LETTER TO PRESIDENT: Anonymous letter critical of GunNews reporting

We receive hate mail on a regular basis, usually in the form of anonymous screeds.  One letter addressed to our president Richard Goodall wasn’t a hate missive, but it was highly critical of some reporting in GunNews.

Instead of picking up the phone or writing an email, the author sent an anonymous letter, claiming to be a member.  And he (assuming his gender) might be.  Judging from the content of the letter, he might be in law enforcement.

Here’s the opening paragraph:

In case you’re interested, I’d like to give you a few reasons why I won’t be renewing my subscription to your publication in the near future.  Your one-sided and biased reporting of many incidents has given me cause for concern in the direction Guns Save Life is heading, and in some cases has arrived.

Okay.  But your input would carry a lot more weight if you were willing to stand behind your comments with your name, sir.

Second paragraph begins:

Not that Chicago is a utopia by any means, but you will report that the state’s attorney has dismissed murder charges against an individual without saying why.  Was the individual himself or herself a victim of a homicide in a retaliation shooting while they were out on bond awaiting trial?  In many cases, these homicides occur in the ghetto in the middle of the night with the only witnesses, if they do come forward are persons of less than stellar integrity, and either drunk or stoned.  They tell the police one version, the state’s attorney investigator who, if lucky enough to find them, a different version…

… Testimony should be reliable and corroborated, don’t you agree?

So, does this mean if there are no witnesses of stellar integrity that those homicides should not be prosecuted?  Are these victims just out of luck to have the person(s) who killed them prosecuted?  Not “and justice for all”, but “justice for those who are killed in front of reliable witnesses”?

Next paragraph begins:

A few articles you’ve published recently, were, in my opinion, factually baseless.  The ex-con, out on parole, who was shot to death in a home in Decatur, IL by a relative of the elderly victim.  You state that he broke into her home intent on having his way with her, strongly suggesting sexual assault.  No.  Not even close.  He was on meth…

Sure, he might have been looking for a place to hide from police.  Or he might have been looking to victimize someone.  Or to have a happy ending if opportunity arose.  No matter why, he was under the influence of drugs and had criminal intent on his mind.  Not exactly a resume for someone with good intent and good decision-making.  Bottom line: this scumbag wasn’t selling popcorn for the Boy Scouts (er, I’m sorry, “Scouts” now), or someone looking for his lost dog.  How is Mr. Anonymous’ assessment of the deceased’s potential intentions any more valid that someone else’s – including ours?  After all, the bad guy is dead and can’t say.

Then the third paragraph.

Then the “state cop,” who was actually [redacted] who was disciplined for carrying a firearm to his daughter’s softball game, although by statute he was allowed to do so.

First thing, Mr. Anonymous:  I left out exact details so as not to make it easy to identify the off-duty cop who carried at his daughter’s softball game.  So yeah, I called him a state cop because he was a state cop.  He wasn’t a state trooper.  Happy that you know all the details.  Sometimes it’s better to not share everything you know.  But know-it-alls sometimes like to impress people with their knowledge base.

And oh, by the way, STATUTE DOES NOT ALLOW OFF-DUTY COPS TO CARRY ON SCHOOL PROPERTY.  Efforts to add language to that effect have been blocked by Democrats.  And as we reported (maybe our letter writer wasn’t a member at the time), Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul issued an informal opinion that off-duty and retired cops carrying on school property were committing a Class 3 felony, punishable by 5-10 years in prison.

The Anonymous writer goes on to complain about the off-duty cop’s poor conduct after being approached by local cops.  True.  Knew about that too, but that is an entirely separate issue.  The officer involved wasn’t riding a desk for months while his bosses debated whether or not to fire him because of his post-contact behavior.  They wanted his job because he carried on school property while off duty.   His bosses even took the report to the local State’s Attorney, inquiring about prosecution.  The local prosecutor (I think I know exactly who it was) politely declined to prosecute the off-duty cop for carrying at a school function.

I won’t say exactly what that SA shared with me about that query or maybe it was another query from a nearby county similar to this one since the Raoul informal opinion was announced.  Suffice it to say he didn’t hold it or the people presenting it to him in high regard for not having better sense than to pursue prosecution of an off-duty cop for carrying on a school campus.

Our Anonymous letter-writer closed with this:

Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

We would say this would also apply to writing an anonymous letter, too.

Assuming this person really is a member, we’re sorry to see him go.  But if 1% of the stories we include in GunNews upset him (or her) that much, I have to wonder just how dedicated they are to defending our right to defend ourselves.  Given the tone of the letter, I suspect the author is one of the “special” people who can carry without restriction in Illinois.

Yes, sometimes we take artistic license in Armed American stories.  In other reports, we conceal the identity of certain people by not revealing all we know about them.  Does that make us bad people?  Hardly.  Especially when measured with the same measuring stick as the mainstream media and social media scalp-hunters.