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.