Reaction: Overkill
Cleared of criminal malfeasance in the death of a young would-be bank robber, fleeing the scene, threatening his pursuers with a gun four police officers can now breathe easy. Regardless that it was a replica, a toy, a harmless piece of stage equipment indistinguishable from the real threat - and thereby bringing the responsibility for his untimely death back upon the young man fleeing apprehension.
What 27-year-old man really believes that his life could be snuffed out so readily? What young, vibrant male might not thrill to the experience of lending himself to a drama he might later entertain friends with? And convince himself that he was lucky to get away with it, and he will never, ever be so rashly stupid again.
The commission of a crime so public, so dangerous appeared, from the description of his father and his friends totally out of character for Paul Michael Jeffrey. His father had every expectation that his son would inherit the family farm; whether to dedicate himself to a future of farming, or whether to dispose of it as his inheritance isn't clear.
Regardless, his son worked at a McDonald's outlet, while nursing his love affair with commercial art representations and complaining the while of his cash shortages.
Perhaps the same work ethic that his father had had instilled in him through generations of Ontarians working on the land simply did not take root in Paul Michael Jeffrey, as it did in Peter Jeffrey. So many family farms collapse under the weight of hard work resulting in scant return for the effort.
Hordes of young men and women growing up on farms have no wish to continue the family tradition and look elsewhere for work fulfillment and lifestyle choices.
An unfortunate choice, whether willing or coerced, as his bereaved father claims, was made by Paul Michael Jeffrey on March 6, when he confronted police pursuing him as a bank-robbery suspect, threatening to shoot. Mere moments before he suddenly became another statistic.
It was one young, doubtless frightened young man facing off against four armed police officers. Perhaps he thought briefly that he had submitted himself to a living nightmare. He might never have imagined he would be fleeing the scene of a crime, police in hot pursuit. His nightmare soon escalated. Undetermined was who it was among the four who fired the fatal shot.
But his father was informed that police fired at least 20 shots that fateful night, one hitting his son in the back of the head, another on his front below the belt line. Back of the head? To disarm a dangerous suspect are not police trained to shoot the extremities? Avoid the chest, the head, those vulnerable areas where death can arrive as speedily as the bullet reaching for the heart, the brain...?
A grieving Mr. Jeffrey describes his son as mild-mannered, not attuned to the usual rural testosterone pursuit of hunting. "He didn't have a mean bone in his body. He wouldn't even kill a fly. He wouldn't hurt anything. He was a very kind boy". He may have been all of that, but he was also incautiously imprudent to join the company, however it came about, of others who meant to commit a criminal offence.
The SIU, in their concluding statements exonerating the four police officers in Paul Michael's death, quoted circumstances to support their findings:
The advertisement, one sponsored by "the institute GMHC". The quote at the top reads: MY SON IS MY LIFE, under which is a photograph of a father facing a son, and under that a pithy message: "I know he is gay and I don't always understand, but that doesn't change my love for him." I have no idea what "the institute" is; presumably an organization representing gays and urging acceptance within families and within society.
One father is faced with the fact that his son committed a capital crime, and was horrendously punished for his lapse in judgement. The other, the realization that his son is his son regardless of his choices in gender lifestyle. Not much of a comparison, really, just symbolic of the many different types of situations parents face with their children, sometimes resulting in rifts; emotionally temporary, and emotionally terminally.
One can imagine that loving parents do all they can in the performance of their duties as responsible parents to prepare their children to join society as fully functioning, civilly responsible and independent adults. The imperative of practising sound values and attuning oneself to a young person's choices in life, trying to imbue them with a practical sense of determining how best they can position themselves in life, is difficult.
But it has to be done. Prevention is the greater part of the cure. And it is true, nonetheless, that there are no guarantees in life, neither for success, happiness, nor a long and fruitful life.
What 27-year-old man really believes that his life could be snuffed out so readily? What young, vibrant male might not thrill to the experience of lending himself to a drama he might later entertain friends with? And convince himself that he was lucky to get away with it, and he will never, ever be so rashly stupid again.
The commission of a crime so public, so dangerous appeared, from the description of his father and his friends totally out of character for Paul Michael Jeffrey. His father had every expectation that his son would inherit the family farm; whether to dedicate himself to a future of farming, or whether to dispose of it as his inheritance isn't clear.
Regardless, his son worked at a McDonald's outlet, while nursing his love affair with commercial art representations and complaining the while of his cash shortages.
Perhaps the same work ethic that his father had had instilled in him through generations of Ontarians working on the land simply did not take root in Paul Michael Jeffrey, as it did in Peter Jeffrey. So many family farms collapse under the weight of hard work resulting in scant return for the effort.
Hordes of young men and women growing up on farms have no wish to continue the family tradition and look elsewhere for work fulfillment and lifestyle choices.
An unfortunate choice, whether willing or coerced, as his bereaved father claims, was made by Paul Michael Jeffrey on March 6, when he confronted police pursuing him as a bank-robbery suspect, threatening to shoot. Mere moments before he suddenly became another statistic.
It was one young, doubtless frightened young man facing off against four armed police officers. Perhaps he thought briefly that he had submitted himself to a living nightmare. He might never have imagined he would be fleeing the scene of a crime, police in hot pursuit. His nightmare soon escalated. Undetermined was who it was among the four who fired the fatal shot.
But his father was informed that police fired at least 20 shots that fateful night, one hitting his son in the back of the head, another on his front below the belt line. Back of the head? To disarm a dangerous suspect are not police trained to shoot the extremities? Avoid the chest, the head, those vulnerable areas where death can arrive as speedily as the bullet reaching for the heart, the brain...?
A grieving Mr. Jeffrey describes his son as mild-mannered, not attuned to the usual rural testosterone pursuit of hunting. "He didn't have a mean bone in his body. He wouldn't even kill a fly. He wouldn't hurt anything. He was a very kind boy". He may have been all of that, but he was also incautiously imprudent to join the company, however it came about, of others who meant to commit a criminal offence.
The SIU, in their concluding statements exonerating the four police officers in Paul Michael's death, quoted circumstances to support their findings:
- Jeffrey was running away from a bank that had just been held up.
- He threatened to shoot an officer.
- He charged at the officers and pointed a replica gun at them.
- The replica could "easily be mistaken for a real handgun".
The advertisement, one sponsored by "the institute GMHC". The quote at the top reads: MY SON IS MY LIFE, under which is a photograph of a father facing a son, and under that a pithy message: "I know he is gay and I don't always understand, but that doesn't change my love for him." I have no idea what "the institute" is; presumably an organization representing gays and urging acceptance within families and within society.
One father is faced with the fact that his son committed a capital crime, and was horrendously punished for his lapse in judgement. The other, the realization that his son is his son regardless of his choices in gender lifestyle. Not much of a comparison, really, just symbolic of the many different types of situations parents face with their children, sometimes resulting in rifts; emotionally temporary, and emotionally terminally.
One can imagine that loving parents do all they can in the performance of their duties as responsible parents to prepare their children to join society as fully functioning, civilly responsible and independent adults. The imperative of practising sound values and attuning oneself to a young person's choices in life, trying to imbue them with a practical sense of determining how best they can position themselves in life, is difficult.
But it has to be done. Prevention is the greater part of the cure. And it is true, nonetheless, that there are no guarantees in life, neither for success, happiness, nor a long and fruitful life.
Labels: Family, Justice, Social-Cultural Deviations
posted by Pieface @ 12:50 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home