| Letter is a Botched Attempt to Clear Cops By Jim Correale (Published in the East Boston Sun Transcript on June 15, 2001.) Nowhere in any of the sources that I consulted did I find James W. Carnell's definition of the word "slain," which he offered in a letter that was printed in this newspaper on June 1. According to Carnell, the word "is most often associated with either a) a dragon or b) the wanton, violent killing of an innocent person." This is simply not true. The use of "slain" makes no judgment on the guilt or innocence of the person killed, nor must the action itself be wanton, or reckless. The term only means "violently killed." Carnell, identified at the end of his letter as a member of the Boston Police Patrolmen's Association, is clearly upset about The Boston Globe's coverage of the death of Jose Pineda, the East Boston man who was shot and killed by police officers on May 26. The letter attempts to make several points about a story written by Globe reporters Jamal Watson and David Abel, but each of the arguments is fallacious. First, Carnell is critical of the use of the word "slain" in the story's headline -- "Man slain by police in E. Boston scuffle" -- and blames one of the two authors, Watson, for showing sympathy toward the victim via choice of words. In reality, reporters do not write headlines; usually copy editors will handle that task, which is as much about fitting the headline into a particular space as it is about summarizing the story that follows. "Slain" -- instead of such alternatives as "killed," "murdered" or "slaughtered" -- is often used in headlines simply because it has fewer letters, much like "Hub" is used for "Boston," or "panel" instead of "committee." Reporters Watson and Abel did not use "slain" in the story itself. They did, however, use "scuffle," another word that Carnell has problems with. The offending sentence reads: "Police said the shooting, at 1:18 a.m., followed a chase and a scuffle." Carnell cites the incident as "slightly more serious than a mere scuffle," but the word refers to some type of fight or struggle, and seems appropriate in this case and not indicative of any bias against the officers. The next word that troubles Carnell is the traditional use of "allegedly" when describing the suspect's actions. Nowhere does the article refer to the officer's "alleged wounds," as Carnell states; only that Pineda's actions "allegedly" occurred. This would seem to be justified, as he did not survive the incident and, therefore, cannot agree or disagree with the officers' accounts. On the other hand, in all the coverage I have read and seen, even the officers themselves do not dispute that they fired the shots that killed Pineda, which would explain why their actions are not characterized as "alleged." The second half of Carnell's letter goes on a diatribe against the idea that police officers should receive any "cultural training," and he writes that members of the force should not have to learn the varied languages of the citizens of Boston. No one is suggesting that law enforcement personnel should have to be fluent in a half-dozen languages; however, would having officers learn how to say, "Stop! Police!" in Spanish really be that difficult? What is most disturbing about Carnell's letter are the insensitive comments he slips in throughout the piece. He mockingly refers to the dead man as "the dear departed Jose Pineda"; he sarcastically asks if the officers should have "explored [Pineda's] inner feelings of rage"; he carelessly cites the comments made by Pineda's friends and family as "teary-eyed accounts." Is such callousness really necessary? Finally, in a conclusion that defies logic, Carnell implies that the entire incident is a result of Pineda's failure to learn English in the time he has been in the United States. Apparently, death is an acceptable punishment for that infraction. What Carnell conveniently fails to address in his letter is that Jose Pineda, by all accounts, had done nothing wrong when two plainclothes officers began chasing him. He had committed no crime, other than being a Latino walking down the street after midnight. Of course, Pineda was wrong to stab the officer, but one can understand how he may have been confused and afraid when confronted by plainclothes officers who drove an unmarked car. His reaction makes even more sense if it is true that he had been mugged twice recently. Personally, whenever I have needed the Boston Police they have been there and have been nothing but professional. In addition, I have several friends who are Boston Police officers, and they are wonderful people and good cops. I have no ax to grind. I am willing to wait and see what the department's investigation says about this shooting. I have no preconceived notions of who was in the right and who was not. However, Carnell clearly does. His letter is a botched attempt to clear the officers involved even before all the facts have been revealed. His "blame the media" approach is a tactic that is used often, but in this case is clearly without merit. |