They Saw the Horrific Aftermath of a Mass Shooting. Should We? YES, WE SHOULD!

May 1, 2023 James Fetzerblog

Ron Avery

Critique of a NY Times article published April 20, 2023 by Jay Kirk entitled:

“They Saw the Horrific Aftermath of a Mass Shooting. Should We?“

Let’s start with the overall character of this NYT’s article. I would call it a short story about the experiences suffered by three Connecticut State Police Crime Scene Investigators who claim to have been involved with the Sandy Hook Mass Shooting investigation. This short story is about 14 pages long with seven photos making it quite lengthy. Little of the story has to do with real evidence related to the crime scene but rather what these three people suffered as a result of working the Sandy Hook crime scene and how they reacted to one another’s horror. As the title explicitly asks: Should we see and be exposed to the same? The article’s implied answer is: No, we should not, let it stop with these three! One might think, at first glance, that the title asks: Should we see any more mass shootings? But that would be incorrect because the public, to which the subject article is addressed, has never seen the crime scene of any mass shooting in recent history. So the object of the NYT’s article is to show that the public should be insulated from the horrific sight of the Sandy Hook crime. The whole NYT’s article is a pathetic useless attempt to justify the concealment and redaction of conclusive photographic evidence that anyone was actually killed at Sandy Hook Elementary on December 14, 2012.

Here is the essence and point of the whole subject NYT’s article:

“But even though the attorney general was convinced at this moment, reeling on the threshold of this tiny, obliterated bathroom, that if the American people only saw what he was seeing, Congress would be forced to do the right thing, nothing would change in the end. Tragedy in America would prevail. Some would say nothing has changed because we have not yet been made to see. After each new mass shooting, the question, the debate, returns. Would seeing the crime-scene photos have an effect on the gun crisis in the same way images of Emmett Till’s body in an open coffin had on the civil rights movement? The Sandy Hook photographs have been redacted by Connecticut state law since 2013. Even if the law were to change with the consent of the families of the victims, who pushed for the legal restriction, public viewing of the photographs would require one outlet or another to first make the decision to publicize the images. And in a culture where reality is no longer agreed on, many will not believe what they see unless it is funneled through their propaganda of choice. So until that unlikely moment arrives, the full truth of these images and those of shooting after shooting, for the decade after Sandy Hook and into the future, will live on only in the atrocity exhibition that exists in the memory of those who photograph, measure and collect the foul evidence.”

To my knowledge, no mass media cartel outlet ever said or interviewed anyone that suggested that the public be allowed to see un-redacted crime scene photos of Sandy Hook or any other mass shooting. Therefore that quoted paragraph is an attempt to defend themselves from their own conscience and knowledge that sealing crime scene evidence does not result in good individual reactions or good social policy. Notice also that the object of the Sandy Hook Mass Shooting regardless of the sealing of crime scene photos is to force Congress to do the right thing. What is that right thing? Even here, the author is reluctant to overtly declare their ignorant wicked desire to disarm the American public making them defenseless to tyranny.

The author wants to violate a greater law to prevent mass shootings. They do not know what mass shootings are until the American people are disarmed. Removing effective firearms from the American people making them defenseless to tyranny and military arms is the worst social crime possible. But there is a solution to the question of sealing crime scene photos. If the crime is being used by others to alter the law of the land, e.g., infringing upon, altering or abolishing the 2nd Amendment, the crime scene photos must be released to the public. If the crime is not being used for such purposes, the crime scene photos may be sealed from public view. (See my Bill to accomplish that purpose: http://lawfulgovernment.com/stop-disarmament-terrorism-bill.pdf.)

Unfortunately for Jay Kirk the author of the subject article, the Sandy Hook Mass Shooting has been used extensively and successfully for the unlawful purpose of altering the law of the land by the use of the violence of Adam Lanza. It is amusing that the article said the FBI ruled out terrorism at Sandy Hook: “SWAT had cleared the building, and the F.B.I. had checked for explosives and ruled out terrorism.” The terrorism came into play when the parents and politicians began to use the violence, done, threatened, or pretended, by another, Adam Lanza, to alter the law of the land, which is the definition of terrorism.

It is clear that in the case of Sandy Hook the answer to the question of: Should we the public see crime scene photos and video, the answer is YES AND WE MUST FOR THE PRESERVATION OF OUR LIFE, LIBERTY AND POSSESSIONS