This ex-Marine confronted the law enforcers with a rifle in his hand when the police armed with a warrant raided his home.
The public deserves to know the truth. The public shouldn’t be fooled like herded cattle into believing that what is being headlined by the radical left and their violent accomplices, Libertarian-anarchist-extremists, in many r3volutionary websites, i.e. a headline that says the SWAT Team killed an American hero – is true when in fact it is a counterfeit reporting.
There are good cops and some few bad cops. This is given. We do not condone the presence of bad cops in the police force that commit a despicable wrong. But when we need to react or response to that wrong, we do not shoot them on sight like what some loonies recommend or what the likes of Jared Loughner, the Unabomber or Timothy McVeigh do. We are not like them — a bunch of screwed up vigilantes in a nuthouse –who believe that to shoot all cops dead is “an inalienable right” in the name of liberty and freedom! How screwball that is, cannot be doubted!
Needless to say, a madcap justification of murder in the name of liberty and freedom is never acceptable in a society of free men. Thus, it is so foolish for those oddballs from the Left to argue this kind of philosophical trickery in writing to promote their cause and expect the American people to fall for it.
This Guerena killing that appears in the Web is ad nauseam to readers tired of being exposed o scam reporting not because it was not right for the raiding team to gun down this ex-Marine who was a member of a pervasive drug ring but because the shooting has to be necessarily violent!
We abhor violence. Only a sick mind or a loony wants it. But when those fully-armed police raiders who by law were mandated to do their job of catching criminals faced the barrel of the gun pointed at them, what do you think they should do? Much that we detest violence we have to concede that violence begets violence. And in this case, under the circumstances the shooting occurred, it became necessary for the police to open fire to survive a shootout.
Let me say this to all violent collaborators that fool the public to cure their anti-cop neurosis: To wiggle your way out the way the radical left do when they argue against that police shooting which was justified and necessary as a question of self-defense and survival, is reduction ad absurdum if not delinquently juvenile and retarded.
In this Guerena case, a lot of self-proclaimed left-leaning “Rambos” who call themselves “freedom fighters” is also on the warpath. If you are an honest reporter or writer who dares to bring out the truth to the public about this incident, they could easily malign you or harass you for not siding with their propaganda campaign to portray the police force in a bad light by telling a lie. Those who advocate violence should not be the first one to complain about police brutality, especially when out of anger the complaint is obviously concocted or imagined.
Libertarian websites – not the good ones but those in extremis whose logo is a fiery sword of violent protest — run by egomaniacs, are in the forefront of this clandestine propaganda campaign. A website publisher whose preoccupation of self [a narcissist who loves and admires himself] publicly declares his “absolute” power to delete the account of any writer who does not conform to his own personal opinion, is a dangerous psychopath. A publisher who admires himself is in the wrong trade if he is practicing his narcissism or self-adoration in the Media at the expense of reputable journalists.
Publications, whether on line, broadcast or television or in print, are of public interest. A publisher has a societal responsibility not only to promote the interest of the public but also to protect the public. But public interest or the public can be harmed by a glutton for profit who owns a publication as his personal property, which he commercializes for gains without any social responsibility or public accountability. There is no place for such a greedy tyrant in the Media.
Furthermore, a publisher cannot act or should not act worse than the dictatorial censorship of a totalitarian government. In this sense, the person’s ownership of a publication or website is NOT absolute. That person commits a felony or is a threat to national security if he uses his right of publication ownership to promote violence, or uses it as a tool to suppress the freedom of expression or to destroy the Freedom of the Press in pursuit of a hidden ideological agenda. While the owner treats his ownership as business for profit, he cannot tunnel the mind of writers to his own accord, and channel them to his political ambition.
In short, an owner of a publication cannot promote his private agenda for self-enrichment at the expense of public interest.
For instance, to cite a specific example: An editor who acts in behalf of the owner of the publication cannot in writing, humiliate or defame a writer who is opposed to his opinion, which the public has the right to know, before deleting his account. He can be legally held accountable in the court of law once that defamation or falsehood causes injury.
Let me point this out clearly: It is not the deletion of the account that is legally actionable – what are legally actionable are the publication of falsehood inimical to public interest, and the injury that was inflicted when the writer was defamed or abused in writing before deleting his account. This legal tenet is ensconced in our American Jurisprudence.
Which simply means that a rogue publisher whose publishing code of ethics is himself rather than that of the Fourth Estate’s code of ethics the purpose of which is to balance the great power of the Government over that of the individual’s right to free speech, is a threat to the freedom of expression. He is more dangerous than that government censorship which we in the Media are resisting vigorously. Needless to say that with him amongst us, with his own version of censorship, the Freedom of the Press is in great peril.
This is demonstrated in the sleazy portrayal of the police shooting of ex-Marine Guerena. He was a member of a family drug-trafficking gang published as an “American hero” after he was gunned down by the SWAT Team. With a rifle in his hands, he was about to shoot it out with the raiding police force, only the latter was better trained in combat to subdue lawbreakers and therefore much quicker to pull the trigger. Dead, radical reporters portrayed Guerena as an innocent angel killed by government forces who barged in his home from hell. A publisher who promotes this deception is not acting for the interest of the public. To deceive the readers harms the public from whichever angle anyone looks at it.
In this version of thuggery in falsifying reports, rogue publishers have a problem in muscling the truth. The problem is, no matter how much cosmetics is applied to the shooting, it doesn’t change the fact that the police force killed an ex-Marine who was a member of a drug-trafficking ring when he confronted them with an assault weapon during the raid. And that’s hardly an “American hero” that the police was forced to kill or be killed. The radical left cannot substitute an “American hero” out of an ex-Marine member of a drug gang engaged in criminal activities, then make that as an opportunity to portray the police force in bad light to promote their ideological cause.
This running headline story that the SWAT Team killed an “American hero” is foreboding of yet many blind-siding anti-Government rhetoric to come as the reading public is fooled or taken for a ride. It is imperative that the public must be informed, and warned.
Naturally, we must be vigilant and watchful of any government abuses but we cannot right a wrong with another wrong. To right a wrong with another wrong is not seeking a remedy – it is seeking revenge.
In this corner, we are not that kind of vigilantes.
© Copyright Edwin A. Sumcad. Acess NWS December 4, 2011