How "good" an idea is to anyone, about anything, is entirely dependent on the desired outcome, the likelihood of that outcome taking place, and whether the desired outcome is worth the effort (and risks, if any) necessary to bring it about.
Moral behavior is seldom in the short-term interest of the moral actor. The majority of systems of morality, in fact, are quite explicit that the rewards for moral behavior come
in the next life.
And, frequently, short-term self-interest is in direct conflict with moral behavior. It comes as little surprise that people who have been around the block a few times, and have seen scenarios play out repeatedly where short-term self-interest is neglected, tend to get cynical and regard others who still think in terms of morality as chumps and/or fools.
When persons charged with protecting the public interest by oath (a wholly moral proposition) begin to take on this attitude, it's generally a good idea that they retire from that profession, as Mr. White has admirably done.
The point being that Mr. White is correct that intervening in a domestic dispute is fraught with serious risk. He would not get involved, to the point where he would merely call the police and 'drive on' (in his words), and not even act as a witness. If there is an afterlife, Kitty Genovese will likely be having words with him. I don't suggest that Mr. White re-examine his views. That is not my prerogative. But I do suggest that, while Mr. White's experience as a law enforcement officer has many positive things to teach here, it also has some quite negative things to teach, as well.
As such, we need to consider that there are tactical
and moral issues involved in being an armed citizen. Mr. White is an expert on one aspect. I'm skeptical regarding the other, given the topsy-turvy assertion that the choice to intervene on behalf of another is an
initiation of a violent encounter. This is just about the apotheosis of victim blaming.
Doubtless, there are persons here who will state that this is a strategies and tactics sub-forum and, as such, my criticism above is both a personal attack on Mr. White, and off-topic. Perhaps that is technically correct. However, it's clear I'm not the only person here uncomfortable with the implications of Mr. White's advice, and I think it deserves comment.
In conclusion, I believe one should weigh both the tactical and moral aspects of any potentially negative social encounter. One should weigh them in advance, and let that thought guide one when making the decision whether or not to get involved. But that final decision needs to be made in the moment, by each individual, based on the immediate circumstances.
.
