SHOOTER

[John Dailey]

~ The movie's review-ratings aside, (and, the dislike of Wahlberg by many [but, not by moi]), story-wise we have here a bona-fide vigilante who's clearly established as such beyond hints given by the characters of Batman, Dirty Harry, Siegal's movies (or Bronson's Death Wish ones), etc.

~ My question is, for those who've seen it (just caught it on DVD): all said and done, at the end of the movie, is 'Swagger' (Wahlberg) a guy to sympathize/identify with, or...did he go, morally, too far in ignoring our 'Justice System'?

~ Indeed, Rand intimated, but never really made clear that she thought that ignoring (some) laws shows disrespect for a 'just' govt we supposedly uphold (indeed, praise even; at least its history.)

2Bcont

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

~ I raise these questions because in THE FOUNTAINHEAD Roark made clear that he was willing to accept a penal verdict from a jury, and not be some kind of fugitive (if not vigilante) in fighting against or escaping 'the system' (I find this hard to 'identify' with, btw; ntl, understandable...for some.) O-t-other-h, in ATLAS SHRUGGED, contrarily, but just as heroically, Ragnar epitomizes vigilantism.

~ Clearly, accepting both as consistently representative of the same moral virtues requires a view of the societies surrounding each as being different (like, the UK-vs-NaziGerm.)

~ So, in our as-is contemporary age, who sees Swagger as a merely knowledgeable 'Mad Bomber' (or 'Sharpshooter') vs as a justice-oriented aVENGER? More to my pointed questions: WHY the view for whichever?

LLAP

J:D

Edited July 8, 2007 by John Dailey

[Ross Barlow]

Of course I sympathize and identify fully with Swagger. I am a veteran Marine, for Christ’s sake, and so was he. Once a Marine, always a Marine! Semper Fi!! Do or die!!! Oo Rah!!!!

On a more serious note, John, I actually do see him – in the context of the story – as a justice-oriented avenger alike to Ragnar. This was one excellent movie. If you have not seen it yet, put it on your “must-see” list. More below.

.

.

.

.

~~~ SPOILER ALERT!!! SPOILERS FOLLOW BELOW!!!~~~

.

.

.

.

.

Swagger had no legal avenues of survival at the end, as long as those powerful bad guys were still in positions of power. With their connections and resources, they would have certainly hunted him down and killed him eventually for what he knew. They were really bad, and they deserved to bite the big bullet. (I will say that they were much more evil and deserving of death than was that guard that Dagny shot through the heart.)

Swagger even had implicit permission and blessing from that high government official (at the meeting where Swagger demonstrates that his sniper rifle was disabled) who seemed to be one of the only ones to retain a just and moral attitude. Swagger’s FBI friend aided him at that time and implicitly stands on his side.

When the whole system of justice and governance fails, when it protects the evil and hurts the good, then, perhaps, justice may demand extra-judicial action. In the real world, this is so fuzzy and so hard to ever sort out that there would rarely ever be a clear resolution of such a situation. But this is fiction – “life as it might be and ought to be” – and, given the context of the story, Swagger did the truly right, moral and heroic thing.

The motherfuckers killed his dog! Bad, bad men. ;-)

-Ross Barlow.

Edited July 8, 2007 by Ross Barlow

[Ross Barlow]

An interesting footnote to this movie is that the town where Swagger and Nick go to visit the firearms expert (played by Levon Helm, former drummer of The Band) is Athens, Tennessee. In 1946, in what was called “The Battle of Athens,” a corrupt county government that intimidated voters was actually forced out of power by a band of armed GIs, veterans of WWII. The corrupt government was forced out and free elections were restored. Justice prevailed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens

-Ross Barlow.

[John Dailey]

Ross:

~ Interesting side-note you gave on the town. I suspect the original book writer was aware of this. Similar info was given in the 'special features' section which is itself fascinating with its comments on Leon and the prof military 'sniper' used as tech-advisor (strategy, tactics, field-1st-aid, gun-types, etc.) Interesting also that 'Blackwater' was mentioned!

~ I wasn't a marine, but personally do sympathize (can one say 'give moral sanction'?) with all Swagger did; after all, as you crystallized the main point being: they did kill his dog, fer cripes sakes!

~ And yeah, I did see him being given unofficial carte blanche by the deciding govt-official.

~ However, I loved Ned Beatty's line explaining things to Glover near the end: "The problem with people who think one man can make a difference is...ya gotta kill 'im to convince 'im otherwise. That's the trouble with democracy." 'Outsourced' corporate mercenaries, anyone? (I think there's a fine line 'twixt fiction and fact in this story, btw.)

LLAP

J:D

[Steve Gagne]

In spite of the spoiler alert, this movie sounds interesting; I'll have to look into it.

What troubles me about the premise of extra-judicial action resonates through the old Michael Douglas movie, "The Star Chamber" (a term stolen from historical secret trials in England, similar to the Spanish Inquisition).

Part of the wisdom of history distilled into the U.S. Constitution, i.e., the genius of the tripartite separation of powers, is that no one human being may be trusted to have the sole power to impose his independent individual concept of justice on the rest of society through force. Whereas we, as citizens in a civil society, foreswear the use of force or fraud in our individual lives, the government, which acts as a "storehouse" for our natural right of self-defense, is likewise constrained by the objective rule of civil (as opposed to martial) law to utilize that delegated right in a limited fashion.

This identification of this separation of powers was drawn from the Old Testament of the Bible. Specifically:

For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us. (Isaiah 33:22, KJV)

This was principle of the anarcho-capitalist government under the first several hundred years of the early biblical Israelite nation:

( a ) Judge: Judicial function of government

( b ) Lawgiver: Legislative function of government

( c ) King: Executive (enforcement) function of government

And NO MAN was considered "righteous" enough to assume more than one function at a time, but only the invisible deity. This principle was likewise applied to the United States, a consequence of either ( a ) the Christian concept of "original sin", or ( b ) Hobbes' concept of man in a state of nature, or ( c ) both.

Of course, it could only work here because of two sides of the same reason:

( a ) Citizens held that morality was a personal responsibility, and

( b ) Citizens rejected the unitary theocracies that held in several of the colonies, where the three functions of government would be bound in a single political body.

That is, they would not grant a sanction to an authoritarian body to dictate the terms of their existence. They took the book of "rules" away from the authoritarians and made its understanding their own responsibility, reading the Exodus and the Gospel as archetypes of their battle for human liberty.

I don't think that any "vigilante" approach to justice fits with this approach.

[John Dailey]

Steve:

~ Wonderfully 'thought-provoking' points you brought up. Exactly what I was trying to elicit with my question on this movie's "O-ist"ly-proper perspective.

~ However, there was one other movie a long time ago called BILLY JACK who's main character made a good point about citizens and 'authorized' law-enforcers; then he was referring merely to domestic enforcers, but the point applies as well to SHOOTER and the fed govt. That is...

"When the police break the law, there is no law." --- Thereabouts, anyways; and when the Feds do it to citizens...hmmm.

~ What's a guy, left legally free but practically having to forever look over his shoulder for the likes of the murderously betraying Glover and Beatty, to then do? Legally, Swagger had no justification; but, morally...?

LLAP

J:D

PS: re Douglas' judicial-'Star Chamber' and Dirty Harry's police-vigilantes, B-J's line applies as well.

Edited July 13, 2007 by John Dailey