All I can say is, I hope Mr. Lawson goes to jail, preferably for a long time. He is the epitome of why minority communities in this country are in such disastrous shape. He is almost as much a part of the problem as those gunmen.
He could, in theory, go to jail for 36 years.
GC- Assuming that his actions were those of a concerned father, why do you see jail-time as a just outcome? If the State can't protect witnesses and they have few options but to spend years looking over their shoulder... Isn't it reasonable to refuse to testify and to advise one's children to do the same?
(P.S. I am as concerned as you about witness intimidation and the No Snitching movement. But, can we really expect other than this reaction where "doing the right thing" results in death?)
GC- Assuming that his actions were those of a concerned father, why do you see jail-time as a just outcome?
Because, as I have seen all too well in the last few years, the criminal justice system grinds to a halt without cooperative witnesses. You literally have no case if you cannot put people on the stand, and when cases do not go forward, more people suffer down the road. It is an inevitability.
More to the point, however, Mr. Lawson and others like him are not simply uncooperative members of the community who are hesitant to go forward -- they are suborning perjury and obstructing the criminal justice system. Any other factors (such as his perceived need to protect his daughter, which could be done in a variety of other ways) are irrelevant. Perjury and the suborning of perjury are unacceptable for any number of reasons, which I will not get into because they should be obvious. (I can't speak for you, G-Veg, but I know that a number of left-leaning contributors here at TPS do not seem to think perjury is a big deal, so they might have a different take on it.)
One last note: while it may sound trite, people like Mr. Lawson and his daughter have an obligation to return a little bit of their good fortune to society. Americans are so ridiculously spoiled when it comes to the state-financed bounty to which they think they are entitled that they seem oblivious to the fact that they might have to return the favor every now and then. The next time Mr. Lawson goes to pick up his welfare check, he should be turned away for not meeting his end of the bargain.
And as for the "personal safety" aspect of this, I would most certain be packing quite frequently if this were to happen.
Hell, ten years from now, I might be doing so regardless if I'm living in Kennesaw. That's the law 
Spoken like a true prosecutor GC. While I don't disagree with the sentiment, I simply don't think the world is as black and white as you would like it. In a perfect world, sure Mr. Lawson and his daughter should be cooperative and testify. Further to the point, you're right to say that they, no one for that matter, should perjure themselves, obstruct justice, or ask others to do the same. That, however, as we all know, is not the world that any of us, most of all Mr. Lawson, lives in.
GV brings us an interesting and honest moral and legal dilemma, which you casually cast aside and disregard under the guise of “he’s committing a crime.” Well maybe, but that doesn’t mean he, and others similarly situated, are not justified in at least thinking the way he apparently has. You’ve assumed that Mr. Lawson is a social degenerate or welfare recipient, when there is no evidence or suggestion that he has in any way failed to live up to his end of the "social contract" to which he and his child have benefited from. GV has brought good evidence to suggest that the perception, if not the reality, is that the government does not or cannot protect all witnesses and, thus, there are real costs to "doing the right thing." It's not that I don't agree with your "doing the right thing is all that matters" mentality, it's just too simplistic for the situation. Before you go there, I know about the successes of witness protection programs and I know that without courageous persons we would still have the mob and much more organized crime, but not everyone is cut out to be an informant, snitch, or witness, and that doesn’t make them a bad person.
I don't know what I would do in the same situation, but I do think that I would give careful and complete consideration to all my options, including not testifying. I'd like to think I would follow through and be cooperative, and I don't think I would actively encourage others not to cooperate, but that's easy to say from my cozy, upper-middle class, suburban position in life. Bottom line, it’s a complicated and interesting problem and not one that I think is solved by putting people like Mr. Lawson in prison for protecting himself and his family. Sure, use the threat of prison as leverage; do what has to be done to get the shooters, but what is gained by punishing Mr. Lawson? Not much, in my opinion.
Mouldy:
You’ve assumed that Mr. Lawson is a social degenerate or welfare recipient, when there is no evidence or suggestion that he has in any way failed to live up to his end of the "social contract" to which he and his child have benefited from. GV has brought good evidence to suggest that the perception, if not the reality, is that the government does not or cannot protect all witnesses and, thus, there are real costs to "doing the right thing."
Just so we are clear, I started using Mr. Lawson as a microcosmic figure, representative of a larger segment of the American population that expects everything under the sun to be given to them without having to give anything in return. For all I know, Mr. Lawson makes a six-figure salary (although he probably would not live in the crappy neighborhood he does if he did make six figures), volunteers for jury duty, and gives blood every month. My guess, however, is that, despite his encouraging of the perjurious testimony of his daughter, he still expects the police and other authorities to protect him, no matter what he says or does (or obstructs).
Should his daughter be tragically killed by the perpetrators of the earlier shooting even if she does not in any way cooperate with the authorities to bring about their capture, who would be most responsible for her death (other than, of course, the killers themselves)? The answer would be that he would be the most responsible, since he was once in a position to do the right thing and remove a threat from the streets.
I know I am being a bit altruistic, and I only hope that I would have the fortitude to practice what I am preaching if I were ever in such a situation, but I also know that our world is not made a better place by people who say, "Lie down or you might get hurt." Such cowardice only guarantees that the world does not improve, and that evil wins the day.
GC- I agree with the sentiment that, when good people do nothing, evil is given free-reign. This is the backbone of my belief in intervention for American foreign policy.
In this context a wholesale rejection of the No Snitching movement is precisely what should happen. If persons living in the neighborhoods where this problem rages would rise up and begin to turn the bastards in, they would be safer.
My question, and there may be no answer to it, is what should an individual do when faced with such injustice?
Ben Franklin warned (something to the effect of) "We should all hang together or we will most assuredly hang separately." The notion fits this situation well.
So, what do we, in the larger society do about it? Not to be cold... but I doubt there would be any action from us if the victims were only the poor. But I am more than sure that, should I get killed on my way to school none of the No Snitching folks will come forward to see that justice is done.
The consequences of this movement are more far-reaching than we are accepting.
website affiliate programs website affiliate programs website affiliate programs // assurity life insurance company assurity life insurance company assurity life insurance company
Commenting by HaloScan
