Anthony sentenced in Clinton

Grimes said:

I'm simply trying to make an example. I don't really care if you find it stupid or not. You can't compare wearing a seatbelt to buying a pound a pot. They are two entirely different things.

Click to expand...

You're correct... not wearing a seat belt is much worse... you could die if you don't wear it.

Grimes said:

The law that convicted Anthony was to try and take violence between drug deals and be able to convict a criminal further. Anthony fell under it whether anyone else likes it or not. I believe almost all states have a law similar to this.

If you don't like the law, try and get it changed. Not simply complain about it on here.

Click to expand...

You haven't read the LA. law have you??? What you believe is irrelevant. Do some reading so that you may speak intelligently on matters that interest you.

Grimes said:

I'm not denying that he had the "right to defend himself". But he was engaged in illegal activity, so it does not make it "lawful self-defense".

Click to expand...

You keep repeating this idea, so I'll keep repeating this response: if Anthony had been engaged in any other illegal transaction, it would have been perfectly legal self defense.

If he'd been illegally buying pot for personal use, his self defense would have been lawful.
If he'd been illegally buying a stolen car, his self defense would have been lawful.
If he'd been illegally buying sexual favors, his self defense would have been lawful.

It wasn't that it was "illegal activity", it was one specific illegal activity, and the prosecution would have to prove intent to distribute in order to exclude justifiable self defense.

Ok, how bout this then. Say it wasn't Anthony on trial, say it was some gang member doing the same thing.

Most of you would change your tone and say that he got what he deserved. Some of you would possibly say that he should be locked up for longer.

Emotions are getting in the way of judgment here.

Grimes said:

SNIP Say it wasn't Anthony on trial, say it was some gang member doing the same thing.

Most of you would change your tone and say that he got what he deserved. Some of you would possibly say that he should be locked up for longer.

Emotions are getting in the way of judgment here.

Click to expand...

Oh, I wouldn't say that. I would say just the opposite: I would say emotions were getting in the way under the "[gang member getting what he deserved]" scenario.

As 2A supporters we recognize the impulse toward self-defense. Some/many of us devote quite a bit of time to persuading others to recognize it (activism).

It is a maxim among some philosphers that it is pointless to buck the laws of nature; its been around for centuries, perhaps millenia.

Grimes said:

Ok, how bout this then. Say it wasn't Anthony on trial, say it was some gang member doing the same thing.

Most of you would change your tone and say that he got what he deserved. Some of you would possibly say that he should be locked up for longer.

Emotions are getting in the way of judgment here.

Click to expand...

I would suggest that logic is getting in the way of judgement for some in this thread.

Speaking only for myself, I couldn't care less if he was a free individual or a drug lord. The moment the other party attacked him in an attempt at armed robbery, the "attempt to purchase a controlled substance for distribution" ended, immediately! (Thanks to marshaul for that insight.)

He was the victim of an attempted armed robbery, and defended himself with appropriate force. That is all.

If the state wants to prosecute him for the drug crime, they should do so. But don't prosecute him for self defense.

I see your view on that side of the issue. While I don't exactly 100% agree with it, I understand what you are saying.