Can a civil society survive when society spends more time and effort protecting criminals than the law-abiding citizen?
The Mayor of Boston just made her, and presumably her city’s, priorities pretty visible:
Now, you might say it costs nobody anything – the victims are alive, the attacker dead. Expressing (misplaced) sympathy isn’t going to kill him again, or endanger the victims. Is it?
I see your logic, and raise you Mary Moriarty (open and expand the thread):
But here’s the money quote:
A source familiar with the case told us that charges were declined by Mary Moriarty’s office because the victim was able to fight back.
Got that?
If you defend yourself, that’s all the justice you need. (How much do you want to bet the intended victim only evaded assault charges because he was a teenager?)
We are getting to the point where the lesson is the one people in all low-trust societies eventually get to; it’s better to handle “Justice” by yourself. To do the job, to not talk to the police – even enforce the practice – and make offender examples on your own.
I’d ask “is this what you want”, but this is the DFL we’re talking about.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.