who is right, who is wrong?

[Slacker]

Here's a scenario between my SLI husband and his LSE friend. (Don't think the types are necessarily relevant but I'll include them anyway.)

So they like to buy cool stuff and sometimes sell it. They bought something that sounded cool, but after they got it they were afraid that maybe it was illegal. They were worried about this, but the LSE's son is a police officer and was going to be visiting the next day, so they figured they'd let the friend's son see it and they could decide after that what to do.

My husband came home. In the mean time, the LSE immediately called his son, who immediately went over, and immediately called the local police, who immediately called my husband to find out more about it.

My husband is upset because the guy they bought this from has our phone number and address, so if this guy gets upset, it's us who will hear from him, and he doens't like the idea of someone who had something illegal potentially looking for him here at the house. He thinks the he and the friend could have quietly destroyed the item, or anonymously dropped it off at a police station, or had the son take it with the understanding that it be considered anonymous. He thinks if the guy had the LSE's phone number and address, the LSE would have handled it differently, and that it wasn't fair to tell him one thing was going to happen and then do something completely different without discussion with him.

On the other hand, what the LSE did was probably the best choice as far as what should legally be done.

So who is right. Also, my husband is angry. How angry would you be?

[Creepy-bg]

i'd be pissed. but i'm pretty sure that there's nothing to worry about.

so we don't get to know what it was???? pm me at least! the curiosity is going to kill me!

[tcaudilllg]

Buy a gun. Tell the guy you have it. He won't come knocking.

[Slacker]

i'd be pissed. but i'm pretty sure that there's nothing to worry about.

so we don't get to know what it was???? pm me at least! the curiosity is going to kill me!

I don't think there's anything to worry about (see your PM) but he's paranoid because of a situation when he was much younger involving a car that turned out to be stolen and someone very angry who went to his house to beat him up.

[force my hand]

I think I'm missing something; why would the guy care what your husband and his LSE friend do or not do with the item, which is, by virtue of buying it, now theirs? Further, how would he know about it?

[Slacker]

A police officer asked who they got it from. They gave them the guy's phone number. The police officer will now talk to that guy, who has my husband's name and address as the person the gun went to, and as far as he knows the person who got the police involved.

[force my hand]

A police officer asked who they got it from. They gave them the guy's phone number. The police officer will now talk to that guy, who has my husband's name and address as the person the gun went to, and as far as he knows the person who got the police involved.

If I were in your husband's shoes I'd definitely be pissed that people are essentially snitching.

[Creepy-bg]

If I were in your husband's shoes I'd definitely be pissed that people are essentially snitching.

yeah that pissed me off at first too, but the way that SM said that it happened with them giving the number of the guy they bought it from to the cops, and they're going to go question him, having their number and address because he sold it to them... that's pretty fucked up. if it was turned in annonymously, that would have been the safe way to deal with it.

[force my hand]

yeah that pissed me off at first too, but the way that SM said that it happened with them giving the number of the guy they bought it from to the cops, and they're going to go question him, having their number and address because he sold it to them... that's pretty fucked up. if it was turned in annonymously, that would have been the safe way to deal with it.

Yeah, or sit on it, and use the internet to determine if it was illegal or not in the first place.

Anyway, don't want to be a dink - hindsight 20/20 and all that.

[cracka]

Hmm, you mentioned a gun, but just buying a gun is not really illegal. So perhaps it's an automatic weapon, or maybe stolen?

That aside though, I'd have been pissed that the person put me into the whole mess without really consulting me before turning it into his son. In the end though, they did buy it, so they brought the whole situation on themselves. Doesn't sound like they did anything really shady or illegal, it would just make me think a bit more in the future of what kinda stuff to buy.

[Creepy-Korpsey]

The LSE violated the code of the streets. Your husband is rightfully peeved.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Man, don't get the police involved in anything. They are assholes looking for anybody they can 'get in trouble.'

If you're dealing with a weapon of some sort though why would they want something like that anyway? You live in Michigan, we have too many ghetto thug boys killing each other...it just gets old. It's nothing but pointless death, because some males have 'small penis syndrome.'

Human beings are extremely paranoid and irrational creatures who shouldn't be trusted with anything dangerous. Yeah the cops 'can have guns' but they're part of the problem, not the solution.

Anyways laws are bullshit. You wanna know why? People who make them just want power over others. Most of them don't even make sense. Instead people need to learn how to ethically guide their lives to deal with others. It honestly sounds like everybody in your situation was simply looking for DRAAAAAAAMA.

[Park]

If I were in your husband's shoes I'd definitely be pissed that people are essentially snitching.

Damn straight. I'd be angry, too.

One hell of a friend that LSE guy sounds like.

And I'd probably take the whole situation as a sign of disrespect towards the relationship. I mean who cares what's "legally right", when you're jeopardizing your friend, and the trust in the relationship.

it wasn't fair to tell him one thing was going to happen and then do something completely different without discussion with him.

This is what would piss me off the most.

So who is right.

Your husband is right.

[Words]

I think the LSE should have left things to speak to your husband first. But he's LSE, decided he'd try and sort it and messed it up, it's what they do.

Also once the LSE got the police involved, he'd no doubt have to answer all their questions or put himself in trouble with them for withholding information/lying.

[Slacker]

And I'd probably take the whole situation as a sign of disrespect towards the relationship. I mean who cares what's "legally right", when you're jeopardizing your friend, and the trust in the relationship.

This is almost word for word what he said.

[Marie84]

The LSE sounds like he's in the wrong on this since he went behind your husbands back and acted on the situation alone even after they agreed to deal with this together.
If the LSE doubted being involved in the first place he simply shouldn't have gotten himself involved, but now he's placed your husband in an awkward position and so I wouldn't blame your husband if he feels betrayed

[squark]

Moral of the story: If you're going to do something of questionable legality, don't let anal lawkeepers know about it.

[silverchris9]

and they say deltas don't make absolute moral distinctions. I think absolute moral distinctions are ultimately too multifactorial to be type-related in any significant sense. similarly, "following the rules" (or moral rules vs. legal rules) isn't type related either, not really.

Anyway, sounds like the LSE guy is in the wrong, and while I get why your husband is angry (friend potentially putting him/you in danger, friend going behind his back), I wouldn't be *that* angry, given that a) it's not very likely that anything's going to happen (just based on the scenario you described, obviously I don't have the full story), and b) what the friend did isn't *that* different from what they had planned to do... and you have to give the guy points since turning it into the police was a good idea generally, although perhaps after some reflection I would have, in your husband's place, also preferred to anonymously drop it at the police station.

[Beautiful sky]

I usually believe that LSE consider all options before proceeding, but I think it was careless of him, in this case, to proceed without considering the security and protection of your family. I think that it's unlikely for an LSE to make decisions like this without a good amount of discussion and I think you probably mistyped this LSE. LSE's are very logical types; this action seems rather impulsive and without logical consideration and more perceptual consideration first. LSE will discuss plans too at length covering many of the errors or margins for error prior to proceeding. This action just doesn't seem like it would come from the mind of an LSE.

[Park]

Moral of the story: If you're going to do something of questionable legality, don't let anal lawkeepers know about it.

That's the least relevant point of the story.

[cracka]

The worst part about it being a firearm is that they never really come cheap... if they do, there's a reason that there's something illegal about it. My biggest problem at this point would be, how much it sucks to pay for something and even have to "anonymously drop it off" somewhere. I'd be doing this for buying it in the first place... Nothing worse than pissing money away.

[Slacker]

I'm much more sure of his type than I am of your ability to type people, Maritsa.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm much more sure of his type than I am of your ability to type people, Maritsa.

You don't actively type people anyway, so please don't be concerned much about my "ability" to type people...oh, and MY ABILITY IN TYPING PEOPLE GOT ME TO TYPE YOU RIGHT...that aught to say something eventhough to you it doesn't say much because in the bigger scope of things nothing means anything to you anyway.

The guy you type, supposedly, is Not an LSE in my book. He's careless and inconsiderate, especially of his business relations, that doesn't seem to have any Fi value to it.

[Slacker]

OK let's see. You first typed me SEE, and then decided yes I was IEE after you learned everybody else said I was IEE. That's not the same as "getting me right."

And yes he is LSE. LSEs don't always do everything right. No one of any type does eveyrthing right every time.

[DividedsGhost]

Moral of the story: If you're going to do something of questionable legality, don't let anal lawkeepers know about it.

[Beautiful sky]

OK let's see. You first typed me SEE, and then decided yes I was IEE after you learned everybody else said I was IEE. That's not the same as "getting me right."

And yes he is LSE. LSEs don't always do everything right. No one of any type does eveyrthing right every time.

I first typed you as SEE because I saw Se role then read a post where you showed Ne. Then I typed you IEE for sure. That's getting it right. You don't even consider Role functions and how people display them or demonstrative functions or how all the other functions go together in a psyche makeup. You just point your finger to your PoLR and say people are Ni, which, by the way is exactly what Rick does when he types, that's why he isn't any better at it as you are.

Here you've chosen a position that he's LSE and he must be...why? Feeling activated by his Te?

[Slacker]

I know him and I've known him for years. I know what type he is, and you are not in a position to type him as you don't know him and you aren't good at typing anyway.

[Beautiful sky]

I know him and I've known him for years. I know what type he is, and you are not in a position to type him as you don't know him and you aren't good at typing anyway.

Keep repeating your mantra "You aren't good. You aren't good." It will help you get better.

[cracka]

Haven't you people figured out yet that it's not even worth paying attention to posts like the one Maritsa wrote saying that this person is not LSE... If you would have just disregarded it in the first place there would be no argument of what this person's type is. Whether or not the person is LSE or not has no real relevance to this thread and it's purpose in the first place. Why dwell on it?
Pertaining to this thread though... has anything else come of it?

[Slacker]

The police confiscated the item but consider my husband and the LSE to be helpful good concerned citizens and not bad guys. They are out the money they spent on it but it was not a great deal of money. They have made up and are friends again, though my husband says he has learned to be more careful.

[Park]

though my husband says he has learned to be more careful.

Sooner or later you realize you can't trust anyone, and shouldn't expect people to value their relationships as much as you do.

One should become comfortable living with the fact that no one is worth relying on. Some of us will keep trying to convince themselves otherwise, but perpetually fail.

[Aiss]

A bit late to the party, but I'd like to add I agree 100% with your husband here. Though I guess that's what you get for trusting people in the first place, as Parkster said.

[Creepy-bg]

Sooner or later you realize you can't trust anyone, and shouldn't expect people to value their relationships as much as you do.

One should become comfortable living with the fact that no one is worth relying on. Some of us will keep trying to convince themselves otherwise, but perpetually fail.

ehh just be realistic about people and yourself, it's better than getting jaded. real people fuck up, every friend will let you down at some point, and you know what? you'll do the same to them. we're all human. just because it's like this doesn't mean that they or you aren't reliable (as long as your realistic about it) or value relationships any less than eachother.