the myth of the hero righting a wrong that society can't or won't? It's a story with a looonng pedigree. Sure, it ignores the Bill of Rights, but are you really so prissy that even fiction has to toe the line? I assume that you're not a fan of any of the Batman movies, then. Although he's a cop, Harry is still a figment of someone's imagination, so don't give me the whole "blurred line between reality and fiction" schtick.

The character may have been embraced and appropriated by people you don't care for, but what has that got to do with anything? I agree that the movies are overrated, but all this hand-wringing and wails of "fascism!" are silly.

As with any interpretation and criticism of art-any art, people can and do take things a bit personal and even worse.

When thousands came out in protest of the Mel Gibson Christ movie was Christ then just a character? Obviously a lot of people didnt think so.

Harry was representing the pissed off public in a revenge fantasy-and for those who felt that some in law enforcement were overreaching, it was a very clear statement about where the "silent majority" stood on law enforcement-the idea of torture and summary execution of criiminals by cops appealed to these people. But as the Innocence Project has so clearly shown, the aggressive law enforcement went the other way and locked up and possibly even executed many innocent people-thus the "system" was as apt to lock up the wrong person as release the wrong person-something many fail to note.

With books becoming a distant memory in favor of movies and blogs, the movie and video may well become the shared reference media we use to relate to each other in communications. Already it is happening as regular guys get called "homers" (referencing homer simpson) and as drunken idiots shout out "dont taze me bro" to the cops about to arrest them. "Bring it" and "Make my Day" are among hundreads of phrases and references which came from the video media. We cant pretend a movie is any less of a reference to many people-especially when tv and movies are much more likely to have a common frame of reference than any book these days.

Harry was representing the pissed off public in a revenge fantasy-and for those who felt that some in law enforcement were overreaching, it was a very clear statement about where the "silent majority" stood on law enforcement

Odd, that anyone would consider the cops to have been over-reaching -- given that their tactics around 1970 were more restrained than heretofore they had ever been.

-the idea of torture and summary execution of criiminals by cops appealed to these people.

Of course, killing a criminal who is shooting at you is not summary execution -- it is your most fundamental human right.

But as the Innocence Project has so clearly shown, the aggressive law enforcement went the other way and locked up and possibly even executed many innocent people-thus the "system" was as apt to lock up the wrong person as release the wrong person-something many fail to note.

The Innocence Project only concerned itself with those who were subject to execution at the hands of your precious judge, jury and executioner. When cops shoot criminals who are caught in the act of threatening innocent lives, they are _far_ less likely to kill the wrong person.

Sounds to me like you're just pro-criminal.