ForumGarden

Is blood thicker than water?

Would you tell the FBI about a family member who you knew or suspected had committed a crime?

Would it depend on who the family member was?

Or the nature of the crime?

Or not at all?

RedGlitter;635987 wrote: Is blood thicker than water?

Would you tell the FBI about a family member who you knew or suspected had committed a crime?

Would it depend on who the family member was?

Or the nature of the crime?

Or not at all?


It really would depend on the above questions.

SuzyB;635988 wrote: It really would depend on the above questions.


Ditto

Only if there were a substanial reward.:sneaky:

zinkyusa;636018 wrote: Only if there were a substanial reward.:sneaky:


:wah: Now you got me thinking - there is one I would rat on for anything - a reward would be a bonus

Depending on who the family member was, if it was a violent crime - yes. If we're talking something like tax evasion or something non-violent, then I don't really think so, but then again, there is that thing known as being an accessory.

I wouldn't....:-4

gosh I dunno unless I was in the situation I am not sure what I would do. Part of me says yeah I could, I just think a crime is a crime no matter who it is... and let justice prevail... gosh I dunno.

The honest objective answer: Yes, because it's the best for the loved one and for society as a whole. That's the brain talking.

The honest subjective answer: I hope I never know. That's the heart talking.

Morality is easiest when it's abstract.

SuzyB;635988 wrote: It really would depend on the above questions.


I agree with Suzy B.

Hey, that rhymes. :wah:

If the occasion ever presents itself, i'll let you know

An I blameless? Have I never committed a crime in my life?

As the answers are no and no, there are crimes where I would not inform the police regardless - indeed, there are some "crimes" where I'd stand by and applaud (just because some beurocrat or a corrupt politician makes something a crime doesn't mean it is necessarily wrong).

There are other crimes where I wouldn't be able to get to the police quickly enough, regardless of who it was.

In between, the closer the person is to me the more serious the crime would have to be.

It depends what and who it was. I know of some awful crimes people have done but the people they were done too they damn deserved it, if that makes sense.

this is one of those situations where I don't know how I'd act until I was actually in the situation

beautyful;636818 wrote: this is one of those situations where I don't know how I'd act until I was actually in the situation


Me neither.

But I like to think things come out in the wash....that what goes around comes around. If it was rape or a cold blooded crazy murder, child molester, I still don't know if I would give the person up to the law. I rather believe more in "mountain justice" more than I do the legal system. Our family would probably sort the person out ourselves and make them pay.

It would probably tear me up but I'm pretty sure I'd stick by my family member. It would make me a mess though but at what price do you give up your loyalty?

How about if you knew someone that murdered child molesters?

crazygal;636905 wrote: How about if you knew someone that murdered child molesters?


No, cause that would be things taking care of themselves. That would be avenging those kids. Just bypassing the judicial system and getting things done quicker. But is that person SURE those people molested kids?

(This is all my opinion only)

WEll I will give you an example.



Many many years ago my eldest son came to live with us after living with his father and he was a handful he was only 10 and by the time he turned 15 he was doing drugs. One day he broke into the house next door while they where at the hospital ( the wife had just had twins). I was mortified and so embarrassed so we dobbed him into the police for his own good. He was put into a detention Centre for 6 months and it did him the world of good. He came out a different person and is now married with 2 children.

To this very day I feel guilty for dobbing him in but I would do it again if I had to.

Absolutely... I wouldn't even think about it.

RedGlitter;637103 wrote: No, cause that would be things taking care of themselves. That would be avenging those kids. Just bypassing the judicial system and getting things done quicker. But is that person SURE those people molested kids?

(This is all my opinion only)


Yes definately, if they weren't they wouldn't have done it. I couldn't kill someone myself but would never report someone for killing a child molester.

crazygal;637224 wrote: Yes definately, if they weren't they wouldn't have done it. I couldn't kill someone myself but would never report someone for killing a child molester.


A lynch mob or a vigilante being sure the ba$tard dun it is a million miles from the guy being guilty.

What you're saying is much akin to saying it's bound to happen 'cos Russell Grant's predicted it in the Stars

RedGlitter;636877 wrote: I rather believe more in "mountain justice" more than I do the legal system. Our family would probably sort the person out ourselves and make them pay


That's very unfortunate, and could and should lead to a long term of incarceration, at least.



RedGlitter;636877 wrote: It would probably tear me up but I'm pretty sure I'd stick by my family member. It would make me a mess though but at what price do you give up your loyalty?


It depends on the corresponding cost to society or the group in question as a whole. There are parallels from motor-racing to warfare.

Depends on the crime, and the reason it was committed.

Bill Sikes;639651 wrote: That's very unfortunate, and could and should lead to a long term of incarceration, at least.


How do you see that as unfortunate, Bill? Or maybe I've misread again.

Certainly there are instances that warrant the law to interfere, mostly small things is what I'm thinking of at present. But the legal system here too often sucks and fails to serve any form of justice. I know that if I were ever raped for instance, rather than go through a court trial where it would be long and drawn out, costly and would require 12 jurors of questionable mentality to decide if it even happened or not, when I already KNOW it did; I would much prefer having my angry, crack shot cousin call the guy out and avenge my honor. Or better yet, letting me do it. And if my child were assaulted, I'd feel the same way. I see nothing unfortunate about vengeance.



...

RedGlitter;639748 wrote: How do you see that as unfortunate, Bill? Or maybe I've misread again


If you take the law into your own hands, then there might as well not be any law, full stop. People who do thoroughly deserve to be sent down.

Bill Sikes;640191 wrote: If you take the law into your own hands, then there might as well not be any law, full stop. People who do thoroughly deserve to be sent down.


Why? If the victim of the crime is the one to handle it and there's no doubt about whether or not the crime took place, how is that not better than relying on a court of unknowns to decide if you get payback or not? The one needing to be sent down should be the one who trespassed against another.

RedGlitter;640207 wrote: If the victim of the crime is the one to handle it and there's no doubt about whether or not the crime took place


So the victim of the crime should say whether or not it took place?

Soberano;640216 wrote: Some of my family i would set up never mind grass em up.


:wah: :wah:

Bill Sikes;640213 wrote: So the victim of the crime should say whether or not it took place?


Yes Bill. That's what I'm saying. That if it's a serious enough violation against you, that you should be able to retaliate. Instead of involving strangers who weren't even there when it happened.

RedGlitter;640207 wrote: Why? If the victim of the crime is the one to handle it and there's no doubt about whether or not the crime took place, how is that not better than relying on a court of unknowns to decide if you get payback or not? The one needing to be sent down should be the one who trespassed against another.


There you've hit the nub of the problem. How many times has a victim taken his vengeance only to find out later he was mistaken who did it. How many lynch mobs have hung the wrong man because they didn't wait for the proof.

If you allow anyone to take the law into their own hands then you undermine the whole rule of law.

Let's compromise - if you want to take your own vengeance then you must walk into the nearest Police Station and stand trial to prove justification? That's fair - if you're that certain you're right then you'll be proven to be the victim.

Bryn Mawr;640226 wrote: There you've hit the nub of the problem. How many times has a victim taken his vengeance only to find out later he was mistaken who did it. How many lynch mobs have hung the wrong man because they didn't wait for the proof.

If you allow anyone to take the law into their own hands then you undermine the whole rule of law.

Let's compromise - if you want to take your own vengeance then you must walk into the nearest Police Station and stand trial to prove justification? That's fair - if you're that certain you're right then you'll be proven to be the victim.


If only that was the case :rolleyes: :-5

RedGlitter;640223 wrote: Yes Bill. That's what I'm saying. That if it's a serious enough violation against you, that you should be able to retaliate. Instead of involving strangers who weren't even there when it happened.


Then who judges you? Family members of ther person you retaliated against? Who judges them? Your surviving famiy? What if people make up stories, for whatever reason?

i wish to report suzy she has kidnapped a jimbo and held him against his will



a crime is a crime i say tell

SuzyB;640227 wrote: If only that was the case :rolleyes: :-5


If you cannot prove it before a court then what justification have you in setting yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.

Also, the very fact that you are *so* involved iin the case means that you cannot be allowed to be sole arbiter of the punishment handed out.

Bryn Mawr;640236 wrote: If you cannot prove it before a court then what justification have you in setting yourself up as judge, jury and executioner.

Also, the very fact that you are *so* involved iin the case means that you cannot be allowed to be sole arbiter of the punishment handed out.


I understand what your saying Bryn but you talk to most coppers and the frustration they feel with people getting off, then going out and often commiting the same crime.

I must add that i'm not saying that it's ok to take the law into your own hands, I would only do that if someone hurt my children.

SuzyB;640243 wrote: I must add that i'm not saying that it's ok to take the law into your own hands, I would only do that if someone hurt my children.


Red mist time - I would not be in control of my reactions

Bryn Mawr;640274 wrote: Red mist time - I would not be in control of my reactions


Me neither, Which I know isn't good, but just trying to be truthful.

Bill Sikes;640229 wrote: Then who judges you? Family members of ther person you retaliated against? Who judges them? Your surviving famiy? What if people make up stories, for whatever reason?


I understand what you're saying, Bill. People do make up stories- even through the judicial system. But what I am thinking of, the simplest examples would be rape and (failed/attempted) murder for instance. If that happens to me I KNOW who did it. Therefore I am the ONLY one who should be "judge, jury and executioner." If something happens to me and I don't know or am unsure who did it then court may be a good thing. Otherwise, I see no wrongdoing in self avenging.

And if I'm dead then yes...my people should take care of it. I don't expect you to agree by any means or maybe even understand. That's okay. And so far we've not had to do any of this. But if it came to that, well....