This post has been reviewed by the Vancouver Media Co-op editorial committee.
AUDIO about Police/PrisonsEnvironment posted on Août 24, 2011 by dawn
Deep Green Resistance, Death Threats and the Police
An interview with Derrick Jensen
» Download file 'derrick j.mp3' (14.3MB)
Derrick Jensen in the redwoods, May 2009. Photo by Dawn Paley.
In this exclusive interview with the Vancouver Media Co-op, author Derrick Jensen talks about a recent spate of death threats directed towards him. He explains his decision to take his case to the FBI. He also expresses his distaste for those who question his decision to go to the feds.
The interview was conducted by phone yesterday by Dawn Paley for the Vancouver Media Co-op, and has been minimally edited for sound quality and length.
Catch the news as it breaks: follow the VMC on Twitter.
Join the Vancouver Media Co-op today. Click here to learn about the benefits of membership.
The site for the Vancouver local of The Media Co-op has been archived and will no longer be updated. Please visit the main Media Co-op website to learn more about the organization.
Commentaires
No I won't drop the "sanctimony"
Sid Ishon -
"That's what the thread is FOR you dorks ...think about it."
umm... nope.
Or at least, IF this thread IS for you to question a victim's right to protect themselves however they choose, then this thread IS ALSO for me to tell you that I think that's a really stupid and ineffective use of a supposedly radical online space.
If being radical means getting to the root of the problems of society, then this discussion of whether someone enduring many graphic death threats is justified in calling the cops, is about as radical as wearing black clothing.
I just read yet another study showing that climate change is worse than expected, I have to go now and put on my batman cap and go hassle someone who's trying to do something about it. Oh no, wait, I want to be effective. Well, I'll still wear my batman cap.
Resistance is possible, but folks... this ain't it.
Murray
looking out for others.
dawn's interviewing is great.
the job of an interviewer is to ask questions in lew of everyone being able to ask at once. sometimes those questions may be difficult for the person interviewed.
if you just wanted derrick's opinion on things that he wants to talk about you would have just read his writings.
derrick's fear of threats may be a bit strong. concerning threats on forums, as derrick talks about, almost any figure online gets these. some stronger than others some of them credible some not. ie rebecca black. read the comments on many youtube videos and see how many threats are spouted. A threat by direct email should be taken seriously though.
i agree with derrick that in order to deffend your life and health you should be able to use any tool available.
i don't think everyone jumped on Maitland Cassia for having the police involved after their house was firebombed last year.
But i think the main point in this debate that derrick makes is that there is no support or defence system in existance at this point that has the resourses that the police have at the moment. Even on this thread i don't see anyone actually coming to the aid of derrick. instead of shit talking him for making a desision that you dissagree with (as apperently does he) why not propose alternate ideas of how to provide protection to those that need it and may not know where to go?
that being said. in vancouver radical community if you need help contact each other. contact me.
if someone has got a gun to your head. i neither own a gun or can ride my bike as fast as a car.
you'd probably be better off calling the cops.
"But i think the main point
pop, pop
"From this to his willingness to accept the Guru status that is being built around him two words come to mind for me: Douchebag, and Wanker!"
Cheers to that, tonight I'm drinking to you Lims!
To even hint at a revolutionary insurgence offing the landlords and pigs, as being comparable to the behaviour of modern federal pigs, makes me want to spit forth bile.
Sucka, I want:
Housing, Education, A Garden, All the Beer I can Drink, All the food I can eat.
I want ambulances, doctors, and not to die from simple infections.
I want women to be able to give birth without fear of death from a lack of medical care.
"I want the regal to glisten, and my kids to have meat in the kitchen".
I don't want:
no stonge age and no fucking pigs.
Take your new age bullshit and federal pigs else where you daft hippy fuck.
How about reaching out to
How about reaching out to your community and asking them to help support and protect you, instead of going to the FBI?
How about if you wanna talk about victim solidarity, you start by putting yourself in solidarity with people like Leonard Peltier, John Graham, or the Black Panthers, or ALF/ELF who have been victims of the FBI? You want victim solidarity yet are willing to use an abusive violent institution that vitimizes so many people?
And he says he has no problem with thoe police? Maybe that position might be influenced by the fact he is a straight white male from a middle class background and thus is not likely to have experienced the kind of systemic police violence many of us have.
This was a mistake on Jensen's part.
Up until now, as an anarchist, I have been a big fan and a defender of Jensen. At this point... I will definitely have to take a second look and give more attention to his critics from within the environmental movement.
His action in this regard brings into focus his clear misunderstanding of how the police, the prison-idustrial complex, and the FBI operate. It's sad, really. I feel sorry and embarrassed for him.
By inviting these people (the FBI) into his life and affairs he opens up all his associations to closer scrutiny and raises the risks of any actions those associates may be involved with. Even raising their profile with the government at all is a potential disaster.
And, at the same time, he is legitimizng the authority of the FBI which has been used incessantly against environmentalists and human rights proponents. How in the world could he have failed to notice this? How could he have possibly misunderstood the plain history in this regard? In all honesty... it may well have been the FBI making the threats against him! Remember Judi Bari!
So I'm not at all suggesting that he shouldn't take the threats seriously (although he does suggest that the same people making threats against him were probably making other threats to someone else the week before). However, he doesn't need to involve the FBI, or really even the police, to create a paper trail and make public the information about these threats. And while he acknowledged his willingness to defend himself... that probably wouldn't really help in his defense much should he be brought into court. And if push came to shove, if the threats did come to fruition, he would probably have to defend himself with the authorities only cleaning up after the mess -- if that.
He hints at the better solution with his willingness to defend himself (because the state won't) and further hints at a viable solution in being around a community which will look after and defend it's members.
I mean... what does he want the FBI to do? Does he want the FBI to stakeout his home and keep track of everyone who comes and goes? That's probably the best he could hope for. And that, as I mentioned earlier, would be a disaster in regard to the militant actions he advocates.
This is a debacle and a first rate blunder on his part as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, I fear his ego won't allow him to apologize and address his misstep -- but that's the only thing that would even start to restore his credibility.
You obviously stopped listening to the interview at some point
He mentioned in the interview what he expected the FBI to do , which was nothing. His choice in calling the cops/FBI was to create a paper trail so if it comes down to him defending himself in his home or on the outside it can be shown in court that he had good reason for his actions, whichever they may be, if he actually gets attacked.
He doesn't hint, he says that he does have a gun and will defend himself wen the time comes but you seem to live in a fantasy land in which thses actions are treated simple and straight forward in our society, the courts and the police. If Derrick would some day have to defend himself from a legitimate attack the police and courts could still make it look like he over reacted and attacked or killed someone without probable cause. The police shoot unarmed people everyday, frame them and get away with it, so it wouldn't be hard for them to frame someone that was legitimately defending themselves.
He also doesn't hint but says he would love to have a community to call upon to help him defend himself but unfortunately that community doesn't exist where he lives and I don't see the anarchists that are complaining about him calling the cops doing much to help.
If you don't think the FBI/Government already scrutnizes everytihng he does then you really have no grasp about the Country we live. Maybe after he called the FBI, they put a stamp on his dossier that says, "Over-Scrutinize".
On the contrary, I listened to the interview twice.
I'm gonna start with the last issue you made light of about cooperating with the FBI & police. Rather than stamping "over-scrutinize" on his file they will now potentially have an easier time confirming and verifying certain intelligence if he's cooperating with them (even on a seemingly unrelated issue). Beyond that, they could sow distrust between Jensen and his allies while trying to get more information about them.
So the issue isn't really what he expects the FBI to do, it's what he expects the FBI to for him. And if he thought it was little (or potentially a negative) he shouldn't have went to them. I've already pointed out that he could have created a paper trail without involving them. Consequently, I feel the paper-trail argument being brought up again shows that it was you who didn't examine my words closely before criticizing them. But regardless of any paper trail it's likely that the police will still go after after him aggressively should push come to shove. By going to them for a paper trail he merely opens the door for them to fudge that record and make him look more extreme or unstable -- unless you trust the government not to do anything like that. But you yourself talked about them killing unarmed people and the history shows them doing much worse than that.
You can't have it both ways. Either the FBI is a corrupt destructive force which has been used against all sorts of environmentalists, human rights movements, and peace activists or... they can be trusted with any additional information you give them which may plug some holes in their intelligence. But really... the FBI is not on your side if you are working for peace, justice, or freedom. That's the bottom line. And it's highly unlikely you will be able to manipulate them into being otherwise. Anything you tell them can and will be used against you.
You're proposing that Jensen is correct in seeking the assistance of the FBI (even if only in terms of creating a paper trail [as if that would be their primary interest or where they'd stop]) and you're requesting that he potentially work with the same people who attacked Judi Bari, sieged Wounded Knee, and much much worse. It's absurd. I understand the psychology of hero-worship, but this is ridiculous.
You must have first hand experience with the FBI
I actually did examine your words carefully, maybe you didn't notice me quoting them so let's do this again,
From your original post:
ok, you pointed out he could've created a paper trail without involving the FBI so I'll be more specific, How? Taking notes and then showing them in court when he's defending his actions, if it ever came to that? Telling his friends about it so they can be witnesses in court or with the cops when they come "...cleaning up after the mess."? Please enlighten us.
You give Derrick to little credit, as if he just starting talking about resistance, underground action and civil disobedience. He wrote "A Language Older than Words" in 2000 in which he's already talking about bombing Dams and written and talked about much more since then, so i seriously doubt the FBI has any "...holes in their intelligence" regarding Derrick and he himself would know what information to give and not to give the FBI. You also give his allies to little credit as if they are also just starting in their activism that the FBI will be able to drive a wedge between them.
Derrick doesn't need the police, FBI, Goverment to make him look more extreme and unstable. Everyone that has commented here against him calling the FBI is already doing that and those that don't agree with his new book are doing that too, which has lead to the death threats. Look, we've come full circle, neat.
This comparison is a false equivalence and straw man and that you don't know your history since Judi Bari was exonerated and awarded 4.4 million in damages. As for wounded knee I'm not going to bother explaining how irrelevant that comparison is.
Oh but you're going to say..." I used those examples to illustrate how the FBI can't be trusted and how they can manipulate, fudge, lie, etc etc". We all know the goverment does those things, but in the end, it's Derrick that's getting death threats and how he chooses to deal with it is his God given (if you belive in God), Consitutional given and whatever other individual given rights he has a human being.
Your obviously not going to go and help him if he needs it (please correct me if I'm wrong on that) and neither can I since I live 1000 miles away from him and he is the one recieveing the death treats so how he chooses to handle them are his choice.
And Finally:
Resorting to name caling and insults destroys any legitimate argument you had. I neither worship Derrick or anyone else for that matter. I respect him for what he's done as an activist and his analisys of the current global ecological situation and those of us that are defending him, at least me, do so because NO ONE has the right to tell someone else how to deal with threats to their life. Whether you think they are serious or not and if he should've of gone to the FBI or not, its not your life.
My comment is directed at
My comment is directed at Durruti Redux, specifically in regard to your use of predator/prey relationships as a metaphor to defend the way civilizations interact with traditional cultures that get in their way. FUCKING DISGUSTING! I've not seen a more blatant example of racism and hubris anywhere. You seem to be making the case that if I can walk up to you and bash your face in with a weapon and take what you have, then I must be a superior being, because if it were not so, then would not you have been able to better defend yourself? The point being: ETHICS is a part of being human! Of course, it's not easy, not black-and-white, but your comparison and underlying argument suggests that the essence of humanity is to conquer, to win, to spread and to dominate, rather than to ask questions, communicate, and to problem-solve using whatever our neighbors can share with us. Further, your position reeks of that old, musty "dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest" sentiment that so characterized the early 20th century evolutionary biological dialogue of the scientific community, which has long since grown beyond such a crude understanding of biotic relationships. And you then have the gall to call for nuance!
WTF is all this noise... Is
WTF is all this noise... Is she cooking Pasta???
This interviewer is really not giving derrick the respect he deserves
I'd just like to say as an
I'd just like to say as an anarchist who is a sexual assault survivor, that I wouldn't call the fucking cops.
Why? Cause I'm also a police brutality survivor. Been bashed by the pigs before and talking to them would be as traumatizing as rape itself.
Not everyone has the privilege of being able to rely on the police to 'protect' them. Anyone who is suggesting that internet threats and rape are on par has their heads up their asses. And anyone who is suggesting that the cops do an awesome job of incarcerating rapists has their head up even further. Hence why most rapes go unreported, and often the ones that do get reported don't end up with a rapist in prison.
I'd rather go to my friends and family for support than the pigs any day, cause I fucking know better. And Derrick Jensen should've, too.
The problem is simply put: reduce the population
The problem isn't too many bridges, or dams, or too much infrastructure, or too much left, or too much right; the problem is that there are too many people! In other words I condemn Jensen for being so short sighted. Even if he blows up a dam, we are still left with 7 billion people who will just build a new one.
In order to be in harmony with nature we need to half our population within the next few years. By the end of 2100 we could be extinct if we do not take significant measures now to stop the population explosion. Ideally there should be under one billion humans.
Humans will be extinct in 100 years says eminent scientistJune 23, 2010 by Lin Edwards
Professor Frank Fenner
(PhysOrg.com) -- Eminent Australian scientist Professor Frank Fenner, who helped to wipe out smallpox, predicts humans will probably be extinct within 100 years, because of overpopulation, environmental destruction and climate change.
Fenner, who is emeritus professor of microbiology at the Australian National University (ANU) in Canberra, said homo sapiens will not be able to survive the population explosion and “unbridled consumption,” and will become extinct, perhaps within a century, along with many other species. United Nations official figures from last year estimate the human population is 6.8 billion, and is predicted to pass seven billion next year.
Fenner told The Australian he tries not to express his pessimism because people are trying to do something, but keep putting it off. He said he believes the situation is irreversible, and it is too late because the effects we have had on Earth since industrialization (a period now known to scientists unofficially as the Anthropocene) rivals any effects of ice ages or comet impacts.
Fenner said that climate change is only at its beginning, but is likely to be the cause of our extinction. “We’ll undergo the same fate as the people on Easter Island,” he said. More people means fewer resources, and Fenner predicts “there will be a lot more wars over food.”
Easter Island is famous for its massive stone statues. Polynesian people settled there, in what was then a pristine tropical island, around the middle of the first millennium AD. The population grew slowly at first and then exploded. As the population grew the forests were wiped out and all the tree animals became extinct, both with devastating consequences. After about 1600 the civilization began to collapse, and had virtually disappeared by the mid-19th century. Evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond said the parallels between what happened on Easter Island and what is occurring today on the planet as a whole are “chillingly obvious.”
While many scientists are also pessimistic, others are more optimistic. Among the latter is a colleague of Professor Fenner, retired professor Stephen Boyden, who said he still hopes awareness of the problems will rise and the required revolutionary changes will be made to achieve ecological sustainability. “While there's a glimmer of hope, it's worth working to solve the problem. We have the scientific knowledge to do it but we don't have the political will,” Boyden said.
Fenner, 95, is the author or co-author of 22 books and 290 scientific papers and book chapters. His announcement in 1980 to the World Health Assembly that smallpox had been eradicated is still seen as one of the World Health Organisation’s greatest achievements. He has also been heavily involved in controlling Australia’s feral rabbit population with the myxomatosis virus.
Professor Fenner has had a lifetime interest in the environment, and from 1973 to 1979 was Director of the Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies at ANU. He is currently a visiting fellow at the John Curtin School of Medical Research at the university, and is a patron of Sustainable Population Australia. He has won numerous awards including the ANZAC Peace Prize, the WHO Medal, and the Albert Einstein World Award of Science. He was awarded an MBE for his work on control of malaria in New Guinea during the Second World War, in which Fenner served in the Royal Australian Army Medical Corps.
Professor Fenner will open the Healthy Climate, Planet and People symposium at the Australian Academy of Science next week.
More information: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/earth/fate-of-easter-island.html
Love the sweaters...but...
Alright. I'm just going to throw this out there first. I have loved Jensen's writing for a long time. His work and theories resonate with me and I have a huge appreciation for that.
I love the animal themed sweaters. I don't love someone calling the feds.
I am genuinely confused as to why he felt they were who to turn to when he actively supports what the FBI has described as the "number one domestic terrorist threat." I am genuinely confused why he felt so isolated that he didn't think anyone had his back other than the U.S. Government on this one.
I hate the "would you be angry about a woman who was raped calling the cops," line. I was raped. I didn't call the cops because I knew that their purpose was not to help me. I have had MANY MANY MANY female friends who have had to deal with the cops after a sexual assault and found it to be only further traumatizing. It is always the survivor's choice. I hear that. But, the question still begs to be asked why people are forced into situations where they feel this is their only recourse.
Cops don't help. The feds don't help.
In fact they framed and jailed someone Jensen says he supports. They also kidnapped and stole away many others who fight for the earth and against exploitation. Why call the enemy?
And how sad when the enemy is the seeming best recourse...
Protect the victim and ditch the dogma
"We should care more about what really happens than about a sense of purity."
1. He's fully right in the sense that the victim gets to do whatever they think is appropriate. If someone had actually castrated him for his work and beliefs and he called the cops abaout it, would we still be having this discussion? If he were female-bodied and had been raped and decided to call the cops, would we be giving himj shit?
2. Nobody is perfect. I wouldn't call the cops, but that doesn't mean I don't agree with a lot of his politics. Honestly, there's nobody I agree with 100%, but if I hated and villainized every person whose approach I didn't agree with completely, what the hell would I be left with? Not much.
3. Fuck dogma. There are always exceptions and the thing that tears apart this movement is people's fanatical adherence to dogma without a sense of context or compassion. We are all fighting the same battle in different ways. Calling the police about a death threat doesn't necessarily make a person an informant.
Jensen Interview
Cops don't help. The feds don't help. And anarchists don't help.
So who does that leave? No one. Let's face it, social activists, environmentalists and anarchists constitute about .01% of the population. No wonder Jensen feels so isolated that he has to resort to filing reports to the FBI.
Yes, it's true, the FBI could manipulate those reports to frame Jensen in court. They would have motivation to do so, since Jensen is considered a 'domestic terrorist' As such, all bets are then off and the authorities can do whatever they want, without oversight, in order to contain terrorists..
I see this as a desperate attempt in a last ditch hope to protect himself in court. Ironic then, given Jensen's regular criticisms of the concept of hope.
"Victim bashing"
Nobody here is bashing victims for the record ... seems unlikely that anyone would set out to do that but more importantly, Jensen is held to a different standard in light of the position he takes as a public persona.
I personally feel that practically speaking (not ideologically) involving the cops makes everything much worse 99.9% of the time.
I've been mugged and violently assaulted in the past and never bothered with the cops as I'm too familiar with exactly how they work and how little difference it would make. I take much more practical steps for self defence because the idea of relying on strangers in goofy outfits with guns seems stupid to me. They're people I can't relate to and I don't trust their motives, why would I expect anything from them?
The argument about a paper trail for the court room still holds up to scrutiny.
I mean ... the implication here seems to be that the moderate liberal types think we're just blowing smoke when we take the anti-cop stance ... that we'd drop everything and run crying to the authorities the moment shit got real.
Seems to be mostly people's misguided faith in some kind of nietzschean superman to come save them when they find themselves in a tight spot. You're much better off making friends with some folks who live nearby and don't mind throwing down ...
So ... [insert argument about building community here]
ooff the DGR website! NEVER TALK TO THE FBI
I found this on the DGR website, thought it was kinda funny given the current context
Security: How to Be Safer and Effective
http://deepgreenresistance.org/securitypost/
The practice of quoting out context is a logical fallacy
and you stepped on it in full.
Derrick called the cops because he was geting death threats. The DGR section you quoted is in regards to talking to the cops if you or your friends are being investigated for actions involving civil disobedience, protests etc.
Good job on cherry picking and taking information out of context, those in power would be really proud of you.
Quoting out context is a logical fallacy...
and you stepped in it full.
Derrick called the cops because he was getting death threats. The section on the DGR website you quoted is in regards to the cops investigating you or your friends in regards to civil disobedience, protests, etc.
You cherry picked and quoted out of context, those in power would be pround of you.
Quoting out of context is a logical fallacy...
and you stepped in it full.
Derrick called the cops because he was getting death threats. The section on the DGR website you quoted is in regards to the cops investigating you or your friends in regards to civil disobedience, protests, etc.
You cherry picked and quoted out of context, those in power would be proud of you.
Some people just need to die
Unfortunately, if all victims were allowed to use any tool available, there would be a lot of revenge killings, something that "civilization" attempts to mediate. women are not allowed to kill men who rape them; the victims of the BP spill are not allowed to kill those who were too inept to prevent damage; indigenous peoples are not allowed to attack the US government for invading and conquering their land.
However, since "civilization" is responsible for the ecological destruction that will bring about its own downfall, perhaps the rule of law should be abandoned, everyone should kill whoever they want, and the world can deal with a time of "purification," where those who survive the global judgement and killings can finally know peace on earth after everyone they determine to be "evil" is eventually murdered.
Sounds a little ludicrous right? Yet it would be so much easier if you could pull a trigger or push a button and you would no longer have to hear a distressing point of view that didn't fit in your own paradigm of what's right, wouldn't it? Civilization is the logical teleology of human relations as it has evolved over time. If our newly developed understanding finally recognizes the inherent unsustainability of such social relations, there are 3 choices: eliminate it altogether, adapt, or do nothing and induce systemic collapse. More than likely, civilization will incur all of these possibilities in various forms. The anti-civ movement is not in control of the state of affairs. EVERYONE IS. They represent a perspective that will either be incorporated or isolated. But every perspective has value, simply because every person has value.
If we can remember this, maybe we can figure out how to work together, create dialogue that allows us to achieve a more informed understanding, in order to navigate the complexities of an existing reality. There is no doubt that something needs to change, but what it needs to change will forever be up for debate. Let's all give each other the freedom to work towards that change in whatever way we see fit, while trying to minimize the suffering of others and seeking to enact justice in every facet of life. That demands Trust-trust that we have each and every human and non-human best interests at heart-and the capacity to constructively criticize each other and our selves, without fear of retaliation.
On the other hand, some people just need to die, lol.
Huh?
You start off your comment with falsehoods and your sarcastic(?) premise doesn't improve. Women ARE allowed to kill men who rape them -- it's self defense legally and in the realm beyond law. And indigenous peoples ARE allowed to attack the US government for invading and conquering their land. It's defended by international law and much public opinion.
But it's not about anyone and everyone being able to kill anyone else for any (or no) reason -- that's a red herring.
Beyond that... you're simply not logical in your dismissal of the anticiv movement. If it was supposed to be a defense, that's even worse. And your seemingly tolerant suggestion that we should "all give each other the freedom to work towards that change in whatever way we see fit" seems to open the door for even the most ineffectual or counterproductive activity.
Maybe you were just trolling with your inconsistent comment, but that doesn't really make a whole lot of sense either.
quoting out of context is a logical fallacy...
and you stepped in it full.
Derrick called the cops because he was getting death threats. The section on the DGR website you quoted is in regards to the cops investigating you or your friends in regards to civil disobedience, protests, etc.
You cherry picked and quoted out of context, those in power would be proud of you.
Boohoo. There was some noise
Boohoo. There was some noise during the interview.
I thought Dawn gave Jensen a very good chance to talk, and didn't lead the interview too much or condemn his decisions, but tried to keep it on topic.
He says the FBI blew him off completely. *Big Surprise.*
Lets try an experiment!
Everyone go to the Glen Beck message boards (like Derrick did), make an account and try and talk sense to those gibbering idiots.
See how long it takes for them to threaten to cut your balls off and/or come to your house and hose it down with automatic weapons. Isn't the internet a lovely place?
But the good news is 99% of them are completely full of shit.
and the other 0.9% can't afford the plane ticket to come visit you, it's a recession.
and the .01% might get you but then you'll be a glorious martyr to the cause, immortality!
so it's win win win.
long-term perspective
Years ago (1970's) I used to wonder why Trotskyist was a dirty word in leftist groups. I liked their analysis just fine. Finally I figured it out: Trotskyists were known for spending all their time attacking other leftists for tiny impurities in doctrine or action.
That's what happened here. Spending your time attacking Derrick Jensen for using the existing systems to protect his life (or document the threats, leaving a paper trail as he said) is a great distraction from doing something about the real problem - a capitalist, corporatist state that worships greed and hate, and a population that has been drugged into the same worship.
I will also add that about 10 years ago, when I owned land and built a small cabin, I was reluctant to call the police on the repeated burglaries (tools, mostly) and the vandalism (gunshots through the window.) Although I did call them, and they were just as useless as I expected, if I had given them all my information maybe something could have happened. (I was not known as an activist then/there.) I was concerned that the police department might be connected with the crooks.... will never know.)
May I suggest that the decision how to act belongs to the person whose life is involved? Really?