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

[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?

[1714191678]

1714191678

[1714191678]

1714191678

[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?