Government Punishes Horrible Criminal

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Too bad he was disabled.

Because if he wasn't, and I was in his place, I would tell the judge and the prosecutors to kiss my behind.

In fact I would have told the cops that arrested him in the first place to kiss my behind, and brandished my rifle if they refused

And then they would have shot you. Cops take brandished rifles very seriously.

Not if I shot them first, I'm not about to stand by and be imprisoned becuase our lawmakers and enforcers are blithering idiots.

Shooting them is NOT the answer. Voting them out is. Aall shooting will do is give the target undeserved sympathy.

Your advocating the shooting of a cop because the COURT he serves follows the letter of the law with total disregard of logic and destroying the spirit of the law in the process is extremely asinine, repugnant, and IMO worthy of a Ban! Fuck you Asshole!

[Admiral Valdemar]

Shooting them is NOT the answer. Voting them out is. Aall shooting will do is give the target undeserved sympathy.

Your advocating the shooting of a cop because the COURT he serves follows the letter of the law with total disregard of logic and destroying the spirit of the law in the process is extremely asinine, repugnant, and IMO worthy of a Ban! Fuck you Asshole!

Woah there, Einy. He said a pretty stupid thing, but I don't think it's bannable.

At least he is only saying this in spite, there are gun nuts in the US that probably would see the cops as the enemy, I mean hell, they see the gov't as actively going out of their way to take their precious guns away.

I prescribe 200mg of Chill Pill, that's doctor's orders.

[Einhander Sn0m4n]

Shooting them is NOT the answer. Voting them out is. Aall shooting will do is give the target undeserved sympathy.

Your advocating the shooting of a cop because the COURT he serves follows the letter of the law with total disregard of logic and destroying the spirit of the law in the process is extremely asinine, repugnant, and IMO worthy of a Ban! Fuck you Asshole!

Woah there, Einy. He said a pretty stupid thing, but I don't think it's bannable.

At least he is only saying this in spite, there are gun nuts in the US that probably would see the cops as the enemy, I mean hell, they see the gov't as actively going out of their way to take their precious guns away.

I prescribe 200mg of Chill Pill, that's doctor's orders.

You're right. I did overreact. Two Stupids Don't Make a Smart.

I agree on the Chill Pill prescription, but I don't have $5...

[Glocksman]

Interestingly enough, it is permissable in a lot of states to use force to resist an unjustified arrest under very limited circumstances.

Of course, permissible or not, the best thing to do is fight it out in court, not on the street.

At least he is only saying this in spite, there are gun nuts in the US that probably would see the cops as the enemy, I mean hell, they see the gov't as actively going out of their way to take their precious guns away

Where there's smoke, there's usually a fire.

In this case there are influential groups working to see that the government does exactly that, and the BATF's record of stamping all over the 4th and 5th amendments is well known.

Our 'precious guns' and the right to own them are under constant attack, and with police chiefs such as this one using their official posts to peddle such twaddle, is it any wonder that firearm owners tend to distrust law enforcement at the leadership level?

[Rogue 9]

But that's no excuse for the crackpot local militia to shoot them.

[Glocksman]

But that's no excuse for the crackpot local militia to shoot them.

Currently?
Of course not.

However if people like Dianne Feinstein get their wish and pass a confiscatory ban, let's just say that I (and millions of other gun owners) will have a hot, loud welcome ready for them when they come through the door.

And that's assuming that the local police would enforce Federal prohibitions on firearms, and that's doubtful in a lot of states.

[Rogue 9]

The Supreme Court would screw up any full ban attempt in a big hurry; you have to know that.

But if it did come to that, I'd hate to see the results of military fireteams on militia, which is what it would come to if a mass rebellion of that sort started. So in short, screw Dianne Feinstein before she screws this whole damn nation. Not that she could succeed anyway. [size=0]Whoever she is.[/size]

[Admiral Valdemar]

But that's no excuse for the crackpot local militia to shoot them.

Currently?
Of course not.

However if people like Dianne Feinstein get their wish and pass a confiscatory ban, let's just say that I (and millions of other gun owners) will have a hot, loud welcome ready for them when they come through the door.

And that's assuming that the local police would enforce Federal prohibitions on firearms, and that's doubtful in a lot of states.

You and I both know that won't ever happen. And even if it did, I doubt the US would truly want to sink into a pseudo civil war over such a trivial thing.

Be interesting to watch though.

[Glocksman]

Even if the SC ruled a ban legal, other provisions of the bill of rights would have to be violated in order to enforce the ban. In other words, if it ever came down to warrantless searches of homes or people for weapons, the BoR is a dead letter and it's time to fight.

Fortunately the odds of this occuring are about the same as me being elected Pope, but stranger things have happened.

[Rogue 9]

Be interesting to watch though.

Interesting for you Brits. I might just have to move to England if it did happen; I wouldn't know what side to take and wouldn't want to be caught in the middle. (Ah, the dilemmas of centrism.)

[Lord MJ]

Hey I'm not advocating going around and killing people.

But what I did say is that if I needed drugs to take care of physical pain. And the gov't in it's stupidity tried to arrest me[i/] because I purchased painkillers for legitimate reasons because of some idiotic law, then I would certainly refuse to be arrested.

The violence would only occur if they tried to force the issue.

Ok maybe that's too extreme.

I would submit to going to the police station, but I would not submit to standing trial, and I certainly would not submit to going to prison if a court convicts me.

If they want to lock me up on drug trafficking charges for 25 years for simply getting needed painkillers then well they'll do it over my dead body and plenty of thiers as well.

[Lord MJ]

Another question I have is why couldn't the judge just dismiss the case because it was obvious he was not drug trafficking regardless of what the law says.


If I was the judge I would conclude based on the evidence that the man wasn't drug trafficking and that the fact that the definition defined in the law is the result of a insufficient thought and planning my the legislators that made the law. Immediately dismissing the case, and if legally permissable overturing the law, or if not, sending a recommendation to the legislature that the law be immediately reworked.

[The Kernel]

Another question I have is why couldn't the judge just dismiss the case because it was obvious he was not drug trafficking regardless of what the law says.

Because according to the law, if you posses a certain quantity of drugs, you are technically a drug dealer. It doesn't matter if you intended to sell them or not.

As for an appeal, I really doubt he'll be able to get the verdict overturned unless the judge did something wrong. Appeals usually involve fault in the process, not the legitimacy of the verdict itself.

[Rogue 9]

As for an appeal, I really doubt he'll be able to get the verdict overturned unless the judge did something wrong. Appeals usually involve fault in the process, not the legitimacy of the verdict itself.

No, that's when the lawyer tries to have another judge declare a mistrial. An appeal is different and doesn't usually involve an error in the process. (An appeal goes to a higher court; a mistrial runs again in the same court, or in a different court of the same authority if a fair trial is impossible in that court for whatever reason. Difference there.)

[Sarevok]

This is so wrong and outrageous. An innocent man has been sentenced to 25 years. This not justice at all.

[Gandalf]

There's a St. Petersburg in Florida?

How will a man like that be able to get along in prison?

[Sarevok]

He will probobly be sitting in his wheel inside a cell. This is inhuman as one can imagine.

[Lord MJ]

As for an appeal, I really doubt he'll be able to get the verdict overturned unless the judge did something wrong. Appeals usually involve fault in the process, not the legitimacy of the verdict itself.

No, that's when the lawyer tries to have another judge declare a mistrial. An appeal is different and doesn't usually involve an error in the process. (An appeal goes to a higher court; a mistrial runs again in the same court, or in a different court of the same authority if a fair trial is impossible in that court for whatever reason. Difference there.)

Legally it's only possible to appeal if there is a error of law in the case. Appeals don't consider errors of fact. So if there were no errors of law, then the man will have to sit in jail until the law is repealed (if it ever is.)

[Rogue 9]

This is inhuman as one can imagine.

Its pretty bad, but people have come up with worse. <Insert Hitler/Stalin/Pol Pot reference>

[Oni Koneko Damien]

The juror said he voted guilty to avoid being the lone holdout.

Okay, that just fucking hurts. He was unanymously voted to 25 years of prison because one fucking juror did not have the balls to vote his conscious. Excuse the fuck out of me you mindless, bandwagon jumping, zombie, but I would *not* condemn an innocent man to 25 years of hell (oh yeah, and that will really cure him of his drug problem, ya know. I mean, I'm not even getting on the fact that the prison system is totally fucked as a whole) just because I didn't want to be the only one who wasn't 'part of the group'. Fuck you, you apathetic shit-for-brains.

*sighs*

For whatever reason, I feel a System of a Down song coming on...

"Minor drug offenders fill your prisons, you don't even care, all our taxes paying for your war against the new young rage"

-Damien

[Durandal]

Glocksman, stop turning threads into gun control debates. I'm sick of you coming into threads and then saying, "This is exactly like gun control ..." Drop it or start a new thread.

No we wouldn't. The majority of Americans are Christians. It does not follow that the majority of Americans want a theocracy.

They may not actively want one, but being one sure as Hell wouldn't bother the majority of Americans.

[Howedar]

I rather doubt that, Durandal. Unless you have some actual data on that, I'd just have to say that of all the religious people I know, none of them would want a theocracy.

[Glocksman]

Glocksman, stop turning threads into gun control debates. I'm sick of you coming into threads and then saying, "This is exactly like gun control ..." Drop it or start a new thread.

Excuse the fuck out of me.

*I* didn't even bring up the subject of guns in the thread.

Valdemar did with his characterization of 'gun nuts' seeing cops as the enemy.

Don't like guns being being discussed in this thread? Take it up with him seeing as he introduced the subject.

[Durandal]

I rather doubt that, Durandal. Unless you have some actual data on that, I'd just have to say that of all the religious people I know, none of them would want a theocracy.

Really? So they're obviously appalled that victimless crimes like prostitution are illegal, right?

[Rogue 9]

No we wouldn't. The majority of Americans are Christians. It does not follow that the majority of Americans want a theocracy.

They may not actively want one, but being one sure as Hell wouldn't bother the majority of Americans.

It sure as hell would bother me. Unification of church and state is never a good thing, not for the state or the church. Anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of history or politics knows that.