Home | Community | Message Board


Sporeworks
Please support our sponsors.

Feedback and Administration >> Shroomery News Service

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop for: San Pedro, Vermiculite

Jump to first unread post. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,619
Last seen: 2 months, 5 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: Enlil]
    #15938367 - 03/12/12 05:57 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:

I don't know where you got the idea that people have a right to smoke or inject whatever they want into their bodies, but that isn't the case in the US...and it never has been.






Arguably the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment allows for the taking of certain substances by certain people, though the courts have not upheld this.

There are federal laws, however, that specifically give the right to use peyote to certain Native American tribal members.

And, while technically the right to use drugs is not among our enumerated rights (and never was), the ninth amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  So if you want to argue, as many here do, that drug use is a right (I bet you could even make a plausible legal argument (such as the 1st amendment one)) then people have had the right to smoke or inject whatever they wanted before any drug prohibition laws existed.



Humility may be stretching on some of his points and tearing apart straw men, but I think the core of his argument makes sense.  The word "murder" is commonly used in everyday language to describe homicides which are not intentional.  For example, often drunk drivers are called "murderers", and politicians are called "murderers" after starting wars that invariably kill innocent civilians.  Intent is not something that really factors that much into the typical use of the word -  this isn't the best source for typical usage, but check out "murder"'s urban dictionary page, where intent is not included in any of the 5 most popular definitions and 40% of people disagree with its inclusion.

As for the legal side, there are situations where you can be charged with murder despite not having the intent to kill a person.  There are an entire class of charges known as "felony murder" which are brought when someone inadvertently kills another person or is involved in the killing of another person during a separate crime.  For example, in some states you can be charged with murder if you are part of a robbery and someone dies in the course of it - even if you did not pull the trigger yourself.

Furthermore, in the US Federal Code you only need "malice aforethought" for a killing to be murder - and you can have malice aforethought without the intent to kill.  If a person acts so recklessly that there is a high probability that death or serious injury could result from their actions, then that can count as malice aforethought.  I can definitely see how a paramilitary raid on a someone's home could be construed as an act of malice aforethought - these things go badly quite often.


--------------------


Edited by sonamdrukpa (03/12/12 06:02 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEnlil
The Johnny Appleseed of Hope™
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 21,761
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #15938500 - 03/12/12 06:34 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
Quote:

Enlil said:

I don't know where you got the idea that people have a right to smoke or inject whatever they want into their bodies, but that isn't the case in the US...and it never has been.






Arguably the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment allows for the taking of certain substances by certain people, though the courts have not upheld this.

There are federal laws, however, that specifically give the right to use peyote to certain Native American tribal members.

And, while technically the right to use drugs is not among our enumerated rights (and never was), the ninth amendment states that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."  So if you want to argue, as many here do, that drug use is a right (I bet you could even make a plausible legal argument (such as the 1st amendment one)) then people have had the right to smoke or inject whatever they wanted before any drug prohibition laws existed.



Humility may be stretching on some of his points and tearing apart straw men, but I think the core of his argument makes sense.  The word "murder" is commonly used in everyday language to describe homicides which are not intentional.  For example, often drunk drivers are called "murderers", and politicians are called "murderers" after starting wars that invariably kill innocent civilians.  Intent is not something that really factors that much into the typical use of the word -  this isn't the best source for typical usage, but check out "murder"'s urban dictionary page, where intent is not included in any of the 5 most popular definitions and 40% of people disagree with its inclusion.

As for the legal side, there are situations where you can be charged with murder despite not having the intent to kill a person.  There are an entire class of charges known as "felony murder" which are brought when someone inadvertently kills another person or is involved in the killing of another person during a separate crime.  For example, in some states you can be charged with murder if you are part of a robbery and someone dies in the course of it - even if you did not pull the trigger yourself.

Furthermore, in the US Federal Code you only need "malice aforethought" for a killing to be murder - and you can have malice aforethought without the intent to kill.  If a person acts so recklessly that there is a high probability that death or serious injury could result from their actions, then that can count as malice aforethought.  I can definitely see how a paramilitary raid on a someone's home could be construed as an act of malice aforethought - these things go badly quite often.





Thanks for the legal lecture..but as I've already said, felony murder certainly wouldn't apply here, since the killings were not in the commission of one of the enumerated crimes (or any crime for that matter).  As far as your reckless murder argument, you're talking about "depraved heart murder".  This requires the person to be acting with complete indiference to human life.  It would be hard to argue that the cops in this case were doing that.

As far as the notion of having the right, it would be nice, but no such right has ever been identified by the SCOTUS...

Your 1st amendment argument is simply nonsense...Even in cases of the free exercise clause, the Court has never found that universally applicable  drug laws were a violation as applied to drugs used for religious practices.

Even if a "right to choose what one puts in one's body" is ever identified, it will still not stop laws from being made to regulate what one puts in one's body.  As you probably know, no right is absolute, and a state can regulate even fundamental rights if they have a "compelling state interest" in doing so..

As I said in my previous post...such a right may one day be identified, but as of now, it does not exist in the US.


--------------------
Fuck the Amish

Ellis Dee said, "And those kids in CT deserved to die and I'm glad they're dead. I am glad that the survivors will have to "live with it" too. hahaha"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,619
Last seen: 2 months, 5 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: Enlil]
    #15938878 - 03/12/12 07:56 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Thanks for the legal lecture..but as I've already said, felony murder certainly wouldn't apply here, since the killings were not in the commission of one of the enumerated crimes (or any crime for that matter).




In strict legal sense, obviously not.  But if your argument is that drug possession should be legal, then by the same stroke invading another person's home, taking them to jail, and confiscating their drugs as evidence should count as kidnapping and theft...and so a homicide committed while committing those acts should count as murder in the same sense.  Obviously, legally this is not the case, but I don't see why it isn't a valid opinion that this cop "should" be tried for murder.

Quote:

As far as your reckless murder argument, you're talking about "depraved heart murder".  This requires the person to be acting with complete indiference to human life.  It would be hard to argue that the cops in this case were doing that.




We don't know the facts, but it's pretty plausible that it could have been the case that the officer was acting with reckless indifference - after all, the guy was shirtless and unarmed and still got shot.  And I do think it is true that if the guy wasn't a cop most people would think the shooter was acting recklessly - who goes armed and uninvited into another person's house and doesn't expect trouble to happen?

Quote:


As far as the notion of having the right, it would be nice, but no such right has ever been identified by the SCOTUS...




Yeah, I said that in my post.  That's also a really bad counterargument to a post that's claiming that the right was not enumerated but nonetheless existed.

Quote:


Your 1st amendment argument is simply nonsense...Even in cases of the free exercise clause, the Court has never found that universally applicable  drug laws were a violation as applied to drugs used for religious practices.




There hasn't been a real legal challenge to drug laws based on 1st Amendment grounds though as far as I know - neither UDV nor the North American Indian church challenged their drug laws on First Amendment grounds.  I've heard that the DEA doesn't go around busting psychedelic drug-cults like the Church of the Toad of Light because they're afraid those guys might have a strong enough religious component to their drug use that they might actually win a court battle on those grounds - and if the decision was favorable enough, it might blow up half the Controlled Substances Act...

Quote:

Even if a "right to choose what one puts in one's body" is ever identified, it will still not stop laws from being made to regulate what one puts in one's body.




...but it will stop them from being constitutional, so what's your point?

Quote:

As you probably know, no right is absolute, and a state can regulate even fundamental rights if they have a "compelling state interest" in doing so..




The interests of the state are a pretty subjective thing and I think with the right judge if we suddenly had a "right to regulate what one puts in one's body" then laws controlling the possession of weed would be thrown out.

Quote:

As I said in my previous post...such a right may one day be identified, but as of now, it does not exist in the US.




Right, but we were arguing over whether or not it did exist.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,619
Last seen: 2 months, 5 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #15938926 - 03/12/12 08:09 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Sonamdrukpa said:
There hasn't been a real legal challenge to drug laws based on 1st Amendment grounds though as far as I know - neither UDV nor the North American Indian church challenged their drug laws on First Amendment grounds.




K, I was wrong about the Native American Church, but the opinion in this case really confuses me:

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/494/872/case.html

As I currently see it, they decided that members of the church were allowed to ignore the general prohibition of peyote, but that the government was allowed to deny them benefits for it anyway, right?  Imma come back after looking at it more.

EDIT: Okay, after reading the whole text, it seems to me that the main point of the decision is that since Oregon was outlawing peyote not to stamp out a religion, but for other generally applicable reasons, that the law was constitutional.  So no, the First Amendment does not allow for the usage of psychedelics.


--------------------


Edited by sonamdrukpa (03/12/12 08:30 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEnlil
The Johnny Appleseed of Hope™
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 21,761
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #15938944 - 03/12/12 08:14 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
Thanks for the legal lecture..but as I've already said, felony murder certainly wouldn't apply here, since the killings were not in the commission of one of the enumerated crimes (or any crime for that matter).




In strict legal sense, obviously not.  But if your argument is that drug possession should be legal, then by the same stroke invading another person's home, taking them to jail, and confiscating their drugs as evidence should count as kidnapping and theft...and so a homicide committed while committing those acts should count as murder in the same sense.  Obviously, legally this is not the case, but I don't see why it isn't a valid opinion that this cop "should" be tried for murder.

Quote:

As far as your reckless murder argument, you're talking about "depraved heart murder".  This requires the person to be acting with complete indiference to human life.  It would be hard to argue that the cops in this case were doing that.




We don't know the facts, but it's pretty plausible that it could have been the case that the officer was acting with reckless indifference - after all, the guy was shirtless and unarmed and still got shot.  And I do think it is true that if the guy wasn't a cop most people would think the shooter was acting recklessly - who goes armed and uninvited into another person's house and doesn't expect trouble to happen?

Quote:


As far as the notion of having the right, it would be nice, but no such right has ever been identified by the SCOTUS...




Yeah, I said that in my post.  That's also a really bad counterargument to a post that's claiming that the right was not enumerated but nonetheless existed.

Quote:


Your 1st amendment argument is simply nonsense...Even in cases of the free exercise clause, the Court has never found that universally applicable  drug laws were a violation as applied to drugs used for religious practices.




There hasn't been a real legal challenge to drug laws based on 1st Amendment grounds though as far as I know - neither UDV nor the North American Indian church challenged their drug laws on First Amendment grounds.  I've heard that the DEA doesn't go around busting psychedelic drug-cults like the Church of the Toad of Light because they're afraid those guys might have a strong enough religious component to their drug use that they might actually win a court battle on those grounds - and if the decision was favorable enough, it might blow up half the Controlled Substances Act...

Quote:

Even if a "right to choose what one puts in one's body" is ever identified, it will still not stop laws from being made to regulate what one puts in one's body.




...but it will stop them from being constitutional, so what's your point?

Quote:

As you probably know, no right is absolute, and a state can regulate even fundamental rights if they have a "compelling state interest" in doing so..




The interests of the state are a pretty subjective thing and I think with the right judge if we suddenly had a "right to regulate what one puts in one's body" then laws controlling the possession of weed would be thrown out.

Quote:

As I said in my previous post...such a right may one day be identified, but as of now, it does not exist in the US.




Right, but we were arguing over whether or not it did exist.




If you're talking strictly from a historical perspective, NONE of the rights in the bill of rights applied to state laws.  They only applied to federal law until the 14 amendment was ratified and selective incorporation began...so it's a tough argument to make that even though the first amendment didn't even apply to state law, people might have had some additional rights under that amendment.

By the time incorporation began, state drug laws already existed...

As a result, it's hard to argue that the states couldn't make laws outlawing drugs when they could outlaw sodomy and free speech...After the 14th amendment and incorporation, they already had outlawed many drugs even though some of the bill of rights had been applied to the states.


--------------------
Fuck the Amish

Ellis Dee said, "And those kids in CT deserved to die and I'm glad they're dead. I am glad that the survivors will have to "live with it" too. hahaha"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,619
Last seen: 2 months, 5 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: Enlil]
    #15939096 - 03/12/12 08:43 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
If you're talking strictly from a historical perspective, NONE of the rights in the bill of rights applied to state laws.  They only applied to federal law until the 14 amendment was ratified and selective incorporation began...so it's a tough argument to make that even though the first amendment didn't even apply to state law, people might have had some additional rights under that amendment.

By the time incorporation began, state drug laws already existed...

As a result, it's hard to argue that the states couldn't make laws outlawing drugs when they could outlaw sodomy and free speech...After the 14th amendment and incorporation, they already had outlawed many drugs even though some of the bill of rights had been applied to the states.




Eh, you're right.  Would be nice to go back to the time in which you had the "right" to choose what went into your body in the sense that it wasn't illegal though...


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEnlil
The Johnny Appleseed of Hope™
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 21,761
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #15939126 - 03/12/12 08:48 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
Quote:

Enlil said:
If you're talking strictly from a historical perspective, NONE of the rights in the bill of rights applied to state laws.  They only applied to federal law until the 14 amendment was ratified and selective incorporation began...so it's a tough argument to make that even though the first amendment didn't even apply to state law, people might have had some additional rights under that amendment.

By the time incorporation began, state drug laws already existed...

As a result, it's hard to argue that the states couldn't make laws outlawing drugs when they could outlaw sodomy and free speech...After the 14th amendment and incorporation, they already had outlawed many drugs even though some of the bill of rights had been applied to the states.




Eh, you're right.  Would be nice to go back to the time in which you had the "right" to choose what went into your body in the sense that it wasn't illegal though...




I don't agree with this, but I do think that we need to stop putting people in jail for having drugs for personal use...I think that process helps no one.


--------------------
Fuck the Amish

Ellis Dee said, "And those kids in CT deserved to die and I'm glad they're dead. I am glad that the survivors will have to "live with it" too. hahaha"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSB-2
Innovator
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/18/10
Posts: 158
Loc: Between Here and There
Last seen: 9 months, 27 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: Enlil]
    #15941623 - 03/13/12 12:51 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Urbandictionary.com is the worst possible place to get a definition. It's contributed to by the same people that don't understand the difference between to and too. Murder has everything to do with intent, and someone who uses the word in a different way is using it incorrectly. It's a polarized word that a lot of people like to throw around to add emotion to an argument while demonizing their target, like the example someone gave regarding Christians and abortion. You can argue that he would have been guilty of felony murder because it was like kidnapping or something, but that's not applicable here and doesn't really touch the main issue, which is intent. I disagree on every level with someone taking a murder charge when there was no intent, and that includes "Guilt by association" murders, like when someone is robbing a bank and their buddy freaks and shoots someone. I know a guy that this happened to, he went in at 16 tried as an adult with a murder charge, and got out at 39. The judge even said on the record in court "We all know *** had no intention of taking an innocent life, but as a judge I am required to follow the rule of law in my sentencing." He even apologized to the guy personally. It was a pretty horrible situation.

On the constitutionality of drug use...

The constitution leans more toward individual states being able to ban drugs if they want to rather than protecting drug use federally.

The Forerunners didn't have drugs on their mind when they wrote the constitution, so there isn't any clear cut section you can take and say they wanted you to be able to put anything you want into your body.

The section most applicable to drug law is the 10th amendment. It states that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the constitution are reserved to the states or the people. The constitution most definitely does not grant the federal government the power to federally regulate drugs, so this decision would legally fall to the states. By the same token, the constitution grants the states the power to ban drugs if they so choose. You can make an excellent legal argument that the feds have no business interfering in drug law, but you can't make a good argument that the constitution guarantees your right to drug use.

This thread reminds me of a great quote; "Every country gets the government it deserves."


--------------------
Let the poor not tear down the fortune of the rich, but fervently build fortune of their own.

Tired of fruiting chambers, glove boxes, and flow hoods?
Tired of getting a few shrooms after all your hard work?
Tired of war, poverty, world hunger, and the government?

...Then check out my lazy grower's guide!
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15123541


Edited by SB-2 (03/13/12 01:11 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinedurian_2008
cornucopian eating an elephant

Registered: 04/02/08
Posts: 2,909
Last seen: 3 months, 10 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: SB-2]
    #15941753 - 03/13/12 01:32 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

As narcotics were being grown and used during the war for independence from England, the issue arguably falls under the heading of free enterprise, a right which preceded the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleMush 4 Brains
about tree fiddy
Male


Registered: 12/19/07
Posts: 6,109
Loc: lesbians
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: durian_2008]
    #15941801 - 03/13/12 01:48 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Why should we play by the rules when they don't?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,619
Last seen: 2 months, 5 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: SB-2]
    #15945683 - 03/14/12 12:21 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

SB-2 said:
Urbandictionary.com is the worst possible place to get a definition. It's contributed to by the same people that don't understand the difference between to and too. Murder has everything to do with intent, and someone who uses the word in a different way is using it incorrectly.




So you get to determine what a word means?  No, the ordinary meaning of a word is determined by its ordinary usage. Sometimes ordinary people are dumb - this changes nothing.

Quote:

It's a polarized word that a lot of people like to throw around to add emotion to an argument while demonizing their target, like the example someone gave regarding Christians and abortion. You can argue that he would have been guilty of felony murder because it was like kidnapping or something, but that's not applicable here




Look, legally the cop is absolutely not guilty of felony murder.  I think everyone agrees on that.  On whether or not he "should" be guilty of murder, there's a lot of wiggle room - and I think it's a perfectly applicable argument to point out that there's a double standard with cases like this: if an ordinary civilian acted anything like the way cops do during drug raids, there would be no sympathy for the civilian.  Crying "murder" is pretty much just saying that in a less sophisticated form.

Quote:

and doesn't really touch the main issue, which is intent. I disagree on every level with someone taking a murder charge when there was no intent, and that includes "Guilt by association" murders, like when someone is robbing a bank and their buddy freaks and shoots someone. I know a guy that this happened to, he went in at 16 tried as an adult with a murder charge, and got out at 39. The judge even said on the record in court "We all know *** had no intention of taking an innocent life, but as a judge I am required to follow the rule of law in my sentencing." He even apologized to the guy personally. It was a pretty horrible situation.




Yeah, it is pretty horrible; I do think that guilt by association verdicts are incredible legal travesties (if we're applying the standard of "murder is what is the law says it is" though...).

That said, there is a clear difference between someone involved in a one-of robbery and someone whose job continually involves dangerous activities.  When you bust into enough people's houses waving guns around eventually someone is going to get shot.  It might be a while, it might be accident when it happens, but eventually it will happen.  I don't think cops that do those kinds of things should get away with it any more than a factory owner running an unsafe factory would get away with it if one of his workers was killed by a machine.  Manslaughter, murder in the 2nd degree, negligent homicide - we could argue about the appropriate charge, but I don't think "none" is the right answer.

Maybe there were extraordinary exigencies in this case, maybe the fact that he was a cop doing his job has some swing (don't see why it would, I wouldn't get away with killing someone just because it was part of my job, plus people like you have decided not to do that job because of precisely these sorts of situations), but I don't see why this guy shouldn't have those issues decided by a jury of his peers just like they would be for any other ordinary citizen.  A senior officer assigning the shooter to desk duty should not be the entirety of due process and it is not justice.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleEnlil
The Johnny Appleseed of Hope™
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 21,761
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #15945745 - 03/14/12 12:47 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
So you get to determine what a word means?  No, the ordinary meaning of a word is determined by its ordinary usage. Sometimes ordinary people are dumb - this changes nothing.





I agree with this, but be fair...Urbandictionary.com isn't exactly a verifiably even cross-section of english speakers.


--------------------
Fuck the Amish

Ellis Dee said, "And those kids in CT deserved to die and I'm glad they're dead. I am glad that the survivors will have to "live with it" too. hahaha"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSB-2
Innovator
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 10/18/10
Posts: 158
Loc: Between Here and There
Last seen: 9 months, 27 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: Enlil]
    #15946046 - 03/14/12 02:20 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

I'd like to see this go to jury trial like you said. There are a lot of people both directly and indirectly responsible for this happening. Legislators, higher ups in the PD, the guy who coordinated the cluster fuck of a raid without confirming the guy was even home, and so on. I just don't want to see a guy who may have made a split second, adrenaline fueled mistake get crucified to pay for all the sins of the drug war. That won't happen, but we shouldn't want it to even if it might.

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
So you get to determine what a word means?  No, the ordinary meaning of a word is determined by its ordinary usage. Sometimes ordinary people are dumb - this changes nothing.





Does that mean I should start calling any project in which vermiculite is used a "casing", since that's what most people here do? You can call a manslaughter a murder, and if you do you're a "dumb ordinary person" or trying to polarize your argument intentionally. I do see your point, but ignorance is not above the laws of language. Ask Humility. :wink:

It sucks we have to use words. Imagine a world where a thought or idea could be communicated directly.


--------------------
Let the poor not tear down the fortune of the rich, but fervently build fortune of their own.

Tired of fruiting chambers, glove boxes, and flow hoods?
Tired of getting a few shrooms after all your hard work?
Tired of war, poverty, world hunger, and the government?

...Then check out my lazy grower's guide!
http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Number/15123541


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlinesonamdrukpa
Wayfarer


Registered: 10/18/11
Posts: 2,619
Last seen: 2 months, 5 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: SB-2]
    #15950852 - 03/15/12 03:05 PM (2 years, 7 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
So you get to determine what a word means?  No, the ordinary meaning of a word is determined by its ordinary usage. Sometimes ordinary people are dumb - this changes nothing.





I agree with this, but be fair...Urbandictionary.com isn't exactly a verifiably even cross-section of english speakers.




Yeah, agree.  I did say it wasn't the most reliable source, though, and gave examples of typical usage most people should be familiar with.

Quote:

SB-2 said:
I'd like to see this go to jury trial like you said. There are a lot of people both directly and indirectly responsible for this happening. Legislators, higher ups in the PD, the guy who coordinated the cluster fuck of a raid without confirming the guy was even home, and so on. I just don't want to see a guy who may have made a split second, adrenaline fueled mistake get crucified to pay for all the sins of the drug war. That won't happen, but we shouldn't want it to even if it might.




Agreed, the blame is too diffuse to pin it on one guy and that be fair.

Quote:

Quote:

sonamdrukpa said:
So you get to determine what a word means?  No, the ordinary meaning of a word is determined by its ordinary usage. Sometimes ordinary people are dumb - this changes nothing.





Does that mean I should start calling any project in which vermiculite is used a "casing", since that's what most people here do? You can call a manslaughter a murder, and if you do you're a "dumb ordinary person" or trying to polarize your argument intentionally. I do see your point, but ignorance is not above the laws of language. Ask Humility. :wink:

It sucks we have to use words. Imagine a world where a thought or idea could be communicated directly.




Agreed again on all those points.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineTripbin
Male
Registered: 03/21/12
Posts: 201
Last seen: 2 months, 8 days
Re: [LA] Unarmed 20 year old man fatally shot during marijuana raid in New Orleans [Re: sonamdrukpa]
    #16044711 - 04/04/12 09:00 PM (2 years, 6 months ago)

Cops plain up murdered him. I'm sure they had surveillance for a while and could have arrested him multiple times but they wanted to do a raid cause cops get off on that shit from the adrenaline. If they have a warrant to bust in your house than they can also simply arrest you when you leave the house or pull you over as your driving away and arrest you with the warrant then but that wouldn't be as much fun for the cops would it?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4  [ show all ]

Amazon Shop for: San Pedro, Vermiculite

Feedback and Administration >> Shroomery News Service

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Unarmed man accused of selling 1.8 ounces of marijuana fatally shot octo 1,344 6 08/28/10 09:20 AM
by Humility
* [CA] Man fatally shot by deputies during pot raid was armed with pellet gun veggie 1,306 9 08/20/10 09:21 AM
by makersmarc
* [TN] Hawkins man fatally shot during argument over best method to grow marijuana
( 1 2 all )
veggie 2,367 22 02/28/11 09:48 AM
by setb
* [MA] Man, 68, fatally shot in drug raid at Framingham home veggie 1,394 10 01/08/11 09:56 AM
by Parkseerf
* LA Governor officially bans "synthetic marijuana" veggie 338 0 06/26/10 01:08 AM
by veggie
* LA sheriff says most medical marijuana dispensaries are criminal veggie 1,359 9 09/05/10 06:41 AM
by usefulidiot13
* LA County to issue medical marijuana ID cards [CA] veggie 467 0 05/10/06 11:12 AM
by veggie
* [MN] 20-Pounds of Marijuana Accidentally Delivered to Mpls. Salon
foodsgoodtoo
1,847 14 03/22/11 04:58 PM
by jvm

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: karode13, Alan Rockefeller, Mostly_Harmless
4,992 topic views. 2 members, 21 guests and 0 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
FreeSpores.com
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2014 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.152 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 34 queries.