Is This The New Normal?

[A2SG]

No. A crime is an action taken that is against the law.

True enough. They are codified and defined in law books and in statutes.

A criminal is someone who breaks the law.

Yup. After that has been proven in a court of law. Until then, the defendant is alleged to have committed a crime, but is presumed innocent until the state can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. No one is considered a criminal if they've only been alleged to have committed a criminal act. Just ask Donald Trump.

If someone sets a building on fire, it is a crime whether anyone was hurt or not or whether the criminal was caught or not.

Sure. The act is defined as a criminal act by statute. It's usually called arson. If someone is accused of committing arson, they are still presumed innocent until guilt is proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt.

Seriously, this is pretty basic stuff. Watch any cop or lawyer show on TV and you'll figure this out.

A criminal doesn’t follow the law because they are criminals. Innocence in the eyes of the law doesn’t mean they aren’t criminals, it just means they haven’t been caught yet.

If guilt hasn't been proven in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt, they are only alleged to be criminals. The are presumed innocent.

Them being caught, indicted and found guilty in court, satisfies the legal justice system, but they are criminals no matter what.

Tell that to everyone who complained about calling Donald Trump a criminal before his guilt was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Heck, there were quite a few who objected to the term convicted felon after he was convicted. They claimed you can't call him a felon until after sentencing. Me, I'm content with conviction.

One of the words that has been redefined is the word crime.

Nope. Still means what it's always meant.

The left now defines “crime” to mean only actions that harm another person.

Who says that? While I suppose it's possible some individual made this claim, it isn't a blanket opinion held by everyone on "the left." I was there when all of us on the left met recently, and that was not on the agenda.

If nobody is harmed, then it’s not a crime. To the left. We’ve seen it repeatedly.

When? Cite specific examples, please.

I know there have been quite a few who made this claim regarding Donald Trump's recent civil fraud guilty verdict, but I don't believe that claim came from "the left." Maybe you have your sources confused.

-- A2SG, double check them and get back to us, mm'kay?

 

[A2SG]

Actually, I watched L&O:SVU faithfully through much of the wokeness till I could stomach it no more. From accusing religion of being fanaticism to the most liberal sexual agenda promoting storylines, I gave up on it.

You know, when it comes to words being redefined into uselessness, "woke" seems to have become a contender for the all time champion. I have yet to find two people, especially those on the right, who define it exactly the same way...or, in fact, who can define it at all, beyond a simple "stuff I don't like."

I'm curious, what's your personal definition of "woke"?

I watch real life shows to understand due process. Shows like the arrested abroad shows, and Border Wars. ISTM, most leftists don’t understand due process. They claim that that means they can’t be questioned,

When did anyone claim that? Again, I was at the meeting, and we didn't decide that.

they don’t seem to have the foggiest idea that they can be held for 24 hours for questioning, etc., without it violating due process rights. Maybe some here do know more, but I have posted several instances where I had to link information that should have been common knowledge.

There are quite a few people out there who seem to severely misunderstand due process and the criminal justice system. A lot of them seem to be ardent defenders of Donald Trump, I've found.

-- A2SG, and that may very well explain why so many of them voted for that particular convicted felon....

 

[Hans Blaster]

When did conservatism embrace Big Government?

2017.

 

[A New Dawn]

2017.

Says the person who likely voted for Obama (who hired 87,000 people to work in the IRS to take more of your money) and Biden (or his shadow government) (who increased government employees by 130,000 workers). And who is now likely angry that Trump is trying to make the federal government smaller by getting rid of agencies that are not working out or who are creating regulations bearing the force of laws.

 

[A New Dawn]

When did anyone claim that? Again, I was at the meeting, and we didn't decide that.


There are quite a few people out there who seem to severely misunderstand due process and the criminal justice system. A lot of them seem to be ardent defenders of Donald Trump, I've found.

-- A2SG, and that may very well explain why so many of them voted for that particular convicted felon....

Seriously? You’ve never seen videos of rabid liberals refusing to follow the laws during police stops or man-on-street videos asking people what the laws are regarding being questioned when a crime takes place?

Look up John Stuart Mill and Edwin M Schur who promoted the ideas of victimless crimes, and then laws passed during/after the George Floyd riots that made it OK to loot and destroy property because no one is getting hurt. But in reality, many people get harmed in the course of these “victimless” crimes, on many different levels. And since then, many reporters and politicians have stated that certain crimes didn’t need to be prosecuted because nobody was hurt. All which alter the perception of how much crime is being committed.

 

[A2SG]

Seriously? You’ve never seen videos of rabid liberals refusing to follow the laws during police stops or man-on-street videos asking people what the laws are regarding being questioned when a crime takes place?

Which specific laws did those individuals refuse to follow, exactly?

And, last I checked, people still have the right to remain silent if questioned by police.

Look up John Stuart Mill

All I know about him is...
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shandy was particularly ill. Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day ...

and Edwin M Schur who promoted the ideas of victimless crimes, and then laws passed during/after the George Floyd riots that made it OK to loot and destroy property because no one is getting hurt.

Since you already seem to possess this information, care to provide it? You didn't even give me a hint toward which states or jurisdictions to start researching.

But in reality, many people get harmed in the course of these “victimless” crimes, on many different levels. And since then, many reporters and politicians have stated that certain crimes didn’t need to be prosecuted because nobody was hurt. All which alter the perception of how much crime is being committed.

Journalists and legislators don't decide which crimes are to be prosecuted, though they certainly are free to voice whatever opinion they might have on the subject. Not sure how their exercise of the right to free speech affects crime statistics, though. Maybe you could provide specific evidence to support that claim?

-- A2SG, it certainly would help.....

 

[A New Dawn]

Which specific laws did those individuals refuse to follow, exactly?

And, last I checked, people still have the right to remain silent if questioned by police.


Since you already seem to possess this information, care to provide it? You didn't even give me a hint toward which states or jurisdictions to start researching.


Journalists and legislators don't decide which crimes are to be prosecuted, though they certainly are free to voice whatever opinion they might have on the subject. Not sure how their exercise of the right to free speech affects crime statistics, though. Maybe you could provide specific evidence to support that claim?

-- A2SG, it certainly would help.....

I’m not going to play word games. All you have to do is say you are not going to pay attention to anything outside your echo chamber and I’ll know not to respond to you in the future. Thanks.

 

[A2SG]

I’m not going to play word games. All you have to do is say you are not going to pay attention to anything outside your echo chamber and I’ll know not to respond to you in the future. Thanks.

If I'd intended to say that, I would have.

If you want me to lend any credence to your claims, I'm going to need some evidence that you're not just making stuff up. Otherwise, I'm not going to take them seriously.

-- A2SG, ball's in your court, dude....

 

[A New Dawn]

If I'd intended to say that, I would have.

If you want me to lend any credence to your claims, I'm going to need some evidence that you're not just making stuff up. Otherwise, I'm not going to take them seriously.

-- A2SG, ball's in your court, dude....

I gave you names to look up - you refused.
I suggested videos to watch that demonstrate the mindset/intelligence level of many on the left -you refused.

I watch every video someone posts and every article written that someone posts during the course of a discussion, whether I agree with it or not, then I google every video or article that speaks to that subject just to see if it is real or interpreted correctly or if it is clipped from it’s context, etc. just so I know where the other side is coming from. I’ve even changed my stance on certain topics because of searching it out. I guess that is just too much to expect others involved in the discussion to do for themselves.

 

[A2SG]

I gave you names to look up - you refused.

You mentioned an English philosopher who died more than a century ago and a socialist, neither one of whom seems to have any say in current crime statistics, nor in prosecution of any crime. You'd need to explain their relevance to the subject.

I suggested videos to watch that demonstrate the mindset/intelligence level of many on the left -you refused.

You provided no videos to check out. Am I expected to do your research for you?

I watch every video someone posts and every article written that someone posts during the course of a discussion,

As I've read every video and article you've posted. It wasn't difficult, I gotta say.

whether I agree with it or not, then I google every video or article that speaks to that subject just to see if it is real or interpreted correctly or if it is clipped from it’s context, etc. just so I know where the other side is coming from. I’ve even changed my stance on certain topics because of searching it out. I guess that is just too much to expect others involved in the discussion to do for themselves.

If I'm to do any research on whatever point you're trying to make, I need a better idea of exactly what that point is. So far, you've made some vague accusations that don't seem to make any point I can discern clearly.

You want to have a discussion? I'm game. Make your point better, and we'll see where that takes us.

-- A2SG, otherwise, I'll take you as seriously as I feel you deserve....

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

Says the person who likely voted for Obama (who hired 87,000 people to work in the IRS to take more of your money) and Biden (or his shadow government) (who increased government employees by 130,000 workers). And who is now likely angry that Trump is trying to make the federal government smaller by getting rid of agencies that are not working out or who are creating regulations bearing the force of laws.

Your points about President Obama and President Biden are accurate. Democrats generally support a larger federal government and reduced local government control.

however, for six decades, conservative policy has advanced the principles of limited government, reduced federal oversight, and increased local autonomy. However, recent actions by the Republican administration include hiring thousands ICE agents, transferring military judges to roles in immigration enforcement, and deploying the National Guard for local law enforcement purposes against the will of local government. These measures indicate a substantial transition from a limited federal government to one that assumes a prominent position as an advocate for liberal policies.

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

laws passed during/after the George Floyd riots that made it OK to loot and destroy property because no one is getting hurt.

If you are making this claim, please provide a citation for the law that has been enacted.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Seriously? You’ve never seen videos of rabid liberals refusing to follow the laws during police stops or man-on-street videos asking people what the laws are regarding being questioned when a crime takes place?

Look up John Stuart Mill and Edwin M Schur who promoted the ideas of victimless crimes, and then laws passed during/after the George Floyd riots that made it OK to loot and destroy property because no one is getting hurt. But in reality, many people get harmed in the course of these “victimless” crimes, on many different levels. And since then, many reporters and politicians have stated that certain crimes didn’t need to be prosecuted because nobody was hurt. All which alter the perception of how much crime is being committed.

I think you misunderstand what victimless crimes are. Looting and destroying property are not a victimless crimes. The ones who own that property and loot are the victims. Victimless crimes includes things like consensual acts involving prostitutes, the act of giving oneself drugs (the related crimes are not victimless like theft), and gambling when all parties are consenting.

This is a good discussion of it:

Victimless crimes | Research Starters | EBSCO Research

<p>Victimless crimes, also known as consensual crimes or public order offenses, refer to activities that are deemed illegal but do not directly harm another individual in a conventional sense. The term gained prominence in criminology during the 1960s, particularly through Edwin Schur’s study...

www.ebsco.com

At issue is the debate over whether the law should forbid activities for which it is difficult or impossible to determine precisely who is being harmed and how. It has been argued that the law should not forbid activities if they harm no one except, perhaps, the people willingly involved in them. Some legal scholars argue that the United States has become an “overcriminalized” society. On the other hand, others point out that some supposedly “victimless” crimes indeed generate harm (for example, drug addiction leads to theft and robbery as addicts try to support their habit). There is also a widespread belief that certain activities should be prohibited because they are harmful to society at large—this is essentially a moral and philosophical position and is therefore difficult to evaluate empirically.​

Personally I see things like prostitution as morally wrong and harmful to society, as it brings so many other crimes related to it. Same with drug use. The drug user hurts himself when injecting, but it hurts society as those drug users commit crimes to have the money to buy drugs, and it overall hurts society. The legal question is if it is better to put that person into rehab or jail.

 

[A New Dawn]

I think you misunderstand what victimless crimes are. Looting and destroying property are not a victimless crimes. The ones who own that property and loot are the victims. Victimless crimes includes things like consensual acts involving prostitutes, the act of giving oneself drugs (the related crimes are not victimless like theft), and gambling when all parties are consenting.

This is a good discussion of it:

Victimless crimes | Research Starters | EBSCO Research

<p>Victimless crimes, also known as consensual crimes or public order offenses, refer to activities that are deemed illegal but do not directly harm another individual in a conventional sense. The term gained prominence in criminology during the 1960s, particularly through Edwin Schur’s study...

www.ebsco.com

At issue is the debate over whether the law should forbid activities for which it is difficult or impossible to determine precisely who is being harmed and how. It has been argued that the law should not forbid activities if they harm no one except, perhaps, the people willingly involved in them. Some legal scholars argue that the United States has become an “overcriminalized” society. On the other hand, others point out that some supposedly “victimless” crimes indeed generate harm (for example, drug addiction leads to theft and robbery as addicts try to support their habit). There is also a widespread belief that certain activities should be prohibited because they are harmful to society at large—this is essentially a moral and philosophical position and is therefore difficult to evaluate empirically.​

Personally I see things like prostitution as morally wrong and harmful to society, as it brings so many other crimes related to it. Same with drug use. The drug user hurts himself when injecting, but it hurts society as those drug users commit crimes to have the money to buy drugs, and it overall hurts society. The legal question is if it is better to put that person into rehab or jail.

I understand what victimless crimes are, and I stated that things like looting and stealing have victims. However, I am speaking especially about the laws that were created in the midst of the George Floyd riots that gave permission for looting and vandalism and other forms of violence that did not involve a human being harmed, to make them legal, because they are victimless crimes.

If the laws involved in the aftermath of the 2020 riots involved rehabilitation vs. jailing, that would be fine, but they didn’t. They just said it wouldn’t be illegal for looting to happen anymore. And what’s been the result? Most places of business have either pulled out of those neighborhoods or they lock up all the merchandise behind gates.

Nice to see you, FreeInChrist.

 

[A New Dawn]

Your points about President Obama and President Biden are accurate. Democrats generally support a larger federal government and reduced local government control.

however, for six decades, conservative policy has advanced the principles of limited government, reduced federal oversight, and increased local autonomy. However, recent actions by the Republican administration include hiring thousands ICE agents, transferring military judges to roles in immigration enforcement, and deploying the National Guard for local law enforcement purposes against the will of local government. These measures indicate a substantial transition from a limited federal government to one that assumes a prominent position as an advocate for liberal policies.

The quote I was responding to directly implied that Trump is responsible for the overbloated government we now have.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The question was about when the conservatives became big government people. I gave the poster a leeway to interpret that as the GOP, since it is hard to call that part as "conservative". They don't really conserve anything.

Says the person who likely voted for Obama (who hired 87,000 people to work in the IRS to take more of your money) and Biden (or his shadow government) (who increased government employees by 130,000 workers).

Of course I did. The alternative were *BAD* for policy (and in the case of Biden, his opponent was bad for democracy).

More IRS employees mean the taxes I have to pay are processed faster to get a refund for the overpayments I had to make through the year by law. The *amount* of tax I had to pay was set by *CONGRESS* (who also authorized the size of the IRS). The other big thing all of those IRS employees did was to make sure fewer of the people who make a lot more than I do use complex filings to avoid paying taxes they should pay (including those breaking the law).

And who is now likely angry that Trump is trying to make the federal government smaller by getting rid of agencies that are not working out or who are creating regulations bearing the force of laws.

There ideological hatred of government and government workers has caused serious damage or destruction to functions of government that are critical for the functioning of a modern nation.

 

[FreeinChrist]

I understand what victimless crimes are, and I stated that things like looting and stealing have victims. However, I am speaking especially about the laws that were created in the midst of the George Floyd riots that gave permission for looting and vandalism and other forms of violence that did not involve a human being harmed, to make them legal, because they are victimless crimes.

If the laws involved in the aftermath of the 2020 riots involved rehabilitation vs. jailing, that would be fine, but they didn’t. They just said it wouldn’t be illegal for looting to happen anymore. And what’s been the result? Most places of business have either pulled out of those neighborhoods or they lock up all the merchandise behind gates.

Nice to see you, FreeInChrist.

Nice to see you too.

What laws were passed that gave permission for looting and vandalism?

 

[FAITH-IN-HIM]

The quote I was responding to directly implied that Trump is responsible for the overbloated government we now have.

You are absolutely right; President Trump is not solely responsible for the size of the government or the national debt. Since the W. Bush administration, both Republican and Democratic presidents have added trillions to the national debt, with President Bush notably expanding the government.

 

[A New Dawn]

If you are making this claim, please provide a citation for the law that has been enacted.

You are absolute correct. It wasn’t the riots of 2020, it was in 2014, in the aftermath of the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown riots that California changed the laws to increase the amount stolen from a place of business for petty theft (a misdemeanor) to $950/person or incident with grand theft (over $950) being a felony. And then refused to arrest or prosecute the individuals arrested.

 

[A New Dawn]

Nice to see you too.

What laws were passed that gave permission for looting and vandalism?

It was the law increasing the amount stolen for petty theft (a misdemeanor) in California after the Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown riots, and then the city government refusing to prosecute those that were arrested (effectively legalizing it).

Sorry, I thought it was more recent, but when I looked it up, it was in 2014.