Found this and I thought this might apply to thread. This is in no way mine and all credit goes to the original author Cikedo.
Dorner was terminated on September 4, 2008, for filing a report concerning the conduct of fellow police officer, Teresa Evans (now a sergeant), for excessive force, which the police claim is false. Dorner accused Officer Evans of kicking suspect Christopher Gettler in the face while he was handcuffed and lying on the ground. An internal review board concluded that Dorner had falsified his report despite the corroborating statements of the kicking victim and of Gettler's father.[13] Dorner cited his termination and sworn testimony that such excessive force did occur
Side 1: Dorner was fired for blowing the whistle on a cop using excessive force. Long story short - he was called a liar, and fired. People support him in this endeavor because even if he was mistaken and excessive force wasn't used, he shouldn't have been fired for just watching the public's back, myself included. It probably makes more sense to say "I support what happened was immoral" rather than to say "I support Dorner."
On February 9, 2013, the LAPD announced that it would reopen the disciplinary proceedings that led to Dorner's firing
I think the LAPD messed up, and I hope this will lead to some changes in law enforcement, especially the amount of people that were caught in the crossfire of the man hunt (1 killed, 2 injured IIRC).
The other reason people support Dorner is because of the rampant LAPD brutality/violence that has occurred not just because of this, but that happens all the time. I mean, just in trying to ARREST Dorner, 2 people were shot (without even being approached), and a young black male was killed because he ran away from police. I mean... that's pretty fucked up. I'm pretty sure there are laws nowadays that clearly state you can't shoot unarmed people running away if you're a cop (if you're not a cop this is called MURDER). This poor guy... he ran away, was shot something like SIX FUCKING TIMES, he was then shot one additional time at point blank range (I.E. EXECUTED), even though he was unarmed, down, wounded, and not a threat.
(Correction, the person who was killed in this video was not related to the Dorner case, but instead happened either in 2010 or 2012. It's still a solid example of what Dorner was fighting against.)
Cop shoots man 6 times in the back. The man collapses on the sidewalk and the cop walks up and fires one more kill shot. Then another 2 kill shots. Man dies.
It IS important that you support the cause Dorner was fighting for, brutality/corruption in the LAPD, it's just equally important that you recognize that this man was no better than the demons he was fighting. (Thank you Amarkov)
It's also noteworthy that he was very successful, and maybe not "highly decorated", he was definitely the recipient of medals, commendations, and awards... I.E. - he was a good cop, and a good person, at least until all this shit happened.
Dorner was a former Naval Reserve lieutenant (O-3) who was honorably discharged.
In 2002, Dorner and a classmate found a bag containing nearly $8,000 that belonged to Enid Korean Church of Grace in Enid, Oklahoma. They turned it in to the police.
______________________________________________________
He is the primary suspect in the 2013 Southern California shootings, a series of shooting attacks on police officers from February 3 to 12 that left four people dead, including two police officers, and four police officers wounded. He is the subject of one of the largest manhunts in LAPD history,[3] one spanning four U.S. states and Mexico.[4]
Side 2: Allegedly (though I believe there's strong evidence) he murdered in cold blood. He killed 4 people, 2 of which were cops - and even if you say killing the cops was justified for ruining his life - he also murdered 2 other people completely unrelated to the corruption in the LAPD (TrouM4N: They were family members of LAPD officers.). He also is charged with the attempted murder of 3 cops. (I can't find a source that clarifies if he wounded 3 or 2 cops, either way - he wounded at least 2, killed at least 2, and killed at least 2 innocent non-officers.)
It's worth pointing out that the police officers he killed were in no way affiliated with the LAPD, either - one was from the Riverside Police Department, and one was from the San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department. You could argue that they were just as unrelated to the corruption in the LAPD as the two civilians he killed. - Credit to
/u/UOLATSC
Long story short - support the fact that he never should have been fired. Don't support the actual person though, because he's (again, allegedly) a murderer.
When you say "why some people are agreeing with him", it actually makes me kind of sad to see how overzealous people are in supporting him. If you're going to side with this man, it's very important for you to lay out (in my opinion) that you in NO WAY support the killing's he committed, but rather that you agree he was wronged. That's how I feel - the guy was wronged, but he also is very likely a cold-blooded murderer.
Too many people are skating the line between "supporting a cause" and "siding with a murderer".
Dorner cited his termination and sworn testimony that such excessive force did occur, in his online manifesto in early February 2013 as his reason for planning unspecified violence
This is important because I think the man more or less confessed to at least killing the cops. He brings up plans of "unspecified violence" in his manifesto, and cites reasons for what he's done.
I don't have much information on what was in his manifesto, what he talked about in it, or how the manifesto is being viewed (Is it concise, and intelligent? Is it unintelligible and rambling? Half and half? Did he confess to anything?). Feel free to fill in that gap if you know anything about it.
In closing:
"Is it accurate to say that terrorism is acceptable, when all options for peaceful settlement has been foreclosed?" There is no "correct" answer on the topic of Dorner, maybe some good will come out of it, but does that mean "the ends justify the means?". If 4 people died to save 10... does that mean Chris Dorner technically did
good? I don't think there's a good answer for it, I don't think there's a right side and a wrong side. People died, some people may be saved, Chris Dorner was wronged, and Chris Dorner did wrong. This was a tragedy, and some good may come of it - that much is fact.
