So a liberal at Georgetown University wrote an article detailing how he got mugged at gunpoint, explained why he understands what they did to him, and that the criminals weren’t criminal and are probably good people. As I’m reading this I’m thinking that this might be some sort of a joke or an attempt to punk people, but sadly Mr. Friedfeld is probably very serious. Here’s an excerpt of his article:
Not once did I consider our attackers to be “bad people.” I trust that they weren’t trying to hurt me. In fact, if they knew me, I bet they’d think I was okay. They wanted my stuff, not me. While I don’t know what exactly they needed the money for, I do know that I’ve never once had to think about going out on a Saturday night to mug people. I had never before seen a gun, let alone known where to get one.
They’re not bad people, they’ll just put a gun to his head for a phone and in spite of what Mr. Friedfeld might believe, probably have few qualms with hurting or killing their victims. Mr. Friedfeld might be scared to pick up a gun, but the people who robbed him certainly weren’t. Mr. Friedfeld believes that until economic equality disappears that as citizens “we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins”. I wonder where he would draw the line? Perhaps if the criminals: put a bullet in his friend, if the breaking and entering became less sporadic, or maybe rape would be where he would draw the line? I really have to wonder at what point he believes people should be held responsible for their actions? If this is really how he feels then maybe he deserves to be robbed at gunpoint. I mean, in his own words he’s privileged, it’s not a big deal, and of course they wouldn’t hurt him right? Labeling criminals as criminal would be “otherization”.
Don’t give up all hope in our Universities though, plenty of people left Mr. Friedfeld funny, scathing, and far more insightful comments. Here’s a sampling: