The Daily Gazette
The Locally Owned Voice Of The Capital Region
Advertisement
Promotions

Letters to the Editor for Nov. 4

Text Size: A | A

Most opposition to hydrofracking has no scientific rationale I read with interest the opposing articles about hydrofracking for natural gas in the Oct. 30 Gazette. First of all, I believe that our state and nation need to develop all available sources of energy, including natural gas, if we hope to continue anything like our current lifestyles. Most energy experts agree that we have passed the time of peak oil production worldwide. It is also agreed ...

You Must or Subscribe to Continue
subscribe to the Daily Gazette
Individual stories can be found and purchased from our Archives for $2.00

Enjoy this story? Share it!

Advertisement

comments

biwemple
November 4, 2011
10:30 a.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Does opposition to fracking really require just scientific rationale? It can be focused on economics too. Check this out:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/us/rus...

WordWiz78
November 4, 2011
8:25 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

Ok, Mr. Statler, let's clear up a couple things. First, I'd like to know why you put "troublemaker" in quotes. You don't consider someone punching another patron, pushing over weight machines, tossing 45lbs barbells around, and harassing people a troublemaker? Wow, I'm glad you aren't in charge of writing the laws - anyone could do anything!

Secondly, let's counter the outright falsehood you tell: "...since he apparently wasn’t threatening anyone’s life and wasn’t armed himself." Really? Throwing around 45lbs weights in a crowded gym isn't putting anyone at risk? Pushing over weight machines that weigh several hundred tons isn't dangerous? Are you even reading what you write?

Must've been really nice to have a couple big burly guys accompanying you on your little military law enforcement adventures. Of course, I fail to see the comparison between this and the 'roid-enhanced madman who threw a cop trying to restrain him, so maybe you're just saying it as an FYI.

Let's come away from Mr. Statler's fun little world where everything always goes exactly right for a minute, and come join me in reality.
[cont.]

WordWiz78
November 4, 2011
8:26 p.m.

[ Flag Post ]

[cont.]
Reality 1: This man was either on steroids, or he is the most physically superhuman being to naturally occur in the area, at least. Normal people cannot simply toss around 45 pound barbells without effort, or push over weight machines with one hand.

Reality two: Several patrons were in immediate - yes, life threatening - danger.

Reality three: After a police officer attempted to talk the man down, the man proceeded to attack the responding officer in a very violent and physical altercation.

Reality four: At one point, the man actually Tased himself, when he grabbed the officer's Taser and pulled the trigger.

Reality five: The Taser did not kill this man by itself. The fact that he was tachying at over 200 heartbeats per minute due to the drugs in his system did. It is possible that the electricity AND drugs combined to be lethal, but that's the chances you take when you do drugs and act criminally reckless.

Reality six: Yes, this man died. And yes, many other lives were saved from the lunatic.

You people are ridiculous. You whine about the unfairness when police use lethal force. Then you whine when they use Tasers. What would you have them do, go out and challenge the criminals to an old-fashioned duel? Maybe you can go out and do their job for them, since you seem to know better how to handle the situation than they do.

Here's a thought: instead of constantly blaming the cops for doing their jobs, how about we blame the criminals for making these things necessary? What really caused this man's death? The fact that he was criminally destroying property, assaulting people, and putting people in mortal danger, not to mention the illegal drugs he was on. If he hadn't committed all these ILLEGAL acts, he'd still be alive. The Taser is next to irrelevent. But hey, let's never have the police protect anyone with the equipment at their disposal, because some GUILTY person might get hurt or killed! We'll let the innocent people get killed instead! That seems fair, right?

So, your question, Mr. Statler, seems to be: what if they didn't have Tasers? I have your answer. Several cops would be injured, at least. Several innocent patrons and staff members of Gold's Gym would be in the hospital. And the troublemaker (note the lack of quotation marks) would probably still be dead, since his blood pressure and pulse were off the charts from the drugs. So there's you answer: without the Tasers, many MORE people would be hurt - is that *really* what you want to be advocating?

Advertisement