Arguement Definition Essay Research Paper Right Intentions

Arguement Definition Essay, Research Paper Right Intentions Wrong Choice In an earlier story that was reported, one Samuel Mohammed burnt down a house in his West Palm Beach community. However, the question is not if Mohammed burnt the house down or not, because he admit to doing so. The question is did Mr.

Arguement Definition Essay, Research Paper

Right Intentions Wrong Choice

In an earlier story that was reported, one Samuel Mohammed burnt down a house in his West Palm Beach community. However, the question is not if Mohammed burnt the house down or not, because he admit to doing so. The question is did Mr. Mohammed commit a crime or not. Okay let me explain. The house was as abandoned building in his neighborhood and its use as a drug house was well known to the police and community. After making sure that, there was no one in the house, Mr. Mohammed torched it one night, stood about to watch the progress of the fire, and called the police and the fire department, which he admit to the police that he did in fact sets the house on fire. Mr. Mohammed was arrested on charges of arson. However, Mr. Mohammed’s attorney argues that his client is innocent because he was practicing civil disobedience, a Martin Luther King tradition. Thus, leaving us with the question, was it arson or civil disobedience.

First, you need to know the definition of arson before we can discuss it. Arson means the crime of maliciously setting fire to the property of another or of burning one’s own property for an improper purpose, as to collect insurance. Therefore, you must now deicide whether Mr. Mohammed had malicious intentions or improper reasons. To have malicious intend, is to harm other. In this case, if the defendant story is true to form, he could not have had malicious intentions, if the defendant checks the house for people before burning it. Here Mr. Mohammed showed that his intentions are not malicious. His intentions were to burn down the drug house, and not to harm anyone. Then we have to see if Mr. Mohammed had justified reasons to burn the house. Mr. Mohammed burnt the house because he feels the house was a drain on the community; furthermore, he feels that it made the neighborhood unsafe.

Next, you need to know the definition of civil disobedience before we can discuss it. Civil disobedience means refusal to obey civil laws regarded as them unjust, by employing methods of passive resistance. Therefore, now you must prove the criminal charges of arson are unjust for this to be civil disobedience. While Mr. Mohammed did commit arson because he burnt down property that does not belong to him, he felted that his reasons were justified. The defendant felt this was the only way to rid his neighborhood of this problem. As stated in the beginning, the police knew of this house and did nothing about it. Although Mr. Mohammed knew he would be committing arson, he was left with no other choice. Furthermore, Mr. Mohammed admitted to setting the house on fire and calls the police and fire department, which lead one to believe that his intentions were not malicious.

Finally, now that you know what arson and civil disobedience means and how Mr. Mohammed story stack up against both of them. You can finally answer the question, which is did Mr. Mohammed perform arson or was it civil disobedience. Well you now know to commit arson malicious intentions and improper reasons. While it was, clear that Mr. Mohammed did not have malicious intentions, were his reasons justified. Although he did rid his neighborhood of the drug house, he did commit arson because he burned down property that did not belong to him. While his reasons may be justified to him, they may not be justified in a court of law. However, there has to be a time where a civilian can take matter into there own hand, if the law will not respond. Burning down the drug house will help the community get rid of drugs. While I do believe that this is illegitimate case of civil disobedience, I have to agree with the charges on arson. The bottom line is this, Mr. Mohammed chose to set fire to property that did not belong to him, which is clearly stated in the in the law as arson. However, I do agree with is reasoning for burning down the house, I feel that there was a better way of getting it done.

In summary, Mr. Mohammed good intentions are for not because he with about doing them the wrong way. While many can argue, that Mr. Mohammed was just following in the footsteps of Martin Luther King with the great tradition of civil disobedience. The police cannot let this go unpunished because of fear of copycat, who will misuse the civil disobedience for their own personal gain.

ОТКРЫТЬ САМ ДОКУМЕНТ В НОВОМ ОКНЕ