Topic: Would you trust someone who had been arrested multiple times for.. (Read 988 times)

If that someone is my friend and I really know him, I would still trust him but with caution because I know him and what circumstances he's been through. I have a friend who got arrested a couple of times but I stay being his friend. But if that someone is a stranger, It is really hard for me to trust him, if he was engaged with drugs who knows if he will just use me? But if that someone somehow can prove that he has changed I would possibly hear his story. Being trusted means that you must earn their trust. You must prove to yourself first that you have change. Changes start with yourself.

No. of course! I will not trust a person who has been arrested many times. That proves they have no responsibility for themselves and do not know how to repent and correct their mistakes made. If you are caught for selling dangerous weapons is a bad thing. Or if you drive in violation of the law and are arrested many times, that proves you despise yourself and others.

Slowscammer, your bullshit accusations against me are still up and you failed to correct your claims. I would like to know why you are a such a retard. I would also like to know if you still do fake escrow scams and if you have banned lately. Oh wait, this was not about throwing stones? My bad...

OP: * Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon -> Your local gov does the same on a daily base. They earn while they kill. Whats the exact moral issue of this special case?

Hi Tman,

In my experience, evaluating someone's arrest record and possibly their conviction(s) is something that is often best evaluated on a case by case basis.

I've encountered many people of different types through my travels.  People with a criminal background that were dirtbags.  People with NO criminal background that were engaged in crime, just never caught.  But I've also known more than a few people with a criminal background who were able to put it behind them and lived a decent life.  In my experience, those people can often be more trustworthy in some sense, because they know that you know about their background and are essentially taking a chance of them.

I am personally of the view that with the exception of some very bad offenses, people that commit crimes and serve out their punishment should be afforded every opportunity.  They should essentially have restoration of their rights in full.  There are some exceptions, of course, based on the need to protect others.  But, for example, I believe that criminals that have served their sentences should be able to vote in elections if they choose.  I believe they should not be barred from occupational licenses if they demonstrate that they've overcome their former poor choices.

Here in New Jersey, USA, for example, a medical doctor that is convicted of drug abuse is allowed to undergo a five-year program (of supervision by other doctors), and then they'll be fully restored.  During the program, they have limitations as to their ability to prescribe drugs of abuse and also are subject to being drug tested.  On the other hand, at the same time a 19 year-old student in college that gets caught with drugs and convicted can, as a practical matter, never even get close to their medical license.  It's pretty hard for them to find any career-type job.  It's a terrible shame.  Meanwhile, scores of people commit numerous crimes and do not get caught and/or have the connections/pull to get out of the consequences.

So really, a case-by-case basis is best.  Of course, once you know of someone's history, you should be on the look out for behaviors of that type.  But honestly, it's mostly the people that you don't know about that will be the people that end up ripping you off.

They say, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger".  I believe this is true, but also that someone can be "dead" even while they still go through the motions of life.  So when encountering someone, you have to consider if they are, in essence, "dead" (having been killed by dealing with the consequences of their criminal behavior), or if they've become stronger for it.

Sometimes you can help them on the right path by letting them "earn trust", slowly and cautiously.  It's very instance-specific.

Best regards,
Ben

I'll add that you can be arrested for riding in a car that was taken without the owners consent, the charge is the same as though you were the one who took the vehicle. To be convicted, the State must prove that you knew the vehicle was taken without the owners consent.

Honestly, if I were charged with this, truthfully did not know that the driver did not have consent to drive the vehicle, and was offered informal probation... I would probably take it. As you can see from this thread, just being arrested is bad enough, an indictment as well? Our justice system is predicated on innocent until proven guilty, but we rarely treat each other under the same rules as this thread shows.

Well, if we had to beat the OP's question into two parallel parts: Political arrest and (2) Criminal arrest, our verdicts may change. For me, I see the first kind of arrest as having strength of character while the second may be with having criminal intent and breaking the law of the land.

My respect stays with the first. And yes, I would trust such a person arrested because they refused to compromise their fundamental principles with a sitting authority.

Illustration: Bear with me as I give these two scenarios to support my position. Two lawyers get arrested. One, for refusing to give up his activism. The other for defrauding a client. Both are convicted. Served their respective jail terms. Came out but both don't remain the same. The first one remains a lawyer while the second is debarred. This is because crime will always manifest a character flaw.

I was reading the whole thread expecting this viewpoint, but failed to find or overlooked it. 

The person might be a revolutionary or radical activist waging war against some imperialist nation or oppressive govt. and hence resorts to these measures.

Also, these crimes aren't immoral unless u state the context as well.

From a legal definition point of view, theft requires intent to permanently deprive the legal owner of possession. Taking without the owner's consent was brought in to cover things like joyriding where all that is intended is an unauthorised use for a short period of time. Often people will be charged with TWOC rather than theft simply because unless they have actually sold the stolen vehicle it can be difficult to prove intent to permanently deprive.

* This UK legal definition.

A lot of unlicensed weapons are used for hunting, although it's breaking the law in most countries which either don't allow hunting, or using a gun without a license it doesn't necessarily mean that the person who has the gun tends to use it for malicious purposes. A few farmers have been found out doing this and normally have the weapon confiscated and a slap on the wrists depending on several factors I imagine.  

Just because someone owns a gun unlawfully doesn't necessarily mean they are untrustworthy and this is coming from someone who's not into guns and largely against them being legalized. I've only ever lived in countries which guns are illegal and I think this is probably the best approach to keep gun crime down. In the UK it's almost unheard especially here in Wales. Though, I'll admit that certain countries are too far down the line to now start banning the usage of guns.

If you took the vehicle while the owner was there and they felt compelled to give it to you, that is robbery.

If you took the vehicle without the owner being present, it is only Grand Theft Auto.

If the vehicle is owned by a relative and the thing is doing is kind of urgent or should be done so fast (injury, pregnant women in labor...) so it is ok, otherwise I will blame him but I will give him a second chance.
For weapons definitely no, just in 2 cases : chasing dangerous animals (if you know what I mean) or possessing dangerous weapons in school by st... teachers, well another bonus exception is a mentally retarded guy possessing that toy in the white house since it is supported there.

tl;dr : it depends, case by case.

Having commited some offences in past is only the proof that you are also a human. Because humans tend to make mistakes and sometimes they have to go against the rules which a machine wont in general do. This fact that you are having a sound mind is that you admit it was a mistake and an offence from your side - the criminally bent minds would not think in this line of thought.

If they ignore the question - either they are having some hidden motif or they dont care.

Possession of weapons was legal at one time in many places of the world - talk about the Wild West and the times when the Gun owners were to rulers in the states. Taking a vehicle without the owner's consent is a theft.
People commit crimes due to several reasons. One of them is to gather money - which is true for the poorer populations. They would mug, steal, rob or even kill to get money, because its what they are after and not work hard to earn money. Its like an "easy way out" for them.

Again there is a big difference between psychotic killers and psychopathic killers. The former suffers from psychosis which is a disease and the latter does not suffer from any disease but they are far from what social acceptability is.

For criminal procedure of such people we have the famous McNaghten's Rule - though it has been modified in many places with local laws.
Online and offline personas are often similar. However that may not reflect the actual nature of the person because the scammers have become scammers because they can change their personas everywhere so as to not gain attention and link.

For your query, its only one chance for me trusting, but I see here some do same things until their death comes. Some of them are selling illegal drugs even though they are arrested previously.
For Vehicle, no one take and return, they do theft and sell it to someone thats all.

I'm talking about those who possess a dangerous weapon but have the license to do so which includes lawyers and so on. Possessing it without a license make the person guilty of a criminal act and they can't be trusted.

I've never really paid much attention to the DT bun fighting. I'd guess theymos has his reasons for trusting that person. There are some members of DT that tag people to try and fight scammers and cheats.... and others that tag people to retaliate for making accusations about them.

I did see theymos recently brought up the idea again of getting rid of DT and that might not be a bad idea. Until then the ~ character can be useful in modifying one's trust settings.

Thanks for your insight.

another question, how would you feel if one of the people added to DT by theymos had the hypothetical record we have been discussing?

That would be my default position until such time that they could provide sufficient evidence as to exactly what happened that could explain why they are not. I'd say we are at 99.9% scumbag certainty in my book.

Are you thinking more about legally trusting someone, or more like as a close friend (morally)?

Petty crimes IMO aren't a biggy, unless you are placing someone's life in direct danger. But then everything in the end goes down to your gut feeling. Without a direct scenario and how close you were/are to that person, its kind of hard to tell. However if you know they are doing dodgy shit, maybe place a little caution tag onto them.

ah cool  - so the person in this hypothetical situation is a scumbag then?

No. I would think that possible with more serious offences in the US but not something as minor as this.


The onus would be on them to prove something like this happened.