Drunk Moron

[thebishopp]

this world would never exist, it goes against human nature

That is a false statement. A more accurate statement would be that it goes against the nature of SOME.

Just as you argued about the perspective differences of "right", I would not go branding everyone with the nature that you seem to have.

The plain truth is you owe much to those who's nature differs with what you seem to think "human nature" is.

 

[richardraw316]

WHOA, WHOA, WHOA !! Yes it is harsh and misplaced. I no more judge jamesg and his inherent desire to protect himself and just his family than I judge the sheep that live their existence in ignorant bliss. This isn't a sheep vs sheepdog competition. My only contention is the blatant semi-hostility I see directed at those that venture forth by those that choose to stay behind closed doors. I am characterized as the insane risk taker that has no sense or intelligence if I don't stay concealed . Why is this?? What concern is it of anyone's how I conduct my affairs? My original contention is that we all have quite different life experiences, different levels of self determination and self confidence under stress. I would no more expect the majority on this board to be able to hand fly a single engine aircraft on instruments through a thunderstorm at night as I have and I don't expect those without such experience in their life to launch themselves into the jaws of a deadly confrontation. I'm just tired of being lectured to I guess.

i could not agree with you more. its not the hiding that bothers me. its attacking those who would not hide that bothers me. the op did the right thing. and some of these people are trying to crucify him for it.
Whether my car cost a million dollars or a couple hundred, it is still my car, and nobody has the right to destroy what i have worked for. the op reconized this, and did something about it. No matter how small the incident was, he should recieve a gracous thank you from the victum and be proud of himself.

 

[jamesg]

im glad we have the opportunity to share our opinions on the subject openly and without censorship

this is just one more thread that is justification for myself to carry and possess firearms, because I know that there are many people out there with many ideas and many different versions of the truth and I am only responsible for my own existence and those direct extensions of myself.

we would be much better off if people looked out for themselves and their own, but kept their noses out of other people's business. imagine that, everyone looking out for their own best interest! those who choose not to do so intentionally...

you see something you feel is wrong? the fact it meets your criteria of a wrong doing, does not imply you are now clear to approach the situation with your own brand of justice, but if you do, understand that if you come out on the short end of the deal, you stepped outside of your own responsibilities and into someone else's. doing so is not always an honorable thing.

what you call brave, i call stupid, you call it cowardice, i call it being smart. yes i already said that, but it has not seemed to have gotten through. when someone brings the problem directly to you and yours, handle it, otherwise, carry on. chances are you will live a lot longer and have a lot less drama in your life.

 

[paddling_man]

I wonder how many of us would have done the same thing as the OP. Honestly?


I know I would have.

Ed, I won't judge your actions either, but I would have most certainly dialed 911 or had someone else do it as I was walking out he door.

I'm not some blood-thirsty vigilante that wants to go around shooting criminals, but if some drunk is vandalizing my property or my neighbor's property and I witness it, I'm going to try to stop it if I can...Right after the call to 911.

To all of the naysayers:

Who is going to pay for the damages done to your car when the drunken idiot starts punching/kicking it while you stand by and do nothing? Cops are usually minutes away.

It's certainly not illegal for you to step outside and stand by your car while the cops are on the way...If the drunken douche bag wants to get violent with you for making sure your car doesn't get beat to hell, well you can fill in the blank on what to do.

^^^ This. ^^^

the "Confronter" who ends up in situations they had no business in in the first place, even if intentions are well, then there's the "Middle Man", who sees a crime not involving them but want's to see justice who calls the cops to handle it, and then there's the "Sheeple" who see it and turn the other way......

Community. Neighbors. A nice and safe place to live. It takes a village to raise a child and all that kumbayah stuff. I can't subscribe to your interpretation above.

I've got a father-in-law. Retired nuclear engineer with his doctorate. Brilliant man. He is also anti-social and tried to raise his family with the whole "it's not our business, so we don't interfere." I find his behavior repugnant. My wife remembers their family being like an island in their neighborhood too.

If you destroy the safety and harmony of my community, it becomes my business. If some POS is beating the crap out of my neighbors car, then I'm going to be a good neighbor and do what I can to stop it. The beating of car happens where every backswing is within inches of my car? Yeah, I'm darned sure involved!

If my female neighbor went outside to confront someone beating on my car (or say, stealing it) at night? Well intentioned, but I would call that stupid.

My physically healthy in-his-prime, good friend, neighbor who didn't go outside if a drunken twenty-something frat rat was beating my car?! I would call him an undependable wuss who I wouldn't trust to have my back if I ever needed it and would NEVER depend on again.

I consider immediate neighbors, until proven otherwise, to be at least the level of acquaintance-friends. Ya want a nice neighborhood? You stay involved. I'll watch their back and I hope they watch mine. If I drove by it happening in another neighborhood? No, I might just call 911 but still park close enough to wait for cops, the assailants to know they had witnesses, and still yell at them. I probably wouldn't get out of the car. Immediate neighbors though? No... we look out for each other.

I just can't subscribe to the "not my business" every-man-for-himself notion and sleep at night. I hope my healthy neighbors don't either.

The journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

That journey for me was growing up in a bad neighborhood. Ya gotta have enough fear to stay safe and spheres to be a man.

OP: At 42, in a middle-class suburban neighborhood, I would call 911, walk out with the phone still at my ear (yes, with the gun holstered) and yell at them with my back to the door ready to retreat.

At early-twenty-something, I would have likely rushed out with a baseball bat and the beatings would have begun.

(Benny - Ya know if someone was beating your car, I'm out there.)


Yeah, don't throw yourself off a cliff to save a replaceable car of the neighbor. Don't open the window, take a bead with the scope and BOOM-HEADSHOT! For gawdsakes, I applaud those who did not just call 911 then stealthily peaked out the window, hoping not to be seen.


I guess everyone just needs to behave in a way that let's them sleep at night. One man's "coward," is another person's "smart." One man's foolhardy, is another man's brave.

I know what it takes for me to sleep at night and I don't feel the need to justify it. (Though I will post in this thread? LOL)

 

[thebishopp]

interesting, but it is still in all honesty your version of the truth, some people might call someone brave where i would call them ignorant. others would call someone a coward where perhaps i would call them smart.......

Actually I didn't' make that up. The word goes back long long long before you or I were born so it is not "my version of the truth". You are correct on your use of words so perhaps you can say they were a "ignorant hero" or a "smart coward" if it makes you feel better to do so.

I have long said that the wise course of action is not always the most honorable. Being things like "courageous" or "honorable" normally come with sacrifice. Was it "smart" for anyone in our history to do things that they had to suffer for? Nope, better for them personally if they merely rolled over and tried to keep from being noticed. Plenty of martyrs out there who, if they had "played it smart", would not have been martyrs. Of course what would the world be like today if not for those that you would probably call "ignorant" and "dumb"?

it's a pretty fruitless exercise, everyone has their own brand of right, but it is the ones who step outside of what affects them into the realm of what does not affect them, that makes the difference and knowing when it is appropriate. In this particular case, call the cops, let them handle a situation that really doesn't involve you and appears to be of no immediate threat. Don't grab your gun and run outside in the dark to see if you can get involved with a drunk stranger who is violent already. No heroes here.

You are "right" about everyone having their own "brand of right". In fact to some murder and rape is "right", doesn't make it "right"

Heroes aren't "smart". If they were they wouldn't be "Heroes". The "smart" thing to do is never to put yourself in a situation where you need to be a "hero" and if you do find yourself in such a situation, to do the opposite of what a "hero" would do so as not to put yourself at risk.

Yes the OP displayed courage (the ability to do something which frightens one) which is an quality of a "hero".

Sometimes I break the law completely out of spite. Because laws in my opinion were meant to be guidelines. The system is based on the fact that they know a certain percentage of people will not follow the rules. There is a certain amount of that which is acceptable and does not break the system or affect anyone else, and hence we find the proverbial victim-less crime. There is a certain amount of overhead that is acceptable.

Lol if you ever happen to be arrested for those laws that you break out of "spite" I would love to hear you tell this to a judge. That is why we have LEOs and a system in place to punish that "certain percentage" of people who will not follow the rules. I can agree that there are laws that should not be laws because they are NOT "guidelines" and there are very real and very unpleasant or costly punishments for violating them.

I didn't say do nothing. I said react appropriately. Dark, drunk stranger, violent and only harming himself and someone's car. Not a situation for mr tough guy vigilante with gun. That is a classic situation best handled by calling the cops.

And I am saying do not chastise those would would display courage by taking a more pro active role. No one knows what could have happened with this guy. By taking a proactive role there is a good possibility that he may have prevented something worse from happening. According to the OP the fellows buddy was afraid he'd call the cops, probably taking the guy home instead of the guy going who knows where and maybe attacking someone instead of just a car.

I was wondering when you would throw out the word "vigilante". Yes the OP was "vigilant". He did not act as judge jury and executioner.

 

[thebishopp]

im glad we have the opportunity to share our opinions on the subject openly and without censorship

this is just one more thread that is justification for myself to carry and possess firearms, because I know that there are many people out there with many ideas and many different versions of the truth and I am only responsible for my own existence and those direct extensions of myself.

we would be much better off if people looked out for themselves and their own, but kept their noses out of other people's business. imagine that, everyone looking out for their own best interest! those who choose not to do so intentionally...

you see something you feel is wrong? the fact it meets your criteria of a wrong doing, does not imply you are now clear to approach the situation with your own brand of justice, but if you do, understand that if you come out on the short end of the deal, you stepped outside of your own responsibilities and into someone else's. doing so is not always an honorable thing.

what you call brave, i call stupid, you call it cowardice, i call it being smart. yes i already said that, but it has not seemed to have gotten through. when someone brings the problem directly to you and yours, handle it, otherwise, carry on. chances are you will live a lot longer and have a lot less drama in your life.

While I understand where you are coming from the plain fact is that we can not live as a society if we all turn a blind eye.

We must stay out of each others "business" when that "business" does not affect us OR others. Someone stealing or vandalizing a car affects others and can affect us if the next time it's our car that is stolen or vandalized. "Crimes" against people or property need to be stopped by anyone who witnesses them. Criminals tend to much more brazen in areas where they know they can "get away" with things.

Be hopefully that if you are ever in a situation that you can not handle on your own (maybe being mugged, can't get to your gun, beaten and the guy is beating you to death) that someone "dumb" comes along and decides to do get involved in business that is not his.

In fact be hopeful that if you ever need the police that the officer that gets the call is "dumb" enough to respond rather than just wait till it's over and take the report from your next of kin.

You talk about "own brand of justice" where no one has said to act as "judge jury and executioner". Merely to stand up and be recognized. In this situation it is not hiding and hoping that a "dumb hero" (ie; a police officer by what appears to be your definition) is going to save you or someone else.

If your intentions are "honorable" then it is ALWAYS the "honorable" thing though it may not always be the "right" thing, they do say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and if you choose to do the "honorable" thing then you must be prepared to suffer the consequences if that action is in fact wrong (ie; you shoot an off duty cop making an arrest because you think he is the BG).

 

[paddling_man]

^^^^^ Well said. ^^^^^

I pray my neighbors feel the same way. I know my good, dependable friends do.

 

[thebishopp]

Look, us "stupid heroes" will always disagree with the "smart cowards" (and vice versa).

The fact is that without us "stupid heroes" there would be a lot less "smart cowards" (you would be easy prey as the "wolves" picked you off one by one with no one to step in to help).

 

[indytechnerd]

Butthurt, caused it I have.

Hence to fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.

O divine art of subtlety and secrecy! Through you we learn to be invisible, through you inaudible; and hence we can hold the enemy's fate in our hands.

2 quotes - same guy, and he knew a thing or two about fighting.

Carry on, youngbloods. There's a time and place to jump into things. My opinion is that the OP wasn't either one. That's just my opinion, though, and it's worth every penny you paid for it.

 

[richardraw316]

im glad we have the opportunity to share our opinions on the subject openly and without censorship

this is just one more thread that is justification for myself to carry and possess firearms, because I know that there are many people out there with many ideas and many different versions of the truth and I am only responsible for my own existence and those direct extensions of myself.

we would be much better off if people looked out for themselves and their own, but kept their noses out of other people's business. imagine that, everyone looking out for their own best interest! those who choose not to do so intentionally...

you see something you feel is wrong? the fact it meets your criteria of a wrong doing, does not imply you are now clear to approach the situation with your own brand of justice, but if you do, understand that if you come out on the short end of the deal, you stepped outside of your own responsibilities and into someone else's. doing so is not always an honorable thing.

what you call brave, i call stupid, you call it cowardice, i call it being smart. yes i already said that, but it has not seemed to have gotten through. when someone brings the problem directly to you and yours, handle it, otherwise, carry on. chances are you will live a lot longer and have a lot less drama in your life.

i pm'd jamesg letting him know i was going to let this one go. i am a man of my word, and i will do just that. But before i leave i have to say, jamesgs opinion is his and it is allowed to be shared with us because of "stupid" soldiers fighting and dying for our freedoms.
The men who signed that silly piece of paper declaring our independence. what "morons". did they not know that they would be tried for treason and exicuted for doing so? never heard of such a giant "idiot"s. wow we should definetly not be like those "Goobers."
sorry for all the misspelling i went to school in martinsville. im sure you understand what i was saying though.

 

[thebishopp]

^^^^^ Well said. ^^^^^

I pray my neighbors feel the same way. I know my good, dependable friends do.

Thank you.

I know of many complaints by Law Enforcement in certain cities where they can't seem to find any "witnesses" to crimes because no one wants to "get involved in other people's business".

They will listen in their apartment windows or walk by while someone is being raped or killed because they would rather do the cowardly "smart" thing rather than the courageous "dumb" thing. If you are lucky they may call 911 when they feel they can do so anonymously (you got to be careful as the criminals friends may try to get revenge for reporting their buddy).

Can you imagine a society where everyone just ignores things happening to others all the time? You could basically do anything to anyone as long as you are stronger than that particular individual.

 

[thebishopp]

I just realized that I should have mentioned something in one of my earlier posts.

If the reason someone is choosing not to "get involved" (like the OP) is not based on any type of fear or timidity and is based instead on the attitude "it's not my business because it's not happening to me", that would not fit the definition of "coward/cowardice". That would be something else entirely.

 

[gungirl65]

Apathy

I just realized that I should have mentioned something in one of my earlier posts.

If the reason someone is choosing not to "get involved" (like the OP) is not based on any type of fear or timidity and is based instead on the attitude "it's not my business because it's not happening to me", that would not fit the definition of "coward/cowardice". That would be something else entirely.

I think that falls under apathy. The I don't know what's going on, but it doesn't involve me or mine, so I don't care attitude.

 

[jamesg]

i pm'd jamesg letting him know i was going to let this one go. i am a man of my word, and i will do just that. But before i leave i have to say, jamesgs opinion is his and it is allowed to be shared with us because of "stupid" soldiers fighting and dying for our freedoms.
The men who signed that silly piece of paper declaring our independence. what "morons". did they not know that they would be tried for treason and exicuted for doing so? never heard of such a giant "idiot"s. wow we should definetly not be like those "Goobers."
sorry for all the misspelling i went to school in martinsville. im sure you understand what i was saying though.

not necessary, we can debate like adults, but please understand I never said our soldiers were stupid or morons.......implying that i did is not cool. i was simply trying to make the point that what you consider bravery may very well be perceived as asshattery to me or someone else. I have seen my fair share of testosterone filled raging guys go completely out of their way to "be helpful" or provide a "solution" to a problem that for them did not actually exist until they made it their problem, throwing themselves into it. That's personal choice, don't expect everyone to see things your way.

So when you are confronting the drunk violent stranger beating up someone else's car in the parking lot without being asked, understand there are many people who at that point feel you stepped outside of your responsibilities.

You feel you are right, they feel they are right, you aren't changing anyone's moral compass. So you have to be able to take the criticism when you step into that ring. Don't go in and then expect everyone to cheer you on like you are some sort of vigilante superhero. Fully expect some people will tell you you were out of place.

I didn't say the OP should not get involved.....I said he should not have grabbed the gun and walked out in the dark to confront a drunk raging stranger beating up someone else's car; simply call the cops and go back to bed, let them earn their pay. There is nothing wrong with doing your good deed by reporting a crime but not getting directly involved. If it was a crime involving someone being harmed, then the scope of the discussion takes on a completely different tone. I made that very clear earlier.

 

[thebishopp]

not necessary, we can debate like adults, but please understand I never said our soldiers were stupid or morons.......implying that i did is not cool. i was simply trying to make the point that what you consider bravery may very well be perceived as asshattery to me or someone else.

No you did not come right out and directly say that but the implication is there and I believe that is what he is talking about. The drive to stand up when they see something "wrong" happening despite personal risk is a trait associated with "courage". You say it yourself with the "what you consider bravery may very well be perceived as asshattery to me or someone else". It was also my distinct impression that you viewed that type of behavior as such. While the OP wasn't off fighting a war (regardless of anyone's opinion if said war is right or wrong) he was taking a pro-active role in preventing a crime.

I have seen my fair share of testosterone filled raging guys go completely out of their way to "be helpful" or provide a "solution" to a problem that for them did not actually exist until they made it their problem, throwing themselves into it. That's personal choice, don't expect everyone to see things your way.

I believe we have the reason behind your opinion. Your experience dealing with "testosterone filled raging guys". I don't know why, and perhaps I'm wrong, but I get the feeling that you have been a victim of bullying or some other type of intimidation. If they were "testosterone filled raging guys" I do not think they were trying to "be helpful". You didn't like them "getting involved" in your business or perhaps an aquaintences business (whatever that was). The odds are that you were not helped by others during these situations and were left to your own resources, perhaps solidifying this philosophy of not taking an active roll in assisting others.

Later in your statement you make reference to them intervening "without being asked" and also note what seems like a bit of bitterness in the last part of this statement regarding expecting some kind of praise and not to be criticized. In your experiences with those "raging guys" were they somehow praised for their actions which you felt were out of line?

In any case, whatever your personal experiences, the fact is that the situation with the OP is obviously (if he is telling the truth) not one of the situations you may have experienced. If anything the person he confronted was the "testosterone" and alcohol "filled raging guy".

Please note that in no way am I attempting to be insulting. I am merely trying to understand what experiences have molded your position. For me, growing up, I could not stand bullys only it was not in me to take it, I always fought back even if it meant getting a beating. I even went out of my way to defend the other kids that were being bullied. My experiences caused me to take a different philosophical path than yours.

While I agree that people shouldn't get involved in things that are not their business, crimes against individuals,and to individuals through their property, are crimes against us all and is everyone's business.

So when you are confronting the drunk violent stranger beating up someone else's car in the parking lot without being asked, understand there are many people who at that point feel you stepped outside of your responsibilities.

You feel you are right, they feel they are right, you aren't changing anyone's moral compass. So you have to be able to take the criticism when you step into that ring. Don't go in and then expect everyone to cheer you on like you are some sort of vigilante superhero. Fully expect some people will tell you you were out of place.

Why should someone be "asked" to confront a drunk violent stranger beating up someone else's car? I for one would be GLAD if someone said something if they saw another damaging my property.

Based on your statements I think you would not, probably be annoyed that they intervened without being asked.

Personally I think the character traits that would cause the OP to intervene are good whereas you may feel they are not.

Yes a person has to be able to take criticism but in taking it he may also criticize those who criticize him, can he not? I don't think he, or anyone else who feels as the OP, must take criticism without response. If you wish to criticize then also be prepared to be criticized in return.

I agree that one shouldn't expect to be cheered on... in fact there is a reason for the saying "no good deed goes unpunished".

I didn't say the OP should not get involved.....I said he should not have grabbed the gun and walked out in the dark to confront a drunk raging stranger beating up someone else's car; simply call the cops and go back to bed, let them earn their pay. There is nothing wrong with doing your good deed by reporting a crime but not getting directly involved. If it was a crime involving someone being harmed, then the scope of the discussion takes on a completely different tone. I made that very clear earlier.

True I don't recall you saying total non-involvement in the OPs case. If I recall correctly you are advocating involvement only up to a point where the risk was minimal. Such as calling the cops and letting the guy continue to beat on the car until the cops finally showed up.

Of course there is not telling what a violent drunk raging testosterone filled man would do should anyone happen by during his violent outburst before the cops came out.

While I do not like playing the "what if frogs had hand grenades" game it is a very real possibility that the person who was attacking a random car could just as easily begin attacking a person should one be available. It's not like he was littering or something.

Regardless of what might or might not happen we have a case of a "citizen" seeing a crime being committed and intervening without being asked. He took a personal risk and while he should have done a few other things to better protect himself (like calling 911 as he ran down the stairs and being a bit more situationally aware, he did display courage in doing so.

Now I will say something which has been niggling at my mind with your last post about how this thread reinforced your desire to carry a handgun as well as the one about how you intentionally break laws out of spite.

Originally Posted by jamesg-

this is just one more thread that is justification for myself to carry and possess firearms, because I know that there are many people out there with many ideas and many different versions of the truth and I am only responsible for my own existence and those direct extensions of myself.

-------------
Combined with your previous statement:

Originally Posted by jamesg-

Sometimes I break the law completely out of spite. Because laws in my opinion were meant to be guidelines. The system is based on the fact that they know a certain percentage of people will not follow the rules. There is a certain amount of that which is acceptable and does not break the system or affect anyone else, and hence we find the proverbial victim-less crime. There is a certain amount of overhead that is acceptable.
---------------

Granted you could just be "messing" with us but if you truly believe what you are saying then:

In the comment about reinforcing your desire to own guns and be armed...

Why would you be worried about "many people out there with many ideas and many different versions of the truth" and why would this worry make you want to own guns and be armed?

I hope you are referring to the possibility of encountering a situation such as the OP did only you would not be in a position to stay hidden and call the cops... because otherwise it would seem that you are implying that you conduct yourself in such a fashion that others may think you are doing criminal acts and would intervene (stick their noses in your business trying to be "helpful").

To me this seems a bit odd that you would say this regarding people who are advocating helping others that they see need help or to stop crimes in progress that they are witnessing. In this case someone vandalizing a car (it's not like the OP was mistaken and the guy was actually washing it).

Regarding your comment about what you feel "laws" are. You don't make the argument that the laws you "intentionally" choose to break are unjust. Instead you state that you break certain laws purely out of "spite" feeling that "laws" are merely "guidelines" and the system itself is ok with you breaking the law because a certain amount of law breaking is "acceptable".

These statements sound like those that would come from someone who has gotten into some type of trouble for doing something he felt wasn't "wrong" and because of that he would rather people "mind their own business" and at the most just call the cops (which does give someone a chance to get away).

It does make me curious to know if you were involved in a situation where a "testosterone filled raging guy" did something to you where you were either "spitefully" breaking a law you felt was a "guideline" and you got in trouble and he was praised? or you weren't actually breaking a law at the time but a "testosterone filled raging guy" thought you were and caused some problems for you and was either praised for his action or got upset when he was not?

 

[thebishopp]

I think that falls under apathy. The I don't know what's going on, but it doesn't involve me or mine, so I don't care attitude.

I believe you are correct but in the case of Jamesg I think there are deeper issues involved.

 

[finity]

IANAL, but if you went out to stop them and had to shoot one of them, couldnt a defense attorney make a pretty good case that you were the instigator of the confrontation since you left your home and confronted the suspects and it wasnt them who came after you?

You have every legal right to confront someone who is trying to steal or damage your property with reasonable force to get them to stop. That does not include deadly force, though.

That said, you DO have the legal right to use deadly force if in the act of you using reasonable force the criminal reacts in such a way as would put you in jeopardy of serious bodily injury.

IOW, if you reasonably try to get the thief to stop thieving (even by using physical force) & he swings a crowbar at your head you can use deadly force to protect yourself. YOU didn't instigate the confrontation, the BG did. YOU are just lawfully defending your property.

The law says the BG can't claim self-defense if they were in the act of committing a crime when they were attacked by the victim (or a third party acting in defense of the victim).

I didn't say the OP should not get involved.....I said he should not have grabbed the gun and walked out in the dark to confront a drunk raging stranger beating up someone else's car; simply call the cops and go back to bed, let them earn their pay. There is nothing wrong with doing your good deed by reporting a crime but not getting directly involved. If it was a crime involving someone being harmed, then the scope of the discussion takes on a completely different tone. I made that very clear earlier.

Actually you implied that you would have felt more comfortable if he would have confronted the guy while he was unarmed. You even implied that YOU would have been more likely to confront the guy if YOU had been unarmed.

I just don't get that. Are you afraid of the fact that someone might have to use a gun to defend themselves?

There is NOTHING in IN law that says you can't confront someone who is vandalizing you car to get them to stop. If that person then escalates the situation into something that you reasonably believe justifies the use of that gun then it sure would be nice to have it (or anything else) with you to defend yourself. And IN law would be on your side.

Everyone hiding their heads in the sand doesn't make the danger go away. As a matter of fact, it actually makes the danger worse since it tells the BG's that they have nothing to fear & continue their actions with impunity.

There was a quote by a German pastor during the reign of the Nazi's:

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out --
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me -- and there was no one left to speak for me. "

The specifics may be different but the general concept is very appropriate here.

If we don't stand up against evil, even (especially?) if that evil is not directed against us, then who will help you when eventually that evil does get directed toward you or yours?

You say you will get involved if the crime is a violent one. Why? It's none of YOUR business. It doesn't affect you or yours.

OTOH, by your logic, if your daughter is being raped then why should that cause anyone to act to save her? It doesn't affect them. That "rugged individualism" cuts both ways.

I don't think I want to live in a society that sees a non-victimless crime (violent or otherwise) & just looks the other way (or goes back to bed as you suggest).

ETA:

Thanks to the OP for stepping up & being a good neighbor. You know what you did wrong now.

 

[ryanbr]

First post.






Last post.

Interesting.

Why did you yell what the bunnies and Unicorns?

 

[thebishopp]

SNIP

Someone rep the fellow, the automated rep "nazi" has decreed I've given out to many and now have to wait 24hrs till I can get him.

 

[24Carat]

Someone rep the fellow, the automated rep "nazi" has decreed I've given out to many and now have to wait 24hrs till I can get him.

Done