Thank you very much--this is *precisely* the example I was hoping someone would feed me. Consider that you have a duty higher than that to family.

To be a silent witness to crime is to be an accomplice to it. In your example, your family member is the "worst criminal". Not someone whose "crime" you don't find to be particularly evil--"stealing" mp3s, or driving faster than the posted maximum speed. In your example, the crime to which you would be an accomplice is "the worst"--murder, rape, genocide--whatever it is, it's that thing that you find most morally repugnant.
There are many ways you can address the issue. Turn them in to the police. Remove from them the ability to commit their crime--perhaps by having them committed under a physician's authority. Kill them and then turn yourself in to the police. It's up to you how you handle it--or fail to. And you'll be held accountable for that, too.
There is a duty higher than that to family. Your duty here is very clear. It's just not *easy*.

You have moral priorities, whether you like it or not. When you can't please everybody, who do you please? The priorities I cited are fairly well known and quite successful at producing societies populated by generally happy people. But they're by no means the only ones. I can't comment on the priorities you proposed because you didn't propose any.

It's not really *that* complicated, and that, I believe is why you take issue. You know what you need to do; you just don't want to do it. It's a lot easier to debate away your duty with complicated BS than admit the simple truth that you *have* a duty. But if you must, take solace in the abundance of books, preachers, teachers, prophets, enablers, self-help gurus, lawyers, partners-in-crime, and a panorama of religions ready to convince you that whatever you want to do is the right thing to do.

tl/dr:
It doesn't work if you put your country before your family or your family before God or your Country before your God.
Volunteer to help your community. Help the schools. Feed the sick. Wash the feet of the poor. Who's stopping you? Do those things AFTER you take care of your family's needs. Anyone who looks out for their community BEFORE their family is dangerous to his community and his family.

God:
Whether I believe in your God or a God is not relevant; this is just the phrasing of the idiom.
This means "duty to self" to be morally correct--that is to say "maintaining myself as an instrument for good". Not as "looking out for number one"--(looking out for #1 is exactly the opposite!). It doesn't mean that I get to set myself up as a moral absolute and ignore everyone else's needs in order to satisfy my superiority. This comes first solely for the obvious practical reason that in order to do good, I must first be good or at least not particularly evil at that moment.

Family:
Once this instrument of good exists, the first I must serve is my family. This needs no further explanation.

Country:
A little thought tells me that I have a greater duty to those closer to than farther from me in this large community we call country. I cannot save the world. So I am responsible to do good where I can. I must help my neighbor before an arbitrary person on Earth (or off of it, I should be so lucky). That person has neighbors as well. In this area is of course Military Service, which also needs no explanation.
My community's schools fall under the rough grouping of Country, more specifically somewhere between "Neighbors" and "any other sophonts in the universe" or "All God's kids" if you prefer.

Way after Family.

These priorities are in that order for a simple practical reason: The results of screwing up the order suck:
History is full of examples: Good party members who rat out their family or neighbors for love of Country. A father who does things he knows are unethical in order to provide every luxury for his family. Nationalistically motivated genocide perpetrated by people who know *exactly* what "thou shalt not murder" means.

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Once your extreme views become fact, you're no longer a crackpot.

'Freedom of expression is given to people who stand up for what they’re saying and not hiding behind anonymity,'

Fuck you. It's a human right. Happens to be protected by our constitution, but that's not where it comes from either.
You (Arianna Huffington) are a sanctimonious twit to sit there and dictate terms under which freedom of expression is "given".

Yes, it is. There's lists of criteria that help you recognize cults--read the lists and then go to a couple of meetings.
Religion and cults are not bad per se. Just powerful social tools for making people do or be something other than what they are right now. Such tools can be used to do very, very bad things. But they can do good things, too.

So they're a cult. That's the point. I joined with full knowledge that these people are trying to brainwash me. Because that's what I wanted them to do. Help me reprogram my thinking because what I was doing wasn't working. I believed (yes, thats a "d' there) in it for the same reason anyone believes in anything. I chose to.

After a while, I didn't believe in it anymore. Character flaw I guess; after I'm around some BS for too long I can't believe in it anymore--even if I want to. Same thing happened when I tried a sales job. I kicked ass until it finally sunk in this was all cynical manipulation and made-up BS.

27 years later still clean and sober. AA helped me get that way. But when I was done believing I was done believing.

I go to a meeting from time to time; the fellowship is still there. But I don't believe the religion anymore. In life, if somebody asks for help, I'll share what I have experienced, and if I need help I'll ask for it. And if somebody wiser than me points out a character flaw I have, I'll take a look at it and maybe do something about it. I don't do this within AA because I don't hang out there. But I learned how to do these things in AA.

What's the point? None; I'm not trying to prove a point. Just thought somebody who'd actually been there should speak up.

Our household in Ohio depends on a private well for all our water, and it would surely be miserable if it got contaminated.

Just today, our dogs were freaking out because of the fracking machinery running on the neighbor's property.
Poor Blanche just shivers and pants. It's better with her Thundershirt, though she's still fearful.
And my wife told me she felt another earthquake this afternoon. She's from CA, so she knows earthquakes.

I guess we can live with all that, but you gotta have clean water! It's just such a relief to know that our well is safe.

as I was a 9-year old kid going through his tackle box before our fishing trip.
His answer "Fishermen".

I'm an EE, working for a small SI/contract house that's been in business since 1985.
We're innundated with work right now--the problem is NOT finding contracts. It's finding qualified engineers that don't already have a gig. Still, the Clients remember the "bad economy" prices and believe those should persist. Our rates have not gone up in years.

At some level of management, the perception is that engineers and skilled trades are interchangeable commodities.
The Client's argument seems to be that "There are 7 billion of us. Somewhere out there is a person with the exact skill set we need. We just have to find that person. Their services should cost no more than any other."

The Client must understand that if they want a specific skill set and aren't willing to "invest in people", they have to pay us to make the same investment. Most of us are permanent employees where I work. You don't pick up a random engineer on the street and find they're competent and have a good work ethic; those people have jobs already. Between gigs, you carry those folks so they're available when the next gig shows up. And when the work gets heavy, those people work a lot harder. To retain those folks, you have to pay them. This is "investing in people". At the end, the service we provide reflects that investment. Through a contract or as a direct employee, it still must be paid.

To follow up and clarify:

The current statement FTA is that the 5th protects you only from being forced to decrypt *A* hard drive. If you did that, you'd be saying in effect "that's my hard drive".
In this case, the FBI says the figured out it was that guy's hard drive.
The judge in this case has to say "OK, they know it's your hard drive; you lose nothing by providing the password now."

So, if you accept the current legal state that decrypting *your* hard drive is not protected, there is no protection for this guy.

Personally, I would have taken the simple "I'm not going to say anything because it might get me into trouble" as sort of the point of the 5th amendment, but that's not how the courts currently see it.

For common people, the rule seems to be that the *act* of supplying the documents (that is the decryption itself) is protected.
But the documents themselves (that is the unencrypted data) *derived* from that act is NOT protected.
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201112268.pdf

But, if you're a lawyer or politico, then the supplying of documents and the content of those documents are BOTH protected.
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_166

EFF would like to see it go this way, too (good luck!)
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/EFF-Claims-Encrypted-Password-is-Protected-Under-5th-Amendment-560879/

I'm guessing it's this part of it that protected him:
"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

There's no clause in the fifth amendment that says "...but if we have good evidence you're guilty, then you have to tell us what we need to know in order to get more evidence."

The police put you in a room and say "CONFESS", and you refuse. Judge says "that's right--you don't have to confess to anything. In fact, you don't have to say anything at all. You can remain silent."
Later, the police find some evidence that suggests you really did something illegal. And really socially repulsive.

Judge thinks for 2 seconds and realizes "Who's going to defend a kiddy diddler? I can rule however I want against this guy and get almost no political backlash. But if I "defend the constitution", I'm a liberal judge letting a monster get away on a technicality." Not a difficult decision for a pragmatic public servant. "Let the beatings begin.".

First they came for the child rapists and I said nothing because everyone would think I was one, too.

Now, go look up the word "unenforcable".

Excellent Science fiction on many levels.
Takes a while to get started, but he really pulls it together.

Where in "Get yourself ready to go out there and live in the world and then go out there and live" did you find "Don't work, Don't Socialize"?
There are appropriate places for many stages of recovery; I cited (and you quoted above) several of them.

There are people who are so new in recovery and have no healthy coping tools. A casual conversation or some slight frustration often quickly becomes too intense to handle and they act out their feelings or withdraw. They break down and cry, scream, pound their fists (on objects or people), pick fights, sleep (or don't sleep) for long periods.
Inpatient treatment in hospitals or treatment centers provide a place where this behaviour is allowed, and managed safely while the patient develops the skills and healthy coping mechanisms they need. This sort of very protected environment is a temporary situation for all except the most severely mentally disabled. It is a transient condition only seen at the the very beginning of recovery.

"Splitting"--the all-or-nothing approach to which you allude is nothing more than resistance to recovery.
Your attitude is common to people in recovery. They often fight the process. It's also not an appropriate attitude if you want to recover.
Nobody expects a person to go directly from a severe injury back to full participation in society. Recovery is a process.

At later stages of recovery, when patients have acquired some tools in therapy and treatment, they may be able to go home--depending on what support network they have at home. Halfway houses also exist for the purpose of allowing a person to gradually re-enter society with a safe place to retreat if things get too tough.

Recovery is an ongoing process. A person may have years of recovery/sobriety/freedom from gambling--whatever you call it in your program--behind them, and still run across something that "sets them off" or "triggers old feelings".
The healthy response to that is to call your sponsor, go to church, talk to your therapist, meditate, or whatever it is you do in your particular program.

A less healthy response would be to demand that the world wrap itself in Nerf so you don't bump your head on a corner.
Enabling that attitude doesn't help the person in recovery; it slows them down. If you're doing it, stop.

It is a terrible thing that somebody has a traumatic experience.
If you're walking on eggshells around that person, you're part of the problem.

PTSD represents a bona fide injury and needs to be treated.
If you have an injury, the injury is almost always not your fault, but your recovery is absolutely your responsibility. In those cases where it is your fault (deliberate self-destructive behaviour), you have another problem, which is also not your fault. But dealing with it IS your responsibility!
This is a practical, not a moral judgement--nobody can make you deal with your issues. There's truth to the old punchline "the light bulb has to want to change".

Because there is a behavioural component--sometimes including denial--in psychological injury, the injured person may need some external help to get them started. But, even in this case, the injured person is responsible for their own recovery.

Demanding that the world re-arrange itself so that you can continue in your injured condition is NOT dealing with your problem.
Complying with such demands is--on a personal level--classic codependent enabling behaviour, and does not help anybody.
"Codependency" is not meaningful on an institutional level. The harm to the injured person, whether enabled by an individual or an institution, is exactly the same.

Somebody fresh from their injury is likely to emotionally raw to "get out there".
Stay in a safe place and work on your issues: Home. Halfway house. Hospital. Talk to your counsellor. Call your sponsor. Go to a meeting. Have a session with your psychologist. Pray. Meditate. Whatever your program for recovery is, work your program and get your life back. Get yourself ready to go out and live in the world, and then go out there and live.

Somebody who goes out into society and tells everyone "please don't talk about these things because it sets me off" is NOT dealing with their problem.
Rather than doing the painful, humiliating and frightening work on themselves, they're assuming the role of director and staging the world to suit themselves.

Even if it would work for one person (it doesn't), there is more than one psychologically traumatized person in any given place. It's simply not practical to ban everything.
"I was locked in a tiny room. If only there weren't all these closed windows, I wouldn't have panic attacks."
"I was abandoned in a big train station. If only there weren't all these open doors and windows, I wouldn't have panic attacks."
"I'm an alcoholic. If only there wasn't booze everywhere, I wouldn't get drunk."
"I'm a compulsive gambler. If only there weren't internet cafes on every streetcorner, I wouldn't gamble."
"I fought in a war. If only people wouldn't slam doors, I wouldn't have these flashbacks."

If only the world would re-arrange itself to suit my particular trauma, I could be comfortable in the world NOW, instead of after I've worked for my recovery.

When I tried to sell my RV, I ran across a scammer who tried to extort money from me by claiming "we had a verbal contract and you broke it".
We didn't. I called lawyer I found in the yellow pages, explained the situation; he told me "You're fine; the guy is an idiot and you don't need my services."
No charge.

Most won't charge you for the initial consult.
Lawyers are professionals with a code of ethics. Most of them are decent human beings.

OK, if you're curious, I put it up for sale, some guy called and said he was interested, but never agreed on a price.
Meanwhile I sold it to someone else.
Called the first guy to tell him "You never agreed to my price or made me a counteroffer. Somebody else made me an offer, so I sold it to them."
Seemed more polite than just not calling him back.
At that point he told me "Oh, I've made all kinds of plans and bought all kinds of furniture that will only fit in that kind of RV. We had a verbal contract and you broke it and I'm out lots of money. At least a grand. But I'll take $250 and a sincere apology; otherwise I'm going to sue you."
After talking to the lawyer, I told him "Fine take me to court. I called a lawyer and he says your complaint has no merit. If you found a lawyer to file this suit for you, give me his contact info & I'll pass it along."
And that was about the end of it.