Two things would seem to indicate that my point was not taken, those being: (1) the wild extrapolation in your first paragraph, and (2) the fact that your link doesn’t present a “gift of public funds” issue at all and therefore has nothing to do with the reason the officials said “no” in this case. But I’m willing to take your word for it.
I guess it’s how you read it, because I saw people expressing some warm fuzzies about the reaction of others to the perceived bureaucratic denial of the prisoner’s request, which resulted in some homeless people getting fed (temporarily).
I didn’t see your post earlier, Martin Hyde. I certainly don’t advocate that regular citizens should only follow the laws they like, and I haven’t indicated that I feel that way in this thread. But if I must clearly state my position for the record: I agree that most laws should be followed, but there are occasions when minor rules can and should be bent for the greater good so long as no one is harmed.
For example: an alligator has just eaten a woman and is tracked into the Okefenokee swamp, and killed by a concerned citizen. Signs clearly state “No hunting and no trespassing.” Should the concerned citizen then be charged with trespassing and poaching?
Another: a toddler has wandered onto the grounds of a government building near a busy street. Concerned citizen’s quickest route is to cross in the middle of the block. Prosecute for jaywalking?
Another: Sign at the quarry states “No swimming” Jump in and save a drowning man or walk away for fear of being charged with a crime?
I pay taxes, and in Tennessee. As far as I know I have never committed a crime more heinous than speeding. I would have been fine with the decision to transfer a dying man’s pizza to a homeless man. I would have been fine if the pizza had been bequeathed to the homeless in Workman’s will, and carried out by his lawyer. I would also save the drowing man, the toddler, and kill the alligator and risk prosecution. I’m a real menace to society.
No, everyone is going “Aww” because people with no obvious attachment to the man or the case followed through on his wish for the homeless to have pizza.
As someone else mentioned, it doesn’t matter what the inmate’s intent was, to genuinely make a nice gesture or come up with an unreasonable request just to be a pain-in-the-ass one last time, because in the end it wasn’t about the inmate or what he had done. It was ultimately just about other people doing something nice for their fellow humans.
Sure pizza for the homeless isn’t going to do any long term good for them, and a man killed a fellow human and was put to death for it but why does it have to be about any of that?
No dog in this, but you seem to have trouble with the definitions of hunting, jaywalking and swimming.
*I * got it.
Well, one thing’s for sure, a law that “you’re gonna die anyway, no sense feeding you for the last couple of days” wouldn’t go over too well. They gotta feed that prisoner something, even if it is a waste.
What he should’ve said is, “I’ll have for my last meal what my victim had.”
And “here’s a free pizza, there’s only a couple slices missing because a dead guy was eating it” wouldn’t be too popular either at the homeless shelter. They get the short end of the stick often enough when people donate stuff they don’t need, like canned beets or pumpkin pie filler.
You have it backwards. *I * understand completely the definition of hunting, jaywalking, and swimming, and I also understand the nuances and subtleties that allow a concerned citizen to intervene without being charged with a crime. Which is exactly why *I * would have been okay with the pizza for the homeless request.
But in the black or white world espoused by the law defending citizens of this thread, concerned citizens who break a law during the process of helping another should be charged.
Yes he should.
The alligator one is such a bad example it should not even be in there. He’s just a “concerned citizen” not a licensed alligator trapper so he has no business going into a swamp after a nuisance gator. How does he know he is killing the right gator? He could be killing a gator that’s never left the swamp or harmed a human. How many gators does he get to kill to be sure he had the right one? What if some other animals end up collateral damage? What if some other people in the swamp or one of his helpers get’s injured or killed by him because he doesn’t know what he’s doing? What if the “concerned citizen” himself gets injured/killed?
Since the gator was “tracked” to the swamp it seems he was somewhere out of his normal habitat when he killed the woman. So if the gator has gone into the swamp he’s not an immediate danger to anyone like the other two examples. If he needs to be tracked down and killed it is best left to professionals who know what they are doing and not some good old boy with an airboat, rifle and a case of beer.
Sorry about the hijack.
I realize this is just going to be another person slamming her head into a brick wall, given that there’s been no evidence of comprehension of Jodi’s very clear and articulate points, but: there is a difference between what a “concerned citizen” may do and what the government may do. The government has to follow the law, and so the government could not do what the prisoner asked them to do because it would violate the law (i.e., be a gift of public funds). The prison officials are, for all intents and purposes, the government. That you would exempt the government from following some but not all laws is an interesting argument, and given what’s currently going on in the Bush Administration, quite timely, particularly the part of your argument that permits you to be the sole arbiter of what is or is not permissible. It is also, however, irrelevant.
And here’s a counterpoint: I for one am glad that the prison didn’t send pizza to the homeless. Budgets are tight, and if they could have saved a few dollars here and a few dollars there, that could make a difference overall in the prison’s ability to function within their budget and, writ large, could ultimately keep taxes down, which could permit more people to do things like donate to charities for the homeless, which could then expand their programs to help more people get off the streets. Give a man a pizza and he eats for a day, but …
By the way, Jodi, it seems like every time I go into a thread to post something, you’ve said it first and better. I think you’re who I want to be when I grow up. 
Agreed. After all, if we’re intending to exempt “good intentions” in law-breaking, how about this:
For example: an alligator has just eaten a woman and is tracked into the Okefenokee swamp. Signs clearly state “No hunting and no trespassing.” Despite this, a hundred concerned citizens show up, trample throughout the swamp, shoot every gator in sight, get into brawls, and litter everywhere. There is one accidental death when a citizen in camouflage is mistaken for a gator, and there are two incidental murders as concerned citizens argue over which one of them gets the credit for killing a particular gator. Four citizens never return and are lost in the swamp (presumably eaten by other gators). One of the concerned citizens drives a pickup truck that is leaking oil, which pollutes the wetlands. Another drove his sedan to the swamp, driving drunk on a suspended license, doing 105 mph along the freeway, and caused two accidents en route. Another concerned citizen arrives late and starts shooting wildcats in the swamp, on the grounds that he came out all this way and everybody knows wildcats are dangerous. One of the concerned citizens was carrying a concealed weapon without a permit; another stole a rifle from a gun shop because he claimed that killing the alligator and saving lives had precedence over petty laws about ownership.
Most of them had good intentions: protect the public. At what point do you draw the line, where killing the alligator for the greater good is outweighed by the lawlessness committed to achieve that good?
I’m restating some of Wile E’s very good points here, for emphasis. The amount of chaos people can create in trying to enforce law is a kind of social entropy.
Personally, I agree with you. Hypothethically, the Bubba who is arrested after killing the gator will probably have his charges dropped anyway after granny’s surviving family publically decry his arrest.
Not beating your head against a wall at all- I agreed with **Jodi ** that in this case justice was served. But had the prison authorities chosen to honor the last request, I would have shrugged it off. I sit in family court (social work) two days per week watching judges both dropping and enforcing charges on a case by case basis, and wouldn’t/couldn’t expect that each individual be treated exactly the same. The human condition is not black and white.
That does not mean that I don’t still feel that the public’s outpouring of charity was a good thing, and despite the well-written opposition to my opinion, I still do not feel that honoring Workman’s request to hand the pizza to a homeless person would result in a anarchist free-for-all.