Tuesday, July 14, 2009

RE: LA Times Article "Victim Had Phone Not Gun"

So the LA Times is now calling people who die in officer-involved shootings "victims." This victim must also be innocent since he had a phone in his hand and not a gun. Here's a quiz for any reader.

Identify the "victim."
1.) You are crossing a street lawfully in crosswalk when a car speeds through, strikes you, and takes off without stopping.
2.) You are in your home sleeping when an unknown person sneaks in and steals things from you.
3.) You "had been affiliated with the East Coast Crips, had served time in prison on a drug charge and [are] on parole." You [faced] a murder charge last year and hang around Imperial Hwy in South Central LA at 9:00 pm and happen to match the "physical and clothing" description of a man threatening a woman and her child with a GUN (most likely your ex and your kid) and when the police try to detain you, you take off running. You then point a "dark object" at the deputies chasing you, who reasonably believe you are pointing a gun at them so they shoot you to eliminate the threat to their lives.

I'm sorry if you answered #1 or #2, you probably won't have much of a future having a career with the LA Times.

Now ask yourself these questions:
- If Woodrow Player Jr. (the Crips gang member shot by the deputies) was truly innocent, why was he running away from the deputies?
- Should the deputies have assumed Player was holding a cell phone? Or to put it another way, does it seem reasonable that someone in the middle of running from the cops would be using a cell phone?
- Would Player have been shot had he complied with the deputies' original directions?

There are common sense answers to each of these questions. Obviously Player would still be alive, and never have been shot if he had obeyed the deputies' commands. If he was innocent, there was no need to run. Finally, think of what a black cell phone can look like in lowlight conditions, running at full sprint, chasing someone reported to be in possession of a gun and using it to threaten people.

Finally, think about an incident that occurred the next day, but was not given as much publicity by the Times. A Palmdale deputy was shot while chasing someone into an apartment complex. The deputy had originally tried to detain the individual because he saw something concealed in his waistband. I don't know the mindset of the deputy, but its hard to imagine the public criticism of the south LA deputies did not cross his mind at some point prior to the incident in which he was shot.

Going back to Player. The Times wants to be sure its readers know that Player "had [been] trying to turn his life around, attending church and studying to get his high school diploma." My question is this, what church is happening or studying is being accomplished in a car in South LA, on Imperial Hwy, at about 9pm? My guess is not much.

RE: CIA Planned Assault Teams

Sorry for the inconsistency in my blogging. Now that my life is even busier (but even more fulfilling) with a brand new little girl, I have the urge to start writing again. Maybe it will keep up, maybe it won't. Who knows?

Today's article in the Times focused on CIA assault teams that were never operational, but Congress is in a furor because they were not told about them. Of course the focus of their ire is former Vice President Dick Cheney, who as we know is responsible for any evil not committed by President Bush.

These teams were to "capture or kill top leaders of the Al Qaeda terrorist network." Evidently this is not a noble objective for such idealists as Minnesota Democratic Senator Russ Feingold who was upset Congress was not informed and had "deep concerns about the program itself." The basis of this opposition is President Ford's 1976 order against political assasinations.

Can Senator Feingold, or anyone for that matter, tell me which "political" organization Al Qaeda is? No one can because they are a TERRORIST group, not an enemy country like Nazi Germany or Japan.

As for not telling Congress, does anyone truly believe the Democrats in Congress were leak-proof when it came to national security secrets when exposing them could be used for political gain, ie. national surveillance program? This is not to say there are not any Democrats who can keep secrets, but do you think Nancy Pelosi would?

It is good to know President Bush and his national security team were looking at whatever options were available to defeat Al Qaeda and protect our country. I hope that President Obama is doing the same. Were I (a Republican) to be a congressman, I would not need President Obama to inform me about the details of his war waging. And should a car bomb happen to teach an Al Qaeda leader or even Bin Laden himself that there are not 72 virgins waiting for them, then so be it.