Dear MediaGuardian newsdesk:
I think it's a good idea that the byline for this piece is merely "A staff reporter." You folks wouldn't want the reader to think that this remarkable piece of ice-cold reasoning is the opinion of a particular individual, rather than the stance of the Guardian staff as a whole. Also, thank you for pointing out that Scott Burgess "spends his time indoors" as he's keeping track of which terrorism-boosters you're hiring because they're not pale and male. As is widely known, the Guardian staff always type away on their laptops as they sit in the grass under a big leafy tree.
If Mr. Aslam comes back into the office to pick up his final paycheque and he's wearing a bulky jacket in July and he just so happens to be running from a policeman, don't be nervous. Don't even give him a second glance. That would be racial profiling.
Warmest regards,
Jim Treacher
USA (A-ha!)
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Jim Treacher's ice cold reasoning
Letter from Jim Treacher to The Guardian:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
An innocent person was shot to death by the police and you're making a joke out of it?
Sounds funny to me.
"Innocent persons" should not run from police into subway cars after terrorist bombings of subway cars. Sounds like natural selection to me. Funny note to BBC, keep it up!
Here's a hint: When police call on an innocent person to stop, and that person keeps on running, and leaps a turnstile, two weeks after 50 people were killed, that innocent person is highly likely to get shot to death. Sad, but this has Darwin Award written all over it.
The innocent person was not shot to death by the police.
The person was shot to death running from police. In addition he was followed from a house frequented by the previous set of Islamic bombers.
In the current climate it is better to stop if the police tell you to.
As Gene Hackmans sheriff character in "Unforgiven" would respond: "Innocent of what?"
I'm astonished. Yes, the person was running from the police, and yes he was coming from a house frequented by the bombers. Sure, he acted pretty stupidly, especially in the current climate. But he was still inoccent. However likely or understandable the police officers' actions, it's still a tragedy.
Can we all agree that it is tragicomedy?
Inoccent people die every day caused by stupidity. He was a tragicomedidiot?
Or, tragicomidiot.
Ah, it's just the growing pains of a new-born police state... Eggs meet omelet.
Cancer meet scalpel, traitors are not of the body so tumors never grow up to be chickens..
Question for the folks who feel that the shootee was mistreated.
How would you deal with someone who was tailed from an known terrorist location and ran away from police into the underground?
I'm the person who posted the original message. As the facts are describe, I think the police probably acted appropriately. They had to protect everyone in the train, and they rightly, but mistakenly, perceived a threat.
But an inoccent person died, and I think joking about it is in extremely bad taste.
And?
To all those people who thought that guy getting shot was funny: If you should start to choke to death while eating could you video tape it for me? I'm not trying to make a political point, I just think watching callous people choke to death is totally hilarious. Like in that movie... watchacallit. God, that was so funny I almost peed in my pants!
I figure one of you guys outta be game.
What makes you all so SURE this young man was innocent? At this point in the game that is a grand assumption.
How do you KNOW he was not a counter-probe to test the new security environment around the transit system. Al-Q has an established pattern of adapting their operations to meeting changing conditions. They don't quit, they pursue a disciplined regimen of change.
How do you KNOW he was not deliberately sent in by Al-Q, to be killed, to introduce public affairs friction to subsequent enforcement efforts. An officer MIGHT think twice now before shooting a bulky clad fleeing man in July.
You DID know that Al-Q was active recruiting in Central America, didn't you?
Time may prove the Brazilian innocent, but a jump to conclusions at this point is NOT appropriate.
God bless the London Police for taken the right action, let's hope they have they wisdom and strength to continue making the right choices irrespective of dangerous unfounded public backlash.
When Mayor Dikin's (a Democrat)ran NYC, the police shot 65 person in one year, and I, in Ohio, heard not a word about it. Rudy, a Republican, got that number down to twelve and I heard the details of every one (he was thinking of running against Hillary). So what is important? Not the innocent (or guilty) being shot. Rather, which deaths does the left make a stink about for their own advantage.
Do any of you people know he was being chased by plainclothes cops. For all he knew, he might have thought *he* was being targeted by terrorists. RTFA people.
Coupla comments:
(1) Lots of folks commenting here anonymously. That's never good because anonymous people are not accountable for what they have said -- that is, there's not reason to trust them.
(2) The whole "police state" thing is a joke in and of itself. Let's think about this for a second: the reasoning behind the "police state" accusation is --
(a) "police state" is define as a set of circumstances where "the state" has carte blanche to do anything it pleases
(b) the police shot one guy who turned out to be innocent
(c) therefore we live in a police state
If we ignore the fact that this "rationale" is a logical fallacy -- it's called the fallacy of the undistributed middle -- we find ourselves with a much worse problem: at what point to do we completely eliminate the distinction between those people who are employed by the state and the committed policy and clear objectives (stated or unstated) of the state? For example, if a fireman gets drunk and pisses in your flower bed, did the state do that? What if a clerk for a state administrative department has his dog get loose and it kills your cat -- was that a state conspiracy?
The smart ones out ther reading this are thinking, "there's a difference between a person's private life and the acts of an on-duty police officer, so the examples are not relevant". It turns out that this objection is exactly the point: the police who killed this man were not out committing random acts of terror against an unsuspecting and defendeless crowd in a subway station but they were trying to enforce the law.
The police were not behaving in a lawless way -- and that's not based on some "under the current statutes" method of reasoning but under a "the police have a responsibility to act on sufficient grounds" method of reasoning. Running away when they tell you to stop is never a good idea.
(3) It is terrible that an innocent person who was running away from the police was shot dead. It is worse that many more innocent people who's only crime was going to work in the morning were killed not by people enforcing the law but actively seeking to eradicate it.
Wake up. This is not a birthday party.
and he shouldn't have been in the UK in first place.
Control of Borders is the first step to controlling crime.
isn't this letter re: the islamist intern at the paper who was fired, not the brazilian who was mistakenly shot?
Shooting the Brazilian was a horrible mistake. Despite that, shooting to kill under those circumstances is the correct policy. We all accept a certain level of risk just to live together. We risk traffic deaths when we allow emergency vehicles to speed and violate traffic rules. He11, we risk traffic deaths just by having a speed limit above 10MPH. It is terrible when someone is killed according to the rules, it is an occasion on which to question the rules, but by itself it is NOT ONE SINGLE BIT of an argument that the rules are wrong.
He wasnt innocent, he was in the country illegally
Fuck the Brazilian.
He was wearing a bulky coat in the summer heat, coming out of a house under police surveillance, and ran into a subway when challenged by the police.
My verdict: Death by Stupidity. Darwin approves.
Anon...I hope your opinion is a small minority. Its pretty callous.
It is an unfortunate tragedy, but given similar circumstances, will the police hesitate to take down a potential terrorist bomber about to board a train now?
Looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck
Acts suspicious, runs away suspiciously, dresses suspicious
It is highly suspicious
The London police made the right choice. It is sad he was not an Islamic terrorist but maybe next time the next idiot will stop!
i dont think anyone has ever accused treacher of having good taste. not that that's a bad thing.
"If you should start to choke to death while eating could you video tape it for me?"
Videotape it yes, but you can't have the tape. My wife will be sending it to "America's Funniest."
Post a Comment