Response to ‘Un-Justice’ part II

Recently, Daniel Flores wrote an op-ed stating that it would be a terrible thing for Kenneth Foster Jr. to be executed under the law of parties. Mr. Flores and the drive-by media want us, as students of Sam Houston State University, to be morally outraged for a person that was only the get-a-way driver should face execution for his “crime”. If one Google’s Kenneth Foster Jr., they would be bombarded with multiple variations of: “father, husband, entrepreneur and college student”. By the time one finished reading all the websites one would conclude that Mr. Foster shouldn’t even be incarcerated at all. After all, he was only driving a car that a passenger all of a sudden jumped out of and shot someone. Wow! What are the odds of that? Pretty damn good and such an inevitable conclusion that even an ADD’d, drunken, in-bred, crack head with a frontal lobotomy could see that one coming given the facts.

Here are the facts:

May 8, 1994: Kenneth Foster arrested for possession of crack cocaine and marijuana.

October 17, 1994: Shot at 3 people in a moving car for no discernable reason, plead out to aggravated assault and received 10 years probation.

May 4, 1995: Sold quarter pound of marijuana to undercover officer.

August 14, 1996: Party to four armed robberies immediately before the murder of Michael LaHood Jr. during the course of an armed robbery.

(Source: Texas Attorney General’s website: http://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release )

Just an innocent guy facing execution because someone jumped out of his car and killed someone….what an unjust society we live in! Watch out, you’re next! According to the bleeding heart liberals, the evil cops, judge and jury might haul you out of bed and put you on death row if society doesn’t repeal capital punishment.

Even the Houston Chronicle, who did at least get it right that Kenneth Foster Jr. was a party to armed robbery, failed to mention in their article concerning Foster’s execution reprieve that he was on probation for shooting at people with a prior criminal record and reputation.

It is amazing is that we as consumers put up with such biased reporting of the news. If the media can’t get away with their liberal outright bias, they’ll resort to omission of pertinent facts so that you don’t form a conclusion that they don’t want you to have. “We’re objective…uh that wasn’t part of the story”, they’ll state when faced with omissions of pertinent facts on issues of public debate. The fact is the media will omit and equivocate anything to further their liberal anti-death penalty view and other socialist agenda.

Don’t fall for it, expect and demand better reporting and op-ed writing.

-Darrell Rose

esor_llerad@hotmail.com

Leave a Reply