More on Nichols’s capture

A female reader writes:

Larry, it was clear from TV that the tall, slender female blonde police officer was not alone. There were big burly men behind her who were obviously backing up the capture. But I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some PR kind of thing going on, let’s have a woman conspicuous in his recapture to counteract what everyone must be thinking by now about women being police officers, or at least about the need to consider sex in certain assignments. And it does seem as if the men’s presence has been blurred in the photograph below. Could that be deliberate? But that couldn’t be done on TV. Anyway, the latest is, you’re not going to believe it, the assault on the female was caught on CAMERA, AS IT WAS HAPPENING, on the surveillance cameras that you have in prison type facilities. But NOBODY WAS WATCHING THE TV SCREEN! It’s all on tape, and maybe one day we’ll even see it on television. But this is Eloihood beyond the beyond.

And here’s something from VFR regular Carl Simpson:

After looking at quite a few remarks and observations about the choice of a female officer to escort Nichols to the SUV, I’m convinced this was done as a “statement” by our intrepid law enforcement officials. The female officer is unarmed, and out of sight are the 30-plus ATF, FBI and regular police armed with full-auto weapons capable of riddling Nichols with hundreds of rounds in a few seconds. No matter how fast or in superior physical shape Nichols may be, would have been cut to shreds in seconds with such firepower. This must have been staged as a a photo-op—a little genuflection to the feminists, if you will.

In a way, the most remarkable thing this about it was that it took place in a red state at the behest of officials that are ostensibly taking orders from a “conservative” in the White House.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 14, 2005 09:55 AM | Send