Tuesday, April 12, 2005

This is the guy

This was big news yesterday. Apparently this guy was staring at the capitol in DC, DRESSED IN BLACK, with two BLACK suitcases.

A lot of guys, dressed in black themselves, carrying semi-automatic weapons tackled him and drug him away.

The Fox news video I saw was very dramatic. They thought maybe this man, who stared for 45 MINUTES at the Capitol, might have been a TERRORIST. I mean, why else would he be DRESSED IN BLACK!??

Later they revealed the contents of the suitcases: a CD player, batteries, and "a watch or something." Ooooo scary!

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

He was australian - what the hell do you expect?

chad said...

okay, now, come on-- he stood outside the capitol for what must have been some time (assuming cops didn't start questioning him as soon as he stopped walking) carrying TWO suitcases which is actually odd, and refused to respond when a policeman asked him what he was doing. I figure they handled the situation well; the guy wasn't hurt, not much time or money was spent, and (obviously) nothing particularly bad happened.

moon dog said...

okay chad. you are standing, staring at a landmark, why? who the fuck knows. you have your luggage, why? you are traveling. you are wearing all black. why? you are a fucking member of the eugene anarchist black bloc.

a cop asks you what you are doing. you dont answer. he goes away. then you are tackled and drug 200 yards away. your suitcases are destroyed. you scrape your knee. "nothing particularly bad" though. I mean what can we really expect. certainly not the right to acting suspicious if we feel like it....

chad said...

look, shit is fucked up, and we are in danger of terrorist attacks. I think it is reasonable that when a cop (or ANYONE) asks you what you are doing, you produce some sort of answer when standing outside the capitol acting pretty suspicious. I don't have the full story, but it seems like he was not just looking but, if Yahoo is to be trusted "stationed himself" outside the capitol. That seems to imply a long-term position in a out-of-the-ordinary spot. That plus two suitcases plus all black means that you should at least deny wrongdoing. It doesn't have to be an in-depth answer, just "I am hanging out", or "I am looking around, I am a tourist." It's easy, and it doesn't violate any of your rights to answer a question about what you are doing in a public space. Also, if all that shit happened (I got tackled etc) I would say, "there's fucking nothing in my suitcases, just my personal stuff because I am travelling", NOT "you'll just have to find out."

Also, I recognize people's right to act suspicious if you feel like it, but I don't appreciate assholes acting like they are dangerous when they are not and wasting my government's (and by extension my) time and money. That dumbass could have protected himself and his shit with a simple answer to a simple question that didn't require him to say anything personal or private, just, "no, I'm not doing anything."

Yeah, it's his right to deny an answer, but the cops did exactly what they should have, given the situation. What can we expect? For cops to protect the capitol if there is reason to believe it's in danger, after first trying to resolve the situation in a peaceful way.

Anonymous said...

sO, WHEN i BECOME A TERRORIST AND DECIDE TO STATION MYSELF OUTSIDE MY TARGET BUILDING, PROBABLY WEARING PLAID, TO MAKE SURE THE PLANS ARE CORRECT, I WILL BE SURE TO RESPOND POLITELY TO THE COP, TO BE REASSURING AND FRIENDLY, SO THAT HE WILL LEAVE ME ALONE BECAUSE HEY, I AM A TOURIST, ADMIRING THE ARCHITECTURE. IT IS JUST THE INNOCENT SCHMUCK WHO'S TOO JEALOUS OF HIS RIGHT TO BE LEFT ALONE THAT REFUSES TO ANSWER. COME TO THINK OF IT HE'S PROBABLY MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE TERRORIST IN THE LONG RUN. LOVE, MOM

chad said...

yeah, that's true, I mean, the smarter terrorist would do a better job of disguising himself. But does that mean we shouldn't try to catch the dumb, or at least more obvious terrorists? Aren't we getting pretty close to reverse psychology here? And if you were in fact a terrorist, maybe you would TRY to answer normally but it would come out nervous and he'd see through you? Besides, I, myself, am jealous of my right to privacy. I act to protect it by not acting in explicitly suspicious ways. I don't allow the thought that I might be mistaken for a criminal deter me from an action I think is important but at the same time I avoid pretending I am dangerous, because that doesn't get me anything but beat up by cops.

The Server said...

It seems obvious that the man was 1) not just a tourist, and 2)not a terrorist (in the usual sense of the word). What it seems to me, is that he was trying to make a statement about the state of our paranoia. When a man who looks out of the ordinary and maintains that his buisness is his own, does anything odd, he is suspect. That is the way of America, these days. What this man did draws attention to our paranoia, and might make some of us re-examine it, or it might not.
It reminds me that the world is so patrolled and controlled that you can't do something that, when you take away all the terrorism, and war, seems totally benign. Just a thought...

chad said...

I agree. More importantly, shit, it's Jesse McMillan! Hello, Jesse! Welcome to my part of the internets! I talk to your sister sometimes on AIM. It was weird going to your well-written blog that is much better than this one and trying to figure out who you were. I saw a picture of paho and that was strange to see on a foreign site, like opening an advent calendar thingy and seeing a picture of someone you know tangentially. Anyway, maybe I will go to your blog every once in a while, I am knee deep in deadline right now so sometimes I tell myself that if I read one more fucking thing on the internet suddenly my project will be done. Yeah.

The Server said...

Close, but no cigar. I am not Jesse, but instead am his good friend, Justin Wagaman. I am curious why you figured me for him, maybe our manner is simmilar, but no matter. Thanks for your praise of my blog, I work extra hard every time I am drunk to make sure my blog is well written.

chad said...

yeah, I figured out that it wasn't jesse after talking to nichole, but there's no way to edit away the shame. She couldn't figure it out either. I based my assumption on a couple (badly mislabeled) pictures. One way or another, all the multitudes should read this and note that the words "jesse" and "mcmillian" should be replaced with "justin" and "wagaman", and the phrase "your little sister" should be replaced with "a person".

Also, the multitudes should thank me for actually providing content on this miserable site. Whooo hoo, dublincore metadata.