What was more shocking was the fact that the alleged killer is a former police officer, and that his targets have been fellow officers and their families.

Christopher Dorner was being hunted for three murders and several attempted murders. He was alleged to have killed one fellow officer and the daughter of another, along with her fiancé.

As a psychologist I can view the knee-jerk claims that Dorner is “crazy” as the intellectual laziness that they are.

But it is hard to imagine what possible defence one could mount for a man who has seemingly murdered three people.
I'm not going to try. What Dorner  did was wrong, and I hope the violence stops before more people are harmed.

 But one does not have to agree with something in order to understand it, and having read a manifesto that Dorner apparently posted on Facebook I must say that I do understand.

Dorner’s manifesto outlined the circumstances around which he was kicked off the force. He alleges that he reported a fellow officer for beating a helpless suspect, and that because he dared to “betray” another cop he found himself ostracised, subjected to racist abuse, and finally removed from the Los Angeles Police Department.

 The manifesto lists times, places and the identification codes of documents that he believed had been covered up because they substantiated his story.

He further detailed how fellow officers viewed the members of their community as burdensome and only useful in terms of the overtime pay one can get for willingly interacting with them.

 He provided a catalogue of disregard for the law and disrespect for the rights of the citizens they are sworn to protect. He even alleged that fellow officers had let wounded civilians die because trying to save them "is the paramedic's job, not mine".

The fact that the LAPD had already shot two civilians and rammed another with a car while hunting Dorner did nothing to discredit his claims of heavy-handedness.

It is impossible to know whether Dorner’s accusations were true, or even whether the manifesto was his, but what we do know is that police organisations the world over tend towards an “in-group bias”.

Social psychologists have long recognised that when a group feels threatened it tends to close ranks and aggressively defend itself against any challenges.

Sometimes this is a literal threat, such as the charging strikers at Marikana.

Sometimes the threat is more figurative, like the challenge to hold those responsible accountable.

 In either case police forces tend to defend their own members, no matter what the cost.

At times this even extends to the belief that defending the group is more important than the rights of the community –  the very people  the police were created to protect.

Despite the attention that this case  garnered it is unlikely that the LAPD will allow themselves to be criticised.

The odds that any positive change will come from this were as low as the possibility that Christopher Dorner would see the inside of an American  court alive.