Friday, July 13, 2007

Antiwar Peacenik shot by soldier on 4th of July...


Actually it was the other way around with the “Gunman intending to make an antiwar statement” shooting the U.S. Airman in the chest, but this seemed the best way to get many to read this since the mainstream media has decided this story was not that important.

"An Air Force airman was shot by antiwar protestor on July 4th, but the establishment media and liberal blogs yawn. Airman Jonathan Schrieken, 22, is fighting for his life after being shot in the heart by a gunman intending to make an antiwar statement, while standing outside his home near McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey on July 4th. Airman Schrieken, a loadmaster with the 6th Airlift Squadron based at McGuire, remains in critical condition at a Camden, New Jersey hospital."

The antiwar protestor then finished his ‘Statement” by turning the gun on himself and in effect taking out the trash himself for the rest of us.
WILLINGBORO — "The Pennsauken man who shot and wounded a member of the U.S. Air Force before killing himself left suicide notes that indicated he was “angry at the government and wanted to make a statement” on Independence Day, one of the man’s relatives said yesterday."

You would think that a U.S. Military person being shot in the chest by a antiwar protestor on the 4th of July would be covered by the majority of the Mainstream media outlets. Instead this story made its way up thru the sites like “Little Green” and then picked up by Investors Business Daily and MSNBC. Like the above photo and title that attracted attention to this post, what if the incident was the other way around?
"If Airman Schrieken had been an abortionist or homosexual, this story would be front page news for the New York Times and the lead story on CBS News with Katie Couric for at least the next month. But since Schrieken is serving in the military, even his hometown newspaper, the Columbus Dispatch, has ignored this story."

Look, even the Peacnik idiot that attempted murder did not get the coverage he wanted out of the mainstream media…
"Marren’s aunt, Terina Henderson of Trion, Ga., said she spoke to Marren’s mother yesterday who told her Marren left two notes, one in his home and one in his car, indicating he was upset with the government.
She said she did not know the exact wording in the notes, but said Marren was “mad at the government and wanted to make a statement … that’s why he did what he did on the Fourth of July.”


Anonymous said...

Are you sure this crazy man was an antiwar protester? I can't find anything in the linked stories indicating that to be true. For all I know, he was angry with the government because his taxes were too high. How about this for a headline: Anti-tax Protester Shoots Soldier?

RightsideVA said...

The first article linked to in the post refers to the shooter as an "anti-war protestor" and most of any articles mentioning or reporting the incident are still looking for a motive. This is probably typical for most cases the media cautions claiming motive until later date.

But it does show how the media has ignored or under reported this incident and that is one of the reasons for the post title being presented the way it was. Obviously by the lack of media coverage a post title of Solidier shot by "Anti-war" protestor would have been noticed by few on blognet...

But lets say a soldier did in fact shoot a anti-war protestor? What type of coverage do you think the media would have provided then?

Did find this on another site: "One might recall the attack on “right-wing talk radio” following Matthew Shepherd’s murder and Hillary Clinton’s indictment of the same after the Oklahoma City bombing. Add to that the attacks by the ACLU and others on the pro-life movement after the shootings of two abortion doctors in the 1990s."

Time and investigation will uncover the motive of the shooter who was in fact looking to commit murder but the handgun jammed.

The question is if it's not what the mainstream media wants to hear will they report it?

Anonymous said...

The only reference that I can find that the shooter was an anti-war protester is an assertion by a blogger named Patrick Poole. Mr. Poole offers no evidence for his contention.

Further, I note no reason for the shooter to have even known that his victim was a member of the U. S. Air Force. Did he know the victim? Was the victim in uniform?

I wouldn't be so ready to pass judgment until the facts are known. That said, I'll follow the case with interest and thank you for bringing it greater attention.

RightsideVA said...

I see in the reports that the shooter did ask the Airman if he "lived here, not anymore". That may show that the shooter knew of the military personnel that lived in that house.

Also with the notes stating that the shooter was upset with the government and wanted to make a statement on the 4th of July it would seem that shooting a military person, if in fact he knew he was military, would be the desired statement.

Agree that more info needs to be determined and investigated before a final statement can be made and its good to see that you would not pass judgement until the facts are known. But lets flip the coin back over, if a military person shot what was thought to be a antiwar protestor would Katie, ABC, CBS, NBC, Air-America, Oprah, Rosie, CNN, CNN Headline news, BBC, NY Times, LA Times, The Sun, Late Night comics, Hillary, Obama, Princess Pelosi, The House, The Senate, Jon Stewart, Al Franken, and the likes be as cautious not to pass judgement? And can you imagine the call for Gun Control???

Thanks for your comments,

Dignut said...

Might not have had a anti-war sign in his hand but it is pretty obvious what this guy was doing.

Just be grateful the idiot shot himself otherwise the liberals would have spentall efforts to prove that it was not his fault and blame it on Bush somehow. That and the ACLU would defend the piece of shit for he was expressing his first amendment right to free speech by shooting the soldier.

RightsideVA said...

I believe the shooter probably knew that this guy was military and the house he lived in was also military members. That would make sense with his notes about being upset with the government and wishing to make a statement on the 4th of July. If not that would be a poor statement just to shoot anybody at random and not at least attract attention with the statement he wanted. We will wait until a final ruling, if any, to blame this attack on the military by a peace protestor if it turns out that way.

I posted this with the table turned to be sure to get attention to this story which was not happening on its own. I see know that the local VA blogs have picked up the issue and discussion has started. Some have taken their obvious sides to the story but the main issue to me is how the media portrayed the story and did not report it on a larger scale. If it was (Assumed) that a Peace Protestor was shot by a military person, without a clear motive but an assumed one, would this story have gotten "Legs" and better coverage?

Dignut said...

Are you kidding?
If the Peacie was shot by a military person it would be 24 hour coverage and for weeks. The View would have to bring Rotunda-Rosie back just for her comments and outrage.

This punk knew what he was doing and he wanted to do it on the 4th of july for all to see and then took the chicken way out!

Steve Harkonnen said...

I second dignut's comment, was just about to mention the same thing. If the story was reversed, they'd be over it like flies on a fruitcake.

Whether it's liberal based or not, I like the way the media conveniently skirts around stories like the one above.

FreedomAdvocate said...

Watch Teletubby and Moses get arrested at the Capitol while angry bystanders demand the release of the purple teletubby, the “moral fiber of America.” See activists hit the streets demonstrating against Ted Kennedy’s Thought Control Bill to give homosexuals special privileges. Go to or

This shows Public Advocate demonstrating in Washington, DC, protesting the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Protection Act (H.R. 1592), which would grant special rights to homosexuals. This law would add sexual orientation to federal hate crimes statutes.