100 years ago today

[PLC1]

Good, lets hear those reasons... Would it be fair to sum up those reasons as, "because such actions might result in the violation of rights"?



I'm well aware they are considered crimes... It's why they are crimes that's of interest to me. If we are both men of reason, then reason with me.

OK, the reason such things are crimes is that the government's job is to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are jeopardized by imbeciles who commit the sorts of crimes that I just listed. That, and because the people that we have elected to represent us in government have passed laws stating that such acts are crimes.

 

[clarkatticus]

I miss the good ol' days when a drunk driver could hit a bus load of orphans and nuns on their way to Disneyland and the judge would chastise the nun for driving in front of a drunk. A person is guilty only if caught and proven guilty. Even if the person got away with the crime though does not exclude his future prosecution using previous evidence from reliable sources.

 

[GenSeneca]

OK, the reason such things are crimes is that the government's job is to protect our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are jeopardized by imbeciles who commit the sorts of crimes that I just listed.

That, and because the people that we have elected to represent us in government have passed laws stating that such acts are crimes.

Earlier you said:

Remember, we're talking about other people's lives and property, not laws designed to protect us from ourselves.​

If no rights need to be violated in order for something to be considered a crime...

On the one hand, you support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others.

On the other hand, you oppose the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others.

Either government is allowed the power to punish actions that did not violate the rights of others or it is not.

 

[PLC1]

Earlier you said:

Remember, we're talking about other people's lives and property, not laws designed to protect us from ourselves.​

If no rights need to be violated in order for something to be considered a crime...

On the one hand, you support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others.

On the other hand, you oppose the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others.

Either government is allowed the power to punish actions that did not violate the rights of others or it is not.

No, no. Let me clarify:

The purpose of government is to protect my rights from other people, and not to protect me from myself. It is a legitimate and necessary function of government to pass laws against such as drunk driving and other forms of reckless endangerment. Our elected representatives have done just that.

I do not support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others. I do support use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did violate the rights of others.

 

[GenSeneca]

I do not support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others.

Are you sure? Both the laws you support, and the laws you oppose, do just that.

Example: A drunk driver leaves the bar, gets pulled over, is arrested and goes to jail.​

Who's rights did he violate and which rights would those be?

Example: A drug addict scores some dope, gets busted, is arrested and goes to jail.​

Who's rights did he violate and which rights would those be?

In both examples, the criminal did not violate anyone's rights, yet is guilty of a crime. In only one example do you believe the person actually committed a crime, to which you said:

Driving drunk is a crime.
Racing on public highways is a crime.
Firing a weapon in a crowded building is a crime.
Setting fires that threaten property is a crime.

All of those things are illegal, and for good reason.

So are you sure you don't support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others?

 

[PLC1]

Are you sure? Both the laws you support, and the laws you oppose, do just that.

Example: A drunk driver leaves the bar, gets pulled over, is arrested and goes to jail.​

Who's rights did he violate and which rights would those be?

Example: A drug addict scores some dope, gets busted, is arrested and goes to jail.​

Who's rights did he violate and which rights would those be?

In both examples, the criminal did not violate anyone's rights, yet is guilty of a crime. In only one example do you believe the person actually committed a crime, to which you said:


So are you sure you don't support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others?

All that is quite logical in a circular sort of way.

The drunk driver didn't violate anyone's rights, yet he was arrested anyway, and sent to jail, which is where he belongs, therefore I believe in arresting people who didn't violate anyone's rights because the drunk didn't.

Yes, he did.

You don't have to actually kill someone in order to have violated their rights. That is the crux of the argument. Recklessly endangering the rest of us is enough to violate our rights.

It is not protecting my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to stop someone after they have already deprived me of one of the above. It is too late by then. If the criminal has already killed or injured me or destroyed my property, then it is too late to protect my rights. My rights have already been violated. Further, if I'm afraid to venture out of my home because the streets have become dangerous due to a lack of law enforcement, then my rights are violated by that as well.

No, the drunk, the guy target shooting in his back yard, the idiots racing on a public street, the thug who goes around armed and threatening anyone who gets in his way, none of them has to actually shoot you or run over you to have violated your rights.

 

[Hobo1]

This looks like a crime to me; loss of property, possible loss of life:

Here is the original post that started this discussion... despite the twists and turns in logic, I think a certain group of Americans are very cognizant about creeping government control are taking away our rights to freedom and liberty by making everything a crime. If you look at this picture and see a crime, then your brain is ready for Big Brother to take control.

I look at this picture and see an automobile accident, but no crime. I also see nothing wrong with victimless crimes (like prostitution or smoking dope).

With victimless crimes, we have an activity which may hurt another member of society - BUT, you really have to stretch you imagination to figure out how! Liberty is our God given right and it must be given maximum protection against stupid laws; stupid laws like someone smoking, possessing or selling marijuana.

An activity which clearly harms, or has a strong chance of harming someone, should be labeled a crime. We all want to be protected against criminals.

The whole issue is the gray area between crime and liberty. The a man who is truly drunk and is clearly driving recklessly certainly should be arrested on suspicion of committing a crime. But the driver that has had a few drinks and get pulled over for making a lane change without using his turn signal is NOT a criminal - and the police should be able to use their good judgment to say, "go home and don't forget to use use your turn signal."

Some people would make the legal blood alcohol content so low that anyone who has had a few drinks watching a football game is automatically a drunk driver. That is a badly written law.

To set a limit of x% blood alcohol as automatically labeling a driver as drunk is wrong. Instead, the crime in the law books should be dangerous and reckless operation of a vehicle. That puts the burden of proof on the police. Police cars are equipped with cameras that can record evidence, witnesses can be called upon, and presenting blood alcohol as evidence is fine - but not, in itself, conclusive. A man is innocent until proven guilty.

We must be vigilant in protecting our liberty. When protecting the public becomes the sole reason for making any activity a crime, then law enforcement personnel will be the ones who determine how we live your life. That isn't the America I want to live in, where every minute I am afraid of the police.

 

[PLC1]

Here is the original post that started this discussion... despite the twists and turns in logic, I think a certain group of Americans are very cognizant about creeping government control are taking away our rights to freedom and liberty by making everything a crime. If you look at this picture and see a crime, then your brain is ready for Big Brother to take control.

I look at this picture and see an automobile accident, but no crime. I also see nothing wrong with victimless crimes (like prostitution or smoking dope).

With victimless crimes, we have an activity which may hurt another member of society - BUT, you really have to stretch you imagination to figure out how! Liberty is our God given right and it must be given maximum protection against stupid laws; stupid laws like someone smoking, possessing or selling marijuana.

An activity which clearly harms, or has a strong chance of harming someone, should be labeled a crime. We all want to be protected against criminals.

The whole issue is the gray area between crime and liberty. The a man who is truly drunk and is clearly driving recklessly certainly should be arrested on suspicion of committing a crime. But the driver that has had a few drinks and get pulled over for making a lane change without using his turn signal is NOT a criminal - and the police should be able to use their good judgment to say, "go home and don't forget to use use your turn signal."

Some people would make the legal blood alcohol content so low that anyone who has had a few drinks watching a football game is automatically a drunk driver. That is a badly written law.

To set a limit of x% blood alcohol as automatically labeling a driver as drunk is wrong. Instead, the crime in the law books should be dangerous and reckless operation of a vehicle. That puts the burden of proof on the police. Police cars are equipped with cameras that can record evidence, witnesses can be called upon, and presenting blood alcohol as evidence is fine - but not, in itself, conclusive. A man is innocent until proven guilty.

We must be vigilant in protecting our liberty. When protecting the public becomes the sole reason for making any activity a crime, then law enforcement personnel will be the ones who determine how we live your life. That isn't the America I want to live in, where every minute I am afraid of the police.

agreed.

Whether the picture shows a crime scene or not depends on how it happened. If someone was engaging in extremely risky behavior, and caused the accident, then it does. If it was just a momentary lapse of judgement, or if it was two people equally at fault, a slick road, whatever, then it was not. The picture was chosen specifically to illustrate the possible consequences of driving drunk.

Yes, absolutely, the law has to be balanced. We have too many laws now that punish people for engaging in behavior that does not curtail other peoples' liberty.

The laws I've used as examples, however, drunk driving (really drunk, not just a "couple of beers"), reckless driving, setting fires, firing weapons in crowded places with no compelling reason to do so, all of those examples are of behaviors that should be criminalized.

In my opinion, of course. I'm aware that there are people who think it's perfectly acceptable to engage in freeway races and shoot off guns in random directions to celebrate New Year's Eve.

 

[GenSeneca]

You don't have to actually kill someone in order to have violated their rights. That is the crux of the argument.

That is the crux of the argument and it is on you to make the case that the persons actions resulted in the violation of rights. So far, you have offered only that it's legal.

Recklessly endangering the rest of us is enough to violate our rights.

Specifically, which right do you believe it violates?

I'll use an example:

You're on the highway, speed limit is 55, a guy goes past you doing 56, which right of yours has he violated?

Too slow? What about 70, or 90? Now are one of your rights being violated? If so, which one(s)?

Exactly how many miles over the posted speed limit can one travel before you consider them to be violating the rights of others?

It is not protecting my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness to stop someone after they have already deprived me of one of the above.

So you think rights should be "protected" by use of preemptive force against people who have used force against no one? Which of our "rights" enable us to initiate the use force against others?

 

[PLC1]

That is the crux of the argument and it is on you to make the case that the persons actions resulted in the violation of rights. So far, you have offered only that it's legal.



Specifically, which right do you believe it violates?

I've already said, the right to life, liberty, and property. Reckless actions put all three in jeopardy.

You're on the highway, speed limit is 55, a guy goes past you doing 56, which right of yours has he violated?

Too slow? What about 70, or 90? Now are one of your rights being violated? If so, which one(s)?

Exactly how many miles over the posted speed limit can one travel before you consider them to be violating the rights of others?

Fast enough to be a danger on the highway. It is a judgement call, just like most decisions regarding traffic, and not a hard and fast number.

So you think rights should be "protected" by use of preemptive force against people who have used force against no one? Which of our "rights" enable us to initiate the use force against others?

They don't have to use "force" in order to jeopardize my liberty and yours.

How would you feel about the example of the guy doing target practice on the sidewalk? He hasn't forced anyone. Everyone has the option of simply staying in their houses. Is he violating anyone's rights? Does he actually have to shoot someone before he can be rounded up and sent to the nuthouse or the jail, whichever is closest?

Now, show us why you think target practice in crowded areas, setting fires, and driving recklessly should be legal until they actually kill or injure someone.

 

[GenSeneca]

I've already said, the right to life, liberty, and property. Reckless actions put all three in jeopardy.

Jeopardy: Risk of loss or injury; peril or danger.​

There is a difference between violating ones rights and putting them in jeopardy. If they are only being put in jeopardy, then they are not being violated. So... which of your rights are being violated?

Fast enough to be a danger on the highway. It is a judgement call, just like most decisions regarding traffic, and not a hard and fast number.

The violation of rights is not a "gray" area open to interpretation, either a right was violated or it was not.

They don't have to use "force" in order to jeopardize my liberty and yours.

That is absolutely correct, they only have to use force in order to violate your rights. Jeopardizing your rights is not a violation of your rights.

How would you feel about the example of the guy doing target practice on the sidewalk?

I think you've chosen a terrible example and left it intentionally vague and ominous to illicit an emotional response... The guy is part of a Hollywood film crew on location in downtown Detroit. Suddenly it's not so scary an example.

Perhaps you could tighten the parameters and try again. Remember too that guns are loud and usually cause pain and discomfort to anyone close by without proper hearing protection. Prolonged exposure can even lead to hearing loss. These are some examples of how force could be used in your scenario to violate rights.

Now, show us why you think target practice in crowded areas, setting fires, and driving recklessly should be legal until they actually kill or injure someone.

Like I said, if someone is not violating the rights of others and you feel justified in using preemptive force against them, then it is you who needs to justify violating that persons rights.

 

[PLC1]

I think you've chosen a terrible example and left it intentionally vague and ominous to illicit an emotional response... The guy is part of a Hollywood film crew on location in downtown Detroit. Suddenly it's not so scary an example.

​

Nope. The guy has a row of cans lined up on the sidewalk, right in front of a busy intersection, and is busy plinking with a 30.06, getting ready for deer season. Bullets are bouncing all over, whizzing past cars, but none of them has actually hit anyone as yet. According to your posts, he is not violating anyone's rights, merely putting them in jeopardy. What he is doing is not a crime at all.

Meanwhile, his two buddies are preparing a drag race in front of the elementary school, just as school is being let out. According to what you've said, they are guilty of no crimes as they haven't actually run over anyone as yet. They aren't violating anyone's rights.

Now, to clarify your position:

Should driving drunk, BA 1.0 or higher, be a crime or not?
Should reckless discharge of a firearm be a crime, even if the bullet doesn't hit anyone?
How about racing on a public street? Setting a fire right next to someone's house? Is it really your position that none of the above is a crime, as it hasn't actually caused injury to another person or property, just jeopardized it?​

 

[GenSeneca]

Nope. The guy has a row of cans lined up on the sidewalk

Who owns the sidewalk?

right in front of a busy intersection

Who owns the intersection?

and is busy plinking with a 30.06, getting ready for deer season.

A 30.06 has a very loud report. You say it's "crowded", how close are the nearest bystanders?

Bullets are bouncing all over, whizzing past cars, but none of them has actually hit anyone as yet.

When you say "bouncing all over", have any of these bullets impacted property that does not belong to the shooter?

According to your posts, he is not violating anyone's rights, merely putting them in jeopardy. What he is doing is not a crime at all.

If the shooter in your totally absurd scenario is somehow not violating anyone's rights (which is about as likely as the scenario itself), then no, he should not be charged with a crime.

Besides... What sane person would do such a thing?

Meanwhile, his two buddies are preparing a drag race in front of the elementary school, just as school is being let out.

Again with the absurdities... Seriously...

What sane person would do such a thing?

According to what you've said, they are guilty of no crimes as they haven't actually run over anyone as yet. They aren't violating anyone's rights.

And the moment anyone's rights are violated, which happens the moment force is employed, the person responsible is held accountable to the affected individual(s).

Now, to clarify your position:

Is it really your position that none of the above is a crime, as it hasn't actually caused injury to another person or property, just jeopardized it?

From post #44:

If you're not violating anyone's rights, then you're not committing a crime. It's only for violating the rights of others that you should be punished. ​

That was, is, and shall remain my position unless convinced otherwise by a rational argument.

Let's clarify your position;

You support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others. You additionally consider using government's monopoly on the legal use of force to preemptively violate the rights of some, for the protection of all others, to be justified.

Perhaps we simply see the relationship between government and rights differently... I see government as an extension of the individual and therefore unable exercise rights that are beyond the purview of any individual. I, as an individual, have no right to use preemptive force. My legal use of force is limited to self defense only and, therefore, the same restriction applies to government. Punishing those who violate the rights of others is how government exercises the individual right of self defense.

So...

Which individual right allows you to initiate the use of force?
Which individual right allows you to violate the rights of others?

Perhaps there is some "right" of Self-Offense that I don't know about...

 

[PLC1]

Who owns the sidewalk?


Who owns the intersection?

The City of Springfield.

A 30.06 has a very loud report. You say it's "crowded", how close are the nearest bystanders?

Within three meters.

When you say "bouncing all over", have any of these bullets impacted property that does not belong to the shooter?

No, not yet.

If the shooter in your totally absurd scenario is somehow not violating anyone's rights (which is about as likely as the scenario itself), then no, he should not be charged with a crime.

That's what I'm getting at. I wondered if you would assert that our shooter was not violating anyone's rights.

Besides... What sane person would do such a thing?

The government can protect us from the insane as well.

Again with the absurdities... Seriously...

What sane person would do such a thing?

See above. Not everyone is sane.

And the moment anyone's rights are violated, which happens the moment force is employed, the person responsible is held accountable to the affected individual(s).


From post #44:

If you're not violating anyone's rights, then you're not committing a crime. It's only for violating the rights of others that you should be punished. ​

That was, is, and shall remain my position unless convinced otherwise by a rational argument.

Let's clarify your position;

You support the use of government power to punish the actions of an individual who did not violate the rights of others. You additionally consider using government's monopoly on the legal use of force to preemptively violate the rights of some, for the protection of all others, to be justified.

Perhaps we simply see the relationship between government and rights differently... I see government as an extension of the individual and therefore unable exercise rights that are beyond the purview of any individual. I, as an individual, have no right to use preemptive force. My legal use of force is limited to self defense only and, therefore, the same restriction applies to government. Punishing those who violate the rights of others is how government exercises the individual right of self defense.

So...

Which individual right allows you to initiate the use of force?
Which individual right allows you to violate the rights of others?

Perhaps there is some "right" of Self-Offense that I don't know about...

Let's clarify your position as well:

Regardless of how insanely dangerous an individual's actions may be, he hasn't violated anyone's rights until he actually inflicts injury/death or destroys property. It isn't a matter of degree, it doesn't matter how reckless the individual may be, simply jeopardizing other people is perfectly fine so long as there is no actual injury.

Really???!!

 

[clarkatticus]

The actual reality of the law is this, no matter how recklessly someone acts, unless he/she is observed doing it and it is brought to the attention of the authorities, then no crime has occured. If, however, any part of the transgression can be found in legal "discovery", then, and only then can he be prosecuted. This can happen well after the fact and normally "discovered" while investigating transgressions found later. Deliberate investigation for no worthy other reason than to attack the person for political reasons is fishing and generally disallowed. Exceptions would be, say a person is investigated for a land fraud connection and is found to be having sex with an intern.