Querem fazer crer que a função de segurança só pode ser exercida pelo Estado (com excepção dos loucos e utópicos dos austro-libertarians), esquecem-se que em grande parte, esta segurança já é privada e funciona infinitamente melhor que a pública. Até o 11/9 se pode atribuir ao intervencionismo na segurança dos aeroportos e companhias de aviação, ao ter proíbido a tripulação de estar armada. Sobre o caso recente de morte após espancamento.
" The police roused him and an unarmed Jones came up swinging hard. He wasn't complying – the greatest sin in the eyes of the state.
Was he defending himself or were the police defending themselves? It's unclear. What is clear is that he was hit 40 or 50 times with a metal baton (by mostly white police, and one black) before falling and later dying. Traces of PCP were found in his blood and other drugs in his car. The police department is aggressively defending itself against charges of abuse: they say the police obeyed regulations in exacting increasingly hard punishments.
And yet, apart from taking drugs and trespassing, what precisely had Jones done wrong, aside from resisting arrest? The police tried to arrest the guy and one thing led to another until Jones was dead...
Imagine how private security guards might have handled the matter differently. Wal-Mart, for example, which uses private security.
Might they have just helped the man and tried to contact a family member? Might they have sedated him had he become unruly? Or just backed off for a time until the man stopped protesting? Or offered him $20 or a bottle of scotch to go? They would have at least understood that beating, let alone killing, people on company property is bad for business. But the restaurant called government police who believe they can and should use every amount of force they can get away with under the regulations."
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário