Sub Jailed-ness

[Tony]

I can give you the addresses of three graves occupied by victims of this "victimless crime."

You know of three people who died because someone else grew marijuana?

 

[Jocko]

Yes, the legislature, and the judge screwed up. The jury had no choice since the right of jury nullification has been effectively crushed. The purpose of the justice system is to ensure justice, not throw non-offending, non-violent people in jail.

So what are you, a libertarian or a Monarch? I sure hope the governor has your home number in case he needs any guidance on policy.

That reflects more negatively on you than it does on Sub.

Sticks and stones, bitch. Just stay out of my neighborhood.

 

[Tony]

Sticks and stones, bitch. Just stay out of my neighborhood.

Trust me, I will. I tend to avoid the white-trash parts of town anyway, so staying out of your neighborhood will be easy.

So what are you, a libertarian or a Monarch? I sure hope the governor has your home number in case he needs any guidance on policy.

Dodge noted.

 

[Cleon]

Ah, so we're redefining the laws according to the big book of Cleon. Mmmkay.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that Jocko Has Decreed Cleon May Not Have an Opinion. My mistake.

I have reasons for disagreeing with that, but since they are (like yours) anecdotal and subjective, I won't bother pushing it as proof of anything. Kindly do the same.

Explain to me exactly what is subjective and anecdotal about "did he deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property?"

No, I'm saying even Scott Peterson has people going on the stand to lament how unfair things are. Your addition to the chorus of character testimony is equally worthless

Ah, ok, so now I can simply assume you aren't paying attention. I've said--rather explicitely, though I can use small words if you're having difficulty--that I don't know SG all that well, and I can't say anything about his character. But his character is not the issue I'm addressing. I'm addressing a law that is unjust and immoral.

Please keep your platitudes to yourself. I can give you the addresses of three graves occupied by victims of this "victimless crime." Go explain it to them. Oops, now I've gone and dumped my anecdotal reasons on the table. Feel free to disregard if they get in the way of your concept of rights.

Gladly. I can point you to the graves of numerous people who are the victims of the victimless crimes of drug use, alcohol use, tobacco use, swimming, and riding a motorcycle. Yet I would not deprive anyone of the right to do these things, even though they may be self-destructive.

Funny how the "freedom" liberals never care to look at the responsibilities that lie under each right. Sorry, Cleon, you can spread it on this thick for the kids, but I know better.

Heh. No, you don't know much, apparently, especially when it comes to "personal responsibility"--that mantra of conservatism that no conservative actually follows.

Your friends who died from ODs paid for their habits. They should have gotten help, but they should not have been imprisoned and punished. they harmed none but themselves.

 

[Jocko]

Trust me, I will. I tend to avoid the white-trash parts of town anyway, so staying out of your neighborhood will be easy.

Tony, I know the idea that anyone would be upset by your passing away is difficult to accept; but step outside of the situation, imagine you were a person of actual worth, and try to picture it.

You're all freedom and no responsibility. A libertine, an anarchist and a complete waste of time. Why not go off ranting about how being forced to drive on the right is an abridgement of your first amendment rights? That makes about as much sense as you do.

 

[Jocko]

Explain to me exactly what is subjective and anecdotal about "did he deprive anyone of life, liberty, or property?"

Uh, it's anecdotal because we're talking about one guy in once case?

Heh. No, you don't know much, apparently, especially when it comes to "personal responsibility"--that mantra of conservatism that no conservative actually follows.

Your friends who died from ODs paid for their habits. They should have gotten help, but they should not have been imprisoned and punished. they harmed none but themselves.

That's rich. I'm considering revising my opinion on assisted suicide. How you feeling today, Cleon? You don't look so well.

 

[Savagemutt]

A couple of questions:

1) Whats with this vague measurement of "5-45" kg of plants? Isn't law enforcement usually pretty careful about the exact amount of something like this? It seems particularly weird to me because the lower end of the scale looks like personal use, while the upper end does hint at dealing (at least to my uninformed first impression). Is the difference dry vs. planted weight or something?

2) Wasn't there a thread about all the evidence and the legal proceedings, last summer? Or maybe I saw it at Internet Infidels. Did Sub post there too?

 

[Cleon]

A couple of questions:

1) Whats with this vague measurement of "5-45" kg of plants? Isn't law enforcement usually pretty careful about the exact amount of something like this? It seems particularly weird to me because the lower end of the scale looks like personal use, while the upper end does hint at dealing (at least to my uninformed first impression). Is the difference dry vs. planted weight or something?

That's the way the law is worded; posession of between 4-45 kg of plants as Felony A, posession of more than that is Felony B, posession of less than that is Misdemeanor C. (I don't know the exact Michigan laws.)

The exact amount would have come out during the investigation and been introduced as evidence at the trial; as noted earlier in the thread, though, the way it's measured by law enforcement is less than accurate (or honest).

 

[Tmy]

Woudl ya'll feel as bad if he was busted for DUI. After all its a victimless crime (unless you crash into somthing.)

If you dont like the law there are a number of mechanisms in place to change or overule "unjust" laws. SubJ just did a big "FU" to the law. His sheer arrogance deserves punishment. Thats probaly why the jury didnt nullify (which they can do) his case. He didnt have a sob story. Lawyer with his hydro pot production and tazer and gun just lying around. I sure he came acroos as a real asswipe to the jury.

There are laws wed all love to ignore. Why Id love to kill everyone who ever looked at me crosseyed! But then we'd have anarchy.

 

[Tmy]

The exact amount would have come out during the investigation and been introduced as evidence at the trial; as noted earlier in the thread, though, the way it's measured by law enforcement is less than accurate (or honest).

Thats why you have a defense. To dispute the measurements.

I couldnt work the link but I dont belive it mentions the exact amount of weed he had. Or how mant bags. Im interested to know.

By the way Cleo, the facts say that the gun was unloaded. But theres nothing saying it was a useless rusty old piece of junk. Who hell leaves somthing like that near the exit in an open closet?

 

[Cleon]

Woudl ya'll feel as bad if he was busted for DUI. After all its a victimless crime (unless you crash into somthing.)

It has the potential to harm people or property. Growing and smoking your own dope, like getting drunk in your living room, does not. Drinking is not a crime until you're in a car, putting someone else in danger.

If you dont like the law there are a number of mechanisms in place to change or overule "unjust" laws. SubJ just did a big "FU" to the law. His sheer arrogance deserves punishment.

Yeah, THAT makes sense.

Disobeying unjust law = arrogance that deserves punishment.

Thats probaly why the jury didnt nullify (which they can do)

Jury nullification is all but dead; juries rarely have the legal option, and when they do, they're not informed of it.

There are laws wed all love to ignore. Why Id love to kill everyone who ever looked at me crosseyed! But then we'd have anarchy.

But then, you'd be depriving other people of their rights. Which SG was most certainly not.

 

[rikzilla]

Woudl ya'll feel as bad if he was busted for DUI. After all its a victimless crime (unless you crash into somthing.)

If you dont like the law there are a number of mechanisms in place to change or overule "unjust" laws. SubJ just did a big "FU" to the law. His sheer arrogance deserves punishment. Thats probaly why the jury didnt nullify (which they can do) his case. He didnt have a sob story. Lawyer with his hydro pot production and tazer and gun just lying around. I sure he came acroos as a real asswipe to the jury.

There are laws wed all love to ignore. Why Id love to kill everyone who ever looked at me crosseyed! But then we'd have anarchy.

Exactly! Cleon doesn't like me saying the law is the law,...but it is what it is. We have a fine system of representative government that produced this law for the protection of the public. (Remember, he's not in jail for the pot per se, but for "possession of a firearm in commission of a felony")

Personally I think reforming the MJ law is very good subject for debate. However, the law regarding carrying a firearm while pulling a felony is a good law. Period. Bullets or no shouldn't matter. (It's hard to tell if a weapon pointed at your head on a dark street is loaded or not)

Now Cleon, you are I presume saying that the MJ shouldn't be a felony in the first place...in that case SG walks. I think we could do a thread on that. I'm open to the argument....it is however, NOT in any way comparable to the civil rights struggle! Nor is the firearm/felony law a morally wrong law!

If it was, SG would be happily in jail...an unjustly jailed martyr to a movement bigger than the law in question.

Somehow I doubt even he feels this way....

-z

 

[Tony]

You're all freedom and no responsibility.

What "responsibility" are you talking about? There's nothing to be "responsible" for.

 

[Cleon]

By the way Cleo, the facts say that the gun was unloaded. But theres nothing saying it was a useless rusty old piece of junk.

I believe I read that somewhere in the court documents; if I didn't, my bad, but it doesn't change my position any. (Though I am still curious about the "when does an unusable firearm cease to be a firearm" bit.)

Who hell leaves somthing like that near the exit in an open closet?

Heh. My great-grandfather, for one. He kept one in the closet by the front door; the idea was to scare off intruders. After he died and we looked at the weapon (an old WWI relic from the Tsar's army), we found that not only was it unloaded with no bullets in the house, but the bolt was rusted shut; Zeyda couldn't have loaded it if he wanted to.

 

[Tmy]

What are the odds his little pot party wouldve stayed in his 4 walls? The little blurb of facts on the appeal really doesnt tell us the whole story.

Heres my tribute to Subby. Sung to the hit song "Cause I got High":



I was gonna go to JREF, until I got high
I was gonna post and reply, but then I got high

Now Im doing 2 years, and I know why. Yeah Yeaaaaaah
Cause I got high,
Cause I got high,
Cause I got high............

 

[Cleon]

Exactly! Cleon doesn't like me saying the law is the law,...but it is what it is.

No, I object to the rationale that "the law can't be wrong because it's the law." I'm sorry, in a country that has seen Jim Crow, slavery, Sedition Acts, prohibition, etc., I don't see how anyone can honestly make that argument.

Now Cleon, you are I presume saying that the MJ shouldn't be a felony in the first place...

Amazing. I'm saying it, repeatedly, and you still have to "presume."

in that case SG walks. I think we could do a thread on that. I'm open to the argument....it is however, NOT in any way comparable to the civil rights struggle!

See, if you'd read the rest of my post, not just a word out of every sentence or so, my point wasn't to compare them, it was to point out that violating an unjust law does not make one deserving of punishment. Which I pointed out rather specifically, after saying "Insert the part here where you sigh, 'I can't BELIEVE you're comparing him with the civil rights movement!'". Imprisonment is wrong if the law is wrong.

Nor is the firearm/felony law a morally wrong law!

It is if "felony" includes actions that shouldn't be crimes to begin with. If criticizing the government or the war in Iraq was made into a felony--it's happened before in this country--and someone was given an extra 20 years because not only did they do so, they had a weapon, a lot of people (Tmy included) would be screaming bloody murder.

 

[Cleon]

I was gonna go to JREF, until I got high
I was gonna post and reply, but then I got high

Now Im doing 2 years, and I know why. Yeah Yeaaaaaah
Cause I got high,
Cause I got high,
Cause I got high............

I see you've gone into Patrick mode. I guess this thread is kaput now.

 

[rikzilla]

It is if "felony" includes actions that shouldn't be crimes to begin with. If criticizing the government or the war in Iraq was made into a felony--it's happened before in this country--and someone was given an extra 20 years because not only did they do so, they had a weapon, a lot of people (Tmy included) would be screaming bloody murder.

Apples and oranges. Drug laws are on the books for good reasons...you may reject those reasons, but that doesn't make them bad.

All the laws you mentioned were overturned by the correct application of our democracy. If you are right then the NJ laws will go the same route.

I'm not holding my breath. Anti drug laws will never = Jim Crow or the Alien and Sedition act. They're not in the same league.

-z

 

[Tmy]

I see you've gone into Patrick mode. I guess this thread is kaput now.

Im sure subJ wouldve found it funny............after smoking a big fatty!!!

JIm Crow and those other laws were overturned and voted down using legal means. For now the weed growers of the world will just have to endure the water cannons and attack dogs.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I'm fairly neutral in this issue. I don't do drugs myself, but couldn't care less if anyone else does. I don't own guns myself, but couldn't care less if anyone else does. I think the principle behind the law (which is "Drugs are bad, mmmkay. Don't do drugs.") is silly. And wording laws vaguely enough that the fabled "rusty old rifle" is being treated, in connection with the pot charges, like the guy was toting San Andreas style hardware is ridiculous.

However, even silly laws have correct ways to be changed. You can't just decide "Oh, this is a stupid law, I'm justified in breaking it." Well, you can, but don't expect good to come of it. There are other laws that I find silly and contemptible, but other people might not agree. When I break them, I will not be surprised at the consequences.

Civilization can't really stick together if everyone can pick and choose which laws to follow, without consequences. Laws have little to do with "right" and "wrong", or even "common sense"--they exist to create order. It may even come down to a direct conflict between what is the legal thing to do, and what is the right thing to do. Such situations sometimes inspire changes to the law.