Hasta La Gadget!

Photo Source: By Guðsþegn – Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0

Today, mass shootings are all too common. That wasn’t always the case. On a fateful August day in 1966, long before Columbine or Sandy Hook or Va Tech, Charles Joseph Whitman climbed the steps to the clock tower on the University of Texas at Austin campus. He had already killed his wife and mother. By the end of the day, 13 more would be dead and 33 wounded, one of them seriously enough to die a week later, bringing the death total to 14.

Coming just three years after President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, it was the first time we, as a nation, had to contend with a crazed shooter on a school campus. It would certainly not be the last.

We did not have a 24-hour news cycle then, and yet it was on every channel, an endless stream of heartbreak as victims were counted and identified. A news building was located across the square with a clear view of the tower, where shot after shot rang out for 96 minutes as they filmed. The horrifying footage seems more like a Hitchcock movie than live footage.

The Controversies

Much like today, when something unimaginable happens, opinions differ. What caused the tower shooting? Could something have prevented it? What really happened? We may never know the answers.

The Brain Tumor

Whitman’s autopsy revealed a brain tumor – an astrocytoma about the size of a pecan. The neuropathologist who conducted the autopsy, Dr. Chenar, concluded that this type of tumor would have no effect on Whitman’s behavior.

Governor John Connally commissioned a task force to examine the evidence, a panel of experts who ultimately disagreed with Dr. Chenar’s findings. While they could not say conclusively that the tumor caused Whitman’s actions on that day, they agreed that it might have contributed to his lack of control.

Who Was The Hero?

During the hail of bullets, three men initially ascended the tower that day to confront the killer. Two policemen, Ramiro Martinez and Houston McCoy, and one armed civilian, Allen Crum, kicked open the door and went out on the observation deck. A third officer, Jerry Day, went back down to accompany victims to safety. When the victims were safe, Officer Day went back up and took up a position near Crum.

The stories of what happened next are consistent but for one thing. Officers Martinez and McCoy each think they killed the sniper. Reports indicated that Martinez fired the first and last shots, and that he killed Whitman. He was hailed as the hero.

In the initial version, as reported by Time, local news station KBTC-TV, and other stories by respected journalists, Ramiro Martinez was credited with killing the sniper. The local newspaper, The Austin American, ran a headline that read “SHOOTS SLAYER. Patrolman Ramiro Martinez put the first bullet into the sniper atop the University of Texas tower, and then emptied his police revolver as the sniper whirled and fired at him.”

Allen Crum stayed near the door while the two officers crept around the side of the building toward the shooter. Moments later, Crum thought he heard the shooter running in his direction and fired a warning shot into the wall. The shooter heard the shot and backed into a corner aiming his rifle in the direction of the shot, preparing for an attack.

Seeing that the shooter was focused on the other direction, Martinez seized the opportunity. He broke cover and squeezed off all 6 shots from his .38 handgun in rapid succession. The shooter jerked as he was hit, fired wildly into the air, and started to rise from his crouching position, swinging his gun towards the officers. McCoy discharged his shotgun twice. Whitman spun around and slumped against the wall. Martinez grabbed McCoy’s shotgun, ran to Whitman, and pumped the final shot into his head.

Years after the shooting, Officer McCoy came forward with a slightly different version. He told anyone who would listen that Martinez missed with all six shots, while his two shotgun blasts delivered the fatal wounds, and that Whitman was already dead when Martinez shot him the final time. When the Los Angeles Times ran the story in 1994, the reporter wrote that McCoy had powerful proof that he, and not Martinez, was the hero – the autopsy report. The reporter remarked about how compelling this proof was.

There’s only one problem. The autopsy report does not corroborate his story. It does not specify which shot killed Whitman (there’s no way to tell), but does say that there were wounds from both large caliber bullets and shotgun pellets.

Is this revisionist history? Comments on videos and news stories often lean disturbingly toward racism. From YouTube:

There’s no way to know who fired the fatal shot, but one thing is certain. All three of those brave officers and the civilian deputized on the spot risked their lives to face down a heavily armed sniper. In my book, they are all heroes.

Guns Everywhere!

Another subject up for debate is the endless controversy over armed citizens. When news of the shooting hit the airwaves, armed men showed up on the campus, guns at the ready. They took up stances around the base of the tower and shot at Whitman.

While some commentators lauded the civilians for pinning down the gunman, others questioned the wisdom of a law that allows vigilante justice. Officer McCoy narrowly missed a shot to the head from below. In one news video, he points to the bullet hole than nearly ended his life.

With every new shooting, the questions arise and options are discussed. How do we, as a nation, move forward? Everyone on both sides of the fence realizes the need for much more safety and education on the topic. Veteran-owned website, Imminent Threat Solutions, talks about frequent training and situational awareness to protect yourself should you be confronted with an armed individual. The argument that you should put your phone down and pay attention to your surroundings when you are in public is something both sides can agree on.

Mental Health

Then, as now when a killer goes berserk, there was speculation of mental illness and lack of mental health care. Could psychiatric help have prevented this tragedy? By all accounts, Whitman was certainly an emotionally damaged young man. He was the son of a controlling, physically and mentally abusive father and had a court martial in his military record.

Charles Whitman, 1963. Photo Source

As it turned out, Whitman had sought professional help. His journal entries and suicide missive seemed to indicate that he was aware of his mental deterioration. He knew what he was planning was wrong, but was unable or unwilling to stop. He was suffering from terrible headaches. In his lengthy suicide note, he urged authorities to conduct an autopsy to find out if there was a biological reason for his actions. He indicated that he loved his wife and mother, and killed them to spare the shame and embarrassment of what was to come.

Even after 50 years of debate, there are no easy answers. With each horrifying incident come more questions, more rhetoric on both sides, and no clear path forward.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

By Dr. Nehginpao Kipgen

Manipur has been plagued by different forms of agitation on the issue of Inner Line Permit since last year. The deep division between the valley and the hill people has visibly become a serious concern over the past several months.

The ongoing agitation has caused the death of an 11th grader in Imphal and 9 civilians in Churachandpur. More than 200 days have passed but the 9 tribal dead bodies remain unburied as the hill people continue to press for their demand.

The latest round of agitation began in the midnight of May 17 when the Joint Action Committee Against Anti-Tribal Bills (JACAATB) enforced a 48-hour total shutdown in the hill districts of the state, which was followed by the Joint Committee on Inner Line Permit System’s (JCILPS) 38-hour statewide bandh that began on May 20.

The intensified JCILPS agitation in the valley, particularly by its women and student volunteers, targets offices of regional and national political parties in the state.

The JCILPS demands that the Indian President gives his assent to the three bills passed by the Manipur State Assembly on August 31 last year. It also demands the establishment of population commission and land reforms commission as agreed between the committee and the state government last year.

The fundamental problem lies in the interpretation of the bills. The valley people, who are predominantly Meiteis, view the bills as a mechanism to protect the state and its people from outsiders.

The argument of the state government (dominated by the majority Meiteis) and the valley people is that the bills are largely misunderstood and misinterpreted by the hill people. They claim that the bills are meant to check the migration of people from outside the state, and that they would not disadvantageously affect the hill people.

Another argument of the valley people is that there is a constitutional injustice that allows the hill people to buy and own land and properties in the valley but people of the valley (non-tribal people) are prevented from owning land in the hills.

On the other hand, the hill people (the Kukis and Nagas) see the bills as a threat to their rights over identity and land. For example, clause 2(b) of the Protection of Manipur People Bill defines “Manipur People” as “Persons of Manipur whose names are in the National Register of Citizens, 1951, Census Report 1951 and Village Directory of 1951 and their descendants who have contributed collective social, cultural and economic life of Manipur.”

If the bill is enacted into law, a person needs to have been enumerated in all three registers – the National Register of Citizens, 1951, the Census Report 1951 and the Village Directory of 1951 – to be considered as belonging to the state.

Being registered in just one or two registers/directories means he or she has not met the criteria. Hence if the bill becomes a law and is implemented strictly, many people in the hill areas face the prospect of being excluded. In 1951, many of the remote hill areas were cut off, without proper communication and transportation systems, which is still the case for some far-flung areas.

Since Manipur attained statehood status only in 1972, there is a possibility that many of the local people may be listed as outsiders because of their inability to provide the required documents.

There is also an apprehension that the definition of “Manipur People” could be used in other acts/bills to deny services, facilities and amenities to the people of Manipur, especially the tribal people, in seeking government jobs, admission to schools, colleges or in case of state quota in medical and engineering admissions.

There is also a lingering apprehension among the tribal people that the state government would use the bills as a strategic political ploy to gain access over their land. The unwillingness on the part of the state government to implement the sixth schedule in the hill areas exacerbates the concerns of the tribal people.

The short-term demand of the tribal people is the withdrawal of the three bills and the protection of their land through constitutional safeguards such as the sixth schedule provisions. And the long-term demand is a separate administration from Manipur which they believe is the only way forward to bringing lasting peace and development in their region.

The politics surrounding the bills becomes so sensitive that it could further escalate into a major problem for the state as well as the central government, and more importantly between peoples of the hill and the valley. Under the present circumstances, the central government cannot simply say it is a state matter when the bills have reached the president’s desk, and when the issue involves constitutional matter, Article 371C.

Though any amicable solution is easier said than done, there are some viable solutions.

One option is for the state government to withdraw the bills and go back to the drawing board by consulting the agitating tribal leaders.

The second option is to insert a clause in the bills which clearly states that they would not in anyway affect or apply on the tribal people and their land.

The third option is to implement the sixth schedule provisions in the hill areas that would protect and safeguard the history, culture, land and identity of the tribal people.

The fourth option is for the state and central governments to take concrete steps to ensure the proper utilization of development funds and schemes across the state. The status quo is that the valley districts are much more developed and advanced than the hill districts.

The fifth option is to review the political culture. Under the existing political arrangement, out of the 60-member legislative assembly seats, 40 are represented by the valley people and 20 by the hill people. There needs to be political accommodation in such a way that the post of the chief minister is also rotationally or periodically given to representatives from the hill areas.

The immediate worrying situation is whether more bodies will join the unburied 9 tribal dead bodies. The question is will the issue of Inner Line Permit be left for the people of Manipur to decide, or will Prime Minister Modi government take up the necessary steps to address the issue.

Nehginpao Kipgen is Assistant Professor and Executive Director of Centre for Southeast Asian Studies at Jindal School of International Affairs, O.P. Jindal Global University, and the author of ‘Politics of Ethnic Conflict in Manipur’.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Miniature Cree LED flashlights belong in every
glovebox and drawer, and you can get two for just $7 today, one of the best deals we’ve ever seen.

Read more…

Good news, prospective Martian colonists: that frigid hellscape where you hope to spend out your days alone and in darkness is currently in a “warm phase.” Scientists are now reporting the first observational evidence that Mars recently emerged from an ice age, which can only mean one thing. It’s time to bring out the bombs and terraform that sucker
.

Read more…

Did you know that Microsoft is offering a free upgrade to Windows 10? If you use Windows 7 or 8, you definitely know about this. I’m confident in saying that, because Microsoft has made it nearly impossible to not notice this, thanks to any number of different pop-ups asking you to upgrade. Their latest attempt to trick users into upgrading … Continue reading