Posted by Honore on January 25, 2007, at 10:48:17
In reply to Re: Bob Calling Cops????, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2007, at 10:25:15
My sense is that we can trust Bob enough to think that he called the police in a situation where calling the police was appropriate.
If something like that had happened to me, I think I wouldn't want it to be discussed now. Sometimes even when a discussion is framed in a sympathetic way, it can be disruptive to the person being discussed.
So unless there were some awfully pressing reason for bringing it up-- as opposed I guess to asking the question more abstractly-- and here I contradict myself somewhat-- but I'm sure I could make the appropriate distinctions if someone wants me to-- but I'll assume no one does-- it might be more helpful to discuss the concerns outside a specific person's experiences. Maybe if there's a hypothetical context, or a specific concern about the future, that would be better than bringing up the actual person. Esp. since, as Dinah says, it was a long time ago.
What it reminds me yet again is that it's awfully hard to formulate rules that can be applied in a blanket way-- because situations differ so much. Bob does it remarkably well. To me, the question of favoritism falls somewhat under this category: do we want a "one-size-fits-all' set of rules, which can be fairer in some ways, or a degree of flexibility in interpreting the rules (not that this could be avoided), which will feel unfair, and sometimes arbitrary in yet another way (assuming that the "one-size" type of enforcement will also seem arbitrary.)