When pursuing Bonnie & Clyde one can't have enough firepower

[benenglish]

...don't live in the past...

The application of today's moral/ethical/legal standards to times past is almost always a mistake. I remember running into the subject full force when studying Greek tragedies in college.

Apparently it's a lesson I need to re-remember from time to time.

I know I don't fully agree with you. Specifically, I'm not sure it's valid to consider 90 years ago to be "times past" to such a degree that I excuse anything that happened back then.

But you have a legitimate point and there's much wisdom in your post. Now I think I need to go off and ponder a bit...

 

[wbblazer90]

Great movie

 

[cycleguy2300]

The application of today's moral/ethical/legal standards to times past is almost always a mistake. I remember running into the subject full force when studying Greek tragedies in college.

Apparently it's a lesson I need to re-remember from time to time.

I know I don't fully agree with you. Specifically, I'm not sure it's valid to consider 90 years ago to be "times past" to such a degree that I excuse anything that happened back then.

But you have a legitimate point and there's much wisdom in your post. Now I think I need to go off and ponder a bit...

I am not fully against looking at the past through todays lens. I think it can be useful to paint past actions in the colors of today. It can highlight changes for the better and for worse. It is like using a blacklight (or IR) to look at something. It looks really, really different, and can help make some things apparent, but daylight (full spectrum) is where we should stay most of the time.

That said, I am hardly relativistic, but actions of the past should (generally) be viewed in context not only of the immediate circumstances, but also societal norms.

What would those from 100, or even just 50 years ago think of us if they were suddenly yanked from the 1920s or 70s and dropped into today's society to see how we let BLM riot without consequence, we let violent criminals out on PR bonds to await trial living in free society, only to re-offend over and over... Would they simply think of the bonus marchers or the 60's anti-war protests or would they see what I see which is a nation on the edge of losing the ability to be united as American citizens, with no qualifiers? Who knows...

Hamer's tactics are shocking and would likely not fly today, but in his time, alone with out the help of modern forensics, air support, radios, lack of the ability really investigate crimes multiple wide spread jurisdictions, lack of body armor etc, justifies in my mind most if not all his actions.

As C.S Lewis said on morals (paraphrased here...) We don't burn witches at the stake now, not because we do not think a person who was destroying flocks or causing harm or death to another as Satan's minion doesn't deserve death, but because we do not believe there are such people as witches. There is no moral superiority in not setting a mouse trap when think there are no mice about.

P.s. I don't know if I fully agree with me either...



Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[RoadRunner]

Murder is such a relevant term... you are tainting the argument by speaking as if he had been tried and convicted of something...

I have never said that he was tried or convicted of anything nor did I imply that he had.

When the Kings of Europe battled, they took no prisoners of the lower classes. Was that murder? Or a war crime? No, that was within the bounds of engagement, tacitly agreed to by both sides.

During the War of Northern Aggression when the United States invaded the several sovereign States was that "murder" because they killed people of those sovereign states?

When Hamburg was firebombed, was that "Murder" because civilians (many of whom worked to manufacture arms) were knowingly and intentionally targeted and killed?

None of that is relevant to this discussion.

Hamer acted within the bounds of what was acceptable during his time and circumstances. He was a smart, clever, unyielding lawman and woe be unto you if he was on your trail, you were going to be caught or killed. The world would be a better place if polite society stopped treating criminals as the victims and let the rough men do their job within the bounds of the law without regard to appearances, to maintain law and order.

So you are saying that the world would be a better place if we were to turn loose a bunch of killers to act as judges, jurors and executioners?

I am sure folks 100 years down the road will be appalled at some of the things business and government does daily right now, but that won't make it wrong after the fact.

There are folks right now that think that some of the actions of business and government are wrong. If something is viewed as wrong 100 years from now then it is wrong now.

Doctors weren't evil for amputating limbs in the old days. It was just how it was done. If you don't like Hamer and his methods, don't live in the past...

You may have a hard time believing this, but doctors are still amputating limbs today and it is still not evil.

Don't live in the past? WTH?

Is it just hamer or are there other murderers that you think are heroes?

Do you think that my cousin that I mentioned in post #24 is a hero?

 

[cycleguy2300]

I have never said that he was tried or convicted of anything nor did I imply that he had.



None of that is relevant to this discussion.


So you are saying that the world would be a better place if we were to turn loose a bunch of killers to act as judges, jurors and executioners?



There are folks right now that think that some of the actions of business and government are wrong. If something is viewed as wrong 100 years from now then it is wrong now.



You may have a hard time believing this, but doctors are still amputating limbs today and it is still not evil.

Don't live in the past? WTH?

Is it just hamer or are there other murderers that you think are heroes?

Do you think that my cousin that I mentioned in post #24 is a hero?

I can't help you connect the dots if you won't even open your eyes... I am far from proclaiming I am the authority on morals, right and wrong, but I understand logic, and how to listen to someone's argument well enough to see what points they are hung up on with mine. However, when I address those points and the reply continues using terms like "murderer" (murder is after all an un-justified extrajudicial homicide* with the explicit definition of being wrong, there is no "good" murder) then claims that wasn't a prejudicial statement, I can't do nothing for ya.




*That means an unlawful killing for those of you in Rio Linda...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[TexasBB]

I have never said that he was tried or convicted of anything nor did I imply that he had.



None of that is relevant to this discussion.


So you are saying that the world would be a better place if we were to turn loose a bunch of killers to act as judges, jurors and executioners?



There are folks right now that think that some of the actions of business and government are wrong. If something is viewed as wrong 100 years from now then it is wrong now.



You may have a hard time believing this, but doctors are still amputating limbs today and it is still not evil.

Don't live in the past? WTH?

Is it just hamer or are there other murderers that you think are heroes?

Do you think that my cousin that I mentioned in post #24 is a hero?

You said that you wish he had been brought to justice when he was young. Did you or any other member of your family report him and his murderous activities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RoadRunner]

You said that you wish he had been brought to justice when he was young. Did you or any other member of your family report him and his murderous activities?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It was before my time when he killed his first man. I was told that there wasn't much of an investigation because the man he killed was black.

 

[RoadRunner]

I can't help you connect the dots if you won't even open your eyes... I am far from proclaiming I am the authority on morals, right and wrong, but I understand logic, and how to listen to someone's argument well enough to see what points they are hung up on with mine. However, when I address those points and the reply continues using terms like "murderer" (murder is after all an un-justified extrajudicial homicide* with the explicit definition of being wrong, there is no "good" murder) then claims that wasn't a prejudicial statement, I can't do nothing for ya.




*That means an unlawful killing for those of you in Rio Linda...

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

I know that this will be another unanswered question but I will ask anyway;

Are you saying that hamer never comitted an unjustified extrajudicial homicide?

 

[TexasBB]

It was before my time when he killed his first man. I was told that there wasn't much of an investigation because the man he killed was black.

The first one was before your time? What about the rest? You and your family covered up the confessions of a killer, but you feel free to accuse someone you never met? What does that say about you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RoadRunner]

The first one was before your time? What about the rest? You and your family covered up the confessions of a killer, but you feel free to accuse someone you never met? What does that say about you?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who the hell are you to accuse me or my family of a coverup of murder? You do not have any facts other than what I have told and none of those facts says that there was a coverup.

 

[Axxe55]

Bonnie and Clyde were cold-blooded killers. There are enough facts that support that statement. At the time, they were also glamorized and glorified as modern day Robin Hoods, but from many of the accounts I have read, that is anything, but true IMO. They were just greedy bank robbers. They helped out people when it suited their needs and nothing more.

Frank Hamer from what I have read, was a hard man doing a hard job at times. Doesn't make him blameless, or perfect, or some sort of idol to be worshiped. But when you need cold-blooded killers brought down, you send hard men to take them down. Sometimes, they bend the laws to suit their needs to bring down hard criminals, and Bonnie and Clyde were every bit the hard criminals.

This happened during the 1930's, during the Depression. It was a difficult time for many people. Law enforcement was different then as well. Much of how Hamer took down Bonnie and Clyde, would never be able to pass muster these days. But the 1930's was a completely different era altogether.

IMO, I think Hamer was the person needed to bring them down. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[cycleguy2300]

I know that this will be another unanswered question but I will ask anyway;

Are you saying that hamer never comitted an unjustified extrajudicial homicide?

I'm not the one calling him a murderer... I need to prove nothing the burden of proof is on you due to your allegation.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[cycleguy2300]

Who the hell are you to accuse me or my family of a coverup of murder? You do not have any facts other than what I have told and none of those facts says that there was a coverup.

He is simply asking an obvious question given the story you related.

Complicit by omission is where he is going I think.

You know these facts, and perhaps the man, but didn't tell anyone and neither did anyone else.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

 

[Dawico]

Hard times, hard men, hard jobs all from a different world in which we live.

I think we could use some of those men now.

Actually I think we have some now but won't let them off their leash and our country suffers for it.

Interesting discussion nonetheless.

 

[seeker_two]

Hard times, hard men, hard jobs all from a different world in which we live.

I think we could use some of those men now.

Actually I think we have some now but won't let them off their leash and our country suffers for it.

Interesting discussion nonetheless.

Might not be too long before they chew through the leash....

Sent from my SM-G892A using Tapatalk

 

[RoadRunner]

He is simply asking an obvious question given the story you related.

Complicit by omission is where he is going I think.

You know these facts, and perhaps the man, but didn't tell anyone and neither did anyone else.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

How the hell do you know that no one told these facts?

 

[RoadRunner]

I'm not the one calling him a murderer... I need to prove nothing the burden of proof is on you due to your allegation.

Sent from your mom's house using Tapatalk

You are defending the murderer and apparently you know little about him. But yet you tell me that I need to review the facts of each case?

Your ignorance is really showing.

 

[TexasBB]

How the hell do you know that no one told these facts?

That’s why i asked you. You still haven’t answered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[toddnjoyce]

There are folks right now that think that some of the actions of business and government are wrong. If something is viewed as wrong 100 years from now then it is wrong now.

Wrong, in the sense of something being unjust, dishonest, or immoral is a very subjective concept and, much like beauty, it is judged in the eye of the beholder.

That is how revisionism works.

 

[Axxe55]

Wrong, in the sense of something being unjust, dishonest, or immoral is a very subjective concept and, much like beauty, it is judged in the eye of the beholder.

That is how revisionism works.

Many people at the time, thought of Bonnie and Clyde as some sort of folk heroes ad celebrities. Proven facts are they were nothing more than thieving cold-blooded murderers. They killed several LE officers in cold blood.