So there's this crap, where people are rallying in the memory of multiple-murderer somebody-whose-name-I-don't-feel-like-writing:
Dozens of protesters rallied outside Los Angeles police headquarters Saturday in support of [aforementioned murderous asshole], the former LAPD officer and suspected killer of four who died after a shootout and fire this week at a mountain cabin following one of the biggest manhunts in recent memory.
Protesters told the Los Angeles Times (http://lat.ms/11Ndm6i ) they didn't support [aforementioned murderous asshole]'s deadly methods, but objected to police corruption and brutality, and believed [aforementioned murderous asshole]'s claims of racism and unfair treatment by the department. Many said they were angered by the conduct of the manhunt that led to [aforementioned murderous asshole]'s death and injuries to innocent bystanders who were mistaken for him.
Michael Nam, 30, who held a sign with a flaming tombstone and the inscription "RIP Habeas Corpus," said it was "pretty obvious" police had no intention of bringing [aforementioned murderous asshole] in alive.
"They were the judge, the jury and the executioner," Nam said. "As an American citizen, you have the right to a trial and due process by law."
Seriously? Dude wasn't playing pinochle. The fact that LAPD shot some random people who happened to have been driving pickup trucks doesn't change the fact that the guy was actively shooting at people up until he finally died. That's pretty much an instant death sentence because if you keep doing it, somebody with a gun will eventually run into you. It won't last forever.
If you are an active threat, which he obviously was, due process is not involved. He wasn't killed in his sleep. He didn't put down his weapons. If a person has decided to go out with guns blazing, then the cops will make sure you go out.
This is not a difficult concept.
I want to grab onto some commentary on this from elsewhere, because it ties in with other ideas I've had recently.
From Jim Geraghty's daily email Morning Jolt, he had the following comments:
If you read the manifesto of a guy who (allegedly, but who are we kidding?) murdered three people, and your primary reaction is, “Hey, he felt marginalized and slighted in the workplace, and so do I! We’re kindred spirits, the two of us!” you’ve managed to miss the point on a scale best measured by astronomers. To look at the horrors going on out in Los Angeles and feel sympathy for Dorner’s workplace grievances is an amazing ability to empathize with precisely the wrong person in these circumstances.
Am I crazy for sensing a general overlap between the Dorner’s-a-hero crowd and the Occupy Wall Street crowd?….
The leaders [of Occupy Wall Street] were a different story. The leaders weren’t driven by a need for connection; the leaders were sitting on a massive psychological stockpile of rage. They were consumed by grievances by a society that they believed had ignored their obvious genius and talents, believed that every corner of modern American society shared in the guilt for the injustice against them, and were ready to lash out, oftentimes violently, against those who they deemed their enemies. They found leadership of the Occupy movement thrilling and invigorating, and saw it as an opportunity to settle the scores against a world that had done them wrong. Frightening stuff.
More on the Occupy leader mental attitude here.
Now, a few days ago at my personal blog, I wrote a little rant about rich young women working in unpaid internships in the fashion industry, but the entitlement issues there and with Occupy/Dorner are different as I highly doubt that these women trying out for careers in high demand with few distinguishing skills are about to start lobbing bombs as they find themselves disappointed in actually going anywhere in that industry.
Thing is, this personal entitlement rage leading to political violence is far from new (and yes, it's mostly been men who do this crap, but then, men tend to be more violent in general.) The first person who came to mind was presidential assassin [murdering asshole whom I will also not name]:
[nameless assassin]'s interest turned to politics. He wrote a speech in support of Ulysses S. Grant called "Grant vs. Hancock," which he revised to "Garfield vs. Hancock" after Garfield won the Republican nomination in the 1880 presidential campaign. Ultimately, he changed little more than the title. The speech was delivered at most twice (and copies were passed out to members of the Republican National Committee at their summer 1880 meeting in New York), but [nameless assassin] believed himself to be largely responsible for Garfield's victory. He insisted he should be awarded an ambassadorship for his vital assistance, first asking for Vienna, then deciding that he would rather be posted in Paris. His personal requests to Garfield and to cabinet members (as one of many job seekers who lined up every day) were continually rejected; on May 14, 1881, he was finally told personally never to return by Secretary of State James G. Blaine ([nameless assassin] is actually believed to have encountered Blaine on more than one occasion).
So, this nameless assassin ended up shooting Garfield because he felt aggrieved that his support did not translate into any direct, personal benefits in terms of a job with the administration. At trial, defense tried to claim that said assassin was insane, and this is what the prosecution said:
He's no more insane than I am. There's nothing of the mad about [nameless assassin]: he's a cool, calculating blackguard, a polished ruffian, who has gradually prepared himself to pose in this way before the world. He was a deadbeat, pure and simple. Finally, he got tired of the monotony of deadbeating. He wanted excitement of some other kind and notoriety, and he got it.
Which is partly why I'm not even naming the guy.
It puts me in mind of the asshole who burnt down the Temple of Artemis to gain everlasting fame for himself. Yeah, well, lots of authors made a point of not even naming the guy, which is a tradition we really ought to bring back. [He also had the bad luck of having done this when Alexander the Great was born, so that's the main reason it's brought up, if at all (esp. since Alexander offered to rebuild the Temple when he got to Ephesus).]
But Geraghty has a point about these people being frightening. They really are dangerous. It's not just the couple of violent assholes I'm not naming who have done this crap out of a sense of entitlement, but also entire revolutionary movements have sprung from this. Now, some revolutions turn out well (as per the American one), but you often end up with stuff like the French Revolution (the personal axes to grind was made evident during the Reign of Terror. It was like a high school status war with guillotines.)
But back to [unnamed murderer]. His name will be forgotten in time. Few except the historical nerds remember the name of Garfield's assassin or the guy who burnt down the Temple of Artemis. Most Americans don't even know that 1. Garfield existed and was assassinated; 2. that there was a huge, impressive temple to Artemis, who Artemis was, and where Ephesus was.
Most of the Occupiers will end up going nowhere, too. Some have gotten arrested for their antisocial behavior, and it may be some of these people will channel their rage similarly to [nameless murderer]. But if I were cops anywhere there has been an Occupy or [nameless murderer] rally: I'd keep an eye on these people, especially near May Day.