Goodnight everyone except Antifa criminals who I plan to sue into oblivion and then sow salt into their yoga studios and avocado toast stands until nothing grows there, not even the glimmer of a violent criminal conspiracy aided by the effete impotence of a cowed city government.
— Harmeet K. Dhillon (@pnjaban) July 1, 2019
1. The above tweet is from Andy Ngo's lawyer and is in light of what Antifa did to Andy. What happened to Andy was bad. He deserves justice. His Antifa assailants should be punished. I don't have any problem with them being "sued into oblivion" either. I'd be fine with seeing Antifa wiped off the face of the earth. As many have said, Antifa is a terrorist organization or becoming like a terrorist organization (though they're probably less well organized and less well funded than major terrorist organizations but I'm referring to what they are in principle).
2. I don't know Andy and I don't (and shouldn't) have access to Andy's medical records. That said, based on what's in the media and social media including Andy's own Twitter feed, it looks to me like Andy's injuries are relatively mild or at worst moderate from a medical perspective. For example, he was never unconscious and he was discharged after only one night in the hospital. And I suspect the "hemorrhaging" was exaggerated. In short, it seems to me Andy might possibly be exaggerating or overselling what happened to him, either intentionally or unintentionally.
3. In any case, suppose (arguendo) this is what's happening. Suppose Andy is exaggerating what's happened to him. If so, this raises an ethical dilemma. Is it wrong to exaggerate what happened in cases like Andy's?
Speaking for myself, I don't think so. That is, I don't have a problem with Andy exaggerating or overselling what happened to him (again assuming that's what he's doing). That's because not to do so would let Antifa, the liberal mainstream media, and progressives in general win. Furthermore, this battle is a battle in the larger war for the fundamentals of what it means to be an American (e.g. free speech). That's something our Chief Justice seems to miss - one can be so legally scrupulous that justice isn't carried out. Besides, progressives and the like-minded are attempting to downplay what happened to Andy. Not to mention it could very well have been Antifa's intention to do far more harm to Andy than they were able to do to him.
To put it another way, if we lived in a time and a place where we had a right and honorable legal system, where those who assaulted Andy would be justly punished, where most people were generally fair and reasonable-minded, and where the court of public opinion didn't matter so much, then Andy wouldn't need to exaggerate what happened to him. He would be given a fair hearing and justice would be fairly meted out, both against his assailants and for him. However, we don't live in such a time or place. Liberals and progressives have changed and are constantly continuing to change the rules of the game, as it were. All the more in a progressive town like Portland, in a progressive state like Oregon, where Andy is from and where this happened to him.
4. By the way, if I recall, Andy's family escaped Vietnam to settle in the US. They did so to escape communism. I wonder if his family sees parallels with groups like Antifa and the rise of communism in Vietnam. Such as the use of intimidation, bullying, and physical violence to shut down dissenting voices.
The law is an interesting thing though. I know when I took my first aid training, I was told explicitly not to ever do the Heimlich without consent, because when properly done the Heimlich would result in bruised organs. So seeing someone choking, you have to either ask them "I know the Heimlich, do you consent to me performing it?" and have them nod their head in the affirmative, or you have to wait for them to pass out, at which point you have implied consent (but then you can only really do chest compressions by then). And that's the difference between saving a person's life and a third degree felony.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it doesn't really matter whether or not a brain hemorrhage is "bad". It matters how the law was written. So Ngo doesn't even have to exaggerate. All he has to do is accurately report that he was treated for a brain hemorrhage, which I presume is the case given the media reports (but then, the media isn't known for its attention to detail).
Thanks, Peter! I guess ideally good Samaritan laws are supposed to protect people from legal repercussions, but (as we know) progressives often twist the law so there's that. :(
DeleteI guess I just mean it's been reported that Andy Ngo has a brain hemorrhage, but I'm not sure what that means exactly. From a medical perspective that could have a lot of different meanings. Like it could be "superficial" (surface level) bleeding on his scalp but not internal bleeding, it could be bleeding with or without brain injury, it could be internal bleeding, it could involve a fractured skull, it could have caused a stroke, etc. To be fair, I don't actually know what's on his medical record, so it's definitely possible his hemorrhage is or was more serious than I thought.
Or to put it another way, I think the media reports it's a brain hemorrhage, but looking at the photos and judging by what happened (e.g. discharged after a day) I don't see brain hemorrhage so much as I see superficial head trauma. However I could be wrong.
DeleteAlso, even superficial head trauma ("superficial" in a medical sense not superficial as if it wasn't a big deal) is bad enough so that Antifa deserves punishment. And their intention was likely to do worse to Andy Ngo.
DeleteWouldn't exaggerating here be a violation of the 9th commandment? Besides, exaggerating can often be later exposed and so make the person(s) and the Cause(s) it might be attached to look bad.
ReplyDelete"Wouldn't exaggerating here be a violation of the 9th commandment?"
DeleteHow so?
"Besides, exaggerating can often be later exposed and so make the person(s) and the Cause(s) it might be attached to look bad."
I suppose anything is possible in the court of public opinion. Sometimes people tell the truth and it's twisted to make the person and their cause look bad too.
The 9th commandment forbids perjury. And even in that regard, the implied context is witnesses who lie about falsely accusing the defendant, or defendants who profess innocence when they are guilty.
Delete