It's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback, isn't it?
There are plenty of indications that this shooter had prior interactions that would suggest to a reasonable person that he was, at the very least, unstable.
You don't "just snap" and kill 13 people.
That being said, who was responsible for tracking him? Were people who heard his alledged rants (including those coming forward now) willing to report what they heard and follow through at the risk of being ostracized as a whistlebower? Anybody can talk to the media after the fact. I used to deal with "witnesses" like that frequently. How many spoke up when it should have counted?
Did the Army receive and ignore complaints about him?
Most importantly, are there others out there simmering, perhaps waiting to do the same thing if they get the opportunity? You can bet the answer is yes.
On another point, why is the government allowing one of the officers who was involved in taking down the shooter talk to the media? I'm listening to Sergeant Mark Todd speaking to Anderson Cooper on CNN. Very inappropriate, as far as I'm concerned, and I imagine the FBI and US Attorney's office would agree. You never want key witnesses in a murder investigation, particularly a mass murder like this one, talking publicly before the case is adjudicated. Yes, in this case there are plenty of witnesses to testify against the shooter but why give his defense lawyers ANY ammunition?
Lots more questions to consider...
No comments:
Post a Comment