Would you "rat out" a relative?

[JoeWilliams]

For a gun crime, I wouldn't even think twice. Screw them, and the horse they rode in on. I'd just be glad that their victims didn't get physically injured, and neither did my loved one.

Shoplift a stick of gum? No... but I wouldn't go to the store with them either!

Crimes in between I'll just let my reaction be a mystery for now.

[JayBell]

"rat out" is a bullshit term...as bad as the "stop snitchin" bullshit the criminal inner city assholes try to use to intimidate witnesses.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing"

so yeah, I'd turn the criminal POS in, family or not.

[pirateron]

So easy to ride a moral high horse in hypothetical situations. Truth is, unless we are faced with any given situation, we don't know how we would react. We may like to think, or believe that we would act in accordance with our moral standards, but when actually faced with any dilemma, sometimes our standards change. Some on here would say they would turn in their dearly beloved wife for jaywalking, a crime is a crime, afterall. I say bullshit. While I am not close to any family member, and the odds of any of them commiting such a crime are miniscule at best, for me to turn them in, the crime would have to be severe. But, to reiterate, there is no way for me to know for sure since I have not been in that kind of situation.

[JayBell]

having had some discussions with a lawyer friend, he enlightened me to some latin terms use in te legal profession, and in the courts.

theres 2 types of "crimes"....

"Malum Prohibitum" and "Mal in se".

Malum prohibitum means "wrong because its prohibited "(loosely translated) and would cover things that the powers that be have made illegal simply by saying so, like:
jaywalking
speeding
most civil codes
etc.

Malum in se means "bad in of itself" (again, loosely translated) and this covers things like:
theft
assault
rape
murder

am I going to turn someone for "malum prohibitum"? no

would I turn a family member in for "malum in se"? yes, indeed.

I don't need to "find out when it happens"...either you have some moral and ethical standards, or you dont. I do, and can state that i KNOW what I would do.

some things cannot be countenanced, family member or not. malum in se crimes cannot.

[Emptymag]

Yes, I'd pick up the phone.

Honestly, I don't know who I'd call first... the relative, or the police, but either way I'm making a call and the relative will be none too happy with the results.

[pirateron]

having had some discussions with a lawyer friend, he enlightened me to some latin terms use in te legal profession, and in the courts.

theres 2 types of "crimes"....

"Malum Prohibitum" and "Mal in se".

Malum prohibitum means "wrong because its prohibited "(loosely translated) and would cover things that the powers that be have made illegal simply by saying so, like:
jaywalking
speeding
most civil codes
etc.

Malum in se means "bad in of itself" (again, loosely translated) and this covers things like:
theft
assault
rape
murder

am I going to turn someone for "malum prohibitum"? no

would I turn a family member in for "malum in se"? yes, indeed.

I don't need to "find out when it happens"...either you have some moral and ethical standards, or you dont. I do, and can state that i KNOW what I would do.

some things cannot be countenanced, family member or not. malum in se crimes cannot.

Problem here is, the courts view crimes as crimes, So your "moral and ethical standards" are skewed somewhat if YOU decide what crime justifies the call or not. If you truely had high moral standards, then if you were in a car with a friend who was exceeding the speed limit, you would call 911 from your cell and turn him in. As you say, "either you have some moral and ethical standards, or you dont."

If you "make the call" based on some fuzzy security photograph, and for the sake of arguement, it ISN'T your relative, then you make said relative face all kinds of problems, lawyer fees, court appearances, possible loss of job, etc., because of your "moral and ethical standards." If there is incontrovertible evidence incriminating a relative, then yes, it is your civic duty to turn them in. If it is heresay or circumstantial, make the police do their job in gathering the evidence, making a rock solid case and turning into a situation where you are bound by humanity to turn them in. If Jon Doe says my cousin robbed him, I'm not calling the po-po to tell them where he is. If a grainy picture on TV "looks like" my brother robbing a bank, I'm not calling the po-po. But, IF the police come to my house with proof that a relative commited "malum in se", then I will not be a part of harboring a fugitive and I will turn them in. Assumptions made by myself or law enforcement can be more damaging to the innocent than a perceived crime. Innocent until proven guilty is something I believe in, so if there is a "possibilty" of innocence, then the accused is innocent. I will not be a part of ruining a relatives life to "prove" that I "have some moral and ethical standards."

[JayBell]

Piratreron, i dont' know if yer being deliberatley obtuse here, or are just ignoring the meaning of what i posted, but you definitely are departing from the course of argument by dropping a lot of qualifiers on the argument.

some things are actual crimes, some things are made an offense, or illegal just becasue they say so.

depending on the location, building a shed on your land without a building permit is illegal. its not illegal becasue its bad, merely illegal because they said so.
Am I going to turn in a relative for that? no, thats just silly, and serves no use to society as no actual "crime" was committed.

we break many many malum prohibitum laws every day, just going about our lives, both intentionally and unintentionally.

Speeding/jaywalking/no permit building/illegal uturns, etc doesn't mean you have no morals or ethics. Thieving/raping/murdering definitely means you have no morals or ethics.

now, you've decided to put all sorts of retrictions and qualifiers on the arguments about what your relative may or may not have done, like "grainy footage" and fuzzy pics, uncertain ID...and blah blah blah.

I'm speaking in absolutes here about what you know, not based on footage, or reports, or whatever you've decided to throw on top to muddle the issue.

do you KNOW without a doubt that your relative stole/raped/murdered/malum in se ?

I'm talking the same, if i knew, without a doubt that my relative did a crime as such, I'd approach law enforcement authorities about the issue.

my interaction with LE regarding what I know a relative has done does not "ruin thier life"...they already did that themselves, my interaction hopefully provides for justice.

simple enough, without adding all the qualifiers on the argument.

thats what I'm getting at here, and for me, topic over.

[Eugene V. Debs]

Absolutely fucking not. That would be a major violation of my personal moral code.

[pirateron]

his mother identified him from surveillance photos released to the public.[/B]

Trooper James L. Garlick and Uniontown police Detective Donald M. Gmitter said Alborg's mother, Roberta Alborg, was able to identify her son as the suspect in the Dec. 31 robbery of Parkvale Bank in Uniontown and as the suspect in the robbery Tuesday at the First National Bank in North Union Township.

Gmitter said that during his investigation of the robbery, police officers released a surveillance image of James Alborg to the local media.

The following day, Gmitter said Alborg's mother positively identified her son as the suspect in the photo.

Gmitter and Garlick said that Roberta Alborg told investigators that her son had recently purchased a handgun and had shown it to her and said that she had seen him "with large amounts of money."

Gmitter said James Alborg allegedly told his mother he had won the money playing the lottery.

Alborg was placed in the Fayette County Prison on $100,000 straight cash bond following his arraignment.

Preliminary hearings for the North Union Township and Uniontown bank robberies will be held at a later date before Dennis and the on-call Uniontown magisterial district judge.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Piratreron, i dont' know if yer being deliberatley obtuse here, or are just ignoring the meaning of what i posted, but you definitely are departing from the course of argument by dropping a lot of qualifiers on the argument.


now, you've decided to put all sorts of retrictions and qualifiers on the arguments about what your relative may or may not have done, like "grainy footage" and fuzzy pics, uncertain ID...and blah blah blah.

I'm speaking in absolutes here about what you know, not based on footage, or reports, or whatever you've decided to throw on top to muddle the issue.

do you KNOW without a doubt that your relative stole/raped/murdered/malum in se ?

I'm talking the same, if i knew, without a doubt that my relative did a crime as such, I'd approach law enforcement authorities about the issue.

my interaction with LE regarding what I know a relative has done does not "ruin thier life"...they already did that themselves, my interaction hopefully provides for justice.

simple enough, without adding all the qualifiers on the argument.

thats what I'm getting at here, and for me, topic over.

Sorry, I was responding to the OP where it states she identified him by surveillance photos, which generally speaking tend to be grainy. I was also referring to the OP in which the Mother had NO PROOF that her son did the crime, as he never admitted it to her. It was an assumption on her part, judging by photographs she saw on TV.

I do take exception to these photographs, as I have a friend that looks like my twin. So much so, that my DAD, who's known me all my life, walked up to my friend and started talking to him as if it were me. So IF he commits a crime, and my Dad sees it on TV, and he calls the po-po on ME, then I, being innocent am arrested and the burden of proving my innocence rests with me.

My responses were towards the OP, Jay, I didn't realize that you had added the "qualifiers" on the arguement by inserting your "absolutes" to the OP by saying there was "no doubt" as to the guilt of the relative. To answer YOUR interpretation (which I did in a previous post) If I KNEW the relative raped someone, after I beat his ass, then I'd call the police, If I KNEW the relative murdered someone I would call the police.

So sorry for misrepresenting my answers to your opinion of the arguement and seeming "obtuse."

[imperialism2024]

Yup.

Only for violent crimes, though. Once a person has committed an aggravated assault/robbery/rape/murder, I can no longer trust that person to not make me a crime victim. Sure, the relative may have robbed a bank last week and taken someone else's money... but when they run out of money, what are the chances that said relative will come to my house, shoot me, and take my stuff? Pretty good, I'd say.

No, I wouldn't turn in a relative for malum prohibitum victimless "crimes". But that's because I wouldn't turn anyone in for those, especially seeing that I'm guilty of committing them from time to time...