Jump to navigation
This seems like a great opportunity to look at how these things can happen at babble (specifically: how things can go from zero to "troll attack" or "neo-Con violation of the AUP" or "war on the poor" or whatever).
First of all, I'm not stigmatizing anyone. I pointed out that a man who has a long history of crime acknowledged -- took some ownership of -- his intent to choose to commit more crime. If I'm not mistaken, taking ownership of your choices is the first and necessary step toward making better ones. And given that this man's history of choices has, thus far, involved a lot of criminal choices, I think it's a good thing. How that "stigmatizes" him is beyond me. To whatever degree he's stigmatized, I might suggest that being a career criminal might play more of a part in it than my acknowledging his honesty.
Second, I'm not talking about "the poor", I'm talking about one individual. And I'm talking about him in the context of his criminal behaviour, not his income.
Third, it's you who began to speculate on the motive for his theft. I merely pointed out that if you need food, and you're stealing from a store that primarily sells food of all sorts, swiping plants you can't eat seems a bit silly, doesn't it? Like wanting to hear some music so you build a robot than can play the synthesizer. A bit inefficient and tedious, and involving unnecessary steps, no? I mean, compared to simply swiping food directly??
Now some people might speculate that he wasn't stealing plants with which to somehow buy food, but rather was intending to buy drugs. What do you think of that theory, Cueball? If nothing else, it's a bit more consistent with stealing something you can't eat. And if that were the case, is it really reasonable to say that he's driven to crime because our welfare system doesn't pay for the basic essentials of survival? Isn't that a bit of a distraction, if drugs are the elephant in the room?
I'm not talking about "the poor", I'm talking about one individual. And I'm talking about him in the context of his criminal behaviour, not his income.
You might want to consider his criminal behaviour in the context of his income.
A quick look at the youtube video of the scene shows that the object of opportunity for theft was the plants at the side of the store in the relatively unsupervised alley. The ready to go take out filet mingon must have been kept inside.
The fact that you think that being caught repeatedly for petty crime, amounts to someone being a "carreer criminal" gives me the impression that you don't get out much. That makes someone a petty thief. Not a mafia mastermind career criminal. I take it you don't get out much so this is rather like explaining navigation to a land lubber. Petty theft is common among people who are intitutionalized by systemically enforced poverty.
It is you who have come to some pretty sweeping generalizations about Bennet despite knowing next to nothing about him. If real criminals contented themselves with ripping of $2 potted plants then we could just as soon get rid of the whole justice system entirely, since crime would be little more than an irritant, as opposed to a threat to the lives of everyone.
Real career criminals, mug people, steal large amounts of money and kill those that get in their way. They don't steal potted plants for a living. Its not a great way to make money. Indeed, the fact that Bennet seems to engage in such low level criminal behaviour indicates he is operating out of necessity, not greed, or moral lassitude.
What if we consider it in the context of everyone with his income? Do you suppose they all steal potted plants to get by?
Closing for length.