On Wednesday, July 3, 2002, at 05:13 PM, Wojtek Sokolowski wrote:
> At 03:02 PM 7/3/2002 -0500, jerry wrote:
>
>
>> afaict, wojtek doesn't think it's worth the time to protest because
>> the people who get such treatment deserve it, perhaps even by
>> definition (i.e., they get it BECAUSE they deserve it, whether it's
>> the cops' right to determine that or not).
>>
>> gotta love it. law and order leftism? beats me. <rim shot>
>
>
> In the course of my life I came to contact with various forms of
> violence, for the most part committed by men against women (the
> so-called domestic violence). Most of these we ongoing affairs - the
> men did it because they got what they wanted, and most importantly they
> could get away with it. In a few cases, however, the perpetrators got
> a "raw treatment" by the police who responded to domestic violence
> calls. And you know what - it stopped the abuse.
am i to understand that you think this constitutes the moral justification for giving cops free reign? speaking as someone who's witnessed much of the same sort of domestic violence . . . i wonder if you seriously think that (1) "the raw treatment" always worked simply as you describe, rather than (or only after) sparking more violence against the women in question, as often happens, and (2) even putting the best face on it, that your example is representative, either quantitatively or qualitatively, of police violence.
>
> Perhaps the cops did not have the right to beat these men. But it
> worked. And brought on the perpetrators the same treatment they were
> giving to others. A poetic justice of a sort, Kafka's _Penal Colony_
> or Kantian categorical imperative revisited - if you will.
that's a high-falutin' way of saying "trust your mechanic," even orwellian, if you ask me . . .
j