No Harm, No Foul

No Harm, No Foul:

I've waited a bit to speak to this, and at last I am going to do so on the other side from what you may expect. Although, I suppose, some of you who have been paying closest attention may have seen it coming.

One thing I have often argued is that the law should not ban a fair fight. Is two-to-four young men accosting an old man in the street an invitation to a fair fight?

This may well be assault and battery by current law. Current law, though, is no friend to what I think is right. A man ought not to be subject to harassment as he walks down a public street. If he feels that a swift kick in the rear will best speed on those who are keeping him from his business, well, I'm likely to endorse him in rendering them aid in finding their way.

I'm sure I should be against this fellow just because he's a Congressman; but really, I'm more against jerks. Let a man walk down the street. And if you won't do that, don't complain if you find that he hands you part of your anatomy to wear as a decoration once he lets you go on your way.

Or let me put it this way: arresting a man's passage on his normal business is not a neutral action. If this were a Marine Colonel or General on his way to work, being accosted by a handful of SEIU thugs, we would think differently. Whether we read it as "assault" or "kidnapping" or whatever else the law might prefer, it is an affront. If you bring two or three young men against a single older man, you've tripped the standard called 'disparity of force.' If he felt the need to draw a firearm, I would probably still be on his side, even though he's a Congressman; certainly, if he were a Marine against union thugs.

Good for the gentleman from North Carolina. Let's just not complain when someone from 'our side' does the same thing.

No comments: