Gee, Gary; I’d’ve thought you would’ve been the very first one to notice what it has to do with this debate: it’s an event, one which the police look at, in their investigation, as a crime. You know, kind of like drugging people’s food.
Now, at the moment, absolutely nobody knows who’s responsible. I guess we have to ask the cops to not investigate because, until Gary says it’s a crime (which we’ll only know once the perpetrators are proven to be over the age of 18), it’s not a big deal.
That’s really stretching Monty. I don’t recall anyone ever saying that:
A) Giving people pot brownies isn’t a crime
B) It’s only a crime if the perpetrator is over 18
Not everyone who commits a serious crime gets locked up, even drunk drivers. Deal with it. And they are adults in many cases! If we threw every kid under 18 yr old in jail that committed a crime yet didn’t physically hurt anyone, there would be no more room for the people who do. Choices have to be made. That is reality. Unlike your comparison to that news article. With all due respect, that was bizarre.
I knew it. You really did think I was lying, and made up what I said about the conversation that I had with the police officer. " Akin to poisoning" ??? " A difference in outlook" ?
No, I am sorry. It’s not an outlook, it is- in that state- the law of the land. I was told DIRECTLY by this officer that they had the option of charging this person with " Providing, Poisoning, or Assault". HIS WORDS.
I just deleted the rest of the angry vindictive post I’d written over the last 15 minutes. It’s just not worth it. However, I will thank you so kindly to not tell the other 14,999 Members when we are or are not finished with a particular converation here.
Impersonating a Moderator is a jim-dandy way to get a one way ticket to Loserville.
Then again… keep right on like you’re doin’ !!! 
To answer a question asked a bit up there, what that link has to do with this thread is…everything!!! According to that article, which I just read, they have lost materials used in lifesaving.
A boat was slashed, so that might make you think it wasn’t a pure theft for sale later to a pawn shop. The vandalism makes you think of…vandals?
It does NOT make me think of 14 year olds ( not to side one bit with Gary or anything, but face it- it is not known how old the criminals are).
It makes me think of selfish sick bastards who would rather deprive some swimmer of their life and get their fucking jollies off, than leave well enough alone. That’s what it has to do with this thread. The person who did this took control where they had no right to, and in doing so may have influenced the safety of strangers. It is the mindset that I find appalling, and that mindset is age-irrelevant.
Now, you gonne tell me- a professional E.M.T.- that stealing “Emergency Medical” equipment and damaging lifesaving inflated boats is just a harmless prank, a whimsy moment with zero ramifications??? Sorry man, but that thread is painfully perfect for this conversation. It has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand, IMHO of course.
Teenage pranks that put people’s lives in jeopardy might have been your area of expertise when you were that age, but EMT work is mine. You will never convince anyone that this was a harmless prank with no ramifications.
Two middle school girls from Aurora, Illinois - 12 years old and 13 years old - were charged yesterday with putting hydrochloric acid in their teacher’s coffee! Charged as juveniles with felony aggravated battery, according to today’s (10/11/01) Chicago Sun Times
If this kid gets time for making marijuana brownies, these girls should get double that for hydrochloric acid.
I agree completely but I doubt everyone will see it that way.
Oh really? So, according to your logic, the discussion of any event the police investigate is the discussion of all? To appeal for leniency in one case is to appeal for leniency across the board? Or, if that isn’t your logic, please explain why you are comparing these two events - I really am curious
Yawn. Please give logical reasoning, with reference to anything I’ve said in this thread, for how you come to that statement. Especially with reference to anything I’ve said about not investigationg crimes.
Come on, either argue your position, or stop fabricating straw men and claiming them to be my argument. Back up your claims, or retract them.
Oh Cartooniverse…
Lie Number 1
Compare and contrast
with
Only you could choose to interprete me asking a question, as someone telling 14,999 members what to do. It honestly seemed about as reasonable a question as possible, but you’d like to claim it as some strange assault on you and the board. You know what, you really are a whiny little toad, aren’t you.
Lie Number 2.
Nope, I didn’t think you were lying. I believed everything you wrote. Tell me, do you always claim to have the inside track on your opponents beliefs and opinions?
Impressively shit bit of reasoning, Number 1
[really small word mode]
Dear Cartooniverse. You believe this person is guilty of poisoning. I do not. That is a “difference in outlook” - you see it one way, I see it another.
You also need to understand the difference in someone not being charged with something, someone being charged with something, and someone being found guilty of something. A person is guilty of a crime when a court finds them guilty. At that point, the “law of the land” you refer to has decided the issue. When they have been charged with an offence, it has not been decided. When someone has not been charged with an offence, as is the case here, it is definitely NOT the “law of the land” that they are guilty of that offence.
Let us look at your original statement
Here’s a question. The facts of the event seem not to be in question - they know who did it, they know what he did, and they know who he did it to. So, why aren’t they convinced that assault would stick? Which part do you think is in doubt here? Please answer this - why would it not stick.
[/really small word mode]
Lie Number 3
Ahh, hello strawman. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again. Cartooniverse, you’re a cunt Yet again in a desperate attempt to sling mud at me, you attribute opinions to me that have no bearing or resemblance to anything I’ve said. Just where did I say “that stealing “Emergency Medical” equipment and damaging lifesaving inflated boats is just a harmless prank, a whimsy moment with zero ramifications”, or give any reason for anyone, even a mouthbreather like you, to think I feel that way? Come on, you lying little toerag, how do you attribute that to me. You can’t, of course, because this is yet another example of you just making things up. I repeat my original offer - prove it or fuck off. Normally I’d ask someone to prove it or retract, but let’s be honest, retracting a lie takes just a bit more class than you’ll ever have. Oh, and as in your HO it has everything to do with this topic, perhaps you can explain how you see a resemblance? In case one, someone puts hash in cookies. In case two, someone steals emergency medical euqipment and slashes lifeboats. I’m just fucking dying to hear your insight on this one.
You’re right. And the moment a Moderator tell’s me I’ve done that, or something else that’s wrong, I’ll apologise. Till then I fear you’re alone on the train. By the way, are you ever likely to answer the following?