The temptation of vigilantism

I firmly believe that if the BG is attempting to steal my property then HE, not me, has already put his own life up as collateral. But I don't think I would be justified in protecting my neighbors property if he is not there.

That being said, I do watch my neighbors property when they go to Florida each winter. If I am in the house at the time of the break in, then I would be defending myself. But if I look thru the woods and see a strange vehicle there I would call the police, then go thru the woods to see what is what.
 
Well you never quite know how all this will turn out.

Many years ago I was working in Columbia. On a Saturday afternoon I walked out into a parking lot, and found a man with one hand strangling a woman holding her against a car, his other hand had pretty much bashed her face in.

I was carrying. However a lot of those people only come up to my chin, so I grabbed him and started to see what I could break on his face. Every-time I hit him I asked him in Spanish if he liked it? Then BANG and a shot goes right by my head.....Who shot, the woman who's face was covered in blood laying on the ground.

"Leave my husband alone"

I spun him around to use as a shield and threw him on top of her.

So much for being to "good Samaritan"
 
In the video, Surviving Edged Weapons - IIRC - there was a clip where officers stop a man from abusing his wife. They have their backs to the wife. She then parts the head of one with a cleaver.

BTW, one in six undercover officers report having had on duty cops point their guns at them on arrival at a scene. Some have been killed.

I recall in Portland where a good samaritan got the choke hold put on him and killed by arriving officers.
 
So don't help someone in their greatest time of need? Turn a blind eye? Is that what some of you are implying? What kind of world do you want to live in? Yes, sometimes people die while trying to do good things. Sometimes no good deed goes unpunished. An unfair twist of fate and simple matter of fact. But the world is a better place because of them and people like them. And sometimes, the GoodGuys win.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/16568999/hero-recalls-how-he-helped-foil-sexual-assault-attempt

http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/Police_Witnesses_step_up_to_save_woman_being_robbed_137688163.html?ref=163

http://www.woio.com/story/16304997/good-samaritans-save-carjacking-victim

Lord forbid if you actually have to stick your neck out there for someone else.
 
Nitesites said:
...So don't help someone in their greatest time of need? Turn a blind eye? Is that what some of you are implying?...
Click to expand...
No, that's not what folks are saying. Folks are saying that one needs to know what's going in order to know what the right thing to do is. (And one ought to have the skills to do what needs to be done in order to avoid making a bad situation worse.)

And what if you actually wouldn't be helping someone in the time of his greatest need, but would, instead, be helping a criminal commit a crime? Or what if trying to help someone who doesn't want, or need your help, leaves you dead and your family without you?

And calling the police and being a good witness (and maybe taking some photos) is not "turning a blind eye."

Nitesites said:
...sometimes, the GoodGuys win...
Click to expand...
And sometimes the guy who interposes himself in a situation he doesn't understand winds up not being the Good Guy.
 
Nitesites said:
And with all due respect Mr. Meyer And Fiddle, it doesn't change the fact that they were doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
Just because those people reported in the links you posted did the right things doesn't mean that you will be doing the right thing when you jump into a situation you don't understand.
 
I was giving evidence as to the possible risk factors. Intervening in a domestic conflict has the well known risk of the victim turning on you.

Morality does not say you should be ignorant of risk.

We all judge risk in making an intervention situation. That's well known.
We all judge whether the victim is worthy.

This is an area well studied and blanket statements that one must intervene to be moral is your choice but not supported by what people actually do.

A hypothetical. You see a man beating a young teenager. You intervene.
You see a mob of twenty five men going to string up a young teenager. They are all carrying M4s. Some are on lookout. Do you, Johnny J-Frame, charge in with your 5 rounds or call the cops.

Lots of the must intervene scenarios confounding the intervention necessity with a fight that you think you can prevail in easily. Single guy vs. woman. Thus you can be a hero.

If you are willing to take a very high risk of death to engage in a low probabilty successful action - then you might be the pure moral hero.

Two burglars and me with my AR from cover - Moral Hero.

Godzilla going to set fire to my neighbor's house - nah.

My last question - from a similar debate. I save your wife but get killed. Do you now step up and provide continuing financial support for my family to the best of your ability? That would seem a moral responsibility.

One member suggested when I asked this - that it was responsibility to have enough life insurance to support my wife after I get killed saving yours.

Or should the state support the family of a good samaritan after such an action on your tax dollars. Seems a better way to spend money than a moon base.

Thoughts?

It is true that folks have taken actions that guarantee their death to save their buddies or family in combat or disaster. Those are usually greater connections to those who you will save. Not my neighbor's TV.

Will you do it for all victims - probably not. To deny that you are influenced by such is not realistic.
 
Don't try this in Chicago

In Chicago you would lose your guns and go to jail. That's if the cops didn't shoot you 1st. The bad guy family would sue you and you would lose your house.
 
Intervening in a domestic conflict has the well known risk of the victim turning on you.
Click to expand...

Numerous police departments have been sending at least two officers to DV calls for a while.

If it makes them nervous, it should make us even more nervous.
 
Posted by Mr. Dish: I firmly believe that if the BG is attempting to steal my property then HE, not me, has already put his own life up as collateral.
Click to expand...
It would be a very good idea to consult a criminal attorney who practices in Michigan before acting on that belief.
 
Not being a lawyer like Fiddletown but having read some of the theory on this matter, modern law suggest that law usually trumps property and the use of lethal force to protect property isn't looked on favorably in most Western cultures.

The presumption of castle doctrine laws is not the defense of property but the implied risk to folks when an intruder is present.

One can argue that some property threats can be threats to life but the link is usually remote except for constrained circumstances (like the TX law), stealing the last vial of insulin on a desert island or the like. However, most typical property losses don't outweigh the life of the perpetrator.

Your opinion may vary from this but that's not the common legal view. Fiddletown can certainly correct me if this is incorrect.

One also (psych hat), makes me ask is it the property or sense of territorial violation that wants you to use lethal force for property loss (assuming there isn't a personal threat)? That's in the discussions.
 
I agree with Glenn's assessment on the legal side of things.

Those laws that permit one to claim justification for the use of lethal force for the protection of property do so only subject to certain specific criteria being satisfied. And those criteria generally involve situations in which a high probability of risk to innocents may reasonably be expected.
 
And with all due respect Mr. Meyer And Fiddle, it doesn't change the fact that they were doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
It does if they end up killing or injuring the wrong person because they intervened in a situation that they didn't understand.

The officers who killed the Good Samaritan with a choke hold certainly did the wrong thing even if their actions may be understandable and perhaps even legally justified.
So don't help someone in their greatest time of need? Turn a blind eye?
Click to expand...
This is a false dichotomy/false dilemma. In a false dilemma, the debater provides some outcomes or courses of action and makes it seem that they are the only choices when, in reality, there are other possible outcomes or courses of actions.

The choice is NOT between doing nothing/turning a blind eye versus intervening with deadly force. There is a virtually infinite continuum of responses between those two extremes.
 
This is a false dichotomy/false dilemma. In a false dilemma, the debater provides some outcomes or courses of action and makes it seem that they are the only choices when, in reality, there are other possible outcomes or courses of actions.
Click to expand...
If you were allowed an infinite amount of time to run every possibilty in step-by-step fashion. But can you assume you will be afforded the luxury of time? Lady or the Tiger.
 
Nitesites said:
f you were allowed an infinite amount of time to run every possibilty in step-by-step fashion. But can you assume you will be afforded the luxury of time?...
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You may not have much time, but that doesn't mean you automatically won't be able to exercise a modicum of good judgment. The fundamental error, that can doom one to failure, is the entrenched belief that the only appropriate response is to charge in to the rescue with guns blazing.
 
I have had one such experience, but I had no gun, and was only 20 at the time, so could not have had a permit in my state anyway.

But I ran to what I thought was a mugging in progress, on a downtown street.

It actually turned out to be a domestic assault between a homeless husband and wife.

Being in the middle of that was not fun... but if I saw a guy knocking a woman to the ground and kicking her like that again, I'd be right back in the middle.

It ain't a good feeling when the voice behind you says, "Don't hurt my husband!" Luckily, I didn't get stabbed.

She opted to leave with him, too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top