5 ms·

What specifically would prevent this?

lovich 4y ago
De jure? Nothing, as written the law applies equally to all. De facto? Just observe how often the rich are convicted for their crimes. Even in the rare cases that they are jailed, the severity of the sentence is usually much lower than the common man. Look at Musk himself, he already agreed to not tweet about tesla without the boards approval in an agreement with the SEC to avoid punishment, then routinely ignored it and just fought them in court until he won. Our system allows for anyone with enough money to run out the clock until they either win, the other side gives up, or the situation no longer matters and the case is dropped.
- listenallyall 4y ago
  > until he won He won. He prevailed. In court. Whatever you think he did that violated the SEC's order, is not correct, at least in the eyes of the judge or the jury who heard all the evidence and decided the case. Rich people do have the benefit of hiring excellent lawyers and affording every available opportunity to appeal. But that is not being "above the law," that is the law. At the end of the day, if Musk won even on the 10th appeal or whatever, then you can't say that he committed a crime.
- brokenkebab2 4y ago
  Is there are some sort of stats to observe? Genuinely curious
  - lovich 4y ago
    If you are requesting stats to observe this then I believe you either need to start looking around more in how your society runs or you are sealioning[1] me. This is like asking for proof that the sky is blue. Perfectly acceptable in an academic context where the laws of physics are being defined at an extremely technical level. However if you’re asking a question like this in the context of every day life, it’s difficult to believe that you are asking in good faith. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
    - brokenkebab2 4y ago
      I'm asking in good faith, of course. You wrote "just observe how often", and "how often“ is measurable. So there must be a record. I don't observe much crimes at all in my everyday life. Likely my life is not a good sample, but it just to point out to the obvious fact that what you belive to be an obvious fact may not be an obvious fact, but a political bias instead
      - lovich 4y ago
        “How often” as used in colloquial English is not measurable because colloquial English is not a technical language and this isn’t a technical discussion. Finding examples of the rich getting away with crimes that regular people do not get away with is a simple google search away which is why you come off as sealioning. On the off chance that you are legitimately asking, here are a few examples [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/06/09/s-c-johnson-billionaire-gets-4-months-jail-6k-fine-in-child-sex-assault-case/?sh=381353a74272 https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/06/09/s-c-joh... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza [3] musk agreeing to stop tweeting about tesla without board certification of the tweet and then doing so anyway
        brokenkebab2 4y ago
        >"How often” as used in colloquial English is not measurable So what "observe how often" means then in your colloquial English? I legitimately asked about stats. On this forum I presume you know what it is, how it's different from anecdotes. And it makes your behavior look not particularly honest. You could have sincerely answer: "I have no data, but I have a gut geeling/impression" - that would spare you from wiggling around, and claiming that English is not to express facts.
        lovich 4y ago
        Let me be clear here then, “how often” for me is any time the law protects the rich at an extent that the rest of the citizenry do not get. Did you ignore the links? The Johnson and Johnson heir is anecdata yea but the affluenza defense is an actual used in the court and accepted defense. I don’t need stats in this case when I can point to a single legal precedent
- rot13xor 4y ago
  Money lets you put weight on the scale to tip it in your favor, but it doesn't let you fully control the outcome. Especially because in this case Musk screwed over other rich people.
  - lovich 4y ago
    I’m being a little bit flippant here and I apologize in advance if it comes off as abrasive, but I think this image shows a good example of the difference between how regular people interact with the law, how the upper class interact with the law, and how the Uber wealthy like musk interact with the law[1]. If you have what is effectively infinite money as far as the system is concerned, you can break through any barrier [1] https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-954cf5204ca388a11909bb4b65d9e04d https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-954cf5204ca388a11909bb...

De jure? Nothing, as written the law applies equally to all. De facto? Just observe how often the rich are convicted for their crimes. Even in the rare cases that they are jailed, the severity of the sentence is usually much lower than the common man. Look at Musk himself, he already agreed to not tweet about tesla without the boards approval in an agreement with the SEC to avoid punishment, then routinely ignored it and just fought them in court until he won. Our system allows for anyone with enough money to run out the clock until they either win, the other side gives up, or the situation no longer matters and the case is dropped.

listenallyall 4y ago
> until he won He won. He prevailed. In court. Whatever you think he did that violated the SEC's order, is not correct, at least in the eyes of the judge or the jury who heard all the evidence and decided the case. Rich people do have the benefit of hiring excellent lawyers and affording every available opportunity to appeal. But that is not being "above the law," that is the law. At the end of the day, if Musk won even on the 10th appeal or whatever, then you can't say that he committed a crime.
brokenkebab2 4y ago
Is there are some sort of stats to observe? Genuinely curious
- lovich 4y ago
  If you are requesting stats to observe this then I believe you either need to start looking around more in how your society runs or you are sealioning[1] me. This is like asking for proof that the sky is blue. Perfectly acceptable in an academic context where the laws of physics are being defined at an extremely technical level. However if you’re asking a question like this in the context of every day life, it’s difficult to believe that you are asking in good faith. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning
  - brokenkebab2 4y ago
    I'm asking in good faith, of course. You wrote "just observe how often", and "how often“ is measurable. So there must be a record. I don't observe much crimes at all in my everyday life. Likely my life is not a good sample, but it just to point out to the obvious fact that what you belive to be an obvious fact may not be an obvious fact, but a political bias instead
    - lovich 4y ago
      “How often” as used in colloquial English is not measurable because colloquial English is not a technical language and this isn’t a technical discussion. Finding examples of the rich getting away with crimes that regular people do not get away with is a simple google search away which is why you come off as sealioning. On the off chance that you are legitimately asking, here are a few examples [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/06/09/s-c-johnson-billionaire-gets-4-months-jail-6k-fine-in-child-sex-assault-case/?sh=381353a74272 https://www.forbes.com/sites/clareoconnor/2014/06/09/s-c-joh... [2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluenza [3] musk agreeing to stop tweeting about tesla without board certification of the tweet and then doing so anyway
      - brokenkebab2 4y ago
        >"How often” as used in colloquial English is not measurable So what "observe how often" means then in your colloquial English? I legitimately asked about stats. On this forum I presume you know what it is, how it's different from anecdotes. And it makes your behavior look not particularly honest. You could have sincerely answer: "I have no data, but I have a gut geeling/impression" - that would spare you from wiggling around, and claiming that English is not to express facts.
        lovich 4y ago
        Let me be clear here then, “how often” for me is any time the law protects the rich at an extent that the rest of the citizenry do not get. Did you ignore the links? The Johnson and Johnson heir is anecdata yea but the affluenza defense is an actual used in the court and accepted defense. I don’t need stats in this case when I can point to a single legal precedent
rot13xor 4y ago
Money lets you put weight on the scale to tip it in your favor, but it doesn't let you fully control the outcome. Especially because in this case Musk screwed over other rich people.
- lovich 4y ago
  I’m being a little bit flippant here and I apologize in advance if it comes off as abrasive, but I think this image shows a good example of the difference between how regular people interact with the law, how the upper class interact with the law, and how the Uber wealthy like musk interact with the law[1]. If you have what is effectively infinite money as far as the system is concerned, you can break through any barrier [1] https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-954cf5204ca388a11909bb4b65d9e04d https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-954cf5204ca388a11909bb...