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. Mohammeds 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 ones 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 discus...
