Chapter 31.6: Giving the Man What He Wants?

The terrible tragedy in Glendale, Calif., troubles me. The initial reports portray a suicidal man who decided to save himself, yet in the process he allegedly showed reckless disregard for everyone on the train. The man is rightfully being held responsible for the (at least) 11 deaths he caused and the couple hundred injuries he inflicted upon a train full of innocents.



The charges this man face make him eligible for the death penalty. I doubt the man will ever make it to trial, much less death row if convicted; he'll likely kill himself first.



The rest of us are left without a clue what the incident means. It would have been just as tragic if he'd stayed in the SUV; he'd be just as dead. Are we to expect some answers from this disturbed man? Will it mean more for his family that instead of killing himself, he killed others and effectively doomed himself? I doubt the usual "we're paying for his trial" argument holds much water, because there'd be investigations and trials regardless of whether he had died in the SUV.



In a way it's almost as tragic as the tsunami, though that horrifying event washed away so much more life that comparisons are hard to draw between the two. The man in the SUV made a couple of conscious, unconscionable choices. If we have learned anything from the tsunami, it is that how we respond matters. That is where the train tragedy leaves me troubled. To me, it's almost like a suicide bomber chickening out but leaving his death vest behind to do its terrible deed. The former teacher in me wants to decry the act, but not the actor -- yet the actor is at fault. It's events like this that strain my ability to care.