Again, I consider this invokes a question regarding not heroics but expectations of the people who make up our socitety.
Claims that the worker did something that's "not part of his job" fail, IMO, utterly. Workers at McD's are burger flippers, bottle washers, cashiers and floor sweepers as part of their duties. Yet, if Emilita's clothing catches on fire after contacting the grill and another employee is burned beating out the fire with his hands, Worker's Comp pays for injuries to both parties. I know this for a fact.
Nothing in the employee's duties require these heroic actions. Nothing in the employee handbook suggests an action should've been taken. There's no law that requires it. Yet Worker's Comp paid off on the claim.
The primary question is how far can or should the employee go? Did this employee overstep the limits of
reasonable actions? Before you say yes...
A man who will beat his wife or a child, especially in public, deserves to be stopped by force. The application of the force should be proportionate, of course. Certainly a punch to the snoot is warranted, if nothing else to let him know such behavior has its consequences. But cutting his throat is only a momentary pleasure and is bound to get you talked about.
He has certainly comitted a crime again a person - a family member at that, but what about
you? Or the others nearby? Have you and they not had their peace disturbed? If no one intervenes, what does that teach our children who witness the act? That no individuals in our society have the testicular fortitude to stand up for the weak and the oppressed?
Quote:
|
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. --Edmund Burke
|
And what of the people like him who find no one willing to to interfere? Or even comment? Does not the silence and lack of action embolden his actions, knowing as he does it will take, at best, long minutes before police arrive? His actions are no better than the thief or robber who's actions declare their contempt by the rules we live by. And if those ordinary rules are held in contempt by him, so are all those who obey those rules. His assault on a family member is a public declaration that a person's safety is dependent upon his whim.
[1]
The guiding principle here should be that the young man acted in the interest of protecting a woman
[2] from abuse and physical harm. The difference, if any, between punching this loathesome male in the snotlocker and tackling him is a testament to the employee's reluctance to harm him.
Some may side with the insurance company who can find a way to weasel out of covering him for his action. But I look at their refusal as hammering another nail in the coffin of a civil society over not principle, but of greed.
[1] In previous generations it would not be unusual for nearly all the nearby men to publicly confront the man for assaulting his wife. Physical force may or may not have been used, but certainly shame and scorn were heaped upon him along with threats of the police needing a mop and bucket to get him to jail.
[2] The same can be applied to protecting a child, the eldery or disabled. These are people unable to defend themselves.