Thursday, September 01, 2005

order and forces on hand

I think that it is not the case that there are not enough police on hand to do the job of protecting relief workers, it is the way we have defined their job that makes it impossible. A couple of generations ago when the forces of order had the benefit of the doubt the firepower on hand would have been more than adequate. What is different now is that you have to have so many oks before using deadly force, that you have to fire only when you can prove in court that your life was threatened, and that is was not just a matter of keeping order or establishing dominance. You have a bunch of thugs on the dock waving guns around. You tell them to get lost or you will shoot them and then count to three. There is more than enough fire power to do that. But no, that would violate someone’s rights. Their mother (no father but probably a mother) would show up on TV saying how he was a good boy. The scum of the earth must be given every benefit of a doubt while patients can’t move from the hospital and relief workers must dodge bullets. But no, don’t shoot the gangs of monsters. That would violate their rights.

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

yes, shoot everybody - nice policy. Don't you think there'll be no shooting if only the police had guns and nobody else? but no, this will violate people's rights...oops was this something YOU said?

Michael Reinhard said...

That is true. I forgot. We should arm not only the police but law abiding citizens.

Or did I mistake your meaning? Perhaps your comments concerned some alternative universe where gun control actually works?

Then again, it was a world as pristinely free of guns as any liberal could image where Hobbes wrote that life in a world without government is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short." Unless good men are willing to defend order with violence the weak are always preyed upon by the evil.