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

[Effigy]

Well said, Thresh. I agree that religion shouldn't be given any special treatment, but I didn't want to open that can of worms personally. A belief is a belief, whether it has a supernatural element or is based on simple logic/experience. I support freedom of religion, but I consider it more of a "freedom of belief" than anything specific to religion.

If one were to see a battered housewife getting assaulted, should one not get involved because she believes she "deserves" the abuse for burning the macaroni & cheese? I think most people wouldn't feel any moral obligation to avoid getting involved even though the victim may not want them to get involved. The question is mostly the same in the nonviolent religion case; the victim's beliefs are just based on a different source.

 

[sidheshooter]

Anyone remember that Harrison Ford scene in the movie witness, where Ford's character is dressed the same as his Amish hosts, and the local bullies come up?



Actually, this thread is great food for thought. I would be inclined to either verbally challenge, or just be a good witness, right up to the point of "immediate, unavoidable danger of death or grave bodily, etc etc"; pretty much the same as with any other third party circumstance. Really, much the same rules apply: think twice, act once. I couldn't let someone get beat to death or shot or stabbed if I had the means to prevent it. We'd just have to sort out any religious offense after the fact if, God help us, the situation became severe enough to warrant intervention-which is pretty severe indeed.

JMO.

 

[JoeSlomo]

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

Agree.

There are also lots of good reasons for getting involved in the fight of another.

However, only YOU can make that decision based on the situation at hand, and the amount of risk you are willing to take.

 

[Neverwinter]

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.

What is disrespectful is the implication that all those who do not oppose violent criminals in the way that you do are automatically promoting violent crime

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.

And yet our society does not work this way. Most states do not allow gay marriage, in direct contradiction of the premise that your freedom to not take part in gay marriage cannot limit the freedom of others to take part.

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.

How do you feel about compulsory vaccinations?

 

[Onward Allusion]

Joshua M. Smith
Rendering Aid to a Victim -- A Twist on the Theme

Very interesting twist indeed. Personally, I believe in the G*d helps those who helps themselves axiom. I also believe that we are placed here to lend a helping hand if necessary. So, I would have no problem intervening - depending on the situation.

BTW, I would highly doubt that a person getting the crap beaten out of them or worst would do a "May I have more, sir?" deal.

 

[Onward Allusion]

9mmepiphany
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.

Let me caveat my response with - It depends on the victim's situation and my situation & loved ones who may be with me.

If the individual is adamantly stating that they do not wish you to involve yourself in their defense as they are being assaulted/battered/killed - sure it's their right. I would respect that and walk away and call 911 to clean up the mess. I liken the response to that of the religiously devout who refuses medical treatment due to their beliefs. Although *I* can't imagine anyone would direct a possible rescuer away as they are being assaulted/battered/killed.

On the other hand, if they are preventing assistance to be rendered to another individual who may have dissimilar beliefs or is unable to voice their needs, then the "respect for their beliefs" goes out the window. This is the same as the parent who prevents medical treatment for their child because of faith.

 

[9mmepiphany]

Although *I* can't imagine anyone would direct a possible rescuer away as they are being assaulted/battered/killed.

I have witnessed this more than once...many more times than I thought possible before. However, I was a LEO at the time and my duty required that I intervene against their wishes. On more than one occasion, the victim was not only not appreciative (not that I expected them to be), but file complaints against me.

If I were not on duty and the wishes/beliefs of the victim were made obvious, I would not interfere in the action...other than to call 9-1-1 and give a statement

 

[Effigy]

What is disrespectful is the implication that all those who do not oppose violent criminals in the way that you do are automatically promoting violent crime.

But this is my point: both sides can feel like the actions of the other are disrespectful because we disagree on a fundamental level. Respecting their beliefs means disrespecting my own beliefs.

And yet our society does not work this way. Most states do not allow gay marriage, in direct contradiction of the premise that your freedom to not take part in gay marriage cannot limit the freedom of others to take part.

Huh?? Marriage is a legal contract between people, not an inalienable right. It's completely irrelevant to a discussion about defending yourself or another.

How do you feel about compulsory vaccinations?

Generally I believe a person should be able to refuse medical treatment if they wish. However there are situations where that choice can negatively affect others, and in that case I agree with things like compulsory vaccination. For instance, if parents don't want to vaccinate their child but they send him to a public school, they're increasing the risk that other kids will get sick. Likewise, a nurse may not want to get vaccinated but if she doesn't she's putting her patients at risk. If those people disagree with vaccinations, they should consider homeschooling in the first case, or a different profession in the latter.

I think the same logic applies to the OP's scenario. If the individual is the only one accepting any risk, then it's fine for them to refuse help. But when other people are at risk (directly or indirectly) then it's not that individual's choice anymore; he can't decide for everyone. I think violent crime affects the community, not just the individual; therefore I would get involved if things were bad enough. It's also important to note that I'm not actually doing anything to the victim (as in the case of vaccination), I'm doing something to someone else who's doing something illegally to the victim.

I have witnessed this more than once...many more times than I thought possible before. However, I was a LEO at the time and my duty required that I intervene against their wishes. On more than one occasion, the victim was not only not appreciative (not that I expected them to be), but file complaints against me.

If I were not on duty and the wishes/beliefs of the victim were made obvious, I would not interfere in the action...other than to call 9-1-1 and give a statement

This brings up another interesting point. If I choose not to get involved in the conflict directly and just call 911, I'm getting involved indirectly. When the police show up, I doubt they're going to stand by and let someone get severely beaten or killed because the victim believes in nonviolence. Calling 911 probably won't get you any attention from the victim because they don't necessarily know who called, but you're still going against their belief in nonviolence.

 

[Neverwinter]

But this is my point: both sides can feel like the actions of the other are disrespectful because we disagree on a fundamental level. Respecting their beliefs means disrespecting my own beliefs.

That was the belief that if you don't agree with all of their methods, you are contributing to the problem. "If you're not a part of my solution, you're part of the problem". This isn't to say that you can't have this belief, but that the logic of the underlying premise is faulty.

Huh?? Marriage is a legal contract between people, not an inalienable right. It's completely irrelevant to a discussion about defending yourself or another.

We are discussing the position that your right to beliefs doesn't give you the right to limit others' actions based on those beliefs. I just posted an example of how our society doesn't buy into that position.

I think the same logic applies to the OP's scenario. If the individual is the only one accepting any risk, then it's fine for them to refuse help. But when other people are at risk (directly or indirectly) then it's not that individual's choice anymore; he can't decide for everyone. I think violent crime affects the community, not just the individual; therefore I would get involved if things were bad enough. It's also important to note that I'm not actually doing anything to the victim (as in the case of vaccination), I'm doing something to someone else who's doing something illegally to the victim.

In the case of vaccination, there are multiple victims: the people who come in contact with the person being vaccinated. You're doing something to stop someone from recklessly endangering the victims.

 

[Onward Allusion]

9mmepiphany
I have witnessed this more than once...many more times than I thought possible before. However, I was a LEO at the time and my duty required that I intervene against their wishes. On more than one occasion, the victim was not only not appreciative (not that I expected them to be), but file complaints against me.

If I were not on duty and the wishes/beliefs of the victim were made obvious, I would not interfere in the action...other than to call 9-1-1 and give a statement

You're probably referring to domestic situations. I would avoid getting involved in those like the plague! Call 911, make it known that the authorities are on their way, and observe from a distance (if possible) would be the most I would do. Those situations are a gray area because one doesn't know if it's a sexual assault in progress or something more akin to a domestic.

 

[Cop Bob]

You're probably referring to domestic situations. I would avoid getting involved in those like the plague! Call 911, make it known that the authorities are on their way, and observe from a distance (if possible) would be the most I would do. Those situations are a gray area because one doesn't know if it's a sexual assault in progress or something more akin to a domestic.

in Domestic situations, Oh Yeah... I have seen it more than once.. One calls the police because they are being assaulted by an S.O. When the Police arrive, "Get him outta here, I want him gone.." Complainant bears multiple marks of the attack, under Texas law, in cases of domestic violence, we are obligated/REQUIRED to act.. in other words, someone is going to jail wether the other wants it or not..

When the complaining party sees the cuffs go on, they jump to his/her defense because they see the bread winner headed to jail..and they (often mistakenly) believe that it is their fault. OR they know/feel that when dirtwad gets released they will get beat down even worse because dirtwad will blame it all on them... More than once I've had a complainant in a Domestic Violence case try to jump on my back as I was walking their loving souse out to the car.

As to the question in the OP:

This is one of those moral dilemmas that where your damned if you do, damned if you don't... In this type of case, there would be a winner, the person that you defended. But would they appreciate or understand. But the big question is, are you willing to take the negative feedback and repercussions..

If they are a true believer in their faith, maybe they would see you as the good Samaritan that you are. Or if questioned, or scorned, just state that you understand their beliefs, but in the same token, please respect yours, and relay the References and stories that formed your beliefs... Matt. 10:5; Luke 9:52 f.; 10:33; 17:16; John 4:9, 39; 8:48, Acts 8:4–25. As well as the previous ref to Romans.

If that doesn't work, quote Elwood Blues... "Were on a mission from God".

 

[M2 Carbine]

I don't have much use for people that won't stand up for themselves. NO MATTER what their reason I just think it's cowardice to refuse to stand up for yourself or loved ones if attacked.

While I think, "If you won't fight back as best you can, then you deserve what you get", I WOULD NOT stand by while someone is being attacked if I could do something about it.


Then I would probably tell the religious person something like,
"Maybe your God called on me to help you this time but you can be sure I will not answer the call again if you will not attempt to stand up for yourself."

(Side note. I once sold a handgun to a Catholic Priest for protection. When I asked if he would shoot an attacker to save himself or someone else, he said, "Yes I would. God doesn't mean for us to allow ourselves to be hurt or killed by criminals".)

 

[lemaymiami]

As a retired cop I'm glad to be well out of the duties I held for quite a few years. I'm also sharp enough to realize that I'm as likely as the next fellow to misunderstand something happening right in front of me. My intent will be to call the police if I see a crime being committed and not act beyond that with one exception... that exception is that I will not allow someone to be badly hurt if I could prevent it by intervening. I know that my position isn't the smartest thing I could do, but I hope that I'd have the courage to step in, and the good sense to keep it to the minimum.

After saying all the above I'm still an ordinary guy who's just as likely to lose his temper as anyone else. That's why I don't carry a gun and haven't since the day I retired, 15 years ago.

 

[Cosmoline]

The reason for not getting involved is really simple--you can't usually tell who is wearing the white hat and who is wearing the black. In fact it's unlikely you will even notice the third parties until they start fighting each other. Who started it? Who is armed? Who is the criminal? It's easy to target the wrong person. It gets much worse in domestic squabbles, too.

If you see someone being attacked who clearly isn't the instigator, isn't domestically involved with the attacker, and is religiously or physically unable to defend themselves, then the concerns outlined above largely vanish. But that sort of thing isn't typical. And even with Amish, some of the young have been known to get involved in some very questionable activities. Teens are still teens.

 

[p85]

Josh, no apologies are necessary, my friend. But, please underastand, my beliefs are not necessarily the "official" stance of the Quakers. They are mine.

 

[RebelRabbi]

In my religion we had this problem years ago, then came the Shoah (Holocaust) we are not so passive now. Shalom!

 

[JustinJ]

This thread is still going but "Guy confronts car burglar, shoots himself" was shut down for being off topic? Odd.

 

[Fred Fuller]

THIS thread is still on topic and has not wandered off into legal wrangling. Did you perhaps miss reading the closing statement on the 'shoots burglar and self' thread?

lpl

ETA: To save you trouble, here it is again-

P.S. This thread has moved a little afield of the "tactics" subject of the OP. I think I will click over to the Legal forum and start a thread to ask my question more pointedly over there after I form it a little better.

Looks as if it's gone too far afield to try and drag back on topic, unfortunately.

While there is always going to be a large legal component to much if not most of what we discuss here in ST&T, this still isn't Legal and it still is Strategies, Tactics and Training. Quoting large swatches of blackletter law doesn't add much if anything to the discussion, since there is so much more to legal matters in most jurisdictions than what the statute books say and since the statutes are limited to only one state at that.

Let us please leave off so much of the legal wrangling here in ST&T, and concentrate more on strategies, tactics and training. As has been said before, repeatedly, there is no substitute for personal familiarity with the law in the jurisdiction where you are, and for individually observing its strictures and limitations to the greatest extent possible. It's important to know what you can legally do in a given situation in your jurisdiction, and what you can't (so far as it's possible to 'know' anything where legal matters are concerned), but it's even more important to know what you should do and shouldn't do in those situations as far as tactics and strategy are concerned. We are not going to be able to settle the legal limits on defensive conduct in every jurisdiction out there in this forum, and attempting to do so will likely lead only to frustration while detracting from those things we should be accomplishing here.

Thanks,

lpl
======

And a side note as well... It's generally a good idea to take questions or issues with staff decisions to PM rather than issuing a callout on the open forum. If you're worried about any one staffer here on THR reacting to something on a personal basis, rest assured pretty much everything that happens here that is not so egregious a rules violation as to warrant unilateral action is discussed by the whole staff.

As this exchange will be...

lpl

 

[JustinJ]

This thread is essentially about nothing but moral decisions. I fail to see how that is any more relevant to Tactics, Strategies and Training than the other. I have no objection to this thread. My objection is to inconsistent standards and why they are selectively enforced.

 

[Fred Fuller]

Since when is shooting someone in self defense or the defense of others not as much of a moral decision as it is a legal decision? Do we not try to adhere to the established standards that define Good Guys, and is that not a moral definition as much as it is a legal definition?

So far this thread has stayed on topic as to SHOULD DO (morally) versus straying across the bar ditch, through the fence, across the pasture and into the deep dark woods of CAN DO (legally). I realize the distinction might be a fine one, but it's there - at least as far as I can see it. As various other staff members check in here there will doubtless be some discussion of it in the staff forum. If there is a preponderance of opinion from the rest of the staff that I am misguided in my perceptions, there's nothing that's been done here that cannot be undone.

lpl

ETA: And to be absolutely clear- if you want to continue this discussion, JustinJ, TAKE IT TO PM (if not with me, with whichever staff member or members you choose). Otherwise you have a vacation from posting coming up fast. I'd rather not do staff stuff in open forum, but it's your call.

 

[Sam1911]

My objection is to inconsistent standards and why they are selectively enforced.

If you have questions about "enforcement of standards," please take them up with any Staff member, though it is customary to first speak to whichever Moderator took said action.

If you do not receive an answer that makes sense to you or assuages your concerns, you certainly may ask that a larger group of the Staff review the subject and weigh in.

(Though as L.L. says, they usually already have...)

If you are still not pleased with whatever decision, all we can offer is that we are all human, and we're not always going to agree. Fortunately, no one lives or dies based on our handling of a thread or our ability to appease all complainants.