Do I run to the sound of gunfire and solve the problem? I’ve already been the victim of wrongful prosecution once, do I risk that again? Do I take a chance going up against a protected class, and earning the “mostly peaceful” wrath of the howling mob, and a legacy media that lives for stirring up rioters?

Meditations on Duty | The LawDog Files

It is a damned good reading.

Those of you who have followed me for a long time know that my position changes every other week: Sometimes morally I feel I have to act upon an act that goes beyond the pale and next, I do say it is not worth the consequences I may face.

But it is slowly crawling to the side where I will have to learn to live with shame of not doing the morally right thing.  My life and the lives of mine? Sure, I will fight and kill if necessary. Defending the proverbial School bus full of nuns and children being attacked by murdering perverts? Let me think about it and I will get back to you on that one.


Spread the love

By Miguel.GFZ

Semi-retired like Vito Corleone before the heart attack. Consiglieri to J.Kb and AWA. I lived in a Gun Control Paradise: It sucked and got people killed. I do believe that Freedom scares the political elites.

6 thoughts on “LawDog: Meditations on Duty”
  1. we had an incident here in the middle of an intersection in a town called Saco.. bunch (4-6) of individuals “of unknown citizen status” got into a gunfight. 3 of them fled on foot. theres video of them.. all the so called news would focus on was it was “near a school and zomg GUN VIOLENCE… since then crickets..
    a buddy and I were talking about it one day. he thinks we should carry more than we do in our travels so if it happens again “he or I could answer the call and engage and put the bad guys down”…. niether of us are police.. I told him you do you guy, me, I will defend myself if threatened, but I am not a badge carrying cop. Im not going to “run toward gunfire and answer the call”… wwwaaayyyyy. wwaaayyt to many unanswered questions- whose the bad guy? whose the good guy? who is an innocent bystander? responding cops dont know who I am so Im busy waxing badguys what are they gonna do?? until laws change and those of us with training and carry every day(I can dream) can do so without fear of being prosecuted I will be ever vigilant and threat to me and mine will be delt with.. bad shiite happens in a large town I will didi mau to a safe location.. I will not put my life and my families well being in jepardy to save a bunch of ungrateful liberal asshats who will turn around and gleefully prosecute me for everything from jaywalking to vigilanteism to murder one… cause we know that’s exactly what will happen..

  2. I think it’s important to distinguish between tactical and moral decisions. It may be morally good to intervene in a situation, but tactically inadvisable. As a conservative Christian, I consider this part of the problem of “original sin,” that we are constantly put in the position of choosing between two evils — and choosing the lesser evil is still choosing evil. Thus, you are quite literally damned if you do and damned if you don’t. Life is a series of minor, and some major, Sophie’s choices.
    The Old Testament clearly falls on the side of intervention. Proverbs 24 instructs:

    If you falter in a time of trouble, how small is your strength!
    Rescue those being led away to death; hold back those staggering toward slaughter.
    If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?
    Does not he who guards your life know it?
    Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?
    Psalm 82 demands:

    Defend the weak and the fatherless; uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
    Rescue the weak and the needy deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
    … and there are others.
    In contrast, the New Testament is more centered on orthodoxy (right thought) than orthopraxy (right actions). Thus, the commands of the New Testament focus more acts that reflect individual inner truth rather than acting out moral obligation — with the firm belief that the former *leads naturally* to the latter. It is more important to reflect internal transformation and allow that to indirectly affect society. Back in the 1970s during the peak of the Transcendental Meditation movement, the Maharishi Yogi claimed that there was a negative correlation between the number of people practicing TM and crime in a city. The same thing is true with Christianity. The more Christians practice live their faith, the more society reflects those values. Thus, for instance, in the book of Philemon, Paul returns a slave to his master. He does not vilify society because of slavery or say that Philemon should free all his slaves. What Paul says is that the relationship between the slave (Onesimus) and the owner (Philemon) as brothers in Christ trumps all other relationships and makes the owner/slave relationship, while not irrelevant, more focused on intersecting Christian obligations of mutual aid and fraternal love. Thus, Paul writes from prison in Rome:
    “I am sending him—who is my very heart—back to you. I would have liked to keep him with me so that he could take your place in helping me while I am in chains for the gospel. But I did not want to do anything without your consent, so that any favor you do would not seem forced but would be voluntary. Perhaps the reason he was separated from you for a little while was that you might have him back forever— no longer as a slave, but better than a slave, as a dear brother. He is very dear to me but even dearer to you, both as a fellow man and as a brother in the Lord.”e c
    Thus, from a New Testament perspective, the focus is more on not *accommodating* evil at the cultural level rather than *intervening* against it. This results in a somewhat more passive, but more resilient approach to evil. Intervention becomes mandatory primarily when it becomes a matter of aid to the suffering (e.g. charity) and refusing to be part of evil. Sometimes refusing to be part of evil means taking a stand that is similar to active intervention, but it’s still different. The textbook example of this perspective is the Confessing Church in Nazi Germany. Thus, for instance, many members of the Confessing Church helped hide Jews and tried to protect them from Nazis, and actively *criticized* the regime, but did not violently fight against Hitler. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, one of the more famous members of the Confessing Church, was part of the Valkyrie plot to kill Hitler, but was not an active participant in the act itself. Instead, he traveled to Switzerland to try to (unsuccessfully) negotiate for aid to the conspirators and terms of surrender to the Allies if the plot succeeded. Thus, upon return to Germany, Bonhoeffer was charged and convicted of *embezzlement* rather than direct conspiracy to assassinate Hitler. He was still hanged, but the distinction is still there.
    So, for me, the question of intervention becomes at what point does failure to intervene become an act of accommodation? Clearly any failure to intervene when it comes to corruption or systematic evil at the workplace would be accommodation. The question of intervening in, say, a mugging on the street boils down to one of tactics. If one can obviously intervene successfully and one does not, then it is an accommodation. If one’s intervention will likely fail or be pyrrhic, then it is not an accommodation. There is a very Zen feeling about it. The basic idea of the Tao is that if you are at one with your proper nature, then you will “thoughtlessly” know what to do in any situation. The classic analogy is that one should be like a leaf in a stream. The leaf doesn’t think about where it is, but it’s always where it is supposed to be. Similarly, for a Christian, if one is in tune to the Holy Spirit, then He will always let you know what the right thing is in any situation. A person in tune with God will not be ignorant of the right act. He may not *like* the obligation, and may try to avoid it, but it will be obvious.
    Anyway, that’s my personal take on it. YMMV, of course.

  3. The criminals in power don’t want a good Samaritan to show up and thwart a crime. They want EVERYONE totally dependent on the system, someone coming along and doing something short circuits that effort. So those who
    do actually get involved will be subject to far worse oppression and persecution than the actual criminals. It’s a sign of the near complete decay and collapse of civilization.

  4. My rule is simple. In this litigious society I try to manage risk. I will defend my family and myself, and the friend(s) who happen to be with me at the time. Period.

    On the other hand, there is that young mother with child right over there, . . . and rule will probably go to hell.

    The grenade hasn’t landed in my foxhole yet, so I don’t really know.

  5. No.
    Simply. No… In today’s society, you do not run to the sound of gunfire or conflict.
    Not because of “I might end up in jail.”
    Because you do not know what is going on. End of story.
    See two people fighting, one is obviously winning, so you shoot them? What if you shot the innocent person who is defending himself or his family? Were you there for the start of the conflict? If not, you have no place taking part. Call 911, bear witness, whatever, but do not, and I will repeat, DO NOT, engage.
    Yes, there are hundreds of examples where one should have stepped in and took action, but when it comes to use of lethal force, nope, stay out of it.
    Now, that does not mean take no action at any time. If you can be absolutely clear that you are in the right, or if you are protecting yourself or someone under the mantle of your protection, yes, take action. But, if neither apply, leave the scene.
    All the legal and moral issues are secondary when choosing to use deadly force. Ensuring you are using deadly force appropriately is the first, primary, and likely, only concern.

Only one rule: Don't be a dick.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.