The sentencing of Theodore Wafer for shooting to
death a young woman banging on his door for help early one morning in November
2013, by Judge Dana Hathaway, who sobbed herself when reading the penalty of a
minimum 17 years before parole, raises many troubling questions. The detailed
news story on Reuters by Aaron Foley is here. A story by Elisha Anderson in the
Detroit Free Press describes Wafer’s apology here. Legal questions come up immediately. Can the same death lead to a simultaneous
conviction for manslaughter and second degree murder? That sounds like double jeopardy to me.
I realize that there are some questions about the
legality of Wafer’s weapons possession and use and momentary intent. There’s also a good question why it was so
hard to find his cell phone and call 911. Maybe he just did forget that night.
There’s also the issue that the victim had been
drinking. Okay, there’s the “perfect
victim” mentality, that turns into the idea of “casualties but no victims”. Had she not been drinking, this wouldn’t have
happened. But that’s not enough.
This does lead me more to the areas of
self-preservation and “personal responsibility”. I usually keep a cell phone, reasonably
charged, near the bedside, especially when on the road. OK, I’ve probably forgotten a few times. An attacker would have to go to very
elaborate plans not to have police called first (although I can imagine some
“Tom Clancy” ways it could happen, with national security implications). Home security systems can be zone-alarmed,
too. When driving, and out public, I pay
more attention to security than I used to.
There have been three times that I have been approached with possible
hostility in parking lots. I’ve driven
away or retreated every time (and then called police) and nothing has
happened. (This happened with Mark
Zuckerberg right after he move to California to start Facebook, according to
his own account, and he simply drove away.)
I may have been lucky. Mark may
have been lucky. I do understand the
“Second Amendment” position.
The bigger question comes from her banging on a
neighborhood door for help. One would
think he could have discerned that through the door – but he might have thought
it was a ruse, a woman acting out with an accomplice behind. Unwanted visitors can present a big and
sudden home security risk – something very inconvenient today for door-door
salesmen (like what Comcast is trying to hire).
It seems as though the judicial outcome, at least in
Michigan, in Detroit, is predicated on some kind of duty to help and play good
Samaritan, and to expose oneself to risk, at least in some cases. It brings back old-fashioned ideas of what we
used to call cowardice, back in the days when we had a male-only military
draft.
If society, and the legal system, can compel
altruistic behavior from its citizens, that can have a profound impact on how
we see almost all issues, even down to the meaning of marriage.
I can see, in terms of social stability and
sustainability, why it might be necessary to look at some things this way,
sometimes. But then where do you draw
the line? This kind of thinking comes up
in contemplating scenarios where one’s way of life is suddenly taken away by
force, or where that is threatened, possibly just at the individual level, or
at a whole nation or world.
How I process this kind of ukase becomes quite
interesting, and leads into areas of moral paradox that are quite
troubling. Examination of this would
make a good video. What do I use my freedom for? What is the ultimate impact on others upon
whose sacrifice I may have unwittingly depended? This does lead me to examine my unwillingness
to experience “complementarity” in intimate relationships, and what others make
of that.
No comments:
Post a Comment