Shades of gray

[Greg]

I thought I'd start a "Friday post wh*re thread" with some substance ......

I remember my father saying, "As I've gotten older, I realize the less I know". As I've gotten older, I'm coming to believe that as well. Some things in life that I thought were "etched in stone" I'm finding (at least through my eyes) are not so clear.

Which leads me to this topic involving family / ethics / moral dilemma:  At what point would you drop a dime (throw under the bus, rat out, call the cops) on a family member? For me, that moral line is if their crime involved killing or severely hurting someone.

Here's the break down for me:
1. Premeditated murder.
     A. I'd turn them in.
2. Involuntary manslaughter (the punch someone, that person fell over and hit their head and died.
     A. I would encourage them to turn themselves in, but I don't know that I would do so.
 3. They raped an adult or child.
     A. I'd turn them in.
 4. They embezzled $1,000,000 from their employer and flew to Belize. 
     A. I'd encourage them to return the cash, and I might stop seeing them until they do so, but I don't think I'd turn them in. 
5. They robbed a bank at gun point.
     A. This is a tough one. Was it a real gun? Then I probably would turn them in.  Was it a fake gun? If they promised not to do it again (yea, like I'm going to believe them?) I might not turn them in, but I would probably shun them from my life.

I guess the defining line for me might be ...... was it a crime against property or a crime against persons? But of course, one can make the argument that any crime against society is a crime against "persons" as a whole.
And also, I'd like to stress that just because I wouldn't drop a dime on them, doesn't  mean I'm endorsing their actions. I guess the point of this topic stater is to point out that "moral curve" and where the demarcations lines are different for all of us.

What are your lines that family can't cross?


10% outlaw,
Greg

[Aprilian]

What are your lines that family can't cross?

My front door.

[pkpk]

LOL - Ian.

Greg, pretty deep subject.  Hard to say in theoretical and I think I have similar views as yours.  But I'll one up you and ask you to substitute YOUR KIDS in those scenarios.  Sort of changes the mental dilemma doesn't it?

[Tim...]

Odd subject to say the least... You got some demons in your closet no-doubt. 

No moral dilemma for me!

[Greg]

Odd subject to say the least... You got some demons in your closet no-doubt. 

No moral dilemma for me!

hmm, not sure where you're going with that, Tim. But I do enjoy topics beyond alcohol and sport touring tires.  (not that there's anything wrong with those topics)

So Tim, add to the conversation beyond witty one liners. Expand .."no moral dilemma:" meaning you'd drop a dime on a family member in each of those scenarios?

*edit*
There's no right or wrong answer here, just a "conversation starter" type thread for the middle of January.

[carlson_mn]

Unless it involved some heinous shit I'd probably not turn in a close family member.  For instance if my brother was Jeffrey Dahmer and I knew about his actions I'd turn his ass in, or if he was killing people for their wallets I'd turn him in.

But if there was any history or if I thought the other party had it coming, I'd probably protect a family member, even a good friend.  I'm pretty loyal to those close to me.

[Jvs]

But if there was any history or if I thought the other party had it coming, I'd probably protect a family member, even a good friend.  I'm pretty loyal to those close to me.

But if there was any history or if I thought the other party had it coming, I'd probably protect a family member, even a good friend.  I'm pretty loyal to those close to me.
[/quote]
+1
Snitches get stitches yo.
In all seriousness though, it's really best to keep to yourself unless someone else is put in harms way. Say your brother does something bad and the police come question you about what happened, are you really going to want to ruine the relationship and trust you've built up with him over the years?

Personally speaking I value the trust and loyalty of an individual (as Matt said) and unless they pose an immediate threat to society or themselves, then I know nothing.

I say good day.

[Hope2Ride]

I would be helping them bury the body and destroying the evidence.

[nOOky]

It's important in these instances to always put perspective on the entire situation and see both sides. If your brother accidentally hurts some one but didn't mean to, you just keep mum about it? Nah, I'd think of the other injured party and the stress they are going through and turn his sorry ass in. I don't care if it's a family member or not, they do the crime, they need to do the time. Most of the things you describe above are pretty bad though. I wouldn't hide even an accidental injury to a stranger by a family member, but I wouldn't turn him in for dui or speeding on a motorcycle either.
Of course I have a strong set of morals, I usually try to do the right things, even when no one is looking.

[mngir1]

Interesting topic, Greg.  My perspective is similar to nOOky's. A crime is a crime.  You're not doing anyone any favors by hiding it. Knowledge of the crime makes you an accessory and you could end up criminally charged by not reporting.  Therefore, the person has not only jeopardized their own well-being, they have jeopardized yours as well. Not OK.

To allow unhealthy and criminal behavior is to become an enabler. If you turn a blind eye, the person's behavior will most likely escalate.  Criminally-minded folks are only going to be encouraged by not being caught.  Their thinking becomes grandiose and their crimes get bigger, as does the ever-expanding hole they are digging for themselves. Do you want to help them dig a deeper hole?

As a supervisor, I have learned that if I ignore a problem behavior of an employee, it will most likely get worse over time.  It may even escalate to the point of the employee facing disciplinary action or being fired.  I have come to realize that if  I am not diligent in my own responsibility to correct and confront problem behaviors early on,  I am actually doing those I supervise a disservice. The outcome of my trying to be understanding or overlooking warning signs, could actually be quite costly to  the employee in the long run.  I would argue the same applies here. 

Botom line:  I would have a frank discussion with the person, give them some resources, and suggest they get some help.  I would give them adequate time to call and turn themselves in, letting them know that I would be obligated to report the situation should they fail to do so within the allocated time.  People will typically live up to the bar we set for them.  Why set it so low?

[Greg]

Interesting topic, Greg.  My perspective is similar to nOOky's. A crime is a crime.  You're not doing anyone any favors by hiding it. Knowledge of the crime makes you an accessory and you could end up criminally charged by not reporting.  Therefore, the person has not only jeopardized their own well-being, they have jeopardized yours as well. Not OK.

To allow unhealthy and criminal behavior is to become an enabler. If you turn a blind eye, the person's behavior will most likely escalate.  Criminally-minded folks are only going to be encouraged by not being caught.  Their thinking becomes grandiose and their crimes get bigger, as does the ever-expanding hole they are digging for themselves. Do you want to help them dig a deeper hole?

As a supervisor, I have learned that if I ignore a problem behavior of an employee, it will most likely get worse over time.  It may even escalate to the point of the employee facing disciplinary action or being fired.  I have come to realize that if  I am not diligent in my own responsibility to correct and confront problem behaviors early on,  I am actually doing those I supervise a disservice. The outcome of my trying to be understanding or overlooking warning signs, could actually be quite costly to  the employee in the long run.  I would argue the same applies here. 

Botom line:  I would have a frank discussion with the person, give them some resources, and suggest they get some help.  I would give them adequate time to call and turn themselves in, letting them know that I would be obligated to report the situation should they fail to do so within the allocated time.  People will typically live up to the bar we set for them.  Why set it so low?

Excellent response, Darcy.
I recently finished the book, "1861: The Civil War Awakening" by Adam Goodheart. One of the subjects he discussed in the book was how the Civil War was one of few things in domestic life that could divide families.
I personally have always been interested in where the line is drawn between allegiance to the State and allegiance to family. At what point does one supersede the other? Clearly that line is different depending on the individual.
In the instance of being in a supervisory role with subordinates in a workplace environment, I agree with you that once that "inch" has been given, certain staffers will then stretch it to a "mile".
My curiosity is more with family. A person could have a family member (and for the purposes of this discussion, I'm meaning "peer" family ... adult siblings, adult parents, adult children) that leads an exemplary life, then for whatever reason makes a ridiculously wrong choice. For me, whether or not I turn them in depends on the conditions described above in my OP.

*I miss the days of sitting on the floor discuss meaty subjects with friends   .... of course in those days we might have had a criminal element floating in the air and in our lungs* 

[Mike Duluth]

Live and let live, even when it comes to family. If the activity is hurting you and yours that's one thing, otherwise let your tax dollars do the job and don't get in the way. People change and if your the one that thew them under the bus will YOU be forgiven?