HannahTheSwearBear
New member
Post #13... says nothing about resisting arrest being dropped.
THIS IS SOME BULLSHIT
- Thread starter HannahTheSwearBear
- Start date
B
brittanysagex0
Guest
You said nothing about it, therefore I assumed you were still charged. However, you did still resist arrest, and that is inarguably stupid.
Exactly. Find something more productive to do with your time other than fighting off cops.
So you violated your probation too, I see. That's not smart either. The funny thing about this though is that all these things stay on your record, therefore when it comes to the cops that you hate so much - you've got a stigma. That's not a good thing to have, especially when you're so young.
Exactly. Find something more productive to do with your time other than fighting off cops.
So you violated your probation too, I see. That's not smart either. The funny thing about this though is that all these things stay on your record, therefore when it comes to the cops that you hate so much - you've got a stigma. That's not a good thing to have, especially when you're so young.
ninjamasta2k
New member
He may have. Either way, it still stays on his record, as a juvenile offense or an adult offense.
ldytgrs_11
New member
Not to make a judgment call, but what are the odds that he won't commit any more crimes? I sincerely hope that he is able to do so, or at the very least manage to not get caught, but from this latest exchange we can see that he's neither the most discreet person nor very cautious about his behavior when in possession of contraband items.
ygiernevada
New member
Oh, I'm aware, but I feel that reminding him that this is not his only course of action, and that he is not condemned to the life of a criminal, can only be beneficial. By reminding him of the odds, we make it that much more likely that the odds will pull through.
Worst case scenario, my reminder will make no difference whatsoever.
This is a problem, I think, that society as a whole has. We often want things in two contradictory ways; on one hand we "sincerely hope" that one who has made mistakes will see the error in their ways and become a good citizen, that nobody is beyond salvation, and what not, but, on the other we feel the constant need to remind those who have made mistakes in the past of those mistakes, preventing them from shaking the label.
Even if this exchange indicates that he probably will act in this capacity again, why encourage the behavior by reminding him that he's probably doomed to that fate? Just make a personal note of it, and try to remind him that just because he has done wrong in the past, does not mean he's condemned to it in the future.
We can be both wary and helpful. Our concern for their future actions does not have to be made known to those whom we worry about. Simply, If we call men criminals, they will act like criminals.
By calling this man:
we only reinforce that behavior. Why change if he feels that that's the way he is? The real kicker being that he will only feel that way if we tell him that's the way he should feel.
We are the products of our surroundings, and the actions we take are, in some way or another, encouraged by the world around us, otherwise we would not take them.
Worst case scenario, my reminder will make no difference whatsoever.
This is a problem, I think, that society as a whole has. We often want things in two contradictory ways; on one hand we "sincerely hope" that one who has made mistakes will see the error in their ways and become a good citizen, that nobody is beyond salvation, and what not, but, on the other we feel the constant need to remind those who have made mistakes in the past of those mistakes, preventing them from shaking the label.
Even if this exchange indicates that he probably will act in this capacity again, why encourage the behavior by reminding him that he's probably doomed to that fate? Just make a personal note of it, and try to remind him that just because he has done wrong in the past, does not mean he's condemned to it in the future.
We can be both wary and helpful. Our concern for their future actions does not have to be made known to those whom we worry about. Simply, If we call men criminals, they will act like criminals.
By calling this man:
we only reinforce that behavior. Why change if he feels that that's the way he is? The real kicker being that he will only feel that way if we tell him that's the way he should feel.
We are the products of our surroundings, and the actions we take are, in some way or another, encouraged by the world around us, otherwise we would not take them.
Baby Wong ™
New member
I agree with you. His actions were fucking moronic. The label on the person is yet to be seen. 
Not all actions are encouraged by the world around us. I definitely agree with your main points. I think it is just a very hard thing to ever get right to be honest. You can never fully predict another human's actions regardless. Even if you know every single thing about them and their history. Then again... if the shoe fits, wear it.
Of course everyone hopes a person who has committed criminal activity will never do so again, but the statistics are highly against that happening. It is human logic and survivability to natural take the worst case scenario and prepare for it. We both know this is just a very hard line to cross/ come to a definitive solution as many have been tried and nothing works for every situation. I try not to look at criminals as less than human or worse than me, but their actions are a whole different story.
I also don't like being thrown into the mix as part of the problem concerning his actions. It was his choice to break the law and me calling him a criminal, fucking moron, etc can not be blamed if he does so again. There are plenty of illegal actions I could take that would be reinforced by many people, but I choose not to do them and keep my ass out of jail.
Not all actions are encouraged by the world around us. I definitely agree with your main points. I think it is just a very hard thing to ever get right to be honest. You can never fully predict another human's actions regardless. Even if you know every single thing about them and their history. Then again... if the shoe fits, wear it.
Of course everyone hopes a person who has committed criminal activity will never do so again, but the statistics are highly against that happening. It is human logic and survivability to natural take the worst case scenario and prepare for it. We both know this is just a very hard line to cross/ come to a definitive solution as many have been tried and nothing works for every situation. I try not to look at criminals as less than human or worse than me, but their actions are a whole different story.
I also don't like being thrown into the mix as part of the problem concerning his actions. It was his choice to break the law and me calling him a criminal, fucking moron, etc can not be blamed if he does so again. There are plenty of illegal actions I could take that would be reinforced by many people, but I choose not to do them and keep my ass out of jail.
I think we are operating under different definitions of "encouraged." I think you mean that for things to be encouraged they must be "positive," which is perfectly legitimate, given the positive connotation of the word "encouragement."
For me encouragement of actions functions like this: A man is born. He has choices, but only out of the choices presented to him. He can not make a choice outside of the choices he is given, obviously.
One of the choices given to *this man* was to be a criminal. It's unquantifiable and unknown what other options he could have taken at this point, because he has chosen, for the moment, to be a criminal. Regardless, we can agree that one of the options given to him was to be a criminal, right?
Obviously, since he made that choice, which was a choice given to him by the society around him(it had to be, otherwise he would have no way to make that choice), he found it to be the most alluring out of the options he realized he had(however many those might be.). Why would he find that option, of all his options, the most compelling? And obviously, he must have found it to be the best option, otherwise he would not have taken it. What sort of man does not always do what he feels is best for him in some sense?
You show me a selfless man, and I'll show you that which cannot exist.
We must look at his identity. What is a person? Does a person make themselves, or is the individual shaped by society? Generally, I think, the latter is the most true. Granted, the person has choices within this societal framework. But the man's choices are limited and dependent upon numerous variables such as ethnicity, age, gender, social status, hair color, intelligence, etc, all of these things being socially determined. They are not determined by the individual.
Further, a person is compelled to make various choices by certain pressures upon their life, be they economic, social, or otherwise. These pressures, likewise, are congruent to social expectations, otherwise they would not exist, destroyed by various cultural apparatuses.
In this way, every action a man takes, criminal or otherwise, is socially encouraged. A man becomes a criminal because he felt it was the best option of the options given to him, whatever his reasoning may be.
Further, no matter how "misguided" this reasoning on the part of a criminal is, it cannot be avoided that his ability to reason, and why he reasons the way that he does was socially programmed. He did not come to reason things that way on his own. Everything that a person knows is taught to them, etc. That is unavoidable.
Yes, of course it becomes impossible to guess what action a man will take, because in order to guess that you would have to know everything about him, every experience he's ever had, and exactly what he's thinking. That's impossible to know, because even the man himself often times has no idea what he's thinking, and has little recollection of the events that shaped his identity, and his ability to reason. Nonetheless, that does not mean these events did not occur. It does not mean that the action they eventually settle upon was not encouraged by their social stimuli and experience.
I try not to look at criminals as less than human or worse than me, but their actions are a whole different story.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't think that we can simply chalk it up to instinct, and natural human disposition, because, well, nobody really knows what those things are for sure. But, I do see what you're getting at.
Further, I'm not even sure if there is a solution. The only thing I am sure of is that the way of currently doing things is not working.
Well of course you don't like it, because it makes you uncomfortable, which is perfectly acceptable, and every bit as socially encouraged as his actions were.
You deriding him for being a criminal is no less encouraged than him continuing to be one.
Yes, but due to your social background, i.e. ethnicity, economic status, etc, you choose not to engage in similar actions due to what is socially expected of one in your station, and the pressures that come with that station. In layman's terms, you have a differing sort of encouragement, because you have wider/better options,more education, higher expectations, different influences, etc.
For these reasons, it becomes unfair for you to say that "Well, I don't do it," because you're a completely different entity and your lives(including the options given you) are not analogous in any way.
/end thread derail.
For me encouragement of actions functions like this: A man is born. He has choices, but only out of the choices presented to him. He can not make a choice outside of the choices he is given, obviously.
One of the choices given to *this man* was to be a criminal. It's unquantifiable and unknown what other options he could have taken at this point, because he has chosen, for the moment, to be a criminal. Regardless, we can agree that one of the options given to him was to be a criminal, right?
Obviously, since he made that choice, which was a choice given to him by the society around him(it had to be, otherwise he would have no way to make that choice), he found it to be the most alluring out of the options he realized he had(however many those might be.). Why would he find that option, of all his options, the most compelling? And obviously, he must have found it to be the best option, otherwise he would not have taken it. What sort of man does not always do what he feels is best for him in some sense?
You show me a selfless man, and I'll show you that which cannot exist.
We must look at his identity. What is a person? Does a person make themselves, or is the individual shaped by society? Generally, I think, the latter is the most true. Granted, the person has choices within this societal framework. But the man's choices are limited and dependent upon numerous variables such as ethnicity, age, gender, social status, hair color, intelligence, etc, all of these things being socially determined. They are not determined by the individual.
Further, a person is compelled to make various choices by certain pressures upon their life, be they economic, social, or otherwise. These pressures, likewise, are congruent to social expectations, otherwise they would not exist, destroyed by various cultural apparatuses.
In this way, every action a man takes, criminal or otherwise, is socially encouraged. A man becomes a criminal because he felt it was the best option of the options given to him, whatever his reasoning may be.
Further, no matter how "misguided" this reasoning on the part of a criminal is, it cannot be avoided that his ability to reason, and why he reasons the way that he does was socially programmed. He did not come to reason things that way on his own. Everything that a person knows is taught to them, etc. That is unavoidable.
Yes, of course it becomes impossible to guess what action a man will take, because in order to guess that you would have to know everything about him, every experience he's ever had, and exactly what he's thinking. That's impossible to know, because even the man himself often times has no idea what he's thinking, and has little recollection of the events that shaped his identity, and his ability to reason. Nonetheless, that does not mean these events did not occur. It does not mean that the action they eventually settle upon was not encouraged by their social stimuli and experience.
I try not to look at criminals as less than human or worse than me, but their actions are a whole different story.[/QUOTE]
Well, I don't think that we can simply chalk it up to instinct, and natural human disposition, because, well, nobody really knows what those things are for sure. But, I do see what you're getting at.
Further, I'm not even sure if there is a solution. The only thing I am sure of is that the way of currently doing things is not working.
Well of course you don't like it, because it makes you uncomfortable, which is perfectly acceptable, and every bit as socially encouraged as his actions were.
You deriding him for being a criminal is no less encouraged than him continuing to be one.
Yes, but due to your social background, i.e. ethnicity, economic status, etc, you choose not to engage in similar actions due to what is socially expected of one in your station, and the pressures that come with that station. In layman's terms, you have a differing sort of encouragement, because you have wider/better options,more education, higher expectations, different influences, etc.
For these reasons, it becomes unfair for you to say that "Well, I don't do it," because you're a completely different entity and your lives(including the options given you) are not analogous in any way.
/end thread derail.
King Impossible
New member
Farceur, while I agree with pretty much everything you've stated in regards to society's influence on the individual, I think you put a bit too much emphasis on how heavily the individual is influenced and not enough on their own free will to rise above (or sink below) those influences.
It is my firm belief that no one should be condemned for the rest of their life based on one or a small series of offenses committed earlier in life. I don't think because the OP has a criminal record that he should be looked down upon as some lesser being.
But I also see no reason not to call certain aspects of his behavior (i.e. resisting arrest) moronic, idiotic, immature, et cetera. Because that is what they are. And yes, if he or his actions are referred to too often/too vehemently in this way, then I'm sure it can have a negative effect on his self image and his future actions.
Still, I know that I and several other posters on this thread have put forth an effort to accompany any negative commits ("What you did was stupid") with some sort of constructive advice ("Why not try to become involved in your community?", "Try to be more discrete with your actions").
Also, people's harmful/ill-advised actions must be recognized as mistakes, especially when repeated. But that doesn't mean that by condemning the action you condemn the person. Sure, we are best defined by our actions (in my opinion), but there are certain situations in which you must separate a person from their actions in order to give them another chance. If this separation between the person and their actions did not sometimes take place, then anyone who had committed a particularly harmful wrongdoing or made a particularly dire mistake would be stuck with it for the rest of their lives, regardless of what redeeming qualities they may have/actions they may have taken.
To use a personal example, one of my older brothers was a severe alcoholic and drug addict by the time he was 16. He stole money from the family (including me, his brother who was about 12 at the time), ran away/disappeared for extended periods of time, manipulated and lied to his loved ones, et cetera. He continued this pattern of extremely hurtful and undoubtedly wrong behavior for many years.
And even in moments when I felt I loathed him more than anyone, I still loved him. But no matter how much I loved him, I never refrained from condemning his actions for the sake of his peace of mind. I also never refrained from telling him I loved him, and wanted him to stay a member of our family.
He needed to know just how fucked up and harmful what he was doing was, not so that he would value himself less, but so that he knew what he was doing wrong and also knew that he didn't have to do it.
Now he's 20, and although he still sometimes struggles with alcohol, he is a functioning member of society as well as a devoted and loving member of our family. Now, If I did not have the ability to separate the intelligent, caring, and upstanding man that my brother is at his core from the dishonest and cruel drug addict that he was for so long, then how could I ever reach a point where I could forgive him and welcome him back into my life?
And seeing that my father and my other older brother have both been severe addicts at at least one point in their lives (my father was an alcholic, my brother was a meth addict), I need to be able to differentiate a person from their most negative actions in order to not only maintain my own personal peace of mind, but to maintain my family.
Now, I recognize that some people do not go about positive and negative reinforcement in the right way. Some people focus too much on the negative aspect, some too much on the positive. It's a thin line to walk, and I've undoubtedly crossed it a few times myself. But I don't believe I'm in the wrong to dub the irrational and intentional violation of the law as something "moronic".
And although I recognize how heavily the individual is influenced by society, there comes a time in which said individual must make his own choice, and hopefully rise above his given label in defiance of whatever negative influence society may have had on him. No matter how affected we are by the world around us, we are still our own people, and must ultimately be governed by our own free will, and not the will of others.
To TheCorrupter: you sincerely have my best wishes in the future for whatever you choose to do, and I hope that whatever side of the law you choose to live on and how you choose to go about it helps to guide you to your own ideal of happiness, preferably with the least harm done to others.
It is my firm belief that no one should be condemned for the rest of their life based on one or a small series of offenses committed earlier in life. I don't think because the OP has a criminal record that he should be looked down upon as some lesser being.
But I also see no reason not to call certain aspects of his behavior (i.e. resisting arrest) moronic, idiotic, immature, et cetera. Because that is what they are. And yes, if he or his actions are referred to too often/too vehemently in this way, then I'm sure it can have a negative effect on his self image and his future actions.
Still, I know that I and several other posters on this thread have put forth an effort to accompany any negative commits ("What you did was stupid") with some sort of constructive advice ("Why not try to become involved in your community?", "Try to be more discrete with your actions").
Also, people's harmful/ill-advised actions must be recognized as mistakes, especially when repeated. But that doesn't mean that by condemning the action you condemn the person. Sure, we are best defined by our actions (in my opinion), but there are certain situations in which you must separate a person from their actions in order to give them another chance. If this separation between the person and their actions did not sometimes take place, then anyone who had committed a particularly harmful wrongdoing or made a particularly dire mistake would be stuck with it for the rest of their lives, regardless of what redeeming qualities they may have/actions they may have taken.
To use a personal example, one of my older brothers was a severe alcoholic and drug addict by the time he was 16. He stole money from the family (including me, his brother who was about 12 at the time), ran away/disappeared for extended periods of time, manipulated and lied to his loved ones, et cetera. He continued this pattern of extremely hurtful and undoubtedly wrong behavior for many years.
And even in moments when I felt I loathed him more than anyone, I still loved him. But no matter how much I loved him, I never refrained from condemning his actions for the sake of his peace of mind. I also never refrained from telling him I loved him, and wanted him to stay a member of our family.
He needed to know just how fucked up and harmful what he was doing was, not so that he would value himself less, but so that he knew what he was doing wrong and also knew that he didn't have to do it.
Now he's 20, and although he still sometimes struggles with alcohol, he is a functioning member of society as well as a devoted and loving member of our family. Now, If I did not have the ability to separate the intelligent, caring, and upstanding man that my brother is at his core from the dishonest and cruel drug addict that he was for so long, then how could I ever reach a point where I could forgive him and welcome him back into my life?
And seeing that my father and my other older brother have both been severe addicts at at least one point in their lives (my father was an alcholic, my brother was a meth addict), I need to be able to differentiate a person from their most negative actions in order to not only maintain my own personal peace of mind, but to maintain my family.
Now, I recognize that some people do not go about positive and negative reinforcement in the right way. Some people focus too much on the negative aspect, some too much on the positive. It's a thin line to walk, and I've undoubtedly crossed it a few times myself. But I don't believe I'm in the wrong to dub the irrational and intentional violation of the law as something "moronic".
And although I recognize how heavily the individual is influenced by society, there comes a time in which said individual must make his own choice, and hopefully rise above his given label in defiance of whatever negative influence society may have had on him. No matter how affected we are by the world around us, we are still our own people, and must ultimately be governed by our own free will, and not the will of others.
To TheCorrupter: you sincerely have my best wishes in the future for whatever you choose to do, and I hope that whatever side of the law you choose to live on and how you choose to go about it helps to guide you to your own ideal of happiness, preferably with the least harm done to others.