I answered “more than one,” because I certainly know more than one person whose goodness and integrity I trust enough that, if they say they were justified in what they did, I’d believe them enough to help them out.
Well, I might help them hide from Sting. But not from Stewart Copeland.
Undocumented immigrants came to mind when I read this.
Familial and political, sure. I’ve “harbored fugitives” before. (Really? Feeding them pizza and giving them a place to crash while they arrange the next stop? Not a problem.) I’ve also slept on church floors myself (God bless politically aware priests) and crashed at private homes where you’d think we were a part of the Underground Railroad. Sometimes, when the truth hurts, “they” try to hurt YOU.
And I’d kill for my kids. Literally.
And after it was all over, when the field was cleared, THEN I’d look at them and ask, “Now, what the fuck did you do to cause this problem?” Lessons are better learned after you’ve survived.
Same here, though that’s not a felony, so I guess my answer is ‘‘no.’’
What I don’t understand is why 74 people (so far) checked “There is more than one person I might help in this situation” while only 20 checked “There is at least one person I might help in this situation.” If the number of persons you’d help is >1, then the number of persons you’d help is also >=1. So at least as many people should check “at least one person” as checked “more than one person,” rather than the other way around.
How about Andy Summers? 
Here is why. There is one person I would help, guaranteed. There are multiple people I would help depending on the severity of the felony. I’d help only one person for murder, for example - my SO. But for lesser crimes that still count as felonies I may help more, depending on the situation.
I answered “No -one” because if it really was justified, it’d be possible to justify it in a court, mate.
Again, like in Quin’s thread, this is predicated on being in my current jurisdiction. If I were in a death penalty jurisdiction, change my answer to “there is no-one I *wouldn’t *help in this situation”. Or if in one where “felony” meant more than “rape, robbery, assault, murder and arson”, I’d have to be more specific to who I’d help or not, because drugs and vandalism don’t count as felonies to me. But all those felonies I listed, you can explain to the cops.
Not necessarily. There are times when I’d say violence is morally justified, but not legally allowed.
But, in my case, whether it was justified even morally wouldn’t matter for a very small group of people. My allegiance to my wife is higher than my allegiance to the United States.
In my younger days, I would have said unquestioningly “yes,” for most of my friends and close family. These days, because I have a family to protect, I wouldn’t do it for anyone except maybe my closest friend, or my brother.
I have and would again.
How many times must I tell you people not to admit to crimes on the internet?
Wait. . .we’re on the internet?
ETA: dude, statute of limitations.
I suppose I have a different view of what ‘helping them’ means. Evading responsibility and consequences don’t count as helping.
See, the people I know who have sufficient integrity and moral rectitude that I would believe them when they said the crime was morally justified are also strong enough to understand that running away is not a sign of integrity. They are mature enough to ask themselves, “If I break the law, I pay a price. Is what I need to do worth that price?” I would be proud of a child of mine who felt it necessary to kill someone and then immediately turned themselves in, and I would feel I had failed them if they thought it better to run.
That said…I don’t know for sure what I would actually do if the situation ever arose. I feel pretty strongly about this, but there are no absolutes and there are always extenuating circumstances. If they truly felt that running was the best course of action to take, they would still need to convince me, but they would probably be able to do so.
ETA: Now, if they didn’t wish to explain what was going on, and they just needed a place to stay, then I absolutely would help them, no questions asked. I would do a whole hell of a lot for them, in fact. I’m not going to force my principles on someone, but if they tell me what’s going on then they’re bringing my principles into play.
The poll options weren’t particularly well-worded. I picked the one that seemed closest to the answer I’d give rather than checking all boxes that a literal interpretation would require to be logically consistent.
Very Hollywood scenarios…
Actually, if you want to get technical…you could commit multiple felonies back in the day by going over to your girlfriend’s house when her parents weren’t home to have non-reproductive sex. If you were 18 and she was 17.5, that was stat rape. Entering her house to engage in stat rape was burglary, and various non-reproductive sex acts were still on the books as felonies. So the OP posits something I am familiar with, as my friends often did this when I was growing up.
What if he raped a child molester?
Now that’s a new angle.
I think you know what I think about violence being morally justified i.e. never.
But for you, when might that be? I mean, self-defence is legally allowed. Are you making a moral allowance for any sort of post-heat-of-the-moment revenge? I’d love to hear a moral justification.
Or were you thinking armed resistance against oppressors? The OP didn’t smack of that to me, and anyway, I can’t be having with that…
Is it higher than your own moral code, though? I mean, you’ve already mentioned rape as a pale for you(but not murder? Curious distinction) - anything else?