Soju

Which is quite absurd if you think about it. I mean, arbitrarily defining who can and cannot carry is absurd enough, but how crazy is it that they further define what you can or cannot carry? Today, you can carry those hollowpoints. But after you retire tomorrow, you can still carry, but you must use different ammunition...

I'm still confused about what part of the law says that probable cause means you no longer need a warrant. I thought it meant that without probable cause, they couldn't even get issued a warrant. But I'll just chalk that up to another one of those pesky amendments that get in the way so isn't followed.

Yep, the NYC kangaroo traffic courts (if you want to call them courts) are run this way because it is a for profit business for the city. There is no presumption of innocence. They don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt anything. You are not entitled to supporting evidence. No evidence is even needed to prove guilt. Due process be damned. The judge works for the same people as the prosecutor. In fact they don't even hold any valid jurisdiction. Welcome to legal land. You don't even get one Mickey Mouse hat.

It isn't all about you vlad. It was it (IMO) relevant to the thread. Also... ease up on the ellipsis' please... 251 times in 24 posts is more than excessive... I suppose not all were ellipsis'... as some had 2.. or 4 periods instead....

NJ gun laws are like a game of monopoly. Sometimes through chance, you go directly to jail and someone else gets to take your property.

Most states? You sure? Not all states are Jersey stupid.

Actually I added that you missed the point. And it is cool. But I digress. Just some fun trivia: Which country has the largest incarceration rate of their population? I mean, because of course the notion that the US has become/is becoming a police state is ridiculous right? So it can't be the US. Well the answer is in fact the US. And it isn't even close. Why do I bring this up? Well, because this thread was started about an event that had a number of people arrested for marijuana, and the war on drugs is certainly the reason for our insane incarceration rate...which leads to ruin lives, prison over crowding, the early release of actual violent criminals (to make room for the drug offenders), for profit prisons, debt, amongst other things. But you know, we must enforce these laws. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI07pk86df8

Indeed it does! But there are only 1 or maybe 2 states that allow someone to be a lawyer without a law degree, so if someone is calling themselves a lawyer and only has an engineering degree, look out!

To avoid a warrantless search. Oops! It happened anyways.

Point ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Vlad's head

I know you would love that but it was a serious question.

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

I didn't forget anything. I am not, as you have also spoken against, saying cops can make up their own laws. If their only discretion is to enforce the law or not, how awful can it be, and what would change anything now? It isn't like police can't already make good or bad decisions. I find it sad you don't think they should be able to make good ones though. I'm aware but your opposition to things doesn't make sense otherwise. Well really the politicians are. As we have all seen, they often don't follow what their constituents want. Yet you still think they are the only ones who should make change....

At what point did they realize they weren't being ambushed by a squad of Ramboesque commandos, before or after people were forced from their homes and they had deployed snipers to the roofs?

What is ridiculous it that you keep making up hypotheticals and attributing them to my opinion when they are your scenarios. Not mine. You have stated you don't think laws should be based on morality, but rather majority rules, so it is no wonder you don't want police exercising judgment of their own morality to decide not to enforce unjust laws. What do you think happens now? Police have some magic wand and all laws are enforced the same everywhere without any judgment involved? If you live in fantasy land, then I am jealous. I live in reality where things aren't always fair, and are often 'arbitrary'. I'd like a postcard please. Yep, it is called the real world. Welcome and nice to meet you.

I understand what you are saying, and I think it is a piss poor attitude to have. And I am telling you, that despite your disagreement with things, you are wrong. You seem to be upset when politicians make crappy laws, but then turn around and say they should be enforced and upheld when all that is required to make them moot, is to not enforce them, and to nullify them via juries. That is the way our nations works too. Ridiculous notion. Your understanding of a Constitutional Republic, as opposed to a true democracy is weak. This isn't the majority rules. You created the thread title, please take your own advice. We don't live in some fantasy land where only good things happen by enforcing these wonderful laws. By your own admission there are unjust laws you wish changed. Kind of puts a wrinkle in your whole; enforcing laws=peace assertion, that certainly doesn't always hold true.

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?

I find it both impressive that you are able to know my tone based on text, and that though you don't trust politicians you still somehow think they should be the only ones to change laws. By your own admission things won't change the way you want them to and you don't support change in any other method. That my friend, is an exercise in futility. It is also mind boggling.

So it isn't our job. It isn't the police's job. And you don't trust politicians. Excellent attitude. Things will surely change!

You use common sense rather than making sarcastic suggestions because you have a differing opinion?

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.

As opposed to a lawyer with a law degree?

You mean like you did in this thread? Tell me this isn't the pot calling the kettle black. This stuff is just too good.

There is a big difference between sending a unit or two to go investigate, and sending swat units, evacuating and blocking off the area, and posting snipers on the roofs of neighbors houses. Unless the report was that Rambo was taking over the neighborhood, I have a feeling there was just a bit of an overreaction.

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