A tale of two murderers

This is not really a rant but more of an observation, I just wasn’t sure of where best to place it. So rant it goes I guess.
This is a look at human perception of two murderers as I see it.
Both “served” their company….err country in uniform.
One goes to a foreign country and murders multitudes of their freedom fighters, people only fighting for their family and country against an illegal war for profit.
The other stays stateside and attempts to clean up US streets and shed some light on the dark underbelly of the LAPD’s illegal tactics, and never wanted to murder a soul.
Soldier comes home and writes a book bragging of his racist murder spree and is proclaimed “hero”.
The other is fired and branded an outcast for fighting against the same system that any red blooded American would love to clean up. Then they persist at dismantling his life.
One is murdered at a resort among other murderers in vain.
The other is murdered by the state without due process just as he figured it would end due to corruption.
One is given a grand funeral with full press coverage in a football stadium.
The others death was not recorded by request of authorities.
One will get a full investigation of his murder, the other’s will be swept under the rug.
Differences, one was a confessed absolved murderer, the other was an accused murderer.
Now which one does the media proclaim hero and which is branded traitor?
One did what any sociopath would want and the other attempted what we have all dreamt of, putting a hurt on corruption.
I don’t claim either to be a hero, but something seems just askew about how we view these stories and who is shaping our opinions.
Who has shaped your opinion ATS?

reply to post by g146541


They both murdered people when they didn't have to; they chose to murder the people that they did. They are both wrong.

Originally posted by caladonea
reply to post by g146541

 

They both murdered people when they didn't have to; they chose to murder the people that they did. They are both wrong.

Exactly!!
But one is considered a hero and the other a villain, why is that?
The "hero" was the much worse of the two.

Originally posted by g146541

Exactly!!
But one is considered a hero and the other a villain, why is that?
The "hero" was the much worse of the two.

I think the solider is considered a hero because he is viewed by many as defending his country.

The policeman that went berserk is not considered a hero because he could have handled his situation so much better; gotten his point across through legal and reputable means; that would have made a difference.

But instead he choose to be a violent murderer.