The news last week was disturbing, about an ambush-style assault in New York City. There is some perception of naïvete regarding the reality of some big cities. The simple fact is that murder is commonplace in far too many locations. Law enforcement struggles to keep pace with criminal activity.
USA Facts reports that "there were 24,849 homicides in the US in 2022." That is a significant number. The statistics support that the "most" occurred in New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Philadelphia. New York is not on that list. But, often, "most" is a list ranked based on population, that is "murders per 100,000 people." In that context, Mississippi is number one among the states.
The Rochester Institute of Technology published a report with the raw data (for 2022). According to them, the most prevalent murder cities are Chicago (692), New York (433), Los Angeles (382), and Detroit (307). The raw numbers suggest that these are dangerous places despite, perhaps, the comfort that you are statistically less likely to be killed there (more people in those cities are "not killed" as opposed to "killed").
The reader can decide if Chicago or New Orleans presents the most risk. For me, there is some admitted reluctance to visit any of these places, whether they are among the most prevalent list or the most prevalent "per 100,000 in population" list. Admittedly, to be fair, there is some potential for either under or over-reporting these numbers. There is nuance in the determination of whether a death is homicide or not. But, for the sake of comparison, there is at least some comparative validity here.
CNN reports that the chief executive officer of an American health insurance company, Brian Thompson, was reportedly in New York for a meeting. While this gathering was in a hotel, the CEO elected to stay at a different property. He was apparently walking from one to the other when a man approached him from behind and shot him twice.
We live in an era of ubiquitous surveillance, a topic I have touched on in the past. See Pay Attention (July 2023). That post includes links to various other thoughts on surveillance over the years. Cameras are everywhere. Anyone who is even somewhat observant will have noticed the great volume of security cameras that monitor our every move. In news story after story, we hear about police soliciting video footage from businesses, homeowners, and the government. They track the movement of suspects, vehicles, and even witnesses.
Almost immediately following the shooting last week, there were still pictures on social media. The suspect was depicted, and described, and various sightings were soon reported. An alleged escape path has been plotted, and evidence collected. Despite that flood of data, days have passed without an arrest. CNN explains that despite Hollywood's take on surveillance and the ability there to solve any puzzle in an hour or less:
It could take weeks to find and scrub through a massive array of video footage from all the places where the gunman may have traveled.
The high profile of this shooting will likely mean devotion of volumes of resources, time, and attention. Some have wondered aloud at the amazing volume of killings (24,849) and some suspicion that they are not all investigated with the same zeal and focus that Mr. Thompson is receiving.
The police have announced that they are seeking a "person of interest," according to CBS News. Four days after the shooting, they released new photos of the alleged shooter. They have recovered and are testing a backpack they believe could be related, and divers have been seen in central park presumably searching for evidence in ponds.
There has been focus in recent days on personal security. Some have questioned why the CEO of a company would be alone and unprotected. I recently had breakfast with the CEO of one of the largest companies on the planet. To be fair, by “with” I mean that he and I were in the same restaurant. Fortunately, my security detail was sufficient to deter him from autograph-seeking, or other flattery or dining interference. (I did not go to the restaurant to be bothered by the paparazzi or fans).
OK, admittedly the roles were reversed (I have no security detail to speak of). But, to most observers, the CEO I dined "with" was traveling with a group of friends. However, their posture, positioning, movement, and attentiveness belied their casual appearances.
As we sat together in the lobby later (“together“ again meaning the same room, similar to my grandiose "with"), multiple sets of eyes persistently scanned and evaluated the premises, and fellow travelers. I was looked at particularly critically. That is likely due to my obvious physique and athleticism (I no doubt looked like a greater threat of physical violence - and "denial ain't just a river in Africa," LOL).
The point is that CEO was not traveling with an entourage, though he could easily afford one. But he was also not alone. His coterie was small but engaged. He was certainly not "safe" as none of us can be in an absolute way. Nonetheless, I am confident that doing him harm would have been difficult.
In the days since the New York shooting, one of the clearest expressions of curiosity over this event has come from Mr. Thompson's former bodyguard. The Hill quotes Phillip Klein as "dumbfounded" and his reaction "baffled." He explained that some find being guarded uncomfortable and Mr. Thompson may have declined protection. He suggests that the company may also have consciously decided protection was not necessary.
In either event, a choice was made. Yahoo News reports that Mr. Thompson was worth tens of millions of dollars and earned over ten million annually. Ultimately, traveling without security was a decision. That is important not because we judge him or his decisions. That is important because to some degree, we all make choices: where to travel, what time to be out, whether to walk or hail a cab, etc.
There can be a rational debate about whether such attentiveness and protection “should” be necessary in today’s world. That said there could be many debates in our society as regards to the word “should.“ At the end of the day, as individuals, we are not generally able to move or change society, norms, or processes. We cannot really make the world safer in a general sense. So we say we want fewer homicides, but we are individually ill-equipped to change the numbers.
At the end of the day, we as individuals are only afforded the ability to focus upon ourselves, and those close to us. We must remember that violence is not limited to the high profile, the popular, the famous, or other superlatives. Violence may visit upon any of us in our ordinary day-to-day.
One can certainly question why this CEO traveled alone, had no security detail, and was so blatantly ambushed. As readily, we must all admit our own personal ambivalence regarding security. We all make choices.
When you travel, meaning anytime you’re outside of your home or office environment, are you conscious of your surroundings? Paying attention to the potential of someone repeatedly appearing in your orbit? Are you aware of news reporting regarding threats in specific locations, and avoiding those heightened risks? Personally, for good or ill, I am more watchful and careful in Chicago than here in Paradise. That may be logical or merely delusional.
This is no suggestion of vigilanteism, or inciting of violence. I concede that none of us are likely postured to pay personal security. I’m suggesting, however, that each of us can be conscious of our surroundings. We can be eyes and ears when violence occurs around us, to us, or to others. We can be supportive of law enforcement and their efforts to both prevent violence and investigate outcomes.
Supportive. NPR reports that "internet sleuths" are engaged in striving to identify and find the shooter, who has likely left New York. There is a tip line. There is a reward offer. There are opportunities for the public to engage.
But, The New York Times reports that some will decline to help. They see the shooter as a "folk hero." There is apparently a trend to emulate his wardrobe. The words allegedly etched on shell casings are repeated on social media. People are sitting in their homes celebrating a man's death? PBS reports that the shooting has "opened floodgates of Americans venting insurance frustrations." There is apparently a population that roots for and celebrates gunning down people in the street.
On social media, there are references to Hollywood. A frequent feature is the title John Q (New Line 2002). This features a protagonist who resorts to violence and terrorism. The audience is encouraged to excuse his actions based on sympathy for his motivations (an ill family member). He is described in reviews as a "hero," and cast as such. There is Hollywood magic there in all of his victims apparently forgiving him for his lies, threats, kidnapping, and confinement.
Perhaps there are many in society who would react so to being held hostage, threatened, and confined. Never having been there, I am not comfortable conjecturing my reaction. However, it is possible that the Hollywood take on such violence may not be universally held or appreciated. Some might resent being the victim, regardless of how heartfelt their assailant's motivation is?
It is undoubtedly a difficult situation for the family and close associates of Mr. Thompson. It is possible that his decisions or the decisions of his employer may differ from decisions you would make. You may or may not share his values, any more than you share the values of any of the people shot in Chicago last year (one is shot "every other hour" there, according to WBEZ).
Are you willing to say those people deserve to be shot? Are you willing, based on what you know or suspect of those people and their shooters, to declare either the "hero?" Are you so calloused by the parade of violence in these various cities that you can leap to blame the victims, champion the shooters, and disregard the horror that a human elected to plan, pursue, and commit an execution in the street?
It is troubling that violence exists. It is troubling that violence is accepted, expected, and even celebrated. Perhaps both action and reaction are part of the human condition. The effort to draw lines, condemn some violence and celebrate some, is intriguing, disturbing, and perhaps worthy of pause. Are we really ready to societally accept violence as even "a" nonetheless "the" solution?
If you are willing to celebrate vigilantism in one instance, will you celebrate it in all? Or, is there some subjective and emotional distinction you will draw between the murder of one man or the other on a sidewalk? Will you make such a distinction based on someone's occupation, location, or otherwise?
It is possible that nothing Mr. Thompson tried or did would have interfered with this attack. It is possible that violence will visit any of us at any time, whether in Chicago or Paradise. Nonetheless, it is an opportune moment for each of us to question whether we are personally observing good behavior and exercising sound personal precautions. That is what you can do. You can look out for yourself and your own, remain aware of your surroundings, and help law enforcement with eyes, ears, and video when possible.
Now is likewise a moment for us to pause and question whether violence is an acceptable answer to any question. If you are one of the social media keyboard warriors willing in these initial moments to judge the victim or celebrate the shooter, take a moment to remember that you do not know either of them. Focus for a moment that a husband and father are irretrievably lost. Remember that 24,849 are similarly lost annually. Ask yourself why you would ever celebrate someone's death.
