I pretty explicitly wasn't talking about supporting Dorner, dingus. I agree that his motives have been reported so as to malign and trivialize them as if the media is worried that reporting them accurately is tantamount to supporting Dorner's murders. Or, they actively believe that attempting to understanding that people's reasons for murder as possibly being based in real grievances is the same as condoning murder. And I agree with the article Dr Syn posted.
Would it have been so costly to scan for more than the words "hero worship" in my post and read the whole thing? I was testifying to the fact that the left reveres the violent power of the police and the military to arrest and kill problems away, with a few exceptions such as pundits like Glenn Greenwald, and believing that they've been marginalized for their integrity when it comes to defying police power is false. I was hoping I wouldn't have to condescend and post at length and in detail examples and illustrations of the point for someone not to read a left versus right argument into what I said, but then you posted.
The right will vilify them as being anti-police and military regardless for having even a little insight into problems that the police, for instance, create (Bill O'Reilly was complaining the other night that the media was sympathizing with Dorner by merely reporting on Dorner's manifesto), so I'm not saying they have good reasons for maligning liberals. They usually have bad reasons, because they hold many worse positions or are just trying to get power even if they all but in name agree with liberals. But the right aren't maligning the left for ideaological differences that they largely don't have.
But to say that liberals are trivialized for their well thought out analysis of guys like Dorner (which that article does) and show how the police need to reconsider its policies to stop making enemies is giving liberals credit where they don't deserve it. The left largely doesn't have integrity on this issue. The liberal intellectuals and groups like the ACLU who oppose police abuse get trotted to smear all liberals, but to say that the left's level headedness on these problems is what gets them trivialized is to give them credit they don't deserve.
This is the kind of thing I'm talking about that's representative of many liberals (I know, you'll probably want to point out that if they did this kind of test with conservatives, they'd be just as ignorant and hypocritical. All it means is that both sides are unprincipled and after support and power). These people interviewed oppose Obama's policies when they're led to believe that Romney calls for them but immediately accept them when the host reveals that they are Obama's, with I think only one exception. I like how the video has to explicitly state that they are not endorsing Romney. Because you know there are people who are so unconcerned with mere truth and are concerned with supporting one party's power over another that they think any criticism of one side means support for the other. It's a concern more for having a side than for searching for the truth, something the right and left have in common.
Anyways, here's some other good stuff on Dorner. For one thing, the reward the LAPD was offering was a crock. They had no intention of capturing him and just wanted to kill him.
You can hear the LAPD saying, "Burners deployed and we have a fire" at 1:28 in this video. They deployed some kind of incendiary tear gas.
And in this one you hear, "Burn that fucking house down."
The LAPD acted like the military and went out to kill Dorner. They even used drones to search for him.