Dumbass charity boss won’t accept 200k from rapper cuz values

[noidentity]

Who is disregarding PR?

One of my early comments on this is that the charity can deny and it would make sense because they would likely lose donors, and then it comes down to whether the 200k was worth it.

But the fact they would lose donors to begin points to poor character of the donors in my mind. "I care about starving kids but they took money from a shitty guy to help starving kids so I'm pulling my money"

If I am donating to help housing to built for the homeless, and a person donates 500k to the cause and I don't like them I wouldn't then punish the organisation I was donating money to.

Or they could also just donate to a different charity that feeds kids.

[Machismo]

When you say justify the crime what do you think that means? Because chances are you are using it wrong.

For instance saying when a crime happened, and then saying what the punishment should be, doesn't justify the actual cirme are you so poor at being able to separate things that are related, but SEPARATE ISSUES?

I'm literally going by the definition of the word. If you don't like it, then take it up with the dictionary folks.

[Themius]

Or they could also just donate to a different charity that feeds kids.

They could, but you'd also have a bunch of people not involved in donating at all that would be rallying against the charity to bring them down even if they don't actually help anyone themselves.

[noidentity]

They could, but you'd also have a bunch of people not involved in donating at all that would be rallying against the charity to bring them down even if they don't actually help anyone themselves.

You can't do anything about those people, no matter what people will complain and there is no point in trying to appease everyone.

[Themius]

I'm literally going by the definition of the word. If you don't like it, then take it up with the dictionary folks.

I asked you a simple question, answer it.

Justifying a crime means to show that the crime is well just... that the crime itself is reasonable. That is literally not what I have been doing since I have contended IT IS A CRIME THE ENTIRE TIME AND HAVE only focussed on what the punishment should be.

In case you don't know because words mean nothing here, deciding what the punishment should be, in no way deals with justifying the crime, since the crime itself has already judged as an unjust crime.

There are several parts at play that you are ignoring, perhaps just lack the ability to see nuance in law.

The crime
The actions
The motivation
The punishment

You cannot lump them all into one thing and then say by explaining why certain actions may have happened, you therefore now justify the crime, no they are fucking separate things. You can easily say something is a crime, and that the actions were bad, but due to motivation, the punishment falls in some parameter.

You are playing in some fantasy land where these things are all one issue.

[unfilteredJW]

Can’t imagine picking this hill, of all hills, to die on.

[Machismo]

I asked you a simple question, answer it.

Justifying a crime means to show that the crime is well just... that the crime itself is reasonable. That is literally not what I have been doing since I have contended IT IS A CRIME THE ENTIRE TIME AND HAVE only focussed on what the punishment should be.

In case you don't know because words mean nothing here, deciding what the punishment should be, in no way deals with justifying the crime, since the crime itself has already judged as an unjust crime.

There are several parts at play that you are ignoring, perhaps just lack the ability to see nuance in law.

The crime
The actions
The motivation
The punishment

You cannot lump them all into one thing and then say by explaining why certain actions may have happened, you therefore now justify the crime, no they are fucking separate things. You can easily say something is a crime, and that the actions were bad, but due to motivation, the punishment falls in some parameter.

You are playing in some fantasy land where these things are all one issue.

You are not simply saying when a crime happened, you are attempting to push "WHY" it happened, and are arguing the mitigating justifications for that crime (like them travelling in the same social circles).

I'm pointing to the very definition of words, and you seem to be extremely butt hurt about it.

Seriously, stop fucking digging.

"You cannot lump them all into one thing and then say by explaining why certain actions may have happened, you therefore now justify the crime, no they are fucking separate things. You can easily say something is a crime, and that the actions were bad, but due to motivation, the punishment falls in some parameter."

That is literally a fucking justification.

[Themius]

Can’t imagine picking this hill, of all hills, to die on.

The hill that in criminal cases you have several factors and determining punishment in no way justifies a crime? It is literally just a legal basis that has survived for ages at this point.

[Draco-Onis]

You can't do anything about those people, no matter what people will complain and there is no point in trying to appease everyone.

It's bad publicity and would cost them more in terms of donation also given his reputation if he really wanted to do a good deed he could have donated it anonymously.

[Themius]

You are not simply saying when a crime happened, you are attempting to push "WHY" it happened, and are arguing the mitigating justifications for that crime (like them travelling in the same social circles).

I'm pointing to the very definition of words, and you seem to be extremely butt hurt about it.

Seriously, stop fucking digging.

"You cannot lump them all into one thing and then say by explaining why certain actions may have happened, you therefore now justify the crime, no they are fucking separate things. You can easily say something is a crime, and that the actions were bad, but due to motivation, the punishment falls in some parameter."

That is literally a fucking justification.

yeah no... when a defence attorney notes a crime and then admits that their client has committed the crime and pleads juilty, they concede that there is no justification for the crime itself. But when it comes to how much of the sentence should be applied then you look at mitigating factors around the situations of the crime.

Justification would mean that you are just in having committed the crime

Justification is a reason acceptable to a court as to why the defendant did what he is charged with having done. In short, through justification, the accused party shows and maintains a good legal reason in court, why he did the thing he is called upon to answer.

Courts do not accept the justification given in evidence under the plea of the general issue. Plea of justification supported by evidence is a complete bar to the action.

Trespassing is illegal, but if you are trespassing because you thought you heard someone in trouble, that is justification and as such the "crime" itself can be thrown out as you had sensible justification to trespass.

if you trespass because your family is poor and you are starving and you go to steal food from a fridge.

By pleading guilty and then saying "given the circumstances and motivations of the defendant, as they were not looking to harm people but instead was in a terribly hard spot in their life we would lessen the punishment"

that in no way justifies trespassing or theft

You are pointing out definitions of words while disregarding how they're used in a legal sense when I am literally harping on and citing the fucking laws in the state!

There is no justification or "good legal grounds" for him having done what he did, which I have said as much several times and have argued purely on WHICH PUNISHMENT SHOULD HE FACE FOR THE CRIME.

[Machismo]

yeah no... when a defence attorney notes a crime and then admits that their client has committed the crime and pleads juilty, they concede that there is no justification for the crime itself. But when it comes to how much of the sentence should be applied then you look at mitigating factors around the situations of the crime.

Justification would mean that you are just in having committed the crime



Trespassing is illegal, but if you are trespassing because you thought you heard someone in trouble, that is justification and as such the "crime" itself can be thrown out as you had sensible justification to trespass.

if you trespass because your family is poor and you are starving and you go to steal food from a fridge.

By pleading guilty and then saying "given the circumstances and motivations of the defendant, as they were not looking to harm people but instead was in a terribly hard spot in their life we would lessen the punishment"

that in no way justifies trespassing or theft

You are pointing out definitions of words while disregarding how they're used in a legal sense when I am literally harping on and citing the fucking laws in the state!

There is no justification or "good legal grounds" for him having done what he did, which I have said as much several times and have argued purely on WHICH PUNISHMENT SHOULD HE FACE FOR THE CRIME.

And when you rattle on about how they travelled in the same social circles, and it was totes the same as a senior dating a freshman... You are trying to justify it. When I pointed out that you kept making excuses, you tried to argue against the definition of the fucking word.

All you've done, for days... is try and make excuses for him.

[Themius]

And when you rattle on about how they travelled in the same social circles, and it was totes the same as a senior dating a freshman... You are trying to justify it.

Oh sure, if you if you ignore that I then cite another law that carries very much the same sentence if your idea of justifying a crime is to charge a person with a crime that closely matches the crime because of preexisting laws and then use those to say I think the punishment he got is just within the parameters of the crime given the similar crimes on the books already under R and J and given the closeness to r and j it makes sense to treat it under that, then I guess that is justifying... though not to anyone who bothers to think about the legal side of it.

Hint:

THE CHARGE IS THE SAME, ALL OF THAT ONLY DEALS WITH WHAT THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE none of that deals with justifying any crime, and instead treats the crime as unjustly committed since I am literally calling for punishment I am in no way justifying shit because to justify would mean THEY WERE JUST AND THEREFORE SHOULDN'T BE CHARGED AT ALL.

If someone is charged with Murder 1, and then you say actually this fits Murder 2 more, THAT DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN YOU JUST JUSTIFIED MURDER 1 The fuck is wrong with you?!

Saying that Crime B fits better than Crime A, doesn't magically mean Crime A is now just...

[Machismo]

Oh sure, if you if you ignore that I then cite another law that carries very much the same sentence if your idea of justifying a crime is to charge a person with a crime that closely matches the crime because of preexisting laws and then use those to say I think the punishment he got is just within the parameters of the crime given the similar crimes on the books already under R and J and given the closeness to r and j it makes sense to treat it under that, then I guess that is justifying... though not to anyone who bothers to think about the legal side of it.

Hint:

THE CHARGE IS THE SAME, ALL OF THAT ONLY DEALS WITH WHAT THE PUNISHMENT SHOULD BE none of that deals with justifying any crime, and instead treats the crime as unjustly committed since I am literally calling for punishment I am in no way justifying shit because to justify would mean THEY WERE JUST AND THEREFORE SHOULDN'T BE CHARGED AT ALL.

If someone is charged with Murder 1, and then you say actually this fits Murder 2 more, THAT DOESN'T FUCKING MEAN YOU JUST JUSTIFIED MURDER 1 The fuck is wrong with you?!

Once again, I have been reading what you said from the beginning.

You did everything in your power to justify the act itself, including using poor math to try and say they would only be three grades apart.

[Themius]

Once again, I have been reading what you said from the beginning.

You did everything in your power to justify the act itself, including using poor math to try and say they would only be three grades apart.

Go quote me where I justified the crime as just and therefore he shouldn't have been charged with the crime. I'll wait.

I've spent this entire thread talking about what the punishment should be, and that it is a crime, and that it should be treated under Crime B instead of Crime A in my mind because of preexisting laws on partial consent.

All that changes is the treatment down the line, the time is the same... the charge is the same. So that in no way justifies the crime, instead it deals entirely with sentencing.

Do you think every single sentence passed in America short of the maximum justifies the crime???

[Machismo]

Go quote me where I justified the crime as just and therefore he shouldn't have been charged with the crime. I'll wait.

Now you want to build straw men? I said you were trying to make excuses and justify his actions.

Here:

I would be weary of this "child abuse" charge since he himself was 18, not too terribly far from the age of the child.

God.. when I was 13 and 14 I remember people dating seniors who were 17-18, and there was definitely sex.

- - - Updated - - -



One may think that perhaps due to their previous crimes they are trying to atone? But apparently atonement and trying to help the very people you may have wronged leads instead to you being even further shunned... which doesn't make much sense.

And here:

13-14 is high school freshman.

Calling it child porn seems silly. Like two teens getting arrested because they took pictures of themselves. Which ultimately makes no sense because you’re arresting people who are also the victim of themselves.

There’s also the problem that too many look older than their years.

And frankly when I was in high school for the first year I definitely eyed the guys on the baseball team quite a few seniors.

And the fact you keep grouping him into child sex offender as though he went out groomed and raped a girl... is ridiculous when they could very easily be in the same cohort. He was some man twice her age seeking people to groom.

- - - Updated - - -

So because it happens therefore every person is the same and no one is an individual, okay then.

- - - Updated - - -



The story says 18, 20 is quite far, I am just going by what the article says.

9t graders are most commonly 14 going on 15, often enough 13 going on 14 as well.

Do we need to dredge up your posts about 13 totes looking like 18?

[Themius]

Now you want to build straw men? I said you were trying to make excuses and justify his actions.

Here:



And here:






Do we need to dredge up your posts about 13 totes looking like 18?

Right and all of those arguments are why I feel it should be charged under partial consent laws, which in this case would have carried the same sentencing, only difference would be the long term effects.

All of that goes to punishment, none of that says he should get no time. I then go on to cite the law in NY on this, as my reasoning for why it should be under partial consent laws. Which in case you don't know, is still a crime with similar sentencing so, again where am I justifying the crime itself?

The reasoning there is quite literally why I wouldn't be for throwing the book. Not having the book thrown doesn't mean you are just in the crime, since if you were just in the crime there would be no book to throw.

[Machismo]

Right and all of those arguments are why I feel it should be charged under partial consent laws, which in this case would have carried the same sentencing, only difference would be the long term effects.

All of that goes to punishment, none of that says he should get no time. I then go on to cite the law in NY on this, as my reasoning for why it should be under partial consent laws. Which in case you don't know, is still a crime with similar sentencing so, again where am I justifying the crime itself?

The reasoning there is quite literally why I wouldn't be for throwing the book

And all of it is trying to excuse his actions... which is what I have said from the beginning.

[Themius]

And all of it is trying to excuse his actions... which is what I have said from the beginning.

Actually again, no because justifying means that the crime itself is just and therefore there is no crime to be charged because you were just in action.

To be clear, you are arguing with me because I am saying the crime should be treated or thought of, under partial consent laws which would have carried likely the same sentence... and then give reasons for why it would make sense to treat the crime as such...which ultimately isn't changing the punishment.

And being that I was calling for same punishment just a different crime charge or mind frame around the crime... that in no way justifies the crime. Since then if I was justifying the crime I should think they should be absolved, yet that is not what I think at all.

[Machismo]

Actually again, no because justifying means that the crime itself is just and therefore there is no crime to be charged because you were just in action

Once again, I will point you to your previous comments, and your attempt to push the narrative that 13 is the new 18.

I'm going to leave you to your death march, have a wonderful day.

[Themius]

Once again, I will point you to your previous comments, and your attempt to push the narrative that 13 is the new 18.

I'm going to leave you to your death march, have a wonderful day.

Actually no, my argument was it is not unreasonable for an 18 year old to mistake a 13 year old for older. Not that 13 is the new 18, but sure continue to lie, and then bow out because you want to ignore what the words mean in a legal sense when I am citing the laws and talking about everything in a legal sense.

Then my argument was if a 13 year old partially consented to an 18 year old that the 18 year old should be charged under partial consent laws, which carry iirc the same charge, and the same punishment (or near it) with the only difference between the sex offenders registration.

Then I note I think that is sensible given the preexisting laws in NY that somehow says an 11 year old can partially consent to a 16 year old, which is fucking bogus to me as 11 is very different from 13 and generally a person at that age isn't sexually active, or attracted to anyone, or even in puberty.

Using that law as precedent I then gave an argument for why I feel it should be under partial consent laws. Then go on to note that his crime, if his sworn statements are true, that he thought she was his age or older, treating him exactly the same as a grooming rapists, who has no chance of being part of the same cohort, doesn't make sense.

So where is this saying 13 is the new 18, or that the crime was just?? Have fun spinning lies, and ignoring how things work in a legal sense, when we are literally talking about laws.