A Good Samaritan, helping his neighbors by being a neighborhoold watch captain, is hounded into hiding because of an unfortunate shooting incident. After a year and a half in hiding, he is exonorated by a six-person jury in a highly-publicized trial. Yet outrage against him remains so great among certain segments of the public that he cannot come out of hiding. When he does momentarily reveal himself, it it to help a family trapped in an overturned automobile. The family wants to acknowledge his good deed publicly but is afraid to do so because of fear that threats against him will come their way. After all, the Good Samaritan’s parents also have to live in hiding because of threats. Anyone who speaks up for this mensch must fear for his reputation, if not his life.
Last week, for the second time, the President of the United States spoke about this case. In doing so, he neglected to affirm the jury’s verdict as just even though he heads the government that ran the trial. While he spoken of civil rights, he made no mention that the Good Samaritan was being denied his civil right to a peaceable life without constant fear for his life. In fact, the President, while he was showering sympathy on himself and others, offered not a single word of sympathy for a man who suffers so much for his good deeds that his own lawyer says he would be wise to “leave the country” for the sake of his own safety.
This man has been excoriated by his critics as a “wannabe policeman.” Would they prefer he be a “wannabe thug?”
Can a nation which proclaims itself “the land of the free and the home of the brave” be far away from judgment when it treats a Good Samaritan this way?
God help us all.