Don't get your way? Shoot someone.

For anyone who doesn’t know it this morning, last night a gunman entered the Kirkwood City Council meeting and opened fire. He killed 6 people including a Councilwoman, the Director of Public Works, and two police officers. He injured the mayor (critical condition) and a reporter (recovering). Local media reports that the man owned a construction company and had been at odds with the city several times over issues involving permits, parking for his company’s vehicles, etc. He had appeared at several City Council meetings before and had to be escorted out. He had been fined for disorderly conduct for his actions at two of those meetings. He had filed suit against the City on Free Speech grounds and that suit had been dismissed. His brother had this to say, per KMOV,

“The only way that I can put into context that you might understand is that my brother went to war tonight with the people, the government that was putting torment and strife into his life. He has spoke on it as best he could in the courts, and they denied all rights to the access of protection and he took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue.”

I am appalled by this statement and not just because of its butchery of the English language. Does this sound to anyone else like a justification rather than an expression of regret? “…took it upon himself to go to war and end the issue.” Excuse me?

We do not, in civilized society “take it upon ourselves” and “go to war” because we don’t like things; because our lawsuit was dismissed, because the government is composed of petty, self-important, officious, little bureaucrats and unnecessary regulations. Especially when “going to war” involves hurting and killing people who have nothing to do with it other than being there. Oh yes, I understand why someone might be frustrated; might be angry, especially when dealing with the government. BUT. That is absolutely no excuse for this indefensible conduct. This is the Timothy McVeigh defense, and this brother’s commentary should be seen in the light of that event as much as this one.

Further, “going to war” does nothing to resolve the issue and immediately undermines any credibility you might have. All the sympathy here is for the officials in the City Council meeting, not for some poor dumb guy trying to deal with city bureaucracy. So, having completely tanked anyone who might have been inclined to support you against the City or who was sympathetic, what do you gain by going to war? The answer is that “going to war” is a completely selfish act. “Cookie” Thornton, the gunman, only had regard for his desire and his frustration at the moment. Further, his ultimate demise was virtually assured so apparently he believed that somehow his frustrations with City Hall were worth more than his life. He didn’t think of his kid who now has to grow up not only fatherless, but with this looming over him. He didn’t think of his widow who now has to not only cope without his income, but who will be defending the civil suits against his estate. He didn’t think beyond his own gratification. Asshole.

And then his brother offers a justification for the act that stops just short of saying that City Hall deserved it because Cookie couldn’t get his way otherwise. Maybe Cookie was in the wrong. Maybe you aren’t entitled to disrupt City Council meetings. Maybe that was why your case was dismissed. But hey, apparently when you can’t get your way, you are entitled to shoot up other people. Because you’re mad. Because you’re frustrated. Because you’re “going to war.”

My father, when sitting on the bench, made a distinction between mere stupid dirtbaggery (stealing something) and mean dirtbaggery (breaking up the place from spite while stealing something). to Dad, the latter was always much worse than the former and always got a much harsher sentence. Cookie's actions were the latter.

All the brother’s comments prove to me is that he is Cookie’s brother and some things do run in the family.

Update. 2PM 2-8-08