If we follow mainstream media logic used after high-school shooting, then it is time to disarm the police. Only civilians can be trusted with guns. However, I think they will apply different logic this time and will, as usual, be inconsistent.

"He could be anywhere at this point," said San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon.

Maybe that explains this: http://www.infowars.com/video-cop-lands-....

I know, I know, it's Infowars, but it looks like a legitimate story. The point here backs up the one made in the post - you have no rights left in light of "officer safety", including the right to life, apparently.

Thank you Karl

The timing of this is awfully coincident with today's 2A rallies.

Glad you gave the cops insane criminal actions the attention it deserves.

This clearly shows that when things get bad the cops have zero restraint.

Yup Karl, things are getting ugly in this country. Is the Republic even alive at this point?

Under no circumstances should this officer have killed innocent people. He is obviously crossed a line mentally and needs to be captured or killed. But if officers will swiss cheese a truck because it looks like something the man drives, then they are just as guilty. They obviously feel above the law and thus are more dangerous than the officer they are chasing.

And now you understand why the presence of a black and white LAPD vehicle and two LA County Coroner's vehicles, one of which was a van, behind my building was most disturbing to me yesterday.

I came back 30 minutes later and the black and white was there with two of la's finest civil rights infringers but the Coroner's van and other vehicle were gone. When I asked the cops "what was going on" they said "nothing." Bull****!

Since they seemed weird-ed out I said "You guys take care of yourselves, especially with that guy out there." And they said thanks in a sincere way.

BTW An LAPD officer used to live in my building. He has since moved but he used to teach at the police academy when said gunman was there. We literally checked the uncensored manifesto for the guys first and last name and were relieved to not see it.

I just finished reading the entirety of the now-15 page thread on this topic a few moments before you posted your Ticker.

Your timing, cautious judgment, and consistency on this topic are absolutely on-point. This is clear warning on where events MAY point, going forward. It's LONG PAST TIME that anyone in "blue" with a conscience speak clearly to the unconscionable activities of far too many "law enforcement" personnel.

Thanks, Karl. The shootings of these women is absolutely baffling to me.

Here's an inconsequential story that I think demonstrates a similar law enforcement mindset. I was pulled over by a highway patrol officer in central Kansas last Friday for what I suspect was no reason at all - other than that he wanted to look in my car.

I was in a rental car with Texas plates and left Colorado at 3:00 AM to head back to Texas. I was on I-70 heading east around 9:00 AM with cruise control set to 75.

In my rear view mirror, I noticed a white sedan with a black spotlight on the driver's side gaining on me from the rear, and I expected he was going to pass me - perhaps headed to assist someone.

Wrong. When he pulled even with me, he slowed and started pacing me. Not for 10-15 seconds, but for over a minute. Door to door at 75 mph. Had I not had my cruise control set, I probably would have flinched and either slowed down or sped up slightly, and had I sped up even a smidge, I have no doubt he would have pulled me over right then.

Instead, he dropped back into my blind spot, stayed there for about 45 seconds, then pulled behind me and hit his lights. I immediately pulled over, rolled down my windows, and put my hands at 10 and 2.

When he approached (on the passenger's side) the first words out of my mouth were "good morning, why did you pull me over?" and he didn't have a very good answer. His first answer was - I couldn't tell if you had your seat belt on or not (and all of this time, he's eyeballing the inside of my rental car). Yep, it's on, I told him. Then he asked - is this a rental car? And when I replied that it was, he said, well, it didn't come up when I ran the plate.

Two problems I can see with that explanation - first, I don't see when he would have had time to run the plate. He came up from behind me pretty quickly, and was at my side for most of the time we were close. And when he did swing around behind me, he hit the lights within 5 seconds. Second, the Hertz rental car I was in had more than 20k miles on it. I'm guessing that's more than enough time for it to be registered in whatever databases it's supposed to be in.

Next, the cop asked me for my license and wanted to know what I did for a living and where I was going. If something like this ever happens again, I'll be mentally ready for it and have my cell phone camera going and my thoughts better organized, but in this case I was flustered and nervous since I haven't been pulled over in well over a decade. So I told him what he wanted to know and then he let me go.

But for the rest of the trip, I stewed over what had happened, and I'm wondering if this guy violated my 4th amendment rights (or was just trying to). Also, before any of that happened, I realized that HE BROKE THE LAW himself.

I was doing the speed limit, and he caught up with me from behind, so he was exceeding the speed limit with no lights flashing and no siren. Cops don't have special privileges to do that sort of thing, right?

My guess as to what happened is this: there's a certain plant that's more or less legal to grow in Colorado these days. There are probably people who take advantage of that fact to export said plant to other states. An SUV with Texas plates traveling East out of Colorado in the middle of nowhere early in the morning, might make a highway patrol officer suspicious and want to take a closer look in the vehicle.

If the cop did have a reason to cite me for something (even going one mile over the speed limit), I'm guessing the stop would have gone somewhat differently, and with the threat of a ticket hanging over my head, I might have gotten a "friendly" request if he could take a closer look through my vehicle before, you know... letting me go. :)

I had nothing to hide, so even if things had gone that way, I would have been fine (I hope). But it was a chilling realization.

The Kansas highway patrol does have a complaints number - but it goes to a division that's WITHIN the highway patrol. So I decided against using it since I figured the most that would happen is that my name gets on a list somewhere.

The best thing I could do in response to this, I decided, was to make sure I have a better understanding of my rights and the constraints on what the police can legally do to harass you so that I won't be so rattled if something like this should ever happen in the future.

What the LAPD did here was dastardly. Makes me think this guy was probably right about his complaints with them. His shooting two innocent people is unforgivable, as is the LAPD's actions here. Somebody take their guns away, they obviously aren't safe with them.

Oh I have no doubt that what he says about the LAPD is true. It doesn't mean every single LAPD officer is bad but there is a culture of hate and abuse even against their own.

Its a very tight nit old boys network and they stick together to break the law. Always have, unfortunately probably always will.

You do realize we never had the Mafia really take root in LA because the LAPD literally murdered and tortured gangsters?

People get it. Just go out and try to find some 9mm ammo. Even if you do find it, the price has over doubled. And 9mm won't be part of the AWB as proposed.

My local Gander Mountain got in 4 pallets of bulk boxed ammo (over 500k rounds) of 5.56, 9mm & .40 on Wednesday. It was all gone yesterday even while limiting buyers to 2 boxes each.

I found this a while back mabye even on this forum and keep it. It is a good read. I do not have a source for it. As a thought if the cops do not stand up and take care of their own (not protect their own) just like the muslims they will be even more hated.

When Should You Shoot A Cop?

That question, even without an answer, makes most “law-abiding taxpayers” go into knee-jerk conniptions. The indoctrinated masses all race to see who can be first, and loudest to proclaim that it is NEVER okay to forcibly resist “law enforcement.” In doing so, they also inadvertently demonstrate why so much of human history has been plagued by tyranny and oppression.

In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified. In the real world, however, far more injustice, violence, torture, theft, and outright murder has been committed IN THE NAME of “law enforcement,” than has been committed in spite of it. To get a little perspective, try watching a documentary or two about some of the atrocities committed by the regimes of Stalin, or Lenin, or Chaiman Mao, or Hitler, or Pol Pot, or any number of other tyrants in history. Pause the film when the jackboots are about to herd innocent people into cattle cars, or gun them down as they stand on the edge of a ditch, and THEN ask yourself the question, “When should you shoot a cop?” Keep in mind, the evils of those regimes were committed in the name of “law enforcement.” And as much as the statement may make people cringe, the history of the human race would have been a lot LESS gruesome if there had been a lot MORE “cop-killers” around to deal with the state mercenaries of those regimes.
People don’t mind when you point out the tyranny that has happened in other countries, but most have a hard time viewing their OWN “country”, their OWN “government”, and their OWN “law enforcers”, in any sort of objective way. Having been trained to feel a blind loyalty to the ruling class of the particular piece of dirt they live on (a.k.a. “patriotism”), and having been trained to believe that obedience is a virtue, the idea of forcibly resisting “law enforcement” is simply unthinkable to many. Literally, they can’t even THINK about it. And humanity has suffered horribly because of it. It is a testament to the effectiveness of authoritarian indoctrination that literally billions of people throughout history have begged and screamed and cried in the face of authoritarian injustice and oppression, but only a tiny fraction have ever lifted a finger to actually try to STOP it.

Even when people can recognize tyranny and oppression, they still usually talk about “working within the system”-the same system that is responsible for the tyranny and oppression. People want to believe that “the system” will, sooner or later, provide justice. The last thing they want to consider is that they should “illegally” resist-that if they want to achieve justice, they must become “criminals” and “terrorists,” which is what anyone who resists “legal” justice is automatically labeled. But history shows all too well that those who fight for freedom and justice almost always do so “illegally” – i.e., without the permission of the ruling class.

If politician think that they have the right to impose any “law” they want, and cops have the attitude that, as long as it’s called “law”, they will enforce it, what is there to prevent complete tyranny? Not the consciences of the “law-makers” or their hired thugs, obviously. And not any election or petition to the politicians. When tyrants define what counts as “law”, then by definition it is up to the “law-breakers” to combat tyranny.

Pick any example of abuse of power, whether it is the fascist “war on drugs,” the police thuggery that has become so common, the random stops and searches now routinely carried out in the name of “security” (e.g., at airports, “border checkpoints” that aren’t even at the border, “sobriety checkpoints,” and so on), or anything else. Now ask yourself the uncomfortable question: If it’s wrong for cops to do these things, doesn’t that imply that the people have a right to RESIST such actions? Of course, state mercenaries don’t take kindly to being resisted, even non-violently. If you question their right to detain you, interrogate you, search you, invade your home, and so on, you are very likely to be tasered, physically assaulted, kidnapped, put in a cage, or shot. If a cop decides to treat you like livestock, whether he does it “legally” or not, you will usually have only two options: submit, or kill the cop. You can’t resist a cop “just a little” and get away with it. He will always call in more of his fellow gang members, until you are subdued or dead.Basic logic dictates that you either have an obligation to LET “law enforcers” have their way with you, or you have the right to STOP them from doing so, which will almost always require killing them. (Politely asking fascists to not be fascists has a very poor track record.) Consider the recent Indiana Supreme Court ruling, which declared that if a cop tries to ILLEGALLY enter your home, it’s against the law for you to do anything to stop him. Aside from the patent absurdity of it, since it amounts to giving thugs with badges PERMISSION to “break the law,” and makes it a CRIME for you to defend yourself against a CRIMINAL (if he has a badge), consider the logical ramifications of that attitude.

There were once some words written on a piece of parchment (with those words now known as the Fourth Amendment), that said that you have the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures at the hands of “government” agents. In Indiana today, what could that possibly mean? The messages from the ruling class is quite clear, and utterly insane. It amounts to this: “We don’t have the right to invade your home without probable cause … but if we DO, you have no right to stop us, and we have the right to arrest you if you try.”
Why not apply that to the rest of the Bill of Rights, while we’re at it? “You have the right to say what you want, but if we use violence to shut you up, you have to let us.” (I can personally attest to the fact that that is the attitude of the U.S. “Department of Justice.”) “You have the right to have guns, but if we try to forcibly and illegally disarm you, and you resist, we have the right to kill you.” (Ask Randy Weaver and the Branch Dividians about that one.) “You have the right to not testify against yourself, but when we coerce you into confessing (and call it a ‘plea agreement’), you can’t do a thing about it.” What good is a “right” –what does the term “right” even mean- if you have an obligation to allow the jackboots to violate your so-called “rights”? It make the term absolutely meaningless.

To be blunt, if you have the right to do “A,” it means that if someone tries to STOP you from doing “A” –even if he has a badge and a politician’s scribble (“law”) on his side – you have the right to use whatever amount of force is necessary to resist that person. That’s what it means to have an unalienable right. If you have the unalienable right to speak you mind (a la the First Amendment), then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to shut you up. If you have the unalienable right to be armed, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to disarm you. If you have the right to not be subjected to unreasonable searches and seizures, then you have the right to KILL “government” agents who try to inflict those on you.

Those who are proud to be “law-abiding” don’t like to hear this, and don’t like to think about this, but what’s the alternative? If you do NOT have the right to forcibly resist injustice – even if the injustice is called the “law” – that logically implies that you have an obligation to allow “government” agents to do absolutely anything they want to you, your home, your family, and so on. Really, there are only two choices: you are a slave, the property of
the politicians, without any rights at all, or you have the right to violently resist “government” attempts to oppress you. There can be no other option.
Of course, on a practical level, openly resisting the gang called “government” is usually very hazardous to one’s health. But there is a big difference between obeying for the sake of self-preservation, which is often necessary and rational, and feeling a moral obligation to go along with whatever the ruling class wants to do to you, which is pathetic and insane. Most of the incomprehensible atrocities that have occurred throughout history were due in large part to the fact that most people answer “never” to the question of “When should you shoot a cop?” The correct answer is: When evil is “legal,” become a criminal. When oppression is enacted as “law,” become a “law- breaker.” When those violently victimizing the innocent have badges, become a cop-killer.

The next time you hear of a police officer being killed “in the line of duty,” take a moment to consider the very real possibility that maybe in that case, the “law enforcer” was the bad guy and the “cop killer” was the good guy. As it happens, that has been the case more often than not throughout human history.

If any good has come from this, I now know that a handful of armed Patriots could turn nationwide law enforcement on its head.

I'm a Los Angeles County Native. I've lived here 60 years. I have no idea how many individual Municipal Police Departments there are in Los Angeles County, but LAPD has the reputation and notoriety of being the most "hostile" towards the Citizens it interfaces with of any of them. (Exhibit One: Rodney King.)My encounters with numerous LE Departments in the County over the years have taught me to actually give thought as to whether a trip into, or thorough an are patrolled by LAPD is necessary, or a circuitous route can be utilized to avoid their patrol area. With their officer-involved shooting stat at about 1,000 per year, that's 3 a day, I consider that my life may well be in jeopardy if I have a chance encounter with an LAPD "officer". I avoid them as if my life depends on it. It well may.

There is no other Law Enforcement entity in the County, or Country (other than Kansas Highway Patrol. Yes I had a very similar incident to the one above) I feel this way towards. Thank you Karl for the national exposure to the actions of this rouge department.

Liberal statists will cry foul about the LAPD targeting all "brown people", yet still advocate that only police and military should be trusted with guns.

I wonder if the media are going to quote Dorner's views on gun control (small excerpt, there's literally four paragraphs about it):

Quote:

The time is now to reinstitute a ban that will save lives. Why does any sportsman need a 30 round magazine for hunting? Why does anyone need a suppressor? Why does anyone need a AR15 rifle? This is the same small arms weapons system utilized in eradicating Al Qaeda, Taliban, and every enemy combatant since the Vietnam war. Don’t give me that crap that its not a select fire or full auto rifle like the DoD uses.

I...I don't even.

I recall a quip (I think it might have been Eric S. Raymond) that you know someone's a Democrat if the media never mentions his political affiliation...

Paul aout your experience a few months ago I experienced something similar. I was riding with my friend to a get together at calvers for business with about 100 of us total. He pulled us over and said he thought we crossed the white lines several times (which we were puzzled and knew that didnt happen) but he was looking in the vehicle and inspecting and asking us all kinds of questions. When we got there we were talking about it and he had pulled over like 3-4 other cars for the same reason. Later on that week I found out that te police have been doing this in certain busy places to check people for DWI and its unlawful, but they get away with it and are basically told to do so.

as to the ticker,
If anyone did not see this coming they are not being honest with themselves or not paying attention. In my opinion, this is the most realistic place we end up. I only expect it to get worse.

The cops are shooting at anything in sight because they want him _DEAD_. They don't want to capture him alive to stand trial. Why? Have you actually read his manifesto? He doesn't sound even remotely nuts to me:

Manifesto: Alleged Cop Revenge Shooter Named Targets, Blamed Asians, Hispanics and Lesbians (note the misleading, judgmental headline - he blames Asians and Hispanics within the LAPD for not standing up against the misconduct he stood up against, but THEY are not his targets! He blames some lesbians in higher command as being misandrists (man haters), but they aren't his targets either)

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/....

Read it! Time after time he crossed the "blue line" to officially report misconduct and HE was the only one who suffered. Because he rocked the boat, it sounds like he was the victim of workplace mobbing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobbing

(another story that highlights things there)
http://dealbreaker.com/2013/02/former-de....
Former Deutsche Bank Exec And LAPD Not Yet Seeing Eye To Eye On “Savage Beating” Incident
By Bess Levin

(this is towards the bottom)
"The former banker contended in a lawsuit that contrary to reports that he tried to assault the officers, the men tried to extort about $3,000 from him on the night of May 15. They later severely beat him, leaving injuries that required extensive facial surgery, according to the complaint…In the lawsuit, he contends that he had stopped by a pharmacy to buy THC pills as sleeping aids. Officers Nichols and Miller stopped him, made him take a sobriety test and searched him. After finding $3,000 in cash — an amount Mr. Mulligan said was necessary for business travel — in the banker’s car, the officers handcuffed him and took him to a nearby motel. They warned him not to leave, lest he end up dead, according to the complaint. Mr. Mulligan said he then fled the motel, fearing for his life, but ran into the officers, who hit him in the head and broke his shoulder blade, according to the complaint. At one point, Officer Nichols told Mr. Mulligan, “You’re going to die tonight of a heroin overdose,” the complaint contends."

We used to live up the street from there before we moved to Utah. Reading the comments in the local Daily Breeze newspaper and the L.A. Times is sickening. THERE IS NO OUTRAGE.

Ya know what really bothers me here? The media has punted on the shooting incident involving the newspaper carriers. Both victims should've been interviewed front and center on the 6 o'clock news. But the story was buried. We rely on the media to protect us from tyranny. Once that defense mechanism is gone we're done. The media is really our last line of defense.

And many media organizations are not posting Dorner's entire manifesto. Only selected portions or a very truncated version leaving out some very critical information that Dorner passed along about LAPD.

Their job isn't to edit in this instance. Their job is to expose all and let the reader draw his own conclusions.

We live in scary times.