Fallout from a `shootout'
Dear Johnny,
I couldn't agree more with your article ("Stop! Or I'll shoot you hesitantly," Sept. 23, page 8). Watching news footage of the car chase is almost like watching the Keystone Cops.
Having served as a patrol officer and field training officer tasked with training rookie officers with a large police department in the US, we were very specific about car chases and use of force issues. The biggest taboo on all car chases is definitely shooting at the car. There are too many variables, especially on crowded streets. You might end up hurting innocent bystanders by sending bullets down their way. Or if you do hit the driver, he may lose control of the car and mow down half a dozen pedestrians and/or scooters (we do have quite a few of those roaming Taipei's streets).
If I have the facts correctly, the police attempted to stop this driver in a routine car stop, and the driver blatantly refused to do so. This a classic example of "contempt of cop."
For police officers in the US, this is a common occurrence. Let's face it, people don't like cops at all, unless some criminal is about to kick down your door. It is natural for the officers involved to lose their cool. But then again, police officers are supposed to be well-trained professionals; they can't afford to lose their cool. What happened was a perfect case of poor tactics and poor judgment.
A police officer trying to force the car to stop with his body is pure stupidity. Body versus car: Believe it or not, the car will always win. If the police officer has the time to draw his sidearm and order the driver to stop, he has plenty of time to step out of the way. Besides, the officers had plenty of chances to drag the driver out of the car without resorting to deadly force. The "force continuum," a guideline utilized in the US, stipulates that once the threat to police officers and citizens ceases to exist, force must stop. From the news footage, the driver and car never posed any threat to the officers or citizens. The only threat was from the police officers discharging their firearms on crowded streets.
Refusing to stop does not mean an automatic death sentence for the violator. Taiwanese police are fortunate that the American Civil Liberties Union and other human rights suit-monger groups have not extended their tentacles into Taiwan.
Leo Shih
Taipei
Johnny replies: Thanks for writing, Leo. You should get a consultancy with the National Police Agency.
Dear Johnny,
The recent 51-shot slugfest episode was a good way to kick off your 24-hour Cops: Taipei reality show. But in case the series starts to fizzle due to lack of content, here's an alternative. I think there's an organization out there on the mean streets of Taiwan that lives a much more action-packed and dangerous life and gets much less recognition for it -- although lots more money. It's out there 24x7x365 risking life and limb for our benefit. I'm talking about the Apple Daily reporting corps.
Why not have a camera following the AD reporters around -- they always seem to be the first to arrive for the blood and guts, and if not, they'll fight tooth and nail to the front to get those disgusting photos. No-holds-barred journalism at its best. What do you think?
Walter S.
Johnny replies: Brilliant idea. We'll have the show added to the programming schedule of the Neihu Nasties Network -- the moment you cough up a budget.
In the first year of his second term, US President Donald Trump continued to shake the foundations of the liberal international order to realize his “America first” policy. However, amid an atmosphere of uncertainty and unpredictability, the Trump administration brought some clarity to its policy toward Taiwan. As expected, bilateral trade emerged as a major priority for the new Trump administration. To secure a favorable trade deal with Taiwan, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: First, Trump accused Taiwan of “stealing” chip business from the US, indicating that if Taipei did not address Washington’s concerns in this strategic sector, it could revisit its Taiwan
In a stark reminder of China’s persistent territorial overreach, Pema Wangjom Thongdok, a woman from Arunachal Pradesh holding an Indian passport, was detained for 18 hours at Shanghai Pudong Airport on Nov. 24 last year. Chinese immigration officials allegedly informed her that her passport was “invalid” because she was “Chinese,” refusing to recognize her Indian citizenship and claiming Arunachal Pradesh as part of South Tibet. Officials had insisted that Thongdok, an Indian-origin UK resident traveling for a conference, was not Indian despite her valid documents. India lodged a strong diplomatic protest, summoning the Chinese charge d’affaires in Delhi and demanding
Immediately after the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) “Justice Mission” exercise at the end of last year, a question was posed to Indian Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson Randhir Jaiswal regarding recent developments involving the exercises around Taiwan, and how he viewed their impact on regional peace and stability. His answer was somewhat perplexing to me as a curious student of Taiwanese affairs. “India closely follows developments across the Indo-Pacific region,” he said, adding: “We have an abiding interest in peace and stability in the region, in view of our significant trade, economic, people-to-people, and maritime interests. We urge all concerned
In the past 72 hours, US Senators Roger Wicker, Dan Sullivan and Ruben Gallego took to social media to publicly rebuke the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) over the defense budget. I understand that Taiwan’s head is on the chopping block, and the urgency of its security situation cannot be overstated. However, the comments from Wicker, Sullivan and Gallego suggest they have fallen victim to a sophisticated disinformation campaign orchestrated by an administration in Taipei that treats national security as a partisan weapon. The narrative fed to our allies claims the opposition is slashing the defense budget to kowtow to the Chinese
RSS