Imagine you’re in a crowd of people witness to a burning house/apartment. Everyone’s been informed that the fire department is on the way and a police officer is keeping the crowd calm. Suddenly a resident of the home, who has apparently just snapped out of his or her amnesia, cries out “my child is still in there!” Springing into action a passerby runs into the blazing home. After a few tense moments he emerges from the smoke carrying the child safely in his arms moments before the upper story of the home collapses. He returns the child to its parent and everyone cheers.
You get a look at his face and realize that you’ve seen him before: On the news! This man is wanted for a string of bank robberies in the area. They’ve all been armed robberies but as far as you can recall there haven’t been any shootings yet. You are as sure as you can be. This is the guy. There’s a police officer right there. You could turn him in right now. Let’s also say that you’re confident that he’s not armed right this moment in case you’re worried about an attempted arrest turning into a shootout in the middle of a crowd of people.
What do you do?
This is inspired by a similar OkCupid question that I came across; the original scenario involved a drowning child. I’d forget I ever saw him. The only reason I got a look at his face to begin with was because he’d decided to put his life on the line to rescue someone. That gets a one time pass from me. I sort of figure most people would be the same way but I’m curious how true that is. Poll to follow.
I voted I’d turn him in immediately. A repeat crook is a repeat crook, and there’s no telling that a bank robbery might turn deadly at any time.
That said, the above situation is an unlikely one for me. There’s no way from a fleeting glimpse on a TV news report that I’d ever be dead certain that some stranger is a bank robber. My visual memory is not that good.
My visual memory isn’t that good either, but if for some reason I knew it was the same guy, I’d also turn him in. Anything can go wrong with an armed robbery. Even if the guy doesn’t intend to shoot anyone, what if the gun goes off or a witness gets belligerent and things turn dangerous? Too great a risk to take.
When a baby is trapped in a burning building everyone, except for this guy, just stands around and does nothing. When we see someone that might be a thief, unarmed and considered safe, we are supposed to spring into action? How noble of us.
If you can’t be bothered to do more than stand and gape at a burning building, with babies in it, then you should probably not bother the police when you think you might have seen someone who may have done something wrong that you can’t quite remember what it was.
I don’t really see why that’s so wrong. Most people would be too frightened to go into a burning building–that’s part of why we have firefighters. Besides, by that rationale, you can get away with almost anything if you’re willing to do something good that most people won’t do.
Besides, the OP made it clear that he could remember what the thief had done. He just wasn’t sure if the thief had actually shot anyone. Seems pretty clear that we do know that the thief is a danger.
You haven’t all been standing around letting babies burn. When the parent cries “my baby’s in there!” the passerby’s response is immediate. You can easily imagine that you or one of the other people in the crowd would have rushed to rescue the child had the crook not beaten you to the punch. If the scenario is unrealistic to you by all means replace it with one that makes sense. All that matters is:
1.) Person A puts his life in great danger to save Person B
2.) You recognize that Person A is wanted by the law
3.) What do you do?
I hang my head in shame because while Person A was doing noble deeds I stood around on the look-out for anyone who may have been featured on last night’s “America’s Most Wanted.”
To be fair though, I probably wouldn’t call the police if person A was just walking down the street.
But you don’t know that he isn’t going to endanger someone else in the future. By your rationale, the only people who should be allowed to turn someone in are the “noble” members of society.
Besides, do we really know that this guy is all that noble? Maybe he’s just very risk prone. The same sense of daring that led him to do something as foolhardy as rob a bank may be what encouraged him to dart into the burning building.
I don’t know if any of us is going to endanger people in the future. I can only talk about what I would do and why and I would be ashamed to be that guy who doesn’t run into the burning building but is waiting outside to judge those who do. Plus, maybe society needs people who are willing to take risks and the cost is a certain amount unpleasant foolhardiness.
But you’re not judging him for going into the burning building. You’re judging him for something separate. I think it would be one thing if we decided to notify the police because of his unpaid parking tickets or something. But the guy is a menace to society. Based on his previous actions, we know that he has endangered people and if left unchecked he may continue to. I think it’s a pretty likely that he will and it’s good enough for me. I’d narc him.
As far as we know he hasn’t physically harmed anyone yet. (Though I know first hand that getting robbed can be traumatic.) He is eventually going to get caught.
His actions might be taken into account in a court of law, but what you have here are two unrelated events. On the one hand he has committed a crime that he must answer to, on the other he has done a wonderful, heroic act.
These two events are separate and unrelated to each other.
I’d let him go. I figure if he’s that much out in public, someone else will recognize him and turn him in before long. For now, I’d let him be the hero; he deserves at least that.