Neighbor stopped RV theft in progress

CavemanCharlie wrote:


Golly, around here we have one police officer for ever 500-600 people. And, that includes babies and elderly people in the retirement center.

Yeah, my town is kinda the same way. But I live in a small town that try's to act like a big town, so I guess that's typical for the number of police ;-)

The point really is that your chances of getting away with a crime is really good because there are so few officers compared to people. Though a local police force might have, say, 200 members, you have to take into account that a lot of those are off-duty, sitting behind a desk, at court, at training, in the evidence room, working security at some event, or working in some other ancillary role. They're all important, though not always available.

toedtoes wrote:

majorgator wrote:
It's hard to imagine why anyone would condemn ole Bob for choosing to do more. He proudly displayed that he's not a coward and believes in right vs. wrong.

No one's condemning him. Folks are simply pointing out that he didn't need to put him or his daughter at risk at that point. And while he may have been willing to accept the consequences of his action, the owner of the RV, his daughter, and his daughter's mother may not have been willing to accept those consequences.

This is where most people fail - considering what all the other people impacted by their actions want/can handle. It's more than just your personal desire to stop the bad guy - what can your family handle? What can the victim handle?

Who gives a hoot what the victim can handle. A little pain may straighten them out.
Jim

majorgator wrote:
There's apretty neat video I sawa while back that described the useful ratio of police to civilians. The idea was to show that there's like 1 officer for every 2 or 3 thousand people (numbers might be wrong, but you get the idea), and so much crime goes on without consequence due to the disparity. That's why regular people share in the everyday responsibility of keeping our communities safe. We're not running around issuing tickets or making arrests, but if you witness a crime taking place, you have the moral responsibility to intervene TO THE EXTENT OF YOUR WILLINGNESS. Circumstances are different in every case.

There will always be those who wish to stand at a distance and act as a witness, and there will always be those who are willing to go a step or 2 further. That's your decision, and you have to live with the consequences.

It's hard to imagine why anyone would condemn ole Bob for choosing to do more. He proudly displayed that he's not a coward and believes in right vs. wrong.

Golly, around here we have one police officer for ever 500-600 people. And, that includes babies and elderly people in the retirement center.

I'm not condemning Bob for his actions. I applaud him for stopped the theft. In my case after stopping it, getting license plate numbers, and descriptions I would have quit there and not have chased the guy. But, that is me and how I would have acted.

AJBert wrote:
Seems to me reading through all the posts, one has to ask themselves if they are a sheepdog or a sheep? Most folks are content being sheep. No shame in that. A few folks are sheepdogs. No shame there, either.

Problem is, the sheep tend to not like the sheepdog. That is, until they need the sheepdog to protect them. Once any danger is over, the sheep no longer have a use for the sheepdog. Until the next time.

Always love the sheepdog analogy. Our society/culture is trending toward sheep these days.

mgirardo wrote:


I applaud Bob for his bravery, but because the thief was running away and not posing a threat. I believe, as far as the letter of the law goes, Bob's actions were not justifiable.

-Michael

So you're an expert in teeter of the law in that state, in that jurisdiction?

Bob didn't shoot the guy in the back. He didn't exact an amount of force on the criminal to kill him. He pursued him, and used reasonable measures in an attempt to detain him. Nothing more or less than what a police officer would do. And just remember, that in certain circumstances, a civilian has legal right to act in the same manner as a LEO.

Seems to me reading through all the posts, one has to ask themselves if they are a sheepdog or a sheep? Most folks are content being sheep. No shame in that. A few folks are sheepdogs. No shame there, either.

Problem is, the sheep tend to not like the sheepdog. That is, until they need the sheepdog to protect them. Once any danger is over, the sheep no longer have a use for the sheepdog. Until the next time.

majorgator wrote:
It's hard to imagine why anyone would condemn ole Bob for choosing to do more. He proudly displayed that he's not a coward and believes in right vs. wrong.

I applaud Bob for his bravery, but because the thief was running away and not posing a threat. I believe, as far as the letter of the law goes, Bob's actions were not justifiable.

-Michael

majorgator wrote:
It's hard to imagine why anyone would condemn ole Bob for choosing to do more. He proudly displayed that he's not a coward and believes in right vs. wrong.

No one's condemning him. Folks are simply pointing out that he didn't need to put him or his daughter at risk at that point. And while he may have been willing to accept the consequences of his action, the owner of the RV, his daughter, and his daughter's mother may not have been willing to accept those consequences.

This is where most people fail - considering what all the other people impacted by their actions want/can handle. It's more than just your personal desire to stop the bad guy - what can your family handle? What can the victim handle?

There's apretty neat video I sawa while back that described the useful ratio of police to civilians. The idea was to show that there's like 1 officer for every 2 or 3 thousand people (numbers might be wrong, but you get the idea), and so much crime goes on without consequence due to the disparity. That's why regular people share in the everyday responsibility of keeping our communities safe. We're not running around issuing tickets or making arrests, but if you witness a crime taking place, you have the moral responsibility to intervene TO THE EXTENT OF YOUR WILLINGNESS. Circumstances are different in every case.

There will always be those who wish to stand at a distance and act as a witness, and there will always be those who are willing to go a step or 2 further. That's your decision, and you have to live with the consequences.

It's hard to imagine why anyone would condemn ole Bob for choosing to do more. He proudly displayed that he's not a coward and believes in right vs. wrong.

frizzen wrote:

toedtoes wrote:
That's why you get a description, license number, etc., and call the police. That's their job.

And at best a 50 50 chance of anything happening.

Maybe where you are but, around here if you got the license and made a complaint that you saw them trying to commit a crime I guarantee you that they are going to be charged.