View Full Version : Does a "Crime" Require a Victim?
I'm not asking about the Penal Laws on the books in your AO. This is a philosophical discussion.
Should any activity that cannot be reasonably shown to create a victim, ever be considered a crime? If NO person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the actions of an individual or group, is it still just and lawful to charge them with a crime?
Some obvious examples that come to mind are personal drug use, permit-less weapons possession, prostitution, freedom of private land usage (anti-zoning). Etc, so on and so on.
Your opinions gentlemen?
I'm not asking about the Penal Laws on the books in your AO. This is a philosophical discussion.
Should any activity that cannot be reasonably shown to create a victim, ever be considered a crime? If NO person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the actions of an individual or group, is it still just and lawful to charge them with a crime?
Some obvious examples that come to mind are personal drug use, permit-less weapons possession, prostitution, freedom of private land usage (anti-zoning). Etc, so on and so on.
Your opinions gentlemen?
If your neighbor designated his home as a strip club or junkyard, would you not be adversely effected?
I would say no :)
example
driving 150 on the HWY no victim if no crash but the danger of others being killed IF a crash did happen
so it does create a maybe victim that could have been avoided ?
I think thats what ya kinda mean by discussion ?
now of course you could say no harm no foul but the idea of putting that person in danger
that said argue with myself a pro race car guy at that speed or a motorcycle racer vs granny who cant drive and never could and has reflexes of frozen molases is more of a danger in some ways even if she is not breaking any laws ?
so one breaking a law is safer maybe than one not ?
both have the potential of creating a victim though but one is for sure breaking current law ?
how is that for a good point counter point :)
If your neighbor designated his home as a strip club or junkyard, would you not be adversely effected?
In that case you would be the victim due to the devaluation of your property. However, the penalty should be civil, not criminal.
We have all sorts of mala prohibita crimes on the books that could be dealt with in civil court. This is why we have one of the highest incarceration rates in the free world. So much for "Land of the Free" huh? :(
In that case you would be the victim due to the devaluation of your property. However, the penalty should be civil, not criminal.
And what about the trespassers, those that urinate on your lawn, those that fistfight or worse on your driveway on the way to their car that is blocking you in? Going to file civil suits on each individually?
Yeah, the zoning laws are primarily for keeping adequate parking, fire code, noise, and thru traffic in residential neighborhoods down. Can't say I disagree with zoning. But on the other hand, if you own your house and you want to run a small business there, and none of your neighbors can reasonably demonstrate a deprivation of their rights because of it . . .
Changing topic: I don't believe there would be any victims whatsoever by decriminalizing marijuana. It's a naturally occurring plant painkiller with far less negative health effects than alcohol.
Changing topic: I don't believe there would be any victims whatsoever by decriminalizing marijuana. It's a naturally occurring plant painkiller with far less negative health effects than alcohol.
Since you seem intent to derail your own thread by bringing up drug use:
http://www.inquisitr.com/246788/stoned-mom-leaves-baby-on-roof-of-car-drives-off/
Drug use is only victimless if: 1) the users are not parents / guardians, and 2) all social welfare programs have been removed so that taxpayers don't have to fund an addict's living expenses and medical bills.
BTW - I make no distinction between habitual alcohol and pot use. Also, your last sentance is a little misleading: most forms of alcohol in moderation carry negligable health risks to non-pregnant adults. For example, a glass of red wine per day probably confers some health benefits; the same cannot be said about smoking 1 joint per day.
http://lungcancer.about.com/od/causesoflungcance1/f/marijuana.htm
http://alcoholism.about.com/od/pot/a/effects.-Lya.htm
FromMyColdDeadHand
08-09-12, 00:45
Just as an aside, for the people that don't like zoning laws, go to India where there is no word for zoning. Million dollar condos next to literaly a house of boxes or condos with such weak associations that the outside of the building is a mold factory, bit no one has any reason to fix it as a whole. Great people, bad zoning. A complete cluster**** of a way to run cities, or at least it doesn't help with all their problems over there. :fie:
The whole 'victim' thing is why I'm not a fan of increased robotic surveillance. Not only is there not a victim, there is not usually even a complaintant. Literaly if a bear craps in the woods does a park ranger fine him- if he has a UAV, maybe.
I was starting to soften on my "War on Drugs" till I talked to an addiction specialist this weekend at a party. I was starting to warm to the idea of pot=alchohol, but this guy said that pot is becoming a real big problem in the addiction area. People get 'medical MJ' cards and think that makes it all ok and that its not addictive. The other thing is that most medical MJ is bred for its halucinagenic properties- very strongly- and less for the pain relieving properties. This 'prescription so its benign' and high 'highness' leads to people abusing it and leading to other drugs and bad decisions. My war is back on.
Wonder how popular Medical MJ would be if they bred the high out of it and concentrated on the pain relieving properties. A lot less 20-36 year old white males complaining about upper back/shoulder pain is what I expect.
Great and Honorable Sensei,
I didn't derail my own thread. Marijuana fits into the discussion like a hand to a glove.
Your article link: that could've happened with a drunk mom too. Or it could've even happened with a mom that was completely sober and simply exhausted. It's not an argument against decriminalization.
Parents should not get drunk in front of their kids. They should not drive while drunk. Same rules apply to weed. Decriminalize it, tax it, and treat it just like alcohol. No victims.
ColdDeadHand:
Agreed 100%. UAVs and surveillance cameras perpetuate an "everyone is guilty of something" mentality. I don't like the Orwellian direction we are heading in one bit. We have no reasonable expectation of privacy when outside on public streets, but we do have the expectation that we will be deemed innocent until proven guilty, and that we will not be investigated and viewed with suspicion without some sort of probable cause.
My view on things.
Fed govt should have no jurisdiction over such things.
State govt can handle the bigger issues.
Zoning and such goes to county/local govts
I dont smoke pot. I hate pot. I think people who smoke live very dull lives - at least the alcoholics I know do stuff - the pot heads dont. That said - I dont care what you do. If you dont have children/dependents and want to smoke crack - have at it.
If it doesnt create a victim or (I feel this is missing in your OP) or create a REASONABLE fear of ones rights - it should be fine.
For example screaming "fire" in a theater might not create a victim, but it created a situation of real danger.
Also keep in mind about speeding arguments - if you kill yourself going 200mph - and hit no-one else, the taxpayers still have to pay to clean your car and entrails off the road and fix the guardrail.
Just some random thoughts to ponder on the subject, I guess.
A huge problem in this country is too many people are talking too much about rights and not enough about responsibility. Our govnt is rewarding irresponsibility which causes people to want more restrictive laws because the skid-marks of society are becoming too prevelent. I honestly feel that taking away welfare would - in a few years start to fix the problem.
You would think its on purpose. reward the scum, they will force society to vote themselves out of liberty... profit?
I would say yes, a crime requires a victim- but I'm one of those weirdos who thinks this country was founded by and SHOULD be for a free people who basically just want to be left alone.
To those that would say "a crime needs a victim OR a substantial reasonable threat of creating a victim":
Isn't that the thinking that got us the AWB? That's protectionism. Protect people from dangerous things, protect people from themselves.
I'm bouncing around a few different thoughts here but, I'd love to see a constitutional amendment that states something like:
"The right of the people to engage in any activity of their own choosing shall not be infringed upon based on the irrational or unreasonable fear of that activity by others. There must be a reasonable, tangible deprivation of the life, liberty, or property of another caused by such activity in order to inact legislation banning that particular activity."
Or how about:
"Congress shall make no law whose aim is to protect a person from himself or herself. The people reserve the right to make both good and bad decisions for themselves."
if a crime had to have a victim that would surely change things quite radically on so many levels
montanadave
08-09-12, 09:16
I'm surprised this thread has gotten this far without someone mentioning drunk driving (unless I missed it). Certainly a "victimless crime" ... until the drunk hits something or someone and wreaks all sorts of havoc and heartache.
Surely no one is advocating rescinding laws prohibiting driving while impaired or, if they are, I'd be interested in hearing that argument. There are activities which pose a clear threat to others and, as such, need to be regulated or prohibited. Willful negligence or disregard for the rights and safety of others may not always result in a victim, but are acts which society needs to discourage. And one of the mechanisms society employs to accomplish that end is making such activities illegal.
Voodoo_Man
08-09-12, 09:44
Legalize....
They tried in CA and failed.
http://abcnews.go.com/m/story?id=12037727
QuietShootr
08-09-12, 10:08
I'm not asking about the Penal Laws on the books in your AO. This is a philosophical discussion.
Should any activity that cannot be reasonably shown to create a victim, ever be considered a crime? If NO person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the actions of an individual or group, is it still just and lawful to charge them with a crime?
Some obvious examples that come to mind are personal drug use, permit-less weapons possession, prostitution, freedom of private land usage (anti-zoning). Etc, so on and so on.
Your opinions gentlemen?
No. Next question?
If NO person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the actions of an individual or group, is it still just and lawful to charge them with a crime?
Ever run a STOP sign?
Great and Honorable Sensei,
I didn't derail my own thread. Marijuana fits into the discussion like a hand to a glove.
Your article link: that could've happened with a drunk mom too. Or it could've even happened with a mom that was completely sober and simply exhausted. It's not an argument against decriminalization.
Parents should not get drunk in front of their kids. They should not drive while drunk. Same rules apply to weed. Decriminalize it, tax it, and treat it just like alcohol. No victims.
So, all we need are some laws preventing people from smoking pot around their kids...:rolleyes:
Heres my take:
No victim=No crime
Endangering people/rights even without technically creating a "Victim"= Sort of a crime, one that should be punished, but not as harshly as the crimes that actually do create victims.
Let's be honest having a beer or two in an hour or two then getting behind the wheel is about as dangerous/inhibiting to your senses as being a bit sleepy and driving, less inhibiting/dangerous some might argue. But being completely intoxicated; a whole different story.
Smoking pot in ones home or in the woods, private secluded places, etc- and not driving or handling machinery is fine by me, smoke away stoners...
But the second you get behind the wheel of a car on public roads, or operate heavy machinery on the job-site; you are an idiot and a criminal and should be treated as such.
The war on drugs has done nothing but increase the size and scope of law enforcement and put millions behind bars (Yay- I get to pay to put college kids and weirdos behind bars for getting high, in the "LAND OF THE FREE") a good thing if you draw a check for being an LEO; but a bad thing if you don't and have to pay the taxes to support such an idiotic and unwinnable war.
Engaging in an unwinnable war is- ****ING STUPID!
I could declare a war on how crazy women are; but there is no victory to be found, ever. So how does this help anything to waste my resources on such a futile undertaking?
Regardless of how you personaly feel/stand regarding Marijuana; how can you justify the hundreds of millions we don't even have to spend "Fighting" something that will never, never, ever, ever go away?
The war isn't on drugs; it is on the human condition. People are going to seek alternate states of being; regardless of the mechanism they ultimately utilize.
You gotta love the hypocrisy of our societal/generalized mentality regarding pot & other substances VS. alcohol:
If you want to use alcohol, go for it; but do it responsibly or there are consequences to your actions.
But if you prefer other intoxicants; **** you- you are a criminal, pay us this fine, or go to jail, and hey we just might **** up the rest of your life based on this conviction (Asinine as it may be).
Makes a lot fo sense to me...:rolleyes:
Regarding lung cancer and marijuana Sensei; not everyone smokes it; some eat it, no lung cancer there. Some vaporize it leaving the carcinogens safely in the plant matter, no lung cancer there. Some concentrate/separate the canabinoids/canabinols from the plant matter containing the carcinogens; not much chance of lung cancer there...
Saying alcohol is less dangerous or less addictive than pot is ignorant and naive; on the same note, saying pot is non-addictive and isn't dangerous is just as ignorant.
Remove addiction programs funded by the feds and the state, let addicts (all addicts, wether it be alcohol, pot, heroin, meth, junk food, prescription drugs, etc) choose to die/ruin their lives or to recover of their own volition; it is their decision to rot away or to live how they please; I have no right, nor any moral obligation to intervene.
Disability for having the "disease" obesity costs us millions and kills millions yearly. Should we make soda and candy illegal? Would that stop people from getting candy and soda? NO!
You cannot fight the human condition; just find a common ground of laws to help us all live within a moral and ethical confine. And lets not casigate people if they prefer one intoxicant over the other; drugs is drugs.
Thinking that illegalizing drugs will stop people from finding and using them is just as naive as thinking if you outlaw guns it will stop people from finding them and using them.
Interesting thing is when I saw a bunch of you type a variation of the above argument in the threads about the Aurora shooting/magazine bans, etc; and how pot is illegal yet people still use it; I was thinking to myself, some of these people advocate the war on drugs and are using its futility as the basis for your argument as to why gun regulation is useless! Funny stuff!
There are way too many laws and way to many LEO's in this country; not to mention way to many people in jail that do not belong/deserve to be locked up with rappists, murderers, arsonists, pedophiles, etc- you know; the actual CRIMINALS!
No victim, no crime; it's a pretty simple concept to justify.
Voodoo_Man
08-09-12, 11:45
*snip..*.
There are way too many laws and way to many LEO's in this country; not to mention way to many people in jail that do not belong/deserve to be locked up with rappists, murderers, arsonists, pedophiles, etc- you know; the actual CRIMINALS!
No victim, no crime; it's a pretty simple concept to justify.
The law abiding citizens of these cities beg to differ.
http://www.city-infos.com/25-most-dangerous-cities-according-to-fbi/
Remove addiction programs funded by the feds and the state, let addicts (all addicts, wether it be alcohol, pot, heroin, meth, junk food, prescription drugs, etc) choose to die/ruin their lives or to recover of their own volition; it is their decision to rot away or to live how they please; I have no right, nor any moral obligation to intervene.
I think this is were we share the most common ground (although I agree with other parts of your post). However, my problem with legalization is that our society is not yet ready to FIRST remove all of the social safety nets that create a population of victimized tax payers. The liberals fight tooth and nail for social welfare for the addicted (look to the fiasco in FL when they tried drug testing). On the other hand, many libertarians put a lot more effort into legalization than federal welfare abolition - they put the cart in front of the horse which feeds the welfare machine. Get rid of federal welfare (Medicaid, EMTALA, food stamps, housing, etc.), then I'll come to the table on decriminilization of certain drugs.
I think this is were we share the most common ground (although I agree with other parts of your post). However, my problem with legalization is that our society is not yet ready to FIRST remove all of the social safety nets that create a population of victimized tax payers. The liberals fight tooth and nail for social welfare for the addicted (look to the fiasco in FL when they tried drug testing). On the other hand, many libertarians put a lot more effort into legalization than federal welfare abolition - they put the cart in front of the horse which feeds the welfare machine. Get rid of federal welfare (Medicaid, EMTALA, food stamps, housing, etc.), then I'll come to the table on decriminilization of certain drugs.
I'm 100% in agreement with you, the first step is federal welfare abolition; then legalization/decriminilization.
Shit- that's the first step in regaining the former glory of this country and getting back on the path to actual liberty; eliminate the welfare/entitlement programs. Everything else would/could "fall in to place" so to speak; much easier.
The world we have allowed to be legislated into existnece is so unrealistic and backwards, if we don't start the transition back to sanity somtime very soon it will all be lost.
The fantasy of legislating away the human condition has been played out long enough; it isn't working nor will it ever.
Magic_Salad0892
08-09-12, 13:06
No. But with one added condition. That they don't PUT people in danger.
Like driving 150mph on the highway.
That's stupid.
But drug use? If you're willing to accept responsibility for whatever you do when you're on drugs. Then no. I have no problem with it.
I don't have a 100% opinion, yet. I'm still thinking about it. But that's where I'm at.
The law abiding citizens of these cities beg to differ.
http://www.city-infos.com/25-most-dangerous-cities-according-to-fbi/
Voodooman; Let me clarify-
There are too many LEO's in so far as there are way too many asinine laws they focus on to create short term financial gains -EG revenue from fines for traffic violations, code violations and the myriad of other petty BS laws meant to collect $ from the populace VS. focusing LE on acutal criminal activity that warrants direct intervention.
So when I say there are way too many laws; what I mean is there are way too many useles laws that we enforce to gain short term revenue (Which in the long run costs us more in tax dollars anyways...) that really aren't keeping anyone "Safer" in reality.
Think about it; there are so many laws on the books in each jurisdiction that not even the LEO's can realistically know them all; yet ignorance of the law is unacceptable?!?!?!?
When I say there are too many LEO's; I mean they focus an inordinate amount of time on the excess BS laws that confiscate wealth in the name of "Security" to ensure short term revenue is on the up and up, and the cattle/sheep stay in line...
And also, several unconstitutional rogue LEO agencies that could be gutted today and crime rates wouldn't be affected in the least.
Look at how much time LEO's who could be put to better use spend on speed traps alone.
The law abiding citizens in the cities on your list should demand better enforcement of the important laws, and hold their local Judges, DA's and LEO's accountable for keeping the cities safe and criminals off the streets; they should not just enact more laws and pay more LEO's without demanding a specific focus of effort.
Voodoo_Man
08-09-12, 14:04
Voodooman; Let me clarify-
There are too many LEO's in so far as there are way too many asinine laws they focus on to create short term financial gains -EG revenue from fines for traffic violations, code violations and the myriad of other petty BS laws meant to collect $ from the populace VS. focusing LE on acutal criminal activity that warrants direct intervention.
So when I say there are way too many laws; what I mean is there are way too many useles laws that we enforce to gain short term revenue (Which in the long run costs us more in tax dollars anyways...) that really aren't keeping anyone "Safer" in reality.
Think about it; there are so many laws on the books in each jurisdiction that not even the LEO's can realistically know them all; yet ignorance of the law is unacceptable?!?!?!?
When I say there are too many LEO's; I mean they focus an inordinate amount of time on the excess BS laws that confiscate wealth in the name of "Security" to ensure short term revenue is on the up and up, and the cattle/sheep stay in line...
And also, several unconstitutional rogue LEO agencies that could be gutted today and crime rates wouldn't be affected in the least.
Look at how much time LEO's who could be put to better use spend on speed traps alone.
The law abiding citizens in the cities on your list should demand better enforcement of the important laws, and hold their local Judges, DA's and LEO's accountable for keeping the cities safe and criminals off the streets; they should not just enact more laws and pay more LEO's without demanding a specific focus of effort.
While I will agree with you that there needs to be a big "trimming of fat" both figuratively and literally from many LE agencies there is a plethora of good reasons why there are laws on the books that may not always be enforced.
The easiest way to explain to you what the biggest reason is, CompStat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CompStat). While there is no "official" quota system in place, any LEO on here who has had the displeasure of working in a department that relies on CompStat, or any type of statistical data to show the actions or "progress of enforcement" knows that this causes issues. Why are there speed traps? Why are there dozens and dozens of speeding tickets written while there not that many, if any at all, Part-1 / serious crime, arrests made? Simple, its easier for the boots on the ground to generate a ton of numbers than to go out, find and arrest violent criminal offenders.
Now I do not want anyone to get the wrong impression, LEO's are always searching for violent criminals and actively trying to get them off the street, but its damn hard. People do not walk around with giant neon signs hovering over their heads at all times with a downward arrow and text saying things like "I am a wanted rapist." So we do the next best thing, stop anyone and everyone who give us a lawful reason to do so, often times in rural or suburban areas its for traffic offenses.
What does this all mean to average Joe citizen? Joe citizen shows up to a council meeting at a city hall and asks exactly the same questions and makes the same statements you make, why is there revenue generation and not more enforcement of violent crime, why this, why that. The mayor, council member, or other top brass big wig agrees with you and wants to see results. How do they do this? By generating numbers, and I do not mean money. The next time average Joe citizen comes to a meeting, or any other member of the community comes to a meeting demanding answers they get them, in the form of statistical data which is often spun in order to make sure the public is happy with their local LE agency.
Wait...that does not sound right.
It is. Think about it for a second. Ever heard of a very bad accident, like a DUI-related fatal car accident that makes local news, "teens die in horrible crash!" Very sad. What happens next? You cannot drive 1MPH over the speed limit for months afterward in that area without getting stopped and ticketed. DUI check points? Every weekend. What does all this do? Generate a shit ton of numbers that absolve and make content anyone who shows up and asks "what are the police doing to stop this?"
You cant have a one-size fits all govt. The fed govt cannot control everyones lives.
What we need is more power to the states and especially local govnt. That way, people form the govnt to their needs based on location. Not everyone has the same views. You can have MJ legal in CA and illgal in Navada. There is no reason we need a uniform policy.
IMO driving 120 on a hiway is fne if your car and body can do it safely. However - if you cause an accident - there should be VERY hefty prices to pay. However I realize, and our founding fathers realized not everyone agrees. That is why state and local govenments were framed to have the most power.
You cant have a one-size fits all govt. The fed govt cannot control everyones lives.
What we need is more power to the states and especially local govnt. That way, people form the govnt to their needs based on location. Not everyone has the same views. You can have MJ legal in CA and illgal in Navada. There is no reason we need a uniform policy.
IMO driving 120 on a hiway is fne if your car and body can do it safely. However - if you cause an accident - there should be VERY hefty prices to pay. However I realize, and our founding fathers realized not everyone agrees. That is why state and local govenments were framed to have the most power.
Spot on. Great post.
This is where the over-stepping self inflating nature of the federal Govt. has and continues to mess everything up. If we hold the fed. gummint to its constitutional limitations; and let the states and/or people take care of the rest- we would be in such a better place.
There is so much fat to trim on the Federal level, so many agencies that are unconstitutional and rogue; yet we just play along and go with it...
Voodoo:
I hear what you are saying and agree for the most part, I am just tired of the nanny-state ticket and fine for everything in the name of safety bullshit; it is a waste off time, tax dollars and man power; not to mention frustrating.
At the end of the day there is no single azimuth/solution; we can only do the best we can with what we have to to work with.
Voodoo_Man
08-09-12, 15:54
Voodoo:
I hear what you are saying and agree for the most part, I am just tired of the nanny-state ticket and fine for everything in the name of safety bullshit; it is a waste off time, tax dollars and man power; not to mention frustrating.
At the end of the day there is no single azimuth/solution; we can only do the best we can with what we have to to work with.
I explained why it is the way it is. If you take out all the "data" and just let police officers enforce the law, you will see a drastic decline in almost all ticket based enforcement, but you will also see a decline in all across the board. Sure more resources may be freed up in order to attack a specific problem but people still call 911 and we have to respond, so there is no getting around that. One officer on the street or five hundred, someone still has to show up.
CarlosDJackal
08-09-12, 16:07
I'm not asking about the Penal Laws on the books in your AO. This is a philosophical discussion.
Should any activity that cannot be reasonably shown to create a victim, ever be considered a crime? If NO person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the actions of an individual or group, is it still just and lawful to charge them with a crime?
Some obvious examples that come to mind are personal drug use, permit-less weapons possession, prostitution, freedom of private land usage (anti-zoning). Etc, so on and so on.
Your opinions gentlemen?
Yes. If there is no victim there cannot be a crime. Therefore there is the accepted concept of a "Crime against Society".
Anyone who builds a pipe bomb may not have actual victims unless they place the bomb in a location where others can be harmed. However, because just the act of purchasing materials with the intention of building a pipe bomb has been deemed illegal it is a crime and the plaintiff for such a court case would be the country, state, or jurisdiction (ie: US/State/County/City/Town) versus the bomb maker (ie:vs. Joe Smith).
It is not necessarily the act itself that makes it a crime (ie: smoking pot vs. smoking prescribed medical marijuana); but the fact that it is against the published regulations that govern the society in which it occurs.
The only way to not make it a crime is to change the laws (ie: prohibition against the consumption of alcohol). JM2CW.
And what about the trespassers, those that urinate on your lawn, those that fistfight or worse on your driveway on the way to their car that is blocking you in? Going to file civil suits on each individually?
First, is the person pissing on your lawn exposing themselves to you or your kids? Victim = crime. Fistfight? Are one or more persons in the fistfight a victim? Victim = crime. Did the fistfight breach your peace? Victim = crime.
For all others, code enforcement. I'm not saying it's not wrong and I'm not saying these things shouldn't be prohibited, but to be a jailable criminal offense, there should be a victim.
For those that say DUI where no one is hurt should be criminal, why? Why not make it a regulatory violation? Non injury or property damage DUI is $2,500 for a 1st offense, $5,000 for a second offense and $7,500 for each additional offense. DUI with accident leading to injury or property damage? Regulatory fine of the appropriate level, plus criminal referral.
Don't want people smoking pot in your community? Civil penalty violation of the appropriate amount. Injury or property damage due to careless or reckless behavior brought on by use of a regulated substance (drugs or alcohol), civil penalty fine plus criminal referral.
Seriously, why do people in the so-called "Land of the Free" want to make everyone a criminal when they do something we don't like? I just don't get it.
FWIW, I'm a regulatory inspector. If an individual violates one of the regulations I'm charged with enforcing, I can recommend a civil penalty (CP) of up to $11,000 per occurrence, per individual and up to $27,500 per occurrence, per regulated entity. That doesn't mean I MUST recommend a CP at all. I have a set of guidelines that range from <slaps hand*> "Don't do that again", written warnings, small fines, larger fines, etc. I can even go up or down outside the recommended ranges, so long as I have documentable aggravating or mitigating factors. We even have a program where you can plead no contest and pay within 30 days, and you only have to pay 50%.
If they disagree with my recommendation, they have multiple options in pleading their case, up to and including a civil trial before an Administrative Law Judge. Trust me when I tell you these measures carry weight and have a deterrent effect. It doesn't require making them a criminal that will haunt them forever. If they lie, falsify or commit fraud in these cases, I can hit them with a CP, plus a criminal referral. Those cases are very rare and usually those people deserve a criminal record by the time they're to that point.
* Yes, I've actually slapped the back of someone's hand and said "Don't do that again". They were pleased with that in lieu of a $500 fine and they didn't repeat the offense! :)
For those that say DUI where no one is hurt should be criminal, why? Why not make it a regulatory violation? Non injury or property damage DUI is $2,500 for a 1st offense, $5,000 for a second offense and $7,500 for each additional offense. DUI with accident leading to injury or property damage? Regulatory fine of the appropriate level, plus criminal referral.
Do you think that a fine of a few thousand dollars is sufficient to deter enough people from engaging in an activity that carries such risk to the public? You would not even suspend their diving privilages for some period of time after the 1st offense? I seem to remember that a DUI in most states can cost the defendant somewhere around $20K when you factor in legal fees, insurance premiums, lost wages, etc. Bottom line seems to be that some people are only deterred from such activities when their liberty is on the line. For example, I understand the DUI rates in Germany and Australia are much less than the US due to much stiffer criminal penalties.
Do you think that a fine of a few thousand dollars is sufficient to deter enough people from engaging in an activity that carries such risk to the public? You would not even suspend their diving privileges for some period of time after the 1st offense? I seem to remember that a DUI in most states can cost the defendant somewhere around $20K when you factor in legal fees, insurance premiums, lost wages, etc. Bottom line seems to be that some people are only deterred from such activities when their liberty is on the line. For example, I understand the DUI rates in Germany and Australia are much less than the US due to much stiffer criminal penalties.
Driving has been deemed a privilege. Suspending driving privileges does not equal a criminal record. In some cases a DUI charge can effect employment, even when no victim is involved and it wasn't work related. Do you really do anyone a favor by stripping someone of their employment? If it's a 2nd or multiple offenses, you have a depraved indifference case should a victim become involved.
I've seen cases where even the death of a victim hasn't deterred a career alcoholic from driving intoxicated again. So is it a disease or a crime? When there's a victim involved, it's both IMO. YMMV
Do you think that a fine of a few thousand dollars is sufficient to deter enough people from engaging in an activity that carries such risk to the public? You would not even suspend their diving privilages for some period of time after the 1st offense? I seem to remember that a DUI in most states can cost the defendant somewhere around $20K when you factor in legal fees, insurance premiums, lost wages, etc. Bottom line seems to be that some people are only deterred from such activities when their liberty is on the line. For example, I understand the DUI rates in Germany and Australia are much less than the US due to much stiffer criminal penalties.
I tend to agree with Glocktogo that DUI without a victim should not be a criminal crime. A regulatory matter with suspension etc can bring pretty much the same effect without the long term criminal record involved. You can still have a large fine, license suspension, and all that. At whatever level is deemed appropriate.
As an aside, here is one man's experience in Germany with DUI
http://www.howtogermany.com/pages/expat2.html
--
The law abiding citizens of these cities beg to differ.
http://www.city-infos.com/25-most-dangerous-cities-according-to-fbi/
interesting link :)
I used to go through San Pedro Sula when I lived in Honduras ;)
http://www.city-infos.com/most-violent-cities-in-the-world-2012/
so its the #1 most violent city in the world :)
nice to know Honduras got #1 for something at least ;)
I'm not asking about the Penal Laws on the books in your AO. This is a philosophical discussion.
Should any activity that cannot be reasonably shown to create a victim, ever be considered a crime? If NO person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the actions of an individual or group, is it still just and lawful to charge them with a crime?
Some obvious examples that come to mind are personal drug use, permit-less weapons possession, prostitution, freedom of private land usage (anti-zoning). Etc, so on and so on.
Your opinions gentlemen?
First of all - great question.
Some of my Philosophical definitions / clarifications are in order.
What is a crime? : an activity prohibited by law.
What is a law? : an explicit definition of an activity that is outside the bounds of expected behavior between two or more parties.
In other words, laws can be thought of as a set of expectations regarding people's interactions with each other.
This "Expected behavior" can vary greatly depending on locality and population density.
This can be very fine grained, i.e. park / village / movie theater / subway.
If there is no interaction with another person, there is no expected behavior required. This is true personal freedom.
You can do whatever you like, so long as it doesn't affect anyone else.
That is the clear cut case.
What is not quite so clear is when an activity puts another person at *undue* risk, loss or inconvenience.
In general, we don't want people doing things that have a relatively high likelihood of causing harm or trouble to others.
The likelyhood of occurrence and the severity of the risk should both be factors.
What is even more convoluted to determine is: does the mere possession (not use ) of certain inanimate objects / devices / tools pose a high likelyhood of causing harm or trouble to others.
I'll try to follow up with some examples later.
What is not quite so clear is when an activity puts another person at *undue* risk, loss or inconvenience.
In general, we don't want people doing things that have a relatively high likelihood of causing harm or trouble to others.
I know. It's a tough equation to balance. Because every tyrant always uses "the general welfare" to stamp out liberty. "it's for the children" you know.
There are plenty of examples of a no-victim crime that are good laws, a few mentioned in here earlier. But that power and that mentality can lead to people like Bloomberg. Making your decisions for you, demonstrating utter disgust for the common man and his intelligence.
Good thing all the people elected as legislators are reasonable and intelligent guardians of that fine line. :rolleyes:
CarlosDJackal
08-10-12, 08:46
I tend to agree with Glocktogo that DUI without a victim should not be a criminal crime. A regulatory matter with suspension etc can bring pretty much the same effect without the long term criminal record involved. You can still have a large fine, license suspension, and all that. At whatever level is deemed appropriate...
By that logic you are saying that it is okay for someone to point a loaded and cocked handgun at someone's head as long as: (a) The trigger is never pulled; and (b) The would be victim never knows about it. The punishment would be a verbal scolding and nothing more.
This is flawed logic. The "Threat of Force" or violence is still a threat whether the individual threatened knows it or not. "INTENT" has to considered along with the potential outcomes (ie: death). The actual outcome should only be considered when identifying financial damage.
If I decide to blow up a house while the homeowners are asleep, but I don't succeed because I get into an accident that was bad enough to hospitalize me. Should I be punished based on the fact I never had the opportunity to carry out my intent (actual outcome)? Or should I be punished based on the fact that I actually intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm to the homeowners (potential outcome)?
How would your answer differ if you were the homeowner? Think about it!!
Here we go with the "it should be ok for a drunk to do 120 on the highway so long as he knows he'll pay a price if he wipes out a family on the way home" simple minded bullshit again.
By that logic you are saying that it is okay for someone to point a loaded and cocked handgun at someone's head as long as: (a) The trigger is never pulled; and (b) The would be victim never knows about it. The punishment would be a verbal scolding and nothing more.
This is flawed logic. The "Threat of Force" or violence is still a threat whether the individual threatened knows it or not. "INTENT" has to considered along with the potential outcomes (ie: death). The actual outcome should only be considered when identifying financial damage.
If I decide to blow up a house while the homeowners are asleep, but I don't succeed because I get into an accident that was bad enough to hospitalize me. Should I be punished based on the fact I never had the opportunity to carry out my intent (actual outcome)? Or should I be punished based on the fact that I actually intended to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm to the homeowners (potential outcome)?
How would your answer differ if you were the homeowner? Think about it!!
Incorrect analogy. Pointing a weapon at someone does create a victim, regardless of whether the trigger is pulled or not. It creates a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. The coercive interaction with another human being that creates a reasonable threat to their health or general well being is indeed a crime.
Here we go with the "it should be ok for a drunk to do 120 on the highway so long as he knows he'll pay a price if he wipes out a family on the way home" simple minded bullshit again.
Perhaps your excessive and unreasonable example is "simple minded bullshit"? In your example there are a myriad of non-criminal remedies that could be employed. First, the person is stopped by law enforcement. With no victim, the matter is handled in a non-criminal manner (so long as the drunk cooperates). First, he's not allowed to resume his prohibited activities. This will require that he be detained for safety reasons, processed for evidence in a civil proceeding and either sheltered until he's sober or remanded to the care of someone who is. After that, he's be required to go to a drug & alcohol court, where fines are levied, rehab, community service, suspension or restriction of license and other unpleasant things are assessed, based on the severity and number of violations, including violation history. It all goes on his driving record. The only thing that doesn't happen is a criminal record. That's it.
If he wipes out a family on the way home, the criminal side kicks in and the penalty shoud be FAR more severe than it currently is. Without all the victimless criminals clogging the dockets and cells, he'll be tried more quickly and incarcerated for far longer. The deterrent remains intact and the price paid is actually higher. How is that "simple minded bullshit"? :confused:
The coercive interaction with another human being that creates a reasonable threat to their health or general well being is indeed a crime.
I'm not sure if you noticed in CarlosDJ's post that he specified the victim does not know about the gun being pointed at their head? Most of us would say that drunk driving creates a reasonable threat to health and general well-being of the public to be a crime - regardless as to whether the rest of the public is aware of the drunk driver.
I suppose this all boils down to whether a person believes that the State can serve as a victim for those actions that pose potential risk to the public.
I'm not sure if you noticed in CarlosDJ's post that he specified the victim does not know about the gun being pointed at their head? Most of us would say that drunk driving creates a reasonable threat to health and general well-being of the public to be a crime - regardless as to whether the rest of the public is aware of the drunk driver.
I suppose this all boils down to whether a person believes that the State can serve as a victim for those actions that pose potential risk to the public.
You're correct, I didn't notice that. I guess that just illustrates that there are no absolutes. FWIW, the State is ALWAYS the victim in such prosecutions, regardless of whether someone is hurt or not. An individual's recourse is always in civil court.
CarlosDJackal
08-10-12, 14:08
Incorrect analogy. Pointing a weapon at someone does create a victim, regardless of whether the trigger is pulled or not. It creates a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. The coercive interaction with another human being that creates a reasonable threat to their health or general well being is indeed a crime...
So some drunk idiot who is over the BAC limit is not victimizing anyone? Does the streets somehow end up devoid of anyone else or is there somehow a magic barrier that encompasses homes along the drunk's path? By what logic is that?
Here we go with the "it should be ok for a drunk to do 120 on the highway so long as he knows he'll pay a price if he wipes out a family on the way home" simple minded bullshit again.
yup
and while the idea would be great to be on your own if you dont hurt anyone
many victimless type laws are their to avoid having a victim
if I race cars 120 to me is nothing and I can drive safer than granny doing 55
but again its made to avoid having a victim which is the big picture :)
So some drunk idiot who is over the BAC limit is not victimizing anyone? Does the streets somehow end up devoid of anyone else or is there somehow a magic barrier that encompasses homes along the drunk's path? By what logic is that?
Correct. He is not victimizing anyone until he causes harm, actual or perceived. It would be more correct to say he is endangering society until he actually creates a victim.
We do love to be victims in this society though, going so far as to create special categories of them on a frequent basis. :rolleyes:
I think DWI should be a criminal offense even if no one is hurt.
Although, it would make an interesting experiment: do civil fines and penalties alone serve as enough of a deterrent to drunk drivers? If a county were to try that for a few years and discover that the rate of repeat offenders was unchanged or even decreased, I might be able to get behind the idea.
I might even be able to get behind the idea of 1st offense: civil. 2nd offense: criminal.
There's a huge gap in what is authorized for a penalty for a crime, i.e. sentence, vs. what is actually served. This is a gap people outside of the realm of law enforcement really don't get.
All of those public service commercials, in particular with DWI's and seatbelt laws, do more harm than good. They set up this hugely adversarial role between police and citizens and try to force people to believe that one mistake and they are gone for 15 years. Outside of killing or seriously injuring someone, it’s just not true.
In the case of DWIs, first offenses are largely resolved with fines, chemical dependence classes, etc.
I wouldn't think for one second civil penalties would deter some people. The people it would deter are probably the ones who wouldn't engage in the behavior in the first place.
What happens when someone can't pay? Do we put them in jail then? So we would have jails largely full of poor people....oh wait.
Correct. He is not victimizing anyone until he causes harm, actual or perceived. It would be more correct to say he is endangering society until he actually creates a victim.
We do, very fortunately, have enough common sense in this society to restrict one's ability to cause harm to others via actions that have an extremely high likelihood of causing serious injury or death. And after all, to do any less would stretch beyond idealogy and go deep into blatant and even frightening ignorance.
Now that's better. :)
Seriously, why do people in the so-called "Land of the Free" want to make everyone a criminal when they do something we don't like? I just don't get it.
I'm with you on this and agree with you on the DUI stuff, well said.
I'm not asking about the Penal Laws on the books in your AO. This is a philosophical discussion.
Should any activity that cannot be reasonably shown to create a victim, ever be considered a crime? If NO person is deprived of life, liberty, or property by the actions of an individual or group, is it still just and lawful to charge them with a crime?
Some obvious examples that come to mind are personal drug use, permit-less weapons possession, prostitution, freedom of private land usage (anti-zoning). Etc, so on and so on.
Your opinions gentlemen?
There has to be a victim, IMHO. If people want to smoke crack and own grenade launchers and whore themselves out on street corners, more power to them. But, when they start threatening others, damaging other peoples' stuff, etc. is when they're criminals. This concept of "morality laws" is stupid. You can't force people to be good. You can, however, make bad people think twice about doing bad things to other people.
There has to be a victim, IMHO. If people want to smoke crack and own grenade launchers and whore themselves out on street corners, more power to them. But, when they start threatening others, damaging other peoples' stuff, etc. is when they're criminals. This concept of "morality laws" is stupid. You can't force people to be good. You can, however, make bad people think twice about doing bad things to other people.
Without exaggeration, what you essentially state here is that if you had a neighbor that everyone knows smokes crack and therefore by default is simply waiting to implode, he should be able to have unlimited firepower at his disposal regardless of demonstrated behavior. This most likely because you have your guns and believe that if needed you can bring him down yourself if he acts up.
This is misguided, elementary, trivial crap.
Originally Posted by glocktogo:
Correct. He is not victimizing anyone until he causes harm, actual or perceived. It would be more correct to say he is endangering society until he actually creates a victim.
We do, very fortunately, have enough common sense in this society to restrict one's ability to cause harm to others via actions that have an extremely high likelihood of causing serious injury or death. And after all, to do any less would stretch beyond idealogy and go deep into blatant and even frightening ignorance.
Now that's better. :)
Now that's just one person's ignorant opinion and really doesn't do anything but make them some kind of self declared subject matter expert. :)
Do we criminalize skydiving, automobile racing or personal watercraft? We sanction dangerous activities every day in this country. When accidents occur during those activities, we don't criminalize the perpetrators in most cases. Not one person ever said we shouldn't penalize someone for behaviors the community determines to be intolerable. However, you apparently think we should automatically make everyone a criminal when they make a foolish mistake, even when no one is harmed by that mistake. After all, some might willfully and intentionally do the same thing, so we should criminalize everyone for their behavior, right?
Oh, you spelled "ideology" incorrectly. See how this subject matter expert stuff works? :D
mskdgunman
08-11-12, 21:23
Ever run a STOP sign?
In most areas, running a stop sign is a civil infraction not a crime...there is a difference. There may be areas where this is not the case but around here (Florida) thats what it is.
mskdgunman
08-11-12, 21:28
I think DWI should be a criminal offense even if no one is hurt.
Although, it would make an interesting experiment: do civil fines and penalties alone serve as enough of a deterrent to drunk drivers? If a county were to try that for a few years and discover that the rate of repeat offenders was unchanged or even decreased, I might be able to get behind the idea.
I might even be able to get behind the idea of 1st offense: civil. 2nd offense: criminal.
Once again, in Florida, DUI (our version of the old DWI) is a criminal offense. It's classified as a traffic misdomeanor until the third conviction when it becomes a felony. There are civil penalties associated with it but they are in addition to the criminal end. A first time DUI in Florida can expect (on average) $5000 in fines, a year probation, drug/alcohol treatment, a suspended drivers license and community service.
Now that's just one person's ignorant opinion and really doesn't do anything but make them some kind of self declared subject matter expert. :)
Yes, we have sensible laws in this civilized nation because I said we should. And certainly you would have no issue with your wife and children driving on unregulated roadways with drunk speeders swerving around them on the way to soccer practice.
You silly anarchists are funny.
However, you apparently think we should automatically make everyone a criminal when they make a foolish mistake, even when no one is harmed by that mistake. After all, some might willfully and intentionally do the same thing, so we should criminalize everyone for their behavior, right?
Now, I think you are trivializing the magnitude these crimes. You are also drawing some interesting moral equivalence. That is to say, I consider sleeping with a fat chick to be a "mistake." Jumping behind the wheel of a car is a whole different story. In addition, all of those high risk activities that you listed are risks that a participant assumes for themselves (i.e. skydiving), while these crimes are risks that the perpetrator inflicts on the public. In addition, there is no moral equivalence between someone who causes an accident by inadvertently taking their eye off the road and some who causes a collision after getting sauced.
Personally, I think that stiff jail sentances are an important deterant to behaviors that are high risk to the general public. With the possible exception of penalties for personal marijuana use (not distribution), I think that our system does an OK job of assigning those penalties. When it comes to drunk drivers, I would not feel bad if more of them spent some quality time in their local jail.
Yes, we have sensible laws in this civilized nation because I said we should. And certainly you would have no issue with your wife and children driving on unregulated roadways with drunk speeders swerving around them on the way to soccer practice.
You silly anarchists are funny.
You silly statists are funny too, right up to the point you begin ruining people's lives in your quest for societal perfection. Again (and it's getting tiresome at this point), no one said anything about turning the roads into some post apocalyptic Road Warrior fantasy. Did you mean decriminalized roadways instead of unregulated? After all, regulations are what I'm supporting, while you're supporting criminal law.
Now, I think you are trivializing the magnitude these crimes. You are also drawing some interesting moral equivalence. That is to say, I consider sleeping with a fat chick to be a "mistake." Jumping behind the wheel of a car is a whole different story. In addition, all of those high risk activities that you listed are risks that a participant assumes for themselves (i.e. skydiving), while these crimes are risks that the perpetrator inflicts on the public. In addition, there is no moral equivalence between someone who causes an accident by inadvertently taking their eye off the road and some who causes a collision after getting sauced.
Personally, I think that stiff jail sentences are an important deterrent to behaviors that are high risk to the general public. With the possible exception of penalties for personal marijuana use (not distribution), I think that our system does an OK job of assigning those penalties. When it comes to drunk drivers, I would not feel bad if more of them spent some quality time in their local jail.
Actually, I'm not trivializing them at all. I'm merely pointing out that DUI with no victim shouldn't be held to the same criminal level as DUI with a victim. In fact, someone else in this thread turned this into a DUI debate. My point was never specifically directed at DUI. My point was that currently, we have a LOT of criminal statutes that lack any victim whatsoever. They're the result of nanny state do-gooders and moral outrage practitioners who do exactly what we always accuse the Democrats of doing, trying to control our lives for the sake of exercising control. They even speak the same language, "Do it for the children!".
It would be nice to remain on topic, but someone always comes along and pees in the pool. This is why we can't have nice things around here. :(
Guess I can shoot my gun all I want even though I have neighbors in the direction I shoot and until I hit some one not be in trouble !
Then you would have everyone driving drunk and victims would go up big time !
If they want to get drunk and drive on their property fine but not in public !
Guess we should be allowed to get hammered drunk and shoot guns off wherever we want to
You silly statists are funny too, right up to the point you begin ruining people's lives in your quest for societal perfection. Again (and it's getting tiresome at this point), no one said anything about turning the roads into some post apocalyptic Road Warrior fantasy. Did you mean decriminalized roadways instead of unregulated? After all, regulations are what I'm supporting, while you're supporting criminal law.
Actually, I'm not trivializing them at all. I'm merely pointing out that DUI with no victim shouldn't be held to the same criminal level as DUI with a victim. In fact, someone else in this thread turned this into a DUI debate. My point was never specifically directed at DUI. My point was that currently, we have a LOT of criminal statutes that lack any victim whatsoever. They're the result of nanny state do-gooders and moral outrage practitioners who do exactly what we always accuse the Democrats of doing, trying to control our lives for the sake of exercising control. They even speak the same language, "Do it for the children!".
It would be nice to remain on topic, but someone always comes along and pees in the pool. This is why we can't have nice things around here. :(
I truly enjoy the ratcheting sound my cuffs make when they secure the wrists of a DUI that I have freshly jammed up.
DUI is a Traffic MIsdmeanor here in Ga as well, making it a crime. That being the case, I arrest every single one I find.
I makes me giggle w/ delight.
Let's stop for a second to clarify:
• No one here has stated that they are pro DWI. The debate is centered around whether a civil penalty (fine) would be a sufficient corrective action. Rather than create more criminals who lose important rights and employment opportunities. Getting hit in the wallet really hard sure can hurt. Do we need jails full of people (which cost $) when an offender can be fined instead (which brings in $).
Let's stop for a second to clarify:
• No one here has stated that they are pro DWI. The debate is centered around whether a civil penalty (fine) would be a sufficient corrective action. Rather than create more criminals who lose important rights and employment opportunities. Getting hit in the wallet really hard sure can hurt. Do we need jails full of people (which cost $) when an offender can be fined instead (which brings in $).
rich people could care less about a fine and care a lot more about being locked away with a fine and a week in jail ! cause that week would do more damage than a fine
do both :)
I think the fear of being in jail for a week is worse for some than just a fine the fact if you did both really would make it tougher for those who think I will just get a slap on the wrist pay a fine go to a class
I do know my brother has said their are a lot of cases that come through that do not need to be though ? (he is a prosecutor)
not sure what he means by that most likely jail time for those that really dont need it based on what we were talking about
Posted on behalf of our sensible fellow member Koshinn:
"But how about crimes like conspiracy and intent to do some thing in which the intended victim was never the wiser?
Should amassing suicide vests be only illegal after someone blew themselves up, along with a dozen innocent bystanders, in the name of Allah? If that's true and all crimes require victims, we would only be able to stop terrorists after they fail in their suicide attacks."
Posted on behalf of our sensible fellow member Koshinn:
"But how about crimes like conspiracy and intent to do some thing in which the intended victim was never the wiser?
Should amassing suicide vests be only illegal after someone blew themselves up, along with a dozen innocent bystanders, in the name of Allah? If that's true and all crimes require victims, we would only be able to stop terrorists after they fail in their suicide attacks."
Ditto :)
Posted on behalf of our sensible fellow member Koshinn:
"But how about crimes like conspiracy and intent to do some thing in which the intended victim was never the wiser?
Should amassing suicide vests be only illegal after someone blew themselves up, along with a dozen innocent bystanders, in the name of Allah? If that's true and all crimes require victims, we would only be able to stop terrorists after they fail in their suicide attacks."
Good point.
However, be careful with that. I'll change a few of your words:
"Should amassing semi auto battle rifles and ammo be only illegal after someone shoots up a shopping mall with dozens of innocent bystanders? If that's true and all crimes require victims, we would only be able to stop shooting sprees after they're done with their attacks"
Using fear of, or a perceived threat of, force before any action or any victims are created can be used to kill freedom. "They're gonna getcha!! We need to be able to preemptively get them!! That means no one can have privacy anymore. No one can own weapons or buy fertilizer, because no one can be trusted!!! They're gonna getcha!!!"
And all the idiot lemmings scream "oohhh!!! Save me! Save me!! Oohhh!!"
So a suicide vest is the same as a gun ?
Instead of changing words just take the words that were written :)
of course you can change the outcome if you change the words ?
Good point.
However, be careful with that. I'll change a few of your words:
"Should amassing semi auto battle rifles and ammo be only illegal after someone shoots up a shopping mall with dozens of innocent bystanders? If that's true and all crimes require victims, we would only be able to stop shooting sprees after they're done with their attacks"
Using fear of, or a perceived threat of, force before any action or any victims are created can be used to kill freedom. "They're gonna getcha!! We need to be able to preemptively get them!! That means no one can have privacy anymore. No one can own weapons or buy fertilizer, because no one can be trusted!!! They're gonna getcha!!!"
And all the idiot lemmings scream "oohhh!!! Save me! Save me!! Oohhh!!"
Dude.
No. :rolleyes:
I'm saying that the protectionists/ nanny-staters can and do use his argument, against AR owners. You change a couple words in his argument, and you get something that could've come out of Schummers mouth.
Obviously I agree that murderers should be stopped BEFORE they create murder victims, if at all possible. "Conspiracy to commit _____" would be the charge. Conspiracy convictions need to prove ability, intent and an overt act
CarlosDJackal
08-13-12, 11:19
Good point.
However, be careful with that. I'll change a few of your words:
"Should amassing semi auto battle rifles and ammo be only illegal after someone shoots up a shopping mall with dozens of innocent bystanders? If that's true and all crimes require victims, we would only be able to stop shooting sprees after they're done with their attacks"
Using fear of, or a perceived threat of, force before any action or any victims are created can be used to kill freedom. "They're gonna getcha!! We need to be able to preemptively get them!! That means no one can have privacy anymore. No one can own weapons or buy fertilizer, because no one can be trusted!!! They're gonna getcha!!!"
And all the idiot lemmings scream "oohhh!!! Save me! Save me!! Oohhh!!"
You're ignoring a particularly important concept (that I had already posted):INTENT.
This is taken into account in a court of law. If you have someone who builds a pipe bomb just because they were curious about whether or not they could; this is usually taken into account in the trial. While it may have been against the law to do so, how much of a punishment you get depends on what can be proven in a court of law on what your intention for said pipe bomb is.
BTW, a Suicide Vest is an illegal item whereas an AR-15 is not (in most jurisdictions). So your comparison is pretty damned bogus.
You're ignoring a particularly important concept (that I had already posted):INTENT.
This is taken into account in a court of law. If you have someone who builds a pipe bomb just because they were curious about whether or not they could; this is usually taken into account in the trial. While it may have been against the law to do so, how much of a punishment you get depends on what can be proven in a court of law on what your intention for said pipe bomb is.
BTW, a Suicide Vest is an illegal item whereas an AR-15 is not (in most jurisdictions). So your comparison is pretty damned bogus.
Your points are very well said and developed. I'm in full agreement.
You're ignoring a particularly important concept (that I had already posted):INTENT.
This is taken into account in a court of law. If you have someone who builds a pipe bomb just because they were curious about whether or not they could; this is usually taken into account in the trial. While it may have been against the law to do so, how much of a punishment you get depends on what can be proven in a court of law on what your intention for said pipe bomb is.
BTW, a Suicide Vest is an illegal item whereas an AR-15 is not (in most jurisdictions). So your comparison is pretty damned bogus.
I was simply saying that I could see an anti-gun politician using elements of your argument, with the wording changed.
They get on tv all the time and say things like: " The only purpose for weapons like these is to kill a lot of people very quickly"
So it wouldn't be a stretch for them to equate possession of such a weapon with intent. They are idiots who don't understand self defense, and the requirement for advantageous weaponry
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.