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

[tcsd1236]

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?

Not a matter of "approving" or not; she would have been in violation of those laws.Thats the risk you take if you do something knowingly violating a law in the process; you have to expect that some sort of prosecution will take place. No matter how right her defending herself is, the process of doing so violates other laws, and people get prosecuted, as posters here have seen in previous threads.The answer if you disagree with those lawsthen is to work to change the laws.

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.

Thats not being a good neighbor.

 

[AZRickD]

You're asking that woman to rely on something that didn't exist for her, mainly because of the laws you tell your Chief of Police you will enforce, under penalty of losing your job.

No matter how right her defending herself is, the process of doing so violates other laws,

If she is right in defending herself and the law forbids her from having the simple means to do so, then the law is immoral and you are immoral for enforcing it.

You are wrong that all we can do is change the law. If any of us find ourselves on such a jury, we should protect her rights, and our own, by voting to acquit.

Rick

 

[Theophorus]

The police can't protect anyone. Ask them to station an officer outside your door, and have them also supply escorts for you as you run your errands during the day. The court has determined that the police cannot be sued for failing to protect anyone. Why? Because that ain't their job. It is their job to apprehend or confront those who have already broken a law.

Now on a philosophical level, as a man, I don't want anyone doing my job for me. I think a mindset that views the government as a husband or father figure who is a protector betrays a mind corrupted by the postmodern feminist philosophy.

$.02 Theo

 

[Art Eatman]

The memory of the Kitty Genovese case is still with me. Many, many people watched from their windows as she pleaded for help. Nobody called the police; they were too busy watching as she was repeatedly stabbed...

Hey, man, it was better than TV! "Look at this, Mama! It's real!" Yeah, real--and really shameful...

Art

 

[MeekandMild]

One might see some activity that he thinks needs vigilante correction, be mistaken and end up injured, liable, or worse.

Which is a good argument for either leaving things for trained LEOs or contrariwise, having different expectations for citizens who have different levels of training and skill.

In the case of this particular dog the call was easy, with bleeding cuts, obvious starvation and the thugs kicking it. But your example of the training collar brings to mind another type scenerio, that of the exasperated mother spanking her screaming two year old in the grocery store candy isle. While many citizens realize the wisdom of stamping out budding sociopathic tendancies with a little therapeutic pain there are others who are liable to interfere in this critical technique of child education.

 

[artherd]

Not a matter of "approving" or not; she would have been in violation of those laws.Thats the risk you take if you do something knowingly violating a law in the process; you have to expect that some sort of prosecution will take place. No matter how right her defending herself is, the process of doing so violates other laws, and people get prosecuted, as posters here have seen in previous threads.The answer if you disagree with those lawsthen is to work to change the laws.

I'm sorry, it's difficult to tell wether you're talking about CCW, or Rosa Parks.

Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to anticipate and provide for reform? Why does it not cherish its wise minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?

When government creates laws that require citizens to do evil - to return fugitive slaves, to refrain from harboring Jews, to place Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, or to report on their neighbors - will not men of good conscience disobey and endure the consequences? Or is the virtue of obeying the law so overwhelming that we must abandon virtue itself?

Henry David Thoreau

 

[AZRickD]

Ohhhh.

That's a keeper.

Thanks go to you, atherd.

Rick

 

[Theophorus]

Very nice quote, art.

Thanks, Theo

 

[MeekandMild]

Art, I think you've got that quote a little wrong. Didn't Thoreau die before the Czar's extermination of the Jews and Roosevelt's J-A concentration camps? The big ethical problem in his day would have been helping escaped slaves.

 

[AZRickD]

That last part is not from Thoreau.

It is from an author who quotes Thoreau and then puts the quote in a 20th Century perspective.

"Requiring Citizens to Do Evil" by Michael Pierone

http://www.libertyhaven.com/noneoftheabove/slavery/requiring.shtml

 

[Rabbi]

I marked "uncertain" because the scenarios can vary too much. I do not however consider it Situational Ethics by any means. My ethics remain the same, constant and absolute ............. but protecting your community can go from calling 911 to using deadly force yourself.

If a couple was arguing vehemently on the street and it was escalating to where it appeared that violence might erupt, I would call the law. If one person was attacking the other physically and endangering a life, I would step in.

The police are definitely trained better than most citizens to handle these situations but if a life is endangered you might not have the luxury of waiting for them.

I think this why it is so important for everyone to have a very firm understanding of their own code of ethics and standards of honor. Knowing yourself is a form of strength akin to moral body armor. A community is always safer with honorable citizens as well as a police force in it.

Rabbi

 

[Viking6]

call the police; intervene only in the case of serious injury or life or death. No good deed goes unpunished. We aren't going to reverse the trend towards lawlessness by intervening, evil/amoral people don't care. They will be selective in their targeting and prey on the weak, not a new concept. Side note, read somewhere recently that violence by female teens is up. Used to be 1 in 10 acts of teen violence was perpetrated by teen girls, the number is now 4 in 10, I think. Brave New World.

 

[R.H. Lee]

If I saw a crime in progress, I would definitely intervene. If it were a crime against property, I would observe, take notes, photos, whatever. If it were a violent crime against a person, I would actively move to stop it and have deadly force available if necessary. I am not worried about being sued. I own nothing. My girlfriend owns everything. (hey, that sounds like Kerry, doesn't it?)

 

[MeekandMild]

I think this why it is so important for everyone to have a very firm understanding of their own code of ethics and standards of honor. Knowing yourself is a form of strength akin to moral body armor. A community is always safer with honorable citizens as well as a police force in it.

This is a really great quote, Rabbi, and welcome to THR! You are right that a person can have a complex moral code and not be subject to situational ethics but not be able to name every situation where they would choose to call the police and every situation they would defend the community.

Interjecting another dichotomy here, I think that on the one hand people might be safer protecting their community with firearms than with more primitive weapons but on the other hand the ease of protection might make persons with lesser ability to formulate proper ethics prone to interfere in situations beyond their comprehension or ethical right.

I think that the former case is one basis for RKBA CCW argument and the latter case is one fear which fuels the anti CCW movement. I can't think of any argument against the former, however one basic argument against the latter is that laws which prohibit CCW tend to provide selective "evolutionary pressure" for armed incompetents versus disarmed citizens.