zlacker

>>fortra+(OP)
I'm shocked less by the fact the person was identified and more by the fact the person didn't feel the need to cover up an identifying tattoo or a limited-run t-shirt they left a review for while committing a felony. I'm starting to think criminals are stupid.

>>def8ce+1b
>I'm starting to think criminals are stupid.

That is a really dangerous move and doesn't really line up with my experiences. This woman was pretty stupid. She's not a criminal though, she's a massage therapist.

>>hooray+Le
Wait, what!? How does torching a police car not count as a criminal act?

>>rurp+Jf
There are at least three readings of hoorayimhelping's post:

1. This person is not a criminal in some particular all-encompassing sense of the word. I.e., some people commit one-off crimes of passion while others make a lifestyle/career out of crime. Presuming that the latter are stupid because the former are stupid is dangerous because organized criminals have learned good internet op-sec. That's interesting.

2. Thinking of people who commit crimes as "criminals" and making blanket assumptions about the criminal element is a mistake. That might be a well-trodden critique, but it's interesting enough that there have been some (quite influential) books written around the topic. This seems like the more likely intent. Thinking about how the social phenomena induced by the internet and social media interact with those 20th century ideas about identity and subjectivity might result in an interesting conversation. E.g., suppose torching a cop car was an act of passion and this person's name is now forever associated with a crime of passion. That seems... new and different... relative to 30 years ago. Back then, you could just move somewhere new where no one knew your past; as long as you didn't become a criminal in that new place, you could basically start over. What might be the societal implications of continuing to assign "criminal" as a dominant identity in the age of an internet that never forgets?

3. hoorayimhelping believes that there is no law in the US which prohibits the torching of cop cars.

The first two are charitable interpretations that might result in curiosity-driven conversation (in which you may or may not want to participate). The third.... isn't so charitable and is unlikely to go anywhere.

>>throwa+Sh
Whether someone "is a criminal" should have something to do with how much of a regular part of their life it is. Just like someone who smoked a joint once 20 years ago isn't considered a drug user, someone who committed a one-off crime isn't a criminal.

>>ryandr+zp
We are down pretty deep into pedantry at this point, but... Current definition is that someone who has committed a crime and been convicted is a criminal. If that crime is a felony, they are also a felon. Depending on the state of residence, felons may have voting rights suspended, may be disqualified from jobs, loans, educational grants, etc.

You are right to point out that we usually use the noun "criminal" more to refer to someone that makes a habit of crime or makes their living from crime.

And I'll also add that the word "criminal" is often used to imply someone is subhuman. Possibly subconsciously, but it's common to see people outraged by police brutality only if they think an innocent person is the victim. Things like "no innocent person should be treated that way." I think this is the primary objective of the ever-present ad-hominem attacks such as "well he was no angel."