LogFAQs > #962097806

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, Database 9 ( 09.28.2021-02-17-2022 ), DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	9 y/o Sobs UNCONTROLLABLY as she and 6 ANTI-VAXXERS are ARRESTED!!!
adjl 01/26/22 2:59:29 PM #67:	SKARDAVNELNATE posted... If a bunch of similarly dressed people arrived as a group, and left as a group, and drew attention away from the one member of their party that did the robbing then I would find that very suspicious. Sure, but that's not what I said. The analogy - and the real-world situation - is a matter of people passively making it more difficult to arrest the criminals in question purely incidentally. There's no reason to believe there might be any grander plan in place and therefore no reason to consider them accomplices. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... I didn't. I said none of them should be arrested. You explicitly identified them as accomplices. Accomplices to crimes should generally be arrested along with the primary culprits. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... What about the people who said looting was reparations? They focused on the violent aspects and link the crimes to an act of protest. They're dumb. They're also an extremely tiny minority, so I'm generally pretty comfortable discounting them in speaking about the general situation. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... Were they also antagonistic toward it. They were not antagonistic toward the cause, since they weren't trying to hurt it, but I would say that they generally didn't do it any favours, because they - however inadvertently - did characterize it as a violent movement. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested. They should be arrested because they committed crimes. They haven't been arrested, not because they shouldn't be arrested, but because it hasn't been feasible to do so. It's a simple practical issue, not any sort of magical immunity they get just for being part of a protest. My position is - and has always been - that being associated with a protest does not in any way influence whether or not somebody should be arrested for committing a crime. It often influences whether or not they do get arrested, because of the practical considerations, but that indicates nothing about whether or not they should. That is what you saw in the 2020 BLM protests (and some other larger-scale examples), and that is not in any way precedent for letting people get away with crimes just because they're protesting. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts. <cite>adjl posted [p:962097806] in 9 y/o Sobs... [t:79865413]...</cite> <quote>SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>If a bunch of similarly dressed people arrived as a group, and left as a group, and drew attention away from the one member of their party that did the robbing then I would find that very suspicious.</quote> Sure, but that's not what I said. The analogy - and the real-world situation - is a matter of people passively making it more difficult to arrest the criminals in question purely incidentally. There's no reason to believe there might be any grander plan in place and therefore no reason to consider them accomplices. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>I didn't. I said none of them should be arrested.</quote> You explicitly identified them as accomplices. Accomplices to crimes should generally be arrested along with the primary culprits. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>What about the people who said looting was reparations? They focused on the violent aspects and link the crimes to an act of protest.</quote> They're dumb. They're also an extremely tiny minority, so I'm generally pretty comfortable discounting them in speaking about the general situation. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>Were they also antagonistic toward it.</quote> They were not antagonistic toward the cause, since they weren't trying to hurt it, but I would say that they generally didn't do it any favours, because they - however inadvertently - did characterize it as a violent movement. SKARDAVNELNATE posted... </cite> <quote>What I did say was that because of the association with an act of protest the not peaceful ones shouldn't be arrested either. adgl's argument appears to be that it's difficult to arrest them. But that doesn't matter because it says nothing in regard to why they should be arrested.</quote> They should be arrested because they committed crimes. They haven't been arrested, not because they shouldn't be arrested, but because it hasn't been feasible to do so. It's a simple practical issue, not any sort of magical immunity they get just for being part of a protest. My position is - and has always been - that being associated with a protest does not in any way influence whether or not somebody should be arrested for committing a crime. It often influences whether or not they do get arrested, because of the practical considerations, but that indicates nothing about whether or not they should. That is what you saw in the 2020 BLM protests (and some other larger-scale examples), and that is not in any way precedent for letting people get away with crimes just because they're protesting. --- This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1