To be fair, with an Afro like that he’s just asking for a marijuana bust.
Only if he’s wearing bell-bottoms and a “Free Huey” button.
For reference:
Keeping in mind this is something called whosarrested.com, (which I swear I am not making up), we have…
http://www.whosarrested.com/florida/orange-county/orlando/ocj/1074593-justin-michael-laboy
Justin Michael LaBoy, arrested Jan.9, 2012, domestic violence
and
http://www.whosarrested.com/florida/palm-beach-county/west-palm-beach/pbcso/1107856-justin-laboy
Justin LaBoy, arrested Palm Beach Dec 1 2011, probation violation, age 19 Released on no bond
Is that him? Could be, I guess, he was 18 when this shit all happened, he’s 19 now, and on probation. Seems pretty clearly not the same person as the Orlando Strangler.
Just my luck, gave up gloating for Lent.
OK, in looking at the pictures, which my iPhone browser did not load, I acknowledge that there seem to be two men named Justin Laboy, and the one who is the subject of this discussion has arrests only for marijuana distribution and later for probation violation. I was wrong in saying that he (Justin Laboy of the story on TAL) had committed other offenses.
Any arguments I made about Mr Laboy’s other arrests are withdrawn.
However, I do not withdraw my basic support for the arrest of Mr Laboy, and his own guilty plea to the charge acknowledges he was guilty of the underlying offense.
I still maintain there was nothing improper – much less outrageous – about the police conduct at issue here.
Well, I could use the RT Firefly approach, and point out how utterly unfair it is for you to use facts against me that I didn’t already have. I could whine about how we’re all supposed to be debating in good faith here, and for you to just haul out this additional information that I didn’t have and then use it against me is reprehensible!
But of course I won’t, because that would be idiotic.
Instead I will repeat what I said in my immediately prior post, and add that it was careless and foolish of me not to verify what I was seeing and instead rely on incomplete and poorly researched information. Because, see, that’s what someone does when they realize they don’t have all the facts at hand.
So, yeah, me pretty dumb.
I took note of it about halfway down post #157, but I didn’t focus on it since I’m trying to make a larger point about Bricker’s tendency to play ‘gotcha’ games.
Continuing with that theme, I noted in that post that “given that [Bricker] continued to be an active participant in the thread, [he] would have shared any facts you came across that shed a different light on things.”
The reason I assumed that was that that would have made his argument stronger. And that’s what you do - or what most of us do, anyway - when we debate: we bring in the stuff we know about that strengthens our positions.
Deliberately presenting a somewhat weaker argument, while holding ‘gotcha’ facts in reserve, has more in common with pool-hall hustling than with any sort of honest debate I’m familiar with. Either kind of hustler lures people in by appearing to be a weaker player/having a weaker argument than he does; then he ups his game once you’re betting real money/brings out his ‘gotcha’ facts once you’ve invested yourself in an argument based on the facts presented up to that point.
In Bricker’s case, the motivation seems to be some sort of ego boost, the opportunity to say, “see, I was right and you were wrong,” based not on the quality of his arguments, but simply on having held a few relevant facts in reserve.
Guess we all have to get our jollies somehow.
Maybe you can’t read. Here, let me help you:
Well yeah, we ARE supposed to be debating in good faith here. Why in the world should I debate you if you’re NOT debating in good faith?
Seems we have a fundamental disagreement about this.
Gotta admit, though, that the last thing I was expecting out of you was to see you go all-in in defense of debating in bad faith. Kinda funny from someone who passes himself off as a paragon of rectitude, but I guess that means different things to different people too.
There was also about 50 words of text on the page, of which about 20 lists the arrestee’s current age. Which was different for the two men.
Rectitude, noun, from the Latin rectum…
Must admit, that thought figured into my word choice…
Anybody see anything in the various reports about how much resource was spent on this? Apparently, not just one but several undercover cops, over a period of nine months. How much did they spend to nab thirty-one potheads? And I say “potheads” because, so far as I know, no other drugs were involved. I rather suspect that if they had nabbed a heroin dealer, they would have made that known. Loudly.
I want to know who thought this was such a great idea, who proposed it, who signed off on the budget? And what was that budget? And “Operation D-minus”? Well, OK, that was droll…
I see several references to "honor student’. I think we have established to a reasonable degree that this young man had a clean record. Are the good citizens of Lake Worth, Florida, safer in their homes now? To what degree? What has been accomplished, here?
Perhaps the governor could pardon? You remember the governor, don’t you, late of the Columbia/HCA Medicare fraud scandals? No, I suppose not, can’t expect such a sterling example of virtue to intervene in such a sordid affair…
The summary page was not what I used; I only Googled that in response to someone asking where I got the information. I had individually linked to each arrest’s page, and so my opportunity to compare ages was not as easy. Granted, I should have exercised more care.
Since the operation was initiated in response to complaints about pot being sold at the school, I imagine the expected haul was “potheads.”
I have no idea how big the school is, but 31 students at a school able to procure marijuana on request sounds like a lot to me. Obviously you disagree.
Too bad you don’t get to set priorities for police, huh?
Nasty as hell about it, too, big guy. After all, I have some dignity! Not as much as you, of course, but I don’t need as much. Always found it pretty expensive.
You made a mistake? Well, yes, mistakes were made. And the “Ha ha!, fuck you, 'luc!” dance? Just boyish enthusiasm, nothin’ personal, can’t hold it against a cute little scamp like you…
Not one school, several. At least I get my facts right. Batting a thousand, Counselor.
Probably missed this part as well.
That is just silly. We are a Republic, not a democracy. We elect legislators to make decisions that we may or may not agree with. Even if we don’t, we often re-elect them because of other decisions they make. Laws currently on the books are a poor measure of the actual sentiment of the people. If they weren’t, there would be more than eight states with marriage equality.
Proposition 8 in California.
In other words, you can even get people to directly vote for something but if it is fundamentally wrong, law itself becomes wrong.
No. Laws are presumed to be the will of the people, expressed through their elected representatives. “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”
See also the Universal Declaration of human Rights:
See also the Virginia Bill of Rights, Section 6:
(emphasis added)
That creates the presumption. It’s for anyone challenging that presumption to show that a particular action does not enjoy such sanction and support.
And who gets to decide the question of fundamental wrongness? You?
What if you’re busy that day?
Well, better not waste your time. I say it’s fundamentally wrong that residents of Washington DC cannot legally defend themselves by owning a handgun without paying hundreds of dollars in permits and training fees.
Am I right?
Also, it’s fundamentally wrong that actress Helen Hunt does not come to my house tonight to give me a nice oil massage, and it’s fundamentally wrong that my wife would actively prevent Ms. Hunt from so doing even if Helen were so inclined.
I have to say, I’m very excited about the prospects of shaping the legal system by the simple principle of declaring things fundamentally wrong. Next up - the fundamental wrongness of the designated hitter rule. I know you’ll all want to stay tuned.