By: Ruth Hull
The fake additions/changes to the manifesto presented by the mainstream media to garner higher ratings don’t even match the writing style or educational level of the rest of the manifesto and are clearly fake additions/chances. They are clearly put in there by someone with a political agenda, who is using an unfortunate situation to push for legislation. Former LAPD Officer Dorner was concerned about corruption, not politics. He was writing about his personal observations, experiences and anger at the local authorities. The fake changes/additions are clearly not written by Dorner.
If you want juicy passages on Obama and his misses, you will probably be disappointed with the real manifesto. It doesn’t even mention the Obamas or the Bushes and it definitely doesn’t disparage Michelle in any way. It’s not going to sell news stories. No wonder CNN, Drudge and CounterPunch don’t like the real one. But the fake version riles people up against someone who never said those things and makes it more acceptable to kill a potentially innocent man. What should be done about media outlets that put false words into the mouth of someone in danger of being killed over those words?
While the real manifesto names some potentially corrupt officers and chiefs, politicians are left out of the mix and so are their wives. Chris Dorner was too busy writing about police corruption to discuss Washington politicos and legislation. After you ask the LAPD to stop shooting people, I suggest you notify any media outlets distributing the false manifesto that you are cancelling your subscriptions to them and placing them in the “yellow journalism” round file.
We do not know if Dorner is still alive or will live long enough to tell his story. If the police keep shooting people, there is a good chance he and others will not be able to say anything. In the Dorner case, it is interesting that those who most need to speak are dead or likely to die. With Dorner, the truth dies too.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Due process of law does not translate into getting splattered with bullets fired by cops shooting everyone who looks like a man or a woman. There is also a corresponding Due Process Clause in the 14th Amendment, through which most parts of the Bill of Rights (including the 5th and 6th Amendments) are applied to the state and local governments.
The Sixth Amendment is also important:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Is banning the press helicopters and simply shooting a man in the woods, law enforcement’s idea of a public and speedy trial by a jury of the man’s peers? If you think the framers had something else in mind, the LAPD phone number is up above.
Someone went to a lot of trouble to fake a manifesto. This leads to the question, “What else did they fake?” Did this man do anything other than blow the whistle on corrupt police practices? Once lies start, where do they end? If they start with a fake manifesto, do they go on to include falsely attributed killings? By releasing a fake version of the manifesto, the authorities and press have opened the door to wide speculation that this man may have been framed in every other way.
Dorner may be as bad as they claim, but those who presented the fake manifesto have lost their credibility with respect to this particular suspect and maybe other suspects as well. In releasing the fake manifesto, somebody or somebodies are making a strong effort to turn public opinion against Dorner. Why such a strong effort? What is the real threat this man poses? Could this be just a man who came across some dangerous information?
Let’s look at the more authentic version of the manifesto to find out what is taking place on the LAPD and what they may want to hide.
“In 8/07 I reported an officer (Ofcr. XXXX/now a Sergeant), for kicking a suspect (excessive force) during a Use of Force while I was assigned as a patrol officer at LAPD’s Harbor Division. While cuffing the suspect, (XXXXX), XXXX kicked the suspect twice in the chest and once in the face. The kick to the face left a visible injury on the left cheek below the eye.”
Wait a minute. So Dorner doesn’t like violence against a potentially innocent suspect. It would be nice if more officers opposed police violence.
“While traveling back to the station in a 12 passenger van I heard XXXX refer to another individual as a n-word. I wasn’t sure if I heard correctly as there were many conversations in the van that was compiled of at least 8 officers and he was sitting in the very rear and me in the very front. Even with the multiple conversations and ambient noise I heard Officer XXXX call an indivdual a n-word again. Now that I had confirmed it, I told XXXX not to use that word again. I explained that it was a well-known offensive word that should not be used by anyone. He replied, “I’ll say it when I want”. Officer XXXX, a friend of his, also stated that he would say n-word when he wanted.”
Is he saying officers on the LAPD are racist? So Mark Fuhrman wasn’t a fantasy conjured up by OJ? And are these same racist officers now planning to kill Dorner, a Black man? There couldn’t be racism involved in this armed lynching of a Black man, could there?
“She (Sgt. XXXX) found it very funny and entertaining to draw blood from suspects and arrestees. At one point she even intentionally ripped the flesh off the arm of a woman we had arrested for battery (sprayed her neighbor with a garden water hose). Knowing the woman had thin elastic skin, she performed an Indian burn to the woman’s arm after cuffing her. That woman was in her mid-70’s, a mother and grandmother, and was angry at her tenants who failed to pay rent on time.”
More witnessed misconduct. I wonder if the 70-something woman has filed suit against the LAPD.
“or when the other guys on your watch beat a transient nearly to death…”
Couldn’t those officers get the death penalty if Dorner testifies? Does that make it self-defense to kill Dorner, the witness?
“I’ve heard many officers who state they see dead victims as ATV’s, Waverunners, RV’s and new clothes for their kids.”
The last part of the manifesto makes it clear that he respects the U.S. Government. Much of the “attack” rhetoric towards the end with respect to corrupt cops could be interpreted in different ways, such a plan for cyber attacks, discouraging anyone from helping save the lives of rogue officers when they get into trouble, fighting those who are attacking innocent suspects, starting a revolt against the police or just plain fierce rhetoric to discourage the police from coming after him.
Of course, after seeing the trouble someone went to push the obviously false version, you never know if some of these other passages were faked by someone more professional. In fact, Dorner might not have written anything. In 1984, Goldstein didn’t write his book. O’Brien was the primary author.
We also cannot be certain that Dorner killed anyone. If the police could mistake a 71-year-old woman for Dorner, maybe it was a 71-year-old woman who committed the murders with which they are crediting him, or maybe those who were killed were blowing the whistle like Dorner…
If the LAPD doesn’t know the difference between a man and a woman, who else might they mistake for Dorner? What if Dorner showed up on the scene of the other killings to try to save the decedents but was too late? Maybe they want to kill Dorner so he won’t tell what really happened to those people. These are questions for a jury, that thing mentioned in the Sixth Amendment.
We do not know if Chris Dorner is crazy, a really bad guy, or as some have claimed, “a hero.” What we do know is that if we believe in America, then it is up to us to make sure that this man has his day in court. I’m an American. Are you? Maybe it’s time we showed the world what it means to be an American.
So join your fellow Americans in calling the LAPD and demanding they bring Dorner in alive and STOP SHOOTING WOMEN and everyone else for that matter.
In closing, I refer everyone to the Samuel L Jackson, Kevin Spacey movie The Negotiator, wherein an honest police officer went rogue to prove his innocence after he had uncovered corruption and been framed. In his manifesto, Chris Dorner makes it clear he also wants to prove his innocence.