Jay wrote:
You buggin'. Rich people are just as likely, if not more so, to have done drugs in their lives.Hurricane2k9 wrote:
Aren't most people in Sweden of a higher socioeconomic status? I know that in the US, generally speaking, there are smaller percentages of people in higher economic classes that smoke tobacco.Shocking wrote:
I meant as in timeline, f.ex. portugal decriminalized a few drugs in 2001, finding a graph of use from 1980-now of Portugal and several other countries where it's still illegal for comparison would be useful.
On the other hand what I'm finding is wildly differing statistics by country. Cannabis use in France is much higher than in the Netherlands, while it's illegal in France. On the other hand, it's illegal in Sweden and use is much lower than any other European country.
i would yes, legalize drugs, prostitution, polygamy, everything that regulates a PERSONAL lifestyle as long as it does not intrude on another's right to life liberty and happiness. Just regulate the drugs like alcohol and tax the fuckin' shit out of it.Shocking wrote:
So you guys would argue for legalizing stuff like heroin?
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-18 14:42:05)
We should legalize just about everything. Just have reasonable regulations and distribution controls. Look how well marijuana is doing so well here in Cali.
Uzi, you owe me an answer here please.lowing wrote:
I am curious as to how you can logically apply the rationale to punish all people for the crimes of "A FEW" in no other circumstances accept gun ownership.Uzique wrote:
see to me from my liberal left-leaning and rather passive european perspective... i'd notch this up as another argument under the branch of 'legalising guns is fucking stupid'. it just escalates the stakes for petty, small-time busts like this. how often do you think the english police go into a suspected drug-property w/ a warrant armed to the teeth and trigger happy? hint: barely ever. in america, though, where everyone (especially criminals) are likely to have a gun and be prepared to use it, furthermore... it means even a small bust for a minor (i.e. non capital) crime can easily turn into a siege shootout or something nasty. i just don't see the need. protecting your home and property? yeah, sure. get a burglar alarm instead of an AR-15.
You argue vehemently, that not all Muslims are responsible for Islamic terrorism, which I agree, but you insist all Americans are responsible for the act of "a few" criminals ( comparatively speaking) in America and therefore should all be punished. Make no mistake, trying to regulate guns out of responsible citizens hands is punishment for "a few". So why the inconsistency?
/wincesOn August 4, 1989 police in Newark, New Jersey conduct an early morning no-knock raid as part of a larger operation targeting four homes in the area. After breaking through a metal door with a battering ram, six officers attempt to squeeze through a 30-inch opening to access one of the targeted apartments.
That's when the 12-gauge shotgun of Sgt. Willie Thomas discharges, hitting Officer Keith Neumann, 24, in the lower back, to the right of his bulletproof vest. Neumann dies an hour later. A search of the home originally targeted by the raid turns up cocaine valued at about $1,200.
Source: Joseph F. Sullivan, "Police Gun's Blast Kills Officer on a Drug Raid," New York Times, August 4, 1989, p. B2.
The really fucked up thing about this story is that under the law the person who owned the coke would be charged with the "murder" of the police officer since the officers death was a result of their felonious action.
Should you be charged with murder if your arson resulted in the death of a fire fighter?Macbeth wrote:
/wincesOn August 4, 1989 police in Newark, New Jersey conduct an early morning no-knock raid as part of a larger operation targeting four homes in the area. After breaking through a metal door with a battering ram, six officers attempt to squeeze through a 30-inch opening to access one of the targeted apartments.
That's when the 12-gauge shotgun of Sgt. Willie Thomas discharges, hitting Officer Keith Neumann, 24, in the lower back, to the right of his bulletproof vest. Neumann dies an hour later. A search of the home originally targeted by the raid turns up cocaine valued at about $1,200.
Source: Joseph F. Sullivan, "Police Gun's Blast Kills Officer on a Drug Raid," New York Times, August 4, 1989, p. B2.
The really fucked up thing about this story is that under the law the person who owned the coke would be charged with the "murder" of the police officer since the officers death was a result of their felonious action.
Manslaughter.lowing wrote:
Should you be charged with murder if your arson resulted in the death of a fire fighter?
There is absolutely no equivalency between setting a fire and selling coke.lowing wrote:
Should you be charged with murder if your arson resulted in the death of a fire fighter?Macbeth wrote:
Jay wrote:
Damn your liberal scumbag link, damn it..
Oh wait.../wincesOn August 4, 1989 police in Newark, New Jersey conduct an early morning no-knock raid as part of a larger operation targeting four homes in the area. After breaking through a metal door with a battering ram, six officers attempt to squeeze through a 30-inch opening to access one of the targeted apartments.
That's when the 12-gauge shotgun of Sgt. Willie Thomas discharges, hitting Officer Keith Neumann, 24, in the lower back, to the right of his bulletproof vest. Neumann dies an hour later. A search of the home originally targeted by the raid turns up cocaine valued at about $1,200.
Source: Joseph F. Sullivan, "Police Gun's Blast Kills Officer on a Drug Raid," New York Times, August 4, 1989, p. B2.
The really fucked up thing about this story is that under the law the person who owned the coke would be charged with the "murder" of the police officer since the officers death was a result of their felonious action.
both felonies, both criminal, both crimes serious enough to land you in jail for a very long time.......I'm sorry, how can it NOT be compared?Macbeth wrote:
There is absolutely no equivalency between setting a fire and selling coke.lowing wrote:
Should you be charged with murder if your arson resulted in the death of a fire fighter?Macbeth wrote:
/wincesJay wrote:
Damn your liberal scumbag link, damn it..
Oh wait...
The really fucked up thing about this story is that under the law the person who owned the coke would be charged with the "murder" of the police officer since the officers death was a result of their felonious action.
The difference is in the immediacy of response and the requirement of response. Firefighters (generally) MUST respond to a fire in order to prevent the spread of the fire and further loss of property and life. Such is not the case in the serving of a warrant. When a firefighter responds, they do not know if the fire was set intentionally or not--only that there is a fire. A cop knows going in when serving a warrant that there may be problems.
Apples and oranges, lowing. Very clearly and obviously.
Apples and oranges, lowing. Very clearly and obviously.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I am speaking in the context of the responses. Someone is showing up to your house to deal with something YOU have done. Neither one is considered a capital crime UNTIL someone is killed. The urgency of the response has nothing to do with the context of the question..Now, answer the question please.FEOS wrote:
The difference is in the immediacy of response and the requirement of response. Firefighters (generally) MUST respond to a fire in order to prevent the spread of the fire and further loss of property and life. Such is not the case in the serving of a warrant. When a firefighter responds, they do not know if the fire was set intentionally or not--only that there is a fire. A cop knows going in when serving a warrant that there may be problems.
Apples and oranges, lowing. Very clearly and obviously.
Should you be charged with murder if by responding to your action results in the death of another?
Should you be charged with murder if the fire crew crash on the motorway and one of them dies? What if somebody in the car they hit dies? Do you get charged with murder because your pan fire got out of control?lowing wrote:
I am speaking in the context of the responses. Someone is showing up to your house to deal with something YOU have done. Neither one is considered a capital crime UNTIL someone is killed. The urgency of the response has nothing to do with the context of the question..Now, answer the question please.FEOS wrote:
The difference is in the immediacy of response and the requirement of response. Firefighters (generally) MUST respond to a fire in order to prevent the spread of the fire and further loss of property and life. Such is not the case in the serving of a warrant. When a firefighter responds, they do not know if the fire was set intentionally or not--only that there is a fire. A cop knows going in when serving a warrant that there may be problems.
Apples and oranges, lowing. Very clearly and obviously.
Should you be charged with murder if by responding to your action results in the death of another?
The policeman did not die as a direct result of the drug dealer, he died because of his colleagues ineptitude.
good question I dunno, a frying pan fire is somewhat different from setting your house on fire for insurance money however. I would bet though, if it were arson they were responding to, your scenario would result in a murder charge.Cheeky_Ninja06 wrote:
Should you be charged with murder if the fire crew crash on the motorway and one of them dies? What if somebody in the car they hit dies? Do you get charged with murder because your pan fire got out of control?lowing wrote:
I am speaking in the context of the responses. Someone is showing up to your house to deal with something YOU have done. Neither one is considered a capital crime UNTIL someone is killed. The urgency of the response has nothing to do with the context of the question..Now, answer the question please.FEOS wrote:
The difference is in the immediacy of response and the requirement of response. Firefighters (generally) MUST respond to a fire in order to prevent the spread of the fire and further loss of property and life. Such is not the case in the serving of a warrant. When a firefighter responds, they do not know if the fire was set intentionally or not--only that there is a fire. A cop knows going in when serving a warrant that there may be problems.
Apples and oranges, lowing. Very clearly and obviously.
Should you be charged with murder if by responding to your action results in the death of another?
The policeman did not die as a direct result of the drug dealer, he died because of his colleagues ineptitude.
Or somebody else has done if they get the wrong house, which they do.lowing wrote:
I am speaking in the context of the responses. Someone is showing up to your house to deal with something YOU have done.
Fuck Israel
Is that a scenario that you spend your days worrying about? Of course you can "what if" this to death, but my comments are based on the assumption they got the right house.Dilbert_X wrote:
Or somebody else has done if they get the wrong house, which they do.lowing wrote:
I am speaking in the context of the responses. Someone is showing up to your house to deal with something YOU have done.
Police often get the wrong house, or the right house but the wrong intel, or the right house after the perp has moved and someone else has moved in, or the right house but the perp is away and someone else is house sitting, or the right house but the intel was provided by a mentally unbalanced neighbour with a grudge, or by an informant who wanted to get paid, the Police off his back or...
You get the idea.
In my experience the Police are incompetent, corrupt, dishonest and far too ready to use violence - I don't want them carrying guns and kicking down anyones door unless it really is the only life-or-death option.
You get the idea.
In my experience the Police are incompetent, corrupt, dishonest and far too ready to use violence - I don't want them carrying guns and kicking down anyones door unless it really is the only life-or-death option.
Fuck Israel
you might be right. THing is though, their dishonesty, violence, etc is directed toward criminals. Skimming money from their deals or extortion. They do not bother me or my family, they take out the trash, and every so often, fuck the trash over... Something I can live with. The cops are not a big part of my life. THey are a big part of a criminals life. I do not care.Dilbert_X wrote:
Police often get the wrong house, or the right house but the wrong intel, or the right house after the perp has moved and someone else has moved in, or the right house but the perp is away and someone else is house sitting, or the right house but the intel was provided by a mentally unbalanced neighbour with a grudge, or by an informant who wanted to get paid, the Police off his back or...
You get the idea.
In my experience the Police are incompetent, corrupt, dishonest and far too ready to use violence - I don't want them carrying guns and kicking down anyones door unless it really is the only life-or-death option.
Often their dishonesty is directed at the law-abiding - you just haven't experienced it.
(Will be stealing one line for my sig)
(Will be stealing one line for my sig)
Fuck Israel
Often? well, as a law abiding citizen I can tell you my interaction with the police is relegated to the rare traffic stop or to renew my ccl.Dilbert_X wrote:
Often their dishonesty is directed at the law-abiding - you just haven't experienced it.
(Will be stealing one line for my sig)
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-20 05:56:02)
But the nature of the crime and the requirement of the response (non-voluntary [fire] vs voluntary [warrant]) is critical to the argument, lowing. You can't just wish those characteristics away. Even once the crime's been committed and the response has occurred, those characteristics still exist, framing the whole discussion.lowing wrote:
I am speaking in the context of the responses. Someone is showing up to your house to deal with something YOU have done. Neither one is considered a capital crime UNTIL someone is killed. The urgency of the response has nothing to do with the context of the question..Now, answer the question please.FEOS wrote:
The difference is in the immediacy of response and the requirement of response. Firefighters (generally) MUST respond to a fire in order to prevent the spread of the fire and further loss of property and life. Such is not the case in the serving of a warrant. When a firefighter responds, they do not know if the fire was set intentionally or not--only that there is a fire. A cop knows going in when serving a warrant that there may be problems.
Apples and oranges, lowing. Very clearly and obviously.
Should you be charged with murder if by responding to your action results in the death of another?
As to the "someone dies in an accident on the way to put out the fire" scenario: I would say no more than manslaughter charges. If someone dies on-scene: probably second or third degree murder, maybe down to manslaughter. Here in TX, if you drink and drive and someone dies as a result of the accident, you get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Sort of the same thing, I would think. You didn't mean for someone to die, but they did because of a conscious decision on your part (proximate cause).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
you have to remember that intent and malice aforethought is a major part of homicide in determining between murder and manslaughter. how can someone intend or have malice aforethought towards an emergency services accident? there is no blame. a chain of causation is perhaps, if you contrive it hard enough, established between the emergency services despatch and their accident (which is of course predicated on the original crime/incident)-- but that still is not really foreseeable. foreseeability and reasonability are two core concepts of argument in law.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I think you misunderstood me there. Would you charge the person who caused the fire with manslaughter when the fire truck crashed on the way to the fire?FEOS wrote:
As to the "someone dies in an accident on the way to put out the fire" scenario: I would say no more than manslaughter charges. If someone dies on-scene: probably second or third degree murder, maybe down to manslaughter. Here in TX, if you drink and drive and someone dies as a result of the accident, you get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Sort of the same thing, I would think. You didn't mean for someone to die, but they did because of a conscious decision on your part (proximate cause).
The point I was trying to make was that one should not be held accountable for the mistakes made by others. e.g. the fire truck causing an RTA or the police shooting each other. Yes if you created a fire and fire fighters died trying to put it out then you are responsible for their deaths but if something essentially unrelated happens that is arguably down to bad judgement or a lack of training then I don't see that you should be held responsible.
I am not a legal expert but I think if you comment arson, anyone who dies because of it is a charge of murder against you. If I am not mistaken, wasn't there a case where a police helicopter crashed while chasing a car, and the driver was charges with murder or man slaughter?Uzique wrote:
you have to remember that intent and malice aforethought is a major part of homicide in determining between murder and manslaughter. how can someone intend or have malice aforethought towards an emergency services accident? there is no blame. a chain of causation is perhaps, if you contrive it hard enough, established between the emergency services despatch and their accident (which is of course predicated on the original crime/incident)-- but that still is not really foreseeable. foreseeability and reasonability are two core concepts of argument in law.
FEOS, bottom line is this, if by your illegal action or someone responding to your illegal action, someone dies, regardless as to intent, it is your ass that is responsible for it.FEOS wrote:
But the nature of the crime and the requirement of the response (non-voluntary [fire] vs voluntary [warrant]) is critical to the argument, lowing. You can't just wish those characteristics away. Even once the crime's been committed and the response has occurred, those characteristics still exist, framing the whole discussion.lowing wrote:
I am speaking in the context of the responses. Someone is showing up to your house to deal with something YOU have done. Neither one is considered a capital crime UNTIL someone is killed. The urgency of the response has nothing to do with the context of the question..Now, answer the question please.FEOS wrote:
The difference is in the immediacy of response and the requirement of response. Firefighters (generally) MUST respond to a fire in order to prevent the spread of the fire and further loss of property and life. Such is not the case in the serving of a warrant. When a firefighter responds, they do not know if the fire was set intentionally or not--only that there is a fire. A cop knows going in when serving a warrant that there may be problems.
Apples and oranges, lowing. Very clearly and obviously.
Should you be charged with murder if by responding to your action results in the death of another?
As to the "someone dies in an accident on the way to put out the fire" scenario: I would say no more than manslaughter charges. If someone dies on-scene: probably second or third degree murder, maybe down to manslaughter. Here in TX, if you drink and drive and someone dies as a result of the accident, you get charged with vehicular manslaughter. Sort of the same thing, I would think. You didn't mean for someone to die, but they did because of a conscious decision on your part (proximate cause).
that's because arson is an intentional fire - it has intent and malice aforethought. those are the actual concepts being used in the law on homicide (in the english legal system, anyway, which the american one is a derivative of). if you accidentally caused a fire in your home and a death was then caused, it would be manslaughter at its most severe (depending on factors such as the foreseeability of the fire breaking out in the first place; or, in the case of civil law procedures, the responsibility, culpability and any possible negligence involved). the actus reus itself (i.e. the act of the fire breaking out, either by a purposeful action or by an omission to act) is secondary to the mens rea (i.e. the mental factors) of the offence.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/