News 2020
All the breaking news - fifteen years before events come together
At least 12 potential rioters were killed in New York today when the Enhanced National Guard fired on a demonstration of students demanding what they called "the return of constitutional rule". No Britons or famous people were hurt.
The crowd was estimated by police to contain up to 100,000 people. Federal anti-terrorist laws in the USA prohibit public gatherings of more than three persons except for the purposes of gospel singing or public executions. "If the mob was a hundred thousand strong, that means it contained at least 99,997 criminals," said city mayor Judy Ruliani. "This city does not tolerate organised crime on that scale or any scale."
Asked to comment on the political aspect of the demonstration, Ms Ruliani said, "This country works on the principle of one person, one vote. Belief in democracy is what makes Americans American. And anyone who doesn't agree gets his ass kicked. That's what the distinction is between democracy and mob rule."
New York police chief Vomer Gunk said he found the crowd's professed political purpose "deeply suspicious."
"If they wanted something to protest about, why didn't they protest about the levels of crime and drug use and vagrancy in this great city of ours?" he said. "This country has a constitution. We've always had a constitution. Why would they demonstrate against not having something we've already got?"
The so-called demonstration was probably organised by foreigners and composed of "ignorant liberal-educated kids" who had been duped into taking part, he said.
Asked whether he thought the National Guard had acted correctly in shooting the twelve casualties in the head, Mr Gunk declined to pass judgement for fear of prejudicing a possible future inquiry into the incident, but said he thought the deaths were accidental. "I'm sure the boys did their best," he said. "Standard procedure is to fire a warning shot over the perpetrator's head, but those kids were jumping up and down an awful lot."
At least 12 potential rioters were killed in New York today when the Enhanced National Guard fired on a demonstration of students demanding what they called "the return of constitutional rule". No Britons or famous people were hurt.
The crowd was estimated by police to contain up to 100,000 people. Federal anti-terrorist laws in the USA prohibit public gatherings of more than three persons except for the purposes of gospel singing or public executions. "If the mob was a hundred thousand strong, that means it contained at least 99,997 criminals," said city mayor Judy Ruliani. "This city does not tolerate organised crime on that scale or any scale."
Asked to comment on the political aspect of the demonstration, Ms Ruliani said, "This country works on the principle of one person, one vote. Belief in democracy is what makes Americans American. And anyone who doesn't agree gets his ass kicked. That's what the distinction is between democracy and mob rule."
New York police chief Vomer Gunk said he found the crowd's professed political purpose "deeply suspicious."
"If they wanted something to protest about, why didn't they protest about the levels of crime and drug use and vagrancy in this great city of ours?" he said. "This country has a constitution. We've always had a constitution. Why would they demonstrate against not having something we've already got?"
The so-called demonstration was probably organised by foreigners and composed of "ignorant liberal-educated kids" who had been duped into taking part, he said.
Asked whether he thought the National Guard had acted correctly in shooting the twelve casualties in the head, Mr Gunk declined to pass judgement for fear of prejudicing a possible future inquiry into the incident, but said he thought the deaths were accidental. "I'm sure the boys did their best," he said. "Standard procedure is to fire a warning shot over the perpetrator's head, but those kids were jumping up and down an awful lot."
2 Comments:
At 1:56 am ,
Raoul Djukanovic said...
SIR - Why does your report grant dissenters no right to reply? Perhaps you could atone for this oversight by providing a personal microcosm of the tension of the heartache of darkness grown brutal on the unfair coverage you serve up. You know, one of those encapsulations of complexity in the vacuous musings of an individual, dressed up with your own above the buried news. It's time that the tale were told.
Yours in anticipation of hyperbole,
Codger Bohan
At 6:40 pm ,
Philip said...
Dear [first name, last name] - Thank you for your note with its many long words. We reported the dissenters' position in the first paragraph of our story, as a result of which our reporter has so far received two death threats and 117 variations of "remember who won the war for you limey pinko cocksuckers" from the office of the mayor of New York. After the mob was dispersed, no demonstrators were willing to come forward, and even if they had been we could not have interviewed them legally in the US without ascertaining the identity of each and then broadcasting it along with a contact number for the FBI and details of a cash reward of which we would have had to pay up to 75%. As to your request that we editorialise at inordinate length about the facts we report, this would be a violation of our charter which demands an impartial, non-judgemental and generally incredibly selfless approach. If it's turgid prose and militant self-pity you're looking for, we recommend Michael Herr's Dispatches. Thank you for your interest.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home