I received this email this morning (I am not including the name, since I do not have the permission of the writer to use it):
Wow!! who are you to write a story defending a KILLER??? Why??? This man Orlowsky is obviously not in the right by any means. I dont think that it is right that you can write a public story making a defensive story for him, something that he should be doing if he had probable reasoning for fireing a rifle in the middle of the street. Mind you not on HIS property. Why would he have a rifle on him anyway? Who carries a rifle around? And if innocent why is he running? This really upsets our family reading your story defending this man. What are you crazy too? Do you think like a killer? Chuck was a very nice young man with NO enemies and never would he have had a confrontation that led to murder or any violent crime like has happened. He did not deserve this nor do we deserve to read some non sense story you have written defending the man that killed our loved one.
Several people, including (obviously) this writer, have read my posts and somehow concluded that I am defending Bob Orlosky.
So, for the record, let me make the following points:
1. I do not know Bob Orlosky; to my knowledge I have never met the man.
2. I do not hold any belief that Bob Orlosky is innocent. To the contrary, as I have pointed out several times in posts and comments, his behavior argues for his guilt.
3. I did not know Charles (Chuck) Crow; to my knowledge I have never met the man.
4. I do not hold any belief that Charles Crow is guilty of anything that could have justified his murder.
All four points above are true — but I (and anyone else who is thinking instead of feeling) can observe (not accuse) that the story as presented in the news doesn’t add up; it simply doesn’t make any sense. I and others on these posts have observed this fact, and speculated on what the facts might actually be. Amongst those speculations: (a) Bob Orlosky is a completely crazy homicidal maniac, (b) Charles Crow and his buddies did something to anger or otherwise provoke Bob Orlosky — and those actions might or might not have been enough to justify the shooting.
The writer above clearly is leaning towards (a). Personally, I find (b) more plausible. The only information I have of this incident is that which has been published in the news; my opinion is formed from that information and a general knowledge of human nature gained in over 50 years of experience. The writer above implies that he or she has personal knowledge of Charles Crow. Other commenters claim or imply personal knowledge of Charles Crow, Bob Orlosky, or others less directly involved. Their opinions obviously reflect that knowledge, and to some extent (as with the writer above) the bias such knowledge produces.
There’s nothing at all wrong with any of this.
It’s human nature. It’s human nature to wonder what the hell actually happened on that Friday night. It’s human nature to worry about the possible variations that represent more risk to ourselves and those we love. It’s human nature to doubt the purity of anyone’s motivations or actions, for such purity is rarely seen.
There’s nothing wrong with any of this, the above writer’s complaints notwithstanding.
There’s also nothing at all wrong with the above writer’s complaint. The writer’s pain is obvious, and one can’t help but sympathize with that. Equally obvious is the writer’s knowledge of, and admiration for, Charles Crow. This writer knew Charles Crow, and is angered by even speculation that he did anything at all to provoke this crime. I can (and do) sympathize with this, even while disagreeing — for it’s exactly the behavior that I would hope my friends would exhibit, should anyone ever speculate about my involvement in something like this. But while my friends were shocked and offended at the speculations (because they feel that they know me), I would still acknowledge that others who don’t know me might have different perspectives — and those perspectives would be less biased than those of my friends…
But to answer the writer’s specific questions, and to rebut some of his or her points:
1. “This man Orlowsky is obviously not in the right by any means": What is “obvious” to the writer is not at all obvious to me. I don’t know what happened that Friday night, and therefore I don’t know whether Bob Orlowsky was justified in his actions. For that matter, I don’t know that Bob Orlowsky even took any actions. His behavior — running away, going into hiding — certainly isn’t what we all expect of an innocent man. However, there are plenty of well-documented cases where innocent men or women fled, usually because they were afraid of being accused of (and convicted and sentenced for) some crime they were innocent of. I can hear people getting all twitchy on me just at that statement, so let me be clear: I am not saying that I believe Bob Orlosky is innocent. In fact, I think his behavior argues against his innocence. But I also do not believe his guilt is “obvious” — for the possibility exists that there were mitigating circumstances, or even that Bob Orlosky didn’t commit this crime at all. I simply don’t know enough facts to reach a judgment — I wasn’t there on that Friday night, I don’t know any of the parties involved, and I am not privy to the results of the Sheriff’s investigation.
2. “I dont think that it is right that you can write a public story making a defensive story for him": Sorry, but I disagree with that on two levels. First, I did not make a “defensive story", I simply speculated on what the possible scenarios would be. Second, I have every right to do so — this is America, and we have this thing called “freedom of speech” here.
3. “not on HIS property": The rifle wasn’t fired on his own property? How do you know that? I have not seen any information in the news or on the Sheriff’s site about exactly where the shooting took place. If that is accurate information, then it is a damning piece of information with respect to Bob Orlosky. I would like to know this information for certain.
4. “Why would he have a rifle on him anyway? Who carries a rifle around?” If someone were invading my property, and I felt threatened, then I would for darned certain get out my gun and defend myself. As with my earlier statement, I am not claiming that this is what happened, simply noting the possibility — something this writer is dismissing.
5. “And if innocent why is he running?” Actually, as I mentioned earlier, innocent people do sometimes run. Certainly in the majority of cases, runners are guilty. But innocent runners are more common than most people imagine — which is why running from a crime is not considered evidence by the justice system. It’s an indication, to be sure, and it’s often a correct indication — but not always.
6. “This really upsets our family reading your story defending this man. What are you crazy too?” I’m sorry if you’re upset by my story; that reaction was not my intention. But…you own that reaction, not me — it was your choice to be upset. And you don’t have to read my blog — if you don’t like what I have to say, you’re free to go elsewhere. And I have the right to “think out loud” here, just as you have the right to send me that email. We have a right in America to freedom of speech — but there is no right to be free from being offended. Now as to whether or not I’m crazy — well, I think you’d get different answers to that from different folks. More than a few would say that I was, in fact, a few beers short of a six-pack…
