3 ms·
> You just described the “rule of law” What the article is describing is not the rule of law. The rule of law would be: make theft a crime, and enforce that.
by pdonis 3y ago
> You just described the “rule of law”
What the article is describing is not the rule of law.
The rule of law would be: make theft a crime, and enforce that. Not: criminalize the use of security research tools to show which vehicles are more susceptible to theft.
> What you seem to want is for civil law to be subordinated in favor of common law
I think what the GP poster wants is to have the law limited to criminalizing things that are actual crimes, like theft, not things that are inconvenient to the rich and powerful.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoPlease list all of the “actual crimes”
- patmorgan23 3y agoI don't remember the terms but there's a category of crimes that are "crimes because that's what the written law says"(i.e. driving without a license) and "crimes that morally abhorrent and actual harm to someone"(i.e. murder, theft) "Actual crimes" would be category 2. Building or owning a flipper zero would be in category 1. (As would laws that ban things like owning/carrying lockpicks without being a licensed locksmith)
- iraqmtpizza 3y agomalum prohibitum, malum in se