Attn Michael Bloomberg - Lighten Up!

[David Floyd]

I disagree with Presidential Pardons too...

Actually I was talking about his ability to bomb countries

[Asher]

Your ability to consistently produce nonsensical arguments is amazing, Floyd.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, Shi, do you think that the government should go arrest someone sufferring from a painful form of cancer, who is smoking pot to relieve the pain?

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

And some laws are passed for silly reasons. Other laws shouldn't be passed at all.

So? That doesn't mean they shouldn't be enforced. Petition to change the law, but saying laws shouldn't be enforced means the democratic process can be curtailed by a few cops that disagree.

If Congress passed a law mandating, say, forced euthanasia for anyone over 60, should the President and the Justice Department enforce that law?

Yes, because it is the law. If they don't want to enforce the law, they should get some of their people in Congress to change it.

--

Btw, would you also agree with people being able to not enforce the laws for moral reason if drugs became legal and the police departments still busted people for it, because they think it is moral?

[Dinner]

I think I'm going to go to central park and light up just to piss Bloomberg off.

[David Floyd]

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

You don't find that to be cruel and unnecessary, WRT the cancer patient? You put him in prison or take away his weed, he's gonna be in a ton of pain. Why not just wink at it, and let the poor guy die in peace?

So? That doesn't mean they shouldn't be enforced.

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, because it is the law. If they don't want to enforce the law, they should get some of their people in Congress to change it.

Wrong. That law is clearly unconstitutional, and the President takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. The Supreme Court would clearly rule against Congress, but obviously they couldn't do it immediately. It would be murder for the President to enforce such euthanasia laws, just because Congress says it's OK. I applaud you for trying to be consistent, but I fail to see how you can actually support that.

Btw, would you also agree with people being able to not enforce the laws for moral reason if drugs became legal and the police departments still busted people for it, because they think it is moral?

Are you asking if cops should be able to arrest people for doing drugs, if drugs were legal? No, of course they shouldn't - you can't arrest someone for breaking no crime, even if you feel such a law should be in place. But if the cops did try to arrest someone for it, I'd be in favor of the person in question using a gun to resist arrest, if that level of resistance became necessary.

But this is a totally different example, in any case. My example is about ignoring a law in certain situations, for either humanitarian, moral, or common sense reasons. Your example is about the police making up a law out of the blue and enforcing a non-existent law.

[mactbone]

"pound me in the ass facility" Gotta love Office Space.

I liken this to all of the stupid rules that schools have - ala the no hat policy except on special days. C'mon, how disruptive is a hat? I also remember a time when a guy died his hair a "non-natural" color and got sent home.

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.

[David Floyd]

MacTBone - that's exactly my point.

[Boris Godunov]

Policemen have discretion when it comes to enforcing the law, at least ones where the infraction is of such a trivial nature. In such instances, one can indeed question the choice of the officers to enforce it. Such is the case with the gay couple arrested and tried (and jailed) for sodomy in Texas a few years ago. While it was indeed the letter of the law that these men should be arrested, the arresting officers could have easily decided, based on the circumstances (they were in the privacy of their own home, no other laws were being broken, etc.) to look the other way, save their resources for serious crimes and not cause the couple so much grief. Their decision to enforce the law to the letter benefitted no one. I certainly fault the officers (partly) in that situation, as I would fault the hypothetical officer busting a cancer patient for smoking marijuana. It's bringing unneccessary suffering on the heads of people who aren't doing anything wrong and aren't hurting anybody else.

The entire point of law enforcement is to make life in society better for people, after all. The law is nothing good unless it is tempered by common sense and compassion in enforcement. That's what makes it justice rather than just a bunch of dry statutes on the books. People who argue for the law to always be enforced to the letter don't know what they're really arguing for, as the result would not be a pleasant society. If you're comfortable with a police force of 1,000,000 Inspector Javerts running around, whoaboy...

[Shi Huangdi]

"So, Shi, do you think that the government should go arrest someone sufferring from a painful form of cancer, who is smoking pot to relieve the pain?"

I don't have as much sympathy for celebrities as I do for cancer patients...

"Policemen have discretion when it comes to enforcing the law, at least ones where the infraction is of such a trivial nature"

Not in refusing direct orders from the mayor. The people who decide whether our laws are just or not aren't policeman- they can't just not enforce laws they don't like.

[David Floyd]

I don't have as much sympathy for celebrities as I do for cancer patients...

So are you saying we should or should not arrest cancer patients?

Not in refusing direct orders from the mayor. The people who decide whether our laws are just or not aren't policeman- they can't just not enforce laws they don't like.

OK. So your position is that policemen are morally and legally obligated to follow any order from the mayor?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
The people who decide whether our laws are just or not aren't policeman- they can't just not enforce laws they don't like.

Absolutely they can, based on the individual circumstances of the incident. And they should. Otherwise, why not replace policemen with emotionless robots in the future?

Discretion is one of the key components to a policeman's job. Without it, the police would be rendered ineffectual in preventing serious crime. They'd be too busy writing tickets every minute for every little infraction that goes on every day. Do you think NYPD cops would be effective if they spent their day writing tickets to jay walkers, litterbugs, horn blowers, etc. all day?

[Ben Kenobi]

"engaging in criminal activity that both parties have not consented to.."

David Floyd

Can a criminal act be justified just because both parties consent to the act?

In other words, are all crimes crimes of non-consent?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by obiwan18
"engaging in criminal activity that both parties have not consented to.."

David Floyd

Can a criminal act be justified just because both parties consent to the act?

In other words, are all crimes crimes of non-consent?

I can tell you right now, he will say yes. I tend to agree. "Consentual Crime" laws, IMO, are morally indefensible and shouldn't exist in a free society.

[David Floyd]

In other words, are all crimes crimes of non-consent?

I think that's a pretty good generalization. If all parties involved consent to the act, or if the act does not hurt anyone, it isn't a crime in my mind.

[Spiffor]

DF :
In Germany, a guy was recently killed and eaten by another, and both parties agreed said the inquiry. Do you think the cannibal should be punished or released ? (out of curiosity)