Cheering+funding felony crime.

[Bootstrap]

Sometimes I have a hard time understand what you say. Could you answer this with a simple yes or no?

As far as I can tell, you are objecting to legal funds for people accused of crimes and not yet convicted. Is that true?

If you are saying something else, could you please say it very simply and plainly so I can understand it?

[JohnH]

Starting with the OP, the topic is about cheering+rewarding/crowd fundng felony crime, including AMBUSH+EXECUTE murders. Please use the ignore option, or just ignore, if you’re not interested.

It’s not an easy topic.

As far as I can tell, you are objecting to legal funds for people accused of crimes and not yet convicted. Is that true? Or are you saying something else?

To me, at least, cheering and rewarding felony crime is more like egging people on to commit crimes, justifying the crimes themselves, blatantly pardoning felony crimes, etc.

There actually have been some examples of that kind of thing, but I don't think they are mentioned in this thread. Crowds cheering people on when they ambush and execute people. Saying someone deserves a fair trial is a different thing altogether.

The degree of crowdfunding for obviously guilty people (like Karmelo Anthony) is a bit disturbing. I think it’s okay for the accused to get an adequate legal defense; I think it’s not a good sign when someone gets half a million dollars raised for them when they stabbed someone in cold blood.

I think students should be able to attend track meets without being stabbed to death, and I think people that do the stabbing should not be celebrated or funded.

[temporal1]

Sometimes I have a hard time understand what you say. Could you answer this with a simple yes or no?

As far as I can tell, you are objecting to legal funds for people accused of crimes and not yet convicted. Is that true?

If you are saying something else, could you please say it very simply and plainly so I can understand it?

1) No.
2) JohnH’s post above is good. i go further. i believe due process is imperative for healthy civilization.

[Bootstrap]

The degree of crowdfunding for obviously guilty people (like Karmelo Anthony) is a bit disturbing. I think it’s okay for the accused to get an adequate legal defense; I think it’s not a good sign when someone gets half a million dollars raised for them when they stabbed someone in cold blood.

I think students should be able to attend track meets without being stabbed to death, and I think people that do the stabbing should not be celebrated or funded.

I agree with you — it is disturbing to see such large sums raised around cases where someone has been killed, and especially when the facts look pretty stark. We saw something very similar with Kyle Rittenhouse, where hundreds of thousands were raised before trial. In both cases, the money flows quickly, often more out of political or cultural allegiance than out of concern for justice itself.

But I also think:

1. Everyone has the right to raise money for their defense — that’s part of living in a free society.
2. Nobody is legally guilty until convicted in a court of law — however strongly the evidence may look from the outside.

I don’t think the people giving to these funds see themselves as endorsing violent crime. More often, they believe they’re standing up for someone who might otherwise be crushed by an unfair system. That theme — protecting against bias and ensuring a “fair shot” in court — was central to both the Rittenhouse and Anthony fundraising efforts.

[temporal1]

I don’t think the people giving to these funds see themselves as supporting felony crime.

This indicates you haven’t read or listened to comments literally cheering murder.

Not reading well or in full doesn’t mean a thing didn’t happen. It’s been happening this week wrt Charlie Kirk.
Some have lost their jobs over it.

i haven’t been bothered by anyone contributing to a fund for legal representation.

Crowd funding for mom+pop bakers, photographers, inn keepers, were shut down, funds returned to those donating.
i didn’t contribute, i didn’t object to people contributing.

i’m NOT suggesting a law or rule be made.

To repeat, i hope basic morality will stop people from cheering+funding violence including murder.
It should be unthinkable.

- - - - - - -

i am stupefied at what can be “read into” or presumed about what is shared on this forum.
i expect it in the world.

some others have recently described this, too. i’m at a loss to know what to make of it.

[temporal1]

i view this forum as a sort of library. i do not expect to read all content, or all authors.
pick+choose.

[ohio jones]

Libraries do often contain conflicting points of view. It's just that they are not usually from the same author.

2) My second question is why generous crowd funding for accused violent felonies is perfectly acceptable ..

i haven’t been bothered by anyone contributing to a fund for legal representation.

i don’t believe anyone could be more confused about all this than me.

Oh, it's possible.

[ohio jones]

Or perhaps you're okay with crowdfunding for legal defense, but not crowdfunding for other purposes. Or crowdfunding that purports to be for legal defense but ends up being used for something else. Is that it?

[temporal1]

Or perhaps you're okay with crowdfunding for legal defense, but not crowdfunding for other purposes. Or crowdfunding that purports to be for legal defense but ends up being used for something else. Is that it?

JohnH:
The degree of crowdfunding for obviously guilty people (like Karmelo Anthony) is a bit disturbing.

I think it’s okay for the accused to get an adequate legal defense;
I think it’s not a good sign when someone gets half a million dollars raised for them when they stabbed someone in cold blood.

^^i appreciate this description. i would add, the amoral verbal cheering of murder goes along with the funding wrong.

at the moment, response to Charlie Kirk’s murder has brought such vile verbal response, some public school teachers are being put on leave in a number of states! i’m not going to add examples here, it’s easily found on the internet. (From memory, Maryland, Texas, Florida, Oregon, Iowa) .. i don’t search for it. i won’t be surprised if more states are added.

i’m not sure why there’s a question. not on this forum, anyway.

[JohnH]

The degree of crowdfunding for obviously guilty people (like Karmelo Anthony) is a bit disturbing. I think it’s okay for the accused to get an adequate legal defense; I think it’s not a good sign when someone gets half a million dollars raised for them when they stabbed someone in cold blood.

I think students should be able to attend track meets without being stabbed to death, and I think people that do the stabbing should not be celebrated or funded.

I agree with you — it is disturbing to see such large sums raised around cases where someone has been killed, and especially when the facts look pretty stark. We saw something very similar with Kyle Rittenhouse, where hundreds of thousands were raised before trial. In both cases, the money flows quickly, often more out of political or cultural allegiance than out of concern for justice itself.

But I also think:

1. Everyone has the right to raise money for their defense — that’s part of living in a free society.
2. Nobody is legally guilty until convicted in a court of law — however strongly the evidence may look from the outside.

I don’t think the people giving to these funds see themselves as endorsing violent crime. More often, they believe they’re standing up for someone who might otherwise be crushed by an unfair system. That theme — protecting against bias and ensuring a “fair shot” in court — was central to both the Rittenhouse and Anthony fundraising efforts.

Yes, I don’t contend that it should be illegal.

And I agree it’s often about political allegiances - but I would ask what political allegiance the Karmelo Anthony case is. Allegiance to what? Is there a political alignment that supports stabbing a boy at a high school track meet?