• SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think so. One is a statement of (perceived) fact. The other the outcome of a process. Committing crimes is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. At least, in a just world. There are too many people convicted by a court of law who did not commit a crime, and I’m not going to call them criminals.

    • BaldProphet@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Committing crimes is what triggers criminal legal proceedings.

      Being accused of committing a crime is what triggers criminal legal proceedings. Many people commit crimes and get away with it because they have no accusers. Many others are defendants who are accused, but did not actually commit any crime. I’m not saying that Trump didn’t commit crimes (it’s pretty obvious that he did), but I am pointing out that it is the accusation and being formally charged that causes one to be prosecuted. In my mind, it’s an important distinction.

      • SwingingTheLamp@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Fair point, and a good elaboration. That dovetails with my thinking, too. If a house gets robbed and there’s no evidence who did it, we still call it a crime, even without a conviction in court. If we accuse somebody of it, that’s a good use of “accused criminal” in the colloquial sense.

        • BaldProphet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I probably should have elaborated further in my first comment. The average Fediverse user seems to be highly reactionary, and I shouldn’t have assumed that people would read deeper into what I was trying to say.