By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Lawrence Reed, 50, is facing a federal terrorism charge for allegedly setting a 26-year-old woman on fire on a Chicago CTA train. The victim was reportedly “minding her business” when Reed approached her and poured a flammable liquid over her before igniting it. Surveillance footage shows Reed purchasing gasoline shortly before the attack and has a prior criminal record dating back to 2017. He is currently in federal custody and will undergo mental and physical evaluations before his detention hearing.
Read the original article here
The heart of this story starts with a horrifying reality: a woman, “minding her business,” was allegedly set on fire on a CTA train. That simple phrase, “minding her business,” highlights the utter randomness and senselessness of the attack. It underscores the victim’s lack of involvement in any prior altercation, painting a clear picture of a deliberate act of violence. The initial reports that suggested an argument before the incident are now being challenged, and those agencies that reported it that way should correct their statements. This wasn’t a heated exchange that spiraled out of control; it was a brutal assault.
A genuine question arises from this tragedy, a question that cuts to the core of our justice system: why are we not keeping violent offenders locked up for longer, especially those with a history of violent crime? It is difficult to understand how individuals with a pattern of dangerous behavior can be allowed back into the community, free to potentially repeat their offenses. One can’t help but wonder about the judgment and thought process of the attorneys, the district attorneys, and the judges who make these decisions. Does the system’s leniency make it seem as though it doesn’t care about the victims? Surely, allowing this man to remain free after previous offenses reflects poorly on the system.
The details of the incident itself are difficult to process. The fact that something similar happened in New York last year, the killing of Debrina Kawam, brings up the chilling realization that this type of crime is not isolated. The situation has prompted calls for a registry for arsonists, similar to sex offender registries. The argument is that if these registries are designed to protect communities, why are they limited to sex offenders? It seems logical that if a violent arsonist is free to move about without any kind of public notification after committing such a heinous act. If registries don’t prevent further crimes, what justifies singling out a single type of criminal and ignoring others who pose a real risk?
It’s hard to believe that this act was allowed to happen. Regardless of what the victim was doing, she deserved better than to be doused with gasoline and set ablaze. The focus needs to be on the violence inflicted upon this woman, not on the condition of the train or any other tangential aspect of the incident. This was an intentional act of violence against a person. The comments highlight the fact that the man who committed this crime had the gear to set someone on fire and his actions appear to be premeditated. This was a direct assault and a terrifying illustration of the potential for random, violent acts.
There is a discussion of the public’s reaction to the events and the subsequent reporting. The use of the word “allegedly” in describing the attack is frustrating, especially given the visual evidence available. Some would argue there’s no room for uncertainty. In this case, “allegedly” is a soft way of describing something that is clear. It is not racist to want to ensure that a serial arsonist is not free to commit more crimes.
The conversation extends to the issue of the response by bystanders. There are questions about why no one immediately intervened. While understandable reactions of shock and fear are important to consider, the lack of immediate action raises serious questions. Many commenters acknowledge the terror of such a situation. The environment on the train car was likely volatile, and anyone attempting to intervene would be taking a huge risk. The point being, the assailant was the one who decided to bring gasoline on the train and commit this act. It is easy to judge from a distance, but the reality of the situation would be terrifying and quick.
There is an ongoing discussion about whether the perpetrator should have been released back into the community given his history of violent actions. The question of rehabilitation versus incarceration is brought into the conversation, emphasizing a need to decide at what point it no longer makes sense to try and rehabilitate those who choose to harm others. There’s a discussion of the US sentencing times and prison sentences are longer than those of other developed countries.