Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Hawkmoon on August 11, 2020, 01:38:27 AM
-
https://www.foxnews.com/us/cook-county-state-attorney-kim-foxxs-office-has-dismissed-more-than-25000-felony-cases-more-than-35-higher-than-her-predecessor
In less than a year, Kim Foxx, the Cook County chief prosecutor, has dropped charges in more than 25,000 felony cases.
And Chicago wonders why crime is increasing ...
-
It's not looting, it's reparations :facepalm:
“That is reparations,” a BLM organizer said. “Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance"
Black Lives Matter Chicago issued a statement obtained by the Chicago Sun-Times that read, “The mayor clearly has not learned anything since May, and she would be wise to understand that the people will keep rising up until the [Chicago Police Department] is abolished and our Black communities are fully invested in,” the group said in a statement.
Black Lives Matter holds rally in Chicago to support those arrested after looting, unrest
https://www.foxnews.com/us/black-lives-matter-holds-rally-chicago-support-arrested-looting-unrest
-
This state is filled with mentally (and spiritually) unhealthy people.
Between the neurotic covid response and the blase response to anarchy I feel like I'm a stranger living in a strange land.
-
I was born and raised in Chicago, but moved away decades ago, way back in the 20th Century.
I personally saw how government veered between crooked and dysfunctional back then and I don't think things have improved with time - quite the contrary, the downward spiral has continued.
Chicago has so many cultural and educational institutions - zoos, science and history museums, the Art institute and Chicago symphony, Shedd aquarium, Adler planetarium . . . it even used to have a famous gun club & shotgun range right on the lakefront. But things are starting to get too dangerous to go there and the lefty nihilists who've been having their way with the city for generations are now focused on its destruction.
Sad to see this happening.
-
Chicago is the new Detroit.
Only, it's dying faster than Detroit ever could.
-
And Chicago wonders why crime is increasing ...
Crime is not increasing, if you don't have convictions. Lowered prosecutions means less crime. By definition.
The DA is not prosecuting a variety of arrest reports and complaints. This is no different than, say, a 1920's prohibition era DA refusing to prosecute moonshiners, mobsters, and speakeasy owners. Or in more modern context, a DA refusing to prosecute a person operating a suppressor and machine gun manufacturing outfit without corresponding ATF FFL paperwork.
Gotta remember where we are and the legal system we profess to want. Crimes have not been committed unless a trial has found it to be so. Prior to that, they are police complaints and arrest reports.
All that being said, they are neglecting to prosecute some pretty important stuff. Assault, murder, theft, rape... these are kind of the biggies that need to be heavily discouraged to have a civilized society. Ideally a civilized society rapes all it wants (to crib from Penn Jillette). The uncivilized fringe of society get scared from raping all it wants.
Between the neurotic covid response and the blase response to anarchy I feel like I'm a stranger living in a strange land.
Chicago/Seattle/Portland is not anarchy. These people are socialist guerrillas. Rather effete ones, with strange hair and poor arms training... but it's what they aspire to be. Anarchism aims for the elimination of all involuntary forms of human interaction. These people ooze compulsion with every breath they take, even if it's sometimes comical and whiny.
-
Ideally a civilized society rapes all it wants (to crib from Penn Jillette). The uncivilized fringe of society get scared from raping all it wants.
I like that philosophy
-
Gotta remember where we are and the legal system we profess to want. Crimes have not been committed unless a trial has found it to be so. Prior to that, they are police complaints and arrest reports.
I disagree. If I have been mugged or my house has been burgled a crime has been committed, irrespective of whether or not a suspect has been identified, arrested, or convicted. Even more so if someone is murdered. A murder is a murder, even if/when the cops can't solce it.
-
I disagree. If I have been mugged or my house has been burgled a crime has been committed, irrespective of whether or not a suspect has been identified, arrested, or convicted. Even more so if someone is murdered. A murder is a murder, even if/when the cops can't solce it.
This isn't cops not solving it, this is the prosecutor deciding not to prosecute the case after the cops present their suspect and evidence. Much like deciding that a homicide was self defense rather than murder.
A crime isn't a crime until it's convicted in a court. It's just an allegation before then.
-
There sure are a lot of victims in the Windy City for .... "crime" not having gone up ..... [tinfoil] ...... :police: ..... ;/
-
If a tree falls in the forest.................
-
...it's racist?
-
...it's racist?
If it's a White Oak
-
A crime isn't a crime until it's convicted in a court. It's just an allegation before then.
Schrodinger's felony?
-
Schrodinger's felony?
George Zimmerman committed no crime in the shooting of Treyvon Martin. You all would agree with that, right?
-
"A crime isn't a crime until it's convicted in a court. It's just an allegation before then."
OK, that makes no sense, because DOJ crime statistics are not based on convictions.
-
I walk into my house and find my house ransacked and stuff missing, I would say more than likely a crime had occurred.
-
George Zimmerman committed no crime in the shooting of Treyvon Martin. You all would agree with that, right?
Some people think he did. With the evidence set available it was not unreasonable to assume --existentially -- that he did, or might have. Given that the trial is long over and given the actual result, he was "not guilty" (courts do not issue a verdict of innocent, they find the defendant guilty, or not guilty).
We here at the time were expressing our opinions on the matter at the time.
In many cases, the fact of the crime may be obvious; say a bank robbery with everything caught on video, and plenty of witnesses. That doesn't mean identifying the guilty is a lock-cinch obvious conclusion .... if all suspects were wearing disguises then things might get dicey.
I agree with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in so far as crime and punishment is concerned. I would also agree it's important to take care in investigations to assure the real truth is discovered, and the public ought to be very leery of media news coverage as they often get things bass ackwards -- and the Zimmerman event is a good example of some news sources editing recordings to deliver a stilted and wrong idea of the event.
Each event really ought to be considered alone and not conflated with other even similar crimes .
-
This isn't cops not solving it, this is the prosecutor deciding not to prosecute the case after the cops present their suspect and evidence. Much like deciding that a homicide was self defense rather than murder.
A crime isn't a crime until it's convicted in a court. It's just an allegation before then.
I still have to disagree. A crime is whatever is defined in the laws of the state as a crime. Breaking into a house and taking jewelry, money, guns, and/or the flat-screen television is a crime, and is defined as such in the statutes of every state. If your house is broken into and things have been stolen, a crime has been committed. That's not an allegation -- that's a fact.
It remains a fact that the crime occurred, irrespective of whether or not the police ever identify a suspect, and irrespective of whether or not the prosecutor chooses to take a suspect to court or to drop charges against a suspect. Your house was still broken into, your stuff was stolen; by definition, a crime occurred.
If you think you know who did it and you tell the cops, that's an allegation until such time it has been proven in court with sufficient certainty to result in a conviction. If the police think they have sufficient probable cause to arrest and charge someone for the crime, that's an allegation until such time it has been proven in court with sufficient certainty to result in a conviction.
Don't confuse the fact of a crime having been committed with the presumption of innocence that applies to any suspects.
-
If it's a White Oak
Discrimination! You didn't mention White Birch.
-
Discrimination! You didn't mention White Birch.
White Ash
-
But the red oak is native.
-
I still have to disagree. A crime is whatever is defined in the laws of the state as a crime. Breaking into a house and taking jewelry, money, guns, and/or the flat-screen television is a crime, and is defined as such in the statutes of every state. If your house is broken into and things have been stolen, a crime has been committed. That's not an allegation -- that's a fact.
It remains a fact that the crime occurred, irrespective of whether or not the police ever identify a suspect, and irrespective of whether or not the prosecutor chooses to take a suspect to court or to drop charges against a suspect. Your house was still broken into, your stuff was stolen; by definition, a crime occurred.
If you think you know who did it and you tell the cops, that's an allegation until such time it has been proven in court with sufficient certainty to result in a conviction. If the police think they have sufficient probable cause to arrest and charge someone for the crime, that's an allegation until such time it has been proven in court with sufficient certainty to result in a conviction.
Don't confuse the fact of a crime having been committed with the presumption of innocence that applies to any suspects.
Unless the police or DA say no crime has been committed.
Examples: Your child is not at home. You worry and call the police. You worry about kidnapping and similar crimes. The police say your child is not missing yet, the necessary time has not gone by for it to be a real missing persons situation.
You shoot and kill a home intruder. Their family believes it is murder. The investigation by police and DA says it was not.
You awaken one morning with flat tires. Valve stems are missing. You call the police, they take no report.
Your lawnmower is stolen from your garage overnight... you neglected to close the door. You call the police. They want proof of ownership before they begin a report. You have no receipts, no photographs, and lawnmowers aren't registered. They do nothing.
Even for insurance purposes, such as your home burglary incident, the police have the power to label or un-label something as a criminal action. The individual isn't able to make that determination in the society we live in today. And that's worthy of digestion alongside other discussions going on today such as qualified immunity.
-
Some people think he did. With the evidence set available it was not unreasonable to assume --existentially -- that he did, or might have. Given that the trial is long over and given the actual result, he was "not guilty" (courts do not issue a verdict of innocent, they find the defendant guilty, or not guilty).
The trial of Zimmerman determined that the homicide that occurred, was committed in self defense and that no murder or manslaughter happened at all. There was no criminal loss of life to be tried, and therefore no crime.
-
The trial of Zimmerman determined that the homicide that occurred, was committed in self defense and that no murder or manslaughter happened at all. There was no criminal loss of life to be tried, and therefore no crime.
Yeah .... so what? You said what I said in different words. ???
-
Yeah .... so what? You said what I said in different words. ???
No, I said a very different thing.
You said that Zimmerman was found innocent of the crime.
I said that Zimmerman's trial proved that no crime was committed.
Remember, we're talking about what constitutes the definition of a crime. Not who did/didn't commit it.
-
If no crime has been committed until a court rules that one has, then no person can be arrested for breaking the law or even on suspicion of breaking the law until the court rules.
The law has to exist first. Then it has to be broken. Then an investigation and arrest. Then a trial to determine guilt.
-
Damn that racist Ronald McDonald and his house!
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2020/08/12/truly-unconscionable-chicago-looters-target-ronald-mcdonald-house-because-sick-kids-lives-dont-matter-apparently-video/
Can we start shooting yet, or what?
-
If no crime has been committed until a court rules that one has, then no person can be arrested for breaking the law or even on suspicion of breaking the law until the court rules.
The law has to exist first. Then it has to be broken. Then an investigation and arrest. Then a trial to determine guilt.
Thank you! THANK YOU!
I was wondering if someone was going to make that distinction!
A crime CAN be committed whether someone is charge, found guilty, acquitted, etc.
-
Damn that racist Ronald McDonald and his house!
https://twitchy.com/sarahd-313035/2020/08/12/truly-unconscionable-chicago-looters-target-ronald-mcdonald-house-because-sick-kids-lives-dont-matter-apparently-video/
Can we start shooting yet, or what?
I'm trying to think of a way out of of this mess that doesn't involve something alone the lines of pulling out mini guns and considering the one way mindset of who we're dealing with I'm coming up blank so far. If there's a way please let me know.
-
I said that Zimmerman's trial proved that no crime was committed.
Remember, we're talking about what constitutes the definition of a crime. Not who did/didn't commit it.
Zimmerman's trial did not prove that no crime was committed, it just meant that he was found "not guilty" of committing either second-degree murder or manslaughter.
-
Zimmerman's trial did not prove that no crime was committed, it just meant that he was found "not guilty" of committing either second-degree murder or manslaughter.
I disagree.
The State's premise at the beginning of the Zimmerman trial is that Zimmerman murdered Martin.
Zimmerman proved in court that his homicide of Martin was justified self defense, and proved the existence of a preceding crime previously unacknowledged by the State/DA/Court/Police infrastructure, of Martin's assault on Zimmerman.
A new, truer, and more accurate crime was created and logged in court, and Zimmerman's accused crime was expunged from reality.
-
A crime CAN be committed whether someone is charge, found guilty, acquitted, etc.
But the crime is only asserted/alleged/accused to have happened. And if the State doesn't want to acknowledge the crime via prosecution, it's not truly accurate to say that the crime happened.
I'm amazed you guys are resisting this. This is a basic principle you use when decrying the BLM protesters' standing:
BLM: That cop murdered our guy!
Cops: Here's cam footage, we aren't charging the police officers involved because of XYZ in the video.
BLM: [Rending of garments and gnashing of teeth] They murdered him and are now covering it up!
Cops: Sheesh. You guys suck.
Yeah, there's nuance to both sides of this argument we're having. But this notion of the State needing to subscribe to investigation and prosecution for a crime to have been committed is an incontestable point of corruption.
Now, we can bring in other types of crimes. Rape, murder... there's clearly a victim in the aftermath, even if no suspect is apprehended. But (one hopes at least) the State makes an investigatory effort in those situations. But let's get a little more granular. Let's take a murder for example.
There's a corpse in an alley. Blunt trauma to the head. No witnesses, no suspects, no leads. The victim has a life insurance policy and a beneficiary. The insurance company pays the beneficiary after the report is filed with cause of death.
But the SPECIFIC crime? Was he clubbed with a pipe? Kicked? Did he accidentally fall off the balcony of an apartment 5 floors above? Was he chasing a car down the alley, on foot, and the driver backed up and ran him over? Or any of a hundred other ways he could die? Murder 1? Murder 2? Manslaughter? Was he attacking someone else and he was a legit homicide in self defense? Was he a victim of the beneficiary of his insurance policy?
In our legal landscape, I don't think "murder" is officially a crime. A charge isn't filed until the specific scope is determined. There are people here in our forum that can clarify that.
But a corpse doesn't always mean that a murder was committed.
Let's consider the Jussie Smollett situation. He said he was attacked (assault and battery) by several white guys wearing Trump hats. Did the crime happen? Nope.
Or let's consider a rape accusation. Many of us here support the notion that a false accusation of rape is a crime of its own and a woman should go to jail for it. Do we want to go down the road that the rape incontestably did indeed happen, despite no conviction?
There's a lot of danger in accepting that every report is a crime. And there's a lot of danger in letting the State be the sole arbiter of electing to pursue criminal prosecution. Yeah, there's protection in the form of the Grand Jury where the State has to prove merit to its claims to bring charges... but there's no protection for a crime victim where the State elects not to pursue investigation/prosecution.
I don't have answers to this, I'm just pointing out that the flaws exist and that this is a power that the State has that many don't even consider in their calculus.
-
BLM, Media, Dems: That cop murdered our guy!
Cops: Here's cam footage, we aren't charging the police officers involved because of XYZ in the video.
BLM, Media, Dems: [Rending of garments and gnashing of teeth] They murdered him and are now covering it up!
Cops: Sheesh. You guys suck.
FIFY
-
But a corpse doesn't always mean that a murder was committed.
One with a bullet hole or two, or three, four, five, just might
-
One with a bullet hole or two, or three, four, five, just might
But what kind of murder? You can't answer a precise crime just from the body. It could be a legit homicide from self defense. You can't tell if it was premeditated, or a crime of passion, or a murder by means of negligence. That comes into play in regards to the specific crime. Without knowing that, all you really have is loss of a tax asset for the State, by unknown means.
-
But what kind of murder? You can't answer a precise crime just from the body. It could be a legit homicide from self defense. You can't tell if it was premeditated, or a crime of passion, or a murder by means of negligence. That comes into play in regards to the specific crime. Without knowing that, all you really have is loss of a tax asset for the State, by unknown means.
Suspected crime.
-
No, I said a very different thing.
You said that Zimmerman was found innocent of the crime.
I said that Zimmerman's trial proved that no crime was committed.
Remember, we're talking about what constitutes the definition of a crime. Not who did/didn't commit it.
:facepalm: Ok. You win. Happy now? [popcorn]
-
I feel the need to butt in. =)
In that particular case, I would say a homicide was committed. He admitted to the homicide with the stipulation that it was in self defense. He was charged/accused with a crime. At trial, he was found not guilty. I think he was innocent also.
In hindsight, a crime(s) was committed, just not by Zimmerman.
-
This conversation reminds me of the lower murder rates in European nations frequently touted to shame the USA.
Turns out countries like the UK don't count unsolved deaths as murders, they have a separate category.
-
The State's premise at the beginning of the Zimmerman trial is that Zimmerman murdered Martin.
The State correctly determined that a homicide had taken place. The perpetrator of that homicide attempted to claim the affirmative defense to homicide by saying it was self-defense. The prosecutor believed it was murder or manslaughter but was unable to prove it to a jury.
It was, however, not proven by the court to be self defense. It is more accurate to say that it was not proven to the jury's satisfaction to be 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.
As far as the rest, definitions get squicky because crime can be used to show either a violation of a law or a violation of morality, and confounded further by the fact that neither the authors of the law, the police, the prosecutors, the courts, defense attorneys, witnesses, nor the juries are perfect.
A murder that is never detected, prosecuted, or the perpetrator convicted is still a crime, although it may never show up in statistics. The action itself is both a violation of the law and morality even if undetected.
A murder that is detected, but no suspect identified is still a crime, and it may well show up in statistics even if they can't show it as a particular flavor of murder.
A murder that is detected, but that the suspect is not charged for because he bribes the prosecutor is still a crime. And then some.
A murder that is prosecuted but for which the perpetrator is wrongfully found not-guilty is still a crime.
A murder that is prosecuted and for which someone is wrongfully convicted is still a crime, even if it is complicated by the fact that the wrong person was convicted of it.
A homicide that is proclaimed to have been justified according to the government may still be a crime from a moral perspective.
On the other hand, a completely innocuous action might be criminalized, prosecuted, and the perpetrator convicted of a "crime" despite no moral offense ever taking place.
All that said, from a strictly legal perspective (which you seem to be championing), a crime can still absolutely legally exist absent a court ruling. Indeed, a crime may still exist even if a "not guilty" verdict is issued.
-
Crime is not increasing, if you don't have convictions.
Crimes have not been committed unless a trial has found it to be so.
Zimmerman proved in court that his homicide of Martin was justified self defense, and proved the existence of a preceding crime previously unacknowledged by the State/DA/Court/Police infrastructure, of Martin's assault on Zimmerman.
No one was convicted in Zimmerman's trial. Therefore, by your own logic, there was not a crime, and you have contradicted yourself.
A murder that is never detected, prosecuted, or the perpetrator convicted is still a crime, although it may never show up in statistics. The action itself is both a violation of the law and morality even if undetected.
A murder that is detected, but no suspect identified is still a crime, and it may well show up in statistics even if they can't show it as a particular flavor of murder.
A murder that is detected, but that the suspect is not charged for because he bribes the prosecutor is still a crime. And then some.
A murder that is prosecuted but for which the perpetrator is wrongfully found not-guilty is still a crime.
A murder that is prosecuted and for which someone is wrongfully convicted is still a crime, even if it is complicated by the fact that the wrong person was convicted of it.
Will you just pick a narrative and stick with it?
-
Will you just pick a narrative and stick with it?
Epstein didn’t kill himself.
-
Epstein didn’t kill himself.
It was the snipper on the Grassy Knoll. [tinfoil] >:D
-
It was the snipper on the Grassy Knoll. [tinfoil] >:D
... who was then dispatched outside of Terlingua.
(still got the shovel)
-
A crime CAN be committed whether someone is charge, found guilty, acquitted, etc.
But the crime is only asserted/alleged/accused to have happened. And if the State doesn't want to acknowledge the crime via prosecution, it's not truly accurate to say that the crime happened.
I'm amazed you guys are resisting this. This is a basic principle you use when decrying the BLM protesters' standing:
Seriously?
Let's suppose you take your family on a two-week vacation trip. You return home to find that your house has been broken into, thoroughly trashed, and just about everything of any value whatsoever has been taken. Nobody has any idea who did it, the police can't find any clues that are worth pursuing, so nobody is arrested or charged.
How are you going to explain to your family that no crime was committed?
If no crime was committed ... should your insurance company pay to repair your house and replace your belongings? (Before you answer this one, you might want to read the fine print in your homeowner's policy.)
Bottom line: was your house factually broken into, trashed, and robbed, or is it only an allegation that your house was broken into, trashed, and robbed?
-
Seriously?
Let's suppose you take your family on a two-week vacation trip. You return home to find that your house has been broken into, thoroughly trashed, and just about everything of any value whatsoever has been taken. Nobody has any idea who did it, the police can't find any clues that are worth pursuing, so nobody is arrested or charged.
How are you going to explain to your family that no crime was committed?
If no crime was committed ... should your insurance company pay to repair your house and replace your belongings? (Before you answer this one, you might want to read the fine print in your homeowner's policy.)
Bottom line: was your house factually broken into, trashed, and robbed, or is it only an allegation that your house was broken into, trashed, and robbed?
The insurance company doesn't care about a conviction. They care about the report and the terms of the contract. They then process their own investigation depending on the financial risk involved, and determine if the contract demands payment. They pay for fire, flood, hurricane, earthquake, etc. depending on the type of insurance purchased. Even home invasion/burglary/theft. They'll do an investigation to ensure it isn't a fraudulent claim and that'll be the end of it from their perspective. Criminality doesn't enter the picture for home burglary any more than flood insurance.
-
The State correctly determined that a homicide had taken place. The perpetrator of that homicide attempted to claim the affirmative defense to homicide by saying it was self-defense. The prosecutor believed it was murder or manslaughter but was unable to prove it to a jury.
It was, however, not proven by the court to be self defense. It is more accurate to say that it was not proven to the jury's satisfaction to be 2nd degree murder or manslaughter.
But the DA is responsible for bringing a specific charge before a trial begins. "Murder" isn't a charge, nor is homicide. It's got to be Murder1/Murder2/Manslaughter or something along those specific lines. Whodunnit, with what, when, where, and why.
The DA brought his charge (I don't remember the specific charge on Zimmerman), and Zimmerman defended by presenting evidence of justifiable homicide due to assault and battery on the part of Martin.
Had Martin survived the shooting, the State could (and possibly should) have gone and prosecuted Martin for A&B. In which case, Zimmerman's trial demonstrated that Zimmerman committed no crime, and brought to light a crime committed by Martin. Which was unknown/unrecorded prior to Zimmerman's trial. With Martin dead, there's effectively no point in trying him. A criminal conviction could be useful for Zimmerman in civil court afterwards, but Martin had no assets to pursue.
This conversation reminds me of the lower murder rates in European nations frequently touted to shame the USA.
Turns out countries like the UK don't count unsolved deaths as murders, they have a separate category.
This is the distinction I'm striving for. Thank you for bringing this up, I wasn't aware that other countries logged this stuff differently.
The argument I'm trying to bring forth, is that there was a longstanding tradition that the State would press charges if the victim of the alleged crime willed it, and would abstain if the victim opted to not press charges. That relationship has been bypassed with too much autonomy on the part of the DA (in particular when it comes to failing to bring charges on behalf of a victim, but also in situations where no victim exists at all yet somehow a crime is committed), but when it comes to the actual label of the crime (the local/state/federal statute violated), a crime has only been committed if a prosecutor delineates it with the 5 W's and chooses a particular violation of law and degree of offense. Without that, murders aren't necessarily murders.
I suspect this has something to do with DA bragging rights for conviction rates. As well as due process limitations (poorly supported cases get dismissed quickly). But sometimes it is due to Thin Blue Line protectionism, political motivation, or to plain old corruption.
I'd love to see a good local Chicago journalist wade into the unprosecuted homicides in Chicago, and classify them as DA protectionism, due process limitations, TBL protectionism, politics, or corruption.
-
The insurance company doesn't care about a conviction. They care about the report and the terms of the contract. They then process their own investigation depending on the financial risk involved, and determine if the contract demands payment. They pay for fire, flood, hurricane, earthquake, etc. depending on the type of insurance purchased. Even home invasion/burglary/theft. They'll do an investigation to ensure it isn't a fraudulent claim and that'll be the end of it from their perspective. Criminality doesn't enter the picture for home burglary any more than flood insurance.
I guess one out of three is a good average if you're a major league baseball player and we're discussing batting average. I notice that you only answered on of the three questions I posed. The two you apparently overlooked were (and are):
How are you going to explain to your family that no crime was committed?
Bottom line: was your house factually broken into, trashed, and robbed, or is it only an allegation that your house was broken into, trashed, and robbed?
But ... I'm not even sure you get credit for one. Your position is that, if there's no conviction, the event (whatever it is) didn't happen -- it's only "alleged" to have happened. So are you now proposing that an insurance company should pay claims based on allegations of losses, rather than on factually established losses?
-
I guess one out of three is a good average if you're a major league baseball player and we're discussing batting average. I notice that you only answered on of the three questions I posed. The two you apparently overlooked were (and are):
How are you going to explain to your family that no crime was committed?
Bottom line: was your house factually broken into, trashed, and robbed, or is it only an allegation that your house was broken into, trashed, and robbed?
But ... I'm not even sure you get credit for one. Your position is that, if there's no conviction, the event (whatever it is) didn't happen -- it's only "alleged" to have happened. So are you now proposing that an insurance company should pay claims based on allegations of losses, rather than on factually established losses?
The insurance company does not care if a "crime" was committed. If I buy homeowner's insurance, or flood insurance, or whatever, the terms of the contract specify an array of damages I might suffer and be able to request compensation for those damages. The insurance company and the terms of the contract care about the factuality of the damages, not the scope of the crime. Compensation is not conditional based on a conviction or establishment of a particular felony count.
The insurance company will compensate the same way if BLM tears through my house, or if a group of elephants escaped the zoo and stampeded through my house. The elephants didn't commit a "crime." But the same homeowner's insurance policy compensates for the damage. I pay the insurance company to compensate me under a particular form of projected loss.
As for the "facts" of whether my house is broken into... this is the same slope as the rape accusation. And I don't mean to put this indelicately, but allowing an assertion of a crime to have been committed stand as proof per se of a crime having been committed is a dangerous precedent. And allowing the State to be the sole arbiter of prosecutable offenses is rife for abuse (as we see in the Chicago DA's discrimination in case selection).
-
As for the "facts" of whether my house is broken into... this is the same slope as the rape accusation. And I don't mean to put this indelicately, but allowing an assertion of a crime to have been committed stand as proof per se of a crime having been committed is a dangerous precedent. And allowing the State to be the sole arbiter of prosecutable offenses is rife for abuse (as we see in the Chicago DA's discrimination in case selection).
You continue to parse the question to fit your answer.
You take your family on a vacation trip. You are absent from your home for two weeks. Would you consider that a fact, or an allegation?
You return home to find the front door open, the frame shattered, and the lock broken. Would you consider that a fact, or an allegation?
Upon entering the house, you find your belongings strewn all over in a random heap of chaos. Would you consider that a fact, or an allegation?
After taking inventory, you find that your wife's jewelry, your power tools, all the computers, and the wide-screen television are gone. Would you consider that a fact, or an allegation?
My view is that each if these items is something that can be verified, and is therefore a fact. Your position is that (other than perhaps the vacation trip itself) is nothing but an allegation. We are going to have to agree to disagree.
-
Let's look at Arizona statutes:
Third degree burglary: https://azleg.gov/ars/13/01506.htm
13-1506. Burglary in the third degree; classification
A. A person commits burglary in the third degree by:
1. Entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a nonresidential structure or in a fenced commercial or residential yard with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.
2. Making entry into any part of a motor vehicle by means of a manipulation key or master key, with the intent to commit any theft or felony in the motor vehicle.
B. Burglary in the third degree is a class 4 felony.
The statute defines a criminal offense. Nothing in the definition requires an arrest, a charge, or a conviction in order for the crime to have been committed.
Second degree burglary: https://azleg.gov/ars/13/01507.htm
13-1507. Burglary in the second degree; classification
A. A person commits burglary in the second degree by entering or remaining unlawfully in or on a residential structure with the intent to commit any theft or any felony therein.
B. Burglary in the second degree is a class 3 felony.
The statute defines a criminal offense. Nothing in the definition requires an arrest, a charge, or a conviction in order for the crime to have been committed.
First degree burglary: https://azleg.gov/ars/13/01508.htm
13-1508. Burglary in the first degree; classification
A. A person commits burglary in the first degree if such person or an accomplice violates the provisions of either section 13-1506 or 13-1507 and knowingly possesses explosives, a deadly weapon or a dangerous instrument in the course of committing any theft or any felony.
B. Burglary in the first degree of a nonresidential structure or a fenced commercial or residential yard is a class 3 felony. It is a class 2 felony if committed in a residential structure.
The statute defines a criminal offense. Nothing in the definition requires an arrest, a charge, or a conviction in order for the crime to have been committed.
The crime exists -- as a crime, not as an "allegation" -- when the action(s) set forth in the statute occur. This is a matter of definition, by state law. If someone does any of the things set forth in those sections of statute, they have committed the crime defined by the statute. There is no "allegation" involved. The crime is a crime if the act fits the statute.
Where allegation enters in is when someone is suspected of being the perpetrator of the crime. I see this confusion in news reports all the time. Alleged journalists will report that the First National Bank was allegedly robbed and that Joe Blow had been arrested and charged. This is incorrect. That the bank was robbed is a fact, not an allegation. The allegation (until a trial and conviction) is that it was Joe Blow who perpetrated the robbery.
-
So if I post and no one reads it did I post?
-
Correct.
But none of those are "burglary." They're distinctly burglary1/2/3.
When your house is broken into, there is no crime of "burglary" according to the state. It's undefined. It has to be B1/2/3.
B1/B2 differ based on residential vs non residential property, or a vehicle. But B3 requires knowing if the person had a weapon on them.
You don't know if B1/B2 or B3 was committed, without greater evidence. It's not just "burglary." Doesn't exist as a crime according to the State.
Similarly, in context of the OP and the Chicago DA issue, "murder" doesn't exist.
-
This is heading Cornbread.
I'll check back in a couple days and see if this gets back to normal drift.
-
You can't have cornbread without conviction. I am convinced Jiffy mix is not cornbread. =D
-
Schrodinger's felony?
:rofl:
-
B1/B2 differ based on residential vs non residential property, or a vehicle. But B3 requires knowing if the person had a weapon on them.
You don't know if B1/B2 or B3 was committed, without greater evidence. It's not just "burglary." Doesn't exist as a crime according to the State.
Your original contention was that a crime doesn't exist until someone has been convicted of it.
The law defines the crime. Regardless of whether it's burglary 1, 2, or 3 ... when someone commits it, the crime exists. It doesn't hang around in the ether until someone gets convicted, then miraculously become a crime.
B3 (B1, actually) does not require knowing if the person had a deadly weapon on him. If he commits a burglary while carrying a deadly weapon, he commits burglary in the first degree. You don't have to know he had the weapon, I don't have to know he had the weapon, the police don't have to know he had the weapon. The law defines the crime -- if he committed a burglary while armed with a deadly weapon, he committed burglary in the first degree. Period, full stop -- by definition. If he disposes of the weapon before he is apprehended, or if he never gets caught, that doesn't mean he didn't commit burglary in the first degree. It just means that either the state can't prove the weapons part ... or the burglar never got caught.
-
My lady friend had her son over last night. We hung out on the patio and enjoyed the lovely evening.
He lives in downtown Chicago.
It took him an hour and a half to get to get home to his condo on the lakefront last night, normally a 1/2 hour 45 min trip at that time of night on a Sunday.
All the exits from the expressways were blocked with snowplows and police cars.
They had the whole city in lock down.
Make the cities unlivable and the lefty Dems will move out to the Republican suburbs. Cynical thought I know ...
-
Meanwhile Lightfoot has a 90 person security detail
While Chicagoans Live With Fewer Cops & More Crime, Mayor Lightfoot Has a 90-Person Security Detail
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/while-chicagoans-live-with-fewer-cops-more-crime-mayor-lightfoot-has-a-90-person-security-detail/
Dozens of Chicago cops guard mayor and family in below-the-radar security unit created in 2020
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2022/3/28/22985559/mayor-lightfoot-security-dozens-chicago-cops-guard-mayor-family-below-radar-security-unit
-
Chicago mayors have always had large security details.
Mayor Daley (the original, not the kid) lived half a block or so away from a police station, but there was still a police car parked both in front of the house and in the alley behind 24/7 whether he was home or not. A good part of his entourage was police, either uniformed or plain clothes.
Mayor Jane Byrne made a big deal out of moving into the Cabrini-Green housing project for a while, one of the most notoriously crime-ridden housing projects in the city. When she was outside, she was surrounded by a ring of cops 2 or 3 deep. Cops were all over the place - constant roving foot patrols in stairwells, corridors, etc. Residents LOVED it, since they'd never SEEN so many cops in one place. Crime dropped to zero . . . until the day she moved out.
Neither one of those mayors had the "anti-cop" reputation of Mr/Mrs/Whatever Lightfoot.
-
Neither one of those mayors had the "anti-cop" reputation of Mr/Mrs/Whatever Lightfoot.
Which is the point
-
Meanwhile Lightfoot has a 90 person security detail
While Chicagoans Live With Fewer Cops & More Crime, Mayor Lightfoot Has a 90-Person Security Detail
https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/while-chicagoans-live-with-fewer-cops-more-crime-mayor-lightfoot-has-a-90-person-security-detail/
Dozens of Chicago cops guard mayor and family in below-the-radar security unit created in 2020
https://chicago.suntimes.com/city-hall/2022/3/28/22985559/mayor-lightfoot-security-dozens-chicago-cops-guard-mayor-family-below-radar-security-unit
Sounds familiar: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/cori-bush-defund-police-private-security
-
As long as the fellow gang member you're with is 18 or older you're golden
We want our young people to have fun this summer and enjoy all the activities that our City has to offer. To ensure safety while doing so, anyone under the age of 18 must be accompanied by an adult after 6 p.m. Let's work together to have a safe and great summer, Chicago.
— Lori Lightfoot (@LoriLightfoot) May 20, 2022
https://twitchy.com/gregp-3534/2022/05/20/lori-lightfoot-announces-an-insane-curfew-with-an-even-more-insane-loophole-for-anyone-under-the-age-of-18-to-curb-gun-violence/
But then she deleted it
-
And this was further down
So far this year, there have been 10 mass shootings in Chicago. By comparison, there have been three in NYC and two in LA. Find out more: https://t.co/MJz3R9U43y pic.twitter.com/2OcK5ePuHM
— CBS Chicago (@cbschicago) May 20, 2022
But barely a peep out of the MSM while Buffalo gets wall to wall coverage
-
Year To Date
Shot & Killed: 209
Shot & Wounded: 890
Total Shot: 1099
Total Homicides: 231
https://heyjackass.com/
-
There was just a mass shooting yesterday but not much news about it.
-
There was just a mass shooting yesterday but not much news about it.
Not much news about it? Hmmmm . . . wonder what demographic the shooter was part of . . .
-
https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shooting-today-mass-downtown-in-and-state/11872407/
9 shot, 2 fatal after a fight in McDonalds…..
-
I was born and raised in Chicago, but moved away decades ago, way back in the 20th Century.
Me, too, New York City, mid-sixties.
I personally saw how government veered between crooked and dysfunctional back then and I don't think things have improved with time - quite the contrary, the downward spiral has continued....
The New York City citizen's subject's viewpoint is still "You can't fight City Hall.."
-
For those who keep bringing up Chicago AOC blames Indiana
AOC: "There’s no discussion about gun violence in Chicago without talking about Indiana, because the violence and the mothers that we have to comfort are losing children due to the guns and the carnage and the lawlessness unleashed by those states." pic.twitter.com/4B7hXatqnx
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) June 8, 2022
So why is the problem in Chicago and not Indiana?
She's not the first one to blame Indiana
AOC says we can’t have a gun discussion about Chicago without talking about Indiana
https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2022/06/08/aoc-says-we-cant-have-a-gun-discussion-about-chicago-without-talking-about-indiana/
-
For years Virginia heard the same thing from the local elected scumbags in Washington, DC...
Basically "the only reason we can't control our feral hoodrats is because of Virginia's loose gun laws!"
-
If loose gun laws in Indiana are the source of Chicago's crime - why isn't Indiana's crime even worse - much worse - than Chicago's?
Gary, Indiana, isn't exactly the nicest city in the Midwest, but then again, it's right next door to Chicago.
-
"If loose gun laws in Indiana are the source of Chicago's crime - why isn't Indiana's crime even worse - much worse - than Chicago's?"
Funny, no one in Washington, DC, could ever answer that question, even though it was asked over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over...
Just constant "YOUR GUNS ARE THE ROOT OF OUR PROBLEM!"
Sure they are... sure they are.
-
For years Virginia heard the same thing from the local elected scumbags in Washington, DC...
Basically "the only reason we can't control our feral hoodrats is because of Virginia's loose gun laws!"
Oh, hell -- Bloomberg blamed New York's "gun violence" on Virginia.
-
Oh, hell -- Bloomberg blamed New York's "gun violence" on Virginia.
Yep, I think they were the ones who called it the Iron Highway.
And even when Virginia when to "you can only buy one handgun a month," back under Doug Wilder, that still wasn't nearly good enough, because their hoodrat problem is being caused by us.
-
I blame Holder but for some reason he wasn't arrested and put in shackles.
-
I blame Holder but for some reason he wasn't arrested and put in shackles.
Democrat.
-
Darn Indiana
Thirty-one people were wounded in 23 shootings citywide over the weekend in Chicago, where seven people were killed, police said Monday.
The nearly two-dozen shootings occurred between 6 p.m. Friday and 11:59 p.m. Sunday, the Chicago Police Department (CPD) said. Of the seven fatal incidents, six people died from shootings while one succumbed to a stabbing.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/chicago-weekend-shootings-dead-wounded-person-fatally-stabbed-police
-
Wasn't there a bit of whistle-blower kerfuffle awhile back, where a couple in the ATF Chicago area called out cops returning confiscated guns to the street?