Archive for Law & Crime

3 results.

When Words Fail

Apr22
by on 22April22 at 0917

When people have tried to communicate a problem and have been repeatedly:

  • Blocked
  • Ignored
  • Told to report it to an uncaring or partisan authority
  • Told that they are in the wrong
  • Told that the bad actor is in the right
  • Told that they are not allowed to deal with the problem (not allowed to defend themselves)
  • Told to deal with a problem that is too big for them to deal with on their own

When people have literally lost their ability to communicate, because the words they have been speaking are not being heard and they have no idea what words will work…

People become hurt, angry, and violent. After a while of being in this state, these people will again attempt to find a resolution, either by hurting or killing themselves or someone else (possibly multiple people). This is how you end up with kids in school with a weapon or adults on top of buildings with a weapon. These people feel that they have been wronged by the populace at large.

Does this mean they are right to act this way? No. If the first person in the chain of responsibility is unwilling or unable to solve a problem, then the next person in the line should be approached. If the teachers, counselors, or principle aren’t doing their job, then the next outlet is the police, a religious leader (such as a pastor), friends, family, etc. The buck doesn’t stop with teachers.

It does mean that something has gone terribly wrong with the system and it has festered long enough that someone has felt the need to respond very violently to a bad situation. This usually indicates that the person was being attacked in a very violent manner. This can still be a mental attack, but even mental attacks can be excessively vicious and cruel.

Again, this doesn’t mean that a violently lethal response is acceptable or reasonable, but it does make it understandable. Understanding a situation is the first step in resolving a problem. Which, in the case of students being wantonly physically or mentally attacked in a school, where the authority figures ignore the problem, take away the students’ rights to defend themselves, then tell them that they are in the wrong… This situation is long overdue for correction.

I recommend putting the kids in question into an arena that lets them pit their mental and physical skills against each other. This would prevent kids from feeling that they can gang up on one kid in order to prove they are somehow the big kid on the block. And seriously, point out that kids who excel in school are more likely to get decent jobs when they graduate. Teachers are responsible for pointing this out as many times as it takes, to get the point across. Kids who are bullies are more likely to be doing poorly in their classes, because they feel the need to prevent other kids from excelling. It’s as if they think that hurting someone else’s chances somehow makes their chances better. Eventually, this kind of bad actor will get caught in the act, but can’t we put a stop to it sooner, rather than later?

Ignoring the problem usually ends up with one kid getting beat up by multiple other kids; repeatedly. The logic behind a bunch of kids feeling the need to band together to beat up on a kid they think is weaker than any one of them… This thought process still fails me, but it is what they do. Again. If you provide no solution, the kids will fight it out, outside of your view and with no rules in place.

 Comment 

Nark vs. Accessory after the Fact

Jan14
by on 14January17 at 1844

This Article could have many titles: Action vs. Inaction, Should I or Shouldn’t I, or the one below (but it’s too big) are all decent titles. I choose this one today, because of a conversation I had with a coworker a while back, of which I was reminded today.

I would’a, I should’a, I could’a, but I didn’t vs. I wouldn’t have, I shouldn’t have, I could have not, but I did it anyway.

Not doing something (depending on the situation of course) might be just as bad, if not worse, than having done something. If you are aware of someone who has committed or is about to commit a crime and you do not report it, you are complicit in the act. That means you are responsible for it occurring (if you knew of it beforehand), for their getting away with it (if you learned of it after the fact, and responsible for future criminal activities by those same people if you never report it.

Who benefits from the terms Nark and Snitch? An even better question is who uses this term? The answer…. criminals. Criminals who hurt, steal from, and or murder other people. Criminals who harass and intimidate people who just want to live their lives in safety, by telling them that they will be narks or snitches if they go to the police for help and threaten harm to them, their families, and their friends in retribution. How can we really live in safety? By turning them in and making sure they cannot do it again. Yes, this means that some innocent people will get hurt and possibly killed, but living in fear and letting criminals hurt and kill people anyway and without any hindrance isn’t helping anything or a good way to live.

If your ‘friends’ enjoy committing criminal activities and tell you that you cannot be their friend if you don’t pitch in and help, they aren’t very good friends. The simple fact that they are pressuring you to do something that will end you up dead, in jail, or on the run (no better than a hunted animal), makes them the worst kind of people to be around.

On a side note, there is no such thing as a victimless criminal activity. We all, each and every one of us, pay for them. Whether through paying higher insurance costs, fear of attack, higher taxes, or higher costs for products.

 Comment 

Law & Crime: Who’s responsible?

Dec07
by on 7December14 at 0741

Well, obviously the person who commits a crime is responsible for his or her actions. There are, however, other people who hold some to equal responsibility for the commission of a crime, as those who committed the act.

A person who witnesses a crime or who has certain knowledge of a crime and does not report it is responsible for that crime and every other crime that person commits thereafter, because of their failure to report it. It is called aiding and abetting. If that person reports it, but that individual gets away or is not found guilty (through no fault of the witness), the witness is relieved of responsibility for that criminal’s actions.

Fictional example: Spiderman witnesses the crime in action of the man who later kills his uncle.

Seriously, it can be that simple. It is more than possible for you to witness the criminal activities of an individual who later causes harm to you or a family member. If this happens and you fail to report it, you have to live with that guilt.

Does that mean that you should report someone, because you think they look like they did something wrong? Probably not. People often wear a guilty expression on their faces for a sundry of reasons that may have nothing to do with a crime or criminal intent, such as forgetting to take out the trash. Now, if they react guiltily to mention of a criminal act, that is something else again.

If you intend to report someone on suspicion of a crime, do you say… “that person did it!”? No, you report the facts only and don’t make something up. If the wrong person is put away, because you made something up, you are again guilty of aiding and abetting the crimes of the actual perpetrator from that moment on (though not the original crime if you were not a witness to it).

Well what if that person threatens you or your family? Such a threat is a serious reason for concern. If you let that person get away with it, even if you never tell a soul, you and your family remain in danger every day. Even if that person goes to jail because of some other reason, you and your family could be in danger and you have the added joy of living in fear and guilt. Far better to turn them in, get them off the street, and hope they keep them there forever. Though in such a case it might be prudent to find a job elsewhere.

What about the fear of being called a stoolie, stool pigeon, nark, squealer, or whatever other nifty name they can come up with? Who benefits from intimidating people with these “names” and threats of retaliation? The criminal element, that’s who. Who benefits from keeping children ignorant of their rights to an education, the ability to earn a living, and the right to a better life? The criminal element… and those politicians who seek to benefit from the frenzy of an uneducated mob (oh wait… again, part of the criminal element).

Who benefits from people who are afraid? Bad people.

If you hang out with people who are concerned with or worried that people might “nark” on them, they are probably not the best people to spend time with. Concerned that no one else will give you the time of day? Well, it is likely because of the kind of people you run with. Of course it could be that you’ve made yourself frightening to look upon in some other way, but most people can make friends, even if they were born with an *ugly mug, once people get to know them by their actions, reactions, deeds, etc.

* Beauty is only skin deep. Beauty lasts only a short time, but personality endures. No one wants to spend time with a spiteful and vindictive person, but everyone wants to spend time with a beautiful soul.

 Comment