A Des Moines man was riding a bike when he was shot in the head and killed. Des Moines police were quoted as saying they did not believe this fatal shooting was a random act of violence. This got me thinking about things I have learned in the lawyer business. Why would it not be random? What do they know that we don’t?
I am familiar with a murder having similar facts. Two young men walking down the street, three men pull up in a car and after being ordered around, one of the young men is shot in the head. The three men get back in the car and drive away. The police in that city (not Des Moines) claimed it was a random act of violence. But was it?
Shortly after the young man’s murder the police arrested hundreds in multiple drug busts. The murderers allegedly have not been found, identified or arrested. Which means what? Do the police have information that we don't have?
So, was this really a random act of violence or as in many of these cases was the victim murdered as a witness to the undercover police work?
In the case I referenced I wondered if the victim was a confidential informant. In how many of these so called random act of violence murders was the victim being used by police as a confidential informant [CI] and murdered as pay-back? How many are CI’s and murdered so they can’t testify?
When a CI is murdered the police should have to disclose they were a CI.
Parents need to have a talk with their children who they suspect are using illegal drugs and warn them against participating as a CI for any reason. Better to sit in jail for a year than to be murdered in some “random act of violence”.