Simi Valley Soap Box

Failing to warn public

Bob Munson’s letter to the Ventura Star Editor chastises the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department and the Simi Valley Police Department for the killing of the escaped tiger and for the recent killings that ended in the death of the suspect in a Simi Valley Wal-Mart.

Munson stated, “…they killed a declawed and relatively harmless animal that was likely someone’s pet.” and “Only sheer luck and a suicide prevented more deaths.” He finishes off with, “Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks are the safest cities in the country for many reasons, but one of them is not their overrated police departments.”

The Constitutional freedoms that we enjoy in this country allow people like Munson to express their opinions, even in the local newspaper. For that matter those same rights allow me to make my own as I am doing so now. What I am wondering is, how is it that people with access to the same information come to such radically different conclusions?

Take the tiger incident for instance. Here we have an adult carnivorous animal that has been on the loose for ten days or so hiding in the brush in and around well populated areas. Now you have to ask yourself what is the likely condition of the animal? Let’s see. Tigers are not native to this country so it is highly likely that it escaped confinement. The fact that a number of animals were recently discovered unlawfully housed on a nearby property might be a clue. However, the owners of the property in question deny that they have lost a tiger. Since the tiger probably was raised in captivity it would likely have little in the way of natural hunting skills. Being fed in a cage hardly qualifies as a skilled hunter. And, since the animal is likely to have been kept in captivity for a long period of time, it would not have well toned muscles to allow it to physically accomplish the task of hunting wild prey. So, just where is this animal going to get its food? Well maybe some slow moving human might make a tasty morsel. Maybe a young child? But, I digress because Munson said it was a declawed relatively harmless animal that could have been a pet. Of course, no one knew that it was declawed until it was killed. As to the characterization of relatively harmless, I’ll bet the cat still had big teeth. No facts present before the cat was killed support a conclusion that the cat was anything less than a hungry, dangerous animal. No facts subsequent to the killing support any less of a conclusion. For instance, there was no food in the stomach of the animal, and so I’ll just bet he was just a bit hungry. And, the lack of claws could well assure that the animal could not hold on to a wild prey long enough to kill it with a bite.

As to the police conduct surrounding the search for Toby Welchel, Munson alleges police erred by not advising residents that a killer was likely hiding in the brush. I wonder how it is that the police would have come to the hiding in the brush conclusion. Welchel could have been any where. Even at Munson’s house in Newbury Park.

Finally, what are we to think of Munson’s characterizations that the two police departments are overrated? Does Munson have some additional unstated information that he has not made us aware of? Probably not. My guess is that Munson was just cranky because he not eaten before he sat down to advise us of his wisdom. I’ll bet if we gave him a big meal, we would find him to be a very nice person.

posted by Paul Coambs @ 11:38 PM