...is that we can actually find out how this happened from the horse's mouth.
As I drove around in the car that day, the news changed from:
-main shooter dead, 2 or 3 others in custody.
-only one shooter; the others were innocents trying to get away.
-only one shooter, still alive.
I was quite worried that we would never find out what happened if the main/solo gunman was killed. If it was due to terrorist activity, we would need as many live bodies to question, in order to understand how it happened and to prevent it in the future. If it was just a crazy soldier who happened to be Muslim, the measures for prevention would be vastly different.
Also, I am extraordinarily concerned to see ANY American arguing against selective denial of due process of law. Would you really give up your right to trial in order to save everyone else a few bucks? That goes beyond fiscal conservatism (I dare you to get any libertarian to agree with it), and it's definitely against the Bill of Rights (Amendment V):
_...nor shall [any person] be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..."_
If we had a system where those who were "obviously" guilty did not receive any kind of trial, that would make it awfully easy to start framing people. Kidnap a person, plant a lookalike to do the actual deed for videotape or eyewitness evidence, do a switcheroo, and boom! An "obviously" guilty, yet perfectly innocent, person.
|