I like what shiftless has had to say, good points. I still think it’s best though for the public at large the robber be apprehended.
I’ve done heroic things and terrible things in my life, same as any other. They don’t cancel out in some karmic balancing act. I haven’t rushed into a burning building or robbed a bank, but the points is still there. He did a good thing. Good for him. Now he gets to answer for what he did wrong. That’s the way the world works.
My problem, though, is that it’s armed robbery, not, say, an assault. If the guy had just beaten up someone once, I’d let it slide. He’s paid his debt. But with a bank robbery, he still has someone else’s property that the judicial system has the power to rectify. And he’s a repeat offender, so the system can stop him from doing it again. That makes me turn him in.
If his crime was 1) one time, and 2) had no chance of restitution, then I’d let the guy go. Otherwise, I’m glad the baby is safe, but there are other people (victims) that need to be made whole again.
It’s not that the noble act should cancel out his crimes, but it doesn’t seem fair to me that this act should be the direct cause of his apprehension. I wouldn’t have noticed him in the first place if he had simply stayed hidden in the crowd. I think he deserves a solid head start.
Not really. Not a serial bank robber, but someone wanted by the law, nonetheless. Here, the horrible irony is that his own grandmother inadvertently “turned him in”. :smack:
"A Portland man hailed by authorities as a good Samaritan after he pulled a drowning boy from Detroit Lake on Saturday almost wishes he hadn’t.
“I didn’t know they would be printing my name as a hero. I just thought I was doing what everyone should do,” said Eric Hemenway, 33. “Now I’m going to go to jail because I saved some kid’s life.” …Hemenway’s legal difficulties started in 2005, when he was arrested on suspicion of driving drunk in Aloha. He was convicted on two counts: failure to perform the duties of a driver and driving under the influence of intoxicants.
He completed a diversion program, but warrants were issued after he failed to fully pay court fees and fines. Recently, the court filed paperwork extending Hemenway’s probation because he hadn’t paid."
I voted to “let him go” in the above scenario. I guess I’m just a moral relativist.
But it wasn’t as though he was being punished for doing a good thing. He’s being punished because of the actually wrong things he’s done. Do we all get a pass on breaking the law as soon as we do something good or heroic? That seems a dangerous precedent.
Yeah, what most likely would happen, is that the bank manager, or the police would pull a gun and start shooting but miss the bandit and shoot one of the customers.
This actually happens now and then. Just a couple of months ago a bank manager in Alabama pulled a gun and shot one of the customers instead of the bandit.
On the other hand, I grew up watching The Fugitive television series in the 1960’s, and I would never!!! turn in David Jansen.
.
Voted “Other”: I’d tell him to stop robbing banks. Following that, I’d try to convince him to do so.
If that’s not an option, I’d let him go.
He stuck a gun in an innocent person’s face and demanded money under threat of death on multiple occasions. Good for him that he also saved a baby, but I can’t let that slide.
I’d let him go. I mean even if he didn’t save the kid I still wouldn’t turn him in, but I might be tempted to blackmail him.
If this were a movie the baby-saver would just walk away, the police would just write off his previous bank robberies with a smile and a chuckle. That’s how it always works, isn’t it? A supervillan can release his zombie plague but once he has a change of heart and saves the Hero from certain destruction everything is forgiven.
In my opinion, turning a serial criminal in is actually doing him a favour - he’d be caught later anyway (almost surely, for serious crimes like armed robbery) and he’d have dug himself a deeper hole by then.
By your bizarre logic, we shouldn’t report the fire either.
And really a bunch of untrained people running into a burning building IRL would just make the situation worse.
Personally, I would report the robber BEFORE he ran into the building.
The robber did a good deed by risking his life to save a child. Now it’s my turn to do a good deed by putting an end to all these fucking bank robberies.
Put another way: if it was cowardly for us not to help the child in the burning building, how cowardly is it for us to help neither the child *nor *the robber’s future victims, simply because it leaves a bad taste in our mouths?
You guys who keep bringing up the fact that we didn’t run in to save the child ourselves are misunderstanding. Just because he’s the one who saved the kid doesn’t mean that we were unwilling to. So there’s no need to continue calling yourselves cowards.
I voted “other” simply because I don’t honestly know how I’d react in the situation. In my heart, I’d want to turn him in but hope for some leniency for him based on saving a life. But it’s hard for me to imagine being so certain about his identity that I’d run to the police to point that out to them before he had a chance to leave. I can easily imagine that I’d be frozen into shock until after the guy had left.
Again, in principle, I’d prefer to see him spend some time behind bars as a deterrent to future robberies, particularly since someone could get hurt down the line.
Meh. For all we know he used the baby in the fire as an excuse to enter the building and riffle through people’s drawers for cash. I’d turn him in.
However, I have a lousy memory for faces. And I don’t stand around watching burning buildings.