After I posted on the homicidal cop, Christopher Dorner, I saw this story. The initial New York Times headline read, “L. A. Police Shoot Innocent People In Ex-Cop Manhunt.” But that was too rough on the police, it seems. So they have toned it down: “Massive Manhunt On for Ex-Cop Accused of Killing 3.”
“Los Angeles officers guarding a ‘target’ named in the posting shot and wounded multiple people in Torrance who were in a pickup but were not involved, authorities said. The extent of their injuries was not released. It’s not clear if the target is a person or a location. The Daily Breeze in Torrance also reports (http://bit.ly/YWhBLi) that there was another police shooting nearby involving another pickup truck, but the driver wasn’t hurt. ‘We’re asking our officers to be extraordinarily cautious just as we’re asking the public to be extraordinarily cautious with this guy. He’s already demonstrated he has a propensity for shooting innocent people,’ said LAPD Cmdr. Andrew Smith.”
It sounds like the public needs “to be extraordinarily cautious with” the police who are out gunning for Dorner! Or maybe the public needs to issue a request for the police to “be extraordinarily cautious” about bystanders.
It now appears that there were two women in the truck delivering newspapers—a mother and adult daughter. The mother was shot twice in the back and is in ICU. She’s expected to live. The daughter cut her hand on shattered glass. They were extremely fortunate. You can see a larger picture of the shot up truck here. The police simply opened fire on the vehicle before seeing who was inside the cab. Then it happened again. Police in a nearby area were alerted about the truck and the alleged presence of Dorner in the area. When they saw a truck drive by, they opened fire. This time no one was hit with a bullet.
It may be that I haven’t witnessed enough media accounts, but it seems to me that the police are being treated as if they can do no wrong and virtually nothing is being said in sympathy to the victims. Watching this video, I was amazed at how casually the reporter simply commented, “They’ve lawyered up, and, safe to say, it’s probably the last time they’ll have to be delivering newspapers.”
When I was a pastor in the Seattle area, I had a young man visit my church who had received graphic death threats against him and his girlfriend. He acquired a shotgun for defense. Eventually he had a confrontation with the person who he thought had written the threatening letters. For just pointing the shotgun at this person, he was immediately jailed and the prosecutor threatened him with multiple felony charges so that he was looking in life imprisonment. The young man was wrong and reckless, but it blows my mind how much of a double-standard we have in our society.
What do you think would happen if a family feared a killer and then, using privately-owned weapons, shot up a truck moving down the street because it looked like one that was driven by the killer? You know Piers Morgan would be all over it! I doubt any reporter would say “it was a case of mistaken identity” if a private gun owner targeted a vehicle without checking who was inside.
The media were reporting that the police were “on high alert.” What does that mean? It means that the police were shooting at trucks that looked wrong, before they even checked who the driver was. I can sympathize with the police. I know they are in a stressful situation. But what makes them more trustworthy than the populace at large? What makes their “mistakes” so forgivable while those of private gun owners are evidence to the mainstream media that our gun rights need to be infringed more heavily by the police?
Accidents will happen with guns. By glossing over the accidents of some and trumpeting the accidents of others, the media perpetuates a war against free society and against the Second Amendment.