« when a girl walks in with an itty bitty waist and a round thing in your face you get sprung | Main | Don't look too scared... »
Honour, by whose definition?
by chuck woolery at 06:13 PM on February 14, 2005
In honour of my pledge to Anna (and the site at large I suppose) I decided to compose a post for today. Then I couldn’t think of anything to write. I suppose that could partially explain why I haven’t posted more here in the time that I have been an author… Anyway.
I then hit on a unlikely source of inspiration, my job. Of course a few of my posts have been about my work, but this is a little different. I found inspiration in the police statement of a fellow who is accused of 1st degree murder (that’s the most serious class of Murder in Canada, planned and deliberate, cold calculated etc.)
The fellow is accused of luring a fellow criminal to a mutual acquaintance’s apartment, and then shooting him and the friend he brought with him. He believes that the victim had broke into and cleaned out his house. So he set it up, lied in wait, and then plugged him, dropping the pistol off a couple blocks away (scenario intentionally vague for obvious reasons).
During his interrogation by the police, a couple of interesting things came out.
First, he doesn’t feel bad that the guy is dead. They hurt a lot of people, therefore I don’t feel sorry.
Second, he doesn’t feel bad that he plugged the guy in front of a young child, therefore almost certainly messing the kid up for life.
Third, he would feel bad giving the police the location of the gun because it might get the person whose property he dumped if off at in trouble.
Fourth he doesn’t want to “rat” out anyone else that might be involved, and would risk going to jail for life, no chance of parole for 25 years. (of course that’s probably just a lie… I don’t think anyone else is involved, these guys invent accomplices when they don’t want to admit they did something personally)
All in all, this fellow seems to have the criminal mindset about honour (Canadian spelling , not misspelt). It’s ok to hurt people (and kill), as long as the people are bad and did something to you to deserve it, You don’t think about the consequences to 3rd parties (ie innocent children) and whatever else happens, you don’t get people in trouble with the police if you can help it. In light of the last one he also said he’d rather be dead than be a rat.
All of this also reminded me of conversation's I've had with one of my oldest and best friends. He used to joke that if I killed someone that he wouldn't tell anyone, once I became I lawyer he gave me a dollar as a retainer so that if he ever killed anyone I couldn't tell on him (solicitor client privilege and all). All in all just joking around, he's not really the type to kill anyone anyways (although he has stalked some girl's that he's dated, after they dumped him.)
What would it take for the general BS population? Who in you life would you not turn in for killing someone? Who would you? Would it make a difference why they killed the person, or who (or what type) the person was?
Food for thought...
comments (16)
What I think is interesting is the recent disintigration of the ancient Sicilian Mafia's tradition of Omerta, the code of silence that allowed them to operate for generations. Now Mafiosos rat each other out all the time. A sign o' the times, I suppose.
Myself I'd rat anyone out to save my own skin. But I'm Swedish, not Sicilian.
by Anna at February 14, 2005 7:35 PM
S'the kind of thing where you'd want to know who, and why. Not because that information is important to you, but because you'd be curious as hell. If my best friend confessed to murdering someone, to me, I'd probably ask how he did it, why he did it, and who he did it to.
Let's say... How: With a big ass stick he found nearby. Why: For pissing me off. Who: That bird from Zack's.
"Which bird fromZack's?"
"The one with the blonde hair, drives the Tigra, always goes on about that Jeff bloke who owns the joint."
"Ooh shit, her! Good. I won't say shit mate!"
Nah, if anyone I knew had killed someone it would probably have been an accident. But if it was planned, guh, I'd cover my ears and kick em out the door.
"You haven't seen me since you've done it, you haven't told me, we had an argument about Brussel Sprouts and we fell out. We're no longer friends! Trust me, I won't say shit, but fuck, don't come near me again."
Then I'd get paranoid that he was going to try and kill me next and call the police. If it was a female friend... Same scenario. If anyone told me I'd grass, because I'd have a sneaky feeling the police would get whoever it was eventually and they'd say that they told me, and then I'd have the police coming round to mine asking me why I didn't say anything, and police make me nervous so my usually good lying face would twitch and give me away. I remember my first flat, the police came around to enquire about a car being stolen in the street, and I was papping myself. I'm the type of person who looks guilty when somebody, like a work colleague, announces something of theirs has gone missing. So yeah, I'd end up going to prison for remaining schtum.
I wouldn't tell a soul if I murdered somebody though, heightens the chances of getting caught, I think the only way to come close to getting away with murder would be to kill somebody completely random, with no motive at all, in a random place, at a random time...
*shudder* Weird question. Why do I babble? I should have just said: "I'm with Anna. They'd be going down, thanks to me."
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at February 14, 2005 8:04 PM
After thought. If it was any of brothers... They'd be safe telling me.
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at February 14, 2005 8:19 PM
I know that there are a lot of people that have posted on this site that say they would kill Osama, or Bush from the other side. Both have committed atrocities and so it seems justifiable. Many troops have killed more people than they probably know. As a police officer, Chuck may have killed somebody, but if the uniform is off it would be wrong. It seems to me our society puts a lot of context into death. Who really has the right to argue somebody deserves death at one time... and then spare them at another. It baffles me that it is okay to play god only at certain times. We still see the death penalty invoked often enough. Why does that judge get to kill people and I'm a murderer when I do it. There is no right and no wrong, but many shades of gray. I gott say i side with Chris Rock on this one... make bullets $5000 each and then you know that the other dude had it coming.
by dominathan at February 14, 2005 11:34 PM
I wouldn't rat my family and most friends.
by lockheed at February 15, 2005 4:01 AM
He's not a cop he's a prosecutor. Though on TV it seems like pretty much the same thing. Which reminds me, I have a friend who's a homicide detective. He laughs about CSI, cuz they'd never let the lowly evidence techs do all that investigating.
by Anna at February 15, 2005 7:25 AM
I think this is one of those things where it'd depend on the situation. I can't now imagine a situation where someone would tell me they'd killed someone and I wouldn't be so freaked out (like Crimson) that that person might one dya find a reason to kill me, unless it was the situation. But I feel like I'd even have trouble handling it if someone told me they'd killed someone else in self-defense or accidentally. There is just some bad mojo around people who've personally taken another life.
CSI is ridiculous. Even if they were to do the investigation, I'm sure there are all sorts of legal restrictions which would keep them from showing up at people's houses to question you. What, they aren't subject to the same laws as cops suddenly, because they have post-graduate education?
by mg at February 15, 2005 8:03 AM
The Conflation of about 10 people's jobs into one individual on CSI is one of it's most TVland qualities. In Canada the general process is that the uniform (or detective) members find the body or clothes or car or whatnot that needs searching, they then call in a police officer with forensic training. The forensic investigator takes the samples seals them up and puts them in a evidence locker. The exhibit coordinator for the case (who almost always has only the basic training in forensics) then ships them off to a lab in another city. The lab has about 8 people work on the sample, extracting it, purifying it, chemically treating it, multipying the sample, running it through machines to extract the profile, and then finally the expert gives an opinion on whether it matches the victim, offender etc... the process usually takes between 3 to 6 months to obtain results.
As for cops coming and questioning you at your house, well they pretty much can. Any of them, at any time. Mostly they try an do it in daylight. However unless they have something to arrest you for, you can also slam the door in their face, or tell them to come back at a mosre convenient time.
by chuckwoolery at February 15, 2005 10:48 AM
It would make for one boring show if they didn't allow the CSIs to do all that detective work.
I think they should take all the law oriented shows out there and make it one rediculous plot every week. We could watch as Third Watch comes to the scene first, ER would try to revive the dying man, but in the end someone always dies. Then CSIs could work their magic with the body, leaving it open for Law and Order to persecute. That is one hell of a night of "Must see TV".
I'm not sure why I don't work for the big networks yet.
by dominathan at February 15, 2005 1:57 PM
To me CSI is just Revenge of the Nerds part deux. In my friend's dept there's a real territorial vibe that would prevent just about everything that happens on that show. Now 24, that is for real.
by Anna at February 15, 2005 6:24 PM
The O.C.... that is for real!
by jean at February 16, 2005 3:00 AM
Teenage lesbian smooch fails to boost ratings. Can we be far from Roman Coliseum times? For real.
by Anna at February 16, 2005 7:44 AM
It's not a place, it's a state of mind.
Really, I thought it was a modern Nine Oh Two One Oh, and just as crappy.
by Ex Crimson Guard NCO at February 16, 2005 2:06 PM
oh it definately is the modern 90210..Ii know it and it doesnt stop me from tuning in on a weekly basis. I hate to say it but its the best American tv does with teh age group. They will never release a tv show with the class of Degrassi Jr high, and later Degrassi High. The new series isn't quite up to par, but still valid... especially with the recent appearance of Kevin Smith.
by dominathan at February 17, 2005 1:27 AM
The lesbian kiss was definitely done for ratings, but real-life girls who are like Marisa really would be kissing girls anyways. At the coffeeshop near my old high school I see lots of teenaged girls kissing and holding hands with each other, and also teenaged boys with boys. And they all have that angry, rebellious look in their eyes. They may or may not be lesbian or gay, but they are definitely really angry. So the particular kiss that was on The O.C., considering that the character Marisa is rebellious and angry, seems dead on to me. Maybe it's different outside of California.
by jean at February 17, 2005 8:36 PM
Even if it didn't get the rating we ARE talking about it. I'm sure McG and the other producers got what they were looking for even if it wasn't reflected in the debatable accurate Neilson Ratings.
by dominathan at February 17, 2005 10:14 PM