by Jay Knott
Monday, February 18th, 2013
After reporting police brutality and being dismissed from the force for doing so, he decided the only way to press his case was to write a manifesto on Facebook, and take out some scum. As always, the mainstream media described the manifesto as ‘rambling’. In fact, it’s completely coherent.
After their initial casualties, the LAPD started shooting at random, nearly killing two women. Dorner appeared in various places, wasting more pigs. The chief of police claimed to belong to a persecuted minority – “To be targeted because of what you are… that is absolutely terrifying”. Eventually, they tracked Dorner down to a cabin in the mountains, and deliberately burned him to death.
One of the many lessons to be learned from Dorner’s fight is a re-examination of the Waco massacre of 1993. The FBI claimed to have fired tear-gas into the buildings in a ‘compound’ occupied by a religious cult, the Branch Davidians. (‘Compound’ is a media term for buildings inhabited by people whom the police intend to murder). So how come the buildings burned down, killing seventy-six people, including twenty-two children? The authorities claimed the Davidians set the fire themselves. Following the murder of Dorner, we know the answer is that the tear gas canisters used by the US authorities cause fires. If they can cause a ski cabin in the snow to burn down, they can definitely incinerate buildings on a hot, windy, April day in Texas. The police know this – they refer to these canisters as ‘burners’, and they used them, on February 13, 2013, in their words, to “burn this motherfucker”.
A hero can be mistaken. I said above Dorner’s manifesto is coherent, but that doesn’t mean it’s all true. His descriptions of brutality toward the poor, mentally disturbed and homeless, and the police lying about it, are correct. But ‘racism’ is a more difficult charge to prove.
He claims LAPD officers sang Nazi songs. Did they target Jews? No. So their use of slurs toward other minorities, though obviously unacceptable in public servants, does not demonstrate that their violence was driven by racial prejudice. A video of white cops beating up a black man does not prove racism. The evidence is just as compatible with the hypothesis that the role of the police is to keep the poor in its place, and the indubitable fact that minorities are over-represented in that sector of the population.
Another problem with the ‘racism’ charge is more practical. Suppose the police took notice of complaints of racism. They could do one of three things:
1. Kill fewer black people
2. Kill more white people
This is more than a hypothesis. In Portland, Oregon, in 2003, the filth shot dead a young black woman, Kendra James. Another African-American, James Perez, was murdered in 2004. There were large protests following both these killings. In 2006, cops jumped up and down on James Chasse, a homeless schizophrenic, in a police van, until he was dead. Chasse was white, and so are the Portland porkers, so it couldn’t have been a racist murder. Public reaction was more muted.
My point is not to deny that many of the police are racially prejudiced, in addition to their other undesirable attitudes. I am simply discussing what one can achieve by highlighting one of these traits rather than others. Only one thing is beyond debate: A.C.A.B.
Rest in peace, Christopher. Your inspiration lives on: http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/02/07/18731591.php#18731595