Criminal Attorneys, Public Defenders In denounce of criminal behaviour, when is lawful an illegal act

[FJGC1993]

Jurisdiction

Other

I would like to ask a question regarding the conditions that circumstances a lawful illegal act:

While the legal obligation to denounce a crime has been abolished, it is still considered a moral obligation to do so when in presence of a delictive act. However, the presented question is on about when is it considerably a lawful although illegal act to denounce criminal behaviour, in circumstances other than by mere coincidence as it would be in the case of causal presence. Specifically, unofficial criminal investigation that would result in the discovery of criminal behaviour prior to its denounce to the correspondent authorities. For it might would however require observations that would imply, for those in the defense of the suspicious criminal, that it has been broken laws of intimacy by invasion to private property for trespassing, then when obtained the incriminatory evidence its denounce might be considered defamation by divulgation of private information.

Therefore, here is to be considered at least two circumstances: the defense of the accused for criminal charge even when evidence has been obtained, and the defense of the lawful act when acquiring evidence illegally for the proper legal denounce. If criminal behaviour has been discovered illegally, with the purpose to resolve criminal organization by legal means by bringing proof of evidence onto law court, then: What would be both the stances on morals and legals in respect to having acquired by illegal but lawful methods, the proof of evidence of criminal behaviour (domestic violence, stolen goods, commercialization of illicit drugs, human trafficking, and by extension all kind of criminal organization).
While ethical motivations might be of relevant importance, by "illegal but lawful" it's meant to express that there might exist not only but justly specific uses of the legal codes on respects for the defense of decriminalization when in for criminal investigation prior of its denounce to authorities.

 

[cbg]

What in the holy heck are you taking about?

 

[Zigner]

Dunno but it really doesn't belong.

 

[Zigner]

I would like to ask a question regarding the conditions that circumstances a lawful illegal act:

I will answer with US law (generally) in mind. While it's possible for something to be legal within a local jurisdiction and illegal at a higher-level jurisdiction (think marijuana at the state [some states] level, yet illegal at federal level), and legal in one state but not in another state, I don't think that's what you're asking about. So, I will say that something cannot be a "lawful illegal act".

While the legal obligation to denounce a crime has been abolished

Where?

it is still considered a moral obligation to do so when in presence of a delictive act.

Don't care - this isn't a moral-advice board (although, that is oftentimes a value-added extra around these parts).

However, the presented question is on about when is it considerably a lawful although illegal act to denounce criminal behaviour, in circumstances other than by mere coincidence as it would be in the case of causal presence.

There cannot be a "lawful although illegal act", so I am going to ignore this question due to its faulty premise (and the fact that it's nonsensical).

Specifically, unofficial criminal investigation that would result in the discovery of criminal behaviour prior to its denounce to the correspondent authorities.

I have pondered this statement for several minutes now and I think I have come up with the absolute, definitive response. Are you ready for it? Here goes: HUH?

For it might would however require observations that would imply, for those in the defense of the suspicious criminal, that it has been broken laws of intimacy by invasion to private property for trespassing, then when obtained the incriminatory evidence its denounce might be considered defamation by divulgation of private information.

I have also pondered this statement for several minutes now and I think I have come up with the absolute, definitive response. Are you ready for it? Here goes: What?

Therefore ... <more random gibberish>

Your post is almost entirely nonsensical, so I am not going to respond to the rest of it. I will, however reiterate my earlier statement that a lawful act cannot be illegal and vice-versa.

 

[Tax Counsel]

These boards discuss legal matters in the U.S. It is clear to me that you are not talking about U.S. law. You need to find a forum that discusses law in whatever jurisdiction you are located.

 

[FJGC1993]

Pardon the informality on the use of statemental words; by lawful it's meant that action taken is within the parameters of law, while it's still can be considered an illegal movement: For example, for police officers to enforce themselves physically fit for the purpose on the defense of an victim from an attacker; while it's not only their legal and moral duty to respond in the defense of the victim, a defender of the attacker would mention that the use of body force, that has caused damaged physically and morally to the attacker, has to be considered an illegal act.

For the sake of the argument, let's posit the next premises:
- A crime has been perpetrated internationally affecting different jurisdictions globally;
- The perpetrators move from country to country or other lands to escape law, using falsified identities;
- To acquire evidence of their whereabout's ubication and proof of the crimes they perpetrated, it's needed to search information on private domains and personal property;

While the search for criminals is lawful, to inquire into privacy is illegal; Therefore, constituting a 'lawful illegal act'.

Less redundantly: Is it considered criminal behaviour to stop criminal behaviour?

___ _ ___

On the other hand, for what I've read, while it might be considered an obligation, it's not a crime to not report a crime, being an option but not a requirement.

Personally, I'm asking about these questions in regards of my personal safety, for while I'm aware that it's unethical to not report a crime, and while I'm at predisposition to do so: I'm at risk, first of criminal retaliation, and secondly at risk for a legal response at the attempt of acquiring evidence to prove such criminal activity; For it might require trespassing, infringements on privacy, and even when getting such evidence, depending on the degree of involvement of the criminals, the defenders might consider it defamation by divulgation of intimate information stolen from private property.

That's the dilemma I am in, for to search evidence of criminal activity might be considered lawful (a legal ethical decision) while the means to do so might be considered illegal (against the rights of the offenders perpetrators).

 

[Zigner]

I'm sorry, but this forum is for US law matters only. You should seek out legal advice in your country. I wish you the best moving forward.

 

[army judge]

Is it considered criminal behaviour to stop criminal behaviour?

Unequivocally, no.

However, the person could potentially be held accountable for the commission of criminal acts PRIOR to her/his/it's "change of heart".

 

[Tax Counsel]

Personally, I'm asking about these questions in regards of my personal safety, for while I'm aware that it's unethical to not report a crime, and while I'm at predisposition to do so: I'm at risk, first of criminal retaliation, and secondly at risk for a legal response at the attempt of acquiring evidence to prove such criminal activity; For it might require trespassing, infringements on privacy, and even when getting such evidence, depending on the degree of involvement of the criminals, the defenders might consider it defamation by divulgation of intimate information stolen from private property.

Each nation's laws are different. In the U.S. you cannot commit crimes to gather evidence of crimes committed by others. You'd be subject to criminal prosecution yourself for the crimes you committed. Saying that you did it to gather evidence of some other crime generally would not be a good defense. Moreover, it's not your role to gather evidence; that's what law enforcement is for. You report the crime to the appropriate law enforcement agency and let that agency pursue it. Law enforcement can do things to gather evidence that ordinary citizens cannot. The laws of your country may be different.

 

[FJGC1993]

Thank you for your answer.

While a report can be send to and for law enforcement agencies to commence an investigation based on the denounce of a crime or attempt of crime, it is still required to present sufficient reason of evidence to proof such events later in court. Therefore, without evidence it can not be made a report to start a investigation.

However, we might contemplate the next premise. Law itself encourages civilian surveillance, motivated by rewards, regarding the whereabout's ubications of a missing person. A civilian can engage by inquiring for any detail that might help with such endeavour; a familiar and/or friend of the missing person might most probably cooperate with any information that might recall to be able to help find their relative, while a suspect might not only reject cooperation, by hiding or hindering information, but might also present a threat risk if confronted directly; Let's consider that suspects might not have possesion of digital information accessible via an online pathway, however might have possesion of sensible information on other media in different locations, that could work as proof of evidence, not only on the whereabout's ubication of the missing person, but also evidence for the commited crime of abduction. However, to be able to acquire such evidence, it might be required to access, by trespassing private property and inquiry onto personal and intimate information; Even if the access is not covered personally but remotely so to inquire for such information in order to gather evidence to proof criminal activity.


On top of that, If one has received anonymous threats with no evidence (nor video nor audio recordings, nor letters whether physical or digital), however traceable by 'sweeping', that nevertheless, with no evidence, most local authorities would not ingress the report. If it is for the sake of crime prevention: Could then the gathering of evidence be considered a misdemeanor rather than a felony? Considering the premises (to search for missing persons), localized sweepings on the search for trails could be regarded illegitimate ('not authorized by law') instead than illicit ('forbidden by law') behaviour when searching for criminal activities from criminal organizations on about the trafficking of humans?

 

[Zigner]

SORRY, THIS FORUM IS FOR US LAW MATTERS ONLY. YOU WILL NEED TO FIND a FORUM THAT SPECIALIZES IN THE LAWS IN YOUR COUNTRY.

 

[Tax Counsel]

Thank you for your answer.

While a report can be send to and for law enforcement agencies to commence an investigation based on the denounce of a crime or attempt of crime, it is still required to present sufficient reason of evidence to proof such events later in court. Therefore, without evidence it can not be made a report to start a investigation.

That's not how it works in the U.S. You don't have to come up with all the admissible evidence. Again, that's the role of law enforcement. They investigate the crime and gather the evidence. You provide to law enforcement what evidence you do have, and its helpful to provide all the information you can obtain legally yourself. Again, you cannot commit a crime to get the evidence you need. Bottom line, in the U.S. you start by reporting what you know to law enforcement and they take it from there.

You seem intent on finding someone who will bless your intentions to commit trespass or other crimes to gather your evidence. In the U.S. that wouldn't work.

But consult a lawyer in your country to see what you are allowed to do and how best to get law enforcement to act on your complaint.

 

[FJGC1993]

SORRY, THIS FORUM IS FOR US LAW MATTERS ONLY. YOU WILL NEED TO FIND a FORUM THAT SPECIALIZES IN THE LAWS IN YOUR COUNTRY.

If one is aware of the probability of attempts of a crime activity overseas, one should consult in such jurisdiction, therefore being relevant in this case.

 

[FJGC1993]

That's not how it works in the U.S. You don't have to come up with all the admissible evidence. Again, that's the role of law enforcement. They investigate the crime and gather the evidence. You provide to law enforcement what evidence you do have, and its helpful to provide all the information you can obtain legally yourself. Again, you cannot commit a crime to get the evidence you need. Bottom line, in the U.S. you start by reporting what you know to law enforcement and they take it from there.

You seem intent on finding someone who will bless your intentions to commit trespass or other crimes to gather your evidence. In the U.S. that wouldn't work.

But consult a lawyer in your country to see what you are allowed to do and how best to get law enforcement to act on your complaint.

While one should not enforce authoritative law as a civilian, one should still consider the ethical duty concerning urgencies on respect regarding the potential risks for the sake of public order and its safety.

Thank you for your patience.

 

[Zigner]

If one is aware of the probability of attempts of a crime activity overseas, one should consult in such jurisdiction, therefore being relevant in this case.

Then call the police in the jurisdiction that you believe criminal activity is occurring. There really is nothing an internet forum can do to help you with that.

 

[FJGC1993]

Then call the police in the jurisdiction that you believe criminal activity is occurring. There really is nothing an internet forum can do to help you with that.

While I trust police authorities, the same are still limited to investigate only by patrolling without being able to deeply inquiry other than with standardized procedures of protocols to querying familiars, friends and people from the local districts.

While a civilian, even if faced with the fear of prison for illegitimate involving on such endeavours, can not be sanctioned, decommissioned nor removed from service, while a law enforcer might, whether an attorney or an officer.

 

[Zigner]

While I trust police authorities, the same are still limited to investigate only by patrolling

You are mistaken insofar as US law is concerned. The police have investigative powers and also work with other agencies when that is more appropriate. Contact the police.

 

[FJGC1993]

You are mistaken insofar as US law is concerned. The police have investigative powers and also work with other agencies when that is more appropriate. Contact the police.

Thank you for your answer and patience.

I've been conceptualizing a type of nanotechnology that would be able to help to prevent crime, it's inspired on the tachyonic particle, fMRI and optogenetics technology, therefore working as a point-particle in space for observational purposes (like a micro-drone). However, as it works wirelessly and has the potential for neuromodulation, as it was thought to be also for telecommunication purposes, I am afraid that this kind of information was stolen prior being able to patent it properly for the purposes it was made, therefore presenting a potential risk, considering I've received threats because of the implementation it was meant for: telecommunication, investigative tool for crime and corruption prevention, and even remote medical implementation. Although it is meant to be used with a computer support to prevent risk and inhibit self-damage, for security intentions, I'm afraid it might be used illicitly with the wrong intentions. And because of the received threats, I've not been able to continue on with the study on this kind of technology. Local authorities of militar-police have not answered because of the lack of evidence regarding the threats, and I've felt anxious in the urge to use such technology for the purposes it was meant to. And while and in predisposition to cooperate with authorities, I'm afraid of the corrupt agents in the law system involved in criminal organization and although might be numbered as statistically minority, it might still represent a risk of threats.

Any advice is welcome.

 

[Zigner]

Thank you for your answer and patience.

I've been conceptualizing a type of nanotechnology that would be able to help to prevent crime, it's inspired on the tachyonic particle, fMRI and optogenetics technology, therefore working as a point-particle in space for observational purposes (like a micro-drone). However, as it works wirelessly and has the potential for neuromodulation, as it was thought to be also for telecommunication purposes, I am afraid that this kind of information was stolen prior being able to patent it properly for the purposes it was made, therefore presenting a potential risk, considering I've received threats because of the implementation it was meant for: telecommunication, investigative tool for crime and corruption prevention, and even remote medical implementation. Although it is meant to be used with a computer support to prevent risk and inhibit self-damage, for security intentions, I'm afraid it might be used illicitly with the wrong intentions. And because of the received threats, I've not been able to continue on with the study on this kind of technology. Local authorities of militar-police have not answered because of the lack of evidence regarding the threats, and I've felt anxious in the urge to use such technology for the purposes it was meant to. And while and in predisposition to cooperate with authorities, I'm afraid of the corrupt agents in the law system involved in criminal organization and although might be numbered as statistically minority, it might still represent a risk of threats.

Any advice is welcome.

I can absolutely assure you that the scope of your request is beyond anything that an internet forum can help with. Good luck.

 

[army judge]

Thank you for your answer and patience.

I've been conceptualizing a type of nanotechnology that would be able to help to prevent crime, it's inspired on the tachyonic particle, fMRI and optogenetics technology, therefore working as a point-particle in space for observational purposes (like a micro-drone). However, as it works wirelessly and has the potential for neuromodulation, as it was thought to be also for telecommunication purposes, I am afraid that this kind of information was stolen prior being able to patent it properly for the purposes it was made, therefore presenting a potential risk, considering I've received threats because of the implementation it was meant for: telecommunication, investigative tool for crime and corruption prevention, and even remote medical implementation. Although it is meant to be used with a computer support to prevent risk and inhibit self-damage, for security intentions, I'm afraid it might be used illicitly with the wrong intentions. And because of the received threats, I've not been able to continue on with the study on this kind of technology. Local authorities of militar-police have not answered because of the lack of evidence regarding the threats, and I've felt anxious in the urge to use such technology for the purposes it was meant to. And while and in predisposition to cooperate with authorities, I'm afraid of the corrupt agents in the law system involved in criminal organization and although might be numbered as statistically minority, it might still represent a risk of threats.

Any advice is welcome.

You appear to me on to something big and useful.

I suggest you continue to develop your idea into a working prototype.

If you do that, a dozen high tech companies and/or governments will woo you, offering you millions, if not trillions of US Dollars.