Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
What?
I'm not sure what you're even getting at. I've asked several times what is inherently wrong with selling a cigarette that has been purchased legally once and the tax paid already? By that logic, it would be illegal to have a garage sale and sell my toaster oven to my neighbor.
I don't need to go anywhere. I can sit right here and criticize the validity of stupid laws just as easily as you can sit there and defend them.
Jane you ignorant...
Can you go to the liqueur store and buy a case of beer and set up on a corner and sell them at a profit, sometimes to minors? Fuck NO. And after you have been caught selling beer on the corner multiple times and dropped $5K in bail money for selling without proper taxes being paid on it, your going to jail. When the guy who's store sells beer complains, you will not get a whimpy little summons. I don't care if your beer has a tax stamp or not, you will get a few days in jail and a prosecutor who wants a huge bond, stipulations, and a ankle bracelet. He may not let you out without real estate for bond. If a police officer says we are going for a ride, you are going for a ride, either in the police car or an ambulance. I don't care if you are Jesus Christ. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, or the Easter Bunny. You will go to jail, people who laugh at authority, THE LAW, learn their lessons the hard way.
Does that answer your stupid ass question?
The fact is Garner knew if they arrested him he would be staying there until trial, then staying some more, he did not have an option as he was being arrested one way or another, he would be charged as a habitual violator. ask any fucking half assed attorney and they will shake their head and laugh. even his public sefender would ask the court to relieve her of their duties to represent such an idiot. EVEN BULL KNOWS THAT!!
He is not able to show the community that his actions were legal and reasonable. That's sad.
yeah, in this sound bite, 140 characters or less dumbass society people dont understand what "out of context means"
Killing those guys, brown/garner will help the future maybe by making some kid will think it's better to do what a cop says rather than passive stand there being a fat parasite on society.
or not to remove the orange part of a fake gun and lay it down when a cop rolls up on you.
whether or not the law regarding lose cigs is a good law or bad, this has been a lesson about cops vs anyone.
cops are gonna win.
I hope this allow less violence and more respect for the cops cause they can kill you/hurt you and your SOL.
I'd rather the cops not go to trial then go to trail more good will come from this how its been played out then if cops go to jail.
yeah, both these guys look like they give cops respect
I don't need to go anywhere. I can sit right here and criticize the validity of stupid laws just as easily as you can sit there and defend them.
HHAHAH
that's funnny
whether a law is valid or not, arguing the law wont stop it from being the law.
it was 3am, and no one was around, so I rolled through a stop sign,
cop pulled me over, I explained THIS LAW MAKES NO SENSE
he says, "yeah, you are right,,here sign this ticket....and dont break laws"
No one posting has suggested "outlawing" cigarettes. Their sale IS REGULATED.
Just like guns, and just like booze, both of can be "dangerous" too.
I haven't seen anyone post Garner "deserved to die." I have seen some posts that state he was responsible for his own death by refusing to cooperate with the police. It was a simple matter of complying and being respectful to them.
So why is it that you must take an extreme position on a topic ... to distort the discussion?
As usual, many of you fucktards read way too much into a post looking for an argument or a reason to prove you know the law or where to look up the text like a frustrated law school dropout.
I stated that it is a stupid law as far as I'm concerned.
I've asked several times now for someone, anyone, to explain to me how selling loosies is inherently wrong. No one has answered the question yet. You want to bring up other stupid laws that are similar in nature. Hell, most of those are stupid too.
Fact is, there is nothing inherently wrong with selling a loose cigarette for which the tax has already been paid. For that matter there is nothing inherently wrong with selling your buddy a swig off of your bottle of MD20/20. Who does that hurt? That's my point.
Someone please tell me how selling a loose cigarette, for which the pack has been legally bought and paid for, to another consenting adult, is a danger to the people of the state or for that matter how making it illegal benefits them.
There are laws against sling pussy in most states. Is that inherently wrong? Most of the rest of the world doesn't think so. The only way we are going to see those laws disappear is by passing other laws that tax and regulate the slinging of pussy. I guess y'all are going to be all for that as well.
How about we get rid of useless laws that make it illegal for us to do shit that harms no one but ourselves? The argument that society will pay for the health problems I bring on myself is now out the window, I am now required, by law, to buy insurance for that so really most laws that make it illegal for me to do something detrimental to my health by my own decision should be null and void. The government has forced me to take responsibility for my health care AND they want to force me to not do anything that is unhealthy? How much more control of your lives do you want to give up?
I don't want or need the government protecting me from myself or you from yourselves and I damn sure think the police and courts have plenty enough to do without enforcing these obscure, useless laws.
Passing more laws that cover the same fucking thing dilutes and obscures the laws already in place. That benefits no one but the lawyers. Passing laws that are rooted in the principles of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the basic tenants of the Ten Commandments, don't harm others, is the way to go.
As usual, many of you fucktards read way too much into a post looking for an argument #1
or a reason to prove you know the law or where to look up the text like a frustrated law school dropout. #2
I stated that it is a stupid law as far as I'm concerned.#3
I don't want or need the government protecting me from myself or you from yourselves and I damn sure think the police and courts have plenty enough to do without enforcing these obscure, useless laws.#4
#1 ... that would be you.
#2 ... who does that, spit it out.
#3 ... it's still "the law."
#4 .... some do need it. Probable most. As around Houston for example, there are a lot of color-blind people or those who cannot comprehend their instructional materials from driver's education training, because they don't know what "RED" means at an intersection, and they can't read because they don't know what "STOP" means in an octagon sign.
A problem with your continued "analysis" is that you use LEGAL activities to justify ignoring the ILLEGAL ONES. Your dislike for the law seems off topic, and that has nothing ... NOTHING... to do with posting excerpts FROM THE LAW.
#1 ... that would be you. I admit I do that from time to time.
#2 ... who does that, spit it out. You for one.
#3 ... it's still "the law." And it's still stupid
#4 .... some do need it. Probable most. As around Houston for example, there are a lot of color-blind people or those who cannot comprehend their instructional materials from driver's education training, because they don't know what "RED" means at an intersection, and they can't read because they don't know what "STOP" means in an octagon sign. I think I understand what you are saying but that is not protecting one from themselves that is protecting others. Nothing wrong with requiring someone to have a basic understanding of the traffic laws and physically being able to obey them in order to get a license to use the same roadways as the general public. Having those same requirements if I want to drive only on my own private land would be stupid, would it not?
A problem with your continued "analysis" is that you use LEGAL activities to justify ignoring the ILLEGAL ONES. Your dislike for the law seems off topic, and that has nothing ... NOTHING... to do with posting excerpts FROM THE LAW.
I am "a frustrated law school dropout"? Or I "respond" like one?
I did answer your question, ...
........ but like a dumbshit whore poster we know you didn't like my answer.
I don't recall having ever called you names or impliedly marginalized you for your posts. I am sorry that the depth of your ignorance has invited you to do so. I will peruse my posts to see if I may have inadvertently done so to you, or to see if I may have posted something you misinterpreted as being a personal attack on you.
