What would Captain Kirk do if ordered to fire burners into the cabin supposedly occupied by Chis Dorner? In "Star Trek Into Darkness," we saw Kirk's solution: disregard immoral and illegal orders and bring the suspect back alive for trial.
In the latestStar Trek movie, Captain Kirk is ordered to fire 72 torpedoes at a supposedly deserted planet to execute a man who killed Star Fleet officers, including Kirk’s mentor and father figure. This is not unlike the situation with Chris Dorner, where officers were told that Chris had a vendetta against the LAPD and was executing officers and families of officers. While there were no witnesses to the supposed killings attributed to Chris Dorner, Captain Kirk observed the killing spree of John Harrison/Khan. As much as Kirk might have wanted revenge, his sense of justice overrode any anger and he disregarded orders to murder the accused, a choice that rendered Kirk a fugitive himself and risked the lives of his entire crew.
This is in stark contrast to the deadly manhunt for Chris Dorner, the firing of burners into the cabin and the lack of any attempt to bring the man back alive for trial. It is important to remember that Chris Dorner was never convicted of anything. He died an innocent man under the laws and Constitution of this country.
Unlike with Khan, there appears to be little or no evidence that Chris Dorner killed anyone , though the mainstream media may have told you otherwise. Adding to the tragedy of the Chis Dorner execution is the fact that media outlets throughout the country, without sufficient evidence, claimed that Dorner wrote a manifesto that was clearly written by two different people. Portions of this false manifesto were repeated and repeated in the media for the purpose of firing up the public to support a pre-trial execution. It used to be that the press would place the word “alleged,” before an unproven accusation. This was not the case with Chris Dorner.
Among the media outlets that joined those cheering on the deprivation of Chris Dorner’s rights was opednews.com . Editor-in-Chief and Managing editors Rob Kall, Lisa Milazzo and Meryl Ann Butler officially opposed Dorner’s Sixth Amendment right to trial and became cheerleaders for the cook-out. I was an editor at OpEdNews at the time the Dorner story broke. I could not in good conscience remain silent and go along with that site’s opposition to one of the most important Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. In refusing to go against my conscience, I joined a large group of former editors and writers who objected to policies that promoted the pharmaceutical industry, the nuclear industry and other matters unrepresentative of OEN’s claim that it was liberal and progressive. OEN went further. One of the Kalls actually emailed threats of sending Homeland Security after people complaining about OEN’s censorship. Does Rob Kall have a contract with Homeland Security? Is that why he seemingly wanted Chris Dorner deep-fat-fried?
Close-up of security camera across street from parking garage
Look again at the picture of the video camera that would have recorded anyone entering or leaving the parking garage where Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence were supposedly killed on February 3, 2013. The video was confiscated by the Irvine Police Department. If it showed Dorner entering and leaving, that would have proven that he very well might have done the killings. The video could end the questions. It would be in the public interests to see what happened that night and know that the right man was barbecued-- unless that is not what the video shows.
So I filed a Freedom of Information request to see the video. Jennifer Kaiser, Business Services Administrator of the for the Irvine Police Department. responded with a denial, citing California Government Code 6254(f) Here is the exemption within that section: “the public interest in withholding those records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” In other words, the denial had nothing to do with privacy or concerns about police work in progress. It was a concern about the effect on the public of seeing the truth. Is this an admission that the truth is that someone other than Chris Dorner killed Monica Quan and Keith Lawrence and the public would revolt if it knew what really happened? Please read other articles on this case. "News Services Fake Dorner Manifesto, Quick-Shooting Police Mistake Little Women for a Big Man" "A good cup of coffee to go with your police shootouts and burning cabins, but was it really Dorner who was killed?" "Chris Dorner: Crazed Killer, Innocent Hero or Neither?" "Was an Innocent Man Barbecued at Big Bear?" "Op-Ed: March for Women's Rights honors those killed by police."
So run, don’t walk to see Star Trek Into Darkness. It’s fun, action-packed, and may actually teach your kids a sense of morality and justice they won’t learn from the mainstream media or from those who supported the frying of an untried man at Big Bear. As previously noted, Chris Dorner was innocent under Constitution and laws of the United States of America. He had as much of a right to live as you or I.
Before you believe the hype and write off Chris Dorner as not your problem, think of this. If Southern California law enforcement officers are killing innocent people in violation of the U.S. and California Constitutions and a host of other laws, how much danger are you and your family in? What officials did to Dorner, they can do to you or to your brother or to your sister or to your child. Is that the future you want for yourself and your family? There is still time and we still have rights but maybe there isn’t too much time and maybe soon, there won’t be any rights
First They Came…
(Based on the poem by Martin Niemoller)
First they came for Lynne Stewart.
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't Lynne Stewart.
Then they came for Bradley Manning,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't Bradley Manning.
Then they came for Julian Assange,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't Julian Assange.
Then they came for Chris Dorner,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't Chris Dorner
Then they came for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.