I know I keep harping on this, but in a lot of conflicts the armed forces are not the only sides: there are also the civilians. Stalin and his forces were terrible. Hitler and his forces were terrible. Plenty of Russian and German civilians–including children–were innocent. Conflating the military forces with the civilians they purport to represent is one of the reasons atrocities happen.
Agreed. The John Oliver / Last Week Tonight piece on this was very much along those lines, highlighting that the (right-wing extremist coalition) Israeli government is not the same as the Israeli people, and Hamas is not the same as the Palestinians.
The problem is that the people in charge are usually the perpetrators and the civilian population the victims in these circumstances. Rarely are the ones instigating the violence for personal gain the ones who suffer.
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.”
-Agent Kay, Men in Black
That is what Israel believes, and that what they have been doing for decades. If you’re condoning their actions you are in fact saying Israel has that right.
Left_Hand_of_Dorkness said it better than I could. No, Hamas is not evil. Maybe there are people in Hamas that commit evil acts, just as maybe there are people in the IDF that commit evil acts. Certainly what is true is that a lot of innocent people have died and are continuing to die in Gaza, and I cannot accept that their deaths are justified. There have been many stupid justifications for wars but “We need to kill a few evil people” is among the stupidest.
The Palestinian people are not evil. Muslims are not evil.
I’m pretty sure Hamas is evil. In the vein of Nazi is evil.
Yep. I’m sure on this.
I condone their actions in destroying Hamas. If it is their intent to expel the Arabs and colonize Gaza, then I do not condone that.
I have not seen any evidence that that is their goal any more than I seriously believe that Donald Trump intends to invade Mexico if reelected.
I’m thinking we got noob selling Whiskey!
Yep. Troll.
I flagged it as spam.
Or that. I flagged too.
@Ulysses, I’m sorry you forgot the part of law school where they taught about omissions as legally relevant acts for criminal liability purposes, but I’m not going to do basic legal research for you. The issue we’ve been discussing has nothing to do with “notice” or “vagueness” and everything to do with concepts of law so well-established that they are fundamental to becoming an attorney.
You seem to have forgotten that in order for acts or omissions to be “legally relevant acts for criminal liability purposes” you need to cite the law(s) that make them so, because that is fundamental to fair notice and due process in American jurisprudence. You have not done so. Citing a dictionary definition for a term that is taught literally on day one of 1L crim law and pronouncing a crime is pretty weak sauce, especially in Factual Questions.
Instead of getting petty and nasty, how about providing a legal citation that answers the OP’s question? Then we can have a civil discussion if we continue to disagree.
Not as weak as saying “Nuh’uh!” Your expression of personal incredulity, plus citing to a completely unrelated issue, is not a counter. Or at least not a very good one.
I’m not going to play games with you in the pit. If you want to return to the original thread and post something that’s more responsive to the OP’s question than a dictionary definition, I’m happy to discuss further. And, again, if you can provide a citation to a statute that makes the “omission” described in the OP’s scenario a crime, I’ll even happily agree with you.
Think of it this way, if it helps. You’re the prosecutor reviewing the case described in the OP. What crime do you charge? I suggested that misprision, accessory after the fact, and obstruction were the closest fits but that each included active concealment or a similar element, so probably no violations under the OP’s scenario. You cited the dictionary definition of “actus reus.” You’re gonna have to be more specific.
Maybe I’ll see your response back there. Or not.
Seems pretty scummy to post something in Factual Questions that’s loaded with a completely unnecessary and highly questionable premise for “context”. Looks to me like an attempt to advance that premise while making it immune from challenge in FQ.
Is there really now some national problem with trespassers that police are afraid to deal with, or is this a Fox News talking point?
I don’t know about nationally. But LE treats trespassing pretty vigorously around here.
It gets heated pretty quick in hunting seasons. And the parties always have loaded weapons.
There’s certainly a national problem with social media amplifying molehills into mountains, then propaganda outlets running with those exaggerations to further amplify them.
It’s the reality in Minneapolis Minnesota where I live, ground zero for the George Floyd protests back in 2020 and other incidents around the same time, such as the Daunte Wright shooting in the neighboring suburb of Brooklyn Center. Despite being mandated by law that Minneapolis is required to maintain a certain minimum number of police, the city simply can’t do it; there were mass resignations that haven’t been replaced reportedly because no one wants to work as a police officer when any traffic stop can result in prison time for the police involved.
As a result, police enforcement of minor violations has vanished. Street racers go up and down residential side streets at night; the city’s response was to make speeding illegaler by reducing the speed limit from 30mph to 20mph. Fireworks an entire month before and a month after the 4th of July? The police might send a squad to cruise by if enough people are still calling in complaints by 1:00 A.M. Homeless encampments? When enough people scream to their city council members about it, a camp will be broken up and a new one form elsewhere, wash rinse repeat. Public drunkenness, including people passed out on the sidewalk in residential neighborhoods? A constant complaint on the local Nextdoor forums.
So I meant the original question quite sincerely: what can a property owner do to evict trespassers, when the police can’t or won’t?
Right, 'cause sending a cop to jail is really easy. Happens all the time, and usually for really petty bullshit, and not gross and flagrant abuses of power!
Maybe the actual reason they’re having trouble hiring is because not a lot of people are interested in associating with a gang of violent racists, and the ones that are interested in that, are getting turned off by the idea that they might face actual consequences when they brutalize a civilian.
“Any traffic stop” shouldn’t include murdering the driver, and if police officers are properly trained and supervised, won’t involve any prison time.