The LAPD's handling of Dorner

There are good cops and bad cops, as there have always been, and always will be - and as there are good and bad doctors and good and bad preachers, or any other profession.

There is nothing worse than a lousy cop, and nothing better than a good one.

I think it is fair to say the larger the police force, the higher the odds of having a substantial number of bad cops. LA is not different than any other big city - there are lots of bad cops, and this was a good example of poor judgment on the part of a couple of cops.

I don't know any way to eliminate bad cops altogether...if we make the standards TOO high, we won't have enough cops. Being a capitalist, I naturally think the best way to upgrade our police forces is to offer better pay, benefits, and working conditions, just as we would with any profession, and quite frankly we ourselves are to blame and have little justification to bitch when we keep voting down taxes for pay raises to cops, teachers, and other public employees. We have the wrong view about public employee salaries - we should be viewing them not as "rewards" for existing employees, but incentives to attract and retain the best possible employees we can.

Just my opinion...

While I agree with you in principal there's a problem that has to be dealt with. Police unions make it damn hard to get rid of the bad cops while making it impossible to monetarily reward good cops. That leads us down the road of mediocrity for our police forces around the country. Something our union loving friends will argue against but it's the truth.

I agree w FM and the obvious, there is the good and the bad.

It seems the need for police precludes questioning ANY behavior less one risks being labeled a "cop basher". I find that dangerous. Someone very dear to me is a police officer. They belong to a caisson unit for fallen fellow officers, which was put together and is maintained on their own dime (and donations) and their own time. It is a prime example of the amazing, and good. It would sicken me for someone to disgrace these officer's honor by using their highly admirable actions to excuse any and all actions of the bad actors.

There are definitely "good" ones...and I recognize and support their efforts, and I resent anyone implying I do not on the basis I question undesirable behavior.

I will try to put this as tactfully as possible in an attempt to not piss anyone off (which is probably impossible), but if we paid teachers and cops and other public employees in such a manner as to attract and motivate a, shall we say, higher level of employee, I doubt unions would even be an issue. There has to be a need for a union to survive...without that need, unions are moot. True professionals do not have need of a union, and rarely will you see professionals unionized. We need to elevate cops and teachers to a true professional status, in which case they will have no need for, or desire to belong to, a union to begin with. That is not to say we don't have "professional" and "high level" cops and teachers, but without the rewards and recognition that goes along with being a professional, they can hardly be expected to feel like a professional beyond their self pride. And by not rewarding them as professionals, we open the door for poor and mediocre performers to enter and remain in those professions, and quite honestly it is the poor and mediocre performers that are most supportive of unions - for obvious reasons. Top performers usually prefer to be rewarded and incented on the basis of merit rather than seniority.

In other words, if we offer a better incentive, we won't HAVE to raise standards, because more top performers will seek those professions, and we will be able to pick and choose candidates with the best knowledge, skills, and abilities, and not have to settle for less than the best...

Well, some of the top paid public employees in Oregon are cops (due to massive OT) so at least some are getting good pay. But I'll leave cops alone as I haven't looked into their pay here in Oregon, my gut tells me they are underpaid for what they do. I will talk about teachers as I have looked at their pay. This is for Oregon as pay varies from state to state but is a good example because the teachers union here is very powerful politically.

Base starting pay is ~30k and benefits are ~50% of base pay so ~45k/yr. Teachers at the top make ~79k/year, toss in benefits and you are almost 120k/year. That's not to shabby for someon who works 9 months out of the year. They have a gold plaited benefits package and better retirement than most in the private sector. I would think at that kind of pay and education they should be considered professionals.

There are good and bad in EVERY profession, police are no different, certainly, and as for unions-they make it impossible to get rid of the bad apples no matter what profession. (teachers, auto workers cops, whatever.) Unions were started on a good premise, but have overstayed their welcome, IMO. Too much $$ going to the top union officials, who have been corrupt for years in most cases.

If you want bad and corrupt-we only have to look at our leaders....they are some FINE examples right there. I happen to live in the DC area. Where else would the RE-elect a proven cocaine addict who also doesn't think he has to pay taxes (and ususe the excuse he has renal failure?)......and he is only one of the MANY corrupt politicians in this area. No profession is exempt. Because of what cops do, now with dash cams, etc, they are more visible than most, so tend to draw much more criticism.

As with most things there are always folks who will focus on the bad. I prefer to focus on the good-the bad will show their spots eventually. Sort is the glass is half full mentality.

Well, one of the questions at hand is: was Dorner guilty of making false statements? Going back to the point in time that he was discharged (i.e., no one could then tell the future, just as they can't today) - was he guilty, OR were the people handling dorner's claims against another officer, and that officer guilty of retaliation and abuse of power? This is not a question that "slams cops" anymore than any like question about any false statement claim against anyone in the US. No one was firing live bullets in that in-house "he said she said" contest. So the question has ZERO to do with what a cop has to deal with in the "line of duty".

Interestingly, he did take the matter to court and sued the lapd - and lost. That doesn't mean he was guilty, per se...but one would think the news would located and release to the public the case records.

I would have thought the lapd would have immediatly prepared to release the discharge records (knowing they would eventually kill him), collected the court records and have moved to show the world that the truth was on their side w respect to dorner's discharge. Maybe they will.

Nothing justifies his actions. But, what his actions would be were not known 4 years ago.

Missy-at this point it really doesn't matter if he was guilty of the original charges. Charges are made every day against people, and they appeal and they lose-DAILY. They do NOT go out and shoot people because of it. The vast majority stay and fight WITHIN the legal system.

Your original post had EVERYTHING to do with what cops deal with in the "line of duty", so please don't change your tune now, saying that was not what you said.

We will not all agree. That is clear.

I don't often find areas of agreement w people that have difficulty w the concept of the time space continuum. My original post? Re-read it. Dorner (a [then] police officer) accused a fellow police officer (a police officer, just like [then] Dorner) of using excessive force. Which cop is it that you imagine I have disagreement? The police officer, or the police officer? Fast forward to recent times, and I noted two potentially fatal attacks on innocent civilians in vehicles that do not match dorners. First of all, if they actually believed either of these three individuals (two of which were small females) was dorner, they aren't very good shots; if they didn't believe it were he, why did they open fire w no warning? If you feel that firing at vehicles which in no way matched dorners was "necessary force", you weren't there and neither was I - but I would like to see a clear explanation just the same. You are right, I will never agree that NO police action should ever be questioned. Here is a video that should really upset you, known as the battle of athens (TN), a whole town of cop bashers...maybe they should have bombed them?!!!!!:

Whatever you think my tune is, I am not sure I would agree with it myself, or even recognize it!!

You will have to argue with yourself. I am done. Dorner killed cops. Period. I don't give a rats behind how "wronged" he felt.