How much angrier can I get? (original) (raw)

Sun, Jul. 20th, 2008, 02:28 pm

pleasant_muse: How much angrier can I get?

About two weeks ago, at Valley Fair, a group of men (about 6 to 8 in number) brutally attacked a father because he was trying to protect his 12-year-old daughter from being groped by two men. Their indignant reaction was to call their buddies on a cell phone and collectively and mercilessly assault the father. Where do these motherfucking pedophiles get off with their righteous tirade?

To make matters even worse, no one came to the aid of the beleaguered family. No timely arrival of a "George Peppard" or "Mr. T" occurred. Even the security of the amusement park were helpless to intervene.

One blogger made a point that was blindingly obvious, putting the focus on the real problem facing us when we hear of such tragedies, "criminals who carry out outrageous assaults in public do so on the assumption that passersby will not be able to stop them."

We need to remove that assumption. Forcibly. Decisively. With utmost prejudice and extreme malice. When faced with brutality, common citizens need to know that when one person steps up, he will not step up alone. When a group of men (notably those aged 14 to 24) choose to bet on non-interference, they need to learn quickly that they are betting against the house. And the house always wins.

Some are calling for more guns in the hands of the heroic citizenry, and I agree... almost. Handguns appear to have only one purpose - to kill. I do not want to put more machines of death on the street. However, the public needs to have some form of empowerment in these situations. I suggest mob rule as one possible option.

In the past, before police practically took away our cahones and branded all vigilant citizens as criminals themselves, mob rule was always at the forefront of a criminals mind when carrying out acts of disobedience. What is more, criminals often acted alone, unlike today, where criminals now routinely band together and resort to terrorism. I would have no problem attacking a lone offender, but I would sooner not go up against a group of violent men on my own.

Some form of at-the-ready response should be common in these situations. When a group of thugs take advantage of their numbers against an unarmed and defenseless individual, otherwise unconnected individuals should become a dangerous and terrifying response to such behaviour, and in a manner of seconds. Criminals should learn to scan the crowd, wondering who among the throng would unify with terrifying speed and decisiveness. And that should become a most effective deterrent.

Because six men, surrounded by more than a few dozen shocked witnesses, acted boldly and confidently, the fault should be ours. We stopped taking responsibility and emaciated ourselves, removing our power to discourage negative behaviour by those who otherwise would resort to violence.

I don't have all the answers, but I do know that public reaction to such violence shouldn't be after the 11 o'clock news, but immediate and in a manner that effectively weakens the criminal's resolve.

The men in question seem to have all made bail. Right now, I wouldn't be all that put out if they didn't live to see their day in court.