When will it end?
My lovely fellow “blogger” over at Capital Freedom recently did a good job of pointing out the differences between the media’s handling of VP Dick Cheney’s hunting accident and other similar events that carry less political currency.
She pointed out this Washington Post story about a policeman accidentally KILLING an unarmed man being arrested for the hideous crime of illegally gambling on sports.
Fairfax County's police chief said yesterday that one of his officers accidentally shot and killed an optometrist outside the unarmed man's townhouse Tuesday night as an undercover detective was about to arrest him on suspicion of gambling on sports.
Police had been secretly making bets with Salvatore J. Culosi Jr., 37, since October as part of a gambling investigation, according to court records. They planned to search his home in the Fair Oaks area, just off Lee Highway, shortly after 9:30 p.m.
Culosi came out of his townhouse on Cavalier Landing Court about 9:35 p.m. and was standing next to the detective's sport-utility vehicle, police said, when the detective gave a signal to tactical officers assembled nearby to move in and arrest Culosi.
"As they approached him . . . one officer's weapon, a handgun, was unintentionally discharged," said Fairfax Police Chief David M. Rohrer.
Miss Capital Freedom made some very lucid points in her posting. Among other things, she said:
“Perhaps the media is more forgiving of police officers, whose job is to know how to handle weapons responsibly to protect people. While I can choose the people with whom I go hunting, I have no say in whether a police officer in my county is careful when arresting unarmed individuals. While most Americans will probably never encounter Vice President Cheney, let alone go hunting with him, many of them will encounter police officers. If news sources wanted an accident to be truly outraged about, this is it. If news sources really wanted to assert their "right to know," here's where they could do it. Instead, they are happy to drop the story without publishing the outcome of the investigation and without knowing even the officer's name.”
I couldn't have put it better myself...
Likewise, I had pointed out in an earlier posting the media’s desire to protect the identity of a suspected
Funny thing, how the media was shitting bricks when the VP makes a mistake with a gun and doesn’t send them an immediate E-mail, place a phone call or do an I-pod broadcast with the news, but the police can kill an unarmed man and they withhold HIS name out of some kind of twisted respect in the name of "journalistic integrity."
And of course the media can freak out over "Bird Flue" while at the same time not hyperventilating over the average 100,000 annual deaths in the US from adverse reactions to prescribed medications.
Is that just a inconvienant detail?
They also don’t tend to make much noise over the 44,000 annual deaths in automobile accidents unless someone fameous or drunk does the killing and/or dieing.
What about all of the stupid assholes out there in the world (and you know who you are) that cause accidents and kill beople because they routinely tailgate, pass against the solid yellow line, speed, don't use their turn signals, and otherwise drive like morons?
Can I have a collective yawn here?
And ANOTHER THING...Let me say this about that (the gun issue) again.
I’ve spent a great deal of time on gun ranges with police officers. Just because they have a license to carry a gun doesn't automatically mean that they can actually shoot one safely.
The SWAT team members tend to be competent handlers of all types of weapons. They also show up at the range in shorts and tee shirts and don’t identify themselves as law enforcement until you get to know them.
Then there are the macho “street cop”morons that come to the range in full battle attire—uniform, mace, taser, and crappy factory Glock 9 MM pistol in clunky leather holster, making their once annual appearance to fire a single box of bullets just so they can stay qualified to carry a gun.
I guess that we're supposed to be impressed or something.
No one that knows anything (about cops or guns) will turn their backs on these fools because we know they generally can’t hit the broad side of a barn from fifty feet away.
Did you know that?
Face it folks, you'd be better off going hunting with our VP while drinking a fifth of Jack Daniels and poping painpills, rather than being on the street with at least half of our men in blue when they are inclined to pull their guns out of their pants and point it at someone.
Can you say "collateral damage"?
No comments:
Post a Comment