Ex-LAPD cop Chris Dorner's manifesto

[lawrocket 3]

Ringing the bell again?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[airtwardo 7]

Quote

Ringing the bell again?

Nah...he's busy stalkin' a hairy 50 year old guy named Phil.

~ If you choke a Smurf, what color does it turn? ~

[davjohns 1]

Quote

guy seems nuts to me.

Professional opinion, or you two shared a padded room once?

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[billvon 3,120]

>Paul - skydivers meet the common definition of insane.

No it doesn't - and people who use it in that context are engaging in hyperbole. It's like claiming that democrats are communists, or republicans are fascists.

[ManagingPrime 0]

Quote

>Paul - skydivers meet the common definition of insane.

No it doesn't - and people who use it in that context are engaging in hyperbole. It's like claiming that democrats are communists, or republicans are fascists.

Actually. The most common definition i've heard is, "repeating the same mistake, over and over again, expecting a different result". I hear that from my mother regarding skydiving every chance she gets. The idea is that my "body is a temple" and by engaging in unnecessary risk (mistake), over and over again, I'm insane. That's one of the fundamental arguments.

It's very difficult to change that perception. I'm to the point where I don't try. It's ok that someone I care about has a fundamentally different outlook than me.

[Kennedy 0]

I really hate that saying. It's innaccurate and often serves as an excuse. see this article

Like the man said, insanity is a legal term. It has no strict medical definition, and no commonly accepted one either. See the DSM. There's no entry for "insanity". Psychopathic, sociopathic, schizophrenic, anti-social personality disorder, depression, and many more are in the book. Insanity, not so much. And FYI, being diagnosed with one of those does not necessarily equate to being legally classified as insane.

As to the case of Dorner, he strikes me as amazingly narcissistic, but I think he knows it's wrong and simply doesn't care. He wants to be the good guy, the hero, in his own story. Reality and the perceptions of others is irrelevant, except as they perceive him. (that's my guess anyway)
There may be some anti-social traits as well, but you'll need a sit down with some PhDs and MDs to be sure. On the other hand, it would take a judge to determine insanity. If he ever reaches a court, I doubt he'll pull off an insanity defense for two reasons: first, in his manifesto it seems very clear that he knows killing is wrong; he acts like he's been forced into it, but especially the part where he says he'll stop when cleared shows he knows its wrong. Second, he seems so self absorbed that I doubt he'd want an attorney to make the case for it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[davjohns 1]

I don't understand the insanity quote applied to skydiving. I do the same thing over and over expecting the same result...I have fun safely. The 'different result' would be going splat. I don't expect that. I avoid it.

As to Dorner...I've tried to explain before on here...not sure it gets through...the difference between cops and criminals is slight. They are not polar opposites. They are not on opposite ends of the spectrum. They are on slightly different sides of a very dim line in the exact middle of the spectrum. They are the battleground between good and evil. I'm not sure I can explain it better than that unless you've been there.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[quade 4]

Quote

... and no commonly accepted one either.

Unless, of course, you happen to own a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insane?s=t

The term has been in use for hundreds of years and derives from Latin. What the hell are you guys talking about? There absolutely is a commonly understood definition.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[davjohns 1]

For the purposes of criminal trial, insanity is pretty clearly defined.

I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet..

But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course.

[ryoder 1,590]

Have no fear; Charlie is here to solve the problem!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/charlie-sheen-dorner-call-170740810.html

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[quade 4]

Quote

For the purposes of criminal trial, insanity is pretty clearly defined.

But you must understand there is not just the legal definition.

Also, my apologies for accidentally touching your post. I reverted it to its original, but left my fingerprints on it by way of just touching the wrong button.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[lawrocket 3]

Okay, Paul. Let's take a different look.

Would you agree that "insane" and "evil" are distinct? That is, a person can be "insane" without being "evil" and a person can be "evil" without being "insane?"

Next issue:

Would you agree that there are levels of insane? I.e., would you compare Dorner to Loehner?

Final issue: do you think medical treatment could have stopped Dorner? Plenty has been mentioned about him being narcissistic. Or perhaps he's just a sociopath - those cannot be treated. Put a sociopath in therapy and he'll manipulate it and learn how to be a better predator.

Ted Bundy – was he “insane?” Nope. He was simply a man who by nature of his makeup was incapable of empathy, guilt or remorse. He knew right from wrong, was intelligent, articulate, charming. All these things made him a better predator. Was he insane? Fuck no. He was evil incarnate.

I do not fear the insane, Paul. I fear the sociopath. The one who puts you at ease with smooth charm and guile and will fuck you up. The one who nobody suspects because he’s a good guy and charming and nice – all part of the ploy to lure into a sense of false security. Or, the second type of sociopath – the one who is bad, knows she’s bad, and likes it.

Who is Dorner? Is he like Jared Loehner? No. He’s more like Ted Bundy. What’ most telling to me is the dichotomy of the guy between patient/impatient. He is quick to act with temper to perceived slights. On the other hand, he is patient and cunning in matters that will provide him with more power. Years spent planning this out in order to maximize his power over people. Insane? No. Insanity doesn’t work this way. Evil does.

Look at all sides, Paul. Quit going into popular ideas of what things are. (And yes, skydiving is crazy. Let’s jump out of an airplane. For the hell of it. And hope the canopy opens. Let’s go against every urge of self-preservation that evolution has brought onto us. It is not rational. It is not reasonable. It’s just a lot of fun. We do it because we like it. That’s reason enough for us.

Why’s the sociopath kill? Rape? Steal? Beat? Because they like it. It’s good enough for them. Difference is we feel good with risk to ourselves. The sociopath derives pleasure from the suffering of others.

I equate Dorner to a Ted Bundy. Go ahead and think, "Ted Bundy must have been insane. How else could he kill all those women?" I respond that evil and insanity are distinct.

There are people who are just bad.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[champu 1]

Quote

Quote

... and no commonly accepted one either.

Unless, of course, you happen to own a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insane?s=t

The term has been in use for hundreds of years and derives from Latin. What the hell are you guys talking about? There absolutely is a commonly understood definition.

This is an interesting situation in the forum...

Many times I have problems getting people to read my posts within the context of other posts I've made recently, or other threads that are active at the time. Sometimes I post as though this whole forum is just one big discussion. Not everyone reads all active threads intently though, so I understand that people are going to misinterpret what I write if it isn't given that context.

You here, and others occasionally elsewhere, have posted something and are defending it by insisting that people remove it from any contexts that might be established in your other posts or other threads that are going on... It's interesting...

So what the hell am I talking about?

You said you agree this guy probably couldn't use insanity as a defense, but that you still think he's insane. He's an angry guy, with a gun, who made a plan to kill people, and then killed people. You say that makes him insane. Those are your two cents. Meanwhile, there are one or two *cough* active threads about gun control where the discussion has turned to keeping guns out of the hands of the mentally ill.

So here is why people are losing their shit over what you said...

At what point in this guy's course of actions would you start calling him "insane"? Do you feel that his course of actions, "made him insane all along"? Do you understand why the flippant use of the term "insane" can furl eyebrows in the context of discussions of who should have certain rights abridged prior to any wrongdoing?

[quade 4]

Because a person can be insane, yet not "not guilty by reason of insanity" because one statement uses a common definition and the other uses a legal definition.

Just because a somebody can't use the insanity defense, doesn't mean he isn't insane. It just means he doesn't mean that legal standard for getting a free pass.

You can also be visually impaired without meeting the legal definition of being blind or they can be legally blind in one country, but not another due to different standards.

In any case, even if not legally blind a person who doesn't meet that standard yet still can not function normally would still be called blind by most.

Dorner's mind is not functioning normally. Normal people do not go on shooting sprees, send bullet riddled cop coins to newsmen and write lengthy revenge manifestos simply because they feel they've been wronged.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Normal people do not go on shooting sprees,...

Has anyone heard if Tara Lynne Barr is traveling with him?

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

... and no commonly accepted one either.

Unless, of course, you happen to own a dictionary.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/insane?s=t

The term has been in use for hundreds of years and derives from Latin. What the hell are you guys talking about? There absolutely is a commonly understood definition.

Insane is no longer a term that is used clinically. It is pretty much purely a legal term now and as such does have strictly defined criteria.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[quade 4]

Nonsense. It is used commonly by people other than lawyers and outside of criminal courts. You can find the definition in any common English dictionary.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[normiss 898]

Just like assault rifle then.
Now it makes sense.

[quade 4]

Quote

Just like assault rifle then.
Now it makes sense.

Actually, yes.

There is a legal definition as well as one that is commonly understood by the average person as well as the pissing contest between those two and the pendantics.

It's like the distiction between the words clip and magazine. If a person wants to get in a pissing contest over the pendantic useage...fine...but the terms are commonly interchangeable. In fact, sometimes even the most pendantic pro-gun supporters will use the two interchangably...notably...Wayne.

For legal purposes and legal purposes alone there is a clear distiction. Among normal people it just doesn't make all that big of a difference.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Gene03 0]

I have read his Manifesto in it's entirety.

I don't think any or maybe a few of us on here are qualified to deem him sane or insane.

Two things I know for sure..

1. He is highly trained.

2. He is highly motivated.

“The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him.

Stanislaw Jerzy Lec quotes (Polish writer, poet and satirist 1906-1966)

[quade 4]

So was Ted Kaczynski, who was also insane.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Quote

Normal people do not go on shooting sprees,...

Has anyone heard if Tara Lynne Barr is traveling with him?

Great flick, btw.

No. They weren't rational either. They were insane in their actions even if they could rationalize it and make the audience sympathize with them.

Hell, by lawrocket's definition not even most of the great genocidists if the 20th century could be called insane...even though they clearly were.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Nonsense. It is used commonly by people other than lawyers and outside of criminal courts. You can find the definition in any common English dictionary.

Yes, it is commonly used. However it is not used by clinicians and is not a clinical term.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[champu 1]

Quote

Because a person can be insane, yet not "not guilty by reason of insanity" because one statement uses a common definition and the other uses a legal definition. Just because a somebody can't use the insanity defense, doesn't mean he isn't insane. It just means he doesn't mean that legal standard for getting a free pass.

You can also be visually impaired without meeting the legal definition of being blind or they can be legally blind in one country, but not another due to different standards. In any case, even if not legally blind a person who doesn't meet that standard yet still can not function normally would still be called blind by most.

Dorner's mind is not functioning normally. Normal people do not go on shooting sprees, send bullet riddled cop coins to newsmen and write lengthy revenge manifestos simply because they feel they've been wronged.

So, you're restating your position, and I already understood what it was. Hence why I wrote, "Those are your two cents," in my last post. My post was about why people might be presuming a legal context to your use of the term "insane" whether you want them to or not, and why that can cause problems. Also, in the last two sentences you've watered the "common definition" down even further by relating "sanity" with "normality."

Quote

It's like the distiction between the words clip and magazine. If a person wants to get in a pissing contest over the pendantic useage...fine...but the terms are commonly interchangeable.

The distinction between a clip and a magazine is about as important as the distinction between a toggle and a riser (i.e. not at all if you're not using either)

Likewise, the distinction between insane and not insane is useless outside of the legal context. Specifically, in this case, the legal context I was alluding to of whether the denial of access to firearms due to mental illness would have applied to him.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

There is a legal definition as well as one that is commonly understood by the average person as well as the pissing contest between those two and the pendantics.

Unfortunately, there is a history of misperception of what a word means and what it actually means. For example, “ironic” means having an outcome the opposite of what is expected. “Enormity” means excessive wickedness or evil and doesn’t mean “enormousness.”

Yes, the usual definitions of things lead to misuse. Insane can mean any state of mind that precludes normal behavior. Thus, a person who is buzzed from a couple of beers meets that definition. A person who is somnambulatory may meet that definition. And a person who is just a dick also meets that definition.

This is why people like lawyers look to use words with precision. We do not like words such as “insane” to be so vague as to lose all meaning. You use the term “insane” like the people commonly use the term “dolphin.” Most people mean “porpoise” but a few assholes out there will say it also means “mahi mahi.”

Here’s the issue, Paul – is what I am saying wrong? Are my contentions lacking in factual merit? So you think that a person who is “evil” is by definition “insane.” Okay. I can see that. I disagree. A person is depressed and has trouble sleeping. That person is by a regular definition insane. A guy gets treatment for prostate cancer and receives lupron, and experiences a near total elimination of libido. Insane? Yep.

The broader and more vague a definition is, the more all encompassing it becomes. I prefer to view insanity as “not knowing right from wrong.” I prefer to view evil as “knowing right from wrong and deliberately choosing wrong.” You are fortunate enough, I take it, to have not had much experience with the latter.

Quote

For legal purposes and legal purposes alone there is a clear distiction. Among normal people it just doesn't make all that big of a difference.

Are you part of and participate in this system, Paul? If so, the distinction may make all the difference in the world to you.

My wife is hotter than your wife.