Questions regarding the Christopher Jordan Dorner case.

Without these answers, the credibility of departments involved are severely in question.  The absence of answers highlights a clear and dangerous opportunity for an absence of justice.

Summary of the case:

The questions below are not intended to defend Dorner’s actions.  They are simply important questions that require answers.

In the LAPD BOR decision, the LAPD BOR needed to prove that Dorner lied in order support his termination (1).  If there was not enough evidence provided to prove that Evans did not kick Gettler (2), then how can it be determined that the LAPD BOR satisfied their burden of proof?

  1. “In order to prove the appellant made false statements and a false complaint, the LAPD needed to prove that Sergeant Evans did not kick Gettler.  The LAPD accordingly presented witnesses and other evidence tending to show that the kicks did not occur, and the Board found its evidence persuasive.” –
  2. “….the trial court specifically stated that it had independently reviewed the administrative record and, based on that review, it was uncertain whether Evans had kicked Gettler.” –

How did the LAPD BOR decide that evidence and testimony “proved” that Evans did not kick Gettler when the inconsistent testimonies only provide a “he said, she said” scenario at best?  In fact, it appears that Dorner’s recollection is closer to Evans’ recollection than the witnesses who supposedly “proved” that Evans did not kick Gettler.

  1. Evans testimony: “Sergeant Evans went behind the bushes and crouched down to help appellant control Gettler’s right arm. After about 30 seconds of struggling, Gettler let the officers handcuff him and said, “Is that what you wanted? Here you go.” Sergeant Evans denied kicking Gettler in the face or the shoulder area.” –
  2. Adrid testimony: “Sergeant Evans stepped into the planter and helped appellant and Gettler get up. Adrid did not see Sergeant Evans crouch in the bushes or kick Gettler. He said that Sergeant Evans had one foot in the planter and one on the sidewalk and never had both feet in the planter. Adrid saw the cut on Gettler’s nose but did not see any other injuries.” –
  3. Hernandez testimony: “As he ran up to them, he saw them get the second handcuff on the suspect and saw appellant pick the suspect up. Sergeant Hernandez testified that appellant was wearing a dress uniform with a tie that was messed up, so he told appellant to fix his tie while he held the suspect for him. It was subsequently established that appellant was not wearing a dress uniform or a tie, based on testimony and a photo.Sergeant Hernandez thought that Sergeant Evans had one foot in the planter and one on the sidewalk, and he never saw her in or behind the bushes. Sergeant Hernandez did not see Sergeant Evans taser Gettler or kick him.” –
  4. Perez testimony: “She did not remember exactly what happened, but she saw Sergeant Evans use the taser, and she saw Gettler fall headfirst into the bushes. She noticed that some branches were broken when Gettler hit the bushes. Perez did not see Sergeant Evans go into the bushes or kick Gettler.” –
  5. Dorner testimony: “Sergeant Evans went into the bushes, between the bushes and the wall, lifted Gettler by his hair, and told him to give appellant his arm. Appellant testified that Gettler did not have blood on his face at that point. Sergeant Evans then stood up and kicked Gettler twice in the left clavicle. Gettler yelled, and then Sergeant Evans kicked him on the left cheek, causing him to start bleeding. Gettler said, “Is this all you want?” and gave appellant his right arm to be handcuffed. Sergeant Hernandez then drove up, got out of his car, asked if they needed help, and helped pick Gettler up.” –
  6. “The Board reasoned that, although there were inconsistencies in the testimony, the testimony of Adrid, Sergeant Perez, and Sergeant Hernandez was consistent with the original report by appellant and Sergeant Evans.” –
  7. The Board concluded that appellant was not credible and found him guilty of the charges against him.” –

How can the department charge Dorner with firing from a vehicle (1), when it is documented that he was outside of the vehicle when he fired (2)?

  1. “The murder charge is accompanied by two “special circumstances,” including killing a police officer on duty and firing a weapon from a vehicle, Zellerbach said.” –
  2. “When the officer drove by the gas station, the suspect exited his vehicle and fired an assault rifle at the office, hitting the officer’s vehicle.” –

If you or I saw a vehicle which did not match the vehicle we were looking for, did not notice that it was occupied by 2 latina women and not a 300 pound black man, did not verbalize a command to halt, opened fire with 6 other people, hit one woman (the 71 year old mother) twice, covered cars and trees and garage doors and roofs with bullet holes (endangering more civilian lives), and then noticed the truck was smaller with a drastically different color and was a different make and model and had a different license plate, would you or I not be arrested and charged?  The officers clearly did not act in self defense.

  1. “As the vehicle approached the house, officers opened fire, unloading a barrage of bullets into the back of the truck. When the shooting stopped, they quickly realized their mistake. The truck was not a Nissan Titan, but a Toyota Tacoma. The color wasn’t gray, but aqua blue. And it wasn’t Dorner inside the truck, but a woman and her mother delivering copies of the Los Angeles Times.” –,0,4414028.story
  2. “On Friday, the street was pockmarked with bullet holes in cars, trees, garage doors and roofs. Residents said they wanted to know what happened.” –,0,4414028.story
  3. “How do you mistake two Hispanic women, one who is 71, for a large black male?” said Richard Goo, 62, who counted five bullet holes in the entryway to his house.” –,0,4414028.story

How is it acceptable for the LAPD to oversee their own review of their own previous decisions that lead to this tragic event?

  1. “Gerry Chaleff, LAPD special assistant for constitutional policing, is to lead the renewed investigation into Dorner’s firing.” –

When one officer stops, questions, and releases a civilian (who’s identity and truck does not match that of Dorner’s), how is it that only seconds later another officer slams his car into the same truck and opens fire on the driver without repercussions?  And why is it ok for the department to defend the actions as “appropriate”?

  1. David Perdue was on his way to sneak in some surfing before work Thursday morning when police flagged him down. They asked who he was and where he was headed, then sent him on his way.Seconds later, Perdue’s attorney said, a Torrance police cruiser slammed into his pickup and officers opened fire; none of the bullets struck Perdue.” –,0,3955268.story
  2. “In the split seconds available to them,” the statement continued, “action was appropriate to intervene and stop the actions of the driver of that vehicle.” –,0,3955268.story

I will add additional questions as they come to me.  To recommend a question be added, please use the comments and include citations to help articulate the question.