Hunted Los Angeles officer considers himself a crusader
Christopher Dorner believes he's a real-life Rambo, a 6-foot, 270-pound whistleblower who confronted racism early in life and believes he suffered in his career and personal life for challenging injustices from bigotry to dishonesty, according to a 14-page manifesto police think he authored because there are details in it only he would know.
He fulfilled his lifelong dream of becoming a Los Angeles police officer in 2005, but saw it unravel three years later when he was fired; a police review board had decided he falsely accused his training officer of kicking a mentally ill man in the face and chest. The incident led Dorner to plot revenge against those he thought responsible for his downfall.
The manifesto reveals a man with varied and sometimes conflicting political views. His two favorite presidents are Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush; and he says he wants either Hillary Clinton or New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie for president in 2016. He also laments the fact that he “won't be around to view and enjoy ‘The Hangover III.' What an awesome trilogy.”
David Pighin, a neighbor of Dorner in the Orange County community of La Palma, said the ex-officer kept to himself and left his house and his black Nissan Titan, outfitted with tinted windows and custom rims, impeccably clean. The pickup, which had been torched, was found Thursday in mountains east of Los Angeles.
Dorner has no children and court records show his wife filed for divorce in 2007. He lived with his mother and possibly his sister in a home in Orange County, the Los Angeles Times reported.
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.