The more I think about this film, the more the way this message movie was presented and the way it has been received by many really annoys me. I'm especially sensitized, given that Bush n' co. spent most of the last decade taking away our rights in the name of "security" & "safety". They must've loved this film!
The message seems to be a very reactionary one. Rights/legal protections are bad. Rule of law is useless. Vigalante abuse of power is great.
This movie is full of several logical fallacies, generalizations and other issues. It sets up a False Dilemma -either ignore the laws & get to kill the guy OR he goes free. It also sets up a Straw Man argument of picking a very rare/unlikely instance of a super psycho as an argument of why honoring the rights of criminals is bad.
Sure, it's really easy to set up a grossly exaggerated portrait of an inhumanely disturbed racist monster who killed at random, raped & threatened children, threatens priests & had no redeeming values. Then show how all those pesky civil rights helped him go free and kill again. Blame the civil rights!
Showing the rare instance when something that GENERALLY is a good thing failed (NOTE: it didn't work because HARRY did not follow the rules- not because the rules were there!) and then use that as an excuse to rant about the rules and make it seems as if there is no point to them.
No grey areas. No thoughts as to what argument means if you carry it out the whole way through. No consideration on why those rights exist or the positives of protection, especially for someone who may be innocent.
Think about it- how often does SF suffer at the hands of a madman serial killer? Not since the 70's. I just checked the crime stats for SF for the last 2 months. Not a single murder. Sure, SF isn't crime free there were probably a thousand or so burglaries, robberies, etc. But I'd much rather have strong rights and let a few people (mostly non-violent offenders) get to go free because their rights were protect then to not have Miranda rights or the 4th amendment. I'll take my chances that a psycho killer may come if it means I don't have to live in a fascist state with no expectation of privacy.
I don't want some admittedly racist misanthropic cop who feels that he can doing anything he want & shoot anyone he wants if he even *thinks* they're being bad. What happens when Harry shoots an innocent person? What would have happened if that guy at Kezar stadium had been innocent and Harry had beat the crap out of him? Is that OK because Harry's *usually* killing bad guys?
To be fair, I did check and it looks like "exigent circumstances" that allow for a LEGAL warrantless search if "necessary to prevent physical harm" doesn't appear to have become solidified until after the film (in '76)
And what was the point of the lingering shot of the killer wearing a peace sign belt buckle? Was it merely supposed to be ironic because he was a killer? Or was it meant to equate a merciless killer with those stupid"peace-loving hippies" who are causing murders to go free by advocating for rights and opposing oppressive police practices?
In the end, I chose to read the final scene as Harry goading the killer into an action so that he had an excuse to shoot him. Then Harry realizing he had no right to uphold the law as an officer if he could not follow the laws. So he threw away the badge as an admission of his failure. However it seems to me as though many reviewers saw his action in an opposite light, of choosing to reject the rule of law and embrace his vigilante ways.
The message seems to be a very reactionary one. Rights/legal protections are bad. Rule of law is useless. Vigalante abuse of power is great.
This movie is full of several logical fallacies, generalizations and other issues. It sets up a False Dilemma -either ignore the laws & get to kill the guy OR he goes free. It also sets up a Straw Man argument of picking a very rare/unlikely instance of a super psycho as an argument of why honoring the rights of criminals is bad.
Sure, it's really easy to set up a grossly exaggerated portrait of an inhumanely disturbed racist monster who killed at random, raped & threatened children, threatens priests & had no redeeming values. Then show how all those pesky civil rights helped him go free and kill again. Blame the civil rights!
Showing the rare instance when something that GENERALLY is a good thing failed (NOTE: it didn't work because HARRY did not follow the rules- not because the rules were there!) and then use that as an excuse to rant about the rules and make it seems as if there is no point to them.
No grey areas. No thoughts as to what argument means if you carry it out the whole way through. No consideration on why those rights exist or the positives of protection, especially for someone who may be innocent.
Think about it- how often does SF suffer at the hands of a madman serial killer? Not since the 70's. I just checked the crime stats for SF for the last 2 months. Not a single murder. Sure, SF isn't crime free there were probably a thousand or so burglaries, robberies, etc. But I'd much rather have strong rights and let a few people (mostly non-violent offenders) get to go free because their rights were protect then to not have Miranda rights or the 4th amendment. I'll take my chances that a psycho killer may come if it means I don't have to live in a fascist state with no expectation of privacy.
I don't want some admittedly racist misanthropic cop who feels that he can doing anything he want & shoot anyone he wants if he even *thinks* they're being bad. What happens when Harry shoots an innocent person? What would have happened if that guy at Kezar stadium had been innocent and Harry had beat the crap out of him? Is that OK because Harry's *usually* killing bad guys?
To be fair, I did check and it looks like "exigent circumstances" that allow for a LEGAL warrantless search if "necessary to prevent physical harm" doesn't appear to have become solidified until after the film (in '76)
And what was the point of the lingering shot of the killer wearing a peace sign belt buckle? Was it merely supposed to be ironic because he was a killer? Or was it meant to equate a merciless killer with those stupid"peace-loving hippies" who are causing murders to go free by advocating for rights and opposing oppressive police practices?
In the end, I chose to read the final scene as Harry goading the killer into an action so that he had an excuse to shoot him. Then Harry realizing he had no right to uphold the law as an officer if he could not follow the laws. So he threw away the badge as an admission of his failure. However it seems to me as though many reviewers saw his action in an opposite light, of choosing to reject the rule of law and embrace his vigilante ways.