s it. Civil disobedience means refusal to obey civil laws regarded as them unjust, by employing methods of passive resistance. Therefore, now you must prove the criminal charges of arson are unjust for this to be civil disobedience. While Mr. Mohammed did commit arson because he burnt down property that does not belong to him, he felted that his reasons were justified. The defendant felt this was the only way to rid his neighborhood of this problem. As stated in the beginning, the police knew of this house and did nothing about it. Although Mr. Mohammed knew he would be committing arson, he was left with no other choice. Furthermore, Mr. Mohammed admitted to setting the house on fire and calls the police and fire department, which lead one to believe that his intentions were not malicious. Finally, now that you know what arson and civil disobedience means and how Mr. Mohammed story stack up against both of them. You can finally answer the question, which is did Mr. Mohammed perform arson or was it civil disobedience. Well you now know to commit arson malicious intentions and improper reasons. While it was, clear that Mr. Mohammed did not have malicious intentions, were his reasons justified. Although he did rid his neighborhood of the drug house, he did commit arson because he burned down property that did not belong to him. While his reasons may be justified to him, they may not be justified in a court of law. However, there has to be a time where a civilian can take matter into there own hand, if the law will not respond. Burning down the drug house will help the community get rid of drugs. While I do believe that this is illegitimate case of civil disobedience, I have to agree with the charges on arson. The bottom line is this, Mr. Mohammed chose to set fire to property that did not belong to him, which is clearly stated in the in the law as arson. However, I do agree with is reasoning for burning down the house, I f...
