And don’t give some evasive non answer.
Sounds like you are giving me an evasive question.
It sounds like you are trying to equate "crime" to mean what this guy did.
There is a concept in law called "mens rea."
You have to be of a mind to do evil before it's really a crime.
And yes, I would report a crime. I just don't consider this a "crime" in the normal meaning of the word.
“And yes, I would report a crime. “
Really? But you just carried on how you should turn the other cheek an unlimited number of times? I guess the glaring cognitive dissonance whizzes right over your head.
AS YOU WELL KNOW, He was told repeatedly he he was committing a crime and could get arrested. So he absolutely understand that it was a crime. There's your "mens rea". Once again you conveniently ignore facts. That's being disingenuous.
I just don't consider this a "crime" in the normal meaning of the word.
Well the law doesn't care what your feelings or definitions (litter) or considerations are.
“You have to be of a mind to do evil before it’s really a crime.”
Nope. Mens rea is about intent and the individual’s frame of mind when a crime is committed. Unintentional criminal acts fall into two basic categories, “mistake in fact,” and “mistake in law.” A mistake in fact applies to a person whose act technically fits the definition of a crime, but the person is unaware of a critical factor necessary for intent.
But neither apply in this case as Winston was informed of the law, said he would continue and did continue violating the law.
“You have to be of a mind to do evil before it’s really a crime. “
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse. You don’t know that? What you are talking about is if I pick up the wrong umbrella leaving a restaurant. It would not be a crime (theft) if I truly thought it was mine and someone else’s looked like mine. I did not have “criminal intent”.