Notice: You have been identified as a bot, so no internal UID will be assigned to you. If you are a real person messing with your useragent, you should change it back to something normal.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. started this discussion 15 years ago#13,364
I got detained for possession of marijuana. I have an arraignment set for the 15th of November. Max is 180 days (but I dont know how much my felony will modify that) and I will take the jailtime over probation, because i know I'll fuck up the probation.
I spent 21 hours in the holding area at the county jail, my Miranda rights weren't read(but apparently that doesn't matter because i wasn't being investigated?) And I got out about an hour or so ago.
I guess ask me stuff. I'll answer if i feel like it.
I don't think I'm going to be a 'regular' here for a few days. I'm not in the greatest state of mind :(
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 50 minutes after the original post[^][v]#239,918
@previous (B)
I have no problem with coastal birds
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 12 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,923
Aw yeah, take jail time if you can do it, bro. And don't get a lawyer, that shit's expensive. They'll only put you in county lock-up, you won't go to big boy jail. You'll probably get a dormitory and have commissary. Nice. They got TV, 3 squares, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, you name it. Just don't get caught with it. If you can have someone put money into your commissary fund regularly it'll go a whole lot smoother. The trick is, be cool. Try and be sociable. Don't try to Lone Ranger it, make friends --but don't share your shit with no one, bitches share their shit and you ain't no bitch.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 11 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,929
@previous (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
I know this, I'm a federal felon with a bit of 'fed county' time under my belt. 6 months is longer than I've had combined, but I'll manage.
State probation is a waste of money I don't have, you have to pay for EVERYTHING.
Oh, and court appointed attorney all the way. Being a poorfag is easier sometimes.
As for commissary I'll probably be sol on that, besides what I can put on there. I'll just be buying thermals and soups. Of course I'm going to buy ingredients for putting into a 'spread' but that's not how I'm going to get people to like me.
I have a legitimate fear of being raped in jail again, so that's not going to happen without a goddamn fight. I'd rather be shanked and/or beat the fuck up, before giving up my bootyhole.
Anonymous E replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,930
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,931
@239,916 (E)
keep telling yourself that bud, my brain is past the developmental stage, and that's when marijuana causes long lasting damage.
The cop who brought me in tried to bullshit me with the story "do you know how many 10 year olds have overdosed on dope?!" I stifled a laugh, told him that this is marijuana, not what 'dope' is associated with today. I also told him it was hard to feel bad for something that couldn't happen. And then I shared the brain damage information with the officer :D
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 9 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,932
Just keep a shank stuck in there and let it happen. It'll never happen again, but be ready to run.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,933
@239,930 (E)
You're obviously not familliar with a fact I have mentioned before.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,934
@239,932 (floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc)
I'd rather not suitcase a shank lol
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,935
@239,933 ([^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3.)
You were raped? Gosh, I'm sorry. Nobody should have to deal with that.
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,938
@previous (G)
No one should, but it happened, and I deal with it. I hate most black people as a direct result of this incident :/
floorboard !hbZVTk6JYc replied with this 15 years ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#239,944
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,030
@240,026 ([^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3.)
Ah man that sucks. That's just bad luck that a cop happened to be nearby. Do you think you have a good chance of beating the charge in court?
(Edited 14 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,032
the story went that an eastern sultan had his wide men come up with a sentence that would always be true, no matter what
it was probably also the inspiration for my favourite poem "ozymandias" but i'm totally guessing that
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 2 seconds later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,033
@240,030 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
Probably not going to try. They have my weed and my pipe
Anonymous J joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 49 minutes later, 4 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,047
@239,891 (sluggy)
The cops are doing their job. I think weed should be legal, but as long as it is illegal, it's ethically irresponsible for cops to decide which laws they feel like enforcing. That's not their job.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 21 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,064
@previous (J)
Oh, fuck you too. It's no different than the concept of jury nullification. The only way it would be immoral is if they were enforcing laws for some people but not others. Partial, but equal, unenforcement of laws is different.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,074
@previous (I)
I see what you're saying, but I still don't think you can be mad at cops for enforcing the law. Don't you think a cop could get into trouble if he was caught letting marijuana users off the hook?
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,075
@previous (J)
The idea that one is just following orders is what sets the stage for things like genocide.
Anonymous I double-posted this 15 years ago, 40 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,076
@240,074 (J) > Don't you think a cop could get into trouble if he was caught letting marijuana users off the hook?
Not at all. They do have discretion.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,077
@240,075 (I)
If a cop were ordered to commit genocide and refuses the order, that's great, but that officer will have to accept that he's either about to quit or be fired, which is probably a good thing if he's working for an organization that orders him to commit genocide.
The same is true with marijuana. If a police officer has that much of a problem with marijuana laws, then he should quit or accept any discipline that he might receive for not enforcing the laws, but he still doesn't have a right to choose which laws to enforce.
Also, marijuana laws /= genocide.
Anonymous J double-posted this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,078
@240,076 (I)
They can use discretion for non-criminal offenses. They're not allowed to ignore crimes. If/when marijuana is decriminalized, then they can use the discretion you speak of. Until then, they have to do their jobs.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 9 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,082
@240,077 (J) > Also, marijuana laws /= genocide.
Didn't say it was. But there are many conceptual similarities. And the logic and excuses that enable it are exactly the same.
In practice, their discretion is much more than what you are saying. And there's about zero risk they'll encounter any problems by not reporting minor possession incidents.
(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,084
@previous (I)
I understand that you're trying to say it's a slippery slope. But you're also making it sound like an officer who arrest someone for marijuana is like an officer who commits genocide simply because he is ordered to. There's nothing morally wrong with enforcing marijuana laws, while there is something seriously morally wrong with genocide.
They really don't get as much discretion as you think they do. Like I said, they have discretion when it comes to non-criminal offenses. They can give warnings for things like speeding because they're non-criminal. They cannot ignore crimes. There might not be much risk to getting caught, but that still doesn't make it right.
And just because they have discretion, doesn't mean they have to use it. Saying every officer who chooses to not ignore laws you don't agree with isn't how it works. Like I said, they have a job to do.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,086
@previous (J)
There's a difference between what they are technically allowed to do on paper and what they can do in practice.
> But you're also making it sound like an officer who arrest someone for marijuana is like an officer who commits genocide simply because he is ordered to.
It's not the same as killing, but in both cases it can often destroy someone's life socially and professionally.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,089
@previous (I) > it can often destroy someone's life socially and professionally.
They should have thought of that before smoking weed. They knew it was illegal, they knew the consequences if they get caught, and they took the risk. They can't blame the officer for doing his job.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,091
@previous (J)
No one can fault the Nazis for doing their job. The knew being openly Jewish was illegal, but they chose to openly practise their religion anyways.
(Edited 31 seconds later.)
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,094
@previous (I)
Once again you're making it sound like enforcing marijuana laws are the same as genocide. Being Jewish is not the same as choosing to do drugs. If they disagree with the laws that's fine, and they have the right to protest them, and they have the right to civil disobedience, but they're not immune to the law, and officers have a job to do.
(Edited 38 seconds later.)
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,096
@previous (J)
It's just an example of how poor your reasoning is. "just have a job to do" has never been a sound argument.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,101
@previous (I)
My reasoning isn't poor. You're just knocking down straw men. Just doing a job is only a bad argument if the job is morally bankrupt. Enforcing drug laws is not morally bankrupt, even if you disagree with them.
Anonymous I replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,102
@previous (J) > Just doing a job is only a bad argument if the job is morally bankrupt.
I'm glad we can agree. So please tell me what value is there in enforcing laws in situations such as OP's, besides the value of "just getting the job done".
Namefag !ALxfxYDG9M joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,104
LOL NOOB, HOW DO YOU FUCKING GET CAUGHT WITH BUD HAHAHA
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 6 minutes later, 5 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,118
@240,102 (I)
There is nothing morally bankrupt about enforcing marijuana laws; therefore, the officers ethical obligation to enforce the laws outweighs your ethical objection to the laws until the laws are overturned.
In a situation where there is a serious moral problem with enforcing a law, like genocide, then civil disobedience is OK, but if you think it's OK for the law to be purely at an officers discretion, then officers can do whatever they want and suddenly the laws on the books don't matter and the balance of power disappears. The best way to keep the balance of power intact is with the example I gave here @240,077 (J). Either do the job, or quit the job. You don't get to take a middle ground where you get to choose what parts of the job you want to do but keep the job.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,122
@previous (J)
We agree that there is harm in enforcing this law, such as harm to OP. But who is benefiting from this enforcment? If something that only causes harm isn't morally bankrupt, I'm not sure what could be.
Anon I from a different browser.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,132
@previous (L)
Just because it causes harm doesn't mean it's morally bankrupt. You wouldn't let a murderer go free because putting a murderer in prison will ruin his life. Like I said here @240,118 (J) The balance of power falls apart if officers can choose what laws to enforce at 100% discretion. I believe officers do have a right to not enforce marijuana laws: they can choose to resign if they have that big of a problem with enforcing drug laws. What they can't do is ignore laws on the books and just enforce whatever they think the law should be. They're executive, not legislative- they enforce the laws and have no right to write them.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,134
@previous (J)
If it only causes harm and causes zero benefit, I'm not sure how that is anything but bankrupt.
So I'll put it more bluntly: What benefit is there in prohibition of a non-addictive substance?
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,138
@previous (L)
You're turning this into a debate about if/why marijuana should/should not be illegal. That's not what it's about. I already stated that I think it should be legal, but there is harm done to society as whole because of marijuana. I think it shouldn't be illegal because the harm done isn't worth the time effort and money that goes into enforcing the laws, just like alcohol prohibition. Alcohol causes lots of problems in society, but I still believe it should be legal.
This is about law enforcement. What you're suggesting is that because you object to marijuana laws, every single officer should stop enforcing them to effectively nullify the laws you disagree with. Officers do not have the right to nullify laws. They have an ethical obligation to do their jobs. You destroy the balance of power if you give officers the right to nullify laws by not enforcing them. If the law is so bad that they have a moral objection to enforcing it, then they don't have to. See @240,132 (J) and @240,118 (J) and @240,077 (J). You're not thinking critically about what I'm saying.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,140
@previous (J)
That's what you've turned the discussion into by saying: > Just doing a job is only a bad argument if the job is morally bankrupt.
Yet you've not suggested any benefit in the laws, so I can't understand how you'd consider this anything but moral bankrupcy.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
[^_^] !yyQ9.ZkX3. (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,144
@240,104 (Namefag !ALxfxYDG9M)
Because Texas really cracks down on marijuana. There's 10 year olds who Overdose on marijuana apparently :/
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,146
@240,140 (L)
No, I did not turn the discussion that way. I was simply pointing out your straw man. By your logic, an officer has no obligation to do anything he objects to, which leaves the law at the officer's full discretion and completely nullifies all legislative and judicial powers. It's a slippery slope in both directions. Say that an officer has to enforce the law no matter what, and the slippery slope leads to the idea that officers have to commit genocide if ordered to. Say that an officer doesn't have to do anything he objects to, and the slippery slope leads to the idea that officers don't have an obligation to do anything other than what they believe the law should be, giving them way too much power. If you read my posts critically, you would see that I already solved for this problem: an officer has no obligation to keep his job. If he's ordered to commit genocide, he should quit. If he has a problem with enforcing drug laws, he can quit. If he gets fired for civil disobedience (not enforcing the laws he disagrees with) then he must accept that that's part of civil disobedience. It may seem unfair that an officer should lose his job, but it prevents both of the above "slippery slope scenarios." If the officer doesn't have a big enough moral objection to it to lose his job over it, then he should do what his job requires of him. You don't get to have it both ways. You don't to choose which parts of the job you want and which you don't.
So, if you think every officer should quit their job in objection to the "moral bankruptcy" that is marijuana law enforcement, that's fine, but I still disagree with you.
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,147
@previous (J)
So I take it you are against jury nullification, one of the original cornerstones of American government? It's, okay, most don't know or give a shit about it either.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 7 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,150
@previous (L)
Jury nullification is a power given to judicial powers, not the executive powers. If a jury decides a marijuana user should go free because they don't agree with the law, that's fine. It's meant to balance the power between the judicial and legislative powers. If a single police officer is allowed to do it, rather than a panel of 12 citizens, you're taking that power away from the judicial side and giving it to the executive side where it does not belong.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,151
@previous (J)
Actually one person in a jury of 12 is sufficient. I see no reasonable objection to this occuring one step farther up stream. Any other officer is free to pursue the case, so it's not like anything extremely controversial or harmful would be 'nullified' by a single officer. And that's how it works in practice, it's just so few officers do this due to their own agressive personalities.
Anonymous J replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 6 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,152
@previous (L)
You're still ignoring everything I said here @240,146 (J)
Just because another officer might do his job instead, doesn't mean an officer has no obligation to do his job, and just because it's OK for a certain procedure to take place on the judicial side does not mean it's OK for it to take place on the executive side. You're really clutching straws at this point. I'm going to bed.
Anonymous L replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,157
@previous (J)
I'm not sure how many times I've said this now, but I guess I need to say it again: In practice, officers already have this discretion. The fact they don't use it in cases like this is a moral blunder on their part.
Your entire argument seems to stem from a stronger obligation to mindless procedures and bureaucratic function above all else.
sluggy replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^][v]#240,191
> The cops are doing their job. I think weed should be legal, but as long as it is illegal, it's ethically irresponsible for cops to decide which laws they feel like enforcing. That's not their job.
The nazis were just following orders. Everyone person has a right to do what is just. Cops who enforce immoral laws designed to keep people locked up, are evil scum fuckers (or very ignorant). Either way, they destroy lives. They are an army for the rich. We have rights to bear arms to protect ourselves from this kind of oppression for a reason.
I know, some cops are good guys, but most aren't. They protect each other. Its a club. Its part of the psychology of becoming a cop.
You have no moral obligation to follow corrupt, ridiculous laws. BY smoking, you are exercising your freedoms.
You are a puppet. Your mentality is that of a weak puppet. Have fun when the government sends their blue army into your home to rape your girlfriend and take your shit because they feel like it.