Logical fallacy.
Statist delusion exposed.
This statement reeks of statist sophistry and intellectual laziness. The idea that you can "get rid of crime" by simply redefining it is a dangerous and Orwellian notion. It assumes that morality and justice are malleable concepts that can be manipulated by those in power. This is the same logic authoritarian regimes have used to silence dissent and criminalize freedom—by redefining "crime" to suit their agendas.
The statement also fails to address the root causes of crime or the principles of justice. Instead, it implies that the problem isn't the actions themselves but the labels we attach to them. This is a classic non sequitur: the definition of crime doesn't change the reality of harm caused by theft, assault, or murder. It's like saying you can eliminate poverty by redefining "poverty" to mean "owning one less yacht than Jeff Bezos." Ridiculous.
Moreover, this perspective is hypocritical. It criticizes the arbitrary nature of defining crime while simultaneously endorsing the idea that crime should be arbitrarily redefined. It's a circular argument that collapses under its own weight. True justice is rooted in objective principles, not the whims of those who wield power.
This kind of thinking is a slippery slope to tyranny. If the state can redefine crime, it can criminalize anything—free speech, self-defense, or even the act of questioning authority. History is littered with examples of governments that have done exactly that, and the results have always been disastrous for individual liberty.
Soros DA's have already done this.
...and that is why our grandparents insisted on ‘separate but equal’.
He is correct about “loosey cigarettes.” That is a waste of police resources.
I’ve posted before “When is the US going to admit there is a black crime wave gripping the US?”
He’s actualy right about loosy Cigarettes. Liberal Manny State laws killed Eroc Garner
I thought for sure this would be from the Bee.
If it is legalized, then come to my home and try to take what’s mine, and I’ll shoot you. See how that works.
Sounds like Crump wouldn’t mind a bit if someone walked up and punched him in the nose.
So this guy thinks that blacks are right next to random-acting simians? isn’t that racist?
Actually, last we heard is what Benjamin Crump has been saying because black voters in cities continue to vote for more of the same. This comes after so-called bail reform with its revolving door nature and Soros DAs in those cities made it easier for black criminals to keep committing crimes against black people.
You would expect quite the opposite that seeing increased crime against their communities directly from bail reform would make black voters reject more of the same and yet that didn't happen. Why?
I believe the answer is that black voters expect that a family member of someone they know will commit a crime for which bail reform and a Soros DA will be helpful to have in place and so that's how they vote. I know it's crazy and I am by no means saying it's right and what should be done, but it's the only logical reason I can come up for why Chicago went from Lori Lightfoot to Brandon Johnson and NYC reelected everyone involved with bail reform, and it explains why Crump would say what he said.
Again, doesn't make it right or what should be done, but it sure does point out a major problem when that kind of thinking is seemingly pervasive.
If I were black, I’d be insulted by that sentiment.
Reparations paid without money? Could be a legalized crime.