Rendering Aid to a Victim -- A Twist on the Theme

[Joshua M. Smith]

Hello,

While I do not intend to make this a religious thread at all, religion is what got me started thinking about this particular tangent on coming to the aid of a person being attacked.

Yesterday I was in my favorite restaurant getting a tall Concrete Mixer (like a Blizzard but with egg yolks and a lot less healthy -- they call it "frozen custard :tup: )

I have a usual seat, which probably speaks volumes about my eating habits hno: However, this time my seat was occupied by a Quaker couple. We have several of this religion around here, and they are some of the best folks I've ever met.

However, they do not believe in violence at all. I'm not sure of their exact beliefs, but I do not think they're even allowed by their religion to defend themselves -- though I may be wrong.

Likewise, I have some Amish friends. Granted, I've not seen them forever, but they did save my life during a blizzard when I was only a few months old and my parents had a country house. As I understand it, we had no power and no heat. We were snowed in. When the snows stopped falling, they came and got us in a horse-drawn sleigh to ride out the remainder at their place. They are good people.

I came to the conclusion a long time back that if a person is physically and mentally capable of resisting an attack, I would not interfere. I would call the police and be a good witness until they arrived.

If a person were in a wheelchair, say, or seemed a bit mentally impaired, I would intervene.

However, I never did consider moral and religious attitudes.

If a person simply will not resist due to character or lack thereof, I will consider him physically and mentally capable of resisting the attack, but unwilling to do so. I will not mix up in it further than the aforementioned calling of the police and being a witness.

However, if a person is raised in a religion that teaches pacifism, or even an extreme that would endanger that person to his religion (much like joining a secret society of any sort would earn a Roman Catholic excommunication), then I'm thinking that I would intervene.

In trying to justify this action to myself, I am chalking it up to being mentally unprepared to resist, much like, but not on the same level as, a mentally challenged person.

What would you do? If a person were were religiously prevented from self-defense, would you come to his aid, or would you view him as making a rational choice in not defending himself?

Thank you,

Josh

 

[Shienhausser]

They are choosing to perish.

I wouldn't do anything but save my own skin.

 

[Loosedhorse]

There are lots of good reasons for staying out of someone else's fight.

If a person has decided to not use violence to defend himself, I respect his choice (even if I don't understand it). He is also unlikely to approve of my using violence to defend him.

I suspect there is a point at which I'd feel I have to intervene, but it would be a high threshold.

 

[shiftyer1]

To me it would be about the same as defending the dorky, scrawny kid in high school as he's getting shoved in the trash can. It may not be the cool thing to do but it's the right thing to do.

 

[p85]

for your edification

I cannot speak for the Amish, however as a Quaker, I can speak for some of us.
We are not opposed to defending ourselves. Quite frankly many are pro gun (like myself). Generally speaking, Quakers oppose war, although I personally support our soldiers.
Quakers, like many others of other denominations, have liberal members and conservative members.
I say all this to say we are not any different than any other Christian religion.

 

[shiftyer1]

Well that goes to show that there are always misconceptions or misrepresentations.

Thank you for sharing P85!!

 

[Furncliff]

A pastor was delivering a sermon entitled "Stand Still and let the good Lord Fight your battles", on the topic of not fighting but letting God vanquish evil himself. As he was delivering the sermon, a gust of wind lifted his garment and the congregation noticed he was carrying a gun.
After the service a congregant asked him, "I understood your sermon, but aren't you contradicting yourself by carrying a gun? You did say you are supposed to let the Lord fight your battles for you?"
"I do", said the priest "the gun is just to hold them off until the Lord gets here"

 

[B33fC8k]

Ummm...

I think it is every citizens job to stop social violence. If someone, of any religion or belief is being assaulted, I would intervene. The magnitude of my interference would be equal to the threat. If a fist fight, I would Judo that aggressive threat to the ground and immobilize. If the situation was more severe... who knows...

 

[Joshua M. Smith]

Thanks folks.

P85, I apologize if I misrepresented your faith. Some Friends I know here are strongly anti-violence, and that pertains not only to war but to self-defense.

They say it has something or other to do with the divine spark. I do not understand the particulars as I honestly never cared to listen. It would just lead to a debate, I think, that nobody really wants.

Thank you for the clarification on the official stance!

Regards,

Josh

 

[Lawdawg45]

"What would you do? If a person were were religiously prevented from self-defense, would you come to his aid, or would you view him as making a rational choice in not defending himself?"

First, let me thank you for posting a refreshing topic question, the "which is more powerful round" topics are getting old.

As a Christian and retired LEO, I always had a duty to act (read Roman's 13), but even now as a civilian I believe I have that same responsibility. I understand their belief that God will intervene for them, but I also understand that we are to be the arms and legs of God, so my intervention due to my training and equipping is a part of my use of God's gifts to them.

LD45

 

[MedWheeler]

Lawdawg and I share the exact same sentiments. I'm certainly not going to take time to interview the head-bashee during the attack to determine the reason for his lack of resistance.

Then, there's this:

A pastor was delivering a sermon entitled "Stand Still and let the good Lord Fight your battles", on the topic of not fighting but letting God vanquish evil himself. As he was delivering the sermon, a gust of wind lifted his garment and the congregation noticed he was carrying a gun.
After the service a congregant asked him, "I understood your sermon, but aren't you contradicting yourself by carrying a gun? You did say you are supposed to let the Lord fight your battles for you?"
"I do", said the priest "the gun is just to hold them off until the Lord gets here"

I like it. It reminds me of another. A man is clinging to the roof of his house during a rising flood, and a rescue boat approaches. He tells the rescuers he will wait and let the Lord save him, and they move on. Later, as the water is now at chest-height, another boat comes by. Again, he refuses to board it, and sends the firemen away, saying "The Lord will save me for sure."
A short time after that, as his chin is now dipping in the water, a helicopter approaches and hovers overhead, lowering a life ring to him. He waves it off, again proclaiming his faith that the Lord will not let him perish. The crew is unable to convince him otherwise, and is forced to leave him. The water continues to rise, and he does indeed perish. Upon his arrival at the pearly gates, he questions the Lord: "Lord, why did you not save me? I had the utmost faith!" The Lord replies: "My son, I sent you two boats and a helicopter! What more could I have done?"

 

[451 Detonics]

Most bullies are cowards or they wouldn't pick on those incapable of fighting back. In the situation outlined by the OP I would intervene verbally letting the dirtbags know I had already called the police and the were on their way and I was more than willing to be a witness. If at that point they decided to shift their aggression to me....well...I ain't no Amish....

 

[Effigy]

Certainly an interesting topic for discussion. Personally, if I thought someone were to be seriously injured or killed because of an unwillingness to defend themself, I would intervene on their behalf. If they want to hate me for it that's their option, but what it comes down to is me following my beliefs and them following theirs. I think they're better off being offended than dead.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Certainly an interesting topic for discussion. Personally, if I thought someone were to be seriously injured or killed because of an unwillingness to defend themself, I would intervene on their behalf. If they want to hate me for it that's their option, but what it comes down to is me following my beliefs and them following theirs. I think they're better off being offended than dead.

I've had this discussion before with friends who have rationally and knowingly chosen not to defend themselves with violence. And I must say that I have a lot of respect for their beliefs.

Consider a few interesting points:
1. Interfering in such a case is a gross display of disrespect for their beliefs/choices and hence an example of arrogance (You know what is best for them, even if they don't agree)
2. If you interfere, you are reinforcing a belief that folks don't need to be responsible for their own choices/actions. You are actually contributing to a sense of entitlement...to be protected without effort or responsibility.
3. You are interfering, because it makes you feel better...because you think it is right...which means you believe your sense of right is more right than theirs.

This is the slope that leads to the Nanny State that many of us rail against...where those that have the power to protect choose to do so when the protected do not desire it. In essence, you are taking away their right of choice/self-determination.

These are the same arguments that anti-gun folks use to justify their positions as to the need for folks to protect themselves.

This isn't to say I wouldn't interfere to some extent...especially since I'm a retired LEO...but it is something to keep in mind when you make your decision.

BTW: I'm moving this to S&T where I think it more properly belongs...this really isn't a topic limited to handguns

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Probably ought to be in the strategies & tactics section rather than handguns.

 

[Loosedhorse]

If they want to hate me for it that's their option, but what it comes down to is me following my beliefs and them following theirs. I think they're better off being offended than dead.

So, you don't want to consider their right of self-determination? If they have decided they are willing to take a beating (or worse) for their beliefs, you should step in?

Even (or especially) if their decision amounts to a rationally decided suicide, we should disregard that choice? Should that disregard extend to other "suicidal" choices, like a Jehovah's Witness's refusal of transfusion? Better that they're offended than dead?

As I recall, the followers of Jesus and Gandhi were prepared to do violence to protect them, but in the end they did not. Did they do wrong?

 

[BCRider]

Most bullies are cowards or they wouldn't pick on those incapable of fighting back. In the situation outlined by the OP I would intervene verbally letting the dirtbags know I had already called the police and the were on their way and I was more than willing to be a witness. If at that point they decided to shift their aggression to me....well...I ain't no Amish....

Now that seems to me like it strikes the right blend between respecting a person's right to not use violence but at the same time aiding the victim but in a pacifist manner. If the bad guy chooses to switch the focus of their aggresion over to you then it becomes a whole other issue. Then you're free to defend yourself as you can without compromising the victim's beliefs.

Something to ponder though. A good samaritin would come to the aid of a person being attacked or otherwise physically mollested. But how would that GS know ahead of time that the person has religious beliefs that would not welcome such help? It's not like they start screaming "I'M AMISH! DON'T HELP ME!" when attacked. Also would such a person still turn away the help if the person coming to their aid was a police officer? Or would they counter the aid of the LEO by not wanting to press any charges?

 

[JustinJ]

I believe one should act if able to defend a person being victimized. I don't care if he's an MMA champ or a little old lady. If the person is being victimized and trying or wanting to resist they deserve help. Anyways, as others have said, if their religion calls for never doing violence against another i agree to do so on their behalf is disrespecting their beliefs. And if they were ask another to fight for them they would be a hypocrite in which case i wouldnt want help them either.

 

[Effigy]

This is the slope that leads to the Nanny State that many of us rail against...where those that have the power to protect choose to do so when the protected do not desire it. In essence, you are taking away their right of choice/self-determination.

That's a fair point, but what if I flip it around. By choosing to be a victim of violent crime, they're promoting violent crime by getting giving the aggressor what he wants. Doing so is disrespectful to people that don't want to see violent criminals prevail.

The tough fact of life is that people's beliefs are often in conflict. We have a right to belief what we want, but we don't have the right to control everyone else's actions based on those beliefs. Their freedom to not act can't limit my freedom to act. If I stand and let someone getting assaulted and do nothing, I'm going to feel bad about it. If I act on their behalf, maybe they'll feel bad about it. This is just a consequence of our conflicting world views and is unavoidable.

So, you don't want to consider their right of self-determination? If they have decided they are willing to take a beating (or worse) for their beliefs, you should step in?

Even (or especially) if their decision amounts to a rationally decided suicide, we should disregard that choice? Should that disregard extend to other "suicidal" choices, like a Jehovah's Witness's refusal of transfusion? Better that they're offended than dead?

As I recall, the followers of Jesus and Gandhi were prepared to do violence to protect them, but in the end they did not. Did they do wrong?

There's a difference between refusing a blood transfusion and allowing violent crime to occur uninhibited. Someone's refusal of medical treatment doesn't harm me, even though I may strongly disagree with their choice. Violent criminals very well may harm me, or others that don't want to be willing victims, so it's no longer that individual's choice. Your freedom ends where mine begins. Interpersonal violence is social issue and I feel justified getting involved in that case. If they want a politically-charged suicide, maybe they should consider self-immolation.

 

[Strykervet]

I think I'd only help someone if they helped themselves. If I saw someone douse themselves in gas and light a match, I'd probably just watch. If someone were doused in gas and someone else threatened a match, then I'd step in. I guess it all has to do with how it is perceived.

They have to be in distress for my help. Otherwise, how do I know if I'm breaking up some wierd sex game or not?

 

[beeenbag]

I believe that I would step in if someone is being beaten badly. For example, if I see a normal fist fight going, im not gonna do anything but watch. The guy could have had it coming to them, I don't know the details. For all I know the guy getting beat up could have just assaulted the other guy and bit off more than he could chew. Non life threatening or non serious physical harm, fights aren't that big of a deal where im gonna get involved.

Now if I am a witness to a serious assault or attempt of murder, im going to intervene. First off if it is a one sided beating, the aggressor is breaking the law and is no longer/never was defending himself.

Im going to go out on a limb and say (where im from) 98% of the people here would want someone to intervene if they could no longer handle the situation. This on top of the slim chance that im going to witness something of this nature to begin with is enough for me to take the chance of offending the 2% that wouldn't want the help.

To be honest, there are probably people that practice certain religions that do not allow violence to protect yourself that would have a weak enough faith to want the help once push came to shove. You never know. With such a slim chance of offending, I think the risk to help the 98% that want help is worth the chance of offending the 2% that doesn't.

By the way, how would you know a persons belief without actually knowing the person being attacked? If you go by their attire, isn't that profiling which also is morally wrong?

 

[Deltaboy1984]

I will always defend the Old , Women and Children and anything else that is crossing the line other that a old stanard fist fight. Most Amish or Quakers just want to be left alone and I will defend their right to be left alone.

 

[Loosedhorse]

Violent criminals very well may harm me

Well, as long as we're clear this is NOT about helping the victim...

isn't that profiling which also is morally wrong?

Profiling is imperfectly accurate. I am not sure it is morally wrong.

But your point is taken. The OP assumes we know the victim's preferences, and I (at least) have accepted that assumption for the sake of discussion. As a practical matter, the decision to intervene (or not) will be based on something else.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Taking the law into your own hands is one of the worst things that you can do, even to save an innocent life, because it challenges the states monopoly on the use of violence and will be seen as defiance of their authority. Right and wrong has nothing to do with it. It is all about power and control.

 

[Thresh]

Some additional food for thought:

Would you feel the same way if the person in question (one who would not engage in self defense for any reason) were harming themselves (and nothing else), rather than being attacked by a third party? The principle is exactly the same.

Consider that, for people prevented from defending themselves by reason of principle or religion, their beliefs have not been violated if unsolicited help arrives and forces itself on them (i.e. you show up and, without asking, shoot the party attempting to beat them to death), though their sensibilities would probably be offended. After all, they never raised a hand in resistance, nor did they ask someone else to do so. Consider also that these people would be violating their own tenets of belief if they ever went to ask the police for help when they'd been the victim of a crime, as all laws are ultimately backed by violence or the threat of it.

Again, just food for thought.

If a person simply will not resist due to character or lack thereof, I will consider him physically and mentally capable of resisting the attack, but unwilling to do so. I will not mix up in it further than the aforementioned calling of the police and being a witness.

However, if a person is raised in a religion that teaches pacifism, or even an extreme that would endanger that person to his religion (much like joining a secret society of any sort would earn a Roman Catholic excommunication), then I'm thinking that I would intervene.

This is inconsistent. Religion, just like any other set of convictions or beliefs, is a choice, and a part of one's character. If a person is so indoctrinated that he or she literally cannot choose to do anything other than scrupulously follow the tenets of that religion, then it is a case of literal mental disability: being unable to conceive of or act on things that an ordinary person would have no trouble doing. I am willing to go out on a limb and say that the majority of Quakers, Hindus who protested in the manner Gandhi prescribed, and so forth, are not disabled in such a way. They have both the mental and physical ability to defend themselves, but willfully choose not to do so.