3
3
0
4 paragraph teaser to a much longer article, linked at the bottom.
It may seem to be a no brainer, but there are jurisdictions that require the average Joe to give in to criminal demands.
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, LTC Trent Klug,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones, MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
1SG Dan Capri, LTC (Join to see)
It may seem to be a no brainer, but there are jurisdictions that require the average Joe to give in to criminal demands.
SGT James Murphy, CPT Jack Durish,
SPC Gary Welch, SGT Mark Anderson,
CPL Douglas Chrysler, LTC Trent Klug,
CSM Charles Hayden, SMSgt David A Asbury,
SSG William Jones, MSgt Robert "Rock" Aldi
SSG Michael Noll, MAJ Dale E. Wilson, Ph.D.
SGM Erik Marquez, CW3 Harvey K.
SFC William Farrell, CPL Ronald Keyes Jr
Sgt (Join to see), SSG (Join to see)
1SG Dan Capri, LTC (Join to see)
"The Right to Defy Criminal Demands"
Posted from reason.com
Crime
Law
Self Defense
Posted 11 mo ago
Responses: 3
4
4
0
There's my knee-jerk response and then there's this...
Should I comply with criminal demands when there's a risk that non-compliance may jeopardize others? (I believe that's a fair restatement of the issue.) No. And no, that's not a simple knee-jerk response. I came to this conclusion after I saw a linkage between it and "zero tolerance", a nonsensical policy enforced in most schools. Sadly, children learn the rules of society in schools and I can see how living under Zero Tolerance can lead people to assume that they must comply with criminal demands. After all, if they are punished for defending themselves on the playground, shouldn't they be punished for defending themselves on the streets as adults?
Once upon a time, children dealt with bullies, most successfully by aggregating the strength of the group. When the strong preyed on the weak, the weak closed ranks to defend the individual. It was an important lesson, one that prepared them for adult life. It appears that the results of Zero Tolerance in schools can be seen in this question.
Yes, any refusal to comply with criminal demands threatens the group. Even if there is no group in the immediate vicinity, the criminal will be encouraged by each success, in which individual comply with their demands, to repeat the criminal act on other individuals. Even more encouraging is when they see individuals of fail to comply with their demands, punished for defending themselves. Just as schoolyard bullies are encouraged when they see their victims punished for failing to comply...
Should I comply with criminal demands when there's a risk that non-compliance may jeopardize others? (I believe that's a fair restatement of the issue.) No. And no, that's not a simple knee-jerk response. I came to this conclusion after I saw a linkage between it and "zero tolerance", a nonsensical policy enforced in most schools. Sadly, children learn the rules of society in schools and I can see how living under Zero Tolerance can lead people to assume that they must comply with criminal demands. After all, if they are punished for defending themselves on the playground, shouldn't they be punished for defending themselves on the streets as adults?
Once upon a time, children dealt with bullies, most successfully by aggregating the strength of the group. When the strong preyed on the weak, the weak closed ranks to defend the individual. It was an important lesson, one that prepared them for adult life. It appears that the results of Zero Tolerance in schools can be seen in this question.
Yes, any refusal to comply with criminal demands threatens the group. Even if there is no group in the immediate vicinity, the criminal will be encouraged by each success, in which individual comply with their demands, to repeat the criminal act on other individuals. Even more encouraging is when they see individuals of fail to comply with their demands, punished for defending themselves. Just as schoolyard bullies are encouraged when they see their victims punished for failing to comply...
(4)
(0)
SFC Casey O'Mally
CPT Jack Durish Sir,
As I mentioned below, I have not read the full article and won't have ability to really digest for a while. But my not-quite-knee-jerk opinion is a pretty strong disagreement - kind of.
I think this is one of those cases where there is a stark difference between morality and the law.
LEGALLY I should have no requirement to comply with criminals, at least in most cases. But MORALLY, I feel compelled to do so, in most cases.
As a demonstration:
If Bob the Robber points a gun at a crowd and says "give me your wallet or I start shooting people," I am going to give up my wallet. All day, every day. Should I be held liable if I choose to hang on to my wallet and the criminal decides to shoot Jane, the innocent bystander? Absolutely not. Neither criminally, nor civilly. Jane's family should have no right to sue ME for Bob shooting her. And Jen, the DA should not be filing charges. But my wallet is not more important than Jane's life. Even if I have never met Jane.
There are always exceptions. For instance, if the demand is for information or access that can do even greater harm (like security codes, for instance) or if I am in a position of trust and being required to violate that trust (like divulging classified info, or attorney client lists, for example). Or, if complying will greate a greater risk (go place this bomb or I shoot one person). I am sure there are more.
But, in general, personal harm to me is ALWAYS rated as a less severe consequence than EQUIVALENT harm to others. I will take a gunshot to the leg to save someone else being shot. That is my MORAL duty. But not my LEGAL one.
I understand the bully principle you describe, but that dictates the actions of a group, not an individual. As an individual, I am the guy who takes that punch to the face from the bully so the rest of the folks can mob him.
As I mentioned below, I have not read the full article and won't have ability to really digest for a while. But my not-quite-knee-jerk opinion is a pretty strong disagreement - kind of.
I think this is one of those cases where there is a stark difference between morality and the law.
LEGALLY I should have no requirement to comply with criminals, at least in most cases. But MORALLY, I feel compelled to do so, in most cases.
As a demonstration:
If Bob the Robber points a gun at a crowd and says "give me your wallet or I start shooting people," I am going to give up my wallet. All day, every day. Should I be held liable if I choose to hang on to my wallet and the criminal decides to shoot Jane, the innocent bystander? Absolutely not. Neither criminally, nor civilly. Jane's family should have no right to sue ME for Bob shooting her. And Jen, the DA should not be filing charges. But my wallet is not more important than Jane's life. Even if I have never met Jane.
There are always exceptions. For instance, if the demand is for information or access that can do even greater harm (like security codes, for instance) or if I am in a position of trust and being required to violate that trust (like divulging classified info, or attorney client lists, for example). Or, if complying will greate a greater risk (go place this bomb or I shoot one person). I am sure there are more.
But, in general, personal harm to me is ALWAYS rated as a less severe consequence than EQUIVALENT harm to others. I will take a gunshot to the leg to save someone else being shot. That is my MORAL duty. But not my LEGAL one.
I understand the bully principle you describe, but that dictates the actions of a group, not an individual. As an individual, I am the guy who takes that punch to the face from the bully so the rest of the folks can mob him.
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
2
2
0
Marked for reading when I have time (and spare brainpower) for the deep thinks. So, probably in a few years, LOL.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google