^You are speaking as a third party who is afraid of criminal activity, not as a victim of a crime. I don't think that is the correct perspective.

If someone robs your house, do you care whether or not they get rehabilitated? No, you just want your stuff back. Rape, assault, murder, etc. are not as straightforward as theft, but you can't see any ways to repay the victim? I never said anything about full, 100% restitution.

To use an example, if someone assaulted me and say, I lost my hand in the process. There is an exponential curve (monetary sum) where I am going to be more and more okay with the fact that you just cut off my hand. However, no amount of jail time or rehabilitation for you would ever make me feel okay (or better) about losing that hand. They could give you the death penalty or life in jail and I would still rather have my hand back.

Its not always possible for a criminal to fully repay a victim, and in such cases the criminal should also be punished, but punishment was never meant to be the primary purpose of justice.

The problem with your notion of justice is that at no point does it address the only problem with crime: victims.

The problem here is that my tax dollars are being spent (and these men's lives are being risked!) for a substance that simply really shouldn't even be illegal.

We have created this kind of criminal activity for ourselves... by criminalizing the substance itself. Which is messed up, because it is a pretty widely accepted fact that pot is no more dangerous than alcohol is. (Heck, it even has a medicinal use, which cannot really be said of booze.) Which is not to say that it cannot be abused, but we are causing far more problems for ourselves by keeping it illegal.

You would think that someone had LEARNED something from the Prohibition.

>> ^quantumushroom:
Nice baseless assumption, qm. Begging the question is the technical word for this particular fallacy.
dft, I stand by my words. As always. They are based on observance of the hysterical tone of the bulk of these responses as well as past observations of sifters' knee-jerk hateful reactions to lawful authority, reactions programmed by government school (and kollij) indoctrination. The moral-relativist "Establishment" has done its evil work.
The "private property" excuse is a lame one and not applicable. It appears to be the front yard area, visible from the road. Any criminal activity in plain sight in the front yard requires no warrant, nor does an officer being threatened with harm.
Had the cop shot a sleeping dog or sitting dog, I'd also like to see him strung up by his balls.
But that's not what happened here.


It does apply. Because these laws prohibit any one who is unwelcome from being on the property. They have to have written and expressed consent from the owner of the property. The officer did not have a need to be on the property, and being lost does not constitute as a need, because they have radios in their cars. It appears to be the front yard area, so that means its Ok for a cop to go on the property? If there were crime on the property then her surveillance would have caught the criminals comming on to the property, which they did in this case it was the police.

Just because the law is lame does not mean that it is not applicable in this case. It is applicable and that would be how I would advocate for the owner.

Finally if you read most of my comments you will find that I state that this case hinges on what she had posted on her borders, and on the property.

Nice baseless assumption, qm. Begging the question is the technical word for this particular fallacy.

dft, I stand by my words. As always. They are based on observance of the hysterical tone of the bulk of these responses as well as past observations of sifters' knee-jerk hateful reactions to lawful authority, reactions programmed by government school (and kollij) indoctrination. The moral-relativist "Establishment" has done its evil work.

The "private property" excuse is a lame one and not applicable. It appears to be the front yard area, visible from the road. Any criminal activity in plain sight in the front yard requires no warrant, nor does an officer being threatened with harm.

Had the cop shot a sleeping dog or sitting dog, I'd also like to see him strung up by his balls.

But that's not what happened here.

It's vital that our historians are recording the facts. -- The Bush administration's refusal to comply with standard record-keeping process is suspect to criminal activity. Never has a presidential cabinet withheld information on this scale.

Cheney's earlier attempt to permenantly shut down the National Archives record gathering operations was blatantly treasonous.

----^^^ This attempt is a major red flag that should require the Justice Dept. to seize the records immediately. ### Especially since he [Cheney] claims he's not a member of the Executive branch as an excuse yet he serves directly under the President making executive decisions and the Congressional branch where he also executes major influence.

This should dictate that the Justice department should preside and be able to take immediate action (if necessary). I believe this will hold hold true in a Supreme court ruling to safeguard proper Checks and Balances within the system.

That was an act of someone that doesn't want anyone to find out about incriminating information.
Only a criminal would try to prevent facts from being recorded into record books.

>> ^imstellar28:
I agree with you on a lot of issues, I believe, although its unfortunate to hear about the Obama thing . Can you point out where I am going wrong in my argumentation? If my reasoning is fallacious I would be more than happy to understand how.

I'll just share my take. I consider myself pro-liberty and pro-life, but I have no problem with the government holding parents accountable for failing to care for their children. I support holding people to account for criminal activity, even if that restricts their liberty. So you could argue that my stance, by "forcing" parents to be responsible for their children's care (or rather, discouraging them from or holding them account for not doing so), is not 100% pro-liberty, and you'd be right.

I'm okay with being less than 100% pro-liberty. I'm primarily libertarian, but not entirely. I do see a benefit to having some form of government and/or natural law.

>> ^CaptainPlanet420:

"Son, have you ever been to Detroit?"


What does that have to do with it?

You take the criminal activity of one man and ascribe that to an entire city, you're either a bigot, an asshole, or an idiot.

Which are you?

7:35 freakout is golden.
"Because of the criminal activities your organization has carried out?"
"GOOD POINT! CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, WHAT ARE YOUR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES?"

The dude is so brainwashed with the technique that in finding an opening for his schtick, he admits to criminal activities. Raw nerve, there?

standards and morals are both subjective things. You have no right to impose them on society at large without a compelling reason for societal improvement vs detriment. Believe it or not, laws that stand the test of time are based on societal improvement, not personal standards or morals. My morals are not much different than everyone elses but the differences (in detail and degree) can be crucial enough that to impose my morals upon someone else - to the extent of punishing them would be immoral and not conducive to the furtherance of society. Laws exist to protect society, not individuals. Murder is detrimental to society. Injured/abused/neglected/uneducated children are detrimental to society. starving people are a detriment to society. etc. Any socially responsible reason you can come up with to punish drug users can be covered by other laws or methods. Afraid drug users will screw up their jobs? Thats why employers are allowed the freedom to have drug testing and screening. Think drug use is causally connected to criminal activity? We have laws against criminal activity already. All the "war on drugs" has done has been to criminalize a sector of people who are NOT criminals otherwise, do not hurt anyone else and some of whom have had their lives improved by drugs. Frankly I hate how this "war" has made doctors and pharmacists feel paranoid - get a prescription for painkillers after surgery, watch that scrip run dry in a couple of days while you are left in agonizing pain, try to talk your doctor into giving you a refill and see what I'm talking about. I had surgery 6 times over the course of a year and let me tell you, this "war" has had a direct effect upon MY comfort because of the pressure on doctors to avoid prosecution. Not to mention how much MONEY its costing us all as taxpayers. I'm constantly astounded that conservatives bleat about "personal responsibility" and getting government out of the "nanny state" until, you know, it comes to Teh Evil Drugs!! Then it's "nanny us please!"
Conservatives don't want the government taking our money in order to feed poor people, but its okay to take our money to keep a pot-smoker in prison. Where is the conservative logic in that?

We live in a drugs based society, anyone who doesn't realize it doesn't see the kids in school cracked out on Ritalin becuase everyone thinks ADHD is 'disease', while their soccer mums knock back Valiums to bear living with their husbands who are desperately trying to get a hard on from Cialis and Viagra. First what should happen is a total reform of the FDA to fully be able to administrate over what drugs are being produced. Pharmaceuticals have now taken to creating conditions that are not medical problems and providing medication for it, pushed through to citizens via rolling TV adverts and massive drugs guides in most popular magazines. Pick up a Reader Digest anytime. FDA needs power back to stop being run basically by Big Pharma lobby groups.

After that we must legalize drugs through the state because that will end the illegal supply from the underworld and end one of the longest running cash cows for illegal criminal activity. Once sanctioned through the state, we can start to slowly eliminate the problem with hardcore chemical dependences drugs such as crack cocaine, methamphetamine and heroin. Simply the act of high supply at low prices will collapse the illegal trade in narcotics, at the same time the state can refer critical individuals to relevant support services, because when's the last time you seen your drug dealer take you to the first aid ward?

Marijuana and other naturalistic drug supplies are impossible to make illegal, nor does it warrant heavy attention from law enforcement because it's a small source of income and has to be sold in bulk if for profit. They are usually not affiliated with the heavy criminal underworld, and the large legal repercussions we have now mean that even first time offenders can feasible be locked up for possession of marijuana, the crime doesn't not fit with the consequences.

As per your statement about loss of people to drugs through legalization, that is really quite ridiculous, I mean we have alcohol as a major social killer in various ways, yet we understand that it's for consumption under controlled circumstances. Your argument makes it sound like when booze became legal back after the prohibition everyone was going to work pissed drunk. Holding a job down comes with responsibility, one of which is to be alert, you would lose that job instantly and won't be able to buy your legal supply so to say. This is besides the fact that any job these days that requires putting the lives of others at your disposal comes with mandatory drug tests.

This is the same thing we have seen happen with regards to the abolition of alcohol, we created an underworld under dubious moralistic judgments about what is good for society.

Holding an idealistic view about abolishing capital punishment is one thing, actually implementing such a system state wide is an entirely different thing. I don't see why the state should make citizens pay more taxes to keep criminals in prison for life. Nor do I see citizen accepting such a scheme.

It's the same arguement as anti-abortionists make, they say that it's killing babies and what not. If that is the case, then the state should sanction taxes to citizens to run proper foster homes for abandoned and unwanted children, or better yet families must willingly sponsor a child's education and livelihood. They want to abolish Roe Vs Wade without realizing that it has lead to a marked decrease in the amount of criminal activity (see Freakanomics).

One must look at issues with a realistic mind set. I believe capital punishment still has it's place in our world, it would slowly diminish itself over time as society progresses.