Note: The Payson Roundup does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
Some kids went to the high school the other night with the intention of gluing pennies to the sidewalk as their senior prank.
While they were there, other kids decided to let down the tires of the school buses.
As of this writing, all of the kids are being treated as though they participated in the more destructive act--the letting down of school bus tires.
Is this just? Is it ever just to punish an individual for the act of another individual if he or she did not participate in the act?
My answer is overwhelmingly NO!
And yet it happens every day, and is apparently happening at our own high school right now.
What did the girls who were gluing pennies to the sidewalk have to do with the kids who were letting down tires?
Nothing.
Did they help in any way?
No.
Did they in any way participate?
No.
In fact, they may not even have known that it was happening. So of what are they guilty?
Nothing.
And now let's expand the argument to a more serious event.
Let's suppose that you pick up a couple of acquaintances in your car, drive them to a--say--convenience store, and wait in the car while they go in to "get something."
Ten minutes later they come out with a load of stuff and tell you to "take off."
When you ask what's going on, they laugh and tell you they just robbed the place?
Are you guilty of anything?
Hell no, you're not!
But if the cops catch up with the other two individuals, you are in a world of trouble, even if the other two people swear that you were not involved.
Take it up a notch.
Same events, except that one of the robbers kills a clerk.
Now you are going to be charged with murder.
Guilt by association.
Is there any time, any time at all, when it is just?
Tom, With text messaging and meeting at Green Valley Park to go do thier little prank, you damn right they are guilty by association! I didn't read where any of them were taken to the school at gun point. Please read the posts under education and schools.
How do you feel about the poor guy sitting in his car at a convenience store?
That's what this string was really supposed to be about. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned the school thing. It just confuses the issue, which is far more serious.
If I was on the jury you would be innocent until you drove off with your acquaintances. Then I would consider you an accessory after the fact unless of course you drove them to the police station!
the person in the car that was driving should have got out when you asked what was going on and they said what they did, if you drive off with them you are with them, so pay up
You are exactly correct about the accessory after the fact thing, but as regards "driving them away," it would be extremely dangerous to refuse to drive them off. You might very well be in danger of losing your life, so the wise--and legal--thing to do is to drive off, get rid of them as soon as possible, and then contact the police.
Don't you agree?
I think the problem comes in when someone is in that position and doesn't tell the police what he knows.
Personally, I would also ask for some kind of guarantee from the police that they withhold my name as long as possible.
It's a tough situation all around. Some poor innocent guy, who in one case that I've read about was picked by the thugs because he looked like a patsy, was shot by "home boys" when he called the cops. I hate to think of what might have happened if he had refused to drive off.
You said in the scenario they were acquaintances. Being acquainted with the pair you would have a good idea as to their motives. So if they wanted to go to a convenience store and was checking their gun on the way to the door I don't think I would wait for them to come out! Don't you agree :)
By the way, if I forget to put it on the Lighten-Up string, remind me to tell you the true story that the Illinois state trooper who told the story about the poor guy who fell out of a trailer in front of a nuthouse told us all about the Route 66 Cafe and the California home-boys riding their bikes cross country.
Post a comment
(Requires Payson.com registration. You will then need to request that your user details be verified.)
Note: The Payson Roundup does not necessarily agree with comments posted below - responsibility lies with the relevant user alone. Read our full policy.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on May 14, 2008 at 2:19 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Some kids went to the high school the other night with the intention of gluing pennies to the sidewalk as their senior prank.
While they were there, other kids decided to let down the tires of the school buses.
As of this writing, all of the kids are being treated as though they participated in the more destructive act--the letting down of school bus tires.
Is this just? Is it ever just to punish an individual for the act of another individual if he or she did not participate in the act?
My answer is overwhelmingly NO!
And yet it happens every day, and is apparently happening at our own high school right now.
What did the girls who were gluing pennies to the sidewalk have to do with the kids who were letting down tires?
Nothing.
Did they help in any way?
No.
Did they in any way participate?
No.
In fact, they may not even have known that it was happening. So of what are they guilty?
Nothing.
And now let's expand the argument to a more serious event.
Let's suppose that you pick up a couple of acquaintances in your car, drive them to a--say--convenience store, and wait in the car while they go in to "get something."
Ten minutes later they come out with a load of stuff and tell you to "take off."
When you ask what's going on, they laugh and tell you they just robbed the place?
Are you guilty of anything?
Hell no, you're not!
But if the cops catch up with the other two individuals, you are in a world of trouble, even if the other two people swear that you were not involved.
Take it up a notch.
Same events, except that one of the robbers kills a clerk.
Now you are going to be charged with murder.
Guilt by association.
Is there any time, any time at all, when it is just?
Posted by hot1 (marylou HAUGHT) on May 14, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I do not agree with you all this is, This is a cop out for kids now days
they did it pay for it
steve
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on May 14, 2008 at 7:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Tom,
With text messaging and meeting at Green Valley Park to go do thier little prank, you damn right they are guilty by association!
I didn't read where any of them were taken to the school at gun point.
Please read the posts under education and schools.
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on May 15, 2008 at 2:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Folks,
How do you feel about the poor guy sitting in his car at a convenience store?
That's what this string was really supposed to be about. I guess I shouldn't have mentioned the school thing. It just confuses the issue, which is far more serious.
Posted by Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) on May 15, 2008 at 3 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If I was on the jury you would be innocent until you drove off with your acquaintances. Then I would consider you an accessory after the fact unless of course you drove them to the police station!
Posted by hot1 (marylou HAUGHT) on May 16, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
the person in the car that was driving should have got out when you asked what was going on and they said what they did, if you drive off with them you are with them, so pay up
steve
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on May 16, 2008 at 1:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Shovelhead,
You are exactly correct about the accessory after the fact thing, but as regards "driving them away," it would be extremely dangerous to refuse to drive them off. You might very well be in danger of losing your life, so the wise--and legal--thing to do is to drive off, get rid of them as soon as possible, and then contact the police.
Don't you agree?
I think the problem comes in when someone is in that position and doesn't tell the police what he knows.
Personally, I would also ask for some kind of guarantee from the police that they withhold my name as long as possible.
It's a tough situation all around. Some poor innocent guy, who in one case that I've read about was picked by the thugs because he looked like a patsy, was shot by "home boys" when he called the cops. I hate to think of what might have happened if he had refused to drive off.
Posted by patrandall (pat Randall) on May 16, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
He was shot anyway.
Posted by Shovelhead (Mike McLaughlin) on May 16, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
You said in the scenario they were acquaintances. Being acquainted with the pair you would have a good idea as to their motives. So if they wanted to go to a convenience store and was checking their gun on the way to the door I don't think I would wait for them to come out!
Don't you agree :)
Posted by Tom_Garrett (Tom Garrett) on May 17, 2008 at 11:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)
If that was the way it went down, I agree.
Boy do I agree!
:-)
By the way, if I forget to put it on the Lighten-Up string, remind me to tell you the true story that the Illinois state trooper who told the story about the poor guy who fell out of a trailer in front of a nuthouse told us all about the Route 66 Cafe and the California home-boys riding their bikes cross country.
Post a comment
(Requires Payson.com registration. You will then need to request that your user details be verified.)