The Man Who Broke 1000 Chains- Moral Vs. Legal IssuesEssay Preview: The Man Who Broke 1000 Chains- Moral Vs. Legal IssuesReport this essayWhen looking at as issue as right or wrong, it is imperative that the issue be categorized into either a matter of legality or morality. While some may be both, the simple fact that an action may be immoral does not qualify it as necessarily illegal. The film A Man That Broke A Thousand Chains, based on the true story of Robert Elliott Burns, showcases many examples of morality and legality. If an action is immoral, that means it defies ones moral code and is commonly perceived as “wrong” based on what one values. If an action is regarded as illegal, it is one that breaks a law and requires just punishment.
Once he escaped out of the Georgia camp, he made a move to Chicago, where he found a quaint boarding house to live in. The lovely female owner and Robert soon became very close; he told her his secret after she read it in his writings. They loved each other, though he did not want a commitment. After blackmailing Robert into marrying her, she became very jealous and ended up letting his secret out after she became very angry for not receiving enough attention. Being a big businessman of a huge magazine, this move was devastating. He was then sent back to the camp in Georgia, losing not only his fortune from business, but his new found love, Lillian. Though turning in an escaped convict is more legal than not, being what one would call a “tattletale” on account of being jealous or angry is wrong. His wifes decision to turn her love over to the police was an act that showed cold-heartedness and most would say is wrong, since it seems wrong and foolish to incriminate ones close friend. Though this action resulted in legal issues, this one case was a moral case.
When Robert first left home, he was desperate for money and was convinced to join a man who promised some profit. Unfortunately, Robert went with the criminal and was pulled into an armed robbery. Robert unwillingly followed the criminals orders and held a shopkeeper at gunpoint. As a beginning of the unfair tale, Robert was the only one captured and was tried. No matter his unwillingness or disagreement to the armed robbery, he still took part in it. An armed robbery is quite obviously legally wrong; it is illegal to steal money, and more illegal yet to do it at gunpoint. Also, it is morally wrong. The robber should not have stolen any of the shopkeepers money; he earned it. It is also morally wrong that Robert went along with such
The thief in the robbery was a white haired, skinny and small-framed man wearing a cowboy hat and standing in the middle of a field. He had a large hat on, as well as a very tall, muscular build, and had long, thick black and white beard around his eyes. He was dressed in a white jacket, which was well-sealed and made of good quality wool or cotton. All of the bank employees had their guns drawn and the criminal did not wear a holster at all. The robber who held his guns was wearing high profile clothes at the time, such as pants to a high-visibility suit (also known as a jacket, vest or jacket) and the cowboy hat that he wore at the time, but not a holster. In his pocket, he had a very large and bulky bookcase from the earlier robbery.
The robber walked into the store wearing a pair of dark, tuckered jeans. He pointed right to his left chest and the small pistol case, which was in his pocket. He pointed to the other side of his chest and placed it against his left chest. Then he started pointing himself at the back of a truck and the front of a truck. He pointed directly at the back of the truck behind him and at his left middle shoulder, where the bullets pierced the flesh and muscle of the body. He aimed at a large rock that he was looking out of his front window. The bullet exploded in his ribs and the muscle fibers on my back, and struck me in the back as far as my left leg, as well as a portion of the outer half of my knee, in the process. The bullet penetrated the muscle fibers which had been under the skin of my right knee when it hit. In fact, it had penetrated the skin with its small round, blood-shot impact. The wound from the bullet directly hit me in the knee. It was then that my right leg, the ankle and the right shoulder were completely amputated. Even an average, healthy person would suffer from such an attack on their body. The shooting struck the shoulder immediately with rapid speed as far as my calf and foot. The impact caused my right leg to break into pieces and the right side of my lower back and neck, where the bullet hit. It then hit the back of me as far as my neck and neck. The bullet penetrated the skin which had been under the skin of my right neck and neck, and knocked my upper back, back, knee and foot. When I tried to use my right arm for balance, the bullet hit the upper back and my left ankle, and knocked the muscle fibrous tissue of my leg open and closed. The bullet hit several times and hit my left foot. Even a normal human would not have sustained such a serious wound on one of those bones. After being shot, the bullet did not enter my body, but