Quote of the Day...

From Roger Simon of Pajamas Media:

While watching the endless pundit blather on TV tonight after the Republican Michigan Primary and Democratic Nevada Debate and reading the various opinion meisters commentaries online, I had one of those rare zen moments of simplicity. It all comes down to a simple question:

Who would you like to be in the White House if Pakistan fell to al Qaeda and the Islamists gained control of its nuclear arsenal?

Answer that question and you will know your candidate. All the rest, as they say, is commentary.

What he said...

Orlosky Trial...

Just over a year ago (On December 1, 2006), Bob Orlosky shot and killed Charles Crow. Both men lived in Jamul. See these posts for more detailed information from the period immediately following the shooting. Yesterday his trial for murder began:

No one disputes that a heavy-construction contractor opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle on three men who drove onto his Jamul property in December 2006, killing one and wounding another.

In a trial that began Tuesday, a jury in El Cajon Superior Court must decide whether Joseph Robert “Bob” Orlosky shot the men for no real reason, as prosecutors contend, or if he was trying to stop copper thieves who nearly ran him down, as his lawyer maintains.

Just about everybody who's heard about this shooting has speculated on the motives. The speculations range from Bob Orlosky essentially killing for sport all the way to Charles Crow (and the two other men with him) trying to steal valuable scrap metal from Orlosky, and him acting purely in self-defense. Those two extremes are in fact the positions that the defense and prosecution (respectively) seem to have staked out.

From where I sit, the truth is unknowable – I simply don't have some very basic facts available to me. For instance, I still don't know for certain whether The jeep that Crow and his companions were riding in contained any metal stolen from Orlosky's property. So I'm just waiting for some facts to emerge from the trial…

This story has special significance for my wife and I: Bob Orlosky's property is less than a mile from our home, just a short drive away. If the prosecution's portrait of Orlosky is the true one, then we want this murderer safely (or permanently) put away. On the other hand, if the defense has the true story, then we're very concerned about our own rights to defend our life and property. So we're most interested in the outcome of this trial, and the facts that emerge from it…