The idea that no one that has ever committed a crime (especially one that is not very harmful in the grand scope of things--it's not like the guy was a serial killer) deserves to be memorialized by his friends and family is insane and horrible.
There's a good case for the idea that the family of someone whose actions took away the friends and families of countless others - Lubitz, Tsarnaev, etc. - should have the decency to mourn far away from the victims of their loved ones' murders.
That's not the case here, though.
Exactly, in the privacy of the family members' homes. Not out in public subtly trying to have the memorial become a blatant reminder to others in the community of the constant controversy.
...no, no it's not 'exactly'. That is the
opposite of what Ray Goldfield was saying. There is a line between a probable petty criminal who died under suspicious and controversial circumstances, and people who did things that are actually worthy of the kind of above-and-beyond-the-call-of-duty discretion on the part of the bereaved that you're calling for here. It is not, in this case, a fine line. It is a big, fat, glow-in-the-dark line. Also, is what you're accusing the bereaved of subtle or blatant? It can't be both.
