Plus, you know, while a picture of a family member is more, “OH SHIT I CAN ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEM!”, a stranger? How do they know that the kid isn’t one of the Golden Hoarde’s own daughters?
Considering this point from the perspective of necessity, there are two evils to be weighed. On one hand there is the theft of bank property, and on the other is the (potential) death of an innocent. It seems reasonably established that the law would hold the murder as the greater of the two evils; is there a potential for a necessity defense here.
Regarding your point about the uncertainty of the threat, I am curious about how this would be handled. Is it reasonable to apply the certainty of an evil act (in evilness units) as a weight? For instance, if robbing the bank is 10 evilness and murdering is 100 evilness but the certainty of murder was perceived to be only 10%, then would they be treated as equivalent evils?
That sounds like a can of worms that shouldn’t be touched. It gives life a number and that means some lifes will be worth more in court than others. Which is bad and probaly unconstitional.. I.e. a doctors life isn’t worth more than a scammers in criminal court even if it is worth more to society.
“It gives life a number and that means some lifes will be worth more in court than others. Which is bad and probaly unconstitional”
and is the basis of every civil suit involving dead people. OJ paid money.
Oh my god, it’s Scott Meyer from Basic Instructions!
It seems like the law is a bit inconsistent here. On one hand I have no duty to weigh an innocent stranger’s life over the law, but the life of myself or my family supercedes the law. That said, I’m not allowed to weigh my own life over the life of an innocent stranger, as the earlier comics on duress showed.
(my life/ my family members life) > LAW > (a Stranger’s life)
that does seem inconsistent even though I know that one of the purposes of the LAW is to protect that stranger’s life.
In a way, this is a less-than great precedent on the face of it, since any society is basically people working together. Plus, as cities become denser, it becomes more important for people to work togther and perceive each other as, for example, “my neighbor’s child” instead of merely “some damn kid”.
I suspect that the intent of the family restriction is to ensure that you have a strong belief that the threat is real; that the kid isn’t a shill or photoshopped.
What if the individual claimed religious grounds? Such as a buddhist belief all life is sacred, no matter how far removed?
And all of a sudden it’s expected that you will value one life above another. Not that I’m complaining about that, it’s only natural to be more concerned about yourself and your family than others, but it’s horribly inconsistent with poor Stu, who was basically told “You should have let them shoot you” or Jill, who was told “You should have gone down with Jack”.
What WJS said…