G&T Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 (edited) QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 08:50 PM) Or better yet, maybe the police should pick and choose which internet pothead picture they should go after, in order of perceived celebrity, what an even greater idea. I mean, if you see someone smoking in a picture, then they obviously can get you the name of a dealer who you can bring down, everyone will rat everyone out and all will be well in the world. This is a 15 seconds of fame by this police department, they are going to make a lot of grand statements and in the end someone is going to get busted for misdemeanor possession and thats it, POSSIBLY intent to distribute but very doubtful considering they have a picture of a guy pulling a bong, and not actual proof of possession or any actual marijuana as it is. In fact, the only thing they have is bong residue. Its a waste of taxpayer dollars in the name of fame. Internet pictures are not as simple a prospect in police investigation as you make them out to be. For the most part, it is difficult to determine where the activity occurred, thus whose jurisdiction applies. If the police could easily know, they probably would go after everyone. . . especially in a state where first time possession is still criminal. Here, the police know where the use and possession took place and South Carolina has relatively steep anti-marijuana laws. On top of that, you had that idiot selling the bong on E-Bay. This type of crap is basically taunting the police. Fact is, you think the law sucks and you want the police to selectively enforce the law. Doesn't matter what few charges they end up with, it's their job to investigate. I take a fairly liberal view on marijuana, but I don't ridicule police for doing their job. BTW, if the taxpayers don't want their money wasted, tell them to change the law. This wouldn't happen in Massachusetts or California. Edited February 15, 2009 by G&T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 14, 2009 -> 08:34 PM) Internet pictures are not as simple a prospect in police investigation as you make them out to be. For the most part, it is difficult to determine where the activity occurred, thus whose jurisdiction applies. If the police could easily know, they probably would go after everyone. . . especially in a state where first time possession is still criminal. Here, the police know where the use and possession took place and South Carolina has relatively steep anti-marijuana laws. On top of that, you had that idiot selling the bong on E-Bay. This type of crap is basically taunting the police. Fact is, you think the law sucks and you want the police to selectively enforce the law. Doesn't matter what few charges they end up with, it's their job to investigate. I take a fairly liberal view on marijuana, but I don't ridicule police for doing their job. BTW, if the taxpayers don't want their money wasted, tell them to change the law. This wouldn't happen in Massachusetts or California. Isnt that exactly what they are doing, selectively enforcing the law? Why dont they go ahead and go after every pothead that Facebook and Myspace have to offer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 15, 2009 -> 08:55 AM) Isnt that exactly what they are doing, selectively enforcing the law? Why dont they go ahead and go after every pothead that Facebook and Myspace have to offer? First of all, you are comparing the enforcement policies of a nation to this particular police department of which we know little about. Do you know the normal enforcement policies of this department or of South Carolina? Even ignoring that, the internet can be a jurisdictional landmine. Someone from Chicago can post a picture of himself smoking up god knows where. Jurisdiction exists where the criminal act occurred, not where the suspect resides. That makes these case very difficult, not to mention the possibility of fake pictures and photo shopping. So, no, I don't think it's selective enforcement because this is an obvious case where Phelps admitted to what was going on and it is clear whose jurisdiction applied. On top of that, you have that idiot trying to profit off the criminal activity. Honestly, what do you want them to do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 15, 2009 Share Posted February 15, 2009 QUOTE (G&T @ Feb 15, 2009 -> 08:43 AM) First of all, you are comparing the enforcement policies of a nation to this particular police department of which we know little about. Do you know the normal enforcement policies of this department or of South Carolina? Even ignoring that, the internet can be a jurisdictional landmine. Someone from Chicago can post a picture of himself smoking up god knows where. Jurisdiction exists where the criminal act occurred, not where the suspect resides. That makes these case very difficult, not to mention the possibility of fake pictures and photo shopping. So, no, I don't think it's selective enforcement because this is an obvious case where Phelps admitted to what was going on and it is clear whose jurisdiction applied. On top of that, you have that idiot trying to profit off the criminal activity. Honestly, what do you want them to do? The idiot trying to sell the bong totally deserves to be prosecuted, I cant imagine a dumber thing being done. And I completely agree that the internet is a jurisdictional landmine, which makes you wonder why the police dept wants to get up on their high horse because a celebrity is involved. Come on, there has to be someone at the university of S Carolina who has posted plenty of pics of himself/herself smoking up on the internet, and all the sudden this police department wants to get involved and hand out misdemeanor tickets to Phelps. Its just stupid. It isnt a case of trying to catch a dealer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 No charges filed. South Carolina drug dealers can all breath a sigh of relief Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted February 16, 2009 Share Posted February 16, 2009 QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 12:08 PM) South Carolina drug dealers can all breath a sigh of relief Or they can take a breath of something else... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G&T Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 03:08 PM) No charges filed. South Carolina drug dealers can all breath a sigh of relief I guess that movie deal for the police department is out of the question now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RockRaines Posted February 17, 2009 Share Posted February 17, 2009 QUOTE (kyyle23 @ Feb 16, 2009 -> 02:08 PM) No charges filed. South Carolina drug dealers can all breath a sigh of relief Not a huge surprise really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigSqwert Posted February 24, 2009 Share Posted February 24, 2009 Dumping Phelps Over Bong Rip Damages Kellogg's Brand Reputation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.