Re: [wc] JonBenet

Fri, 18 Aug 2006 13:20:14 -0700

I'm not arguing against the principle of "Don't be Stupid".  And I'm definitely not arguing from a utopian standpoint.  I don't think I can change public opinion by myself.  And I don't think we can ever eradicate violence in our society.  But there can be real-world consequences to people sharing your attitude.  One of those looks a lot like the 84% of rapes that go unreported to the police.
 
If I've convinced anybody to shift the focus that little bit, then that one less person contributing to an appalling CW.  One that says that if only you're careful enough, nothing bad will happen to you, and conversely, if something bads happens, it must be in some way your fault.
 
Anyway, to repeat, everybody remember : "Don't Be Stupid"  and "Don't Blame the Victim"
 
Glory, glory, Harry Lewis.  Amen.
 
On 8/18/06, James <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

I admire your utopian outlook, but I've just had too much shit happen
to me to roll like that. Walking down the street at 2 am, wearing a
walkman (this is something that existed pre-iPod) and getting slammed
in the back of the head and having said walkman stolen. No, I was
not at fault at all. I don't think I was "asking" for it. But you
know what, I read the papers, I know what happens, probably pretty fn
stupid to deprive myself of a major component of my awareness given
that particular setting.

Before the internet, we used to camp out on the street to get in line
for concert tickets. Well my friend was a huge Alice Cooper fan and
convinced me this thing would sell out in 10 minutes. So we load up
the cooler, the boombox, go down to W. Bell downtown (this was a
department store that existed before Wal-Mart) and get the party
started. Of course, nobody else showed up, we got drunk, fell
asleep, and everything got stolen. Pretty dumb to fall asleep on a
downtown street surrounded by expensive shit and booze.

Violent crime or opportunistic, my decisions played a part in the
events that followed. I guess it's just a philosophical difference.



--- In [email protected], "Hannah Robinson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thank you for the lovely compliment, Cap'n. Rest assured, the
feeling's mutual.
>
> Alas, I am unconvinced by your argument. You've described each of
> those situations as an instance of a 'crime of opportunity'. Jean
> Valjean/Leona Helmsley/Haley Joel Osment (speaking of which, what is
> this? the Kevin Bacon rap sheet? Mel to M. Night to Haley Joel?)
sees
> an opening, measures the risk, goes for it despite its being both
> illegal and wrong.
>
> The problem with comparing violent crime to property crime or
criminal
> negligence (not a lawyer yet, so I don't really know best how to
> characterize a DUI) is that the 'opportunity' presented is less
> 'how-can-I-get-away-with-behaving-irresponsibly-but-to-my-own-
benefit'
> and more 'how-can-I-hurt-someone'.
>
> Basically, the victim is largely tangential to the criminal in your
> examples. It's not personal. They are tempted, and they suffer the
> weakness of mind to indulge. In violent crime, the victim is the
> whole focus of the crime. It requires not weakness of mind, but a
> broken one. What is this irresistible temptation? The victim's
> existence?
>
> To my mind, accidentally leaving your door unlocked isn't the same
as
> going to bar. And I hope we can all agree, that neither one is
> 'asking for it.'
>
> All I'm really trying to achieve is getting people to step back from
> the judging the victim thing. Even if you are not, as I said
before,
> all about making yourself feel more secure, it's still completely
> unhelpful in dealing with the root cause of crime (which is NOT
> keeping your kids on a leash/wearing a burqa/never leaving the hosue
> after sundown). As unintentional as it may be, Blame the Victim is
to
> a degree letting the attacker off the hook. I ask that everybody
keep
> that in mind.
>
> Sermon over. Praise Jeebus.
>
> (P.S. To Denise, I threw in the defrocked so I wouldn't get anyone
> telling me that not ALL priests are like that. Sigh, sometimes a
gal
> can't win.)
>
>
> James said:
>
> Hannah, you always make a convincing argument, and not only that,
> you're funny when you want to be, too, which is why I'm glad you
> contribute to this group. But let Capt. Analogy take another stab
> at this.
>
> Say you're shopping and leave your credit card somewhere, and an
> unscrupulous fellow shopper picks it up and runs it up with a bunch
> of crap purchases. Say he fills up his 2005 Aspen green Camry and
> buys tickets to Bob Dylan on Saturday, for instance. Yes, this
> person is as guilty as if he had picked it directly from your
> pocket. But to some degree, you did fuck up. We live in a world in
> which you need to protect yourself, your loved ones who can't
> protect themselves, and your valuables. These are unfortunate and
> undeniable truths. If you don't do this, or worse, do the exact
> opposite, you have to bear a certain degree of responsibility.
> Whether it is naivete' or carelessness, society is unlikely to make
> concessions for you. The person who picked up your card saw an
> opportunity, and may not have had the intent to steal a card that
> day. But still, you're screwed.
>
> Now to Gene's remark about drunk driving vs. tax evasion. Okay, now
> I'm drunk at a bar. I have my car and I have my keys. I have the
> opportunity to sleep in my own bed, to be comforted by my own cats,
> to apply my own icepacks, steaks, cucumber slices, and do whatever I
> need to do in my own bathroom. There is no intent to harm anyone.
> The crime lies between the poor judgement, and the opportunity to
> drive to where I want to be. Tax evasion is a crime of intent. The
> repercussions about sucking up resources and depriving money that
> might have gone into social programs, blah blah won't get into that,
> particularly under this administration.
>
> Say you're walking by a parked convertible with the top down, and
> there's a $100 bill on the front seat. Most of us will think, this
> is a set up, ain't touching that thing. But we're special. What
> percentage of society do you think will grab that thing, compared to
> breaking into a locked car with a bill on the seat? A far greater
> percentage. You're basically an idiot for leaving a $100 in an open
> car. Only a real douchebag will break someone's window for a lousy
> $100. I think Gene thinks a crime of intent is worse than a crime
> of opportunity.
>
> So what I'm getting at is yes, your kids should not be walking home
> alone, especially if you have dressed them up as little freakin'
> whores.
>
> This ain't the garden of eden, there ain't no angels above. Things
> ain't what they used to be, and this ain't the summer of love. -
> Blue Oyster Cult
>


__._,_.___


SPONSORED LINKS
Identity Flag Guessing

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



__,_._,___

Reply via email to