Attn Michael Bloomberg - Lighten Up!

[David Floyd]

It depends on the mental state of the person in question, and whether or not the cannibal subjected him to some sort of hypnosis.

If the guy was insane, or hypnotized, he can't agree to anything of the sort.

[Spiffor]

I think they agreed on the internet IIRC. In the hypothesis both were perfectly sane when agreeing to the contract, do you think the law should punish the cannibal ?

[ThePantaloonDog]

I was in bar in New York this weekend and just about everyone was lighting up. Has the law gone into effect or do people just not care?

[David Floyd]

I think they agreed on the internet IIRC. In the hypothesis both were perfectly sane when agreeing to the contract, do you think the law should punish the cannibal ?

Assuming both were perfectly sane (which I find difficult to believe), and neither was subjected to some form of hypnosis, or whatnot, then I don't see a good reason to prosecute anyone.

[cinch]

Yes, the law should be enforced, no matter what it is.

Imran, you're sure you don't want to soften that up a little?

If you're talking about all laws made by any government: The Nazis made it legal to kill Jews. Were the concentration camp soldiers in the right or the wrong?

If you're only talking about democratic govs: What about the Texas sodomy laws? Surely you're not advocating the arrest of a gay couple for simply engaging in intercourse...

[Berzerker]

"The law is the law" argument is just as vapid as "we were just following orders".

Does the city own Madison Square Garden or is it privately owned? If the city owns it, then the city gets to regulate the consenual and non-consensual behavior of people inside even if enforcing those regulations results in less business.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by ThePantaloonDog
I was in bar in New York this weekend and just about everyone was lighting up. Has the law gone into effect or do people just not care?

It doesn't go into effect until March 30.

Spiffor, DF and I argued over the German cannibal case a while back. My position was that, in a case like that, anyone who would put themselves in a position to be mutilated and eaten is very likely to be insane, or at least is incapable of rational thought and is thus not capable of giving consent. It is therefore, IMO, safe in all such extreme instances that the party was not legally consenting and then prosecute for the crime.

[Boris Godunov]

For the record, MSG is privately owned by Cablevision.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If a cop has a choice between arresting someone for smoking weed, or chasing someone who just robbed a convenience store, surely you'd tell him to chase down the robber and ignore the pot smoker, right?

Was there someone else robbing a convenience store IN Madison Square Garden at the time? No, don't think so.

So, another example - was it OK for the cops to enforce Jim Crow laws, or, to go back a few more years, to enforce slavery?

Yes. The police aren't supposed to decide which laws are good and bad, the legislature decides what the laws are and they should be followed.

Yes, if a larger crime happens, then the police should go after that crime (perhaps at the expense of a lesser crime) IF THERE IS THAT CHOICE! In this situation that was the biggest crime going on. The officers were stationed in MSG and the biggest crime they saw was the smoking.

Basically the cops decided that instead of being asses about it and wasting thousands of people's money (you know it costs money for a concert, right?) they'd just as well not incite a riot and let them finish the concert.

Well, duh. No one said that they should arrest them right then and there. However, the Stones left as soon as possible to avoid being detained, but the cops weren't going to do so anyway.

"Consentual Crime" laws, IMO, are morally indefensible and shouldn't exist in a free society.

It isn't a policeman's job to decide which laws should exist in a free society.

If you're talking about all laws made by any government: The Nazis made it legal to kill Jews. Were the concentration camp soldiers in the right or the wrong?

If you're only talking about democratic govs: What about the Texas sodomy laws? Surely you're not advocating the arrest of a gay couple for simply engaging in intercourse...

I may be one of a few, but I DO think that 'we were following orders' is a valid excuse. The concentration camp soldiers were doing their job. What they were ordered to. Morally you may not agree, but legally they did what they were supposed to. Judges and police officers have to follow the laws.

As to the Texas sodomy laws, the police have to enforce the laws. I don't think it is a good law, but it doesn't mean the police should be able to ignore it just because. That just leads to an arbitrary and capricious police force that is as capable of abusing their powers as it is capable of being lax.

[Ben Kenobi]

DF
What about pornography?

Why have a law restricting minors from viewing pornography? Surely, this does not violate anyone's consent.

Also, what age consists of proper consent?

[korn469]

i think the cops made the right choice by ignoring the mayor's request here's why

Although i don't know the specifics of the new antismoking laws, and if anyone wants to fill me in on the details i'd be happy to listen, it is obviously not a very serious crime, and as far as I've heard the law was created to protect workers from the effect of second hand smoke. While there were many people working on the night of the show, the most important employees their that night was the actual members of the Rolling Stones. Not only were they providing a service for the people actually in attendence, they were also in conjunction with HBO providing a service for many people outside of NYC. The effects of their second hand smoke on the road crew, security staff, camera people, etc. were close to nil. The effects of the police interupting the show would have been much more serious than the effects of them standing idly by while members of the rolling stones smoked during their performance. Smoking itself isn't illegal yet, not even in NYC. The fines or punishment that would result from this would probably be very light, and would most likely only result in a warning if anything, and the proper time to take care of it was after the show, the police officers made the right call. If they had of been arrested on stage for this, it would be like pulling over a celebrity that was doing one mile over the speed limit and giving them a ticket. If anything the Mayor is targeting them because they are celebrities, i'm sure that other bands have or will smoke on stage in violation of this law, and simply because the Mayor isn't watching them on HBO he won't dispatch a SWAT team to take them down.

Imran

I may be one of a few, but I DO think that 'we were following orders' is a valid excuse. The concentration camp soldiers were doing their job.

i'm glad you weren't a judge at Nuremberg


obiwan18

isn't the age of consent in canada like either 14 or 16? if you can have sex why shouldn't you be allowed to look at porn?

Also, what age consists of proper consent?

i think that age is a really poor measurement for determining if a person is able to consent or not. people develop at very different rates, and any age limit is completely arbitrary, and it will either hold some people back and oppress them or fail to protect others who need it

[chequita guevara]

If the cops had canceled the show they woulda hadda riot on their hands. Bloomburg was carelessly disregarding public safety and the public interest. He should be impeached.

[ixnay]

They could have asked the band nicely to not smoke...