A Random Act of Violence?

David C. Stolinsky, MD
Nov. 2, 2009

Truth has an awesome power. It is important and beautiful for its own sake, but also, without it an ordered society is impossible.
− Jack Jacobs, Medal of Honor recipient, “If Not Now, When?”

On October 29 at 6:20 a.m., a man entered the parking garage of a synagogue in North Hollywood, a part of Los Angeles. He fired four shots, wounding two Jews who had arrived for morning prayers, then ran away. Both victims are expected to survive. They could not identify their attacker. An intensive search was unsuccessful.

Police officials announced that the motive remained unknown, and that a hate crime was a possibility. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who never met a camera he didn’t like, called the crime “a senseless act of violence.” He went on, “None of us should presume or speculate more about this other than it was a random act of violence.”

If we don’t yet know who did it, or why he (or they) did it, how can we know it was “senseless” or “random”? This is a glaring example of the speculation the mayor said he rejects.

Next day, the story disappeared from local TV news. The Los Angeles Times reported that police “backed away from earlier claims that the attack was motivated by religious hate.” But police never made such claims. They merely mentioned hate as one possible motive. Should police not even mention that possibility?

The paper continued, “The police see absolutely no evidence of a hate crime or terrorism.” Suppose a man came to a mosque and shot two worshippers. Or suppose a man came to a black church and shot two worshippers. Or suppose a man came to a gay pride parade and shot two marchers. Would the mayor, the police and the media deny the possibility of a hate crime? Not bloody likely.

But if a man comes to a synagogue at 6:20 a.m. and shoots two worshippers, what could his motive be?

·         He might be a schizophrenic whose voices told him to do it. But only a small minority of schizophrenics are violent, and only 0.2 percent are homicidal.

·         He might be an addict whose coke or meth hallucinations led him to believe his victims were Klingons. But how many addicts run into buildings early in the morning and shoot bystanders?

·         He might be a bungling robber or a thug being initiated into a gang. But how many gang-bangers are awake, much less active, at 6:20 in the morning?

·         He might be a business associate who was angry at one of the victims, and shot the other to eliminate a witness − but had very poor aim.

·         He might be a jealous but nearsighted husband who had misplaced his eyeglasses.

·         He might be the most incompetent hit man in the history of the Mafia.

Yes, and he might be a man who hates Jews. Why reject that possibility? Officials and the mainstream media have a bad habit of denying the obvious.

·         The World Trade Center bombing in 1993 was treated as a domestic crime. Little effort was made to get to the root of the problem. Like cancer, it recurred in a more deadly form on 9/11.

·         In 1999 a man entered the North Valley Jewish Community Center in Los Angeles and wounded five, including three children. Police searched the area for clues to the man’s “identity and motive.” Identity, yes, but motive? Was that a total mystery?

·         EgyptAir Flight 990 went down in 1999 when its copilot crashed it into the Atlantic. The Egyptian government rejected the possibility of suicide. Our government, not wishing to offend the Egyptians, refused to link the crash with terrorism.

·         On July 4, 2002 an Egyptian national went to El Al Airlines at Los Angeles International. He opened fire, murdering two people and injuring others, before a security officer shot him. The FBI questioned whether the murderer had family or financial problems. Who doesn’t? The Los Angeles Times stated, “FBI Looks for Motive in LAX Attack.” Hint: He didn’t shoot up Aeromexico on Cinco de Mayo − he shot up the Israeli airline on July 4.

·         In 2006 a man entered the Seattle Jewish Federation and opened fire, killing one and wounding five. An FBI official said the gunman, who was identified as a Muslim, was “just a lone individual acting out of some sort of antagonism toward this particular organization.” Not toward Jews, as witnesses heard him declare. Just toward “this particular organization.” The Los Angeles Times claimed, “Jewish Center Shooter's Motive Is a Mystery.” Clue: “Synagogue bombing” gives 2,040,000 hits on Google.

·         Later in 2006, a man of Afghan origin mowed down 15 people with his car, two (one a child) in front of the San Francisco Jewish Community Center. One died. The mayor said, “This was so senseless and inexplicable.” The words “terrorism” or “hate crime” were not used.

·         Also in 2006, Toronto police arrested 17 would-be terrorists. Two weeks later, seven would-be terrorists were arrested in Miami − with photos of Chicago’s Sears Tower. In a short time, 24 terrorists were arrested in the U.S. and Canada, but they disappeared from the news.

·         In 2007 a man walked into a mall in Salt Lake City and shot as many people as he could, before he was shot. The mosque where he worshipped was rarely mentioned. The murderer’s father said, “Somebody got (the guns)…and maybe (they were) training him and tell(ing) him (to) go shoot somebody.” This remark was not widely reported. The fact that the attack was stopped by an armed citizen was not discussed. But was the motive really a “mystery,” as the FBI, the police and the media told us?

·         In 2009 four men were arrested in New York for plotting to bomb two synagogues and a Jewish community center, as well as to shoot down U.S. military aircraft. The men expressed hatred of Jews and Americans. One was born a Muslim; the other three converted to Islam in prison. The press called the plot “homegrown.” New York Police Commissioner Kelly claimed the men were “criminals acting alone.” Alone together? A similar plot was uncovered in Chicago.

We can’t respond to danger if we don’t know what is happening. We are told that these are “isolated incidents.” Really? What if only one plane had been hijacked on 9/11, and only one of the Twin Towers had been knocked down? It would have been an “isolated incident,” but it would also have been international terrorism.

This is hardly a complete list. There are more “isolated incidents.” But if repeated “isolated incidents” don’t add up to a pattern, what does? In order to “connect the dots,” one first has to recognize that they are dots.

Are we being fed puréed news so as not to be politically incorrect? Are we being given sugarcoated news to allay our fears? Are we being intentionally misinformed to avoid embarrassing officials who dropped the ball? Or are we being unintentionally misinformed by people who can no longer recognize the truth when they see it? Perhaps they spent too much time in bureaucracies, where “not making waves” is more important than actually doing the job.

News flash: We should reach conclusions after we examine the evidence, not before. Otherwise, the whole process is suspect. Otherwise, we are expressing not a logical conclusion but merely our prejudice, a word derived from the Latin praejudicare, to judge before − before the evidence is in.

Some bureaucrats can’t handle the truth, but we can. We just need officials to tell us the truth − assuming they still remember what it looks like.

Dr. Stolinsky writes on political and social issues. He can be contacted at dstol@prodigy.net.

www.stolinsky.com