National Mall Immolation 2013

[elfismiles]

Not a good sign...

10.04.2013, 17:03 PM
Man sets himself on fire at National Mall, one witness says his accomplice filmed the entire ordeal: report
http://m.nydailynews.com/1.1476755#bmb=1

[Nordic]

African American. Again.

[elfismiles]

UPDATE: Man sets himself on fire at National Mall while another man allegedly films him
By Scott Kaufman
Friday, October 4, 2013 17:55 EDT

One day after Washington, D.C. was locked down after a woman attempt to ram her car into the White House, Park Police say a man set himself on fire in the middle of the National Mall.

Witnesses told NBC’s Washington affiliate that they saw a man “pouring gasoline on himself, then setting himself on fire.” Nearby joggers stripped off their shirts and attempted to douse the flames, while others called the police.

The man was airlifted to a hospital, though there is no word yet on his condition.

UPDATE 10:39 PM EST: New images and witnesses claim that the man who set himself on fire was being filmed by another man.

Katy Scheflen, a furloughed civil rights attorney for the Justice Department, told the Daily News that she stopped not because of the man on fire, but because she saw “a guy with a tripod set up” and thought it was a protest.

At that point we didn’t know what was going, maybe it was some sort of stage protest,” Scheflen said. “And then he set himself on fire and went up in flames.”

“Some heads up joggers put out the flames,” she said. “A guy took his shirt off, ran over, you know, start trying to beat the flames out. A couple other joggers also stopped to help.”

Watch amateur video of the man being airlifted below.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/10/04/m ... onal-mall/

[Carol Newquist]

“Some heads up joggers put out the flames,” she said. “A guy took his shirt off, ran over, you know, start trying to beat the flames out. A couple other joggers also stopped to help.”

Interesting. What would you have done? "You" means any of us. I'm not sure. I may have let him burn himself to death. It was his protest, afterall, and I don't want to squash his freedom of expression. Imagine his fate now after being rescued? Jail, perhaps, or a mental institution. No doubt a hefty fine.

[Iamwhomiam]

Nah, I think you would have filmed it and rushed to upload it to the web.

[Iamwhomiam]

If I saw him doing this I would have died trying to prevent it. This is my experience too, not his alone. If he died after my efforts, I would have lived with the memory of having tried to prevent a needless death. If he lived he would know there was some hope we all had not lost our humanity.

We'll have to wait to learn his reasoning.

I doubt he was a Republican Senator, they would have chosen to burn the capitol.

[Wombaticus Rex]

I don't know that I necessarily would have watched, but I would have definitely let him burn.

I would even go so far as to tackle those joggers.

I would not have recorded it, that is an alien concept to me, recording happens in vocal booth and involves marijuana, not gasoline.

I would have attempted to stop this man while he was dousing himself with gasoline. (Tackled him, even.)

But, once that flame was ignited? What the fuck kind of charity is that?

"I saved your life, bro! Don't you see how beautiful the world is? Enjoy an agonizing eternity in the burn ward, bro! People care!"

[Iamwhomiam]

True, Rex, Had I seen him douse himself, I would have tried to interfere then. Life is precious, and yes he would suffer, but he'd be alive. Alive he could expound further upon his philosophy.
If he died he would just become another crazy suicide, with no control of what would be said of him or is act. To each there own, I suppose.

Every attempted suicide has their rationale for their action. Many survivors lives, burned or not, are opened to and welcome new opportunities for a different life, even that altered by their own actions. Although I can understand your rationalization.

We all must live with the decisions we make, regardless the outcome, unless of course a suicide attempt is successful.

[Carol Newquist]

I would have lived with the memory of having tried to prevent a needless death.

But it wouldn't have been a needless death, at least not according to the person who is doing it to himself. It is a form of protest. I understand WR's revulsion to viewing the spectacle, but to look away, or encourage looking away is to diminish the protest's powerful effect and thus stymie this individual's expression. Pursuant to that, depending on one's motivation, is it disgusting and unimaginable to film it and upload it to the web, if the effect is to amplify and spread virally this person's sacrificial protest, or is it constructively magnanimous....or neither?

Also, consider the irony when you juxtapose this event with the woman murdered by the Capitol Police (Men in Black). This guy clearly wants to die in protest but is prevented from doing so, and the woman who makes a wrong turn and doesn't necessarily want to die in protest, is murdered in cold blood and the nation bows its head in collective silence for the Men in Black's efforts. It truly is a world upside down and inside out.

The message. You can't die your way. It must be by society's standards, and thus, men like Dr. Jack are criminalized.

[barracuda]

Thursday we witnessed a highly publicized extra-judicial killing of an oppressed minority by the occupation force of an apartheid territory. I'm guessing this is a response to Miriam Carey's death.

The news will play him out as mentally ill, if they can, or in some other fashion as perversely outré, but these kinds of suicides are typical of occupied populations, aren't they?

You could spin Mohamed Bouazizi or Thich Quang Duc that way, given the proper impetus and opportunity, such as if they were unfortunate enough to have burned in D.C.

I have a little mnemonic device regarding burning people: "When In Doubt, Put Them Out". You never know where a person's life is gonna lead. And if it turns out you were hasty, they can always shoot for round two.

He died, btw.

[Carol Newquist]

He died, btw.

Good for him. He did it his way (like Walt). Unfortunately, he had to unduly suffer because some do-gooders stomped on his spectacular freedom of expression protest. If left alone, he would have perished in a few minutes, but no doubt he suffered hours upon hours of unimaginable pain and torment because of the intervention. The joggers may have been too immersed in their augmenting technology (headphones listening to music and/or podcasts) to recognize that it was an obvious form of protest, so 8bitagent's point may have been proven, once again, in this case.

[Iamwhomiam]

Carol wrote,
But it wouldn't have been a needless death, at least not according to the person who is doing it to himself.

I must be nice to live a life wherein every decision one makes is always the right one.
He's had his say. too bad he's not around to explain the purpose of his "protest."

His messaging is as effective a well-attended demonstration without any message beside their gathering. What's he protesting, Carol? I have no idea.

At this point there is nothing more apparent than would be in any other sensational public suicide.

[Carol Newquist]

He's had his say. too bad he's not around to explain the purpose of his "protest."

I haven't looked into the story outside of the headline to this thread and what's been said in it. From that, it was mentioned that he possibly had an accomplice and this spectacular protest was filmed. If so, it's possible that accomplice will release the message at some later date....if you, and I do mean you as in you personally in this case, and the authorities allow it. I say this because you quipped about the potential film of it being uploaded to YouTube. Underscoring 8bitagent's technological augmentation thesis, perhaps this Burning Man and his accomplice understood/understand precisely what 8bitagent means and were filming it for upload to reach the "connected," and otherwise distracted, audience....which is a growing audience, by the way. Of course, there is no guarantee how this technologically augmented audience will respond to such an act if it crossed their tiny screens. There's a chance they just may say "ouch, that's looks like it would hurt. Why would someone do something like that? What a nut" and then go about typing barely decipherable text messages to their so-called friends about nothing in particular. Either way, in the least, his protest was fulfilling for him and no doubt it will affect some people in the way he had hoped, so his act was most likely not entirely in vain.

[justdrew]

about a year ago I was spotting a wave of self-immolations developing. Let's hope this doesn't catch on. I just don't accept this as a valid form of protest. If he wanted to deny 'the system' his energy he could have gone about it another way.

Have we no identity yet on this person?

UPDATE, Saturday Oct. 5, 12:25 p.m.: The New York Times is reporting that the man who set himself on fire on the National Mall on Friday has died of his injuries. D.C. police spokesperson Araz Alali told the Times that the protester was so badly burned that DNA and dental records will be needed to identify him.

So the 'person filming' was not some random person, they had a tripod ready to go.

possibly some sort of cult activity here.

[Carol Newquist]

If he wanted to deny 'the system' his energy he could have gone about it another way.

He didn't hurt anyone physically in the process. One possible interpretation is that it was a big "Fuck You" to the system. What's so wrong with that? He did it to himself....thus depriving the system of sadistically doing it to him. For some, life is torture, and death is their only escape, yet our system doesn't make that an easy alternative unless it delivers it in its own time and place and when it's least welcomed, if ever. I thank this man for not taking twenty or thirty people involuntarily with him and at the same time making some form of a statement with his death rather than crawling under a rock and dying in obscurity.