creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion Conservative Opinion
Susan Estrich
8 Oct 2014
Stomachaches

I've had stomachaches for as long as I can remember. As a kid, I called it an "uncomfortable feeling." As an adult,… Read More.

3 Oct 2014
The President's Security

When you hear Rep. Darrell Issa, one of the president's harshest Republican critics in the House, demanding … Read More.

1 Oct 2014
Helen

Today would be my mother's 88th birthday, which is not so old, but my mother seemed very old eight years ago, … Read More.

Dorner's Last Day

Comment

My friends from out of town want to know what I thought of President Obama's State of the Union address. The answer is simple. I live in Los Angeles. I didn't see or hear the State of the Union address. I was watching the Christopher Dorner manhunt.

In the days since Dorner became the most feared name in Los Angeles, my adopted city has gone through an emotional roller coaster: horror at the senseless murder of Monica Quan, a young basketball coach, and her fiance, Keith Lawrence, a public safety officer at USC (where I teach and where it hit home hard) allegedly because Dorner was unsatisfied with her father's defense of him at his disciplinary hearing; horror at the senseless and brutal killing of young Riverside police officer and former Marine Michael Crain; and sadness that some of what Dorner said in his manifesto about our police department took us way back, to the terrible days of the 1990s, to the Rodney King beating and the LA riots, to the acquittal of OJ Simpson, who got away with murder by putting the LAPD on trial.

Was it even possible that anything this crazy, cruel, deranged murderer said could have any credence? Had we made so little progress?

Those last questions were being batted about, below the line, off the television cameras, during the weekend before Tuesday's chase. The Los Angeles Times highlighted two stories on its front page: one about the murders in Irvine of the beautiful young couple; the other raising questions as to whether Dorner was, in fact, properly discharged, reviewing the testimony and concluding that it came down to a credibility contest.

The racial divide opened up again. Everyone condemns Dorner's actions. There's no dispute about that. But the fact that the LAPD shot at three totally innocent people, including a 71-year-old Hispanic woman and her daughter who were delivering newspapers in a blue Toyota, had many people muttering that maybe he was right about the department.

The fact that Dorner's manifesto had nothing but praise for the military even as it damned the LAPD left a lot of folks shaking their heads. Not many people say such things aloud, or with their names attached. No one wants to be quoted showing sympathy for a cop-killer, nor do I have any. But the story is more complicated than a "simple" triple murder.

On Tuesday, a couple who owned a cabin in the Big Bear mountain resort area — just down the road from where police were staging the manhunt — entered the cabin to clean only to be confronted by Dorner. He bound and gagged them, but repeatedly assured them that he had nothing against them, that he would not harm them, that he was just trying to clear his name. Then he left the cabin and stole their car. Their 911 call led to the last stage of the manhunt, the murder of a sheriff's deputy, the final shootout, the burning of a cabin, and the sigh of relief as the roads reopened.

It's too bad, one African-American friend said to me, that he couldn't find a way to draw attention to his complaints without committing murder. Yes. Beyond too bad. Tragic, for his victims.

Dorner did not clear his name. If that was his goal, he could not have chosen a worse way to accomplish it.

The errors in the manhunt — the fact that he was, as it is now being reported, "hiding in plain view" just down the road from the command post — will certainly raise issues about the way the search was conducted. But an examination of the legacy of the 1990s and to what extent the LAPD has changed will have to wait for another day.

At this point, no one wants to suggest that there is anything positive to be said about Christopher Dorner. I don't know about the State of the Union, but my city has been through the wringer.

To find out more about Susan Estrich and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2013 CREATORS.COM



Comments

14 Comments | Post Comment
It wasn't a deranged human being who killed those people; it was a gun!
Comment: #1
Posted by: Oldtimer
Fri Feb 15, 2013 4:42 AM
Re: Oldtimer Yeah and spoons make people fat. I know my guns are always trying to get away and go kill people all on their own.
Comment: #2
Posted by: David Henricks
Fri Feb 15, 2013 9:01 AM
Re: David Henricks
Odd, is not that when an Obama loving, America hating leftist, goes on a killing spree because he thought himself disrespected that it was just a deranged nut who happened to have access to a gun who killed people, but for anyone else it was the gun he had access to, that did it or made him do it.

Also odd is it not that videos and films do not cause nuts to commit gun violence ( guns do) but at the same time a video that no one saw caused Muslim savages to riot and cause mahem and to murder our Ambassador in Benghazi.
Comment: #3
Posted by: joseph wright
Fri Feb 15, 2013 10:12 AM
Estrich says "Dorner did not clear his name. If that was his goal, he could not have chosen a worse way to accomplish it."
No shit Sherlock ! LOL !

I suppose she had to include that observation for the low information low intellect obama voters like Lipka and Morgan so that they would know what to think /say.

But is the statement true for the leftist whackos and America haters on MSNBC and the Main Stream Media that found this murderous rampage variously "exciting" "Dorner like a real life Django" and empathy that his poor little me racist grievances may have been sufficient to justify his actions.

Even whacko Estrich gets in on the act "Everyone condemns Dorner's actions. There's no dispute about that.... But...."

With liberals no matter how heinous the act by a fellow liberal there is always the "but".

Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.
Comment: #4
Posted by: joseph wright
Sat Feb 16, 2013 2:14 PM
Funny how the leftist media didn't jump on Dorner and vilify him like so many other murderers in the news lately. When Gabby Giffords was shot it was somehow Sarah Palin's fault, even though the shooter was later found to be a liberal. Why was Dorner treated so well? Maybe because of the liberal slant to his manifesto. Suddenly the conversation is not about gun control, it is about fairness and whether or not a murdering son-of-a-bitch had a point. Some CNN goofballs were calling it exciting. It is sickening.
Comment: #5
Posted by: LibertarianLoon
Mon Feb 18, 2013 9:06 AM
Democratic Colorado state Rep. Joe Salazar said in a speech denying a women's right to concealed carry if she has concerns over rape “It's why we have call boxes, it's why we have safe zones, it's why we have the whistles. Because you just don't know who you're gonna be shooting at. And you don't know if you feel like you're gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone's been following you around or if you feel like you're in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop around at somebody.”
Seems I recall that a certain columnist/writer, when it suits, regularly reminds of a horrible rape in her past, can't quite remember who, but was wondering just how Estrich would react to dumbass Salazar's comments about women fearing rape being incapable of being entrusted with a gun for personal protection. Wonder if a gun might have cooled the rapist's ardor in the case of the columnist/lawyer whose name I was searching for but could not quite recall.
Any comment Estrich ?
Comment: #6
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Feb 20, 2013 1:26 PM
J. Wright wrote: ".... Wonder if a gun might have cooled the rapist's ardor in the case of the columnist/lawyer whose name I was searching for but could not quite recall."

Pretty cruel stuff. Perhaps you have some major trauma in your life you'd like to let us all in on? If not, maybe you should respect those who have had a terrible life experience and try to relate the effects of it to the rest of us.

The 'columnist/lawyer whose name' you can't remember isn't the enemy. Maybe believing a few things you disagree with doesn't remove someone from the human race? Let's show some compassion here. Leave the churlishness to the progressives.
Comment: #7
Posted by: Old Navy
Wed Feb 20, 2013 4:24 PM
Re: Old Navy
A question may make one uncomfortable or may address a matter in a way that hits home hard. That does not diminish the legitimacy of the question cruel or otherwise.

You don't think the question posed, was a legitimate question given the comments by Salazar, who was actually engaged in diminishing the threat of rape and indeed diminishing the heinous act of rape and was indeed making light of a woman's right to defend against such a violation all in the name of illicit gun control ?

We shall have to disagree then.

You say "The 'columnist/lawyer whose name' you can't remember isn't the enemy". How can you tell? How can you be so sure ?

There are tens of millions who refuse to see what is in plain sight, namely that the holder of the Office of President, really is the enemy of all things American. The columnist/lawyer to whom I referred is an ardent supporter, enabler and accomplice of that rapist of the Bill of Rights and defiler of Constitutional governance in general. Does that not make her an enemy also? (Oh almost forgot she is also a long time supporter and apologist for a presidential rapist and serial abuser of women.)

The time for political correctness is long over.
Comment: #8
Posted by: joseph wright
Wed Feb 20, 2013 5:55 PM
J. Wright wrote: "The time for political correctness is long over."

I am no friend of things PC. However, civility and good manners have not gone out of style. Taunting individuals about the trauma in their lives has never been good form.

Argue the facts and the issues hard. Use examples from your own life to illustrate your points. But ad hominen attacks are a type of logical fallacy that serve no purpose. The individual you are debating may have numerous character flaws and have led a poor life. They may have a financial interest in the cause they argue for. None of these things prevents their facts from being correct and their argument from having merit.

Character assassination has no place in reasoned arguments. Lets leave that type of nonsense to the Progressives. We all can can and should be better than that.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Old Navy
Wed Feb 20, 2013 9:30 PM
Re: Old Navy
You continue to dodge the issue of the legitimacy of the question as posed in its proper context which was to one who suffered rape and to one to whom Salazar would deny the right to self defense by way of a concealed weapon and do so by raising a civility canard when there was nothing uncivil in posing the question and you continue to dodge by raising irrelevant points as to facts and character assassination. It is fact that Salazar would deny women the right to self defense from rape by way of concealed carry, it is a fact that the rape i mention happened and it is fact that that the victim is an apologist for a presidential rapist and serial abuser of women. Where did I misstate the facts ?
I do not recall taking issue with the correctness or otherwise of any fact by way of character attack. Oh and by the way, one is entitled to one's own opinion on facts not to one's own facts as you seem to posit by saying " none of these things prevents their facts...."
Comment: #10
Posted by: joseph wright
Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:07 AM
JW wrote: "You continue to dodge the issue of the legitimacy of the question as posed in its proper context which was to one who suffered rape and to one to whom Salazar would deny the right to self defense by way of a concealed weapon"

I never addressed the 'legitimacy' of the question you asked. I was addressing the way you asked it. There were many different ways to bring up your point. You picked a way that, in my opinion, was meant to taunt and degrade someone. I was addressing your drifting into an area (The character and background of the blogger) that should never be addressed in rational argumentation.

JW further wrote: "...it is fact that that the victim is an apologist for a presidential rapist and serial abuser of women..."

No, those are not a facts. You state that one individual is an "apologist" while a second individual is a "rapist and serial abuser of women". These negative characterizations are merely your interpretation of the facts and are clearly open for debate (N.B, The impeachment debacle is still a hot topic of debate among many people). If you had said the one individual was a "supporter" of an another individual who was "a perjuror and disbarred lawyer", you would have been stating facts. Your phrasing is, again in my opinion, a poorly disguised ad hominen attack on two people. Even if these characterizations were true, they in no way effect the legitimacy of any arguments put forward by the individuals involved. Hence my plea that we not address character but only logic here or in any open forum.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Old Navy
Thu Feb 21, 2013 8:22 AM
Re: Old Navy
So my taunting comes down to being a matter of your subjective opinion. You are entitled and welcome to it.

You continue, "If you had said the one individual was a "supporter" of an another individual who was "a perjuror and disbarred lawyer", you would have been stating facts." True, but facts watered down to fall in with your subjective sensibilities. I would not be stating the additional facts that "the blogger" in previous writings did act as Clinton's apologist and advocate as regards his serial abuse of women. Check them out Old Navy.

Just as it is a fact that OJ committed double murder but was not found guilty, it is likewise a fact that Clinton was an a abuser and rapist, whose abuses have been repeatedly whitewashed by "the supporter".

You may argue the semantics re proven fact and actual fact and opinion all day, I care not.

But, just as one will likely give credence to the opinion or statement of one of proven expertise, honesty and integrity and will give less to a fraud and a known serial liar like obama, (and that obama is a serial liar is a fact) character is important and the proper impeachment of character has its place in all forums.

I think you may need to re think the premises of your plea.
Comment: #12
Posted by: joseph wright
Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:39 AM
JW stated: "You continue, "If you had said the one individual was a "supporter" of an another individual who was "a perjurer and disbarred lawyer", you would have been stating facts." True, but facts watered down to fall in with your subjective sensibilities. "

You are a bit confused about the difference between facts and opinion. Facts are statements that can be verified by experiment or research. Hence my statement concerning "a perjurer and disbarred lawyer" versus "an abuser and rapist". Anyone can go into the files of the Arkansas Bar and dig out the documents that show the first two assertions are true. The second two are a bit more problematical. Just a bunch of rumors. No charges were ever filed and the man never got his day in court. You may have strong feelings about these issues, but that is all they are, feelings. A good sound argument relies on facts, not feelings or emotions or opinions. Leave the touchy feely stuff to Progressives.

JW also wrote: "But, just as one will likely give credence to the opinion or statement of one of proven expertise, honesty and integrity and will give less to a fraud and a known serial liar..."

This is an argument regarding the prior plausibility of someones arguments, not about whether those arguments are actually correct. Yes, we tend to listen to physicists and not creationists when discussing questions of astrophysics. However, even broken clocks are right twice a day. The only way to truly rebut (or prove) a set of arguments is to look at the facts and logic as laid out by the author and find the flaws (if they exist) via critical analysis. In the end, only the arguments and logic are important, not who is making the argument.

Finally, JW wrote: "I think you may need to re think the premises of your plea."

No, I don't think so. But you might consider taking a course in "Critical Thinking".
Comment: #13
Posted by: Old Navy
Thu Feb 21, 2013 3:57 PM
Re: Old Navy
Good god ! Do you actually believe this garbage?
By your rationale, then unless a court has declared an issue to be true or there is published data on a matter it cannot be a fact.
It is a fact that my dog enjoyed swimming in the lake on my property. There is no decided case on the issue and neither is there a published paper on the matter and the only research that you will turn up are opinions of those that knew her and saw her swim, yet her enjoyment of swimming in the lake was a fact evident to all who witnessed her excitement and joy at being in the water.
As to researching the records of the Arkansas Bar the fact that you will find a record of Clinton being found guilty of perjury does not, of itself, prove the fact of perjury, just that there was a finding of guilt of perjury. Just as a finding of guilt of murder does not establish the fact of guilt just the fact of a finding of guilt. And you presume to lecture me about critical thinking? You flatter yourself.
Again, you may want to revisit my comments. Your argument was that impeachment of character had no place in a public forum, it was that matter with which I disagreed, I did not assert that a liar and a fraud could not be honest or that any argument made by a liar or fraud could not be correct, I simply pointed out that impeachment of character, when character is an issue is proper in any forum.
You might want to simply sit back, take a deep breathe and read/consider what was actually said and then respond to that and refrain from responding to that which you wanted to be said. Perhaps a course in comprehension might help.
Comment: #14
Posted by: joseph wright
Thu Feb 21, 2013 10:53 PM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Susan Estrich
Oct. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31 1
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Marc Dion
Marc DionUpdated 27 Oct 2014
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 25 Oct 2014
diane dimond
Diane DimondUpdated 25 Oct 2014

13 Jun 2012 President Obama's Great Bad Week

29 Dec 2011 New Year's Resolutions

30 Jul 2010 Chelsea's Wedding