Sometimes it's best to stay uninvolved

[i8godzilla]

Child whose mother was in the hospital said the man was wearing a black hoodie.

What the heck is the dealio with black hoodies? You'd think by now that pretty much everybody is suspiscious of people skulking around in black hoodies. You'd think people would react to a black hoodie just like bluejays when a crow shows up.

/Sarcasm On
I am guessing that we should regulate the sales and possession of the EBH (evil black hoddie). Fingerprints, photos, and DNA sample required in order to buy or posses one. Then in order to wear it in public you must spend 10 hours in a class that details when it is appropriate to wear and understand the places it is off-limits to wear. After that maybe a written test and a state mandated $140 permit..................
/Sarcasm Off

[fishfree]

Do not rights also carry responsibilities?

Your responsibilities end when you put yourself in danger for a stranger.

No. They do not. You may choose otherwise.

[WildBill]

Do not rights also carry responsibilities?

Your responsibilities end when you put yourself in danger for a stranger.

No. They do not. You may choose otherwise.

I have no duty or obligation to put my life in danger for a third party. I may choose to do so, but it is not a responsibility to do so.

[Hoosier Daddy]

In most of the situations, the third party had the right to get their own CHL unless they're a criminal.
If they made the choice not to, that doesn't put an obligation on the people who did.

[74novaman]

Do not rights also carry responsibilities?

Your responsibilities end when you put yourself in danger for a stranger.

No. They do not. You may choose otherwise.

I have no duty or obligation to put my life in danger for a third party. I may choose to do so, but it is not a responsibility to do so.

Yep!

[fishfree]

Do not rights also carry responsibilities?

Your responsibilities end when you put yourself in danger for a stranger.

No. They do not. You may choose otherwise.

I have no duty or obligation to put my life in danger for a third party. I may choose to do so, but it is not a responsibility to do so.

"a third party"... no, a person.

It sounds as if responsibility does not exist beyond your smallest circle of interest; yourself. Every man for himself? Even if the 'man' is an infant
Yet I can not help but think that most who espouse such a philosophy, if on their backs and at the mercy of a crazed killer, would hope that someone like Mr. Clanton were at hand rather than someone who shared your philosophy.

[speedsix]

Do not rights also carry responsibilities?

Your responsibilities end when you put yourself in danger for a stranger.

No. They do not. You may choose otherwise.

I have no duty or obligation to put my life in danger for a third party. I may choose to do so, but it is not a responsibility to do so.

"a third party"... no, a person.

It sounds as if responsibility does not exist beyond your smallest circle of interest; yourself. Every man for himself? Even if the 'man' is an infant
Yet I can not help but think that most who espouse such a philosophy, if on their backs and at the mercy of a crazed killer, would hope that someone like Mr. Clanton were at hand rather than someone who shared your philosophy.

...step down off yer high horse, Sonny...we live by respect around here...we respect your choice...and may share it...or not...but if you're going to play here, you're going to respect others' choices, too...I don't have any right ridiculing you...you don't have any right ridiculing anyone else...we're all guests here...so mind your manners...if you please...you can state your beliefs/opinions as strongly as you wish, but don't belittle or condemn someone else who doesn't share them...you don't know what their history of service OR "circle of interest" has been...you may be insulting someone who's put his life on the line for ALL of us...

[WildBill]

"a third party"... no, a person.

Yes, I meant "a third person."
Thanks for correcting me.

[03Lightningrocks]

I think most of us here would intervene if we saw a person being physically attacked. I know I would in some situations and not other situations. I watched two ghetto women beating each other in the Walgreen's parking lot by my house. Their kids were all standing around them screaming fight advice. I got in my truck laughing at what welfare has done for our society and drove off thinking we would all benefit if someone would just firebomb the parking lot.

Every situation will have nuances that determine my reaction. I won't sit by and watch a woman get raped for instance. I won't sit by as a child is kidnapped. I won't sit by and watch while a thug beats a person in a wheelchair. There may be others and probably are. I will decide at the time, my actions will be determined by how I size up the risk of escalation. For instance... I would watch a guy rob Walmart and do nothing unless said robber started shooting people. I am not going to chase down a purse snatcher. I wouldn't stop a person from breaking into a car. I would call the cops.

All situations are different.... who really knows what they are going to do. It is easy to talk big on the internet and fantasize about how brave we all are. Heck... you might just wet yourself and lock up. Unless you have "been there,done that"... you really don't know.

[Oldgringo]

03Lightningrocks wrote:
All situations are different.... who really knows what they are going to do. It is easy to talk big on the internet and fantasize about how brave we all are. Heck... you might just wet yourself and lock up. Unless you have "been there,done that"... you really don't know.

My man!

[fishfree]

I think most of us here would intervene if we saw a person being physically attacked. I know I would in some situations and not other situations. ...

Precisely. The original post made a broad sweeping blanket statement that we should not get involved. I pointed out an instance where that would, and I think should, be difficult (to not come to the aid of a child being murdered). I was raised that we have responsibilities beyond looking out for number 1.

Wildbill rebutted my post with his argument that his responsibility was only to himself if doing otherwise put him in danger.

I believe there is a logical argument to be made for looking out for one another and I am not advocating playing policeman or intervening for the sake of intervening. The example I gave was very specific. Beyond logic, stepping in at our own peril, financial or physical, is an intrinsic part of our humanity, or certainly should be.

An honest debate however ends with disrespect and name calling. I am no-ones 'Sonny', I have been in harms way before, although not in the way that Mr. Clayton was. And if I am on a high horse I invite others to join me. The air is better up here than in the mire of 'every man (and child) for himself' with only jungle law.

[pbwalker]

Wildbill rebutted my post with his argument that his responsibility was only to himself if doing otherwise put him in danger.

I'm sorry, but it is no one's responsibility to defend / protect a 3rd party. Not even the police. A CHL does not provide additional levels of responsibility pertaining to the welfare of others. As 03Lightningrocks said, "I think most of us here would intervene if we saw a person being physically attacked. I know I would in some situations and not other situations."

I agree with that. But I do not agree with you saying it is my responsibility.

[03Lightningrocks]

It seems like we are all saying the same thing. We know it is not our responsibility... but in some cases would intervene anyway. In certain situations I might feel it is my "moral obligation" to intervene, while in others I might think only a fool would intervene. These would usually be situations where I believed that my intervening would cause escalation.

[03Lightningrocks]

By the way... I am getting the new IPad today. This makes me cool!

[pbwalker]

By the way... I am getting the new IPad today. This makes me cool!

It does...I sold my iPad last year and haven't been cool since.