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