It's GOOD to kill (certain) people

On December 15, 2012 the deadliest and most horrific school shooting in American history happened. On that day, a monster killed twenty school children and six adults before finally killing himself. In the aftermath, communities came together, politicians lobbied for stronger gun laws and the nation tried to make sense of the violent culture we have created.

More recently, Christopher Dorner, a disgruntled former L.A.P.D. officer went on a shooting rampage in which he killed four people and injured others. The trigger for this killing spree seems to have been Dorner's 2008 firing from the police force, along with an unmitigated complaint against the LAPD.  The delay in his firing and the killing spree have not been fully explained, but these details will emerge over the next weeks.

 In the wake of this shooting, there have been no cries for stricter gun control laws, no examination of our violent society.  Rather, there has been an outpouring of support for this man (as can be seen here). Some in the media have wondered if we should take Dorner's manifesto seriously.

Whatever the situation behind this man getting fired are irrelevant compared the actions he took over the last few weeks.  This man hunted down and killed police officers and others, unleashing a wave of terror in Southern California.  But all of this seems irrelevant to this man's supporters, some of whom view him as a superhero.

Columbia University Professor Marc Lamont Hill, commenting on the chain of events and the support Dorner was receiving online, said, "And as far as Dorner himself goes, he’s been like a real life superhero to many people. Now don't get me wrong. What he did was awful, killing innocent people was bad, but when you read his manifesto, when you read the message that he left, he wasn’t entirely crazy. He had a plan and a mission here. And many people aren't rooting for him to kill innocent people. They are rooting for somebody who was wronged to get a kind of revenge against the system. It’s almost like watching Django Unchained in real life. It’s kind of exciting." 

Django Unchained is the latest Quentin Tarantino film about a former slave who goes on a murderous rampage.  The film is known for its prolific violence and repeated use of the N-word. The movie's premiere was delayed after the Newtown shootings, but seems to have been celebrated in the wake of Chris Dorner's shootings.  Hill's comment is that the unfolding events were like watching the movie "in real life."  Then he goes on to add the statemetn, "It's kind of exciting."  

Excuse me? Exciting? What about the four people who were murdered...in real life. This was not a movie, this was reality.  What about their families? Their friends? Their loved ones? 

To understand the implication of what Professor Hill is saying, imagine if somebody had said the same thing abut Sandy Hook.  Imagine if Professor Hill had said, "It's kind of exciting," about the murder of twenty school children. Imagine if he had compared the Newtown shootings to watching a movie in real life.  There should be an underlying feeling of revulsion in your gut at that suggestion, and there should be one to this statement as well. 

So to some up where we are now: a man shoots twenty children and is the incarnation of evil.  A man goes on a shooting spree and hunts down four police officers and becomes a folk hero.  What's the difference? 

The difference has to be seen in the motive.  Adam Lanza had no clear cut motive other than he hated his mother.  But Dorner seems to have a grudge against the LAPD, and this makes Dorner's actions legitimate, even praiseworthy. 

In the midst of the shootings, Dorner issued a statement that tried to excuse and explain his actions.  He expressed his love of left leaning celebrities and liberal causes.  This creates an embarrassment for the established liberal media.  They have to admit they like his causes, but they can't admit they like his actions. So they have to do the best thing they know how...cover things up.  So instead of drawing attention to Dorner's killing spree, they turn their attention his firing and his underlying complaints.  They will even go so far as to ignore their normal call for gun control after a situation like this.  

So the media narrative becomes that the LAPD are bad people (a normal liberal complaint) that caused this man to get fired and then in turn caused him to go on a shooting spree.  The people who were killed were probably corrupt and therefore they got what was coming to them.

Granted, that above paragraph is conjecture, but it seems to be pretty spot on in light of the media coverage of this case.  

The underlying understanding seems to be, that murder is ok...in certain circumstances.  In fact..it might be good to kill certain people because it brings certain injustices to light.  Violence may be ok, if it has a purpose and is directed against the right targets.  

This is in deep contrast with the virtues of the kingdom of God and the preaching of Jesus. Violence for a Christian is never an option, no matter how just the cause is.  Jesus says, "Do not resist the one that is evil.  But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." In the twentieth century, Archbishop Oscar Romero states, "We have never preached violence, except the violence of love, which left Christ nailed to a cross, the violence that we must each do to ourselves to overcome our selfishness and such cruel inequalities among us. The violence we preach is not the violence of the sword, the violence of hatred. It is the violence of love, of brotherhood,the violence that wills to beat weapons into sickles for work.”

Murder is never an option for the Christian or the church, no matter how just a cause may be.  There should be no differnce in our condemnation of Adam Lanza and Christopher Dorner.