Those individuals are acting out of real problems and issues. To simply dismiss them as criminals ignores the system they are protesting against. This specific case may not even be the best example, but there are serious problems with the police system, and there are some serious systemic prejudices and disadvantages for minorities.
I call bullshit on that. That's not "protest". What exactly was being protested after the Lakers won the NBA Championship???
What a fantastic red herring.
And since you're so willing to give the second "bad act" a pass as a result of the first "bad act", I'll wait for your compassion and sympathy and excuses for the police officer when it comes out that the shooting was a second "bad act" as a result of a first "bad act".
Wow. I do believe I have not commented ONCE on the cops actions in this case. The only even slight reference I gave to this case was to say it may
not even be a good example for this kind of thing, in and of itself. But nice snotty attitude and good job pigeonholing me.
To be a criminal, you must commit a crime. A crime is a legal construct we make, based upon our morality. For you to consider someone a criminal, you must consider what they did to be morally reprehensible.
Someone who goes 36 in a 35 is breaking the law and could be punished as such. By the strict definition, that person is a criminal. Do you consider someone going 36 in a 35 to be a criminal? I sure don't. I distinguish between performing a criminal act and being a criminal.
You are GROSSLY oversimplifying to make your point. The majority of crimes are NOT morally based (though they may have started out that way), in the sense that they are not crimes simply because "stealing is immoral". "Stealing" is about protecting the property rights of the one that was stolen from. "Homicide" has nothing to do with the morals of killing another human being; it is about depriving that other soul of the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".
I'm honestly not sure if this is supposed to be serious, and I don't intend to offend. You just defended something not being moral... by pointing out how they're moral... rights are moral claims. to say you are protecting anyone rights is to make a moral claim. It is your morality that says it is someone's right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."
Your definition is entirely your own, and not shared by the criminal justice system (and not by me, either, I should add). If I boost a gas station, that I did it to buy hookers or to feed my starving kid does not matter; either way, I AM A CRIMINAL. The definition of a "criminal" is one who pleads or is otherwise found guilty of a violation of the relevant criminal code. That definition is decidedly, and purposefully, lacking a "moral" component.
Yes, the legal system can "objectively" execute the law, but the law itself is subjective to the will of the people, based upon their morality. In the purely legal sense, you are correct. The legal definition of a criminal is purely one of administrative bureaucracy, and seeks to ignore the moral opinions of the people executing the laws. However, the legal definition is not THE definition, and if you would go look it up in the dictionary, you'll notice it means several things, and is somewhat convoluted.
Either way, the concept of a criminal is most certainly a moral concept based upon morality and what we consider appropriate behavior.