Tuesday, December 13, 2005

Run for Your Life

Since I only read the Daily News, I just today was reminded of the memo uncovered last week in which I argued that the police were justified in killing an unarmed, fleeing, fifteen-year-old boy.

As I write in the memo, "any fleeing felon rule . . . must be simple enough for an officer to apply in a split second and at a moment of great stress."

If he runs, boy, shoot him! clearly meets this standard. And it would have prevented the travesty shown above as well.

14 comments:

ollie said...

But, sir, is this particular youth in question a felon? I know that steroid use is illegal but, if I am not mistaken, this guy didn't violate US law and isn't even an American citizen!

ollie said...

Mr. Alito, I've thought long and hard about what you said and about this "if he runs, boy you shoot him" standard.

I am very sorry to say this sir, but it is obvious to me that you are no friend of the police. I am deeply disappointed in you.

For example, consider this potential troublemaker figure 1 and figure 2. When these photos were taken, he was moving rather quickly; he was going about 6 minutes and 20 seconds per mile (fast enough to place in a local running footrace; and way too fast for a donut scarfing cop to stay with on foot). But, figure 1 shows that he has at least one foot on the ground at all times, and figure 2 shows that his "support leg" has a straight knee. In other words, sir, he is WALKING. (by official race-walking rules; by the way he won a gold medal in the 1996 olympic 20K race-walk).

So, by your standards, our poor huffing-puffing-on-the-verge-of-cardiac-arrest policeman wouldn't be able to shoot and he could get away scott free!

And if you think this is dumb; remember there are no depths to which traitors (such as those in the ACLU) will shy away from sinking to just to hinder patriots like yourself from protecting the rest of us.

(source for Mr. Perez)

SamuelAlito said...

In response to your first comment:

He is running, and that's good enough for me.

In response to your second:

An officer can't be expected to see whether someone has one foot on the ground at all times in a split second. I'd back the cop in bringing him down.

M A F said...

Your Honour,

This ruling reminds me of the engagement policy of the Vietnam War. If unarmed Vietnamese were running (away) troops were permitted to kill them.

Clearly if it is good enough for the VC it is good enough for other dark-skinned individuals that run from policemen.

I don't know about Ollie, but I'd like to know if this influenced your decision in any way.

ollie said...

well, of course...my skin may well be darker than average, but I am one of those "good" dark people who realize that those who look like I do have the potential to cause innocent Americans lots of trouble. ;-)

Besides, the lighter skinned folk really don't run all that fast anyway (save a 400 meter olympic gold medalist here and there...) and so our donut eating coppers should be able to catch 'em.

buckwheat said...

In dat picture, they all runnin'. You goona shoot'em all! The negro, he better watch out!

ollie said...

Hmmm, news travels fast. Check out: this photo,. Notice how his hands are up and how he is stopping his running (note that both feet are off of the ground). I can see it now, our "call you're senator" program: "Alito for Law Enforcement: protecting the REAL Americans!"

Higingbotham said...

Man, I almost forget how much fun it is to read your stuff sometimes!

Kierkegaard Lives said...

I have nothing to add, really.

But I have to comment just to "tag" you. Sorry.

Rosemary said...

You do not shoot people because of their skin color...EVER!!! However, if I run across a wounded person and you are running away from the scene, I am going to shoot you. That is, if I have a gun and if I were a police officer.

I am obviously not. Therefore you would only have to fear me if you tried to enter my home without my permission. Make sure you write your will first, however.

SamuelAlito said...

Rosemary has a point.

I would be in favor of shooting a teenage white boy too. I never said anything about skin color.

The Right Honorable, etc.

bluewild said...

But you WILL shoot people because they are running. You and Rosemary should be banned from the Olympics or any events with track and field.

Ollie is smart - WALK - and fast - very fast - but WALK - Don't Run!

ollie said...

Sir, I have another serious question for you.

Ok, I acknowledge your superior wisdom at allowing cops to take down suspicious guys who are running or who at least appear to be running.

But what about the women?

Clearly these troublemakers are running; that is probable cause that they have done something wrong, somewhere, at some time in the past. They strike me as being grave threats to society. Can't the cops be permitted to take these lasses down as well?

You might want to think about your answer as those feminists might throw hissy-fits if you say "no".

ollie said...

Sir, needless to say, the more I think about your criteria ("if" he runs, boy, then shoot him) and the more holes I find in it.

I've discussed the unnecessary restrictions on "running" and on the sex of the person who is fleeing.

But, and this really surprises me about you, you've totally forgotten about PREVENTION. It is better to PREVENT crimes than to catch the bad people after the fact.

So consider this group of troublemakers. It is clear that they are up to no good and will be running soon. Sir, it is an absolute travesty of justice that our cops couldn't take 'em down!

(as an aside, I've used the treadmill the last couple of days; for some reason, after revisiting this thread, I feel safer when I do that...:-) )