🏳️🌈🖖🏽
🇳🇱
So do we forgive her now or no?
@freemo @georgetakei no. Until she does more than just words and "I'm sorry"s, and especially until the writers say so, we don't forgive.
When you say "more than just words" doesnt canceling the show count as more than just words?
so just to be clear, she was about to start her show up again which would have violated the strike, but ultimately decided not to. But even though she never actually followed through, never started the show up, and didnt actually violate the strike, we are just going to treat her like she did anyway?
@freemo @georgetakei yes? She attempted to cross the picket line and only stopped when she was brow beaten. She needs to earn that forgiveness, not just say "awww ok sowwy" when she gets yelled at.
@Bradcopter @freemo @georgetakei If you try to steal something and get caught, it's an attempt and under the law, an attempt is considered "the intent to commit an offense/crime".
She was willing to break the strike and she backed off because she's been caught and forced to back off.
The writers she's working with are on strike, she's a SAG-ATRA member and she wanted to break both pickets lines, so yeah, it's an offense she needs to atone for and no, "sorry" is not enough.
> If you try to steal something and get caught, it's an attempt and under the law, an attempt is considered "the intent to commit an offense/crime".
Sure but thats not the anaology that is accurate to the situation.
If i take something off a shelf and put it in my pocket, no that wont get you arrested. It is only once you actually walk out with the item you get arrested.
The reason for that is there is reasonable doubt. You may or may not have been considering stealing it, but since we dont know there needs to be solid proof you had every intention of following through.
I mean just think about it, you put something in your pocket, start to walk to the door. You see a sign that says "you will go to jail if you steal" when you see it your change your mind and pay for the item... Even if you tell the judge "yea i was going to steal it but i changed my mind last minute and didnt" you wont go to jail
Thats closer to what we have here... she never followed through, she never even attempted to other than stating her intent (in the sense that no one was brought back, no show filmed no work done... nothign she did was a violation).
> She was willing to break the strike and she backed off because she's been caught and forced to back off.
Caught? Forced? What are you on about... She **anounced** her intention, she wasnt "caught"... then when she hears the opinions of the people she announced it to she changed her mind.. She wasnt forced, she could have still filmed, she could have done whatever she wanted, no one forced her hand. Hearing peoples opinions and changing your mind as a result is **not** being forced. It is realizing a bad decision and choosing of your own free will not to follow through.
> The writers she's working with are on strike, she's a SAG-ATRA member and she wanted to break both pickets lines, so yeah, it's an offense she needs to atone for and no, "sorry" is not enough.
If she would have done it then i would have agreed. But **wanting** to do a thing that is wrong, and then not doing it, is hardly a reason to still find her guilty.
One final comment though, I hope you realize that this mentality is counter productive. If you really get to the point where you treat someone as guilty simply for wanting to do a think and not doing it, all you are going to do is cause people to refuse to change their mind. I mean if someone wants to be a scab, even for an instant, why would they not be a scab if they cant take it back even if they want to.. it encoruages people to commit to hurtful choices since learning your choices are wrong wont matter since onlyt he act of considering it is enough to make you guilty.
@freemo @Bradcopter @georgetakei Your heart is in the right place but I disagree with your logic.
Nothing there happened by accident, she didn't do it unknowingly. Reasonable doubt is also not applicable here, wanting and planning to do wrong/illegal things is legally called an intent for this very reason.
She didn't forget some chewing gums in her pockets, she took action to come back with her show. She openly spoke about coming back and announced it, knowing she'd break the pickets lines.
> Nothing there happened by accident, she didn't do it unknowingly.
In my analogy I am not claiming she did it by accident or unknowingly.. Even if intentional, someone puts something in their pocket with every intention of stealing it. As long as if in the end they dont actually steal it. That they realize on their way to walk out that the consequences are too high and the last minute changes their mind and pays for it... guess what, they wont be arrested. Even though it wasnt by accident, it was intentional and theft was the intention, it still wouldnt get them in jail if in the end they didnt follow through and paid.
> Reasonable doubt is also not applicable here, wanting and planning to do wrong/illegal things is legally called an intent for this very reason.
Well its a bit more complicated than all that. First off "intent" is not the legal term. I think you re confusing it with "attempt". There are two criminal terms relevant to what we are discutting "Attempt Charges" and "Conspiracy Charges". Attempt charges is what we are talking about not "intent", easy mistake to make.
Anyway the thing about Attempt Charges is simply planning the crime in and of itself is not, usually, considered enough to get Attempt Charges. As a general rule you have to do more than just make plans, usually you have to at least show you made some attempt to carry out those plans. Like if you planned a robbery on paper, that isnt enough, but if you actually went out and got the floor plans and bought a crow bar AND had the plans, then you would probably get stuck with Attempt Charges.
All thats a bit moot, but worth touching on. With that said im not really sure if she would get Attempt charges or not in this analogy. But it plays to my point, if she had actually started paying for and preparing the neccesary elements to start the show, then yes, that would be enough. But if all she did was talk about her intent to start the show and then literally 2 days later changes her mind, no I doubt that would work.
> She didn't forget some chewing gums in her pockets, she took action to come back with her show. She openly spoke about coming back and announced it, knowing she'd break the pickets lines.
I mean i never claimed she forgot something or made a mistake. She intended to reopen the show, 2 days later she decided not to. It was literally a decision she made, did nothing to carry it out, and decided it was a bad idea 2 days later.
Honestly nothing against you, but this is the very reason the left has been struggling lately. Because even when people ultimately do whats right (even if they had a momentary lapse of judgement) that is never enough. We attack even the people who ultimately choose to be our allys till there are no allys left. This has to stop.
@Bradcopter @georgetakei
@freemo @Bradcopter @georgetakei I'm sorry Sir, attempt and intent are two different things.
Mens rea is the definition of criminal intent, it does not always lead to an attempt but you need it to be convicted of a crime : https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/criminal_intent
Now, it's not up to the public to decide anything about this matter. It's a negociation and a battle between unions, their members and the companies. She's in an actors guild acting openly in solidarity with the writers guild, it's up to them.
Criminal intent is an element of law, but not itself a charge.
Attempt Charge is the charge (or one example of a charge) and one of the requirements to be guilty of an Attempt Charge is that criminal intent must be shown. We are splitting hairs here now, point is we were both right but talking about different things and the important part is I now know what you meant when you said "thats why they call it intent", I thought you meant that intent is a criminal charge, which its not, you just meant intent is an aspect of the law, and yea.
> Now, it's not up to the public to decide anything about this matter. It's a negociation and a battle between unions, their members and the companies. She's in an actors guild acting openly in solidarity with the writers guild, it's up to them.
Yea I agree with this, its between them to negotiate so its between them to decide how or if it effects that. sure. So if you are saying we shouldnt form opinions about her in regard to this and neither attack nor absolve her.. thens ure, ill go with that.
> You're right we're splitting hair there (but it's very interesting).
Yea might not have been the most relevant, but it was an interesting tangent.
> People can form an opinion and they can see this situation from one side or another and debate about it, it's their right. But when it comes to the case, what she's done should be considered in context and on a human scale too.
Sure Id agree with that.
> I may be partial as a (foreign) writer, but on the human side I think she should be at least held in contempt of unions for her disrespect for her peers.
I think it is fair to say that her actions showed that supporting the strike was not something she felt particularly compelled to do. But as you say the human side should be considered here, and I think people not only need to be cut some slack for bad choices they correct away from, but its also REALLY hard for most humans to admit they were wrong and change their mind as a response to public opinion too.. Personally I applaud her for being able to say she was wrong at all (even though i may not think she was all that wrong)
@freemo @Bradcopter @georgetakei You're right we're splitting hair there (but it's very interesting).
People can form an opinion and they can see this situation from one side or another and debate about it, it's their right. But when it comes to the case, what she's done should be considered in context and on a human scale too.
I may be partial as a (foreign) writer, but on the human side I think she should be at least held in contempt of unions for her disrespect for her peers.