Natural Assumptions

Security camera footage that detectives later studied...would show Hernandez being assaulted by at least five men and a woman. He had no teammates to back him, and his opponents hit him without the remotest sense of fair play. He ended up drawing his gun.

Michael Daly, who never saw a gun ban he didn't endorse, has nothing but wonderful things to say about the off-duty officer mistakenly shot by NY cops. And naturally, being a police worshipper, he has nothing but excuses for the cop doing the shooting:

Whatever happened next, nobody faults the responding officer who felt compelled to fire. Only when a paramedic discovered a shield in Hernandez's pocket did anyone realize he was an off-duty cop.

But while Mayor Mike Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Ray Kelly were staying mysteriously silent about how officers would be safe if we could just disarm those pesky citizens, another angle to this story has surfaced:

[S]ources said [he] was highly intoxicated and holding his gun on a young man...

Naturally, the establishment media was all over this when they had a chance to question Mike and Ray. I mean, you and I would be if we had a chance, right?

Bloomberg and Kelly were not asked about Hernandez's sobriety at the news conference.

Maybe it made the reporters uncomfortable. Besides, how drunk could Hernandez have been?

[A]source familiar with the investigation said the officer, who had worked the 4 p.m. to midnight shift Friday at the 52nd Precinct, had been drinking at one or two bars before arriving at the restaurant and that his blood-alcohol level was twice the legal limit of .08.

Well, still, even a drunk cop has a right to defend himself against a mob. I'll bet the "opponents" he held at gunpoint are all in jail now, right? I mean, how could people confronting a drunken armed New York cop (who even other cops didn't realize was one) be giving him "the remotest sense of fair play"?

A man, who would give only his first name, Brian, said he was the one being held at gunpoint and left the 46th Precinct at about 5 p.m. after hours of questioning. "I was a little twisted," he said, referring to his own condition at the time. "Some dude came up and pointed a gun at me and said he was going to shoot and pushed me onto the floor. He looked drunk." He quoted the man as saying, "I know you did it. Get on the floor."

Brian was one of eight people taken to the precinct for questioning, police said.

Brian and a friend, who gave only his first name, Miguel, said Brian had tried to help Hernandez off the floor after the officer was attacked.

All the assumptions!

Why was Hernandez attacked? Are we to assume having twice the "legal" blood alcohol level had nothing to do with his level of aggression?

Why the assumption that--because a badge was discovered in his pocket--Hernandez was in the right? Had a badge not been discovered, how do you think the media would be presenting this story?

Why is it when cops mistakenly shoot one of their own, we get excuses, but when citizens shoot home invaders they don't even know are cops, they get the death penalty?

Here's the main assumption on the part of New York cops:

We need to make it clear that if someone lifts even a finger against a police officer, their life could be on the line.

This is what traitors like Mike Bloomberg wish to impose on the rest of the Republic. This is what fawning media lickspittles like Mike Daly wish to help them accomplish.

We are ordered to disarm. We are ordered to obey "authoritah". Even if the cop is drunk. If we lift a finger to defend ourselves, we risk forfeiting our lives.

Because as we have proven time and again here at WarOnGuns, they're the only ones [insert appropriate adjective] enough...

How could anyone assume otherwise?

Tags: gun control, Bloomberg, New York, police,