Considerable consternation erupted online over actor Gene Hackman striking a homeless person.
The headline initially informing of such was formulated without a modifier or a more colorful description such as “crazed deadbeat” or “lewd indigent” in order to make Hackman appear to be this vile individual that makes a habit of accosting the downtrodden or deriving some kind of buzz from doing so.
Quite the opposite seems to be true.
From the complete account, Hackman was actually protecting his wife and the vagrant properly got what was coming to him.
Why should we care that Hackman’s attacker was homeless?
Would the public have been informed of this incident if the assailant domiciled in a more traditional mode of habitation?
As in regards to race and ethnicity, many leftists will so romanticize destitution that they cultivate the perception that those characterized by this economic plight or social condition can do no wrong.
If so, are the hypertolerant going to insist that they would allow some filthy, possibly disease ridden, bum to put his hands all over their wives, daughters, or dinner dates they are hoping to impress?
The Declaration of Independence insists that, in terms of fundamental being, all men are created equal.
If we are to accept the notion that the homeless are no less human than the rest of us and are deserving of the same degree of respect and courtesy that we expect from other members of our species, it also follows that we should expect from them the same kind of character flaws plaguing the remainder of our kind and that we should be allowed to protect ourselves from them accordingly.
by Frederick Meekins
2 users commented in " Homeless Man Hassles Hackman "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackAll in all, my sympathies tend to lean towards Hackman as it pertains to this incident. After all, if your family is threatened you are probably not going to wait and ask if the assailant is homeless before protecting them.
I will have to agree with the previous comment in that when a person feels their family is in danger, they immediately act on instinct and sort out the details later. This reminds me of the way the paps’ will provoke high profile media figures whom are known to have that instant fight or flight mentality in a weak attempt to get a photo and potential lawsuit opportunity. They do it to Alec Baldwin all the time in NY, among several others. So my question is, who supplied the empirical evidence behind this page six story? Perhaps the homeless man was not a homeless man at all, but rather a down on his luck, unkempt paparazzo who found an excellent way to spin a story in order to make it particularly newsworthy? In this day and age I would not be surprised. However, if this was in fact a straightforward attack by a homeless person, I would say that Mr. Hackman was completely justified in the action he took to protect his family.
Leave A Reply