One of the issues we have had to confront over and over again in the political wrangles over how we shall live under law together, if indeed we shall continue to do so, is the issue of wildly differing personal boundaries.
It’s clear that liberals on the one side and libertarians and conservatives on the other have what appear to be very different and even antithetical psychological and perhaps even organic expectations and requirements.
Think back to the days of liberal rage and hope in the 1960s and 1970s. Their anthems, their secular prayers, their hopes and dreams were full of collectivist and “community” yearnings. Yeah, some of it was conscious communism, watered down so as to seem humanistic and full of feeling, but, I think, much of it represented their natural yearnings. “No man is an island”, “Attention must be paid!”, “unconditional love” and I will lay me down for you like a bridge over troubled waters, yada yada yada.
Give me a moment … I can’t effen breathe in the humidity generated by that last series of liberal-mentality quotes.
Ok, so anyway the interpenetrative masochism, so to the taste of the left – the experience of which both convinces the leftist it has a “right” to exist while adding a fillip of sexually perverse excitement to his politics – is what sets the leftist anthropoid apart from morally redeemable human beings. The craving for submission and suffering simply cannot be unwound from the leftist DNA. It is after all, what makes them what they are, and is why they behave in the way they do.
In line with this, has anyone noticed that few if any have asked if the shop clerk who was assaulted and battered by Michael Brown would have been morally justified in standing his ground and killing Brown if necessary?
Where did Michael Brown presumptively derive the right to lay hands on another with impunity?
The man he assaulted was in fact small, and seemed to offer little if any resistance to Brown’s attack. But under what theory of law was he, dog-like, obligated not to do so? When did we reach the point in this country when an inoffensive person is considered morally bound to accept a battering or maiming for the sake of the well-being of a malicious and battering offender? How exactly is this equation rendered?
Here is an interesting video. Would it have been right and just for this woman to have killed her assailant? After all, she didn’t die herself.
Now our friend Michael Brown, this is a picture of Michael Brown below, did not break down a bolted door in order to beat the living shit out of a mother in front of her terrified daughter.
Brown from various sources
No, Michael Brown allegedly but feloniously robbed the Ferguson Market and Liquor store and assaulted – and technically battered – the employee.
Brown assaults employee while robbing store
And then when Michael was allegedly finished robbing and assaulting at the market, he went strolling down the middle of the traffic lanes of a nearby street; whereupon, he assaulted – allegedly – a passing police officer who had asked him to stop blocking traffic and move to the sidewalk.
Now to put the cherry on top so to speak, he allegedly battered this police officer, tried to take away the cop’s gun, and then after a shot was discharged in the struggle over possession of the cop’s weapon, he briefly ran from the fracas he had started. He then, reportedly, turned about (was this guy channeling Trayvon?) taunted, and then charged at the cop.
Well, let’s place all the “alleged” material off to the side as provisional, as bracketed, and to this point hypothetical. And let’s consider the scenario in a hypothetical worst case scenario way; and here’s the big problem remaining.
Do grant for the sake of argument – and to this moment only for the sake of argument – that Michael Brown did indeed feloniously steal 50 bucks worth of cigars in a brazen strong arm robbery wherein he also assaulted and technically battered an employee. Grant further that he then sauntered down the middle of a public street interfering with traffic and thereby attracting the attention of a police officer who asked him to move out of the traffic lane and onto the walkway.
Further grant – for the sake of argument only – that Michael Brown did in fact refuse to do move out of the traffic lane, and attacked the cop in his car when the cop subsequently pulled up ahead in order to deal with the situation on foot. Grant also that Michael Brown battered the cop’s face. Grant that Michael Brown tried to take the officer’s weapon, and shoot the officer with it, only running off when he failed.
Grant that after Brown ran a short distance, he turned about after some modest number of feet, faced the cop who was ordering him to stop, and then taunted the cop: finally, charging him in order to … well Michael Brown only knows.
Amazingly in doing this, you have to grant felony robbery, and felony assault on a police officer; and probably attempted murder.
Yet if you grant all of that, and apparently some do even on Michael’s side, here is the problem remaining. Michael Brown’s apologists still don’t think that the police response was appropriate.
Now would they possibly alternatively concede that it would have been appropriate for the puny little store clerk to have killed Brown with a weapon, if, say, the preservation of clerk’s own bodily integrity while under active assault and battery, had depended on it?
No, I am convinced most on the left would not.
And I think we have good evidence for this conclusion: Trayvon Martin. After the bloodied face and skull of Zimmerman was finally shown, after it was eventually geometrically demonstrated that if Trayvon’s so-called girlfriend was to be believed at all, then Trayvon had had to have doubled back on Zimmerman in order to confront and attack him; even after the slim drink business; even after the burglar tools; even after the other fights and assaults … none of it mattered.
And not only to his family did it not matter, but neither to elderly white leftist provocation specialist trash like Perry Hood, or now our erstwhile commenter John The Liberal of American Liberal Times blog.
You might think that these moral miscreants are deliberately trying to cause a social Armageddon. But the more likely explanation is that they just don’t care, or are incapable of caring, about the truth.
Because in the final analysis, Michael Brown’s most ardent apologists, of whatever color or ethnic makeup, are simply moral aliens, people who have and who recognize no boundaries at all when it comes to satisfying their urges and wants, but who expect that those upon whom they impose, wheedle, and often violently prey, will always submit.
Moral alien activists expect that they, or their social pets at least, may rape and plunder and assault, and that the victims will properly respond with unending and self-destructive restraint: all the better to abide the very rules which the Michael Browns and Trayvon Martins and Bill Ayers of the world sneer at. In other words they expect that all men will act like the pathetic and contemptible masochists we know as old white liberal males.
It is clear enough that we know who is actually doing the dying as a result of this poisonous attitude and psychology.
Maybe we should ask from a more broadly moral perspective, who really should be.