I'm a politician, and I'll do what makes the other politicians I answer to happy; screw the victims."
Clearly,
individual rights were not protected and property was not safeguarded.
And if Chief Bennett feels she was following “best practices” in
permitting the flagrant lawlessness the world saw on the Berkeley campus
that evening, I would be keen to learn what they might be. Lastly, in
regards to truth and honesty, and in holding herself accountable, here
too Chief Bennett failed.
She was quoted in a Sunday Los Angeles Times story
justifying her inaction against the campus mob. Taking action against
the rioters, she said, would have created “a lethal, horror situation.”
Then she resorted to the modern police chief’s rationalization for
failing to uphold the law: “We have to do exactly what we did last
night: to show tremendous restraint,” she said.
Ah,
yes, “restraint.” In other words, Chief Bennett will protect individual
rights, protect property, and all the rest, just as long as doing so
doesn’t require her officers to use force against people whose opinions
are favored by school’s administrators and faculty.
1 comment:
Chief Bennett has a problem because the 1st Amendment is a gate that swings both ways. The FBI is investigating the riot now, and may find that she was malfeasant in letting it go on. Protest is one thing, violence is something else again.
Post a Comment