A Moral Question
I have a question for you all. Please give me your opinions; feedback is critical, as I plan on using this information in a later post. The more responses, the better, so links would be appreciated.
Here's the question: Your views on gun-control notwithstanding, please consider the following scenario...
You are taking a walk late at night. As you come around a corner, you see four people: a man, a woman, and the woman's two children. The man is holding the woman up at knifepoint; he is threatening to kill her and her children if they do not give in to his demands. Nearby on the pavement, you spot a man you assume to be the woman's husband, stabbed to death. As you reach down and feel your gun in its holster, and you are faced with a decision: Do you help the woman and children?
There would certainly be an element of danger for you, but you have the advantage of superior firepower. Is it worth the risk? Would you be justified in simply walking away, since any number of variables could make the situation more dangerous, or would ignoring the problem make you as guilty as the thug who commited the crime? Let it be stipulated that there are no police in the town, so if you do nothing, the criminal will never be caught.
Please give me your answers; I'm interested in everyone's opinion.
posted by jacob.thrasher @ 11/15/2005 03:55:00 PM
31 comments
31 Comments:COMMENT POLICY
Please refrain from the use of foul language. Any failure to comply will result in comment deletion.
I'd shoot without a doubt, even though there's still a posibility of him still killing them. It's my understanding that unlikne in my beloved action movies, even a shot to the head doesn't immediately kill, allowing for a very small but still present possibility of the shot person performing another action, like stabbing the people you intend to protect.
Ditto, clive.
Is this a trick question?
Now there is no way to know for sure that the dead guy is her husband. It could be that the woman attacked a gay family and killed one of the men but the other man wrestled the knife away from her and is now holding her there until help arrives and instead of sending his kids for help, he keeps them by his side in case there are more gay bashers in the area.
Or you also don't know if it's all a set up and the guy on the ground isn't dead and the whole group is in on it together in order to draw interest in the situation so when you show up with your gun the "dead guy" pulls out his gun and they are then able to steal your gun, your wallet and your shoes.
I would say you have to trust your instincts and examine each situation independently; though it is definitely worth investigating the more likely scenario that the woman and her husband have been attacked and that you have the opportunity to save her.
That my friends is the difference between the liberal and conservative mind.
If he was going to kill her she would already be dead.
So in short, you would investigate rather than shoot, fully knowing that time is crucial?
I'm not trying to debate, just making sure I understand.
Of course. We SHOULD still be sending UN inspectors to check up on Saddam.
Walk behind him, and blow his brains out.
I've changed my mind. Anyone remember that James Bond movie where he shoots the hostage and then the hostage taker? You don't? You know, the Halle Berry one. The one Halle Berry ruined. Anyways, I'd either do that or go Resident Evil on him and take out the knee caps. The moral of the story is, I'd shoot first, then ask questions. In fact, I think I'd just shoot and then fly away.
Neo, you need more posts like this. Less politics, are they are BORING. And politicians don't really get much done other than attack each other verbally, so politics don't matter much.
Batman. I'm kind of partial to him because I like Bond, who has all those gadgets. Superman isn't very super because everyone from his race has those powers. Yourself?
Chemistry. I lost my chemistry book. My parents will flay me alive! AAAAH!
She's not all that bad. While we're on the subject, what's up with everything changing from last year? I hang out with all the popular kids now instead of the losers, it really sucks.
Clive,
"Neo, you need more posts like this. Less politics, are they are BORING. And politicians don't really get much done other than attack each other verbally, so politics don't matter much."
Have you read the news lately? If so, then I prithee good sir, tell me how you can honestly say that "politics don't matter much."
Swede,
"Neo, why did you delete my last post? I met Tommy Smothers last year and he said that censorship was really stupid, and I agreed."
I deleted your post because it was offensive on many levels. You are posting in the presence of girls (and guys, for that matter) who hold higher moral standards than you do. I have to ask that all commenters either respect these standards, or risk comment deletion.
I'm sorry, I don't like deleting comments, but I can't allow language and subject matter like that to stay on my blog.
All it is is talking about getting things done, not getting them done.
Please guys, take this somewhere else... I asked a serious question, and that's what the comments section of this post is for. I value your opinions and comments, but your last several comments do not belong here.
RE: Low Standards...
I think you should be the judge of that.
RE: Politics...
If citizens of a democratic republic do not take an active role in discussing their government and its laws, then the democracy will die. Period.
"Oh, sorry. Well, I would shoot him right between the eyes."
LOL Duly noted...
There is a sub-set of youth culture that is made up of those who lead, and will grow up to be leaders in all the areas of life that really matter. One of the many indicators of whether or not one is a member of the leaders, is the manner in which one chooses to express their ideas. If the prime focus is on communicating effectively in a manner that is acceptable in any context, and patently inoffensive by any standard, then that is a strong indicator that that person is not easily swayed by the need to be considered "hip/cool/whatever" by people in his/her peer group. It is also apparent that the person who practices civil discourse is intelligent enough to recognize that the coarse vocabulary and generally anti-social attitudes displayed by current conversational styles in vogue amongst the "sheep" is only considered acceptable by a narrow segment of society as a whole; namely, the other insecure younsters who don't have a true understanding of their own self worth, and therefore need to find some kind of false validation in conforming to this mold. I would love to get each one of these sheep to ask themselves this question and answer it honestly: "The people that you attempt to emulate with your speech patterns, you know, the misogynistic gangstas portrayed by MTV etc.; do you REALLY want your life to be like theirs?"
Do you sheep realize that the very ones that you seem to admire, the thugs, would scoff at your pathetic attempts to mimic them? Some of them are smart enough to take advantage of your misplaced admiration, and make "music", then sell it to you. And you guys are gullible enough to buy it?!?!?
The funny thing is, most of the kids I see mimic thuggery are children of privilidge. I submit that if their parents had invested as much time and attention into your developement as they spent financially on it, then these kids wouldn't need this false validation.
It is a travesty that so many of our best and brightest are waylaid on their way to adulthood by insecurities.
Come on folks, you're better than that!
Time is not crucial; if he was going to kill her, he would have already done it as evidence by the dead guy on the ground.
You shoot first without thinking and you could end up in jail for shooting the wrong person. Or, what if you missed?
You’ve gotta think about your situation as well; sure if I don't do something some lady might get robbed and a murderer might get away but if you do get involved you are committed either in the fight or the aftermath of that fight which could lead to a dead person and leave you fending for your life in the courts.
Swede,
One way or the other, you will respect the people here who hold higher moral values than you do. And, knowing the things you've told me, I find it hard to believe you see your morals as perfectly acceptable. Ah well, Anonymous just blew you out of the water anyway.
Toad,
"Time is not crucial; if he was going to kill her, he would have already done it as evidence by the dead guy on the ground."
The dead guy may not have had anything the thug wanted, or perhaps he attacked the thug when his family was threatened. But no matter, I'm not here to debate. Yet.
President of the sheep, maybe.
Scenario comment:
Appoint commitee to investigate whether or not man with knife is actually agressor, or merely appears to be. Warn man with knife repeatedly that if he kils anyone else, he will be severely chastised. Sanctions could even include losing his right to vote at next elections. Appoint another commitee to take gun from self, and give it to man with knife, because he is obviously dis-enfranchised because he has less than others. Repeat warnings to man ad infinitum.
Signed,
Kofi Annan,
SecGenofUN
You know, based on your reply, I should probably try to clarify my tone in the above post. It was not meant to sound as harsh as it did. It is simply a vent from a concerned parent who patrols the blogosphere attempting to stay in touch with the thoughts and ideas of his teenage children.
You, Swede, are obviously an intelligent person. Your parents are probably people who care about you deeply, and have done everything in their power to raise you properly. I guess my statements were rather broad, covering society ingeneral, and not meant to point directly at you.
I guess the thing that bothers me most is not the conformity to the accepted norm, but the failure to maintain decorum when it is requested. 20 some years ago, I was a sailor. I spoke like most every sailer I knew, when I was with those who spoke in such a fashion. When I was around people who didn't appreciate our ability to make any and all subjects profane, I refrained from imposing that upon them. It was simply a matter of respecting the wishes of others. All the people I worked with adhered to the same principle.
I guess that is what I find to be discouraging about so many youth today. I cringe when I am walking with my wife and youngest child, and we are approaching a group of young people. Chances are about 50/50 that they will say something totally vulger and without cause within the hearing of my wife and child. The reason for this behaviour is beyond me, but it should not be so.
Anyway, you probably took the brunt of a vent as being directed soley at you, when in fact, it is directed at society as a whole, of which you are a part. Parents were brought into the discussion because we (parents) are responsible for our childrens initial behavior and introduction to the world at large, and it seems that a lot of us have failed at properly training them.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
hm.....um......
well, if it was possible, I'd get up behind the dude with the knife without him seeing me, put the gun to his temple, and whisper in his ear that I'd let him go just this once but if I EVER heard of anything else like this happening again, I'd come for him.
But, since nobody would fall for that, I'd probably shoot, and then run off to some other town.
OK, sorry, I was kinda wondering what the big dilemma was.....I mean, it could just be me, but I would not hesitate to shoot. Since the man is threatening the woman, it is obvious he is not defending himself. Now, if possible, I would prefer to take him from behind...take him alive. (Of course, I would need some way to transport him. ;) ) But, assuming that is not possible, I would probably just draw the gun and yell "freeze!" or something while squeezing the trigger. If by some miracle he froze, then I would order him to walk away from the woman, etc. But otherwise, BANG. :)
what would you do, Neo?
It's hard to know what I would do. Sometimes you do whacky stuff in a situation like that. There are several options - and none of them include walking away from the situation for me.
One - duck behind a corner, draw gun and wait for a clarification of what the situation actually is and a clear shot.
Two - draw gun, scream at the top of my lungs to drop it, scream at kids to come now, shoot the gun in the air to freak everyone out and shock them a bit.
Three - sneak up from behind with gun drawn, get close enough for a good shot to the knife wielder, give warning and if not complied with, shoot.
Four - run into situation freaked out - jump on guy with knife and attempt to wrestle away forgetting that I had a gun AND a cell phone, all the while screaming 'fire' at the top of my lungs.
Eek. If you'll forgive the pun, this is quite the loaded question. So far, even Toady has neglected to look at the reason behind the scenario.
A situation like this one can do nothing but support the right to carry firearms, which is a notably right-wing platform. As such, it is set up in a way that nearly guarantees only one answer:
Of course, anybody coming across a woman and her children held up at knifepoint with obvious evidence of prior homicidal violence would, in a lawless town and with sufficient firepower, blow the evil, evil man away.
That's the only conclusion. I'm wondering, why this scenario? It's not particularly realistic, as the criminal in question would more likely be the one to have the trusty firearm at his side, and the citizen stumbling on the scene would more than likely be unarmed. And in North America 11/05 the police are located in all districts, and while their efficiency may be in question from time to time, they still have methods of dealing with such things.
Regardless, I hope I'm wrong about this being a method of justifying hand gun ownership. I'd be interested to hear about the upcoming point of this little Q&A session.
Maybe not Seanny McShawn. Maybe things are not as they initially appear.
Maybe the woman, her companion and her grown kids have threatened and robbed the man with the knife. Maybe he killed the one man in self-defense. Maybe holding the knife on the mother while the grown children watch is the only thing that is keeping them from skinning him alive.
???
I really do hope that this isn't a serious suggestion, Monicar.
Neo's hypothetical situation very strongly implies that the children in question are young. Also, the bit where the man is "threatening to kill her and her children if they do not give in to his demands" lends itself a little more to a different interpretation than the one you're suggesting.
But if it's not in jest, what's the point of the remark?
No point. Just messin' with ya.
Post a Comment
<< Home