convention for referring to former US Presidents is not a parallel example, as US President is a unique, esteemed position, and a former president might be referred to differently than a former Naval Reserve lieutenant, or a former baseball pitcher might.

5) I can find examples at FoxNews.com of George W. Bush being referred to both as "former" and as "ex-" President. (Conservative Fox News presumably uses the correct nomenclature for a conservative president.)

6) And here's an example from the National Review of "ex-General Eisenhower" So I'm not sure "ex means dishonorably discharged" is something that everybody knows, and it would be enriching to have a reliable source clarify that. Regardless, I've no objection referring to Dorner as "former". Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

One fair solution is to wrote in the intro that Dormer was a LAPD and navy officer or whatever his rank. No ex or similar. The next sentence could be that 2 years after his appeals to be reinstated failed, he was accused of all that shooting and other stuff. Bamler2 (talk) 05:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Would this small change work for you?

Christopher Jordan Dorner (June 4, 1979 – February 12, 2013) was an ex-LAPD police officer and former United States Navy reservist who was charged in connection with a series of shooting attacks on police officers and their families from February 3–12, 2013. The attacks left four people dead, including two police officers, and three police officers wounded.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 02:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Victims?

Is it just me, or are these pages completely missing any relevant information about the victims or the original retaliatory killings of Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence?Pär Larsson (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Conservatives trying desperately to portray Dorner as a 'liberal'

Is the American right wing reaction going to be included in this article at any point? 124.169.59.84 (talk) Sutter Cane who, when, and where did these remarks occur? you are required to provide a solid respectable source. No political rhetoric allowed. 205.204.248.67 (talk) 20:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) This is not a forum for political debate, your query is completely irrelevant. J.Rly (talk) 16:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Mayors Against Illegal Guns / No More Names

After it was found that the list of names being read during the "No More Names" bus tour contained Tamerlin Tsarnaev, further inspection has found that Michael Bloomberg's gun control advocacy group also had Christopher Dorner's [1] name on the list as well.Dipiddy (talk) 14:45, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

It could probably go in Federal Assault Weapons Ban as the list did seem to effect votes to defeat the bill. Is No More Names worthy of an article or section somewhere? I see no problem with inclusion here. Feel free to add it and if it is reverted then we can seek consensus on inclusion.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even get that this was a proposal to include this information, rather that it was dropped here, a propos of nothing. I don't quite see how this piece of information enhances our understanding of Dorner, since it was not something he initiated or participated in. It would be my instinct to revert if added. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm new to wiki. I noticed the page was locked so I posted on the talk page because I didn't know how else to submit anything. It doesn't need to be it's own section. It could go after Rewards if appropriate. It doesn't need more than a sentence or 2. Because his cause of death was found to be related to a self-inflicted gunshot wound, the data that Mayors Against Illegal Guns was using included his name; therefore, it was read aloud as a victim of gun violence at "No More Names" events. Dipiddy (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Hey man, welcome to Wikipedia! I certainly don't wish to impugn your efforts! My objection to the inclusion of this information, is that it appears a politically-motivated group "adopted" Dorner as a victim/posterboy for their cause, as they did with Tamarlan Tsarnaev. If, for example, the official Al Queda headquarters released a statement praising Dorner as a hero, that doesn't necessitate its mention in this article. That any group with an agenda, be it pro-gun or anti-police, could "adopt" Dorner by invoking his name, doesn't necessarily warrant mention. Dorner, for example, was likely a LEGAL gun owner, (as a veteran and former policeman), so it's questionable why the "Mayors Against Illegal Guns" would be describing him as a victim if Dorner's death was self-inflicted. On the other hand, there might be lots of other stuff that you know and and that can be sourced that would extinguish my trepidations. And maybe mentioning this stuff does get us closer to a neutral point of view. My proposal is that we discuss until we reach consensus. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

That is just it. Mayors Against Illegal Guns has not adopted him, Tsarnaev, or the others on the list that were killed in the act of apprehension by authorities. His and other names being read during their events has been covered by various media outlets and the group has since removed these names from future events. Simply stating that him and some of the other names on the list were in-error seems neutral. Dipiddy (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

It seems trivial to me, but I'll yield. Any other editors have any thoughts about this? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The topic of the section is not sufficiently relevant to this article and should be deleted. Rather it has to do with the article Mayors Against Illegal Guns where the topic is discussed in the section Murder suspects on No More Names list, which can be viewed for comparison of size and content with the section here. Note that the only murder suspect mentioned there was Tsarnaev, since the mistake was noticed when his name was publicly read. Dorner was just one of ten murder suspects mistakenly put on the list of victims. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)