Would you trust someone who had been arrested multiple times for..

[TMAN]

Some people have never been arrested its not something to be proud of. but I was a couple of times in my youth for Driving offences and I have no issues admitting it.. How do you generally feel about someone who when questioned totally dodges the question?

Would you trust someone who has been arrested for the below?

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

I am genuinely interested to hear other peoples opinions of what the likely character of someone with that arrest record would be?  I know its only arrest and not prison time, but as they say you cant make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.

Online identities and personas can be so different from how people behave IRL, I mean with that arrest record things like battery could be a little further down the list as well.

[1715016636]

1715016636

[1715016636]

1715016636

[1715016636]

1715016636

[Welsh]

I think that's hard to say and really depends on the case by case basis. I would probably be extremely wary of people who have distributed weapons or committed violent crimes. It probably depends on when it was committed and how long it's been since, a lot of people tend to make a few mistakes when they are younger and struggling for cash, although that's not an excuse you can probably show some sympathy for the ones that have be brought up in and around that environment and sort of forced into it to feed their families etc.

It's too complicated of a matter to judge on face value, further information needs to be taken on each case. 

[Quickseller]

I would like to know if anyone is willing to trust those who have been involved in extortion attempts.

TMAN -- can you add this to the OP please?

[warningsigns]

Once a thief, always a thief. Problem with arrested offenders is they tend to be recidivists. It’s hard to kick a habit, as the saying goes, and human bias will usually predispose one to harbor doubts. If someone steals, I might find it hard to trust that person, unless perhaps the theft was committed to achieve a greater good (such as being compelled to steal a vehicle to save someone’s life or to remove that vehicle from someone under the influence of alcohol etc).

As for dangerous weapons, I think trust will revolve around other factors such as motives for possessing or manufacturing them and the kind of weapon. If the person recklessly endangered vulnerable people such as kids, then I doubt I will ever find the strength to trust such a person.

[markdario112616]

Well, it depends. Based on my own experience, We have employed an ex-prisoner for 5 years already. His case is qualified theft been jailed for multiple times same case. But our family did give him a chance, We hired him as our cook. At first, we (my mom and my 2 brothers) are not comfortable with the situation but as days and months passed by he proved us wrong. We judged him on his first day but my dad didn't and he proves us that a person can really change for good. To answer if I could trust someone arrested multiple times?  I would give them a chance to be fair and as human but I think one is enough. Trust isn't easy to give, it must be earned.

People do change but all can maintain it. Give chance though be cautious all the same time (since there are still people when they gained your trust they tend to abuse it).

[cunicula]

Its ok for me if someone got arrested for rage driving in youth or getting behind bars for fighting in teenage days.

But selling weapons and stealing vehicles is aomething that i wont trust upon.

[MadZ]

I'd think very little of it if they were never convicted for those crimes. Many people equate being arrested with guilt, so I can understand why they would avoid the question entirely.

[endlasuresh]

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent
These are for offline things and nothing have to do with online works. Tman how do you know who is arrested personally, just a google search?

[TMAN]

~snip

Fuck off Quickspazzer - leave the grown ups alone

Once a thief, always a thief. Problem with arrested offenders is they tend to be recidivists. It’s hard to kick a habit, as the saying goes, and human bias will usually predispose one to harbor doubts. If someone steals, I might find it hard to trust that person, unless perhaps the theft was committed to achieve a greater good (such as being compelled to steal a vehicle to save someone’s life or to remove that vehicle from someone under the influence of alcohol etc).

As for dangerous weapons, I think trust will revolve around other factors such as motives for possessing or manufacturing them and the kind of weapon. If the person recklessly endangered vulnerable people such as kids, then I doubt I will ever find the strength to trust such a person.

Once a Thief always a thief is an interesting perspective, so are you saying based on only the 2 arrests above you wouldnt trust someone like that with $500K ?

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent
These are for offline things and nothing have to do with online works. Tman how do you know who is arrested personally, just a google search?

can you read? this is all hypothetical obviously!

[Joel_Jantsen]

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon

Does he own a license to do so ? For instance,Gun Manufacturers do oblige with all the legal procedures to get a license.However,selling them illegally is definitely committing a felony.

* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

Isn't that considered as a robbery ? Every judicial system that I'm aware of has serious charges (and jail time) for robbery.

[MadZ]

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon

Does he own a license to do so ? For instance,Gun Manufacturers do oblige with all the legal procedures to get a license.However,selling them illegally is definitely committing a felony.

* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

Isn't that considered as a robbery ? Every judicial system that I'm aware of has serious charges (and jail time) for robbery.

Being arrested and being convicted are not the same thing. Note this from the OP:

I know its only arrest and not prison time, but as they say you cant make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.

TMAN is asking if merely having been suspected of committing a crime, regardless of whether the individual was actually found guilty, makes them untrustworthy.

[TMAN]

TMAN is asking if merely having been suspected of committing a crime, regardless of whether the individual was actually found guilty, makes them untrustworthy.

no smoke without fire? 1 arrest very different from 3 or 4..

I am asking about someones character and if repeated arrests = good character.

[squatter]

Would you trust someone who has been arrested for the below?

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

Arrested but not convicted? That's not much to go on. I certainly wouldn't distrust someone over it. If the case wasn't prosecuted, we have to assume the charges were bogus.

no smoke without fire? 1 arrest very different from 3 or 4..

I am asking about someones character and if repeated arrests = good character.

Irrelevant. Cops are miserable pieces of shit. I've seen good people railroaded before -- doesn't take much. Try being on the wrong side of someone who is close to a police. Prosecutors tend to be more reasonable; they don't prosecute cases they can't prove. This is why juries exist. Pointing to an arrest record is just an appeal to authority. We don't know what really happened.

[erikalui]

No for both. Criminals even if not convicted are not trustworthy.

[TMAN]

No for both. Criminals even if not convicted are not trustworthy.

interesting view - so if the arrest record was actually longer than this you 100% wouldn't trust the offender?

[erikalui]

No for both. Criminals even if not convicted are not trustworthy.

interesting view - so if the arrest record was actually longer than this you 100% wouldn't trust the offender?

Doesn't matter if he has committed one crime or multiple crimes. He is not trustworthy. However, in one of your cases, the one who owns a license to a weapon is not considered a criminal and hence can be trusted. I can't say in the case of manufacturers or ones who sell it as most of them cannot be trusted.

[TMAN]

No for both. Criminals even if not convicted are not trustworthy.

interesting view - so if the arrest record was actually longer than this you 100% wouldn't trust the offender?

Doesn't matter if he has committed one crime or multiple crimes. He is not trustworthy. However, in one of your cases, the one who owns a license to a weapon is not considered a criminal and hence can be trusted. I can't say in the case of manufacturers or ones who sell it as most of them cannot be trusted.

Not being from the states so I am not well versed in the legal jargon I understand the charge as possession of a dangerous weapon.

[TheQuin]

Would you trust someone who has been arrested for the below?

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

Arrested but not convicted? That's not much to go on. I certainly wouldn't distrust someone over it. If the case wasn't prosecuted, we have to assume the charges were bogus.

no smoke without fire? 1 arrest very different from 3 or 4..

I am asking about someones character and if repeated arrests = good character.

Irrelevant. Cops are miserable pieces of shit. I've seen good people railroaded before -- doesn't take much. Try being on the wrong side of someone who is close to a police. Prosecutors tend to be more reasonable; they don't prosecute cases they can't prove. This is why juries exist. Pointing to an arrest record is just an appeal to authority. We don't know what really happened.

I would have to take it on a case by case basis. A record of having been arrested but not charged and/or convicted could be either a smart criminal that knows how to get away with it or harassment from law enforcement with a grudge. It's certainly grounds for suspicion but not by any means evidence that should be taken alone.

[TMAN]

I would have to take it on a case by case basis. A record of having been arrested but not charged and/or convicted could be either a smart criminal that knows how to get away with it or harassment from law enforcement with a grudge. It's certainly grounds for suspicion but not by any means evidence that should be taken alone.

Taken on face value, would you trust someone with funds if they had been arrested in the past for taking a car without the owners consent? I don't think I would, especially if they tried to hide that fact.

Personally I think that people make mistakes, I have made plenty over my lifetime, but I am happy to admit if I have made an error or done something wrong. People who do not have the guts to admit to mistakes and try to hide them are scummy to me 

[TheQuin]

Taken on face value, would you trust someone with funds if they had been arrested in the past for taking a car without the owners consent? I don't think I would, especially if they tried to hide that fact.

When I was a teenager a friend was arrested for taking his parents' car without permission (he was 17 with a provisional licence). Obviously, they gave him a hard time about it but didn't press charges. He wasn't exactly broadcasting the news around school at the time. I still trust him.

It's something that would make me suspicious enough to need to find out the full story.

Personally I think that people make mistakes, I have made plenty over my lifetime, but I am happy to admit if I have made an error or done something wrong. People who do not have the guts to admit to mistakes and try to hide them are scummy to me 

I agree with this but there's a difference between admitting to friends or people you do business with and making it public information.

[TMAN]

I agree with this but there's a difference between admitting to friends or people you do business with and making it public information.

I totally agree with you bud.. but if someone called you out on arrests would you start mentioning charges? for me that is a little dodgy.. though I have no issues with full disclosure. I am what I am as the saying goes.

[TheQuin]

What do you mean by "someone called you out"? There are circumstances I'd admit it and others I'd tell them to mind their own frickin' business.

[TMAN]

What do you mean by "someone called you out"? There are circumstances I'd admit it and others I'd tell them to mind their own frickin' business.

probably best if I don't go into specifics here fella. I was just genuinely interested in other peoples views on arrests and peoples trust.

one more hypothetical question.. would you trust someone who had been arrested for taking a car with hundreds of thousands of dollars?

what about if they already were in a position of trust and currently had the funds, then it came to light that they hadn't disclosed previous arrests?

[TheQuin]

probably best if I don't go into specifics here fella. I was just genuinely interested in other peoples views on arrests and peoples trust.

Completely understandable.

one more hypothetical question.. would you trust someone who had been arrested for taking a car with hundreds of thousands of dollars?

what about if they already were in a position of trust and currently had the funds, then it came to light that they hadn't disclosed previous arrests?

It really depends on the full story. That's why I gave that example of my friend taking his parents car when he was 17. If it was something like that I don't think it would affect how I trust them as an adult. If they were part of some organised crime gang ringing cars to export to Eastern Europe and got off on a technicality then I wouldn't trust them to hold my pint while I go for a piss.

[TheNewAnon135246]

I don't see the issue with "Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon", depending on the context. When I was young I made quite a few slingshots and potato cannons and I am pretty sure pretty much everyone has fabricated some sort of weapon when they were young  .

As for 'Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent', that is theft in my eyes. I don't trust thieves at all. I really dislike people who take things from other people, who have spent their hard-earned money on something, because they're too lazy to work for something their selves.

[TheQuin]

I don't see the issue with "Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon", depending on the context. When I was young I made quite a few slingshots and potato cannons and I am pretty sure pretty much everyone has fabricated some sort of weapon when they were young  .

The full question included 'arrested for' so the context is doing it in an illegal manner.

[TMAN]

As for 'Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent', that is theft in my eyes. I don't trust thieves at all. I really dislike people who take things from other people, who have spent their hard-earned money on something, because they're too lazy to work for something their selves.

that's the one that got me.. Its called Twocing in the UK, all the little scumbags do it - I do class it as a scumbag action.

then we come to scumbag=trustworthy??

[TheQuin]

As for 'Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent', that is theft in my eyes. I don't trust thieves at all. I really dislike people who take things from other people, who have spent their hard-earned money on something, because they're too lazy to work for something their selves.

that's the one that got me.. Its called Twocing in the UK, all the little scumbags do it - I do class it as a scumbag action.

then we come to scumbag=trustworthy??

If they did actually steal the car then yes. But if they were arrested and not charged there are a number of other possibilities. It could be as simple as not having the right paperwork on them at the time and the cops thinking they look too scruffy to own a nice motor.

[TheNewAnon135246]

I don't see the issue with "Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon", depending on the context. When I was young I made quite a few slingshots and potato cannons and I am pretty sure pretty much everyone has fabricated some sort of weapon when they were young  .

The full question included 'arrested for' so the context is doing it in an illegal manner.

It depends on where the offender is from. In most countries the possession of a self-fabricated weapon is illegal. So if a 12 year old makes a potato cannon and he gets caught using it in an abandoned field he can get arrested for it. As I stated in my post, it all depends on context.

[TMAN]

I don't see the issue with "Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon", depending on the context. When I was young I made quite a few slingshots and potato cannons and I am pretty sure pretty much everyone has fabricated some sort of weapon when they were young  .

The full question included 'arrested for' so the context is doing it in an illegal manner.

It depends on where the offender is from. In most countries the possession of a self-fabricated weapon is illegal. So if a 12 year old makes a potato cannon and he gets caught using it in an abandoned field he can get arrested for it. As I stated in my post, it all depends on context.

Dangerous weapon.. I have had females refer to my genitals as that before..dont think it is quite the same context here though

[TheQuin]

It depends on where the offender is from. In most countries the possession of a self-fabricated weapon is illegal. So if a 12 year old makes a potato cannon and he gets caught using it in an abandoned field he can get arrested for it. As I stated in my post, it all depends on context.

I agree. That's really the same point I'm making with the taking a car without consent examples. That may or may not involve theft. Manufacturing a potato cannon and converting deactivated/blank firing guns and selling them to criminals are also uncomparable, but show up as the same in someone's arrest record.
  

[TMAN]

I agree. That's really the same point I'm making with the taking a car without consent examples. That may or may not involve theft. Manufacturing a potato cannon and converting deactivated/blank firing guns and selling them to criminals are also uncomparable, but show up as the same in someone's arrest record.
  

I guess TWOC could be parents making a naughty child learn a lesson, or an angry GF reacting and trying to cause a fuss.. but again it could be a dirty little fuckface who you wouldnt lend $5 in real life who goes out with a gun and steals a neighbours car whilst blasting rap music thinking they are an original gangster

[TheQuin]

I agree. That's really the same point I'm making with the taking a car without consent examples. That may or may not involve theft. Manufacturing a potato cannon and converting deactivated/blank firing guns and selling them to criminals are also uncomparable, but show up as the same in someone's arrest record.
  

I guess TWOC could be parents making a naughty child learn a lesson, or an angry GF reacting and trying to cause a fuss.. but again it could be a dirty little fuckface who you wouldnt lend $5 in real life who goes out with a gun and steals a neighbours car whilst blasting rap music thinking they are an original gangster

Now we're on the same wavelength.

It's something that would make me suspicious enough to need to find out the full story.

[TMAN]

I agree. That's really the same point I'm making with the taking a car without consent examples. That may or may not involve theft. Manufacturing a potato cannon and converting deactivated/blank firing guns and selling them to criminals are also uncomparable, but show up as the same in someone's arrest record.
  

I guess TWOC could be parents making a naughty child learn a lesson, or an angry GF reacting and trying to cause a fuss.. but again it could be a dirty little fuckface who you wouldnt lend $5 in real life who goes out with a gun and steals a neighbours car whilst blasting rap music thinking they are an original gangster

Now we're on the same wavelength.

It's something that would make me suspicious enough to need to find out the full story.

I wouldn't trust either person in this Hypothetical scenario - I mean kids make mistakes, but if they were not bought up to know right from wrong then they are a bad apple..

but that's my opinion as a parent - I teach my children the power of hard work. Other parents aren't the same, some may tech kids it is ok to take shortcuts, so taking the easy route may be in their DNA. I am sure people like that would spend there life looking for shortcuts, and may be caught up in scams/shady dealings.

[TheQuin]

I wouldn't trust either person in this Hypothetical scenario - I mean kids make mistakes, but if they were not bought up to know right from wrong then they are a bad apple..

but that's my opinion as a parent - I teach my children the power of hard work. Other parents aren't the same, some may tech kids it is ok to take shortcuts, so taking the easy route may be in their DNA. I am sure people like that would spend there life looking for shortcuts, and may be caught up in scams/shady dealings.

I respect your opinion but don't fully agree, I did stupid things when I was younger and I know others that also did. That doesn't in my view make us untrustworthy people. That's just part of growing up.

If this hypothetical person did it as an adult, and it wasn't the cops getting it wrong, then I wouldn't trust them. I would need to know more to make a judgment.

[TMAN]

I wouldn't trust either person in this Hypothetical scenario - I mean kids make mistakes, but if they were not bought up to know right from wrong then they are a bad apple..

but that's my opinion as a parent - I teach my children the power of hard work. Other parents aren't the same, some may tech kids it is ok to take shortcuts, so taking the easy route may be in their DNA. I am sure people like that would spend there life looking for shortcuts, and may be caught up in scams/shady dealings.

I respect your opinion but don't fully agree, I did stupid things when I was younger and I know others that also did. That doesn't in my view make us untrustworthy people. That's just part of growing up.

If this hypothetical person did it as an adult, and it wasn't the cops getting it wrong, then I wouldn't trust them. I would need to know more to make a judgment.

I did silly things as well, plenty of them, probably more than most to be honest. But stealing is something that I cannot condone. To me it is similar to men who hit women - I don't get that either.

[warningsigns]

Once a thief, always a thief. Problem with arrested offenders is they tend to be recidivists. It’s hard to kick a habit, as the saying goes, and human bias will usually predispose one to harbor doubts. If someone steals, I might find it hard to trust that person, unless perhaps the theft was committed to achieve a greater good (such as being compelled to steal a vehicle to save someone’s life or to remove that vehicle from someone under the influence of alcohol etc).
As for dangerous weapons, I think trust will revolve around other factors such as motives for possessing or manufacturing them and the kind of weapon. If the person recklessly endangered vulnerable people such as kids, then I doubt I will ever find the strength to trust such a person.

Once a Thief always a thief is an interesting perspective, so are you saying based on only the 2 arrests above you wouldnt trust someone like that with $500K ?

$500K? Yes and no. Yes, against collateral of equal or more value. No, if entrusting that person based purely and solely on trust or in good faith.

Trust is naturally absent when interacting financially with strangers, let alone strangers who were arrested for a dishonesty offence. If you know a person was arrested for something like theft, it will take time and a test of patience to overcome that doubt and negativity.

[TheQuin]

I did silly things as well, plenty of them, probably more than most to be honest. But stealing is something that I cannot condone. To me it is similar to men who hit women - I don't get that either.

Exactly. But there are many circumstances someone could be arrested for TWOC where stealing isn't involved. In your original question, you specifically asked about being arrested as opposed to being charged with or convicted of. If they were arrested and then released without charge it's actually probably more likely that it didn't involve theft. If you're asking if I would trust someone with a conviction then no I wouldn't.

[TMAN]

I did silly things as well, plenty of them, probably more than most to be honest. But stealing is something that I cannot condone. To me it is similar to men who hit women - I don't get that either.

Exactly. But there are many circumstances someone could be arrested for TWOC where stealing isn't involved. In your original question, you specifically asked about being arrested as opposed to being charged with or convicted of. If they were arrested and then released without charge it's actually probably more likely that it didn't involve theft. If you're asking if I would trust someone with a conviction then no I wouldn't.

I do not understand the law where this took place so I really cannot comment fully, but it went to court and in the documents there are mentions of informal probation so I am not too sure of the full details. 

[TheQuin]

I do not understand the law where this took place so I really cannot comment fully, but it went to court and in the documents there are mentions of informal probation so I am not too sure of the full details. 

Being charged is something that needs to happen before going to court whatever country you're in. So we can rule the cops arresting someone who could later prove they did have consent etc.

"Informal probation" is a punishment so implies some sort of guilt. Although it is not unknown in some countries for people to take the lightest punishment possible, even when innocent, just because they distrust the legal system.

In this hypothetical situation, the person would have an awful lot of work to do to convince me to trust them.

[TMAN]

I do not understand the law where this took place so I really cannot comment fully, but it went to court and in the documents there are mentions of informal probation so I am not too sure of the full details. 

Being charged is something that needs to happen before going to court whatever country you're in. So we can rule the cops arresting someone who could later prove they did have consent etc.

"Informal probation" is a punishment so implies some sort of guilt. Although it is not unknown in some countries for people to take the lightest punishment possible, even when innocent, just because they distrust the legal system.

In this hypothetical situation, the person would have an awful lot of work to do to convince me to trust them.

so in this hypothetical situation.. if I said it was the good old US of A..  and someone got Informal probation, would you hypothesize that they would do it as an innocent party?

[aTriz]

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon

Weapons are a big no IMO, probably due to the fact I've never lived in an area where guns were legal. I wouldn't really mind the "Possess" part if it's in an area where guns are legal. People love guns and I can see why someone might be tempted to own a dangerous gun. The other 2 are more dodgier IMO and would require some more context. But I wouldn't trust someone who is actively dealing in selling and buying firearms. Making them is alright, since that could be an occupation.

* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

Isn't this theft? Definetly no if it is.

I am genuinely interested to hear other peoples opinions of what the likely character of someone with that arrest record would be?  I know its only arrest and not prison time, but as they say you cant make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.

Depends on what time there were arrested, as you said, you can't really judge someone who's in their like mid-40s with the stupid shit they did when they were 20. I'd still be weary nevertheless, because of the last conviction. Probably try to avoid them.

[TheQuin]

so in this hypothetical situation.. if I said it was the good old US of A..  and someone got Informal probation, would you hypothesize that they would do it as an innocent party?

No. I would think that possible with more serious offences in the US but not something as minor as this.

I guess TWOC could be parents making a naughty child learn a lesson, or an angry GF reacting and trying to cause a fuss..

The onus would be on them to prove something like this happened.

[TMAN]

so in this hypothetical situation.. if I said it was the good old US of A..  and someone got Informal probation, would you hypothesize that they would do it as an innocent party?

No. I would think that possible with more serious offences in the US but not something as minor as this.

ah cool  - so the person in this hypothetical situation is a scumbag then?

[Aventhe]

Some people have never been arrested its not something to be proud of. but I was a couple of times in my youth for Driving offences and I have no issues admitting it.. How do you generally feel about someone who when questioned totally dodges the question?

Would you trust someone who has been arrested for the below?

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

I am genuinely interested to hear other peoples opinions of what the likely character of someone with that arrest record would be?  I know its only arrest and not prison time, but as they say you cant make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.

Online identities and personas can be so different from how people behave IRL, I mean with that arrest record things like battery could be a little further down the list as well.

Are you thinking more about legally trusting someone, or more like as a close friend (morally)?

Petty crimes IMO aren't a biggy, unless you are placing someone's life in direct danger. But then everything in the end goes down to your gut feeling. Without a direct scenario and how close you were/are to that person, its kind of hard to tell. However if you know they are doing dodgy shit, maybe place a little caution tag onto them.

[TheQuin]

ah cool  - so the person in this hypothetical situation is a scumbag then?

That would be my default position until such time that they could provide sufficient evidence as to exactly what happened that could explain why they are not. I'd say we are at 99.9% scumbag certainty in my book.

[TMAN]

ah cool  - so the person in this hypothetical situation is a scumbag then?

That would be my default position until such time that they could provide sufficient evidence as to exactly what happened that could explain why they are not. I'd say we are at 99.9% scumbag certainty in my book.

Thanks for your insight.

another question, how would you feel if one of the people added to DT by theymos had the hypothetical record we have been discussing?

[TheQuin]

Thanks for your insight.

another question, how would you feel if one of the people added to DT by theymos had the hypothetical record we have been discussing?

I've never really paid much attention to the DT bun fighting. I'd guess theymos has his reasons for trusting that person. There are some members of DT that tag people to try and fight scammers and cheats.... and others that tag people to retaliate for making accusations about them.

I did see theymos recently brought up the idea again of getting rid of DT and that might not be a bad idea. Until then the ~ character can be useful in modifying one's trust settings.

[erikalui]

No for both. Criminals even if not convicted are not trustworthy.

interesting view - so if the arrest record was actually longer than this you 100% wouldn't trust the offender?

Doesn't matter if he has committed one crime or multiple crimes. He is not trustworthy. However, in one of your cases, the one who owns a license to a weapon is not considered a criminal and hence can be trusted. I can't say in the case of manufacturers or ones who sell it as most of them cannot be trusted.

Not being from the states so I am not well versed in the legal jargon I understand the charge as possession of a dangerous weapon.

I'm talking about those who possess a dangerous weapon but have the license to do so which includes lawyers and so on. Possessing it without a license make the person guilty of a criminal act and they can't be trusted.

[endlasuresh]

~snip

Fuck off Quickspazzer - leave the grown ups alone

Once a thief, always a thief. Problem with arrested offenders is they tend to be recidivists. It’s hard to kick a habit, as the saying goes, and human bias will usually predispose one to harbor doubts. If someone steals, I might find it hard to trust that person, unless perhaps the theft was committed to achieve a greater good (such as being compelled to steal a vehicle to save someone’s life or to remove that vehicle from someone under the influence of alcohol etc).

As for dangerous weapons, I think trust will revolve around other factors such as motives for possessing or manufacturing them and the kind of weapon. If the person recklessly endangered vulnerable people such as kids, then I doubt I will ever find the strength to trust such a person.

Once a Thief always a thief is an interesting perspective, so are you saying based on only the 2 arrests above you wouldnt trust someone like that with $500K ?

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent
These are for offline things and nothing have to do with online works. Tman how do you know who is arrested personally, just a google search?

can you read? this is all hypothetical obviously!

For your query, its only one chance for me trusting, but I see here some do same things until their death comes. Some of them are selling illegal drugs even though they are arrested previously.
For Vehicle, no one take and return, they do theft and sell it to someone thats all.

[TheUltraElite]

Some people have never been arrested its not something to be proud of. but I was a couple of times in my youth for Driving offences and I have no issues admitting it.. How do you generally feel about someone who when questioned totally dodges the question?

Having commited some offences in past is only the proof that you are also a human. Because humans tend to make mistakes and sometimes they have to go against the rules which a machine wont in general do. This fact that you are having a sound mind is that you admit it was a mistake and an offence from your side - the criminally bent minds would not think in this line of thought.

If they ignore the question - either they are having some hidden motif or they dont care.

Would you trust someone who has been arrested for the below?

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

Possession of weapons was legal at one time in many places of the world - talk about the Wild West and the times when the Gun owners were to rulers in the states. Taking a vehicle without the owner's consent is a theft.

I am genuinely interested to hear other peoples opinions of what the likely character of someone with that arrest record would be?  I know its only arrest and not prison time, but as they say you cant make an omelet without cracking a few eggs.

People commit crimes due to several reasons. One of them is to gather money - which is true for the poorer populations. They would mug, steal, rob or even kill to get money, because its what they are after and not work hard to earn money. Its like an "easy way out" for them.

Again there is a big difference between psychotic killers and psychopathic killers. The former suffers from psychosis which is a disease and the latter does not suffer from any disease but they are far from what social acceptability is.

For criminal procedure of such people we have the famous McNaghten's Rule - though it has been modified in many places with local laws.

Online identities and personas can be so different from how people behave IRL, I mean with that arrest record things like battery could be a little further down the list as well.

Online and offline personas are often similar. However that may not reflect the actual nature of the person because the scammers have become scammers because they can change their personas everywhere so as to not gain attention and link.

[InvoKing]

-snip-
Would you trust someone who has been arrested for the below?

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

If the vehicle is owned by a relative and the thing is doing is kind of urgent or should be done so fast (injury, pregnant women in labor...) so it is ok, otherwise I will blame him but I will give him a second chance.
For weapons definitely no, just in 2 cases : chasing dangerous animals (if you know what I mean) or possessing dangerous weapons in school by st... teachers, well another bonus exception is a mentally retarded guy possessing that toy in the white house since it is supported there.

tl;dr : it depends, case by case.

[Vod]

* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

Isn't that considered as a robbery ? Every judicial system that I'm aware of has serious charges (and jail time) for robbery.

If you took the vehicle while the owner was there and they felt compelled to give it to you, that is robbery.

If you took the vehicle without the owner being present, it is only Grand Theft Auto.

[Welsh]

I'm talking about those who possess a dangerous weapon but have the license to do so which includes lawyers and so on. Possessing it without a license make the person guilty of a criminal act and they can't be trusted.

A lot of unlicensed weapons are used for hunting, although it's breaking the law in most countries which either don't allow hunting, or using a gun without a license it doesn't necessarily mean that the person who has the gun tends to use it for malicious purposes. A few farmers have been found out doing this and normally have the weapon confiscated and a slap on the wrists depending on several factors I imagine.  

Just because someone owns a gun unlawfully doesn't necessarily mean they are untrustworthy and this is coming from someone who's not into guns and largely against them being legalized. I've only ever lived in countries which guns are illegal and I think this is probably the best approach to keep gun crime down. In the UK it's almost unheard especially here in Wales. Though, I'll admit that certain countries are too far down the line to now start banning the usage of guns.

[TheQuin]

* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

Isn't that considered as a robbery ? Every judicial system that I'm aware of has serious charges (and jail time) for robbery.

If you took the vehicle while the owner was there and they felt compelled to give it to you, that is robbery.

If you took the vehicle without the owner being present, it is only Grand Theft Auto.

From a legal definition point of view, theft requires intent to permanently deprive the legal owner of possession. Taking without the owner's consent was brought in to cover things like joyriding where all that is intended is an unauthorised use for a short period of time. Often people will be charged with TWOC rather than theft simply because unless they have actually sold the stolen vehicle it can be difficult to prove intent to permanently deprive.

* This UK legal definition.

[allahabadi]

I was reading the whole thread expecting this viewpoint, but failed to find or overlooked it. 

The person might be a revolutionary or radical activist waging war against some imperialist nation or oppressive govt. and hence resorts to these measures.

Also, these crimes aren't immoral unless u state the context as well.

[Mpamaegbu]

Well, if we had to beat the OP's question into two parallel parts: Political arrest and (2) Criminal arrest, our verdicts may change. For me, I see the first kind of arrest as having strength of character while the second may be with having criminal intent and breaking the law of the land.

My respect stays with the first. And yes, I would trust such a person arrested because they refused to compromise their fundamental principles with a sitting authority.

Illustration: Bear with me as I give these two scenarios to support my position. Two lawyers get arrested. One, for refusing to give up his activism. The other for defrauding a client. Both are convicted. Served their respective jail terms. Came out but both don't remain the same. The first one remains a lawyer while the second is debarred. This is because crime will always manifest a character flaw.

[sarcheer]

I'll add that you can be arrested for riding in a car that was taken without the owners consent, the charge is the same as though you were the one who took the vehicle. To be convicted, the State must prove that you knew the vehicle was taken without the owners consent.

Honestly, if I were charged with this, truthfully did not know that the driver did not have consent to drive the vehicle, and was offered informal probation... I would probably take it. As you can see from this thread, just being arrested is bad enough, an indictment as well? Our justice system is predicated on innocent until proven guilty, but we rarely treat each other under the same rules as this thread shows.

[BenOnceAgain]

Some people have never been arrested its not something to be proud of. but I was a couple of times in my youth for Driving offences and I have no issues admitting it.. How do you generally feel about someone who when questioned totally dodges the question?

Would you trust someone who has been arrested for the below?

* Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon
* Take Vehicle Without Owner Consent

Hi Tman,

In my experience, evaluating someone's arrest record and possibly their conviction(s) is something that is often best evaluated on a case by case basis.

I've encountered many people of different types through my travels.  People with a criminal background that were dirtbags.  People with NO criminal background that were engaged in crime, just never caught.  But I've also known more than a few people with a criminal background who were able to put it behind them and lived a decent life.  In my experience, those people can often be more trustworthy in some sense, because they know that you know about their background and are essentially taking a chance of them.

I am personally of the view that with the exception of some very bad offenses, people that commit crimes and serve out their punishment should be afforded every opportunity.  They should essentially have restoration of their rights in full.  There are some exceptions, of course, based on the need to protect others.  But, for example, I believe that criminals that have served their sentences should be able to vote in elections if they choose.  I believe they should not be barred from occupational licenses if they demonstrate that they've overcome their former poor choices.

Here in New Jersey, USA, for example, a medical doctor that is convicted of drug abuse is allowed to undergo a five-year program (of supervision by other doctors), and then they'll be fully restored.  During the program, they have limitations as to their ability to prescribe drugs of abuse and also are subject to being drug tested.  On the other hand, at the same time a 19 year-old student in college that gets caught with drugs and convicted can, as a practical matter, never even get close to their medical license.  It's pretty hard for them to find any career-type job.  It's a terrible shame.  Meanwhile, scores of people commit numerous crimes and do not get caught and/or have the connections/pull to get out of the consequences.

So really, a case-by-case basis is best.  Of course, once you know of someone's history, you should be on the look out for behaviors of that type.  But honestly, it's mostly the people that you don't know about that will be the people that end up ripping you off.

They say, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger".  I believe this is true, but also that someone can be "dead" even while they still go through the motions of life.  So when encountering someone, you have to consider if they are, in essence, "dead" (having been killed by dealing with the consequences of their criminal behavior), or if they've become stronger for it.

Sometimes you can help them on the right path by letting them "earn trust", slowly and cautiously.  It's very instance-specific.

Best regards,
Ben

[whywefight]

I would like to know if anyone is willing to trust those who have been involved in extortion attempts.

TMAN -- can you add this to the OP please?

Slowscammer, your bullshit accusations against me are still up and you failed to correct your claims. I would like to know why you are a such a retard. I would also like to know if you still do fake escrow scams and if you have banned lately. Oh wait, this was not about throwing stones? My bad...

OP: * Possess/Manufacture/Sell Dangerous Weapon -> Your local gov does the same on a daily base. They earn while they kill. Whats the exact moral issue of this special case?

[paul gatt]

No. of course! I will not trust a person who has been arrested many times. That proves they have no responsibility for themselves and do not know how to repent and correct their mistakes made. If you are caught for selling dangerous weapons is a bad thing. Or if you drive in violation of the law and are arrested many times, that proves you despise yourself and others.

[stein888]

If that someone is my friend and I really know him, I would still trust him but with caution because I know him and what circumstances he's been through. I have a friend who got arrested a couple of times but I stay being his friend. But if that someone is a stranger, It is really hard for me to trust him, if he was engaged with drugs who knows if he will just use me? But if that someone somehow can prove that he has changed I would possibly hear his story. Being trusted means that you must earn their trust. You must prove to yourself first that you have change. Changes start with yourself.