Some people mentioned that the police we (AND I BELIEVE MOST people are talking about America in general over here but could be other parts of the world too) have today do not exist to catch criminals and protect the innocents and that they very often shoot and kill people via their own totally unfair and prejudiced mentality that has a lot to do with power in the WORST sort of sense.
Fair enough.
But I was wondering, if the police WERE to become better, sort of like "RoboCop" (1987) and that they actually hunted down and killed the GUILTY VIOLENT CRIMINALS INSTEAD and did all that WITH good intentions for the world, as in, they took it upon themselves to rid the world of EVIL people who do various types of harm to innocent people and for no good reason whatsoever, would that work and make the world a better place, even if they did act say perhaps a little brutally but only to BAD people who DESERVE it, sort of like how...
Clint Eastwood's character in "Dirty Harry" (1971) was highly unorthodox in his methods to catch and punish the psychopath Scorpio even if the law decided that his brutal methods meant that the suspected killer had to go FREE (and let's face it, this is how law CHOOSES to operate) but then again...
If Scorpio WAS caught legally and fairly, he would STILL probably either be put to death sentence or serve a long torturous time in prison, so why were Callahan's methods in apprehending his so looked down upon? Even if "law decides this"?
Like, what's the difference between breaking a criminal's leg in order to get him to confess (justifiably) and doing the same by putting him to life imprisonment or a death sentence or even (like in the end of that movie) - killing him in self-defense?
Isn't killing still killing?
reply
share