I thought I heard on the televised local news this morning that the family of Rachel Corey - the young woman who perished under a bulldozer while protesting in favor of Palestinians - is going to sue the 'dozer manufacturer for its part in her death. I'm not 100% sure I heard it, as I'd stepped into the kitchen to pour a cuppa. And I did a quick search of local news on-line with no mention. Anyhow, if it turns out I'm mistaken, well, I'm sorry.
But if it is true, I gotta say -- this kind of lawsuit is tinted with the same kind of stupidity that tells a person they should try to stop a bulldozer by getting in front of it. It's kind of like the guy in front of the tank in Tiennamen Square. It makes for a nice iconic news image if it works. But if it doesn't work, well . . . all your friends get to shake their heads and say, "What a waste." And not even the main stream news will show pictures of the results of a miscalculation of such sort.
But if what I heard is true, I would not criticise the family for this suit. Despite how one may feel about the circumstances of Rachel Corey's death, it was nevertheless a death of a loved one and her family would quite naturally feel great grief and loss, and maybe even attempt to "balance the books" to deal with the loss.
But a lawyer representing them in a suit against the manufacturer of the bulldozer being used to increase security in the midst of constant conflict in Israel?
I'm sure there's some good explanation about why a lawyer would agree to represent a party in such a lawsuit. I just can't think of it right now. But I'm really sure there's a reason. There has to be a good reason, right?