Death and parking

The Times reported on July 9 that officials in San Francisco were considering putting up a barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge to prevent people from jumping off of the bridge and commiting suicide. Readers wondered why.

Wrote Bob Cumming, of Garden Grove:

After reading your article about the proposed designs to establish a suicide barrier on the Golden Gate Bridge, I have to wonder: why?

First, if someone is ready to end their life, they will find a way to do it. In San Francisco they have a bridge, in Pasadena they have a bridge, in Santa Barbara they have a bridge. If those aren't convenient they will find a way, they have made the decision. Spending an estimated $25 to $50 million to stop an estimated 1.6 people jumping per month is ridiculous.

In the state of California we are facing a $15 billion shortfall, and this is the type of spending that has gotten us there. I would think that Eve Meyer of the SF Suicide Prevention would be happy to have a tenth of that money to help people who may be at risk. The proposed barrier on the Golden Gate will not reduce the number of suicides in California, it will just change the location where they occur.

Joe Sykora, of Woodland Hills, pointed out that at least Golden Gate Bridge jumpers don't hurt anyone else:

If someone wants to kill themselves, they will. I say leave the Golden Gate Bridge alone. After all, if you prevent prospective jumpers from using the bridge, how many of them will get into their SUVs and park them on some railroad tracks?

On a lighter note, many readers chimed in about actor Omar Sharif's decision to stop defending himself in a civil lawsuit brought by a valet at Mastro's Steakhouse in Beverly Hills. After a dinner in July 2005, Sharif offered a parking attendant a 20-euro note. The parking attendant, who didn't speak much English and was apparently confused, handed it back. Sharif took offense and punched the attendent in the face.

After months in court, Sharif, of "Doctor Zhivago" and "Lawrence of Arabia" fame, simply walked away. Though the court found that he owes the defendent $449,000, he reportedly has no plans to pay. Because he is an Egyptian citizen, he may not have to.

Michele Greene, of Los Angeles, had a big problem with the actor's behavior (and the media's, for reporting his plight):

Why on earth should Omar Sharif be hailed as a hero for refusing to pay a judgment against him for assaulting a parking valet? By not appearing in court he showed that he considers himself above our legal system, that he is not bound by the same laws and penalties that apply to everyone else in this country.

The first time that The Times covered this story it was widely reported that he repeatedly called Anderson "a stupid Mexican" and there were no vehement denials from Sharif. Now that he wants to cast himself as a victim it is "an insult to his multi-cultural background."

Sharif is an arrogant, angry racist who seems to think he's still in Egypt. In this country an act of violence accompanied by racial slurs is a hate crime and his case should be prosecuted as such. This story, painting him as somone who refuses to be shaken down, is an insult to the millions of Latinos who live and work in this multi-cultural city. If he had called Anderson "a stupid Jew" or "a stupid African American" would The Times have run the coverage with the same slant? I think not. Shame on you.

Sharif has a history of beating up on people — in 2003, he received a suspended sentence for head-butting a French police officer. Still, many readers saw two sides to this story.

Giuseppe Mirelli, of Los Angeles, wondered why anyone would have a problem with receiving such a big tip:

Just one question: Why did the parking valet not accept the 20-euro note? It's worth approximately $31.00. That's an exorbitant tip for an attendant to park your auto. The currency exchange is just one block away.

On account of the worthlessness of the dollar Sharif was not only generous he was also being considerate. Anderson, the valet, deserved a punch in the face for his ungratefulness and his stupidity.

Robert Price, of Walnut, noted that:

Only in LaLa land is it OK to shake down 75-year-old men. Folks ought to leave Omar Sharif alone.

However, The Times would be a poor example, making fun of Charlton Heston by cartoon on or near the day that he died.

I guess it is open season on old people, and so much the better if they are famous, rich or liberal.

Sol Taylor, of Sherman Oaks, thought the whole kerfuffle said more about our legal system than it did about Sharif or the valet:

Omar Sharif's legal wrangle points to several issues regarding some (maybe many) civil lawsuits. The incident, if accurately reported, was something a resolution or mediation panel could have settled in a day or two. However, once the lawsuit paradigm was created, six months and reams of paperwork followed. (What in the world could have taken up thousands of pages of print — even double spaced — in that incident?) Anderson refused for lack of knowledge what amounted to a $30 tip — many times higher than the usual valet tip. Sharif and he exchanged words and Sharif struck Anderson. If I were Anderson, I would have asked for an apology and a settlement of about $1,000.

I don't blame Sharif for stepping away from this draining experience and letting the case run its course. Most citizens can't afford to do that, but certainly feel after months of billable hours and more reams of paperwork Sharif's choice was to stick his finger (you know which one) up and say "adieu." Too many other cases drag on far longer than necessary and the gainers are the attorneys and the losers are the two opposing parties.

---

Each week, Letters to the Editor receives thousands of e-mails, dozens of letters through the mail, and even a few faxes here and there.

After we cut out spam, obscene mail, letters addressed to more than one recipient, letters that seem to be the fruit of letter-writing campaigns and letters with attachments (which gum up our computer systems,) we usually are left with several hundred eligible items, from which we select the somewhere around 100 that get published in the newspaper.

Last week, we received more than 800 usable letters, 340 of which were in our Top Five Topics: 

• New Yorker: a whopping 115 letters, responding to coverage of the infamous fist-bump New Yorker cover;
• McCain: 70 letters, reacting to several stories about the presidential candidate, including a report about his first marriage;
• Economy: 70 letters, responding to pieces about bank bailouts, new rules for mortgages, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac;
• Obama: 43 letters, about Obama coverage (minus the New Yorker);
• Goldberg: 42 letters, responding (mainly unfavorably) to our columnist Jonah Goldberg's reflections on national service.

Discuss today's Letters Plus.