But you did mention “victimless activities” and I wonder if “force or fraud” is all encompassing…I don’t think that they are.
This is a tricky issue. I agree with Nick’s explanation.
Many lawyers would get this wrong!
My friend was smoking weeds while driving, and came to a roadblock where they were checking for valid driver’s licenses. Pretty much caught in the act, my friend turned over the drugs and was charged with possession.
ONLY 2 of 4 Lawyers knew that was an illegal search! 2 urged trying to make a deal for probation and expungement, or a diversion and treatment program! 1 suggested fighting the actual roadblock, but didn’t really know how.
The guy who knew to fight the search cost the most. He got the case dismissed, and my friend didn’t even have to go to court. It was a real what the fuck moment for me.
Huh? I’m not sure I understand what you’re talking about; please explain.
The above was your original statement.
Zeb, I know what I said; I asked you to explain your previous post because I didn’t understand it.
Asking for a better definition of “victimless”.
The most basic tenant of Rightness, you are responsible for your own actions.
Smoking PCP first doesn’t get you off the hook for fighting with the cops.
Get drunk and hit somebody with your car, its not Jack Daniels fault.
Zeb, I’m not sure what you want here. A victimless crime is an action that has been criminalized despite its having no victim. A victim must sustain some injury due to some force or fraud employed against him by another.
Manny being scared to leave his home because he knows some people own guns does not mean that those who own guns have committed a crime against Manny. If one of those gun owners begins raising his gun in Manny’s direction and causes Manny to fear for his safety and to seek cover, that person has committed a crime against Manny. If one of those gun owners shoots Manny, he has committed a crime against Manny. If Mannny and a gun owner come to an agreement in which Manny takes possession of gun owner’s gun in exchange for XYZ, neither Manny nor the gun owner has committed a crime. If Mannny acquires gun owner’s gun without gun owner’s consent, Manny has committed a crime. The police noticing that gun owner owns a gun and then arresting him for that is a crime.
What I’m saying is that there are very few victimless crimes when looked at closely.
That is incorrect; there are many. This is especially apparent WHEN you look closely.
Please name them.
Thank you
This really depends on your view of the [criminal ] activity and how it relates to society. The argument can be made that society, in the macro, is the victim of many crimes.
Granted, right or wrong, this argument typically falls to moral judgements… however, moral judgements are the basis for many offenses deemed malum in prohibitum.
All “crimes” created by laws punishing possession, or prohibiting or regulating consensual trade. All “crimes” created by laws punishing “pre-crimes”-i.e., laws punishing behavior that does not victimize others but statistically increases the probability that the person will victimize others. All “crimes” created by laws regulating the use of personal property. Those are just a few examples.
I’m sure that you are going to bring up how the use and/or abuse of certain things hurts the children, who have no way to escape the relationship, of the user. While true, that is not a crime. That harm can’t be measured; and if the harm done by the user’s action CAN be measured, then a true law prohibits his action.
I’m sure you will want to talk about DUI. While a drunk or drugged driver is most certainly less capable than he is under normal circumstances, there is no way to determine whether he is less capable a driver than others through the use of either arbitrary field tests or by his BAC being higher than the arbitrarily set legal BAC. Additionally, and both more importantly and relevantly for our purposes, neither his BAC nor the presence of narcotics in his blood victimizes others; no, while either may make him more likely to victimize another, to punish him without his having harmed anyone makes him a victim…as does punishing him more harshly for harm he causes than he would be had he been sober.
I should add that neither of the above would be “victimless” if they occurred on the private property of one prohibiting such.
I read the article, but I have not had time to read the full opinion or facts. Why was the stop illegal? Did the SC find the initial stop illegal or is that just what the reporter and the dissent says? They don’t need probable cause to stop you and talk to you and run your ID. They need reasonable suspicion. Reasonable suspicion isn’t that hard to have.
Also, just to play devil’s advocate, lets change the facts of this case a little. Change the item found from “bag of meth” to “bloody knife” and assume that someone was found stabbed to death nearby a short time later. The cops caught the murderer and recovered the murder weapon. Are you guys still outraged by this decision?
It’s the illegal stop that bothers me, not the subsequent exercise of an outstanding warrant.
1 Like
FlatsFarmer2d
This is a tricky issue. I agree with Nick’s explanation.
Many lawyers would get this wrong!
My friend was smoking weeds while driving, and came to a roadblock where they were checking for valid driver’s licenses. Pretty much caught in the act, my friend turned over the drugs and was charged with possession.
ONLY 2 of 4 Lawyers knew that was an illegal search! 2 urged trying to make a deal for probation and expungement, or a diversion and treatment program! 1 suggested fighting the actual roadblock, but didn’t really know how.
The guy who knew to fight the search cost the most. He got the case dismissed, and my friend didn’t even have to go to court. It was a real what the fuck moment for me
Your post leaves some important stuff out. Did your friend pull up and volunteer the MJ? Did the officers smell MJ coming from the vehicle? Did the police actually search the vehicle and find the MJ? Was this a proper public safety checkpoint with all of the required paperwork and approval, ect…or was this just a couple of officers who decided to set up a roadblock down the street from a bar to “check driver’s licenses”?
-Checkpoint was “announced” in the newspaper. Apparently, this is required by law.
-I assume officer smelled it.
-I didnt dig super deep into the actual search vs turn over
But it was not an illegal stop, because the arrest of that person had already been warranted.
Let’s say that the man refused to stop and speak with the officer, the officer chased him down to detain him, the man resisted, and both continued to escalate their use of force to the point of the man shooting and killing the officer. The officer is no longer alive to testify on his subjective state of mind at the time he detained the man arrested for his murder; however, we do know the man had an outstanding warrant at the time the officer made contact with him. We have no idea what subjective criteria were in the officer’s head at the time. Did the man justly exercise his right to defend himself from a false arrest, or did he murder a law enforcement officer that was exercising his lawful powers?
Certainly you’ve named many crimes that are in fact not victimless crimes.
Thank you.
Please explain how they are not. Your mere insistence does not do much for your case.