What should be the natural role of civilians in protecting the community?

[MeekandMild]

This is an ethical can of worms which I would hope might be opened without too much flaming on the various sides. There are two major philosophies here.

1: Citizens shouldn't take the law into their own hands. That is why we hire professional LEOs. There is no room for vigilantism.

2: Citizens should act in a proactive manner to protect themselves, their families and their communities from antisocial actions. Vigilantism is a semantically nil word invented for propaganda purposes by those who seek to rule. Dodge City of the 1890's was safer and freer than New York of the 1890's.

I didn't just think of this thread in a vacuum. I have to do some parenting later on this week and need to formulate my ideas about it. What happened in a nutshell is this:

Little Meek came upon a group of thugs who were beating a dog, which they had apparantly been using to fight other dogs. He took the obviously abused dog away from them and gave it first aid. His story is that he didn't hurt anyone to do so, rather they fled when they saw there were witnesses. (I didn't enquire about other alternative stories.)

Aside from the foolishness of attacking a group of four or five ruffians what are the primary ethics involved. I fear Little Meek has read too much Heinlein and Jack London to ever think about the foolishness aspect but perhaps we can clarify the basic issue.

 

[Shovelhead]

In my mind, my job is to protect myself and those under my care. (Wife, Kids, etc.)

If my neighbor decided that they would rather dial the phone and wait for the local police to arrive to protect them,......that's their choice.
I'd rather my children to come to me in those situations, than place themselves in a situation that might get them in deep stuff trying to protect something that's not their concern.
I'd rather not lose my house to someone's shyster laywer.

JMHO.
Shovelhead

 

[buy guns]

i think if more people looked out for one another criminals would be less willing to commit crimes against innocent people.

 

[Foreign Devil]

I think if the police force is functioning leave it to them, that's what they get paid for. Worry about defending your own family.

In the event of a temporary breakdown of social order it is acceptable for civilians to organize into a "neighborhood watch" to defend their community. That was a function of militias before professional police forces came about. Ordinary citizens were expected to perform police duties(and military duties for that matter).

 

[Art Eatman]

I'm prone to vigilantism, if the word is considered in its original meaning. I feel I have some amount of obligation to protect others. I also believe I have an obligation to my own family to not foolishly waste my life or my fortune in such an endeavor. Call that situational ethics, I guess.

A local LEO, answering a question about response times, offered, "Aw, about thirty minutes, if all the gates are open."

"The People" have delegated authority to government to provide law enforcement. With authority comes responsibility. If there is no available protection via this delegation, what is a rational person to do in the event of hazard? Voluntarily submit to whatever evil is offered? If government, for whatever reason--including mileage, time and manpower--has for all practical purposes at that moment abdicated this delegated responsibility, what's left for the ordinary citizen? Die?

I hope my reasoning is clear...

Art

 

[Ben Shepherd]

I think a lot of our problems society-wise come from the "lack-of-roots" syndrome. Don't get me wrong I'm against communism/collectivism in any form period.

What I'm saying is people move so far, so frequently, that we've lost our sense of "community values". Used to be when bad things happened everyone in that location would be of the "not in my town" mindset. This is sadly no longer the case.

That being said I voted option 2.

 

[telcom911]

The Supreme Court has

made it very clear that the police have NO DUTY to protect any individual.

That includes you. That Duty is with "Society" as a whole.

If you want protection you had better take that DUTY upon yourself.

I am a LEO, and chances are when you need me the most, I will be across town eating lunch.

It is very rare to happen across a crime in progress and put a stop to it, I spend most of my time cleaning up the mess left behind after the fact.

Anyone that thinks I can 'protect' them is just plain wrong. People with full time securtiy (President of the US, et. al.) can get shoot from time to time, there is no way a handfull of on duty cops in your community can protect you.

The duty is yours, take it upon yourself or suffer the consequence.

I voted Option 2, but you probably figured that out already.

 

[Zach S]

I chose option three. My responsability is to myself and family. But that doesnt mean I'm gonna stay on the phone with a 911 operator while my neighbors ex-husband is beating the **** out of her in her front yard.

 

[sm]

Ben Shepard
makes a good point - Used to ( tm) folks grew up with folks and everyone knew each other, helped out , kept an on the neighborhood.

Art's reply mirrors my thinking.

I've lived in smaller towns, and big cities. I have attended "community watch" meetings.

Be Prudent, observe and report. - just one "theme" that was mentioned by both. Definitions differed.

Big city - gummit going take of you - call 911.

Little town - Take responsibility for yourself. Prudent to keep aware of self and goings on. Observe any odd behaviors and Be concise in report.

Meaning I helped find some firearms for folks that didn't have along with a Deputy, helped teach some how to use, told them have a good backstop and "I was in fear of my life and family" when you call in to report it.


Mrs. T decided on using her late husbands 30-30...she was near RR tracks...umm she had never shot it before , but a natural. Dope heads do not want to mess with Mrs T. She wanted 170 gr "bigger is better -right?"

Best to honk horn twice 'fore you head up the driveway...btw

 

[manwithoutahome]

How many people here know their neighbors? The neighbors next to your neighbors? Your entire block?

I've taken the time to meet and introduce myself to all my neighbors within walking distance.

I get to know them, they get to know me.

I tell them that I fire on my property so if they hear gunshots, it's me. That I respect their property and will not fire dangerously and have a good backstop in place. That if any livestock is in the back, that I will not fire until they clear out, even though I believe in my backstop.

So, what I've done is make myself not just someone living in that house down the street, but made myself a real person to them. People who know the person that lives in the neighborhood tend to "look out" for each other. Not all the time, but mostly.

Also, unless there has been a bad beating which the person ends up in the hospital or a assault with a deadly weapon of which the person ends up in the hospital (or the cooler) then the cops out here "don't have time" and may or may not offer to take a report over the phone. Which is funny since they always seem to have time to issue tickets . Not to bash the police, just confused on their priorities.

As was mentioned above, the SCOTUS has declared that the police are not there for you as an individual or even your neighborhood as a whole. So, it is up to you to protect yourself and your family and it's up to your neighborhood to get rid of any trash and to police their own to have a great place to live. I chose option 2 as well.

M.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

We have a duty to protect "ours" both morally and legally. As stated, SCOTUS has told us that the police have no such duty. Crime janitors (OK, so that is harsh).

What about a neighbor in distress? Do we have the training (or authority) to intervene, sort out the details, and use force if necessary to resolve the issue? Short answer: No. Long answer: No. The laws are against our assistance of friends and neighbors. Not only is the law against us, the laws are very complex and not understood by average Joe.

This is the best argument yet for local control, local laws, and no rules decreed by the Imperial Federal Government of the Provincial Directorate State Government.

I now live in rural Utah. Low LE density. Still an "Old West" culture where self-reliance is expected. I will help my neighbor. I will help LE. I will help an imperiled visitor. The law is mostly on my side although there are a few exceptions. I will deal with the exceptions if human life or harm is on the line. A jury of peers and all that.

Flashback to SoCal (PRK). The complete opposite, even though I lived in a very conservative area. The LEOs there were excellent and did respond quickly (city not rural), and city life is always more dense and complex than rural life. There I limited my jurisdiction to my "castle." If you interject yourself into a situation there, then you get cuffed, or worse, and the system sorts it out. California does not have a "castle" mentality: if you have an escape you must take it. If you project that to vigilantism, you have no chance defending yourself in the "system" should you assist neighbors.

The old farm days, where I grew up, reminds me that I never saw LE. We handled things on our own.

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Oops

 

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I'm with Art on this one.

Regards,
Rabbit.

 

[forquidder]

Little Meek

It would seem that "little meek" followed that inner sense of justice that is given to us all. I consider that a gift and what it means to be truly American. Do the right thing in each circumstance regardless the cost. Following this phylosophy in the small incidents builds character and leadership qualities to be used later in life when the big things come our way.
Unfortunately the developing culture is one of "don't get involved", "think of the ramifications"; this type of thinking is ultimately confusing and eventually overwhelms that innate sense of justice and makes cowards of those who go this route.
There is always a way to confront wrongdoing without being foolhardy. I would suggest that you congratulate "little (not so) meek" and discuss ways to follow that inner guidance without being stupid. Concentrate on affirming that inner sense of right and wrong and trusting it. We are given to know the correct (non foolhardy) response in each circumstance we encounter.
Looks like you may have a little Braveheart on your hands, handle with care. Little Meek may have some life lessons to teach you.

 

[artherd]

Far too many possible scenarios for me to latch onto a particuliar side.

For instance, I'm not going to stop someone from shoplifting gum.

I would also shoot a rapist while he was commiting the voilent felony of rape itself.


Basically, I look it as follows. Anything immediately life-threatening to another human being, I will generally intervene somehow if I am able. But I wll not do so lightly.

From there it gets trickier.

PS: Citizens are allowed limited power of arreast and of 'taking the law into their own hands'. It is delegated under a certin set of circumstances, and is not the same degree of powers afforded a LEO. (but is is close.) Best kept for things like Assault, armed robbery, etc. Not too good an idea to use it for parking violations for instance.

 

[Sindawe]

I LOVE ethical cans of worms

I concur with Art here, and hold position 2 in the first post is true. As I see it, the role of police in our culture to a large part covers the role the the neutral witness (Fair Witness?)/record keeper, who has been granted power by the people to act in their stead and respond with force to antisocial actions that they personally witness or have good cause to belive has taken place. This in no way absolves the other members of our culture for THEIR responsabilty to act to curtail antisocial behiaivor that they witness, to the degree of which they are willing to expose themselve to to the potiential of personal harm.

 

[jimpeel]

What should be the natural role of civilians in protecting the community?

Learning to speed dial 911.

 

[71Commander]

Scenario #1:

I notice someone sneaking around the neighborhood in the dark, trying to stay hidden or hear my neighbor scream bloody murder, I would call 911 and then ensure that no one is in immediate danger and in need of assistance, keeping in mind legal repercussions.

Scenario #2:

SHTF. If you were not smart enough to prepare for this happening or are an anti thinking that the Gov't was responsible for your a$$, you're on your own.

If I were to try and help them survive, not knowing what to do, they would do something stoopid and get me kilt.

I guess the situation would dictate the response.

 

[La Pistoletta]

I am of the opinion that civilians shouldn't snuff out criminals to apprehend them. But if the situation is dire, direct intervention should be a possible alternative for civilians, for example if they are sure that they are seeing a robbery being commited, or a beating.

 

[mercedesrules]

Little Meek came upon a group of thugs who were beating a dog, which they had apparantly been using to fight other dogs. He took the obviously abused dog away from them and gave it first aid. His story is that he didn't hurt anyone to do so, rather they fled when they saw there were witnesses. (I didn't enquire about other alternative stories.)

#2, but it might be wise to quickly determine property rights in the future. Stop the violent action and then start the questioning: "Who's dog (lawnmower, etc) is this?"

MR

 

[MeekandMild]

it might be wise to quickly determine property rights in the future.

An update about the abandoned property. He told me that steps are being taken to identify the thugs. They will be arrested by TPTB if they are ever found. If by chance the dog was stolen by the thugs involved it will be returned to the rightful owners if they can be found.

I would think that in the case of an inanimate object your advice is wisest, however I would stand by his decision to protect a dog which is being systemically abused on the commons, leaving property determination to come after the fact of stopping the torture. Apparantly he was initially afraid to tell me just how bad shape the dog was in, but it is going to have to have a lot of vet work.

 

[tcsd1236]

Be a good neighbor; eyes and ears of the neighborhood...that sort of thing.

 

[mercedesrules]

(M&M) I would think that in the case of an inanimate object your advice is wisest, however I would stand by his decision to protect a dog which is being systemically abused on the commons, leaving property determination to come after the fact of stopping the torture.

Me, too.

(MR) Stop the violent action and then start the questioning:

Apparantly he was initially afraid to tell me just how bad shape the dog was in,

Why? You're MeekandMild!

it is going to have to have a lot of vet work.

This will be expensive, no? This is another hurdle for citizen crime-stoppers - financial/medical responsibility. I'm still for the idea, though.

MR

edit: I thought of one more thing - misinterpretation. My brother-in-law has two big young dogs and he has them wear a training collar through which he can remotely administer a slight electric shock. One might see some activity that he thinks needs vigilante correction, be mistaken and end up injured, liable, or worse.

 

[Drjones]

What is the best moral stance for civilian intervention in protecting the community?

"All that is necessary for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing."

Or so said a wise man once.

I skimmed the first couple posts and agree that policing should be, to a large extent, a matter of "civilian" responsibility.

Of course there are certain situations that warrant the use of a professionally trained and better equipped (well, chances are they'll be better trained than most civilians, and will be better equipped than most civilians are) police force, but for mundane stuff, I believe it should be handled by people.

I think that the thought of calling someone else to protect you is reprehensible and unworthy of a sentient being.

Mark my words; once the death toll for muggers, carjackers, robbers, etc. starts to skyrocket, the overall crime rate will drop to the level of a leftists' IQ. (If you can count that low, that is.)

I'm not saying that people committing petty crimes necessarily deserve to die, but hey, its a risk they take when they choose to commit a crime and I won't lose any sleep if that is the outcome.

I also think that use of the death penalty should be greatly increased for violent offenders.

I don't care if it deters people or not, I just care that the recidivism rate is pretty spectacularly low.

My thoughts.... I voted option two in case you couldn't tell from my post.

 

[AZRickD]

Be a good neighbor; eyes and ears of the neighborhood...that sort of thing.

That's a little too passive for my tastes. Remember the story(s) of the NewYorkCity neighbors hearing the screams of the woman being raped? They did nothing, save to close their windows.

TCSD, had that woman been illegally armed with a pistol to defend herself, would you approve of her arrest on violation of NYC's weapons laws?

If a "civilian" is to protect the "community" (or himself), he'd better have the tools to do so. A speed dial for 911 doesn't cut it unless we are a nation of sheeple calling out for police to protect us just as we call out for Dominoes to feed us.

Rick