Letters to the Editor

What You Say


	print	email	reply	rss feed

Published: Jul 30, 2008

Mo' Money, Less Problems

The potential move of the two casinos to alternative sites [Loose Canon, "A Better Bet at the Airport," Bruce Schimmel, July 24, 2008] allows a possibility to correct a deep flaw in the original sites selected: duplication of logistical issues and costs. If the two casinos are located at adjoining sites, perhaps at the airport, the logistical issues — including access, traffic mitigation, policing, etc. — can be addressed with a single solution and a single cost to the city. There is a true economy for the Philadelphia taxpayer in the airport/casino solution.

Joe Schiavo
Via CityPaper.net

Next on Fox

In response to "85 Shots" [Cover Story, Doron Taussig and Tom Namako, July 24, 2008] and the CP's implicit criticism of the police who shot the gun-wielding — and likely drugged-out — Steven "Butter" Miller in South Philadelphia last year, let me propose a rather unorthodox challenge: The writers of the CP and the city's other "alternative" weekly will participate in a reality show in which they will have to patrol the streets of Philadelphia's most dangerous neighborhoods. Judges will determine whether their reaction to each robbery, assault, rape, murder or gun-toting thug is precisely fair and proportional.

If, for instance, the judges determine that you fired your weapon to defend yourself and your partner from a suspect who appeared to be reaching for a weapon, but who actually was unarmed, you would be fired from the competition, vilified in the media and have to deal with accusations of racism and brutality.

However, those who are able to make the correct decision while patrolling their beat every time — without exception — would be declared the winner and offered a job with the police force of their choice, with all the lifestyle amenities that shift work and civil-servant salary would afford.

One more thing: Declared winners on the show will be participants who excelled at using restraint while responding to violent crimes, failed to use adequate force against a suspect and, as a result, got shot and killed on duty. These winners will be awarded an increase in their life insurance benefit and a plaque in their honor at police headquarters. Naturally, the winner of this highly coveted award unfortunately will not be eligible to return to the show for the next season.

Adam Levick
Via E-mail

I am friggin' so sick of feel-good articles about assholes who do dumb shit and then get shot by the police. Doron Taussig and Tom Namako: You guys are fucked up. "He hadn't pointed [the gun] at anyone, or if he had, it had been completely accidental." What about all the people on the street who ran into their homes to call 911? If Nut-Butter was so harmless how come nobody went to talk him down? Maybe you should have changed the name of the article to "20 Calls," because that's at least how many calls went to the 911 system asking the cops to come and put that rabid dog down.

Nobody cares about these criminal assholes, even Nut-Butter's best friend can't summon up the energy to write a slam about the guy. What's next? "John Lewis, the Misunderstood Fatbody"?

Pete Krimski
Via E-mail

The writers respond: Nowhere in "85 Shots" is the opinion expressed that Butter was harmless, or that the police were wrong to shoot at him. Questions are raised about the number of shots fired (about 60 of which, it should be recalled, missed Butter and went flying down residential streets). More importantly, though, is it really so wrong to acknowledge that Butter had friends and family who were negatively affected by his death? Or that those people, rightly or wrongly, are angry at the police? We don't doubt, by the way, that some of the officers involved have had a hard time of this, as well. We've requested interviews with them, and our offer still stands.

—Doron Taussig and Tom Namako

Comments

That was a lovely response by Namako and Taussig. It's a shame that they are unable or unwilling to take criticism, some of it admittedly to the right of eloquent, like professionals and let silence be their reply. Namako and Taussig's time to speak was in their cover story, and they did that. Plenty.

Their offer to interview the officers involved, when they know perfectly well the cops cannot speak due to the ongoing investigations, is irritating and disingenuous.

It's too bad, too, that the writers couldn't decide what exactly, their piece was about. Was it about a.) the people "Butter" left behind? or b.) the number of shots police fired? or c.) the number of times they missed or d.) an attempt to cause an even greater rift between the citizens of Philadelphia and its police officers? I'm going to bet safe and go with e.) all of the above.

Thanks, Doron & Tom, though, for raising the question about how many shots were fired. Seven officers were on-scene. Seventeen bullets in each of their clips. You do the math. Each officer can't assume the other one is going to shoot, or nobody will. It's simple mathematics, nothing more. I'm sure, if you were in the identical position, you'd have done the same.

by Gabriel Nathan on July 31st 2008 4:53 PM

Also In This Week's Opinion Section

Editor's Letter:

Musical Chairs

by Brian Howard

"This opportunity is the brass ring for every food blogger."

Slant:

It Didn't Have To End Like This

by Paolo Pezzotta

We are all reduced by the way Cass died.

Loose Canon:

A Snitch in Time

by Bruce Schimmel

You needn't be poor to get groceries from SHARE. Just be good.