The Sporting News has an article out on the Harrison case. It’s mostly a giant retread, but it makes one key mistake that I’ve heard several times. The article continually refers to what happens to Harrison if he was or wasn’t the shooter. It basically presupposes that Harrison is guilty of a crime if in fact he shot the gun. There is another scenario which is extremely plausible, however. Harrison or an associate could have shot the gun in self defense. Most commentators and media types are ignoring this possibility.
I assume that is because if Harrison had acted in self-defense why wouldn’t he just tell the cops? I think there are reasons for that.
1. He feels it’s easier to keep quiet the situation given the ‘victim’s’ reticence to talk. He hasn’t been accused of anything, so why talk? He is a private dude who wants to stay out of the limelight so why would he tell his story to the press?
3. There’s no point in admitting to shooting the gun and THEN constructing a defense for it when the smart thing is to admit nothing until charged, and then construct a defense based on the charges. Why give the prosecution a head start on knowing what you will argue?
It may well be that if Harrison did act in self-defense, or at least can plausibly argue the point, that the DA is having a hard time moving forward with the case. They have to ask themselves what the odds of gaining a conviction are against a man with a well paid defense team, when the victim won’t ID Harrison, fired a shot himself, and is a felon. The mysterious ‘third victim’ may or may not be reliable either as he would obviously have extreme monetary interest in naming Harrison.
Again, I’m not saying he didn’t do it. I’m not saying he was justified if he did do it. I am saying that the media coverage of this has been very odd and utterly irrational. This particular article is a great case in point. It sees only two possible scenarios when it’s clear there are at least three. (Thanks to profootballtalk.com for the link)