Why I Didn't Call The Police When I Saw Two Black Boys With Guns Next Door?

This is an article by a woman named Victoria Brown who witnessed two teens in hoodies; on a roof top and armed with guns. Typically in a case like this, one’s instinct would be to call the police for fear that they are robbers or someone attempt murder. However, it was not the case this time.

Victoria signaled her husband to take a look and his natural response was to call the police, but she stopped him. She knew who the boys were because they lived in the same neighborhood but of different status and class. In addition, the two teens were African Americans; dressed in hoodies and armed. What will the cops think when they arrive? Upon closer watch, Victoria’s husband realized they were merely playing on the roof top with fake guns.

Victoria’s instinct was not to call the police, but to get to the boys to stop whatever they were doing. The reason is simple; there has been recent shooting of teenage African American boys with fake guns, like in the case of TamirRice. Knowing the consequences that might be deadly of innocent kids, she did not call the police. Fortunately, the boys went away and Victoria managed to get in touch with their parents.

From where I come from, any guns; real or fake, we take no chances and we call the cops because they are illegal. But it is different in the States where African Americans can be stereotyped as crooks, rapists, drunks and nothing but trouble. If Victoria did call the cops because she did not know the kids, will there be another round of innocent shootings because of their race? Moreover, teens in States tend to look like adults. So who is to guess if they are real crooks or not? 

What ever happened to human rights where everyone is born equal and deserve the same human rights? Do I totally condemn the police who shot Tamir Rice? No, the boy was seen reaching for the gun, how can one not react? It is not uncommon for teenagers to possess real guns and shoot the innocent. Unless it is so clear that it is a fake, then his reason for shooting may be more racist than self-protection.

More on this story: LINK

No Church for Sex Offenders

An interesting piece on news that happened in a small county in Robbinsville, North Carolina. A sheriff in that county wrote a law to prevent sex offenders from attending church services. His idea was spun off from a state law that sex offenders are not allowed in day care centers and schools.

As much as I can understand that the sheriff is protecting the general public and the children from sex offenders; it is morally not ethical in stopping them from going to places where there are children. I also can understand the state law where they cannot go to day care and schools mainly because they have no reason to do so, simply walking into a school without a reason is enough to arouse suspicion.

I cannot say the same for the church. This is a public place of worship where all are welcome to pray and to seek peace. Assuming the sex offender is repentant and wants to pray for peace? Or pray for the victims? Usually the church will be a place where families will attend, that means adults and children. Therefore for a sex offender to prey on children, chances are rather remote. 

Morally, the sheriff is doing his best to protect the citizens. However, by passing such a law may even further trigger the offenders. I believe it is morally unfair to the sex offenders to be condemn for life. They too are humans and deserve a second chance. 

What are your thoughts?

More on this story: LINK

Shooting a Homeless Man

I am referring to a recent incident that happened in Los Angeles. It was reported and a video uploaded to FaceBook that a homeless man was shot by a police officer who was responding to a robbery call.

Apparently,  a struggle broke out between the police officers and the suspect.Soon after, gun shots were heard and the homeless man was down. The video was captured by a bystander and you can clearly hear from him that what the police officers did was ethically wrong. However, the police officer claimed that the suspect had reached out for his holstered pistol and he reacted accordingly.

The incident caused a major uproar questioning the use of lethal force by police officers. It was also reported that the homeless man had recently been discharged from a mental hospital and had been living on the streets for 6 months.

I personally feel that the police officers are trained to handle sticky situations such as this. It is their call of duty and they are trained to handle the situation the best they can at that particular moment. It is easy to comment in retrospect that he could have done this, he could have done that but the ones who comment are not in his shoes there and then. If he felt that his life, and possibly the lives of his counterparts could potentially be in danger, he has to do what he has to do.

I am thinking the public uproar is more profound because the public felt for the suspect who was homeless and mentally ill. They are exercising their emotional train of thoughts sitting in the comfort of their homes reading the news or watching the television. At the spur of the moment, the police officer had no time to engage his emotional brain, moreover, the suspect did not wear a tag to indicate he is mentally challenged and is homeless. The police officer had to react based on his instant instinct. Even if he was aware of the suspect's status; should he react differently or should he just serve and protect regardless?

More on this story: http://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/video-shows-los-angeles-police-shooting-homeless-man#.gw8RqOqZ6

Do be warned that this video has huge amount of profanities.

Three- Person Baby Plan

This post talks about a recent article on creating babies with the involvement of of a third party - the donor. 

The procedure aims to stop mitochondrial disease which has proven to be fatal for the newborn. The technique involves adding the mother's nucleus which is removed from an embryo with mitochondrial disease. The nucleus is subsequently added to the donor's embryo which will be implanted back into the mother's womb and be fertilized by the father's sperm. The donor's nucleus will then be destroyed.

Medically, the objective is to save lives and allow parents who are genetically suffering from mitochondrial disease to have healthy babies. However, the church has a different outlook to the practice and deem that it is morally and ethically wrong to "play" God and alter DNA.

In addition, the church also claimed that the procedure is not safe and should not be allowed to take place as it has not been practiced on human. Moreover, they also claimed that there are ethical objections as it involves destroying of human embryos.

I see a life saved is a life gain. Medically we have come very far to combat new found diseases to save lives, even in a stage as early as the embryo. If the technique is safe and tested to be successful, is it not morally right that we should allow the practice to be passed so lives are saved? I have a religion and I believe all religion teaches us to be morally and ethically right. Is saving a life not the right thing to do?

What are your thoughts?

More on this story: http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-31063500

Bali Nine

You do the crime, you do the time. In this case, 2 Australians, amongst others were due to be executed for smuggling drugs in Bali, Indonesia.

The Australian government had pleaded with the Indonesians to spare their lives. But it is apparent that the Indonesian government will not succumb to any pleas or threats as they see drug trafficking as a very serious offence.

I view it as the Indonesian government should do what is necessary to deter such acts from happening again in future. If it is punishable by law to face the firing squad, then the offenders should face whatever comes. After all, they are well aware that this is the consequences for committing such an offence. 

I am confident to say that the authorities would like to show mercy and strengthen their diplomatic ties with the Australians and spare their lives. Doing so will only encourage offenders to continue doing what they do and they know they will be spared because their government will plea leniency on their behalf.

Again, is it a decision on moral rights to society or political rights to diplomatic ties? 

More on this story: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/20/indonesia-nothing-whatsoever-will-stop-execution-of-bali-nine-pair