Smokedown Prohibition V: Adam Kokesh and NA Poe Arrested (video and pictures)

[vladtepes 1,060]

Clearly that isn't what I was talking about because that lacks all morals and has little to do with using anything resembling good judgment. If they want to do that already they can.

 

 

That is exactly what already happens. How many examples of "just tell it to a judge" do you need to hear? How many examples of people being arrested and the charges dropped because it was not a lawful arrest do you need to read about, where there is no repercussions and the actions are defended by the department?

 

 

Of course it doesn't allow police to make up laws as they go. I never suggested they should just make up their own laws. That is exactly what I don't want to happen, though it already does. I am at a loss how you could have possibly thought I was suggesting police should be allowed to make up their own laws.

 

 

so you blame the police for enforcing the laws... 

 

want them to just use their judgement..

 

as long as their judgement mirrors yours?

 

 

 

I am NOT being rude or disrespectful to you? my comments are sincere.. the problem with them enforcing the law as the feel like it is it is WRONG..

it is wrong when the defy the law in an effort to right a wrong law..

it is wrong when they take a "tell it to the judge approach"

 

my point is society is VAST and morals vary greatly from one individual to another...

that is why the LAW should be enforced blindly and uniformly...

if we disagree with a law the burden is on us to change it.. at the level of government.. not at the level of the police.. 

 

OBVIOUSLY the examples I gave are NOT things you agree with.. 

that is exactly the point.. 

[Soju 153]

my point is society is VAST and morals vary greatly from one individual to another...

that is why the LAW should be enforced blindly and uniformly...

if we disagree with a law the burden is on us to change it.. at the level of government.. not at the level of the police..

This confuses me greatly. Because society is vast means that laws should be blindly enforced? Holy ravioli batman! The part about me not agreeing, well you got that right!

 

I don't doubt your sincerity. I do question your logic however. If you feel all laws should be blindly enforced, are you also against jury nullification? I find it odd earlier you stated that the government was the source of your problem (presumably referring to politicians and lawmakers), yet feel that only those same people are the ones who should be able to change laws.

 

What makes you think politicians should be trusted more than police and the general public?

 

 

so you blame the police for enforcing the laws...

 

want them to just use their judgement..

 

as long as their judgement mirrors yours?

 

 

I'm under no delusion that people have different feelings as to what is right or wrong. I'm also aware that for many things, what is enforced and how things are enforced comes from the higher levels of law enforcement. Policing is very political.

 

Do you wonder why, for the most part, the LEO's who are coming out against gun control and saying they won't enforce certain laws (what I am saying), are mostly elected Sheriffs and NOT politically appointed police chiefs?  

 

[Walt of Destiny 412]

"hey listen that gun MIGHT be legal.... but it kind of looks like a gun that might be illegal.. so I am going to go ahead and make the arrest.. and we will figure it out later.."

"yeah I know your gun turned out to be totally legal.. but the officer is at no fault.. he was just doing what he felt was right"

 

 

This is SOP in PRNJ

 

But I basically agree with the main point.

 

Can we start with LEOs actually knowing the laws they are asked to enforce? Or use judgement on? You guys on here are way more versed in major laws than all the LEOs of my acquaintance. With all due respect.

[vladtepes 1,060]

This confuses me greatly. Because society is vast means that laws should be blindly enforced? Holy ravioli batman! The part about me not agreeing, well you got that right!

 

I don't doubt your sincerity. I do question your logic however. If you feel all laws should be blindly enforced, are you also against jury nullification? I find it odd earlier you stated that the government was the source of your problem (presumably referring to politicians and lawmakers), yet feel that only those same people are the ones who should be able to change laws.

 

What makes you think politicians should be trusted more than police and the general public?

 

society as a whole wants big government.. society as a whole wants reductions in freedom.. as illustrated by the actions of the masses... 

people who want to work hard.. people that want small government.. people that want a reduction in free perks are the minority.. 

 

society is a mess.. it is filled with people who totally lack any morals.. 

 

if the law is wrong.. we need to change it at the source.. we need to put people up to be elected that make sense... 

 

what confuses you about what I said.. let me make it simple..

 

the law.. is the law..

 

if a law is "wrong" it needs to be changed.. not ignored...

 

it is not up to the police to decide the moral weight of a law BECAUSE "good".. "right"... is not a measurable value... what is right to me and you.. which to your surprise may be very similar.. may not be right to your neighbor.. or the guy from the "bad part of town"..... LAW.. right or wrong is measurable.. and is a standard.. and that is why I feel it should be enforced universally.. because it removes the VAST variation from one cop to another...

 

and just to add the other side.. for every "tell it to the judge" there is a "I am just going to give you a warning today"

so (right or wrong) cops already use judgement to a degree.. 

[vladtepes 1,060]

This is SOP in PRNJ

 

But I basically agree with the main point.

 

 

is it really?

I am not familiar with a vast amount of NJ gun owners that have been put through the system for having a LEGAL gun... 

I am sure there are some maybe? but to say it is the standard is misleading imo..

 

I have shot with MANY LEO.. many LEO I did not even know.. they never looked to see if my mags were pinned.. or questioned the muzzle device on my gun.. 

[Soju 153]

if the law is wrong.. we need to change it at the source.. we need to put people up to be elected that make sense... 

 

what confuses you about what I said.. let me make it simple..

 

the law.. is the law..

 

if a law is "wrong" it needs to be changed.. not ignored...

Of course it should be changed. I fail to see how ignoring it (in terms of enforcement) in the mean time is a bad thing.

 

it is not up to the police to decide the moral weight of a law BECAUSE "good".. "right"... is not a measurable value... what is right to me and you.. which to your surprise may be very similar.. may not be right to your neighbor.. or the guy from the "bad part of town"..... LAW.. right or wrong is measurable.. and is a standard.. and that is why I feel it should be enforced universally.. because it removes the VAST variation from one cop to another...

Do you disagree with the quote from Jefferson I posted earlier?

 

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson

 

and just to add the other side.. for every "tell it to the judge" there is a "I am just going to give you a warning today"

so (right or wrong) cops already use judgement to a degree..

And this is a bad thing???

[Walt of Destiny 412]

is it really?

I am not familiar with a vast amount of NJ gun owners that have been put through the system for having a LEGAL gun... 

I am sure there are some maybe? but to say it is the standard is misleading imo..

 

I have shot with MANY LEO.. many LEO I did not even know.. they never looked to see if my mags were pinned.. or questioned the muzzle device on my gun..

 

Yet there are several court cases running that would challenge that assertion. The vagueness of law written by morons, the heavy handed interpretation by well-meaning peers, such as adjustable vs telescopic. And the basic misunderstanding of the law by many LEOs puts the law-abiding exercising their 2nd amendment right living perpetually under the sword of Damocles.

 

We live outside of a correctional institution at their whim. Many of our freedoms are being squashed wholesale. And things aren't bad.

 

What if 1/2 the shit hits the fan on low. What rights will they come for next...yours?

[vladtepes 1,060]

Of course it should be changed. I fail to see how ignoring it (in terms of enforcement) in the mean time is a bad thing.

 

Do you disagree with the quote from Jefferson I posted earlier?

 

If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. - Thomas Jefferson

 

And this is a bad thing???

 

 

once again... you agree that there is no absolute right and wrong...

with that said.. you agree there is NO standard of measure...

 

this means that an officer choosing to enforce or not enforce a law based on his values COULD Have a horrible outcome...and IMO is never really OK...

I am not an idiot and I understand a minor traffic offense and things like that may be ignored? and I get that.... but I still don't really agree with it...

 

I don't agree with it based on the greater scheme of things... I have certainly gotten a break on more than one occasion... and I definitely appreciated those... 

but we are not talking about going 8mph over on the parkway at 11pm with not a car insight.... 

 

we are in the situation earlier today.. talking about a group of people that were warned there would be police.. warned that smoking pot is illegal... I even read the quote "we knew this would not end well"... so people assembled.. and antagonized the police that were present when their gripe really had not a thing to do with the police (it is really with the law makers in Washington).. you want to show up.. break the law.. scream fuck the police.. and expect a break? 

I mean come on.. 

 

now if we are talking about gun control and gun confiscation (for example).. you (and I) have no idea how each individual officer would REALLY act until that day....

[vladtepes 1,060]

Yet there are several court cases running that would challenge that assertion. The vagueness of law written by morons, the heavy handed interpretation by well-meaning peers, such as adjustable vs telescopic. And the basic misunderstanding of the law by many LEOs puts the law-abiding exercising their 2nd amendment right living perpetually under the sword of Damocles.

 

We live outside of a correctional institution at their whim. Many of our freedoms are being squashed wholesale. And things aren't bad.

 

What if 1/2 the shit hits the fan on low. What rights will they come for next...yours?

 

 

several cases with countless gun owners? 

 

to get slightly political.. just for a second... I believe the following...

 

I believe we ARE screwed.. I also believe things are way worse than they seem... 

with that said I dont think the biggest problem is government.. because for the most part we put government there.. the problem is instead at home.. somewhere.. at some time.. before I was born.. the American people lost it.... they decided they deserved everything.. handed to them... they decided they didnt really like to work.. and that freedom well.. freedom was not really worth much if they could trade it for everything from food.. to housing.. to health care...

 

now you find yourself.. years later.. some people have woken up.. but you look around you.. you live in a sea of the dead.. surrounded by those raised by the TV.. surrounded by those that think your work ethic is silly.. surrounded by those that wonder why you would not rather just stop making trouble.. they wonder why you dont want all the cool free stuff...

 

and that is the problem.. as long as we keep raising kids like that.. conditioning them to expect that.. things will never change.. they will keep electing people that sound good to them.. not people who will make the right decisions... 

 

to be clear.. my comments are NOT about the right or the left... I think they are all wrong.. and the changes we need are so dramatic they could not come from either side...

 

and that in a nutshell is why I do not want to rest the burden of morality on the shoulders of a police officer.. the problem is FAR greater than that.. and needs to be addressed..  besides that there is the obvious lack of standard.. 

[Soju 153]

once again... you agree that there is no absolute right and wrong...

with that said.. you agree there is NO standard of measure...

Not sure where you are getting that from.

 

this means that an officer choosing to enforce or not enforce a law based on his values COULD Have a horrible outcome...and IMO is never really OK...

I am not an idiot and I understand a minor traffic offense and things like that may be ignored? and I get that.... but I still don't really agree with it...

 

I don't agree with it based on the greater scheme of things... I have certainly gotten a break on more than one occasion... and I definitely appreciated those... 

but we are not talking about going 8mph over on the parkway at 11pm with not a car insight....

Correct, we weren't talking about speeding. We were originally talking about somebody who was arrested for speaking at a pro-marijuana rally. I still don't know what law you think he was breaking that makes his arrest legitimate, and that is despite any feelings of whether that mystery law is just or not.

 

we are in the situation earlier today.. talking about a group of people that were warned there would be police.. warned that smoking pot is illegal... I even read the quote "we knew this would not end well"... so people assembled.. and antagonized the police that were present when their gripe really had not a thing to do with the police (it is really with the law makers in Washington).. you want to show up.. break the law.. scream fugg the police.. and expect a break? 

I mean come on..

I'm not sure I made comment about those who were arrested for smoking pot. We were talking about the arrest of Adam Kokesh, the arrest you agreed with on grounds that he was antagonizing and verbally attacking the police.

 

now if we are talking about gun control and gun confiscation (for example).. you (and I) have no idea how each individual officer would REALLY act until that day....

We weren't.

[vladtepes 1,060]

Not sure where you are getting that from.

 

 

Correct, we weren't talking about speeding. We were originally talking about somebody who was arrested for speaking at a pro-marijuana rally. I still don't know what law you think he was breaking that makes his arrest legitimate, and that is despite any feelings of whether that mystery law is just or not.

 

 

I'm not sure I made comment about those who were arrested for smoking pot. We were talking about the arrest of Adam Kokesh, the arrest you agreed with on grounds that he was antagonizing and verbally attacking the police.

 

 

We weren't.

 

 

no.. some of this was lost in discussion...

 

what I am against.. 

is police randomly deciding to enforce or not enforce laws based on their personal moral views... because of the door it opens.. laws should be enforced as they are written.. if they are "bad" they should be changed..

 

I am not for or against HIS arrest since I have no idea what he was charged with.. 

 

I am for the arrest of the people that were smoking pot because they were actively breaking the law (a law that I totally oppose and think should be changed)

[Soju 153]

no.. some of this was lost in discussion...

 

I am not for or against HIS arrest since I have no idea what he was charged with.. 

 

I am for the arrest of the people that were smoking pot because they were actively breaking the law (a law that I totally oppose and think should be changed)

Fair point. That was indeed lost. I was never talking about the arrest of the pot smokers (though I disagree with). I suppose it helps the discussion if we are on the same page...

 

With that said, let me ask you a few questions.

 

Are you against jury nullification?

 

Do you think laws like the NY SAFE act should be enforced? Is there any law you wouldn't follow (say tomorrow PA outlawed all AK, AR, or any other semi-auto rifle)?

[vladtepes 1,060]

Fair point. That was indeed lost. I was never talking about the arrest of the pot smokers (though I disagree with). I suppose it helps the discussion if we are on the same page...

 

With that said, let me ask you a few questions.

 

Are you against jury nullification?

 

Do you think laws like the NY SAFE act should be enforced? Is there any law you wouldn't follow (say tomorrow PA outlawed all AK, AR, or any other semi-auto rifle)?

 

 

I respect the law.. because I was raised to.. that does not mean I always agree with it... 

if tomorrow PA outlawed my guns.. I would move.. just like I did from NJ..

I do not support law that I believe to be unconstitutional.. 

 

but at the end of the day gov is elected by the people... and in certain areas the will of the people is to create "bad" laws.... our country is very divided.. so I think for some time you will see laws in places like NY that cater to the groups that want to be disarmed.. that want to have big gov.. and then you will see other more rural areas stick with laws that you and I would probably agree with more.. 

 

I think we are a long way from a "unified" nation.. 

 

I think jury nullification is dangerous because the will of a small segment of people at one moment in time may not represent the greatest good to the nation.. IMO 

[Soju 153]

I respect the law.. because I was raised to.. that does not mean I always agree with it... 

if tomorrow PA outlawed my guns.. I would move.. just like I did from NJ..

I do not support law that I believe to be unconstitutional..

And if that was federal law? Would you move out of the country?

 

 

I think jury nullification is dangerous because the will of a small segment of people at one moment in time may not represent the greatest good to the nation.. IMO

The notion of a "greater good" is far more dangerous than jury nullification. What is the greater good if it isn't for the good of individuals?

[vladtepes 1,060]

And if that was federal law? Would you move out of the country?

 

 

nope.. id probably go to the deepest darkest hole I could find to live out my years and hope for the best.. 

 

 

 

The notion of a "greater good" is far more dangerous than jury nullification. What is the greater good if it isn't for the good of individuals?

 

the greater good should be represented by the laws we create as a majority..

if a law is unjust and the majority of the nation feels that.. then it should be dealt with.. no need for nullification.. 

[Fred2 367]

 

the greater good should be represented by the laws we create as a majority..

if a law is unjust and the majority of the nation feels that.. then it should be dealt with.. no need for nullification.. 

Nullification is a right of the people to fight laws that are unjust.

 

If anything, it should be made known to Jurors prior to a trial, that they have the right to judge both the law and the accused.

[axeman_g 128]

As an aside... those were federal officers. That's National Park Land there and the greens unis are NPS LEO.

[Nikos 31]

nope.. id probably go to the deepest darkest hole I could find to live out my years and hope for the best.. 

 

With or without your firearms?

[vladtepes 1,060]

With or without your firearms?

With...

 

As long as there are states that will stand up to the fed... I will live there... If all of the states fall... And there is nowhere left to lawfully go... Then I guess at that point I am a criminal....

 

This is why the mindset of the nation has to change...

[vladtepes 1,060]

Nullification is a right of the people to fight laws that are unjust.

 

If anything, it should be made known to Jurors prior to a trial, that they have the right to judge both the law and the accused.

I appreciate that and understand it... But I don't agree with it....

 

I think if a law is so poor that a jury can find you guilty but still not convict you... Then that says a lot about the law... And it should probably not be a law..

[Walt of Destiny 412]

 

 

With or without your firearms?

With...

 

 

As long as there are states that will stand up to the fed... I will live there... If all of the states fall... And there is nowhere left to lawfully go... Then I guess at that point I am a criminal....

 

 

This is why the mindset of the nation has to change...

+1

 

We are a community that is on the verge of persecution(and prosecution) to the same extent of any other religious/ethnic/tribal cleansing that has stained our history. Our amendments were written to protect us from this. And our elected legislators are hollowing out the 2nd one.

 

Keep in mind that Hitler never held an office that he wasn't elected to.

 

Our efforts need to be with our fellow citizens. Discourse, outreach education. Take somebody to the range. Frankly, having been at the first rally in Trenton listening to the speakers and the waves of cheers and applause, I believe that it accomplishes very little. We are all pro2a. We need to get to the citizens who are ambivalent about it. Gay marriage proponents did a great job of that. We need to learn from them.

 

Could you imagine:

Vote pro2a/pro gay marriage. Same candidate.

 

Wasn't there a gay man just murdered in cold blood NYC for nothing other than being gay? If any one should be pro the right to self defense it should be gay rights advocates.

 

We need to evolve and adapt. Or we will go the way of the dinosaurs.

[vladtepes 1,060]

+1

 

We are a community that is on the verge of prosecution to the same extent of any other religious/ethnic/tribal cleansing that has stained our history. Our amendments were written to protect us from this. And our elected legislators are hollowing out the 2nd one.

 

Keep in mind that Hitler never held an office that he wasn't elected to.

 

Our efforts need to be with our fellow citizens. Discourse, outreach education. Take somebody to the range. Frankly, having been at the first rally in Trenton listening to the speakers and the waves of cheers and applause, I believe that it accomplishes very little. We are all pro2a. We need to get to the citizens who are ambivalent about it. Gay marriage proponents did a great job of that. We need to learn from them.

 

Could you imagine:

Vote pro2a/pro gay marriage. Same candidate.

 

Wasn't there a gay man just murdered in cold blood NYC for nothing other than being gay? If any one should be pro the right to self defense it should be gay rights advocates.

 

We need to evolve and adapt. Or we will go the way of the dinosaurs.

What we need is common sense across the board... You talk about aligning with a specific group... That's a good idea... But how about we start with not intentionally dividing ourselves... LoL... We can't even get it together and show unity on a forum built around a common love for firearms... And that is why we fail...

 

I have brought MANY shooters out for their first firearms experience... And that is how you make change.. Take someone not sure... Show them you are not nuts... And demonstrate the fun of the sport...

[Soju 153]

I appreciate that and understand it... But I don't agree with it....

 

I think if a law is so poor that a jury can find you guilty but still not convict you... Then that says a lot about the law... And it should probably not be a law..

You do realize that using jury nullification in that case is by far the best way to prove that the law should be changed don't you? Finding someone guilty of a law you think is unjust is the worse thing a jury can do.

[vladtepes 1,060]

i understand the concept of it.. I simply do not agree with it...

I don't think morally disagreeing with a law is grounds to break it.. therefore I do not believe not believing is a law is reason to not find guilt...

 

IMO guilt is established by the law being broken or not...

 

i respect that you disagree and see it as an opportunity to make change.. I just do not see it like that because the flip side concerns me....

In what twisted bad instance can that go wrong... where you get just the wrong jury that happens to sympathize with an awful person... one that is genuinely guilty of something bad...

 

ideally that would never happen.. but the potential is there...

 

 

realistically I think we have a million and one too many laws.. I think there should be far less laws on the books.. and the laws that are there should be far simpler... 

 

I see the problem... I just to not think nullification is the answer.. 

[Soju 153]

 

I don't think morally disagreeing with a law is grounds to break it.. therefore I do not believe not believing is a law is reason to not find guilt...

 

 

 I think that is both depressing and sad. If morality should play no role in laws what role should they play? The role of absolute power? 

[vladtepes 1,060]

 I think that is both depressing and sad. If morality should play no role in laws what role should they play? The role of absolute power? 

 

 

again.. the problem is your morals.. my morals.. your neighbors morals.. are ALL different.. 

there is NO standard.. 

[Soju 153]

again.. the problem is your morals.. my morals.. your neighbors morals.. are ALL different.. 

there is NO standard..

Which is why they should be judged.........................................

[vladtepes 1,060]

Which is why they should be judged.........................................

 

 

so.. make laws.. 

but then tell cops.. these are the laws.. but they really dont mean anything..

you can enforce them or not.. just do what you feel..

 

and then be prepared to be screamed at from every direction?

 

 

no thanks.. I would rather just have them follow the law..

[Soju 153]

Point

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

Vlad's head

[vladtepes 1,060]

Point

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

^

Vlad's head

 

 

ok so you have nothing left yo add to this.. cool..