[Moogs]

Will Christopher Dorner be the first "domestic terrorist" killed by a drone, thus validating the very "useful" purpose of subjecting American citizens to drone operations... so we can all be "safe from terror"? They have a $1M reward out now and the mayor made sure to use the words "reign of terror" and "domestic terrorism" in his speech.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-21406499

I am beyond tired of hearing how every person who poses a danger to us in some random way, is a "terrorist". This shit is never going to end if citizens don't demand a stop to it. We are already in a state of perpetual war. Even as Afghanistan winds down, drones will remain all over Asia and parts of Africa, firing at whoever we choose, mostly in secret.

One day people in this country will get their heads out of their ass and realize that being free requires more than the ability to check a box on a ballot, and that in a truly free land, you can never be completely safe. Malls, busses, trains, you name it. Any time a real terrorist wants to blow himself and 25 people up at a time, they can. And Homeland Security will never stop them unless we are willing to turn this country into a prison where there's a camera and soldier on every street corner, and all homes can be tapped and monitored at will. And a few thousand drones overhead.

I don't know why but I have a feeling when they figure out where this a-hole is, if he's not in a residential area... they're going to hit him with a drone strike. This guy has already threatened guerllia warfare and will no doubt be hunkered down for a final "finale". Law enforcement has already started to use them in places (going back several months). Wouldn't surprise me at all. All that will be required is for him to open fire again or use any type of booby trap, etc.

[drewprops]

Completely agree.

But we're sheep until it happens to us.


...

[Brave Ulysses]

I get the point but in this case I feel like it is misdirected.

If you want to define what a terrorist is, this guy seems to fit the definition right now. I agree that we now use the words terrorism and terrorists much more often and loosely now and there is a certain connotation that goes along with it. But, is it that big of a deal to label this guy a terrorist? Honest question. If I lived in the Big Bear area or was a cop or a political figure in Los Angeles I would certainly be scared right now.

In some ways I also find it encouraging that we are coming around to the idea that terrorists can be any race and religion and are not just middle eastern muslims.


I doubt he will meet his end via drone strike. It's more likely he goes down in a gunfight or voluntarily surrenders or shoots himself. Drone strike is only helpful if they know where he is and they don't want to go in to get him.... doesn't seem to be the case or even a possibility for this situation.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses I get the point but in this case I feel like it is misdirected. If you want to define what a terrorist is, this guy seems to fit the definition right now. I agree that we now use the words terrorism and terrorists much more often and loosely now and there is a certain connotation that goes along with it. But, is it that big of a deal to label this guy a terrorist? Honest question. If I lived in the Big Bear area or was a cop or a political figure in Los Angeles I would certainly be scared right now. In some ways I also find it encouraging that we are coming around to the idea that terrorists can be any race and religion and are not just middle eastern muslims. I doubt he will meet his end via drone strike. It's more likely he goes down in a gunfight or voluntarily surrenders or shoots himself. Drone strike is only helpful if they know where he is and they don't want to go in to get him.... doesn't seem to be the case or even a possibility for this situation.

Much like the meaning of "terrorist" has changed recently, IMHO "drone" is starting to change as well. By the strictest definition, wouldn't any device controlled by something other than a person on or within said device be a drone? So those bomb de-fusing robots that SWAT uses would be drones of a sort, as would any of those toy RC helicopters with cameras on them. I could see officials claiming "successful use of drone technology" if someone found/chased what's-his-name with one of those.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Dave Much like the meaning of "terrorist" has changed recently, IMHO "drone" is starting to change as well. By the strictest definition, wouldn't any device controlled by something other than a person on or within said device be a drone? So those bomb de-fusing robots that SWAT uses would be drones of a sort, as would any of those toy RC helicopters with cameras on them. I could see officials claiming "successful use of drone technology" if someone found/chased what's-his-name with one of those.

and what would be the problem with that?

I guess I'm not following what the issue is here. If they somehow take him out with an RC helicopter that's a bad thing?

[murbot]

They should take him out with an RC F-16, man.

http://wimp.com/strappingcamera/

[Robo]

I'm not sure I "get" this thread. We're supposed to get worked up about something that hasn't happened, because we think it...might? Maybe? It reads like the worst of blogosphere linkbait, attaching a hot-button issue (drones) to current events by any means necessary, complete with starting with a question (that will probably be answered "no") and scare quotes up the wazoo. What sort of discussion is the language in the OP supposed to encourage, exactly?

That said, I agree with BU in that I feel that your point is misdirected, here. You can put scare quotes around "terrorist" and make philosophical complaints about how the government shouldn't get to define it, but pragmatically, Dorner seems to fit most any definition of terrorist I can think of. I mean, he named a bunch of targets in a manifesto. That's straight-up crazy person territory, and I can't think of any other reason for doing that other than to terrorize people.

Likewise, philosophically I agree that every citizen deserves due process, but pragmatically, I think once you shoot three cops and name a bunch of other targets in a manifesto and go hide in the mountains with a bunch of guns, you really only have one reasonable expectation of how that situation is going to end for you. I'm not sure how getting him to come in for a trial is in the cards at all, I just don't think he's going to allow it.

Saying that we should always choose freedom and due process over safety is easy when it's not your safety at stake. How many (more) police officers should we let him shoot in an attempt to somehow take him in for a trial, Moogs? As you yourself said, "this guy has already threatened guerllia warfare and will no doubt be hunkered down for a final 'finale.'" If we let him kill three more cops before they just said fuck it and shot the guy, would you be satisfied that we lived in a "truly free" country? Or would we need to let him kill six more cops? Nine? A lot of comfort our true freedom would be to all the dead people.

In reality, police officers (sadly) have to make these sorts of decisions regarding armed spree killers all the time, and it's not something new or drone-enabled or some shocking part of Obama's America. In reality, they're not going to let him shoot any more cops, because they're not going to try to take him in quietly. Unless they find him waiting prone on the ground with his hands behind his head, they're going to shoot first and ask questions later, and in this case I have zero problems with that. If they shoot him and kill him on sight, I think that's entirely due to his actions of shooting three cops and writing a threatening manifesto and hiding in the mountains with a bunch of guns, and not the police force's fault for not trying hard enough to give him a trial, or anything.

Like BU, I doubt the police will use drones in this case. But even if they did, I'm not sure very many people would be outraged at the police taking out Dorner without putting yet more cops in harms way. I think you're making an implicit slippery slope argument here, Moogs, that we should be upset that the government might use drones against Dorner, not because he might be innocent or something, but because then the government might use drones against someone else who might be innocent, and wouldn't that be a huge miscarriage of justice if he or she was? And I agree that it would be. But that's quite a few "mights" away from the current situation.

If nothing else, there's enough troubling things about the government's current use of drones outside the US to discuss, without having to invent hypotheticals surrounding wholly unsympathetic individuals.

[RowdyScot]

Agreed with both BU and Robo on this. Don't think there's much of anything to add that they haven't already said, though. The use of drones may have its own issues, especially with how the US has been using them elsewhere, but the stretch implied about what using one on Dorner could lead to down the road is a poor argument to not use one, if the government was even planning on using one in the first place.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses and what would be the problem with that? I guess I'm not following what the issue is here. If they somehow take him out with an RC helicopter that's a bad thing?

Oh, sorry, there's no problem. Moogs was talking about drones being used against "domestic terrorists", and I was just pointing out that "drone" doesn't have to mean a Predator w/ Hellfire missiles.

[Moogs]

Guys... Jesus Christ... Dorner is NOT a terrorist in the traditional sense of the word, and that's part of my point. So if you lived within 50 miles of where this guy shot people, "you'd be scared". So what?? Anyone who is dangerous and scares us (because they're not under arrest) is now a terrorist?

And logically then we should use military style tech and weapons to track and eliminate those people who scare us on our own turf (at the risk of losing even more freedom and privacy that the Patriot Act and NDAA haven't already stripped us of)?

Where does it end? When is the definition "too vague" / being abused? As for the drone thing let's not split hairs. I'm talking about the kinds the military uses, which can spy on people's activity or conversations from a mile up in the sky and/or launch lethal weapons. Nobody thinks bomb disposal robots are bad or dangerous and no one is suggesting all RC utility vehicles are bad. Drones aren't even bad per say; it's how they're misused / their potential for misuse that's bad.


Back to definitions: was Charles Manson a terrorist? What about Wayne Williams? What about that preacher who wanted to burn Korans and stir up religious unrest and possible violence among citizens? I'd be scared to have that guy preaching on my street! No telling what kind of anger and violence he could stir up. What about the crazies running around in the woods with AR-15s, training to "fight the corrupt gub'mint"? Terrorists?

If I kill someone tomorrow and put a YouTube up saying I'm going to kill two more people and no one can find me, am I a terrorist? Only if I used to be a police officer? Only if my gun is really scary looking and I used scary sounding words like "asymmetric warfare"?

It's f-ing ridiculous how relaxed we've become with this word. The meaning has completely morphed into something that was never intended and it is used as a way for the government, for the police and everyone else to basically do anything they want that might otherwise be considered a breach of due process. If someone in the media questions their actions and they follow up with "domestic terrorist" and "terror campaign", all of a sudden the public is very benign and understanding. No questioning there. Terrorist? Whatever works, man! We don't no need no stinking due process! Light 'em up, drone or not!

Maybe they won't end up using a drone on this guy and if so great. But it's the idea here that matters. That law enforcement is floating words like "domestic terrorist" around, and "terror campaign", and the idea that people speaking for the White House are concurrently trying to ease our fears about their intent to use drones in ways that circumvent due process for US citizens, even when no threat is truly imminent. There's another word being morphed: imminent.

It used to mean "something bad is going to happen very soon... within minutes or hours". Now it's takent to mean (according to the government) "anything bad that might happen soon, within hours or days or weeks" (paraphrasing what I've heard in testimony).

[Moogs]

What's more... where is the citizen outrage (and fear??), when police officers mistook TWO vehicles similar to Dorner's, opened fire on BOTH of them without verifying, in one case injuring both occupants?! That scares me as much or more than someone like Dorner. I guess though it's OK if the local PD kills me on the way to the post office... as long as they were chasing a terrorist in a car like mine (hey we're all human and make mistakes!), it was for a good cause.

Please, put that on my headstone. My family will understand.

Dorner is a murderer no doubt. And he deserves whatever a jury decides. But what about the reckless LAPD shooting up the wrong cars... you think the whole attitude surrounding this case and the labeling of the suspect as a "terrorist" doesn't have an effect on some of these officers in the field? Anything goes when you're tracking a "Terrorist on the loose" and the LAPD proved it not once but twice on the same day.

Still... not heard a word from the MSM about irresponsible LA Cops / reckless cops. Just play by the script, don't ask questions and we'll all be safe.

[Brave Ulysses]

You do realize you are coming across as a crazy paranoid conspiracy theorist, right?

Take a deep breath and calm down

ter·ror·ist [ter-er-ist]
noun
1.
a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2.
a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
3.
(formerly) a member of a political group in Russia aiming at the demoralization of the government by terror.
4.
an agent or partisan of the revolutionary tribunal during the Reign of Terror in France.

ter·ror·ism [ter-uh-riz-uhm]
noun
1.
the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.
the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.
a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.


Source: Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.

So if you lived within 50 miles of where this guy shot people, "you'd be scared". So what??

uhhhh... you are really downplaying the situation and this guys intentions.

Anyone who is dangerous and scares us (because they're not under arrest) is now a terrorist?

Read the definition of terrorist and terrorism. Read Dorner's manifesto. Read the news from the last week that reports his actions. He is a terrorist.

And logically then we should use military style tech and weapons to track and eliminate those people who scare us on our own turf (at the risk of losing even more freedom and privacy that the Patriot Act and NDAA haven't already stripped us of)?

What are you talking about?

How have I lost "even more freedom and privacy" from this manhunt? If they used a "drone" how would I have lost more freedom and privacy? You talk of the risk? You just fear hypotheticals and need to freak about it? That says more about you than it does about the military programs and any impact on our freedom and privacy.

Where does it end? When is the definition "too vague" / being abused? As for the drone thing let's not split hairs. I'm talking about the kinds the military uses, which can spy on people's activity or conversations from a mile up in the sky and/or launch lethal weapons. Nobody thinks bomb disposal robots are bad or dangerous and no one is suggesting all RC utility vehicles are bad. Drones aren't even bad per say; it's how they're misused / their potential for misuse that's bad.

You realize you sound like a loon here right? "The kinds the military uses".... THE EVIL ONES.... THE ONES THAT CAN FIND ME AND BOMB ME AND LISTEN TO ME AND WATCH ME.

There is no misuse going on here. This story hasn't even once MENTIONED drones

Back to definitions: was Charles Manson a terrorist? What about Wayne Williams? What about that preacher who wanted to burn Korans and stir up religious unrest and possible violence among citizens? I'd be scared to have that guy preaching on my street! No telling what kind of anger and violence he could stir up. What about the crazies running around in the woods with AR-15s, training to "fight the corrupt gub'mint"? Terrorists?

Read the definition and determine it for yourself in each of those cases. The definition is pretty straightforward.

If I kill someone tomorrow and put a YouTube up saying I'm going to kill two more people and no one can find me, am I a terrorist? Only if I used to be a police officer? Only if my gun is really scary looking and I used scary sounding words like "asymmetric warfare"?

Well.... 1. you would be an asshole. 2. It depends if you were doing that to instill fear, intimidate, and doing so for political purposes or for a cause/ideology. Nothing about being a service member or having a "really scary looking" gun even comes into play..... nor has it in this case.

It's f-ing ridiculous how relaxed we've become with this word.

It's f-ing ridiculous how nuts you've become about this..... seriously.

The meaning has completely morphed into something that was never intended and it is used as a way for the government, for the police and everyone else to basically do anything they want that might otherwise be considered a breach of due process.

Please share what you think the word was intended for and means? Clearly we are too stupid to understand the definition and intent of the word that seemingly you are the only one that knows the truth about.

Maybe they won't end up using a drone on this guy and if so great. But it's the idea here that matters. That law enforcement is floating words like "domestic terrorist" around, and "terror campaign", and the idea that people speaking for the White House are concurrently trying to ease our fears about their intent to use drones in ways that circumvent due process for US citizens, even when no threat is truly imminent. There's another word being morphed: imminent.

Tinfoil hats on! ALERT! Put your tinfoil hats on!

It used to mean "something bad is going to happen very soon... wihtin hours". Now it's takent to mean (according to the government) "anything bad that might happen soon, within hours or days or weeks" (paraphrasing what I've heard in testimony).

So according to you, if this jackass on the run doesn't shoot another LAPD officer for a week he wasn't an "imminent" threat and it's worth getting CRAZED that law enforcement and media are calling him an "imminent" threat. Will you be happier if he shoots 3 people in the next hour? Will that allow you to give them permission to use "imminent"



Man... what is going on with you?

[drewprops]

Moogs is correct.

Camel's nose and all.

This man is a CRIMINAL.

Allowing a domestic drone hunt is troubling.


...

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Moogs What's more... where is the citizen outrage (and fear??), when police officers mistook TWO vehicles similar to Dorner's, opened fire on BOTH of them without verifying, in one case injuring both occupants?! That scares me as much or more than someone like Dorner. Dorner is a murderer, no doubt. And he deserves whatever a jury decides. But what about the reckless LAPD shooting up the wrong cars... you think the whole attitude surrounding this case and the labeling of the suspect as a "terrorist" doesn't have an effect on some of these officers in the field? Anything goes when you're tracking a "Terrorist on the loose" and the LAPD proved it not once but twice on the same day. Still... not heard a word from the MSM about irresponsible LA Cops / reckless cops. Just play by the script, don't ask questions and we'll all be safe.

Yeah, I'll lose even more faith in CA's government if they don't answer for that (and I really didn't think my opinion of CA politicians could get much lower).

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Moogs What's more... where is the citizen outrage, when police officers mistook TWO vehicles similar to Dorners, opened fire on BOTH them without verifying, in one case injuring both occupants??

There's tons of outrage. Have you been reading the news? Seriously. Go read the LA Times (Not a story on the BBC). The LAPD is not exactly held in the highest regard in the LA area. Especially with hispanics, and they happened to shoot two innocent hispanics.

It is a inexcusable accident and lapse in judgment that took place there. No denying that. There is no way to justify 60 bullets shot in the dark in a residential area. None.

But what about the reckless LAPD shooting up the wrong cars... you think the whole attitude surrounding this case and the labeling of the suspect as a "terrorist" doesn't have an effect on some of these officers in the field? Anything goes when you're tracking a "Terrorist on the loose" and the LAPD proved it not once but twice on the same day.

Who do you think cops are? You think they are some powerful group of super people who shouldn't fear anything and are invincible and should always have perfect judgment?

False.... they are you and me.... they are average citizens who have chosen to work in law enforcement and protect you and I. They have received training but in the end they are human, and have families, and they have fears. Right now there is some highly trained nutcase out there with an arsenal of weapons who wrote a 14 page manifesto saying he was going to carry out urban warfare on the LAPD and kill as many officers as he could and he has already shot 3 and killed 1, and shot the daughter of a former police official and her husband. So, please, keep your mouth shut if you are going to belittle the fears and concerns of an LAPD officer right now. Have some respect. What if it was you and your family? Easy to be an armchair critic here..... you even go as far as to belittle the situation for everyone in the effected area in a post above by saying "so if you lived within 50 miles of where this guy shot people, "you'd be scared". So what?? "......

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by drewprops Moogs is correct. Camel's nose and all. This man is a CRIMINAL. Allowing a domestic drone hunt is troubling. ...

Are you going to make up stories too?

[Dave]

Originally Posted by drewprops Moogs is correct. Camel's nose and all. This man is a CRIMINAL. Allowing a domestic drone hunt is troubling. ...

Yeah, but it's fine as long as you trust your government.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses Who do you think cops are? You think they are some powerful group of super people who shouldn't fear anything and are invincible and should always have perfect judgment?

Dunno about the no fear and invincibility parts, but the rest is usually how their departments sell them, and how a sizable portion of the public perceives them. Any lawyer will tell you that cop testimony is usually given more weight in court.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Dave Dunno about the no fear and invincibility parts, but the rest is usually how their departments sell them, and how a sizable portion of the public perceives them. Any lawyer will tell you that cop testimony is usually given more weight in court.

The public perception of a group is different than being compassionate to the individuals within that group.


The US Military sells itself as the most powerful. fearless and resilient force in the world. Do you not have a friend or family member in the service? If you do, is that person immune from emotions and fear? Did he/she not fear being deployed? Did he/she not think of his/her family while overseas? Think of what risk they are exposed to and how they may die?

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Brave Ulysses You do realize you are coming across as a crazy paranoid conspiracy theorist, right?

Drew doesn't seem to think so and he's a pretty level-headed guy. I grant you I let my temper get the better of me when writing about this stuff but the core ideas I'm talking about are nothing radical. It's about being honest with ourselves as to what terrorism is and what it isn't, what a real one looks like and what a nutjob pretender looks like.

noun

2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

This definition is wrong but widely accepted (and most often used). It's far too vague and can be intepretted to include just about any dangerous criminal not under custody, who is unpredictable in nature. Thank you; you just proved my point. I recognize there are some grey areas between where we stop calling someone a murderer and fugitive and where we start calling them terrorist but this guy is an ex-cop who has basically lost his mind. If he wanted to, he could've murdered another 20 people by now and left a trail of bodies. He hasn't. A terrorist (someone out to terrorize and kill as many people as possible), would.

uhhhh... you are really downplaying the situation and this guys intentions.

Really? What about his intentions make you personally afraid for your safety, more than the average "murderous, heavily armed gang members on the loose with vehicles capable of reaching your driveway in 45 minutes or less, wanted in connection with 5 recent shootings"? It's not reported that way obviously but that's the reality of living in all but the most heavily policed areas of LA, Chicago, etc.

Somehow we all manage to function and all without considering those gang members terrorists. Which begs another question: what about those scumbag drug lords in Mexico who terrorize local communities and bully them out of calling the cops etc? Terrorists? NO. They're not. They're murderous scumbag criminals but they are not terrorists. It's like people are now incapable of making distinctions between criminal behavior and so they just trust the government at various levels to lable and deal with them however they want. That might work most of the time, for most of the people... but it's not the way things are supposed to be done.

How have I lost "even more freedom and privacy" from this manhunt? If they used a "drone" how would I have lost more freedom and privacy?

We will all lose some freedom and privacy the day we decide it's OK to open up our skies to drone surveillance. If you can't understand why, I'm not sure how to explain it to you. Go back and read some history and the Constitution or something. Maybe it will come to you.

You realize you sound like a loon here right? "The kinds the military uses".... THE EVIL ONES.... THE ONES THAT CAN FIND ME AND BOMB ME AND LISTEN TO ME AND WATCH ME.

Don't be a dick. You know exactly what I meant. It's mostly about the lethal weapons part. "Judge and jury in the sky"... think of it that way, smart guy. Would you be OK if they had a reasonable chance of capturing Dorner, of them executing him without a trial (from above) just because he might kill one of the surrounding officers? I'm not saying they're coming for ME personally. The point is, if they do this, it sets a bad precendent. A low standard for following due process and for enforcing the law.

Furthermore, if you don't know what I'm talking about WRT to the Patriot act and NDAA, you either read through the important parts and don't fully understand your rights (and therefore are unconcerned), or you do understand your rights and didn't read the important bits, in which case... go read them. There has been a slow and steady stream of laws written into the books since 9/11, that basically circumvent various types of due process, privacy laws, and the like. IOW "give us a little of your freedom and privacy back (most of you won't even notice), and we'll "make you more safe so 9/11 doesn't happen again".

Sorry but I don't buy into that. You obviously do and that's fine. Hope it works out for you in the end (I'd rather be wrong than right in this case... we'll have to wait and see).

So according to you, if this jackass on the run doesn't shoot another LAPD officer for a week he wasn't an "imminent" threat and it's worth getting CRAZED that law enforcement and media are calling him an "imminent" threat. Will you be happier if he shoots 3 people in the next hour? Will that allow you to give them permission to use "imminent"

Not sure how you conflated my side-comment about the re-defining of imminent to mean I don't consider Dorner to be an imminent threat. I never said that. I'm referring to the government's drone use memo and the careful leaking to the press recently that has resulted in a nice, tame conversation about

"Don't worry: we'll only use them on US Citizens and US soil when we find an imminent threat".

"What's 'imminent' mean in this context?"

"Someone we believe might have the ability to bring harm to other Americans in the near future".

"Oh. OK. Fire away!"

(Paraphrasing, in case I have to spell it out for you...)

Anyway, BU if you want to be afraid and put your full trust in LAPD and the government to "keep you safe", go right ahead. I'm a little too wise for that routine. As I said before we're never truly safe in a truly open and free society. Risk of death is part of life.

[Elysium]

The guy is dangerous and I would have no problem with drones being used to find him. However, a reasonable documented attempt would have to be made to contact him and offer the prospect of turning himself in. Once he clearly denies that option, deadly force could then be applicable using a remote strike.

And for more applicable reference, here are definitions for domestic terrorism and how it has changed since a much loved piece of legislation:

According to a memo produced by the FBI's Terrorist Research and Analytical Center in 1994, domestic terrorism was defined as "the unlawful use of force or violence, committed by a group(s) of two or more individuals, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended— (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Moogs Drew doesn't seem to think so and he's a pretty level-headed guy. I grant you I let my temper get the better of me when writing about this stuff but the core ideas I'm talking about are nothing radical. It's about being honest with ourselves as to what terrorism is and what it isn't, what a real one looks like and what a nutjob pretender looks like.

and myself, Robo and RowdyScot disagree with you and think you are being crazy. I think we are pretty level-headed guys thank you very much. Drew also posts about Apple making drones.


The core ideas you are talking about are indeed radical.... as most of your discussion usually turns. You like to claim it is "rational" and "well-informed" but its based on hysteria, fear, mistrust and hypotheticals.

This definition is wrong but widely accepted (and most often used).

A definition is not wrong because you say it is

In addition, you conveniently do not quote the first, primary, definition because it defines Dorner has a terrorist.

It's far too vague and can be intepretted to include just about any dangerous criminal not under custody, who is unpredictable in nature.

The primary definition is very specific. You did not quote it.

And by its definition, terrorist can be used to describe someone who seeks to instill terror on a people. So, even the second definition is correct. You on the other hand are wrong. You can't just decide what definitions you want to believe are true and then declare others wrong. Language doesn't work like that. Maybe in Moogs' "rational" world it does.

guy is an ex-cop who has basically lost his mind. If he wanted to, he could've murdered another 20 people by now and left a trail of bodies. He hasn't. A terrorist (someone out to terrorize and kill as many people as possible), would.

uh..... being a terrorist isn't about killing as many people as possible.

The funny thing about this is that it seems your definition of terrorist is as narrow-minded as those you criticize and fear. It really seems as if you think a terrorist is a middle eastern muslim who strives to kill as many americans as possible as fast as possible.

Really? What about his intentions make you personally afraid for your safety, more than the average "murderous, heavily armed gang members on the loose with vehicles capable of reaching your driveway in 45 minutes or less, wanted in connection with 5 recent shootings"? I

Uh... what? You are making no sense.

My personal safety? I don't live in LA. I don't live in the San Bernardino Mountains. So my personal safety is fine. As is yours. Which is why you are so gleefully discussing how safe everyone is.

If I lived in the area I would be scared because there is a psycho gunman on the loose who has already shot multiple people, killed multiple people, has intentions of killing more people, and has planned an attack.

Why do those people not fear other types of crime and criminals? Uh... they do. But it's all relative. When you live in a high crime area, you fear crime. When you live in a lower crime area, you don't fear it as much. I really have no idea what you are talking about. Where do you live? I've lived in high crime areas in NYC, Los Angeles, Oakland and DC. You fear crime but it is all relative..... i feared muggings and robberies and break ins. Those were more common than gun crime. I've had a knife pulled on me before as I have said. It scared me and put me on edge. When the DC sniper was loose in the DC area... people were more scared. Having a sniper shooting people is a bit different than walking down the block and fearing being mugged.

Gang fights are a bit different than a ex military/LAPD cop loose in neighborhoods plotting to kill dozens of people.

Somehow we all manage to function and all without considering those gang members terrorists

Do you even understand gangs and urban environments? It's as if you have only read news blurbs about this stuff from a couch in the sticks surrounded by your shotguns in case the government comes for you.

Which begs another question: what about those scumbag drug lords in Mexico who terrorize local communities and bully them out of calling the cops etc? Terrorists? NO. They're not.

Where the hell did this come from?

We will all lose some freedom and privacy the day we decide it's OK to open up our skies to drone surveillance. If you can't understand why, I'm not sure how to explain it to you. Go back and read some history and the Constitution or something. Maybe it will come to you.

If you don't know how to explain something it usually means you have nothing to explain.

I think you need to get out more. I'm pretty well versed on the English language (which you don't seem to be), urban environments (which you don't seem to be), history (which you don't seem to be) and the Constitution (which you don't seem to be, yet cling to to protect YOUR FREEDOM!)

Don't be a dick. You know exactly what I meant. It's mostly about the lethal weapons part. "Judge and jury in the sky"... think of it that way, smart guy.

Yea, I know exactly what you meant. And my original take on it stands, especially since you just confirmed it. "THE LETHAL WEAPONS PART. JUDGE AND JURY IN THE SKY!"

would you be OK if they had a reasonable chance of capturing Dorner, of them executing him without a trial (from above) just because he might kill one of the surrounding officers?

uh... yes. You protect the innocent. You do things that reduce risk to your officers. If Dorner doesn't surrender, and he is still armed and they have a chance to take him out, that is the appropriate thing to do. He has already killed, he has already admitted to his plans via his manifesto. This is simple shit Moogs. You are being anything but rational.

It is Dorner's decision how he wants this to go down. He has already made his decisions to put his life on the line.

The point is, if they do this, it sets a bad precendent. A low standard for following due process and for enforcing the law.

No it doesn't. Cops have been shooting guys who pointed guns at them for hundreds of years. Stop bullshitting.

urthermore, if you don't know what I'm talking about WRT to the Patriot act and NDAA, you either read through the important parts and don't fully understand your rights (and therefore are unconcerned), or you do understand your rights and didn't read the important bits, in which case... go read them. There has been a slow and steady stream of laws written into the books since 9/11, that basically circumvent various types of due process, privacy laws, and the like. IOW "give us a little of your freedom and privacy back (most of you won't even notice), and we'll "make you more safe so 9/11 doesn't happen again".

None of which is at play in this case. Stop bullshitting.

Not sure how you conflated my side-comment about the re-defining of imminent to mean I don't consider Dorner to be an imminent threat.

Forgive me for assuming you were discussing something on topic.

Anyway, BU if you want to be afraid and put your full trust in LAPD and the government to "keep you safe", go right ahead. I'm a little too wise for that routine. As I said before we're never truly safe in a truly open and free society. Risk of death is part of life.

"Stop being a dick."

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Elysium The guy is dangerous and I would have no problem with drones being used to find him. However, a reasonable documented attempt would have to be made to contact him and offer the prospect of turning himself in. Once he clearly denies that option, deadly force could then be applicable using a remote strike. And for more applicable reference, here are definitions for domestic terrorism and how it has changed since a much loved piece of legislation:

amazing how that current definition is perfectly in line with the primary definition according to merriam webster and the random house dictionary. Also perfectly in line with Dorner.

[Brave Ulysses]

edit: I was duped by a fake story!

:-)


None the less. Moogs, you have a valid argument about the LAPD being on edge and handling the search in inappropriate ways. The rest of your stuff is just tin-foil hat craziness.

[Moogs]

I give up. I'm not going to be trolled.

I'm not some loon looking out my window for Black CIA helicopters but if it gives you a kick to twist my words and portray me that way go ahead.



And my commentary on the overly vague definitions people throw around for "terrorist/m" are spot-on. Apparently the online dictionaries of the world are definitive sources without flaw or subjective input. The act of posting Definitions 1, 2, 3 online, for a word that was not even in our lexicon 50 years ago, makes those definitions flawless. Crazy me, I was pretty sure that it wasn't a mathematical science, the defining of relatively new, cultural terms. Especially when the definitions morph over a period of years to include broader and broader meaning.

[FFL]

All terrorists are dicks.

But, not all dicks are terrorists.

Which is a good thing, 'cause otherwise Homeland Security would be all over this thread.

[Brave Ulysses]

Originally Posted by Moogs I give up. I'm not going to be trolled.

Trolled?

Originally posted by Robo I'm not sure I "get" this thread. We're supposed to get worked up about something that hasn't happened, because we think it...might? Maybe? It reads like the worst of blogosphere linkbait, attaching a hot-button issue (drones) to current events by any means necessary, complete with starting with a question (that will probably be answered "no") and scare quotes up the wazoo. What sort of discussion is the language in the OP supposed to encourage, exactly?

You were trolling from post #1 and I'm not alone in calling you on that.

I'm not some loon looking out my window for Black CIA helicopters but if it gives you a kick to twist my words and portray me that way go ahead.

I didn't twist a single word you typed. I quoted you word for word and responded to you word for word.

And my commentary on the overly vague definitions people throw around for "terrorist/m" are spot-on

if you do say so yourself

Apparently the online dictionaries of the world are definitive sources on the meaning of words that can be taken to have many meanings. Putting Definition 1, 2, 3 down online makes all said definitions without flaw or misuse.

Do you not know what a dictionary is and how it works? Do you not understand language?

Did you also not see the direct quote of what the federal government defines a terrorist and terrorism as?

One loon on an Apple message board spouting off about drone attacks in los angeles mountain ranges and mexican drug cartels and urban gangs and how we are all going to die anyway and how government isn't to be trusted and how lethal drones are coming for us does not get to redefine what the definition of a word is.

[Moogs]

You win dude. Seriously. I give up.

[FFL]

Thread terminated. Pre-emptive strike.

Does that make me a drone?