To the Editor:
I have to admit….it bothers me! Why do the local police fail to keep the local populace informed about important matters that have occurred in our area? In the wake of the recent tragic Orinda “Road Rage” shooting, we have only learned (officially) who the deceased is, but not the identity of the alleged shooter.
Why? There is apparently a person, described only as a 72 year old man, released back into the public, that has recently been involved in a contentious incident, that fired a gun upon another resident, resulting in that person’s death. He’s out there, and we don’t know who he is? In order to protect the Police Investigation?
I raise the following points: Local Police and other “Authorities” have been known to “protect” certain suspects in some way…lack of bail on arrest, slow or maybe lack of charges, etc. Sometimes it may be a “friend” of the police…perhaps an officer (or in this case, a retired officer), prosecutor, or maybe even just an informer. This might explain why, in a county where carry permits are almost impossible for ordinary civilians to obtain, this fellow was carrying….possibly legally. It opens up a can of worms…might it be an FBI agent, CIA or Secret Service retiree?
Or maybe a politician…possibly a diplomat? The longer the police go without naming a “suspect”, the more public suspicion should grow! A “murder” like this won’t just be forgotten!
Come on…let’s have some transparency in this tragic death.
Scott Bowhay/Moraga
The deceased is public record once family has been notified. It could be argued that scammers could look them up and attempt to take over the deceased property etc. But once family is notified its on them to protect their family property etc.
Its well known especially today people try to be enforcers of their version of whats right when they are not qualified to do so. Another words till official criminal charges are filed by a qualified law enforcement official its standard to not name the involved party.
Even when charged with a crime the official officers can withhold information to protect involved parties from vigilante justice. We all are presumed innocent till found guilty by a jury of our peers.
Regardless of how I feel about this event. Its disturbing to me that people living in America fail to understand the basic fundamental rights our Armed services members fight to protect on a daily basis. This can range from public shaming in the form of vigilante justice, trying to pass city, state or country wide policies that directly violate fundamental rights afforded to citizens of our country.
This “social” vigilante behavior is highly encouraged and baited by countries that seek to weaken the fundamental freedoms that make our country and economy so resilient. Given thats the only way they will ever succeed in damaging and weakening it.
Likely protecting the identity as the investigation continues, wouldn’t want a lynch mob around his house. But, this is likely the decision of the DA and we all know how that DA rolls, likely to be recalled along with Price in Alameda County. Oh, I see Prop. 36 is up by 45% in the polls and this is driving the California electeds crazy.
Firestone 11R
I’ve been wondering also, but I’m guessing this isn’t a clear-cut case either way, and the police and DAs office are doing their investigation to see if charges should be filed.
Who decides when this information is withheld? Are there guidelines? Because I can see the need to protect someone from possible retribution but it seems the person who did the shooting could be instructed to reside with friends or relatives while the investigation is underway. Not releasing his name creates the impression that something underhanded is being done.
If you were involved in some kind of public scuffle and your identity was made public. Would you leave your home unattended? Given the current state of behavior demonstrated daily you would need to have armed security to ensure your home isn’t vandalized, robbed, burned down etc.
Law enforcement knows this more than anyone else. So yeah they can withhold information for the safety of those involved.
If it was a scuffle I might take your point. But this was a shooting, investigated as a homicide, with a man dead?
I wondered the same thing. Is this normal? A man was killed.
Shouldn’t this letter be directed at the city or the police department. At the end of the day they are our public employees and need to be held accountable. The city manager has more power than supervisors in the day-to-day hiring and management of employees. If there is a policy about hiding information it should also be public if nothing else at least guidance for the officers dealing with such tragedies. Even if there is a reason not to release the name, the shooter should have already been arraigned in front of the court and those proceedings should be public. Has anybody looked in the court dockets?
Agree with Scott. If they are going to hold the name at least explain why.
Police would never, ever cover up the crimes of their own, or the crimes of politicians.
Never, ever. Not ever. Never in this nation, never in any nation, especially not here.
You can trust them! They have your best interest at heart! Remember how they arrested all those people who refused to wear masks? They care for you! Remember how they arrested people for trying to attend church services during covid lockdowns! They care for you! Remember how the constitution is just a piece of paper to them, and your right to peacefully attend a church service can be suspended at will by appointed, unelected officials? Remember how they put people in chains for going to church and synagogue? Cops are great!
Contrary to what the letter writer here states, this is not “a county where carry permits are almost impossible for ordinary civilians to obtain.” It used to be, prior to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision which held that state and local agencies could not require an individualized showing of need (e.g. specific documented threats against a particular individual’s safety) to issue a carry permit. CCSO now issues them to anyone who meets the eligibility criteria and goes through the training and qualification process, which is non-trivial but achievable with a moderate time commitment.
The writer also uses the term “murder” here, but the publicly available information does not support that legal conclusion. Rather, from what’s been reported, there is evidence that the deceased party was committing assault, battery, and elder abuse at the time of the shooting, which raises a strong possibility that a jury would find that the use of deadly force was justifiable and therefore the homicide was by definition not murder.
There’s also some irresponsible and baseless speculation in this letter about why the party who used the firearm has not had his name made public. It seems a simple matter of privacy and due process to me. If law enforcement believes he was justified, then the trauma of the attack and the shooting shouldn’t be compounded by publicity for something he didn’t ask for. If LE doubts his justification, then his name shouldn’t be made public until he’s charged (and the jury pool shouldn’t be tainted by undue publicity). Frankly, given letters like this, if some day I were forced to defend myself with lethal force, I wouldn’t want my name made public either.