by bks » Mon May 14, 2012 7:34 am
What justifies so wide and intensive a search? The answer is: nothing we've been told in the story. So there must be something else. Aside from the mystery of the man's disappearance, the other remarkable yet entirely too common feature of the story is its own construction. Here we have a story, in print, which not only leaves out any record of a desire by the journalist to find out the actual basis for the actions the article describes, but does not address the question in any fashion whasoever. As written, what we have here is an illegal search, or at minimum a highly questionable use of federal resources. The man may have very good reason for his actions. But how would any reader be able to make up their own mind about things based on what's been written here?
No one who is merely despondent or distraught produces this sort of response. And you have to love the "who was said to be" possibly suicidal comment. Who said it? A competent professional? We have a man who is reported to be well liked, devoted, and with no disciplinary history, but some unnamed person says he's "possibly suicidal" and a manhunt begins?
What's the lawful basis for 140 law enforcement officials searching for a man who "was not believed to pose a threat to others"??? Were they volunteering to search? If they were searching while on duty, again, at a time when government budgets are strained to the breaking point, what justifies a search that will cost hundreds of thousands of dollars at minimum per day to conduct?
When question like this aren't even raised in the report, it says way more than what's left out.