Is this person really so craven that he would not“intervene” for himself? Would he really just stand there and let someone elsemaim or kill him without raising a hand in his own defense?
Billy, [1] I have to tell you, I’ve been thinking about this one most of the day.
I share your reaction at an instinctive level. But assuming your response is not rhetoric -laden (Seems a safe assumption, since IME, you’re not given to rhetoric as a rule) I must say I’m taken aback a bit by your question, here.
OF COURSE he won’t intervene. Where the heck do you think cases like Heller come from, anyway? He is of a growing mindset in this country that says they don’t want anyone ELSE to intervene, either.
What must be summarily dismissed is his fantasy that able others are bound to stand around during that flash of time when innocence is bleeding and give up all their humanity and everything it means for “the law”.
Look, Billy, let’s eliminate that one right now. That’s not the core of the thing. It’s the underlying attitude. Think now….
The left, particularly the far left, is well known for stepping outside the law to make make a point. We’re about to see this in Denver, shortly. Given that record, does anyone seriously think they’d think twice about breaking the law if they didn’t agree with it?
The fact is, they DO agree with it, and hiding behind the words ‘it’s the law’ is nothing but a hat to give their intentional inaction poliical cover. It’s dastardly and more, but there it is. Regardless of the words used, this is not about the law per se. And therefore you’re right when you suggest a POLITICAL point is being made. This is a case, clearly where the speaker holds the value of the politcs to be higher than the value of the individual at risk. And e’s not alone, here. Again, I point to Heller as a recent example. Does the left devaluing an individual really surprise you? Your cite is merely one more example of the attitude. I thank you for pointing it out.
But don’t get tangled in the misconception that this is all a devotion to the law. It is not. It’s the devotion to the dastardly IDEA. The laws our subject asks about are merely the legal means of enfocing that idea.