In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
No Sympathy for Predators
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
No Sympathy for Predators
David C. Stolinsky
Friday, Aug. 2, 2002
One night my wife and I returned home and saw two coyotes tearing apart a cat in the middle of our Los Angeles street. Every year coyotes kill dogs and cats and sometimes attack children. Yet it is illegal to hunt or trap coyotes, though they are far from being an endangered species.
TV reports on the subject often show coyotes trotting along peacefully; dead cats and dogs are never shown. So-called animal lovers declare, "All life is precious." But in practice, they mean that the life of a coyote is more precious than that of a cat or dog. Their sympathy is used up on coyotes; none is left for pets, or even children.
Hunting mountain lions has been illegal for years in California, though they are no longer endangered. Some time ago, one killed a jogger. TV reports often show them curled up, swishing their tails like house cats. Mauled hikers or dead calves and lambs are never shown. As with coyotes, activists maintain that we are to blame for entering their territory. Again, sympathy is lavished on the predator, leaving none for the prey.
We have a regrettable tendency to sympathize with predators - both animal and human. Perhaps it reflects our subconscious admiration for the predator's strength and ruthlessness, and our fear of being like the victim.
A proverb states that if you are kind to the cruel, you will be cruel to the kind. That is, if you use up your sympathy on those who don't deserve it, you will have none left for those who do. There is a finite supply of sympathy.
Mother Teresa had more sympathy than I do, I'm sure. But even hers was not unlimited. She used it for the poor in the slums of India. The middle class and rich need sympathy, too, but Mother Teresa wisely used hers for those who need it most.
That is, she budgeted her sympathy, just as we budget money. We would do well to follow her example. Otherwise, we may find that we have run out just when we really need it. Even worse, we may find that it is too late.
Five-year-old Samantha Runnion's horrific kidnapping and murder were national news. The alleged murderer was caught quickly. But reports noted that he had previously been charged with abusing two young girls. He was acquitted of these crimes.
I'm sure that the transcript of that trial runs to hundreds of pages. Even if I could review it, I'm not a lawyer. And if two lawyers reviewed it, they would likely disagree on whether he was really guilty.
After all, the record reflects what was said in court, not what actually happened. It reflects the evidence the judge allowed the jury to see, and the testimony he allowed them to hear. Key evidence and testimony may be excluded. ("The defendant failed a polygraph test? Never mind.")
Lawyers may mischaracterize testimony and impugn witnesses ("Were the little girls coached?"). They may propose absurd theories ("The defendant repeatedly claimed he's innocent; that shows he's innocent."). All of this actually happened at the prior trial. So there is no way to be certain the prior trial reflected reality.
But it is certain that this experience taught the person that he could get away with molesting children, but it would be easier if he eliminated the witness.
It is certain that had this person been in prison, Samantha Runnion would still be alive. It is certain that if we insist on excluding key evidence, guilty people will go free. It is certain that if we bend over backward to be fair to the accused, we inevitably will be unfair to his later victims.
It is certain that if we squander our sympathy on those who don't deserve it, we won't have enough for those who do. And then even mountains of flowers and hundreds of candles won't suffice to allay our guilt.
And speaking of guilt, consider the judges who insist that aborting late-term, viable fetuses is a right not to be restricted. Consider the schools that teach kids that an unborn child is the equivalent of a decayed tooth - removable at our convenience. Consider the professor of "bioethics" who teaches that parents have a right to murder defective or unwanted babies up to a month old, later increased to a year old.
Dare we delude ourselves that these actions did not diminish people's respect for young life? Dare we pretend that, despite creating such an anti-child environment, we have no connection to the increasing number of babies found in trash bins? Dare we claim that we have no responsibility when small children are left in cars on hot days?
Yes, there is plenty of guilt to go around.
We think we know who brutally murdered Samantha Runnion, but we can't bring her back. We don't yet know what happened to 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnapped from her bedroom in Utah.
We don't yet know what happened to 5-year-old Rilya Wilson, who disappeared from the Florida foster children's program 15 months ago, but nobody noticed. DNA tests are being done on the beheaded body of a small child. But if the child isn't Rilya, who is she?
We think we know who murdered 7-year-old Danielle Van Dam after kidnapping her from her bedroom in California. True, the accused murderer committed no prior crimes that we know of. But our cavalier approach to the safety of children obviously didn't deter him.
Someone must live in fear, either molesters or children. When we teach kids "stranger danger," it is a sign that we have shown too much concern for the rights of the accused, and not enough for the rights of the innocent.
Someone must live behind bars, either criminals or law-abiding people. When window bars appear on many homes, it is a sign that we have shown too much sympathy for criminals, and not enough for victims.
Sympathy is finite. No one, not even a saint, has enough for all the 6 billion people on earth, as well as uncounted animals. We must spend it wisely.
In we use up our sympathy on coyotes and mountain lions, we will have none left for cats, dogs and joggers.
If we squander our sympathy on terrorists who explode bombs in crowded markets and pizzerias, we will have none left for those who fight the terrorists.
If we fritter away our sympathy on al-Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo, we will have none left for our soldiers, who often live under worse conditions.
If we lavish our sympathy on victims of police brutality (real or imagined), we will have none left for the officers who are punched, kicked, spat on, cut and shot at while they patrol so we can sleep safely in our beds, dreaming peaceful dreams.
If we misuse our sympathy on convicted murderers and prevent them from being executed, we will have none left for the guards and inmates they will murder in prison, or for the citizens and police officers they will murder if they are paroled or escape.
If we waste our sympathy on child molesters, we will have none left for the children they will inevitably molest and murder. And those who have no sympathy for children are heartless indeed, and undeserving of sympathy themselves.
When Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just," he was referring to slavery. We abolished slavery in 1865. But we have found other ways to dehumanize, oppress and abuse the weak among us.
If we wish to avoid the ultimate judgment that Jefferson feared, it's time we took better care of our children. It's time we showed more sympathy for them, and less for those who do them harm.
Dr. Stolinsky is retired after 25 years of teaching in medical school. He writes from Los Angeles on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/2/52022.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
David C. Stolinsky
Friday, Aug. 2, 2002
One night my wife and I returned home and saw two coyotes tearing apart a cat in the middle of our Los Angeles street. Every year coyotes kill dogs and cats and sometimes attack children. Yet it is illegal to hunt or trap coyotes, though they are far from being an endangered species.
TV reports on the subject often show coyotes trotting along peacefully; dead cats and dogs are never shown. So-called animal lovers declare, "All life is precious." But in practice, they mean that the life of a coyote is more precious than that of a cat or dog. Their sympathy is used up on coyotes; none is left for pets, or even children.
Hunting mountain lions has been illegal for years in California, though they are no longer endangered. Some time ago, one killed a jogger. TV reports often show them curled up, swishing their tails like house cats. Mauled hikers or dead calves and lambs are never shown. As with coyotes, activists maintain that we are to blame for entering their territory. Again, sympathy is lavished on the predator, leaving none for the prey.
We have a regrettable tendency to sympathize with predators - both animal and human. Perhaps it reflects our subconscious admiration for the predator's strength and ruthlessness, and our fear of being like the victim.
A proverb states that if you are kind to the cruel, you will be cruel to the kind. That is, if you use up your sympathy on those who don't deserve it, you will have none left for those who do. There is a finite supply of sympathy.
Mother Teresa had more sympathy than I do, I'm sure. But even hers was not unlimited. She used it for the poor in the slums of India. The middle class and rich need sympathy, too, but Mother Teresa wisely used hers for those who need it most.
That is, she budgeted her sympathy, just as we budget money. We would do well to follow her example. Otherwise, we may find that we have run out just when we really need it. Even worse, we may find that it is too late.
Five-year-old Samantha Runnion's horrific kidnapping and murder were national news. The alleged murderer was caught quickly. But reports noted that he had previously been charged with abusing two young girls. He was acquitted of these crimes.
I'm sure that the transcript of that trial runs to hundreds of pages. Even if I could review it, I'm not a lawyer. And if two lawyers reviewed it, they would likely disagree on whether he was really guilty.
After all, the record reflects what was said in court, not what actually happened. It reflects the evidence the judge allowed the jury to see, and the testimony he allowed them to hear. Key evidence and testimony may be excluded. ("The defendant failed a polygraph test? Never mind.")
Lawyers may mischaracterize testimony and impugn witnesses ("Were the little girls coached?"). They may propose absurd theories ("The defendant repeatedly claimed he's innocent; that shows he's innocent."). All of this actually happened at the prior trial. So there is no way to be certain the prior trial reflected reality.
But it is certain that this experience taught the person that he could get away with molesting children, but it would be easier if he eliminated the witness.
It is certain that had this person been in prison, Samantha Runnion would still be alive. It is certain that if we insist on excluding key evidence, guilty people will go free. It is certain that if we bend over backward to be fair to the accused, we inevitably will be unfair to his later victims.
It is certain that if we squander our sympathy on those who don't deserve it, we won't have enough for those who do. And then even mountains of flowers and hundreds of candles won't suffice to allay our guilt.
And speaking of guilt, consider the judges who insist that aborting late-term, viable fetuses is a right not to be restricted. Consider the schools that teach kids that an unborn child is the equivalent of a decayed tooth - removable at our convenience. Consider the professor of "bioethics" who teaches that parents have a right to murder defective or unwanted babies up to a month old, later increased to a year old.
Dare we delude ourselves that these actions did not diminish people's respect for young life? Dare we pretend that, despite creating such an anti-child environment, we have no connection to the increasing number of babies found in trash bins? Dare we claim that we have no responsibility when small children are left in cars on hot days?
Yes, there is plenty of guilt to go around.
We think we know who brutally murdered Samantha Runnion, but we can't bring her back. We don't yet know what happened to 14-year-old Elizabeth Smart, who was kidnapped from her bedroom in Utah.
We don't yet know what happened to 5-year-old Rilya Wilson, who disappeared from the Florida foster children's program 15 months ago, but nobody noticed. DNA tests are being done on the beheaded body of a small child. But if the child isn't Rilya, who is she?
We think we know who murdered 7-year-old Danielle Van Dam after kidnapping her from her bedroom in California. True, the accused murderer committed no prior crimes that we know of. But our cavalier approach to the safety of children obviously didn't deter him.
Someone must live in fear, either molesters or children. When we teach kids "stranger danger," it is a sign that we have shown too much concern for the rights of the accused, and not enough for the rights of the innocent.
Someone must live behind bars, either criminals or law-abiding people. When window bars appear on many homes, it is a sign that we have shown too much sympathy for criminals, and not enough for victims.
Sympathy is finite. No one, not even a saint, has enough for all the 6 billion people on earth, as well as uncounted animals. We must spend it wisely.
In we use up our sympathy on coyotes and mountain lions, we will have none left for cats, dogs and joggers.
If we squander our sympathy on terrorists who explode bombs in crowded markets and pizzerias, we will have none left for those who fight the terrorists.
If we fritter away our sympathy on al-Qaeda detainees in Guantanamo, we will have none left for our soldiers, who often live under worse conditions.
If we lavish our sympathy on victims of police brutality (real or imagined), we will have none left for the officers who are punched, kicked, spat on, cut and shot at while they patrol so we can sleep safely in our beds, dreaming peaceful dreams.
If we misuse our sympathy on convicted murderers and prevent them from being executed, we will have none left for the guards and inmates they will murder in prison, or for the citizens and police officers they will murder if they are paroled or escape.
If we waste our sympathy on child molesters, we will have none left for the children they will inevitably molest and murder. And those who have no sympathy for children are heartless indeed, and undeserving of sympathy themselves.
When Jefferson said, "I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just," he was referring to slavery. We abolished slavery in 1865. But we have found other ways to dehumanize, oppress and abuse the weak among us.
If we wish to avoid the ultimate judgment that Jefferson feared, it's time we took better care of our children. It's time we showed more sympathy for them, and less for those who do them harm.
Dr. Stolinsky is retired after 25 years of teaching in medical school. He writes from Los Angeles on political and social issues. He may be contacted at dcstolinsky@prodigy.net.
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/8/2/52022.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Got Guns?