Don’t agree. This is not the first sting operation police have ever done. Similar events have been reported as fact and glamorized as fiction for long enough that the lack of public outcry establishes at least a prima facie case of acceptance. It’s not conclusive, but it certainly shifts the burden to you – right now, the only thing you can point to in favor of the idea that the public doesn’t like it is the fact that you and (presumably) your gaggle of friends doesn’t like it – kinda like the possibly apocryphal story about Pauline Kael, the New York journalist who responded to news of Nixon’s reelection in a landslide to say it was impossible for such a thing to be true: none of her friends voted for Nixon!
Yes, I’m terrified. You caught me. And your position is so strong that paradoxically it can’t be debated in a convincing manner. Those of us who debate moral issues never, ever try to make a case for them. And basing claims on religion isn’t inferior because it relies on “God said so, I believe it, that settles it!”. Your inability to carry your case is because of all the nasty, tricksy false Liberals. Your inability to carry your religon’s theology with all the various splinter sects and other religions is also because they are probably wicked, tricksy and false. In fact, basing one’s position on axioms they argue for and religion are both equally useless because nobody can argue morality or ethnics unless they are in an echo chamber for support.
Personally, I love how absolutely everybody on the Dope agrees with me about the proper course of action in the Middle East. Why, if they didn’t I’d have to quit trying to provide a cogent, substantiated argument and just start whining like a little impotent bitch.
I don’t claim my position is strong or weak. I claim that moral questions cannot meaningfully be debated by people that do not share a moral framework.
Yes, they can. Positions can be analyzed for logical coherence. We can debate whether or not axioms make sense or not. And even if you cannot convince your opponent, you can possibly convince onlookers. Your act of conceding defeat before even trying to argue the point strongly indicates that you know, on some level, that your position is indefensible.
And finally, at long last, we arrive at Liberal Hypocrisy, the #2 threat to the Republic!
"If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend I hope I should have the guts to betray my country”.
E.M. Forester, What I Believe
He goes on to explain:
You are correct, it is not a law of nature. Well spotted.
So what?
No, it bores the crap out of us. Most people are not lawyers. Arguing the minutiae of the legal code is not something that interests 99% of humanity. What these sorts of discussions are about is not the law, but the moral dimension of the matter. The law enters into the discussion only insofar as it represents the relative success or failure of a particular viewpoint to win mainstream acceptance. The matter of interest here isn’t, “Is this legal?” The matter of interest is, “Is this right?”
I do? Is this another of those situations where someone with whom I share some vague political leanings once acted in one way, and I act in a contrary way, and somehow that makes us both hypocrites? Because I’ve explained to you more than once why that’s a bullshit argumentative technique that should be beneath you. I’m willing to go over it again, though, if you want.
I have seen much stupider things than this posted on this board. I have not, however, ever seen something this stupid posted by someone as smart as you are.
Well, he has a point, without a shared moral framework, it is mostly impossible to argue. The only reason he does it is to provide an inspiring and edifying example for the rest of us. Yet, he knows it is futile. The Man of Butt Muncha.
Man, that’s fucking existential! Which in my frame of reference means “Man, that is total horseshit! Worse, its empty horseshit!”
No, it is impossible to argue whether or not you should argue something unless someone agrees with your framework of argument. If Bricker tries, his hands will fall off.
I formally apologize for all those times I thought ill of you and now proclaim you my hero of the day.
Look, I’m cool with anything here as long as we can all agree there are seven Police Academy movies.
Can we alter the wording so we all lament that there are seven Police Academy movies?
Look, whether or not there were any Police Academy movies is besides the point.
What’s important is that a dangerous single-joint-seller has been duly fucked over, he has the same name as a badguy anyways, and hey it’s the law so that’s the end of the discussion. It’s not as if we have any possible, nay, conceivable way to discuss whether or not it makes any sense to throw the book at a teen boy who gave a girl a joint when she asked for it, and then refused payment from her. We must simply accept that it’s The Law and go on with our days while he’s fed to the tender mercies of the system. The system which, we must recall, is beyond reproach, objective and above all savory.
I was making a moral argument, not a legal one. I as saying that the reason the OP was upset about this is not because the guy wasn’t hurting anyone, but because he felt the police were doing something wrong. The allegation was entrapment, and that’s clearly what was upsetting.
Whether it would legally be entrapment, and whether the case is actually as described was not my concern when making that statement. In fact, I just got linked to this comment and haven’t read the rest of the thread, so I don’t know if the guy’s claim held up.
I expect that, by your question, there is evidence that the kid had past run-ins with the law, and possibly even actual drug convictions. And, yes, that would color my opinion of the case, assuming I also had a reasonable explanation by the cop for what actually happened.
I’m not married to the idea that this was actual entrapment, but merely trying to get across why the stories, if true, were disturbing. The last thing I want are law enforcement officers who actually cause crime to be committed.
The entire year at three schools in response to complaints about pot being sold?
No, I’d expect the arrests of, ya know, the actual dealers that were supplying those High-schoolers.
Not just the kids that were, probably, just picking up an extra eighth for a friend. But thank the gods that for all that work, and money, we’ve managed to put 31 students in jail, that’s some might impressive police work that is!
I’m sure the Pablo Escobar of southern Florida marijuana is shaking in his boots over just how close he came to being busted! :rolleyes:
Too bad I don’t get to set priorities for police, huh?
CMC fnord!
It’s The Law.
It’s impossible to argue whether or not it was a good idea to be devoting enough manpower to investigate three separate schools for a year in order to catch folks who’d give a girl a free joint.
It’s The Law, Bricker wins, obviously.
That doesn’t work.
You’ve stated a general principal and applied it to this particular situation.
I’m saying your general principal is bad.
You can’t defeat that by arguing the particulars of this situation.
And damned if I didn’t use the wrong word.
‘Principle,’ dammit. 
Given that the Innocence Project has exonerated nearly 300 people after they’d been convicted of murder, I think it’s quite possible for much lower-stakes cases to be decided incorrectly.
This relatively small group of people, taken together, served 38 centuries for crimes they didn’t commit.
Our justice system gets it right more often than not, but it still fucks up A LOT. It fucks up big, and it fucks up small. No, there’s no reason why I or anyone else should assume that a trial will automatically set them free if they have not committed a crime. Nor should someone assume, just because they were tricked by law enforcement agents into committing a crime that they wouldn’t have otherwise committed (whether or not that’s what happened here), that a jury will see it that way and exonerate them.
If you believe the system will almost automatically exonerate you, then show up in court without an attorney, or maybe with a recent law school grad who knows enough to get you through the procedural stuff. Would you recommend that to someone charged with a crime, that you believed to be innocent? Neither would I. You’d recommend getting the best lawyer possible. Why? Because the difference in outcomes resulting from hiring the best lawyer possible, versus a barely competent lawyer, could be rather substantial.
No matter how great the evidence of my innocence, and no matter how good a lawyer I could afford, if a prosecutor liked his case enough to take it to trial, I’d worry like hell; I’d barely sleep most nights.
The threat of depriving someone of their liberty is no trivial thing, and we shouldn’t wave that threat around without a damned good reason.
Going fishing to test people for their susceptibility to commit minor, victimless crimes, and bringing them to trial with a prison sentence as a potential outcome if they should fail the test, is simply wrong.