The news today, Thursday, May 10, 2007, prominently displayed the occurence of a fist-fight at the Boston Pops Symphony last night. Apparently one man began throwing punches at another man after being told to be quiet in the middle of the concert. The show had to stop while guards dragged the two away outside. There were no charges filed, but the fight was serious enough that one mans shirt was practically ripped off, and everyone there had to experience the annoyance of two morons acting like their true selves ... or more likely one man being attacked for trying to enjoy a concert experience he had paid for to attend while a moron felt entitled to ruin the concert for everyone there.
I threw the subject of gun control into the title of this mostly to tweak readers a little bit, but with the serious statement that if force is going to be used, and it seems that it always is, who gets to wield the most force. If it is the police, they seem to get out of hand pretty easily. Maybe too easily. Maybe to the point that people who decide to pursue a law enforcement career are just the people who are more acceptable to society that would have been criminals or who have a fascination with power and force. If you cannot always trust the police or if the police are not around, whoever is the strongest or whoever decides to use force first to get the jump on the other person has the advantage. It is always possible that in a forceful altercation someone can be seriously hurt or killed, be they right or wrong.
I am curious as to how people view the displays of force. Personally I have never attacked anyone, or really needed to get in a fight, but I would say on the average of at least once a year I run into someone who for whatever reason thinks they should be using threats and force on me. Driving is probably the most common area where people go nuts. Don't you love it when someone cuts you off or does something against you and then preemptorily flips you off on top of it, as if it were their God given right to treat other people like crap?
What do you lose when someone insults you publically by threats of force?
What do you think of these kinds of things?
Have they happened to you?
What do you think or do when they happen to you or someone you know?
What do you think when they happen to someone else around you?
Should society take stronger action against this kind of thing?
If society will not protect people should we allow he use of deadly force a a back up to a situation that gets out of control for an innocent person who is bullied or hurt? If not why not?
If it were my decision the Boston Pops would have the obligation to bring charges against the person who started the fight. In my mind telling someone who is causing a disturbance at the Boston Pops to, be quiet, or even showing annoyance and saying something in a scolding tone as in "shut up" should be protected speech. It should be assault to respond to someone who is acting in the public interest, assuming they are not totally out of line, insulting and inflammatory, and it should be a felony to threaten them or use violence against them.
I believe we have laws against assault and battery actually, legally, but do you think the police or the courts are going to appreciate your rights not be attacked unless you are the victim of a certain class of crime?
In my world, I want to be able to be annoyed at someone who is being an anti-social jerk and tell them to cut it out. I want to be backed up by society in doing that for my good, and everyone else's good, and should I be attacked or should someone around me be attacked for the same thing, I would like then to testify for me and I would testify for them to uphold a policy of social politeness. I would like to be able to enforce social norms without having to resort to violence, even if I was Steven Segall and able to kick the butts of 10-20 people at a time ... we should not have to do that or take the risk, that is what society is all about.
I think the way we do things now is a feedback loop for escalating violence and deterioration of our social system, in schools, on the road, and mostly anywhere in public, and this kind of thing really has huge impact on children. Disrespect for people breeds disrespect for everything, there is nothing positive that is gained by acceping this kind of behaviour from people.
But what do you think?
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 17
I second R. Scott's comment as well.
"When I was a kid, there wasn't any 'road rage'.......it was called murder."
>> shouldn't get out of it on some rage type insanity plea.
No one gets charged for a fight, scuffle and has insanity enter into it. Insanity if for mass murderers or people who are enraged by long term abuse that they cannot take any more so they snap. This is not what my article was about Amorita.
>> Because everyone has self control.
The problem as I am trying to explain it is that strong, big, obnoxious or just aggressive people can act in a bullying way and if they are intimidating enough it never even leads to a fight because the people with self-control back off. So, what happens in everyone's eyes is that the person with self-control, doing the right thing backs off and is thought to be a chicken, in any case it "emboldens" to use our President's favorite word the evil-doer.
I am suggesting that meeting a bully with force continuously and consistantly would be better in the long run. Letting people constantly see the good people getting bullied in order to avoid a fight is the same as letting evil succeed. Crime is not supposed to pay.
>> The only time you need to fight is if there really is a danger to your life.
This is exactly the point I am trying to tell you is not true.
1929 the Soviet Union established strict gun control. In the next 24 years twenty MILLION political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1935 China established strict gun control. From 1948 to 1952 twenty MILLION political dissidents were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1938 Germany established strict gun control. In the next 7 years 13 MILLION Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals and the mentally ill were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1956 Cambodia established strict gun control. From 1975 to 1977 one MILLION "educated people" were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1964 Guatemala established strict gun control. In the next 17 years 100,000 Mayan Indians were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1970 Uganda established strict gun control. In the next 8 years 300,000 Christians were rounded up and exterminated.
The first step toward dictatorship and genocide is to disarm the people. The rest is easy.
Pass it on.
Thus a 'selfishness' sometimes approaching that of a psychopath in the extremes. The opposite would then be a fully connected person that was spiritually loving of each and all in knowing of their transcendent connection to God and thus all other(s). But 'that' is something that will only come for those 'ready' to accept.
\\\\>> The only time you need to fight is if there really is a danger to your life.
This is exactly the point I am trying to tell you is not true. ////
Could you explain this a bit? I'm inclined to agree that if your cornered and there is danger to your life, fighting may be your last resort.
I wonder if it would be a more polite society if we all carried a gun on our hip as they did in the old west? If you knew for certain that an altercation could well end up with you dead?
I know I could have 100 guns and never shoot anyone or rob anyone. I could be sitting in my car drinking a bottle of whiskey and never pose a danger to anyone on the road. It is not because I am smarter, or better, or more educated, or have better genes, or a truer religion, or have more money, I don't know why it is, but
there are just a certain number of people who just can't get it right, but we do not really know who they are so we restrict everyone else and demonize the whole society because we cannot get at the terrorists alongside us ... hmmm, sounds familiar huh?