Mike Fang wrote:No, but I'd expect that he wouldn't try to hamper somebody who was willing to do something personally to try and uphold and enforce the law.
And no, you're not supposed to depend on the system entirely. The police are very important to preventing crime, but if there's something that you can do to protect yourself and others, there's no reason you shouldn't do it. Things such as be a responsible owner of a personal firearm, start a neighborhood watch in an area that has a crime problem, or look into potential problems that are brought to your attention (like if your kid says to you that there's a boy in his class who comes into school ever day with a black eye or some other kind of injury, or if a coworker is worried and says they've seen someone hanging around the parking lot for unusually long periods of time).
That's not being a vigilante. That's being a responsible citizen.
And you can stow the 'tude with your comments about capes and masks. Trying to de-legitimize my point by taking it to an unrealistic extreme is a really childish way of arguing against it.
I should point out that it is also part of a responsible citizen's job to acknowledge their own limits and to accept responsibility for what they can and cant do. By and large this involves handing difficult situations over to those who are best trained to handle them.
Your example about the neighbourhood watch, the vigilant schoolchild and the concerned coworker are all well and good. However, when the question comes to "what next", morality can become a bit more blurred.
Say for example, your neighbourhood watch stumbles over suspicious activity, a crime syndicate or a smugglers ring. Do you take it solely upon yourself to break them up and bring them to justice?
This is not the same for the abused child as a personal touch might be needed to find out first why he seems to be getting injured. However, you should also know that at the same time, you are (most likely) not a trained psychiatrist or social worker and might therefore not be as well equipped to handle the situation.
The same goes for the co-worker. It could be just a simple explanation, but then again a deranged, possibly psychotic stalker is not something that is best handled by an average citizen.
Its things like this that gets Guilder worried (american political interpretations aside) because while questors are detectives, they are also, by and large, lone wolves in solving their problems. They have special powers and special leeway that allows them to operate outside normal channels. Quentyn now has those powers ... except he's just a kid and has had none of those special kinds of training.
This is not to knock quentyn's actions to date. Sure he's had no training, but in all the situations he's turned out to BE the best trained, simply for his lack of ability (as in the wright saga) or the fact that he is the sole person who can safely handle a dangerous magical timebomb.
Im kind of in the middle as far as this is concerned, yes the legal establisment can hardly be omicsient, thereby requireing vigilance on the part of citizens. However this vigilance does not always entail becomming an unofficial arm of the police force. And yes, i dont agree with his tactics, but i think Guilder's worries are possibly justified? Especially in thinking that perhaps having a child in possession of these powers is at least worrying, and at most, potentially harmful to the village, to its citizens, and most of all, to Quentyn himself.
As a final illustration. Without training in areas such as crisis management, shooting protocols, victim and hostage situations, criminal negotiation and so on ... an armed vigilante in a crisis can become exceedingly dangerous, to others and to himself and his family (especially in terms of litigation). Without the training or experience to fall back on, judgement calls and actions fall to the person's individual personality. Judgements that could well be incorrect, or at least impossible to prove, leading to harm and thereby responsibility falling singularily on the person involved (and in legal terms possibly affecting their family too).
Quentyn has survived these trials thanks to his iron will, good heart and quick thinking/ adaptability. He's made the right calls time and time again ... but there is no denying that there has been ALOT of luck too. By all rights it was dumb luck and reputation (coupled with misinformation) that saved his life at the hands of the royals, had they simply not have recognised his forelock and gotten him confused as a member of the guardsmen ... well ... yeah you get the picture.
In short, there are ALOT of reasons why you shouldnt do something, simply because "there's
something that you can do to protect yourself and others". But rather, you should only take it on yourself if you are, honestly, the best equipped and positioned to handle it. Anything less is irresponsible and potentially reckless.
. She thought of him more a nice little throwback to romantic times. I respect Gilder's position. He does not fear or loathe Quentyn himself, and he knows that Quentyn will try. What he does he fear is the "damage" (like the situation with the Gragum and the whole business in the city) that Quentyn can do, and the fact people like Quentyn change, and in Gilder's mind, not always for the better. I think Rillcreek thought of the power to do good, so that is why he supported Quentyn when he did. I don't necessarily agree with Gilder, but I understand what he is concerned about.