> andie nachgeborenen wrote:
>
> >Violence needn't
> >involve physical contact or harm; putting someone in
> >fear of physical harm or death strikes me as plausibly
> >a violent crime.
>
> Ah, I remember when Rudy Giuliani tried to define "aggressive
> pandhandling" as bordering on violent assault.
>
> Doug
Which begs the question, what constitutes violence? Why only physical harm?
Is aggressive panhandling violence? Hell I haven't lived in the city for years now but panhandlers never constituted a threat when I was there.
Is this what it's come to? People are so scared they define everything that makes them uncomfortable as "violence" so they can stomp it down?
If a wealthy real estate developer threatens to have my property condemned, and has demonstrated an ability to do so, isn't that a credible threat of violence? Isn't it violence to cause me to worry about losing my home because of a credible threat? Isn't it violence to do such a thing? I can honestly say I would be more worried about that than some redneck with a hunting rifle pointed at me. Why is violence only defined as something physical? Is it because that is the only tool of the poor? You can laugh at this question if you want but that won't be much of an answer.
John Thornton