Chris Johnson wrote:
Embezzlement and fraud are not victimless crimes.
WM: I made no such claim.
And I made no such claim that you had. It's a simple statement of fact.
Compare it to a parking ticket, a speeding ticket, statutory rape and unintentional manslaughter while driving drunk. Where does it fit in the range of those "mistakes?"
WM: That is why laws are divided into misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors, and felonies. Bruins, from what I understood from the newspapers at the time, was a very minor player in a group of felony commiters.
Exactly. Was he charged with a petty misdemeanor, a gross misdemeanor or a felony? Do we forgive a "felony mistake" as easily as a "petty misdemeanor mistake?" Do we ignore a felony financial mistake, when considering a person for financial employment, as irrelevant or noteworthy, versus say a motor vehicle felony mistake with respect to the same financial employment? Let's put it this way: to get a variety of transportation-required licenses, such as a pilot's license, one has to jump through a whole lot of hoops if they have ever had a felony driving conviction, or even a misdemeanor drunk driving conviction. One does not have to do that if they have a felony embezzlement conviction. Or is this parallel lost on your reasoning?
WM: So once a guy is found guilty and punished, we are to assume that he stays negative, continues to violate the law, continues to be a problem to society, even though he has a clean record for over 20 years? Society should carry a grudge?
I didn't say anything of the sort. It remains however part of his CV.
WM: But you seem to have made a lot of assumptions, if you are assuming that the man is sneaking around the law in some way and just has not been caught, or if you assume that once a felon, there is no chance of redemption, no chance a person will change.
I made not one assumption about Bruins or felons in my entire message.
WM: Is the man supposed to get on this list and daily request forgiveness? Give an accounting of his time? Show us the books from UV? What would satisfy you that the man has reformed his behavior, this 20+ years later?
You defended him by saying he kept his nose clean. I asked you for details on just what you mean by that. It could be, as I stated, that all you meant was that he was not convicted again.
Or it could mean that he has additionally repented and tried to make amends with the people he hurt and society. I'm not stating what I expect him to do. I'm asking you to tell me what he did to warrant your defense. I'll judge for myself if I believe that is adequate, if the need arises.
Or do you believe Eva is simply trying to smear Urban Venturs and Ralph Bruins good names?
WM: I don't believe one way or another, believing doesn't mean jack squat without real information. My point was that there is a time to let go your bile and quit citing the reformed ex-con as proof that the organization is evil.
Now, as usual, you're simply dancing around the question, trying to be clever with words. The correct response is: "No, I don't believe Eva is smearing them. I believe she is full of bile that she needs to let go." If you don't have the conviction of your statements -- you don't believe in them -- then you probably ought not to make them.
Sheeesh. I swear you just try to make things so much more difficult than they are. What's your motivation?
Chris Johnson Fulton
REMINDERS:
1. Think a member has violated the rules? Email the list manager at [EMAIL PROTECTED] before continuing it on the list. 2. Don't feed the troll! Ignore obvious flame-bait.
For state and national discussions see: http://e-democracy.org/discuss.html For external forums, see: http://e-democracy.org/mninteract ________________________________
Minneapolis Issues Forum - A City-focused Civic Discussion - Mn E-Democracy Post messages to: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subscribe, Un-subscribe, etc. at: http://e-democracy.org/mpls
