If some guy watches little girls through the window...he is harmless...right??
Follow your own time line...
Up to this point, "some guy" is a peeping tom. We have laws against this so I would say the guy in the scenario isn't harmless.
It wouldn't be necessary for me to respond if I hired you to comment for me. But this isn't the case and you're already two false assumptions ahead of your premise. But thanks for forming them as questions.Because he didn't "Touch" them??
touching - child molestation? that's a punishable crimeWhere do we draw the distinction?? When they "Touch" them...or when actual penetration takes place??
I know this is a fucked up scenario...and I hope it doesn't get deleted--
penetration - child rape? that's a punishable crime
The only way it's a fucked up scenario is if and when your assumption applies in the wrong place.
"When" is more a matter of "if". Your analogy suggests the perp would be allowed to proceed. I'm sorry but that's a stretch.
Let's go ahead and solidify your analogy. The peeping tom in your analogy has intent. If he's arrested at the peeping tom stage... he's charged as a fuckin' peeping tom (and intent if it applies. ) If he's charged as anything worse, the DA will have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction.
Did you see the Tucson policeman on national tv saying he almost shot the wrong guy? He approached the murder scene and a bystander pointed to a man holding the 9mm weapon used to kill the judge and 9 year old girl, among others. The policeman didn't know the man holding the gun had wrestled it from the assassin's hand.
The cop admitted he didn't assume the man holding the gun was the assassin. The cop inquired further and discovered the facts before he reacted.
The cop didn't react as if the man holding the gun "might" shoot somebody with it. You and I know only after the fact the man holding the gun wasn't dangerous. Allowing action on assumptions would result in cases of bad judgment.
And they were convicted as such. Nobody wants these bastards to burn again. But if they do their time (and are still alive) they deserve release just like everybody else that does their time.But it is pertinent to what I am saying--
They are fucking SERIAL ARSONIST'S... they will do it again, and it is not worth our while to hope they won't elevate it to Murder next time??
Then welcome to the bright side. If you were to have a need to knock at my door, I wouldn't apply unfounded assumptions of nefarious motive, much less act accordingly. I may appear cautious, depending on where I live and the nature of crime in my area. Even if you didn't get what you wanted, you wouldn't get unjust treatment.I love to grow pot...but I can still see the Darker Side of Man--
I accept the fact you make no difference between victim vs victimless crime. I'm agnostic and don't hate what religion is. I often dislike what some religious peeps think but I don't hate em. And for the record I draw distinction with what happens, not hyperbole.
What Hyperbole??
No distinction to hyperbole in the post. You may equate hate and disagreement if you wish.
Last edited: