Cite?
Justin Laboy caused Justin Laboy to sin.
Argument by inference. The law permits this activity. Laws are passed by legislators, elected by the people. Laws are thus preemptively the will of the people, and the burden falls on you to rebut that presumption.
And driving while his license was suspended.
And resisting arrest.
And grand theft of a motor vehicle.
And probation violation.
You forgot library fines. But we are reassured that a budding Lex Luthor/Prof. Moriarty has been brought to heel.
I heard that This American Life show when it was first broadcast, and I was sympathetic to the kid, until the point where he started saying that if it was a dude who asked him for pot, he would have Heismaned the guy, but “a female” was different. No longer had my sympathy. It wasn’t because he was being nagged. It was because he wanted to impress an attractive girl he liked and that it was somehow unfair. At that point, he lost my sympathy. (Along with everything else, the use of the phrase “a female” strikes me as revealing an attitude that women and girls aren’t fully human.)
Since no one can separate bullshit from serious assertions in your written oeuvre without the elucidator version of a Rosetta Stone, maybe you could clarify just how inconsequential you believe each charge is – obviously your inclusion of library fines suggests that you regard this list as not serious. I’m sure the owner of the stolen car appreciates your likening his missing car to late library books.
I don’t think The Conscience, though expressed in the singular, refers to the conscience of any particular individual any more than you presumably do, and it’s not clear why you would insinuate otherwise. It’s a theoretical aggregate conscience that emerges from the individual consciences within a given population. I am merely prompting a discussion about where the line lies, having already taken a position that one particular case of enticement to commit a crime seems unfair.
The fact that The Conscience is not outraged by some issue or other has a long and shameful history. The Conscience ought to have been outraged by slavery, domestic abuse, genocide, etc. But wasn’t. The Conscience changes all the time based on new awareness. The Conscience cannot be outraged about things it doesn’t know or hasn’t been asked to take a serious look at. The Conscience as we know it is the result of a history of awareness-raising efforts that have been going on for a long time.
That The Conscience is not outraged by something is not a good guide as to whether or not it’s wrong, and the new thinking always comes about by people attempting to move the needle by discussing their own, often personal and idiosyncratic, take on the issue. You also must have your own views, and I would wrong you to assert that you believed there was a point in history in which the state of The Conscience was at its best and no more discussion of views should be licensed.
Yes, that’s true.
But at the same time, it does not identify any reliable way to separate your idiosyncratic view of “the line” from the aggregate social view of “the line,” does it?
Or are you simply suggesting that of course you have the right to talk about your opinion? Yes, but that’s a relatively uncontested proposition, isn’t it?
You’re right, the lady cop had nothing to do with it. Nothing happened as a result of her presence that wouldn’t have happened in her absence, except that he got caught.
And if you believe that, then shit must smell like daisies in your universe.
I realize you’re having to respond to a bunch of different people at once, but I am curious to see what answers, if any, you have to my two questions.
First and foremost, you seem intent on justifying this effort by by inflating the result, this heinous scofflaw is brought to justice. Was he the target of the effort, was it brought to bear on him, in the first place? I certainly hope not. But thus far we haven’t been offered any more plausible purpose, other than an effort to halt the dread menace of the Weed With Roots in Hell.
C’mon, Counselor, you are transparent there, you were piling on. I mean, seriously, driving on a suspended license? You felt a compelling need to bring that into the mix? Probation violation may be a serious matter, or it may be little more than being late for a meeting. Which, I’m pretty sure you know.
As for substantive questions, I have offered such a post above. That has gone unanswered, as you would prefer to point out my personal failings. Naturally, I am grateful for such a candid assessment of my faults, and promise to give them all the attention they are due.
We could as well say that Nicole Brown Simpson shared some responsibility for her own death, inasmuch as she chose to get involved with OJ and then leave him.
But in fact, yes – I absolutely believe that this individual was a pot user, and the only thing that happened as a result of the cop’s involvement was his getting caught. His subsequent arrest for possession of drug paraphernalia certainly suggests this is so.
what state interest is served by running such cons on people?
Developing prosecution-worthy evidence against people who possess marijuana.
We, as a society, have an interest in prosecuting people who commit crimes, even minor ones such as drug possession. But as a rule, we wait until they actually commit crimes, then charge and try them. We don’t continually test the potential or propensity of each member of the citizenry to commit crimes, because the number of persons who can probably be pressured, suckered, or conned into doing something illegal under various unusual circumstances is undoubtedly far larger than the number who will actually commit those crimes, left to their own devices.
My second question for you is, if we’re going to test some citizens for such propensity, why not all of them? If so, why do we want to have a much larger proportion of our population in prison than at present? And if not, what’s the point of seeking out some citizens at random for this testing of what would otherwise merely be their latent propensities to potentially commit crimes, and busting just some handful of citizens for their susceptibility?*
Your premise is not correct. Some crimes, especially the so-called “victimless” crimes, do not lend themselves to reporting. Prostitution, for example, is almost always caught by an undercover officer pretending to be a john or a hooker, because it’s not feasible to “wait until they actually commit crimes, then charge and try them.”
So we pick areas that appear to suffer from the problem – say, a well-known “stroll” for prostitutes, or a high school with reported drug traffic – and place undercover officers there to offer opportunities to people to commit crimes, these opportunities being similar to what they would get even if the officers were not involved.
Your question says, “…at random.” But of course, that wasn’t the case here, was it?
Police were responding because there was a problem. And their target, who sympathetic reports describe as an honor student, is (apart from the marijuana arrest) an accused felon for grand larceny and possession of drug paraphernalia. Choosing him as a target is hardly random, is it?
So why did you twist the discussion around to “random?”
And the motor vehicle theft? Ha! Ha! Those zany wacky kids, huh?
Where did you find that list?
But I did in fact give an account for why I thought my position was correct, which included statements capable of being either true or false, the truth value of which I provided grounds for in other statements – in other words, an argument. Whether or not the argument is valid or sound has not even been dealt with. You have charged me twice with merely asserting an opinion – which charges, if you look again, you should find are contrary to observable facts.
Let me be more specific, and hopefully strip away the rhetoric that perhaps blinded you from considering anything other than lashing out at my attitude:
- Tommy Chong’s investigation and prosecution did not benefit society.
- The claims made by the prosecution about why Tommy Chong was investigated and prosecuted did not justify their actions.
- The manner in which the investigation was conducted was repugnant.
- The hand-slap that resulted belies the meaningfulness of the prosecution.
- The prosecution was motivated by career and publicity gains rather than any likely good to society.
- Therefore, we should be outraged at the investigation and prosecution of Tommy Chong and what it demonstrates about how law enforcement behaves.
Florida publicizes its arrests. See http://florida.arrests.org/search.php?fname=justin&lname=laboy&fpartial=True
And, hey, would you look at that! The “honor student” and poor innocent put-upon Justin Laboy was also arrested in Orange County, Florida, for ag assault with a deadly weapon and battery by strangulation (domestic violence). Sounds like that good, honest kid’s having another fun-filled but responsible month!
Oh, woe betide the police for focusing their attention on poor, misunderstood Justin.
I’m sure elucidator will be along any moment to explain those little love taps to Justin’s current paramour’s neck. Probably Justin was studying the works of Isadora Duncan and just got a bit excited explaining them to his girlfriend, as those honor students are wont to do.
Yeah, because she got married to O.J. to try to lure him into killing her.
Totally equivalent.
Gawd, you’re such a bullshitter.
Ah, playing gotcha again. From the Shodan thread:
You just lost an argument with yourself.
Last night, I was wondering if you were going to pull some shit like this, and figured the odds had to be better than even.
My attitude is, I’m debating something like this on the basis of the facts as presented. If you wait until you’re losing the argument, and then pull additional facts out of your pocket, well, screw you: I wasn’t debating those facts. If you didn’t feel like introducing them at the beginning, then start a new thread, and we can start a new debate from the beginning. Otherwise, take your facts and shove them up your overly prominent rectum.
What Bricker interest is served by running your silly cons? All you’re doing is making yourself look bad. Why should I trust you to debate honestly, when you pull shit like this all the time?
If you are too fucking stupid to do anything but take an obviously biased story at face value, then I have little hope for you to manage much beyond successfully wiping yourself after taking a shit.
I read the story and did my own research, as you were equally free to do. I referred to additional facts as they became pertinent in the discussion. I have no obligation to develop your research for you and spoon-feed it to you in an effort to ensure you won’t tie your argument to some completely lost cause – which, predictably, you have done and then focus blame on me instead of accepting the fact that you were unprepared.
I disagree with each and every claim above.
And therefore,
Obviously I reject your conclusion.