April 20, 2003
What Would You Do?
I know what I'd do if I were in Jarrod Martin's position. I'd do the exact same thing that he did.
Jarrod entered his burning apartment to save his dog and was arrested for doing so.
The police and the fire department are now defending the decision to arrest Mr. Martin. And while he was right in going in to rescue his dog, they were equally right to arrest him for violating the law.
It is extremely unfortunate that Mr. Martin will have a record for doing the right thing, but laws are put in place to protect everyone. A land ruled by law requires that the law be enforced equally. To let Mr. Martin get off without an arrest would allow the relativist anarchists to use it as an excuse to commit greater crimes. To protect the fabric of our society Mr. Martin had to be arrested, the circumstances around the "crime" are irrelevant to the police officer on the scene. He witnessed a crime being committed. He has to make the arrest.
It will be up to the judge to determine how the circumstances play into the penalty Mr. Martin has to pay. That is his job, not the cop's.
Mr. Martin will be convicted or will plead guilty. Unless the judge has a heart of stone, the penalty will be a token slap on the wrist. As well it should be.
As a dog owner, I know that I would gladly pay a fine or even spend a few nights in jail to make sure that I still had my friend with me. What's a few hundred dollars or a week of my time for an absolute friend? The dog won't ever know the magnitude of the sacrifice I made, but so what? It knows and understands love - and gives it back in spades.
Sometimes, the law and morality are in conflict. It doesn't happen often, but when it does the decision is usually extremely difficult to make.
This decision was easy. Obviously, Mr. Martin carefully considered his decision before acting. And he decided, as I think most people would have, that morality was more important than legality. The only thing that surprises me is that he waited thirty minutes to act. I would have been in there in less than ten.
In this case, both Mr. Martin and the police made the right decisions. I hope that the judge will take a cue and do the same.
Posted by Chris at April 20, 2003 12:26 AM | TrackBack | Linked by:While I laud the spirit of your post, I must disagree. I believe the whole reason our forefathers insisted on a jury system was to protect against just this kind of thing.
There is such a thing as selective enforcement. Were all of our myriad of laws enforced strictly, our country would be unliveable. While I agree that firefighters and policemen need to have some authority at the scene of a fire, I don't believe that the letter of the law should have been pressed here.
The fact is that no law is perfect, and any law created will apply at times when it shouldn't. A completely compassionate act, performed in order to save the life of a sufferring family member, at no risk to anyone but the person that acted (there were NO firemen in the building at the time), is obviously one of these times.
While I think exceptions should be rare, I also believe the the system should never become more important than the people it is meant to serve. The cold truth is that almost anyone would have done the same thing, and almost no-one would have charged this man for his actions. Only the on-site officials, overblown with their own importance and embarressed by their lack of action would do so, and it up to us to make sure they know we can see this.
Posted by: Ingot at April 29, 2003 09:33 AMComments have been closed on this entry in an effort to conserve disk space. If you have feedback on this entry, please email me at blog - at - cbnoble.com.


