Author Topic: Another Victory in the War on Drugs  (Read 4215 times)

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #120 on: October 09, 2004, 04:06:06 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
So, you've finally stopped trying to defend your asinine and indefensible argument and just moved right on to blabbering.


I'm not arguing anything. You are. Everyone else here knows it was stupid.

That's why I told you not to bother answering those oh so difficult questions in public. Even if you could understand them you couldn't figure out how to answer them in a way that helps make you look like you have enough sense to wring the piss outa yer bloomers. :lol

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #121 on: October 09, 2004, 04:08:10 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
Wait, why is he dead again?  

Oh yeah.

HE BROKE THE LAW.


You're gonna hafta try to come up with something better than that. Oh wait. You can't. :aok

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #122 on: October 09, 2004, 05:21:38 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Arlo
I'm not arguing anything. You are. Everyone else here knows it was stupid.

That's why I told you not to bother answering those oh so difficult questions in public. Even if you could understand them you couldn't figure out how to answer them in a way that helps make you look like you have enough sense to wring the piss outa yer bloomers. :lol


There you go again.  I understand you feel bad that now that you've realized what a fool you are.

It's all about the facts.

He broke the law.
He was sentenced accordingly.

If you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law.  Why do hippies always support the criminals?

Quote
Originally posted by Arlo
You're gonna hafta try to come up with something better than that. Oh wait. You can't. :aok


Better?  It isn't a matter of what's "better".  It's a matter of fact.

Fact:  He chose to break the law.
Fact:  He was sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines.

It's a valuable message to other criminals.

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #123 on: October 09, 2004, 05:42:21 PM »
Let's assume a man gets caught drinking the day before the repealing of prohibition.

He is too drunk to stand trial that day and sleeps it off in his cell.

The next day drinking is a legal practice and bars across the country are opening for business.

The man stands trial after the repealing of the law.

By your logic Martlet, he should be punnished to the fullest extent of the law.

Or should he?

Sure he broke the law, but the courts determined, through due process, that the law was wrong.

Discuss.

(Preferrably without silly hippie references.)
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #124 on: October 09, 2004, 05:45:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Curval
Let's assume a man gets caught drinking the day before the repealing of prohibition.

He is too drunk to stand trial that day and sleeps it off in his cell.

The next day drinking is a legal practice and bars across the country are opening for business.

The man stands trial after the repealing of the law.

By your logic Martlet, he should be punnished to the fullest extent of the law.

Or should he?

Sure he broke the law, but the courts determined, through due process, that the law was wrong.

Discuss.

(Preferrably without silly hippie references.)


Hmmmmm.

I'd have to say that yes, he should be punished.

Your claim that I believe he should be punishe to the fullest extent of the law is absurd and unfounded, though.  There are very few cases when I believe someone should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.

I'd also like to point out something I'm hoping you already know.  This is an off topic question that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic.

Offline rpm

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 15661
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #125 on: October 09, 2004, 05:54:35 PM »
Forget trying to change his mind. He's just argueing because he has nothing better to do. Any person with an IQ of 2 or more can see the Judge screwed up big time.
My mind is a raging torrent, flooded with rivulets of thought cascading into a waterfall of creative alternatives.
Stay thirsty my friends.

Offline Nilsen

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 18108
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #126 on: October 09, 2004, 05:59:52 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
Forget trying to change his mind. He's just argueing because he has nothing better to do. Any person with an IQ of 2 or more can see the Judge screwed up big time.


what he ^ said !

who are we talking abut btw?


nevernind *burp*

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #127 on: October 09, 2004, 06:04:59 PM »
If you look at the title of the thread it contains the phrase "War on Drugs".  Rpm is using this story about a judge's misdirected bias on the subject to validate an argument that the War isn't going too well.  (Correct me if I'm wrong rmp, my assumption.)

Our little discussion may not be directly on topic but it certainly is related.

I think we are still on track.

So you think the man should still be punnished?  Pretty harsh for a guy who admits he is all for the legalisation of a drug.
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #128 on: October 09, 2004, 06:07:35 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
There you go again.  I understand you feel bad that now that you've realized what a fool you are.

It's all about the facts.

He broke the law.
He was sentenced accordingly.

If you don't want to go to jail, don't break the law.  Why do hippies always support the criminals?

 

Better?  It isn't a matter of what's "better".  It's a matter of fact.

Fact:  He chose to break the law.
Fact:  He was sentenced according to the sentencing guidelines.

It's a valuable message to other criminals.


Valuable message to criminals? That's not gonna help you fight your way outa the corner.

We're not talking John Gotti here. We're talking about *sigh* (Arlo shakes his head at having to explain such a basic premise to someone who seems apparently smart enough to log onto the internet by themself) ... a severely handicapped individual that couldn't serve jail time who was found guilty of a misdemeanor that the judge seemed to think was the perfect opportunity to send your .... message to criminals ... via example. An example that resulted in the death of an incarcerated quadrapalegic in a facility that wasn't designed to handle his special needs .... to live.

That's way too stupid a decision to continue to entrust that judge with her duties.

You don't leave a scalpel in the hand of a surgeon who makes poor decisions at the operating table.

You don't leave a gun in the hand of a police officer who makes bad decisions in the street.

And you don't leave a gavel in the hand of a judge that makes poor decisions behind the bench.

But you just can't grasp those particular facts, can you? You pretty well made up your mind when you read the topic line, didn't ya?

Well hell, Martie ... if ya can't be honest with yourself, who am I to expect you to be honest with anyone else? ;)

Why do you like arguing yourself into a corner then parading your forehead into a wall while chanting how dumb everyone else is for not admiring your unique ability to do that time and again?

Stop bruising your forehead and try reading the pertinent facts again:

At the center of the many questions surrounding his death is whether D.C. Superior Court and the D.C. Department of Corrections did enough to ensure adequate care for the quadriplegic inmate.

(Kinda hard to argue that they DID ... given the circumstances of his DEATH ... dontcha think?)

"I'm not saying that he shouldn't have been punished, because he did smoke the marijuana," his mother, Mary Scott, said yesterday, a day after burying her son. "I just don't think it should have cost him his life."

(Even the mother agrees that there probably should have been a punishment handed out. She doesn't think it should have cost him his life. Call her up and explain to her how valuable an example her son is to other criminals.)

By the standards of D.C. Superior Court, the 10-day sentence rendered by Judge Judith E. Retchin was unusually punitive for a first-time offender such as Magbie. Along with his defense attorney, Boniface Cobbina, a pre-sentence report had recommended probation, and the U.S. attorney's office had not objected.

(Do you understand what the term "standards" means? Do you understand that the judge went beyond those standards .... even for someone who wasn't severly handicapped? Of course you don't.)

But Retchin rejected probation alone. A former federal prosecutor who became a Superior Court judge in 1992, Retchin is known to dispense stiff sentences.

(Got a rep to maintain, dontcha know.)

"Mr. Magbie, I'm not giving you straight probation," the judge said, according to a transcript of the Sept. 20 proceedings. "Although you did not plead guilty to having this gun, it is just unacceptable to be riding around in a car with a loaded gun in this city."

(paraphrase - "Because if I let you get away with running around loose on the streets with your tongue on the trigger of a loaded gun then I'll have to let all the other psychopathic quads in the DC area brought before me for having a loaded tounge gun go free too!")

Details about Magbie's death were first reported by WJLA-TV. Magbie was struck by a drunk driver when he was 4 years old; he was paralyzed from the neck down, and his growth was stunted. Barely five feet tall and 120 pounds, he moved around on a motorized wheelchair that he operated with his chin.[/size]

(Obvious enough for everyone but Martlet and Judge Judy to grasp.)

In a statement yesterday, Retchin said she was led to believe "that Mr. Magbie's medical needs could be met; this was such an unintended tragedy. I would like to convey my deepest sympathy to Mr. Magbie's family."

(Sorry bout that. Next case.)

Even the Correctional Treatment Facility, a jail annex that houses many inmates with medical or security needs, would not have been able to readily care for a prisoner such as Magbie, Philip Fornaci, executive director of the D.C. Prisoners' Legal Services Project, said yesterday.

(EVEN .. the CTF .... which apparently he wasn't sent to. What's that `ol Forrest Gump bit? Stupid is as stupid does? Well now. Defending it to the death seems `bout near as stupid but hopefully you don't bear a position of responsibility in real life so .. no real threat there, eh?) :D

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #129 on: October 09, 2004, 06:07:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by rpm
Forget trying to change his mind. He's just argueing because he has nothing better to do. Any person with an IQ of 2 or more can see the Judge screwed up big time.


Translated as:  "Hippies support the pothead!.  Lay off the MAN"

Quote
Originally posted by Curval
If you look at the title of the thread it contains the phrase "War on Drugs".  Rpm is using this story about a judge's misdirected bias on the subject to validate an argument that the War isn't going too well.  (Correct me if I'm wrong rmp, my assumption.)

Our little discussion may not be directly on topic but it certainly is related.

I think we are still on track.

So you think the man should still be punnished?  Pretty harsh for a guy who admits he is all for the legalisation of a drug.


That wasn't the way I took it.  I took it as rpm crying about another pot head being trod on.

I don't think that's harsh at all.  I'm for obeying the law.  If you break the law, you have to accept the punishment.  Whether or not I believe it is a dumb law is irrelevant.

I think the seatbelt law is stupid, too.  You won't hear me crying if I get tagged not wearing one.
« Last Edit: October 09, 2004, 06:10:34 PM by Martlet »

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #130 on: October 09, 2004, 06:09:34 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
There are very few cases when I believe someone should be punished to the fullest extent of the law.


What ... quadrapelegics who commit misdemeanors being the exception? heh

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #131 on: October 09, 2004, 06:12:15 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Arlo
What ... quadrapalegics who commit misdemeanors being the exception? heh


I never said I supported the judges decision.  I never said he should receive the maximum penalty.  

I said if he was concerned with going to jail, guess what comes next?

HE SHOULDN"T HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24760
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #132 on: October 09, 2004, 06:19:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Martlet
I never said I supported the judges decision.  I never said he should receive the maximum penalty.  

I said if he was concerned with going to jail, guess what comes next?

HE SHOULDN"T HAVE BROKEN THE LAW.


Just say no to trying to give SLO competition for the position of village idiot. Thank you. You may now quitely leave your corner. :D

Offline Curval

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11572
      • http://n/a
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #133 on: October 09, 2004, 06:19:35 PM »
Arlo kinda beat me to it.  

The guidelines the judge had in this case surely ranged from letting the kid go with probationary caviats to...what...the electric chair?
Some will fall in love with life and drink it from a fountain that is pouring like an avalanche coming down the mountain

Offline Martlet

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 4390
Another Victory in the War on Drugs
« Reply #134 on: October 09, 2004, 06:21:43 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Arlo
Just say no to trying to give SLO competition for the position of village idiot. Thank you. You may now quitely leave your corner. :D


Excellent response.  I guess if you can't successfully defend your idiotic position you can just ignore it and cast insults.

How could he be alive today?

Oh yeah.

IF HE HADN'T BROKEN THE LAW

Quote
Originally posted by Curval
Arlo kinda beat me to it.  

The guidelines the judge had in this case surely ranged from letting the kid go with probationary caviats to...what...the electric chair?


I don't know what the sentencing guidelines are.  I'd have to guess the chair is outside them, though.

Very intelligent comment, by the way.  Appropriate for an argument professing criminals shouldn't be punished, though.