About 20 years ago, when my father and I were seeing this older eye doctor called Dr. Michael, we had an interesting discussion with him. He was well into his 90's, and he was still a very good eye doctor and surgeon. But under Michigan law he was not allowed to perform eye surgey, because they said he was too old. My father and I said, well you'd make a very good eye surgeon. Actually better than average. He said, yes that may be true. But that is the rule. And that rule, and the rules in general, are put there for a reason. Some might be very good eye surgeons at that age, some may be just average. And some may think they are good eye surgeons still, but really aren't. But none of them can say they were treated unfairly, if they are just expected to follow the rules. Or Michigan law, in this case. The same is true with assault laws, in countries like the US, Canada and in Europe. You are never allowed to assault someone for any reason. If you are being attacked, and your life or safety are in clear danger, you have the right to block the blows. And then to do whatever is reasonably necessary to get yourself out of harm's way. And then when you are no longer in danger, you have a duty to retreat. Really everywhere in the United States you have a duty to retreat. Even under those controversial stand-your-ground laws. In 2005 actor Tom Cruise was squirted in the face with a water gun, as part of a light-hearted prank by a British guy. And the public was surprised to learn in the UK, as in the US, that would be considered an assault. Because you are never allowed to touch someone in any unwanted way. (The one exception being when you spank your kids. Which some people point out, seem unusual and suspicious.) Even in a place like prison, strange as it may sound. The prison guards aren't allowed to squirt the inmates with water guns, anymore than they are allowed to spank them. They are only there to maintain order, and to look after the welfare of the inmates. In some countries in the world, they still use beatings and torture. But we agree in places like the US that those kinds of things are always wrong. And punishments should never be humiliating in any way either. Some people disagree with that notion. But we all agree, it's the rules, it's the law. And future generations will always remember it was only right too.
I also wanted to add, there's kind of a gray area. In what the law actually says, and what police, judges and prosecutors will in practice allow. I am reminded of the Bernhard Goetz case in a New York subway in 1984. Goetz had to take the subway home late in the afternoon, as he often did. Goetz was already the victim of crime. In 1981 three teenagers pushed him into a plate-glass door and threw him to the ground, injuring his chest and knee. He complained he was detained for for six hours for trying to apprehend one of the teenagers before the police arrived, while that person was released from police custody after injuring him in just two and a half hours. In December 1984 four youths on a New York City subway in Manhattan tried to shake Goetz down for money. Goetz shot all four of them. All four of the young men survived, though one was paralyzed and suffered brain damage as a result of the shooting. Goetz claimed that the four men had weapons, approaching him brandishing sharpened screwdrivers. But that was later proven false. No weapons were involved in that robbery crime. Also the way Goetz shot them was obviously much more an example of vigilante justice than self-defense, by his own admission. After one lay on the ground after he shot them, he later told people he walked up to him, and said "here's another one", shooting him again. This story, I still remember, touched off a nationwide debate on crime in major U.S. cities, the legal limits of self-defense, and the extent to which the citizenry could rely on the police to secure their safety, also with groups in New York like the Guardian Angels. People in New York were getting pretty sick of crime at the time. And the police were overwhelmed trying to help them, with the crime waves in major U.S. cities that happened in the 1980's. Police will always err on the side of the victim, even if he is technically breaking the law, as they should. But how far is too far, was the question this story brought up. Also interesting at the time, I remember another story from New York. A liquor store was robbed at gunpoint. When the robber ran out of the door with the money, the owner ran after him, trying to chase him down with a gun. That is always illegal, trying to punish people, by taking matters into your own hands. Also, that was the first time I, and probably many Americans, heard of why that is illegal. The robber left the store, so the owner was no longer in danger. At that point the owner had a duty to retreat, or actually lock the door and call the police then. As I said, I learnt then the law even requires that duty. Plus the story went on, the owner was endangering his own safety running after the robber, who also had a gun.
More. Also interesting, I might as well add this here too. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution reads "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." Meaning the president, as others, can be removed for any misdemeanor. Jaywalking is a misdemeanor in some states. But those opening words "Treason, Bribery..." makes it clear, they meant the president should in actual practice be removed only for crimes that show he can't be trusted by the public and that he is corrupt. Now some people think Richard Nixon showed he couldn't be trusted and was very corrupt, after the 1972 break-in at the Watergate hotel and office building in Washington, D.C. But he resigned in 1974. So we'll never know how that one would have turned out. Interestingly, Bill Clinton was accused of lying under oath in 1998, during his grand jury testimony for the Paula Jones scandal. Now, in addition to Nixon, that shows a clear betrayal of trust, and clear political corruption. But many legal commentators at the time pointed out, that prosecutors rarely pursue charges of perjury that involve lying under oath for sex. Because it's just human nature to do things like that, and a well- seasoned prosecutor will know this. Donald Trump on the other hand. He has lied repeatedly, under oath, and in his many failed business ventures, where he also has tried to cheat people and manipulate the situation to his advantage. He incited people to overthrow the U.S. government on January 6, 2021, all because he didn't like the outcome of the election, then later lied about it and denied it. (He also encouraged people to harm his vice president Mike Pence, who still supports him somehow, for not going along with his fraud and deception. No president has ever done that.) Plus Nixon and Clinton did eventually admit their mistake. Though Nixon always maintained he did nothing wrong, really. Because illegal or not, it's all right when a president does it, he used to tell people. And now it is kind of an open secret that Donald Trump will not accept the next election results, if they don't favor him. And will force himself into the White House if necessary, and become our dictator for life. He was impeached twice, but never removed. But to me that shows betrayal of trust and corruption. And treason for a president, for the first time in U.S. But the reason why Trump is still the nominee is because half the country is okay with this and still supports him. Maybe we should have a minimum IQ requirement for voting. And being president too, for that matter.
Just had to interject here. IQ test? No. That idea is uncomfortably close to Jim Crow laws, and while the founders were patently flawed in execution in their time, it’s pretty obvious that intelligence wasn’t a key factor in how they saw democracy working. Rules is rules, until they aren’t. Rarely are rules applied fairly or evenly. That’s just kinda how it is. Humans are flawed, and because of that the application of the rules we impose upon ourselves will always be uneven.
I meant, as I have said before on these boards, IQ in the sense of "Mommy says stupid is as stupid does." from the movie "Forrest Gump".
I can dig that. But I’m a nerd and have to point it out because that’s a slippery slope idea. I tend to not assume the worst in people when it comes to politics, though. Donnie Jingles maybe, but not the average voter, even if they’re voting for Big Orange.
"To the Prison Police and to the administrative staff, I would like to say thank you. Thank you because your work is hidden, often difficult and unsatisfactory, but essential. Thank you for all the times that you live your service not only as necessary vigilance, but also as a support to those who are weak. I know that it is not easy but when, in addition to being guardians of security, you provide close presence for those who have been ensnared in the nets of evil, you become builders of the future: you lay the foundations for a more respectful coexistence and therefore for a safer society." -Pope Francis September 14, 2019. Like that quote above by the pope shows, no one should ever be abused in modern human society. Even people who have been convicted of crimes. Because sometimes they are the ones who are the most vulnerable. And the pope in some circles is seen as too conservative. And intolerant even, on things like gay rights. That why I can't understand in this country, why people make it seem like we are asking so much when we just expect them to do their jobs. When we think prisoners shouldn't be abused, when we think violence is never justified, when we think physical abuse of any kind is always wrong. That is only right, that is only normal. Yet in this country if you feel that way, that makes people think you're some kind of nut.
