I’m thinking about that shooting in “Gangford” on Tuesday night, January 27, 2015 and something doesn’t make sense. Let’s file this as another one under gangs, crime and street life. Then I want to examine what we know about it from reports in the media.
- The suite in which it took place was known to be inhabited by people who do drugs.
- The police had been to the suite earlier in the day and had ordered an unknown male to leave the suite. It follows that the unknown male was not the shooter. Otherwise the reports about the unknown male would have said something to the effect of: “…who later returned with a pistol…” No media reported such.
- It also follows that the victim was not the unknown male who had been removed from the suite. Had that been the case, police reports would have said something to the effect of: “…who later returned to the suite and got shot.”
- The female tenant in the suite was in the process of moving out. The landlord had earlier given the keys to the suite to police. He needed police to remove the aforementioned unknown male from the suite.
- The male was shot had spent the previous night in the suite. He was allegedly there simply to help the lone female tenant move. Thus, the victim did not reside there, so his presence there was not generally known.
So far, these facts seem to indicate that this was a targeted hit. Let’s dig a little deeper though.
- The age of the shooter is 21 and of the victim is 38. This age disparity would seem to indicate that this was not a shooting over jealousy. A 17 year difference in ages would lead one to believe that the two males would not be dating the same woman.
- The victim was shot three times. This seems to indicate that the shooting was not a robbery as a robber does not have to shoot somebody three times. Additionally, there has been no indication by police that it was a robbery.
- The fact that the shooter shot three times is a clear indication that the intent of the shooter was to kill. It is also an indication that he was a very poor shot. (You have to allow me at least one wisecrack).
Putting it all together
So, assuming that the reports about this incident are accurate, we now have the facts. Therefore, what conclusions can we gather from them? Frankly, they seem to indicate that this was a targeted hit for some reason other than drugs. So if it wasn’t jealousy and wasn’t drugs, we are left to conclude it may have been an ordered kill.
To be a targeted hit, somebody who knew the victim was present would have had to order that hit. Additionally, that person would have had to have known both the victim and the shooter. Are we in agreement here?
Drawing a conclusion
Obviously, the person who ordered the hit had a serious issue with the victim. Whether that issue was revenge related or drug connected will hopefully come out in the near future. All I know for sure is that this was not random and that the shooter was tipped off as to the victim’s presence and this was a targeted hit.
Who had the knowledge necessary to have ordered the hit or the knowledge to have tipped off the person who was ordering the hit about the presence of the victim? I have my idea; what is yours?