Mother turns in son after seeing surveillance video of crime spree on television

[prasad1]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

In another thread talking about Karna of the mahabharat some members appreciated the loyalty more than common good. Some even went to the extent of saying that loyalty to a friend is more important than being a good citizen.

I am of the opinion that you must choose the person you bestow your loyalty must be worth of it. If that person is Adharmic you too become Adharmic.

A mother’s love lead to a hard lesson in crime for one accused thief.
On Thursday, FOX59 showed video of a group of teens repeatedly storming into a gas station and stealing thousands of dollars in snacks.
Police released the surveillance video and asked for the public’s help tracking down the suspects. The mother of one of the suspects saw the video and turned in her son.

Going by that logic of admiring Karna, what would have been right for the mother of this criminal?
I think she did the right thing.

 

[yesmohan]

In similar situations, only very few mothers would come forward to do the right thing.

 

[auh]

The whole point of mahabharatha, imo, is to show that however good people might or might not be, they would be placed in situations that would often be a dilemma (dharma sankatam), and whichever way one chooses, consequences would follow.

Yudhishtra tells a lie to kill Drona, and his chariot that was not touching the ground until then (supposedly), loses the power.

Bheema fells Duryodhana by a "below the belt" blow.

Karna was killed helpless (btw, he had many curses on him too)

Bheeshma was tricked and thus he fell.

When, it comes to "saving one's own skin" even dharmic people change colour. Where existence itself is threatened (Aapatkaala), we find all sorts of excuses given to substantiate the deviation.

After all, it is human nature to survive. A basic instinct.

 

[renuka]

In another thread talking about Karna of the mahabharat some members appreciated the loyalty more than common good. Some even went to the extent of saying that loyalty to a friend is more important than being a good citizen.

I am of the opinion that you must choose the person you bestow your loyalty must be worth of it. If that person is Adharmic you too become Adharmic.

A mother’s love lead to a hard lesson in crime for one accused thief.
On Thursday, FOX59 showed video of a group of teens repeatedly storming into a gas station and stealing thousands of dollars in snacks.
Police released the surveillance video and asked for the public’s help tracking down the suspects. The mother of one of the suspects saw the video and turned in her son.

Going by that logic of admiring Karna, what would have been right for the mother of this criminal?
I think she did the right thing.

Dear Prasad ji,

The Kauravas were NOT criminals.

Its within Kshatriya Dharma to fight for kingdoms.

Arjuna himself had fought with other kings and took over their wealth and kingdom. So did Kunti need to turn him in to the authorities for plundering another Kingdom?

In war it all depends whose side you are on to feel its good vs bad.

For an Indian a Pakistani is the Kaurava for a Pakistani an Indian is a Kaurava.

But both have to remain faithful to their nations and leaders.

Karna was faithful to his leader. Just like how a soldier would be loyal to his country in war.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Prasad ji,

The Kauravas were NOT criminals.

Its within Kshatriya Dharma to fight for kingdoms.

Arjuna himself had fought with other kings and took over their wealth and kingdom. So did Kunti need to turn him in to the authorities for plundering another Kingdom?

In war it all depends whose side you are on to feel its good vs bad.

For an Indian a Pakistani is the Kaurava for a Pakistani an Indian is a Kaurava.

But both have to remain faithful to their nations and leaders.

Karna was faithful to his leader. Just like how a soldier would be loyal to his country in war.

The Nuremberg trials, held by the Allies after World War II, rejected the "I was just following orders" defense to charges of military atrocity and human rights violations. It was a landmark decision in international law, as the denial of the superior orders defense confirms that responsibility runs to the individual even when the individual was acting on their orders. Thus, it was established that not only nations, but individuals are responsible for war, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

There are two primary reasons that individual soldiers should be held responsible for following the directives of their authorized commanders: first, because soldiers have the capacity to reason and make moral choices. The force of this argument is very straight-forward, as it is the basis on which any decision to disobey authority is and can be justified.

This was the implicit reasoning behind the refusal of the Nuremberg Tribunal to accept the superior orders defense. The judges at Nuremberg believed that defendants were responsible unless they lacked a "moral choice" - a personal capacity to act differently without risking one's own life or the safety of one's family.

[SIZE=-1]Justice Robert Jackson, U. S. Prosecutor, addresses the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg
[/SIZE] [TABLE="width: 88%"]
[TR]
[TD]

No trial provides a better basis for understanding the nature and causes of evil than do the Nuremberg trials from 1945 to 1949. Those who come to the trials expecting to find sadistic monsters are generally disappointed. What is shocking about Nuremberg is the ordinariness of the defendants: men who may be good fathers, kind to animals, even unassuming--yet who committed unspeakable crimes. Years later, reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt wrote of "the banality of evil." Like Eichmann, most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains. Rather, they over-identified with an ideological cause and suffered from a lack of imagination or empathy: they couldn't fully appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nurembergACCOUNT.html

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[renuka]

The Nuremberg trials, held by the Allies after World War II, rejected the "I was just following orders" defense to charges of military atrocity and human rights violations. It was a landmark decision in international law, as the denial of the superior orders defense confirms that responsibility runs to the individual even when the individual was acting on their orders. Thus, it was established that not only nations, but individuals are responsible for war, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

There are two primary reasons that individual soldiers should be held responsible for following the directives of their authorized commanders: first, because soldiers have the capacity to reason and make moral choices. The force of this argument is very straight-forward, as it is the basis on which any decision to disobey authority is and can be justified.

This was the implicit reasoning behind the refusal of the Nuremberg Tribunal to accept the superior orders defense. The judges at Nuremberg believed that defendants were responsible unless they lacked a "moral choice" - a personal capacity to act differently without risking one's own life or the safety of one's family.

[SIZE=-1]Justice Robert Jackson, U. S. Prosecutor, addresses the International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg
[/SIZE] [TABLE="width: 88%"]
[TR]
[TD]

No trial provides a better basis for understanding the nature and causes of evil than do the Nuremberg trials from 1945 to 1949. Those who come to the trials expecting to find sadistic monsters are generally disappointed. What is shocking about Nuremberg is the ordinariness of the defendants: men who may be good fathers, kind to animals, even unassuming--yet who committed unspeakable crimes. Years later, reporting on the trial of Adolf Eichmann, Hannah Arendt wrote of "the banality of evil." Like Eichmann, most Nuremberg defendants never aspired to be villains. Rather, they over-identified with an ideological cause and suffered from a lack of imagination or empathy: they couldn't fully appreciate the human consequences of their career-motivated decisions.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nurembergACCOUNT.html

​

[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Dear Prasad ji,

I know you hold the Bhagavad Geeta with high regard..but going by the logic here that

"I was just following orders" defense to charges of military atrocity and human rights violations. It was a landmark decision in international law, as the denial of the superior orders defense confirms that responsibility runs to the individual even when the individual was acting on their orders. Thus, it was established that not only nations, but individuals are responsible for war, war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity.

can we then say that Arjuna was right in making his "moral" decision of not wanting to fight with his kith and kin?

In that case..we can view the whole BG as forcing a person to go beyond his personal choice?

Lord Krishna wanted Arjuna to be loyal to Kshatriya Dharma..so was Krishna wrong to ask Arjuna to fight?

If you feel that above post you pasted is correct and individual moral choices matter and one does not need to just take orders..you should be able to admit then that Krishna was wrong.

Can you?



Disclaimer: I do NOT view Lord Krishna asking Arjuna to get up and fight as wrong.One should adhere to Dharma of the situation..its for discussion purposes I have posted this question to Prasad ji.

 

[prasad1]

If you feel that above post you pasted is correct and individual moral choices matter and one does not need to just take orders..you should be able to admit then that Krishna was wrong.

Can you?



Disclaimer: I do NOT view Lord Krishna asking Arjuna to get up and fight as wrong.One should adhere to Dharma of the situation..its for discussion purposes I have posted this question to Prasad ji.

Krishna "encouraged" and pleaded with Arjuna to follow his advice. Krishna had some ulterior motive of his own. But Arjuna followed Krishna's advice freely and lived by the results.
If there was a trial after the war, Arjuna would not have said that my "master told me so". He would have faced his accusers with his convictions.
He would have accepted the consequences.