Quote:
Originally Posted by bnorth
They are thoughtful responses you just don't like them because they do not agree with you.
I HAVE had a gun stolen out of my locked house. Why by any stretch of the imagination should I be held responseable for a gun that some POS stole from me?
I was working at Whiteman AFB and living off base. I had a week off so took a short vacation. When I got home one of my guns was missing. I instantly called the PoPo to report it. They did show up but acted like it was no big deal and didn't even want to do a report.
Weirdly the thieves stole by far the cheapest gun of the 4 in the room a Ruger 9mm. I did get it back almost a year later because it ended up being 2 people that broke into my house. One of them got arrested on a different charge and turned in his friend for stealing my gun to get his current charges reduced.
|
Well you see, you should be charged with a crime because holding the actual criminal responsible does little to serve the political agenda, while if you are held responsible they can score some points. We're right back to a few hundred posts ago, just criminalizing the other side, regardless of how many other principles, laws and rights must be trampled or ceded in order to do so.
Let's see if anyone will agree with this new legal principle when it is applied to anything beyond guns, that if the victim of a crime does not do enough to stop the crime, they are legally culpable and should be charged (I am unclear if the argument is that they should be charged with a new crime of negligence or that they should be charged with the acts of the actual perpetrator).
1) A homeowner has a hammer stolen from their garage. The hammer is unsecured, the garage door unlocked but closed. The burglar later uses the hammer in a homicide. Should the homeowner be charged with a crime and imprisoned?
2) A young woman walks down a dark alley in a seedy side of town late at night in a very short skirt. Is she to be charged alongside her rapist?
3) A man wearing nice clothes that signal he has some wealth is out in a high-crime neighborhood. He is robbed, and offers no real resistance to the robber. Is he to be charged alongside the robber?
The answer, of course, is no. Charging the victim of the crime is, of course, a complete bastardization of the purpose of law. It violates every liberal principle. History shows us that principles are easily ignored when one sees a chance to criminalize people they don't like.
I can't wait to see what the next loony proposal is to criminalize groups of people someone doesn't like.
07-14-2022, 02:20 PM
Similar Threads
Threaded Mode