I have criticized some folks who have attempted to defend Ergun Caner by attacking his critics. Sadly, yesterday I read of the story of a New Jersey man who decided to do something similar, but both literally and figuratively (link to story).
The man worked for a beer distributor, and he had been stealing and reselling beer. He went on a killing spree, for which he confessed before apparently committing suicide. In the moments after his killing spree, but before the police attempted to capture him, the man called 911 (and his mother) and tried to blame his killing spree on racial harassment. However, by remarkable coincidence, he had just been at a meeting where he was given a choice to resign or be fired based on his theft of beer, and where he had apparently signed a resignation form.
Instead of confessing that he was a thief who had been busted for stealing, the shooter attempted to smear those who were critical of his theft. Now, his supporters (such as his alleged "girlfriend of nine years") are suggesting that it was really supposed racial harassment that was the cause.
Furthermore, the gunman was part of a union. He had filed a complaint with the union about insufficient training (which shows he knew how to file a complaint), but according to the union he had never filed any claims for racial harassment.
Do I need to go on? The real reason for the criticism of the shooter's company is that he didn't like having to deal with the consequences of his sin. Instead, he viewed those who confronted him with his sin as basically haters who were out to get him. Sound familiar?