Not to be a respecter of persons

After doing some research, it appears that the initial claim about the law is inaccurate. In almost no state is it a crime to fail to report a general felony. There are specific exceptions depending on one's job and responsibilities, but for the normal citizen who observes a crime, they are not under a legal obligation in America to report it.

Even in the states (and at the Federal level) that have statues about misprision of felony, some recognize exceptions for family, and all require that affirmative action be taken to conceal the crime for it to be prosecutable. IOW, you don't have to report it unless you attempted to conceal the crime. So, as long as you cooperate with police and don't attempt to conceal a crime, you are within the law of most every state.

 

Your OP listed general felonies "(robbery, murder, drugs, and so on)". You never qualified this. Thus it was only reasonable to assume that you were making your argument about general felonies.

So, in post 5 you implied (by asking a question which appeared to assume an affirmative answer) that it was wrong to not turn in people for the crimes listed in the OP. Then in post 18, you make an explicit argument to that effect: In the case of the OP to decide not to turn in any criminal even our own flesh and blood is to reject (hate) God because the scripture says we are to obey those in authority.

So, by referring to the OP, then by explicitly arguing that failing to turn in "any criminal" is a failure to obey authority, the reasonable conclusion is that you were including, at the very least, the crimes listed in the OP as crimes which the law required everyone to report. That is inaccurate.

I was taking the whole of your argument. Now, maybe you overstated your argument and failed to give clear qualifications of what you meant, but to say that I changed what was said is false. I did nothing but make reasonable inferences from what you explicitly argued. And, FWIW, I didn't even contradict your qualification of "certain types of crimes" since that could be construed as inclusive of general felonies.

Only people in certain positions are required to do so. For instance, teachers and medical personal. Again, an inaccuracy.

You need to qualify your statements more precisely if you are going to use them as premises in your arguments. Your argument appeared to make a general rule about turning anyone in for general felonies. Now you seem to be limiting it to specific types of people in specific situations turning certain types of criminals in. You may want to go back and clarify exactly what your argument is with regards to the law before going any further.

Yet your argument so far has centered around it being the right thing because it was required by law. So, if turning someone in for a crime is "right" please demonstrate why. So far your only explicit argument has been tied to the specific laws and how we are to obey them. If you are going to assert that turning in your family is the right thing to do (even if the law doesn't require it), you are going to need to come up with some other reason than "because the scripture says we are to obey those in authority".

Me personally, yes I would suggest that.

You have yet to show its right. Your "we should because the law requires it" was a decent argument...except for the fact that the law doesn't require us to. So, now you have to start over from scratch and demonstrate how turning someone in is the right thing Scripturally speaking.

Lets be very very clear on something. It is one thing to say that its wrong to ignore a crime altogether, pass it by, or let it continue without doing something. It is another thing to argue that reporting it to the police is a Scriptural imperative. I definitely agree that doing nothing is wrong, but that does not lead to the logical conclusion that failing to report it to the police is wrong. Do not make the fallacy of confusing "doing nothing" with "failing to report to the police".

 

What dwmoeller1 said.

 

If I witnessed or had reason to believe that a stranger has committed a felony crime----911 is set on "Speed Dial" on my phone---I'd turn him/her in so fast . . .

If my child has committed a felony crime or is being suspected of it---him and I would take us a trip to the nearest police station---and there we'd do our best to clear the little "misunderstanding" up:laugh::laugh:
Seriously if he has committed a robbery, shot someone, murdered someone, raped someone---or something along those lines---I'd tell the arresting officer---"Sir!! You let me put those handcuffs on him!!!" And I'd be weeping big salty tears while I was cuffing him:tear:

 

I voted turn them both in, however, WITH the the exception that it would depend on the 'severity' of the crime. I've literally taught my children and grandchildren the wisdom of Beretta: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime". IMO, an enabler does their children great wrong.

 

Scripture tells us not to take "matters of this life" before secular (ungodly) judges, but to take such matters before the "saints". (I Cor. 6) Paul says it is "shameful" to do so. Does that mean all criminal violations? Just "civil" violations? There wasn't that kind of distinction in the 1st century.

In the 1st century, all manner of crime was taken before judges to be resolved. There were no "prosecutors" or "defense", each person argued his own case (or hired someone to argue the case).

Scripture tells us that we, as saints of God, should be able to resolve issues among ourselves, specifically when it occurs between brethren. We shouldn't take issues before secular courts.

Therefore, I can see where a Godly, truly saved, disciple of Jesus Christ might believe in his Holy Spirit indwelt heart that he shouldn't turn in his children to secular authorities if he suspected them of a crime.

peace to youraying:

 

I don't think you are fully understanding freeatlast. He is not only saying it is wrong, he is saying you aren't really saved (not a disciple of Jesus) if you don't report it to the police.

That seems to be the major theme in his posts. If you don't.......(insert the latest thread here).... keep the O.T. Law....turn in your children for criminal activity....like the article he found... etc, etc... then you aren't really saved.

freeatlast has appointed himself the salvation police, imho. Perhaps someday he'll realize that isn't his job.

peace to youraying:

 

I prefer to deal with what he explicitly argues rather than all the possible implications of his posts. Better chance for having a productive conversation that way. Thats just me though.

Plus I have had gone through a legalistic cult and come out of the other end. Now I have a very high tolerance for what might really bug others - I am more than willing to address their actual arguments and ignore all the legalistic rantings that goes with it if thats what it takes to keep the discussion going. It bothers me not at all if a legalist believes himself spiritually superior than me, or if he even questions my salvation. After all, the more the legalist talks, the weaker their position is shown to be, the more obvious the fruit of legalism becomes to others who might be observing. It is sufficient for me to deal with the logic and accuracy of their arguments.

 

I stand corrected. You do understand what he is saying. Your position makes a lot of sense to me.

peace to youraying:

 

I should also point out that, in my experience, reviling the legalist (as much as they may deserve it) tends to be counter-productive. They tend to see rebukes for their (what is clearly to us judgmental) statements as evidence that they were right all along. Some legalists tend to view the rebukes from others as them "suffering for righteousness". After all, in their mind, all they did was to speak the truth and the sinner is simply hating them for speaking the truth. So, in my experience, even acknowledging their judgmental attitudes merely reinforces their superior spiritual view of themselves - reacting to such statements just feeds their feelings of elitism. Better to just ignore it and instead address the gaping inconsistencies and blatant fallacies that invariably show up in their arguments, IMO.

 

This is a tough question. I have eight kids but all of them have always been very well behaved, so, I've never been in this situation.

I think it depends on the crime. If I knew one of my children had killed someone, I would turn them in, and they know that. If they were selling drugs, breaking into homes, or harming their (or anyone's) children I would turn them in as well. If they were simply smoking pot I don't think I would turn them in, but I would encourage them to quit.

If they were directly hurting other people I do believe I would turn them in. If they were doing something less harmful, and primarily harmful only to themselves I probably wouldn't turn them in.

But I would be the same with others. I have seen people smoking pot, I have seen young people drinking and not turn them in. However, if they were driving erratically and could cause an accident I would.

I try never to cause problems for anyone, I certainly would not like someone causing problems for me. But if they are committing a serious offence that could hurt other persons I would turn them in.

 

Winman, you've pretty well summed it up for me also.

(EIGHT kids? Wow )