« Paris Hilton is Zsa Zsa Gabor, Just Younger and Not Gone Completely to Hell. But Soon. | Main | Given Our Sacred Belief That One Is Innocent Until Proven Guilty, He Is Only An Alleged Idiot »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Shame on you, Tom! How dare you insult the vast majority of honorable, decent, self-sacrificing men and women who put their lives on the line for our safety! Then again, smearing people with slurs ("violent psychopaths") is much easier than dealing with the issues, isn't it? Typical liberal m.o., and one I see with alarming frequency here at FuncAmb.

Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe, just maybe, some of the, uh, "lawfully-challenged" individuals who get the stuffing knocked out of them by the police deserve it? By that I mean that they not only failed to follow a police officer's orders, but also behaved in a threatening manner. Most of the police's "clientele" are not Boy Scouts, and are often guilty as charged. If they aren't bright enough to figure out that the police have the authority to use whatever force they deem necessary to subdue suspects, then they've earned what's coming to them.

This is not to justify police brutality. (Full disclosure: I haven't seen the video.) I just think there's a lot less police "brutality" going on than is alleged. Furthermore, the general public's perceptions of these matters have been turned topsy-turvy by the systematic vilification of our traditional culture and values (like law & order) and concurrent exaltation of criminals, criminality, and criminals' "rights." Thanks, Baby Boomers, the Cultural Revolution you fomented, and liberalism! Would you please hurry up and die so that we can try to restore American values to America--while we still have a nation to call our own?

When it comes down to it, I'd rather have healthy cops who crack a few heads when necessary than cops who have been perforated by the choirboys they're trying to arrest.

It is undoubtably true that some of the perps deserve a beating or worse. The thing that seperates us from Nazi Germany or the Zimbabwe of Robert Mugabe is that our police are not the ones designated to administer the smackdown. They are meant to apprehend, using only the amount of force neccessary, in order that the defendant can stand trial. Fortunately, almost all police officers do this, forbearing to kick the ass of countless dirtbags who have put said policemen's lives in jeopardy or worse; hurt, raped or killed some innocent citizen. Beatings like this one or Rodney King's or Amadou Diallo's are done by violent psychopaths, not good policemen.
As you know, I lack Tom's gentle sensibilties. Your articulate, well-reasoned arguments in favor of things like cracking a few heads when necessary have proven repeatedly that you are merely an articulate and calculating fascist, and I mean that in the most perjorative sense. You seem to believe that the group of correct-thinking individuals to which you feel you belong should be directing things and if things like laws and the Constitution get in the way of that, well by golly, they should be changed for the good of the country before all the immigrants and liberals and atheists can mess this country up. Well, I'm not sure I'm going to like what this country will be like by the time President Morales Vega y Silva is elected but I will suck it up, just like I did when George W Bush was inaugurated and work for positive change.

Squid, you never cease to amaze. No doubt, you've twisted things around in your mind so that people who are against police beatings in the street are somehow un-American, a threat to western civilization, even.

And as to your statement "this is not to justify police brutality," well, isn't that exactly what you just set out to do? Is there any other way to read the preceding paragraph in your comment other than as a justification for police brutality?

My, my, I certainly stirred up the hornets' nest!

Wally: I invoke Godwin's Law. You lose, I win. BTW, you might want to learn what fascism really means. You touched on some interesting ideas, but they got lost in the name-calling.

Funny how when liberals start losing arguments, they resort to name-calling, isn't it? Why can't you people engage in a discussion of ideas?


I don't have time to respond right now, but I'll come back to it.

Squid, aside from "fascist," I'm not sure Wally resorted to name-calling. And isn't it funny how when authoritarian conservatives are losing an argument they always resort to broad generalizations?


OK, maybe it was more name-dropping. But he still reduced the discourse to reductio ad Hitlerum.

Back to basics: if a police officer has reason to arrest someone, he has the full authority of the state to use appropriate force to bring said person into custody. If the person resists, that increases the amount of force that is authorized. Therefore, some arrest-resisters have brought a beating upon themselves by their resistance.

Which is what I meant when I said that some of the straight-A students we hear about "deserve a beating."

What is wrong with you that you would think that I could possibly support the police acting as judge, jury, and executioner?

Interestingly enough, back when I was a liberal, I had a liberal friend from college who became a cop. We hung out a lot, and I even went on a ride-along with him. Fascinating.

He had to get counseling to deal with what he saw, and how it conflicted with his liberal delusions. In fact, he was reassigned out of the most crime-plagued part of town, which, not coincidentally, was the blackest as well. And it was that which caused him his psychological stress: the conflict between the liberal dogma that "everyone is the same" and the reality (backed by Department of Justice statistics) that blacks are, per capita, the most criminally-inclined element of society.

But I digress.

Isn't it funny how liberals have lost the critical ability to deal in generalizations, preferring instead to fail to see the bigger picture by their stubborn insistence on seeing everyone as individuals? Yes, how terrible it is to make generalizations that might possibly mischaracterize even one member of the group generalized about! (Unless, of course, that group is whites, in which case the foulest invectives and grossest generalizations can be bandied about with abandon.)

The comments to this entry are closed.