seven006: If the story does come out (and I think it will and should) the fact that LL and her husband made the offer to keep her thoughts within it’s own environment of her on going situation, and it was "turned down" will give the age old "judge for yourself" thought people have when a "no comment" answer is given in one of those investigative, whistle blower, shows so many see on TV, like 60 minutes, Dateline or what ever. The viewers mind instantly says "guilty, they are trying to hide something"
This type of "offer" could also be viewed by the JWs as "blackmail". The likely resulting rumor would be something to the tune of, "Look at those awful apostates. They tried to blackmail the elders by threatening to take the brothers to court if they didn't let them spread their spiritual poison at the Kingdom Hall! See what happens when you leave Jehovah? Aren't the elders wonderful for protecting us? Maybe Jehovah was using the incident to teach them a lesson - they should have known better than to be celebrating Christmas anyway." Not to mention that the congregation members could get aggressive - whether verbally at this hosted "meeting" or in more informal ways which involve more property damage and intimidation "offline".
Lady Liberty: Mind you we felt he was sincere...
I'm sure he was... sincerely sorry he got caught, sincerely unhappy with standing on your porch, sincerely ticked-off that he was impelled to make the appearance of an apology. If he had truly been sincere, his conscience would have moved him to come forward sooner and to offer restitution for any damage out of his own pocket.
Qcmbr: Of course you could show the better example and teach by forgiving....
Lashing out - even while justified will not heal your hurt - revenge however leaglly correct never ever ends well and the corrective effects of punishment here will not teach a lesson greater than their obvious humiliation has already done. ..
This "better example" would only be an "example" if (1) a number of people knew about the incident and (2) those people knew what Lady Liberty's seeming inaction meant, and (3) they could appreciate that behavior. Likely even if the entire circuit knew, they could not appreciate the depth of hurt of this action and what "forgiveness" would really mean. (After all, she's "only" an "apostate" - many JWs seem to think "apostates" have no real feelings.)
Besides, "revenge" [1: to avenge usually by retaliating in kind or degree - 2: to inflict injury in return for] doesn't fit the act of reporting a wrong on behalf of "justice" [1 a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments c: the administration of law; especially: the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity]
The advocacy of "forgiveness" in this case seems a euphemism for "letting it slide."