Whether or not they're guilty of the theft--and no one convicted them without a trial, so I don't know why you keep spouting that phrase like it's a trump card for your position--they're clearly guilty of vandalism here, and so are by definition criminals. And given that they would engage in vandalism like this, it seems all the more likely that they are in fact guilty of the thefts they were accused of too. Basically, they sound like scum.
It's bizarre that someone claiming to be a conservative, especially someone who at least claims to be concerned enough about crime to found a chapter of the Guardian Angels, would be so quick to defend an attack on the police. Curtis Sliwa would be disgusted with you.
BTW, don't try to call your position conservative. It's as liberal as anything the Warren Court of the '60s tried to impose, and such decisions were rightly scaled back when later courts took a more balanced approach to the issue.
> they’re clearly guilty of vandalism here,
They are innocent until proven guilty. They have not been proven guilty, they have not even been tried. They haven’t even been arrested or even charged. Not with vandalism, not with anything.
You just don’t get it, do you? From the article:
> A Surrey Police spokesman said the identity of the mob members was ‘unknown’.
“Dunno who the mob members were.” That’s what the police spokesperson said, in essence. For all you know the mob could have comprised off-duty cops. Or members of the Salvation Army. Or the local women’s rugby club. Or anybody. Maybe they were Gypsies, maybe not.
And yet, in your view, the Gypsies are “clearly guilty of vandalism”. How is your view different to Lynch Law, anyway? What part of “due process” does it comply with?
> and so are by definition criminals.
Once convicted they are criminals. They have not been convicted. They haven’t been charged or even arrested. Or even positively identified, for that matter.
> And given that they would engage in vandalism like this, it seems all the more likely that they are in fact guilty of the thefts they were accused of too. Basically, they sound like scum.
So it doesn’t bother you that the police may well have overstepped the bounds of their authority? In what way is your attitude not Statist? It seems to me that the Second Amendment is wasted on you.
> It’s bizarre that someone claiming to be a conservative
Conservatives are not Statist, and they are certainly not mesmerized by Law Enforcement. I am not Statist, and I am not mesmerized by Law Enforcement either — tho’ as a Law Abiding Citizen my sympathies are often tho’ not always with the police.
I am a Law-Abiding Citizen first and a Conservative second. I have no brief nor desire to enforce the law, but rather to uphold it and to ensure that others do, too.
> especially someone who at least claims to be concerned enough about crime to found a chapter of the Guardian Angels,
As I’ve said earlier in this thread, I post on the FRee Republic as a private citizen. That said, I do try to uphold the ideals of the Guardian Angels at all times. And for the record, I’ve founded four Chapters, not one.
> would be so quick to defend an attack on the police.
Let’s be really clear on that, then: if the police are in the wrong, I am not going to support them. I believe that, according to this story, they are clearly in the wrong. And their helicopter suffered rough justice at the hands of the aggrieved mob. Naturally, I’d prefer that didn’t happen, but a helicopter is not a person, violence was not done to any human beings, so I’m not that exercised about what happened to the helicopter. Oh well. Maybe next time the police will be more careful when they play with their toys.
I do not have a brief to protect property. I will if I feel like it, but my only real interest is in keeping people safe. Not property. People.
> Curtis Sliwa would be disgusted with you.
Maybe he would, maybe he wouldn’t. Maybe I’ll ask him next time we talk.
> BTW, don’t try to call your position conservative.
I just did, because it is Conservative. However, your position is Statist, bordering on Fascist. And it is about to get a really good workout with Obama at the helm. You may enjoy that.
> It’s as liberal as anything the Warren Court of the ‘60s tried to impose, and such decisions were rightly scaled back when later courts took a more balanced approach to the issue.
If the Warren Court believed in the Magna Carta principle of “Innocent until proven Guilty” then you might be right.