Armed Polite Society

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

R.I.P. Scout26

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic: Chicago  (Read 4104 times)

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,217
Re: Chicago
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2020, 03:21:53 PM »

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.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

Fly320s

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,199
  • Formerly, Arthur, King of the Britons
Re: Chicago
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2020, 04:24:57 PM »

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.
Islamic sex dolls.  Do they blow themselves up?

Ben

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39,652
Re: Chicago
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2020, 04:52:38 PM »

"I'm a foolish old man that has been drawn into a wild goose chase by a harpy in trousers and a nincompoop."

K Frame

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 38,294
  • I Am Inimical
Re: Chicago
« Reply #28 on: August 12, 2020, 04:58:24 PM »

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.
Carbon Monoxide, sucking the life out of idiots, 'tards, and fools since man tamed fire.

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,089
  • I am not a cat
Re: Chicago
« Reply #29 on: August 12, 2020, 05:15:32 PM »

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.
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,909
Re: Chicago
« Reply #30 on: August 12, 2020, 05:25:07 PM »

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.

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,217
Re: Chicago
« Reply #31 on: August 12, 2020, 06:27:16 PM »

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.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,217
Re: Chicago
« Reply #32 on: August 12, 2020, 06:52:31 PM »


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.

"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,089
  • I am not a cat
Re: Chicago
« Reply #33 on: August 12, 2020, 06:57:44 PM »


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
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,089
  • I am not a cat
Re: Chicago
« Reply #34 on: August 12, 2020, 07:00:37 PM »


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

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,217
Re: Chicago
« Reply #35 on: August 12, 2020, 07:11:39 PM »

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 whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,089
  • I am not a cat
Re: Chicago
« Reply #36 on: August 12, 2020, 07:15:51 PM »

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.
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: Chicago
« Reply #37 on: August 12, 2020, 07:32:46 PM »

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]
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30,091
Re: Chicago
« Reply #38 on: August 12, 2020, 09:29:31 PM »

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. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

Ron

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,232
  • Like a tree planted by the rivers of water
    • What I believe ...
Re: Chicago
« Reply #39 on: August 12, 2020, 09:38:15 PM »

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.
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,909
Re: Chicago
« Reply #40 on: August 12, 2020, 09:39:11 PM »

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.

Fly320s

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,199
  • Formerly, Arthur, King of the Britons
Re: Chicago
« Reply #41 on: August 12, 2020, 10:11:31 PM »

Crime is not increasing, if you don't have convictions. 

Crimes have not been committed unless a trial has found it to be so. 

Quote
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.

Quote
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? 
Islamic sex dolls.  Do they blow themselves up?

cordex

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6,909
Re: Chicago
« Reply #42 on: August 12, 2020, 10:22:41 PM »

Will you just pick a narrative and stick with it? 
Epstein didn’t kill himself.

TommyGunn

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7,956
  • Stuck in full auto since birth.
Re: Chicago
« Reply #43 on: August 12, 2020, 11:14:15 PM »

Epstein didn’t kill himself.

It was the snipper on the Grassy Knoll.  [tinfoil]    >:D
MOLON LABE   "Through ignorance of what is good and what is bad, the life of men is greatly perplexed." ~~ Cicero

Angel Eyes

  • Lying dog-faced pony soldier
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 10,730
  • You're not diggin'
Re: Chicago
« Reply #44 on: August 12, 2020, 11:28:53 PM »

It was the snipper on the Grassy Knoll.  [tinfoil]    >:D

... who was then dispatched outside of Terlingua.















(still got the shovel)




"Spare me the bulls*** about constitutional rights."
      - Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI)

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,174
Re: Chicago
« Reply #45 on: August 13, 2020, 01:05:14 AM »

Quote from: Mike Irwin
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?

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,217
Re: Chicago
« Reply #46 on: August 13, 2020, 01:53:38 AM »

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.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,217
Re: Chicago
« Reply #47 on: August 13, 2020, 02:17:34 AM »

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.

Quote from: Ron
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.
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!

Hawkmoon

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 25,174
Re: Chicago
« Reply #48 on: August 13, 2020, 10:24:14 AM »

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?

AZRedhawk44

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 13,217
Re: Chicago
« Reply #49 on: August 13, 2020, 11:43:14 AM »

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).
"But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain - that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."
--Lysander Spooner

I reject your authoritah!
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4