OPINION . Editor's Letter

Hate Mail

"This came with two bullets. Should I throw them away?"

Published: Nov 28, 2007

This past Monday, our receptionist walked into my office and handed me a piece of paper. It was a handwritten note with big block letters.

"This came with two bullets," she said. "Should I throw them away?"

I looked up at her, not really understanding.

"Wait," I said. "Bullets from a gun?"

"Yeah."

ADVERTISEMENT

"Can you bring them here?"

She came back a few seconds later with a small white envelope. Inside were two bullets.

"Did you touch these?"

She said no, she didn't touch them.

I ignored the bullets and read the letter.

It was full of threats against the Philadelphia Police Department. It vaguely referred to the murder of Officer Chuck Cassidy, and promised more would follow if the police didn't back off.

I won't quote the letter here; we don't publish hate speech. If this was the sender's goal, too bad.

In fact, it's not clear who the sender was. The note was not signed; there was a name that could be a reference to a street gang, but that's just speculation. (We're looking into it.) Could be just a joke, or another crackpot letter. We receive our fair share here.

Minus, of course, bullets. That was new.

I wish I could tell you that, in that very moment, I knew exactly what to do. But I'll admit it: I was a little flummoxed. It wasn't as if the sender was threatening the newspaper, or anyone in specific. Was this something I should bother the police about?

Well, of course it was. I called Public Affairs. They told me to call 911.

I called 911.

An officer arrived within minutes. I explained what happened, he took down some names, and we waited for some detectives to show up, who would take the evidence and a statement.

The officer looked at the bullets, and told me they were hollow-points, modified to pierce body armor. Much like the vest the officer was wearing. "These would punch right through this," he explained, showing us on his chest, "and explode out the back."

These bullets are illegal. Sending them through the mail is a federal offense.

Then I remembered last week's Slant piece ["We're Not Down," Nov. 22, 2007]. It was written by Joe Leighthardt, a police officer in the city's Central Division. The point: After what happened to Chuck Cassidy, we're not running scared. We're working harder to protect you.

I mentioned this to the officer. I also told him this was sheer speculation. Could have been that piece that inspired the letter; could have nothing to do with it at all.

A while later, the detectives showed up. I shook a lot of hands and repeated what happened. One of them put on blue evidence gloves and collected the letter, envelope and bullets and placed them in a brown paper evidence bag that looks like something you'd find at Acme.

"You guys going to write about this?' he asked, casually.

And that's the thing I've been wrestling with until I sat down to write this column. I don't want to spread hate. If hate were fuel, there'd be enough on our streets to take out Malibu five times over.

But I decided to write about it because a newspaper's first responsibility is to the readers. In short: I thought you should know a few things.

You should know that there are people in this city who hate our police enough to threaten them through a newspaper. Who are disturbed enough to offer illegal rounds of ammunition as proof of intent. Or, at the very least, joke about it. (The police, by the way, are hopeful they can find the sender.)

You should know this is the kind of city we're living in.

You should also think about the people who put themselves in front of those hollow-point bullets every day to protect us.

(duane@citypaper.net)

 

Comments

I'm not trying to belittle the concern (whether the letter was genuine or a scam), but you need to remember that you're a journalist and stop believing everything you're told. Hollow-point bullets are not by themselves illegal. Additionally, since they're designed to expand on impact, they're less dangerous to someone wearing a bullet-resistant vest, not more. The officer you dealt with is speaking from ignorance, and you bought into it.
by Dan on November 29th 2007 3:14 PM

Glad you decided to write the article. The culture that produces this type of action also produces one who will carry it out just to be cool and now thinks that because he said it, he must do it!
by Ron Stokes on November 29th 2007 5:22 PM

You wrote: "You should know this is the kind of city we're living in." I'm not sure that's quite right. More like, I think, "You should know the kind of people who live with us in this city."
by Joe on December 2nd 2007 8:46 AM

To Dan, the 1st person who posted,
I don't think Mr. Swierczynski was "buying into" anything when he wrote what the officer explained to him about the bullets. If the officer told me, me, being a person who doesn't where a badge, much like yourself, I think I would tend to believe the officer. He's an officer of the law, who protects my interests.
The officer said the bullet would pierce body-armor, like the vest police officers wear. How does that make them "less dangerous" to somebody wearing body armor (bullet-proof vests)?
And more importantly, how would it be "less dangerous" at all??
Brilliant thinking, Dan. Must be that degree in Law you got hanging on your wall making you an authority in the matter.
And the sole fact of whether you were or were not "belittling" the concern about someone sending bullets through the U.S. mail with a threatening note attached, aimed at those who put themselves in harms way professionally (unlike yourself), and concerning yourself more about WHAT YOU THINK (and that's all it is...) those bullets can or can't do
shows how really ignorant you are. And how you "belittled" the events Mr. Swierczynski wrote about.
That's the way to do things, Dan. Get angry because (YOU THINK) someone makes a mistake about something concerning the issue at hand, and not THE ISSUE at hand.
Let's get this straight! A messenger tells you that someone in the city you live in is going to be shooting cops, and you get upset about how and what the police told him about the bullets he received.
Brilliant!!
by Craig on December 2nd 2007 3:11 PM

aw, c'mon, did you just fall off the back of a South Street truck?
I used to get stuff like that back in the 70's. Here's what you do..you call the cops right away. NOW! You call a detective, better yet, go down and see one, take everything with you - every little detail, report it right away. Every paper, every bullet, times, dates, mail, everything.
That establishes a paper trail. Then, if you get a cold, let us say, you slip on the ice, you should fall unexpectedly on your front porch or have an accident and wind up in the hospital, you call the detective and EVERYONE IN CREATION knows you received an envelope with two bullets in it, and the detective follows up on it.
From experience I know this. "Da boys' do not wish any undue publicity in the form of Inquirer or Channel 10 TV cameras around (are they still around these days?).
Trust me, it works.
by Roger Fulton on December 4th 2007 1:51 AM

Dude, did you not read the article? That's exactly what he did.
by Paul Curci on December 4th 2007 4:58 PM

Craig - I wasn't angry at anyone. You're the one frothing. I appreciate the editor's original concern, but I still maintain that repeating what someone else says as fact without checking first isn't journalism; it's parroting. As far as why these bullets are less dangerous to someone wearing a vest, try a little investigating of your own. Or just have fun flying off the handle.
by Dan on December 6th 2007 12:02 PM

Dan. I think the point here is not whether or not the bullets will do as the officer explained. Its the fact that they were sent in the first place as a threat. The intent is there armour piercing or not.
If you read the article fully, at no point does Duane say this is fact. Only that was what was explained to him.
by Kenny on December 6th 2007 3:35 PM

Dan, Ya know, I was actually laughing at the uncalled-for "you bought into it" remark directed at Mr. Swierczynski and the crack about the cop "speaking from ignorance". It makes me laugh to see somebody like you speak about things when you have no idea what they are talking about.
"Frothing" is a little overdramatic. I call it sarcasm. But, from your 1st post on the whole matter, I can see you are a bit overdramatic as a person. It's ok. You pro'lly get that a lot. And you seem to be misdirecting your anger.
You're also very judgemental.
I would think Mr Swierczynski knows a bit more, then you, about getting his story straight, rather then "parroting" someone. And, again, he was quoting a police officer who pro'lly has more experience, then you have, in the matter.
And, if more then one person points out you were wrong, as Kenny has pointed out in his post above, you should stop gettting angry and concede to the fact you may be or are wrong in the direction you are heading with your arguement.
My point to you is, You were not in the office with Mr. Swiercynzski and the officer. That's a fact. My guess is you know less about the bullets then they do. But, that's just me.
Go back and REALLY read what Mr. Swiercyznski wrote.
And don't be so angry. Life's too short.
by Craig on December 7th 2007 10:31 PM

Sadly you both got away from the topic at hand. I called for in my previous article for the police department to rally up and show the flag. You all let it turn into a debate about how much what bullets will do.
by Joe Leighthardt on December 10th 2007 1:35 AM

Mr. Leighthardt, my apologes for letting this turn into a debate. You're absolutely correct. It wasn't about the bullets.
And even though I don't live in your city, I have family that live near. My mom and dad who've moved to your state.
My dad is a retired 26-yr New Jersey State Trooper. And it gets my ire up when others, outside law enforcement, judge those in it. When someone says an officer is "speaking from ignorance", even when the officer is trying to convey a sense of urgency, not just about what he is holding in his hands, but, what's happening in the area around him, I feel the need to share my opinion.
Not until 5 mins ago did I read your 11/22 slant/opinion comments. (I missed it the first read, and caught it this moment.)
But, lets be clear. In no way did I get away from the subject at hand in my response. My whole point was that someone was belittling what was happening in your city by the statement a police officer made about a very serious situation.
Yes, this may have gotten away from us in a debate-like manner. But, when someone criticizes a police officers first-hand assessment about something that dangerous, that threatening, and judges a police officer's experience as "ignorant", instead of the matter at hand, on top of everything that's happened in your city (or any city), again, I have to voice my "opinion".
I, in no way, would want you or anyone to think that anyone wouldn't take to heart the seriousness of what's happening.
My condolences to your brother officers and their families who have suffered in or out the line of duty.
I wish you and yours a peaceful holiday.
Thank You.
by Craig on December 18th 2007 10:38 PM



Also In This Week's Opinion Section

Slant:
War of the Words
by Michael Washburn

Loose Canon:
Instant Orchard
by Bruce Schimmel

Feedback:
Letters to the Editor
 
 
ADVERTISEMENT