According to a report from the Associated Press, Robert Lewis Dear, the man who attacked a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado two weeks ago, was forced to stop and ask for directions to the clinic.
Dear asked at least one person in the nearby shopping center where the Planned Parenthood was earlier that morning, the official said.
A second law enforcement official said Dear assembled propane tanks around a vehicle and brought at least 10 guns, including rifles and handguns, to the clinic, where he swapped gunfire with officers during an hours-long standoff. It was unclear whether Dear purchased all of them, but despite brushes with the law, he had no felony convictions that would have prevented him from buying a firearm.
To recap: Dear never would have gotten the idea to attack Planned Parenthood in the first place had elected officials and politicians not lied about the organization allegedly selling "baby parts," and he wouldn't have even known where to find a Planned Parenthood clinic if someone else hadn't told him.
The people who were killed at the clinic would still be alive today if irresponsible politicians and pundits hadn't clued their viewers in to a non-existent threat that they otherwise wouldn't know about.
On a slightly related note, the skepticism expressed by local authorities and the Associated Press in this report bothers me a great deal.
Despite overwhelming evidence, they seem reluctant to conclude that Planned Parenthood was his ultimate target.
DENVER (AP) - The man accused of killing three people at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado Springs asked at least one person in a nearby shopping center for directions to the facility before opening fire, a law enforcement official said, offering the clearest suggestion yet that he was targeting the reproductive health organization.
The clearest suggestion? No shit?
Colorado Springs police have refused to discuss a motive for the fusillade, but there's mounting evidence to suggest Dear was deeply concerned about abortion, having rambled to authorities about "no more baby parts" after his arrest.
What does an angry white man have to do to convince you that he's a terrorist with a crystal clear motive?
Meanwhile, authorities have not established a motive for the San Bernardino shooting outside of a possible altercation with former coworkers, but the FBI is officially calling it a terrorist attack. The FBI has stated that both shooters were "radicalized" but that doesn't tell us much.
Robert Lewis Dear was clearly radicalized and there is far more evidence known to us to establish his motive, but only one of these attacks has been labeled terrorism.
To me this is a glaring double-standard and we evidently have a conflict over what does and does not constitute terrorism. The definition of the word no longer seems to apply.
Without a clear motive, how can we say the California shooters sought to "use violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims?" If they had a political aim, what was it? Can you have a political aim without a motive? If your motive wasn't political, and if this really was just a glorified case of workplace violence, is it still terrorism?
Robert Dear's motives are abundantly clear.