A day after wounding four children and a 68-year-old woman in an attack on a Jewish Community Center in the San Fernando Valley, then killing a postman as he fled, white supremacist Buford Furrow gave himself up in a Las Vegas FBI office. According to an AP story citing an FBI source, Furrow said "he wanted this to be a wake-up call to America to kill Jews." Those inflammatory words understandably made headlines across the country.
But what THE SCRAPBOOK is wondering is: Why do we know this? Anyone who looks at the venue of the crime, the victims chosen, and the method of the attack can put two and two together and guess at Furrow's motives. Why did the FBI see fit to provide a platform -- however second-hand -- for the views of someone who 24 hours before had tried to murder half a dozen people as a way to gain a hearing for his views?
We tend to think that a man in custody for attempting a mass murder forfeits his right to hold a press conference. Why should the FBI, or any law enforcement agency for that matter, pass along to the media a murderer's call-to-arms? Enthusiasts for the president's anti-hate-crimes agenda should pay closer attention to this episode: Do they really think it well advised for politically astute police agencies to torque up the drama of such crimes -- to, in effect, serve as a public-relations conduit for the likes of Furrow and other extremist killers?
Furrow, it's worth remembering, committed his crime in a state that has the death penalty (and committed an act of terrorism, which subjects him to the federal death penalty), fled to another state that has the death penalty (and in so doing crossed state lines, which exposes him, again, to the federal death penalty). Surely this arsenal of potential punishments is sufficient. Months from now, the man will have his day in court, and interested parties can hear from him then. Is it too much to ask that we not hear any more from him until then?