This one actually irritated me

a reply to: Boadicea

Crimes are no longer considered crimes against a person, but against the state, and the state decides when/if to press charges

Bringing 'strawman' and 'freeman-on-the-land' into this is pretty interesting.

That's not how law is supposed to work. Let's think about an example; if someone steals something from you, but then it turns out to be a prank perpetuated by your friend, and you decide to forgive him, as he apologizes and compensates, and he's some good friend that has often helped you and loaned his stuff to you, and you have no reason to do anything bad against him, will the state decide whether it's a crime or not?

I mean, obviously something can be a crime at first, but then you realize it wasn't going to be a crime and you get your stuff back and no harm was done and you decide to consider it just a harmless prank, so it's no longer a crime, will the state SOMEHOW get to decide that it WAS a crime, and regardless of your consent, put your friend behind bars?

This doesn't seem to be how law works at all, and the 'state' does not have automatic authority to DO that in the first place. If you disagree, please explain where the state gets this authority and how, and how is a system that needs your consent to govern you, be able to govern you against or regardless of your consent?

A state can ONLY have this kind of authority if people GIVE that authority to the state. Of course they can sneakily 'take' your consent by 'making' you sign all kinds of papers, applications, registrations and other forms.

There's always the unlawfulness of 'missing full disclosure' - no entity can dupe someone into contract with them without full disclosure about the contract, and governments are bypassing this little bit of law every day, rendering most of what they do to people unlawful, but since people don't remember how law is supposed to work, they can pretty much do whatever they want without consequences to them.

State can only operate this way if people let it, or if it's about something the state owns. If it's YOUR private property, the state can't really start any kind of judication process, as they don't have the jurisdiction.

Law is supposed to protect HUMAN RIGHTS, not GIVE STATES OR GOVERNMENTS POWER.

Legal system has a completely different agenda .. Law and legal system are separate things, but we are meant to think they are the same thing.

a reply to: Shoujikina

That's not how law is supposed to work.

Whether or not that's how the law should work is debateable. Whether or not that is how the law does work is not debateable. It is what it is.

This is from the California Criminal Court:

Only the district attorney (also called the "DA") can decide whether to "press" or "drop" criminal charges. The victim of a crime cannot press or drop charges.

The DA's Office will either file ("press") charges or reject the case based on the facts in the police report. If the DA's Office decides to file charges, they will file either a felony charge or a misdemeanor charge.

The victim's cooperation in the case is very important. But if the victim does not cooperate, the DA can still prosecute the abusive person.

As I believe I stated previously, the charging process was change due to certain victims -- such as gang-related, or domestic violence -- being reluctant or afraid to press charges against the perpetrator. It was probably in the late '70s or early '80s.

a reply to: DAVID64

Oh good grief! Why am I not surprised it’s the white man’s fault. This crap has got to stop!