37
   

Manhunt Going On In Watertown, Massachusetts Right Now

 
 
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 06:36 am
@jespah,
What a whale of an answer
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 2 May, 2013 09:27 am
@rosborne979,
Yeah it is Crapo
0 Replies
 
ossobuco
 
  3  
Reply Sat 4 May, 2013 03:13 pm
To Boston, from Haruki Murakami:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2013/05/murakami-running-boston-marathon-bombing.html

I rarely do other than clip from articles, but I don't think this author will mind if I post the whole thing:

MAY 3, 2013
BOSTON, FROM ONE CITIZEN OF THE WORLD WHO CALLS HIMSELF A RUNNER
POSTED BY HARUKI MURAKAMI

In the past thirty years, I’ve run thirty-three full marathons. I’ve run marathons all over the world, but whenever someone asks me which is my favorite, I never hesitate to answer: the Boston Marathon, which I have run six times. What’s so wonderful about the Boston Marathon? It’s simple: it’s the oldest race of its kind; the course is beautiful; and—here’s the most important point—everything about the race is natural, free. The Boston Marathon is not a top-down but a bottom-up kind of event; it was steadily, thoughtfully crafted by the citizens of Boston themselves, over a considerable period of time. Every time I run the race, the feelings of the people who created it over the years are on display for all to appreciate, and I’m enveloped in a warm glow, a sense of being back in a place I missed. It’s magical. Other marathons are amazing, too—the New York City Marathon, the Honolulu Marathon, the Athens Marathon. Boston, however (my apologies to the organizers of those other races), is unique.

What’s great about marathons in general is the lack of competitiveness. For world-class runners, they can be an occasion of fierce rivalry, sure. But for a runner like me (and I imagine this is true for the vast majority of runners), an ordinary runner whose times are nothing special, a marathon is never a competition. You enter the race to enjoy the experience of running twenty-six miles, and you do enjoy it, as you go along. Then it starts to get a little painful, then it becomes seriously painful, and in the end it’s that pain that you start to enjoy. And part of the enjoyment is in sharing this tangled process with the runners around you. Try running twenty-six miles alone and you’ll have three, four, or five hours of sheer torture. I’ve done it before, and I hope never to repeat the experience. But running the same distance alongside other runners makes it feel less grueling. It’s tough physically, of course—how could it not be?—but there’s a feeling of solidarity and unity that carries you all the way to the finish line. If a marathon is a battle, it’s one you wage against yourself.

Running the Boston Marathon, when you turn the corner at Hereford Street onto Boylston, and see, at the end of that straight, broad road, the banner at Copley Square, the excitement and relief you experience are indescribable. You have made it on your own, but at the same time it was those around you who kept you going. The unpaid volunteers who took the day off to help out, the people lining the road to cheer you on, the runners in front of you, the runners behind. Without their encouragement and support, you might not have finished the race. As you take the final sprint down Boylston, all kinds of emotions rise up in your heart. You grimace with the strain, but you smile as well.

* * *
I lived for three years on the outskirts of Boston. I was a visiting scholar at Tufts for two years, and then, after a short break, I was at Harvard for a year. During that time, I jogged along the banks of the Charles River every morning. I understand how important the Boston Marathon is to the people of Boston, what a source of pride it is to the city and its citizens. Many of my friends regularly run the race and serve as volunteers. So, even from far away, I can imagine how devastated and discouraged the people of Boston feel about the tragedy of this year’s race. Many people were physically injured at the site of the explosions, but even more must have been wounded in other ways. Something that should have been pure has been sullied, and I, too—as a citizen of the world, who calls himself a runner—have been wounded.

This combination of sadness, disappointment, anger, and despair is not easy to dissipate. I understood this when I was researching my book “Underground,” about the 1995 gas attack on the Tokyo subway, and interviewing survivors of the attack and family members of those who died. You can overcome the hurt enough to live a “normal” life. But, internally, you’re still bleeding. Some of the pain goes away over time, but the passage of time also gives rise to new types of pain. You have to sort it all out, organize it, understand it, and accept it. You have to build a new life on top of the pain.

* * *
Surely the best-known section of the Boston Marathon is Heartbreak Hill, one in a series of slopes that lasts for four miles near the end of the race. It’s on Heartbreak Hill that runners ostensibly feel the most exhausted. In the hundred-and-seventeen-year history of the race, all sorts of legends have grown up around this hill. But, when you actually run it, you realize that it’s not as harsh and unforgiving as people have made it out to be. Most runners make it up Heartbreak Hill more easily than they expected to. “Hey,” they tell themselves, “that wasn’t so bad after all.” Mentally prepare yourself for the long slope that is waiting for you near the end, save up enough energy to tackle it, and somehow you’re able to get past it.

The real pain begins only after you’ve conquered Heartbreak Hill, run downhill, and arrived at the flat part of the course, in the city streets. You’re through the worst, and you can head straight for the finish line—and suddenly your body starts to scream. Your muscles cramp, and your legs feel like lead. At least that’s what I’ve experienced every time I’ve run the Boston Marathon.

Emotional scars may be similar. In a sense, the real pain begins only after some time has passed, after you’ve overcome the initial shock and things have begun to settle. Only once you’ve climbed the steep slope and emerged onto level ground do you begin to feel how much you’ve been hurting up till then. The bombing in Boston may very well have left this kind of long-term mental anguish behind.

Why? I can’t help asking. Why did a happy, peaceful occasion like the marathon have to be trampled on in such an awful, bloody way? Although the perpetrators have been identified, the answer to that question is still unclear. But their hatred and depravity have mangled our hearts and our minds. Even if we were to get an answer, it likely wouldn’t help.

To overcome this kind of trauma takes time, time during which we need to look ahead positively. Hiding the wounds, or searching for a dramatic cure, won’t lead to any real solution. Seeking revenge won’t bring relief, either. We need to remember the wounds, never turn our gaze away from the pain, and—honestly, conscientiously, quietly—accumulate our own histories. It may take time, but time is our ally.

For me, it’s through running, running every single day, that I grieve for those whose lives were lost and for those who were injured on Boylston Street. This is the only personal message I can send them. I know it’s not much, but I hope that my voice gets through. I hope, too, that the Boston Marathon will recover from its wounds, and that those twenty-six miles will again seem beautiful, natural, free.

Translated, from the Japanese, by Philip Gabriel.

Haruki Murakami’s most recent book to appear in English is “IQ84.” His latest novel has just been published in Japan.

Illustration by Ed Nacional.
George
 
  2  
Reply Sun 5 May, 2013 02:25 pm
@ossobuco,
Thank you for posting that, ossobuco.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 10:06 am
Quote:
(CNN) -- A man fatally shot early Wednesday by an FBI agent in Orlando was being investigated for a possible connection to the Boston bombings, a U.S. law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Boston Marathon case told CNN.
The man who was shot, Ibragim Todashev, 27, knew both of the Tsarnaev brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, the official said.
The agent shot in self-defense in the incident, which occurred at Todashev's house, the law enforcement source said.
While he was being questioned by an FBI agent, two Massachusetts State Police troopers and other law enforcement personnel, "a violent confrontation was initiated by the individual," FBI spokesman Jason Pack said.
Todashev was killed and "the agent sustained non-life-threatening injuries," Pack said.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/justice/florida-fbi-shooting-boston/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

multiple cops together cant subdue one man without killing him??!!

Pull the other leg, it plays Jingle Bells.....
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 10:23 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
(CNN) -- A man fatally shot early Wednesday by an FBI agent in Orlando was being investigated for a possible connection to the Boston bombings, a U.S. law enforcement official with direct knowledge of the Boston Marathon case told CNN.
The man who was shot, Ibragim Todashev, 27, knew both of the Tsarnaev brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar, the official said.
The agent shot in self-defense in the incident, which occurred at Todashev's house, the law enforcement source said.
While he was being questioned by an FBI agent, two Massachusetts State Police troopers and other law enforcement personnel, "a violent confrontation was initiated by the individual," FBI spokesman Jason Pack said.
Todashev was killed and "the agent sustained non-life-threatening injuries," Pack said.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/22/justice/florida-fbi-shooting-boston/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

multiple cops together cant subdue one man without killing him??!!

Pull the other leg, it plays Jingle Bells.....


When someone takes out a gun, the police have a right to use deadly force, I thought. Why should the police jeopardize the own lives for someone that has a gun?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 10:27 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
When someone takes out a gun, the police have a right to use deadly force, I thought. Why should the police jeopardize the own lives for someone that has a gun?

so we want that to be the new standard...max force allowed by law? I kinda liked the old standard, min force required to get the job done.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 10:34 am
@hawkeye10,
What exactly are you complaining about hawkeye? That the standard that has always been in place isn't the same as the old standard?
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 10:38 am
@parados,
Quote:
What exactly are you complaining about hawkeye?
agents of the state killing people unnecessarily and without due process.
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 10:43 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
When someone takes out a gun, the police have a right to use deadly force, I thought. Why should the police jeopardize the own lives for someone that has a gun?

so we want that to be the new standard...max force allowed by law? I kinda liked the old standard, min force required to get the job done.


That might have been the paradigm when a citizen only was holding something less deadly than a gun. I remember an incident where an individual was shot by police for raising a hammer that was being held. The criteria seems to be the ability to deliver a deadly blow, by bullet, hammer, etc.

Why do you not subscribe to the simple paradigm of obeying the police? Are there many Alpha Males in your locale that would be too humiliated to obey an officer of the law's simple request, such as get on the ground, and lie flat?
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 10:47 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
What exactly are you complaining about hawkeye?
agents of the state killing people unnecessarily and without due process.


Who's criteria for necessity?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 10:56 am
@parados,
Quote:
That the standard that has always been in place isn't the same as the old standard?


That's crap, parados. You're paradosing again.

There was no need whatsoever to shoot up the boat. There was no need for massive numbers of combat ready troops.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 10:59 am
@Foofie,
Quote:
Why do you not subscribe to the simple paradigm of obeying the police?

the state does not have the right to kill citizens as retribution for disobedience of state agents....or at least this is what we tell Bashar al-Assad .
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 11:20 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
What exactly are you complaining about hawkeye?
agents of the state killing people unnecessarily and without due process.

So your standard is what? The police should allow someone with a knife to attack them?
When was that ever the standard?
JTT
 
  -2  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 12:14 pm
@parados,
More paradosing from Parados.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 06:27 pm
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Why do you not subscribe to the simple paradigm of obeying the police?

the state does not have the right to kill citizens as retribution for disobedience of state agents....or at least this is what we tell Bashar al-Assad .


The news stated the man had a knife and it was used against an officer. It is called self-defense.

No one said a "right to kill citizens as retribution for disobedience." Obeying what an officer of the law is requesting does prevent a situation from escalating. However, one does not pull out a knife for peaceful intentions, unless one might be ready to cut a sandwich in half.

The knife was used aggressively. That does not constitute retribution. It constitutes protecting one's life. It also shows that an officer's life is just as important as a person being questioned. I do not think an officer of the law should pander to a person with a knife by allowing himself/herself to get mortally stabbed.

I do not know what motivates your position of seemingly ignoring the mortal threat to an officer of the law?

Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 08:30 pm
@Foofie,
Now the evening tv news stated there might have been no knife. So what occurred? My comments earlier were only in context of what the news earlier reported about a knife; however, with a changing news story, I can only say, I wasn't there obviously, and now I have no comment.

I guess I can turn off my interest in a news story that changes like a cloud formation. I trust that any officers of the law followed the correct protocol and by the end of the day all the facts were obtained.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 08:55 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
Now the evening tv news stated there might have been no knife. So what occurred

highly trained cops did a poor job of managing a routine police procedure, which got out of control necessitating the taking of a life is their story. the alt scenarios are even more revolting.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 22 May, 2013 09:14 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
I trust that any officers of the law followed the correct protocol and by the end of the day all the facts were obtained.


Foofie: [salutes] Heil Hitler!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev verdict in...Guilty! - Discussion by Frank Apisa
"We are not barbarians" - Discussion by JPB
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/27/2021 at 01:32:05