hondo71 wrote:I think it's a bit unfair to say it was Didak's responsibility to spill the beans. He has his own safety and that of his family to think about. Having said that, I reckon if he had his time again he may have handled it differently.
With what happened a few days later it's easier in hindsight to say he should have told police but he probably didn't think that the guy using a firearm that night, automatically meant there would be a homicide a few days later that he could have single-handedly stopped. Didak wasn't the only person that the shooter was involved with in the weeks leading up to the tragedy. Didak didn't pull the trigger on the day and re-working the past to what might have been is just speculation now. I sympathise with the family of the brave deceased but to point the finger at Didak is a bit harsh IMO because it won't bring him back.
I think it's best that high-profile people just avoid certain people and situations.
It is everyone's responsibility to spill the beans about serious criminal behaviour like shooting up property, so that it does not become commonplace and make everybody, and their kids, more unsafe. Innocent bystanders could have been injured then, and doing anything else condones the criminal behaviour. If he had done that much a murder, I agree he could not predict,
may have been prevented. He could have predicted more of what he had witnessed, and a predictable accidental injury or death resulting.
I agree that if you have a high profile than you do need to be extra careful, partly because you are publicly condoning this irresponsible behaviour by being there and doing nothing - the profile makes you a role model whether you want it or not. Your alternative is to walk away from the career that gives you the profile if your cannot be responsible.
Perhaps we need the offence of "Consorting with known Criminals" on the statutes? I am not sure whether it used to exist here.
