dtjcview wrote:
Caj-11 - Any chance of reposting your last post. I think you attributed Vigilante's posts to me and vice-versa.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
[quote]
dtjcview wrote:

I think your post is directed at Caj11 or someone else. I am simply stating the facts of his arrests to prove that he is a punk and has escaped justice solely through plea bargaining. I blame the prosecutors office. This guy in NO WAY is a representative of the legalization movement. By the way? Those charges are real and a matter of record. If they weren't then he could sue the sh** out of the newspaper.

Wrong. Charges mean NOTHING.

Yes I know. That was the point of my post. They mean nothing because he struck a bargain to a lesser charge. But the fact is that persons made sworn statements about his behavior and about his criminal activity. They are moot simply because the prosecutors didn't want a trial and allowed his copping to a lesser charge. Legally those charges now mean nothing but the fact is he did behave that way.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Yeah.... charged? Where's the convictions?

Look think about it. If you were the like of DSK or Flood - hauled through the courts on arrest charges, didn't get convicted of any crime. Might have agreed some kind of plea bargain that didn't include any felony record.

But got sacked by your employer. You'd sure as hell go after every penny you could. And in Flood's case that cash would come from us taxpayers.

I get your point Vigilante. JC has taken your kinda stance often enough and gotten burnt financially at the expense of the property owners. Stop burning my wallet with your principles please.

I think your post is directed at Caj11 or someone else. I am simply stating the facts of his arrests to prove that he is a punk and has escaped justice solely through plea bargaining. I blame the prosecutors office. This guy in NO WAY is a representative of the legalization movement. By the way? Those charges are real and a matter of record. If they weren't then he could sue the sh** out of the newspaper.

Wrong. Charges mean NOTHING.

Vigilante wrote:
Quote:

dtjcview wrote:
Yeah.... charged? Where's the convictions?

Look think about it. If you were the like of DSK or Flood - hauled through the courts on arrest charges, didn't get convicted of any crime. Might have agreed some kind of plea bargain that didn't include any felony record.

But got sacked by your employer. You'd sure as hell go after every penny you could. And in Flood's case that cash would come from us taxpayers.

I get your point Vigilante. JC has taken your kinda stance often enough and gotten burnt financially at the expense of the property owners. Stop burning my wallet with your principles please.

I think your post is directed at Caj11 or someone else. I am simply stating the facts of his arrests to prove that he is a punk and has escaped justice solely through plea bargaining. I blame the prosecutors office. This guy in NO WAY is a representative of the legalization movement. By the way? Those charges are real and a matter of record. If they weren't then he could sue the sh** out of the newspaper.

dtjcview wrote:
Yeah.... charged? Where's the convictions?

Look think about it. If you were the like of DSK or Flood - hauled through the courts on arrest charges, didn't get convicted of any crime. Might have agreed some kind of plea bargain that didn't include any felony record.

But got sacked by your employer. You'd sure as hell go after every penny you could. And in Flood's case that cash would come from us taxpayers.

I get your point Vigilante. JC has taken your kinda stance often enough and gotten burnt financially at the expense of the property owners. Stop burning my wallet with your principles please.

dtjcview wrote: @caj11 Number of arrests shouldn't count for anything, just the number of convictions. Any company that fires you for an arrest without a conviction opens itself to a world of pain in lawsuits. Given JC's budget comes out of our taxpayer pockets, including paying off lawsuits, I'd tread very carefully. @Vigilante Prove it. Take the guy to court, convict him of the offenses. Arrests <> convictions.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
According to the County Executive office, this most recent charge of marijuana possession just got downgraded to a municipal charge. Disgusting. Whether Mr. Flood will be punished or not is one thing, but because its a municipal charge, it won't be on his criminal record. Somehow this didn't make the papers either.

I'll say it again - my views on marijuana aside, for now, the dealing and usage of marijuana is illegal in New Jersey and until the law changes, nobody should be above it. Especially when they've been arrested four times and still manage to keep their job. I know my boss would have kicked me to the curb long ago if I was arrested four times, guilty or innocent.

Why do my tax dollars have to support this? Is it that hard to find people who are drug free to work for Hudson County?

I'd look at it from the perspective of why should the police and courts waste MY tax dollars prosecuting a "crime" that might only harm the marijuana user.

dtjcview wrote:
Quote:

caj11 wrote:
According to the County Executive office, this most recent charge of marijuana possession just got downgraded to a municipal charge. Disgusting. Whether Mr. Flood will be punished or not is one thing, but because its a municipal charge, it won't be on his criminal record. Somehow this didn't make the papers either.

I'll say it again - my views on marijuana aside, for now, the dealing and usage of marijuana is illegal in New Jersey and until the law changes, nobody should be above it. Especially when they've been arrested four times and still manage to keep their job. I know my boss would have kicked me to the curb long ago if I was arrested four times, guilty or innocent.

Why do my tax dollars have to support this? Is it that hard to find people who are drug free to work for Hudson County?

I'd look at it from the perspective of why should the police and courts waste MY tax dollars prosecuting a "crime" that might only harm the marijuana user.

caj11 wrote:
According to the County Executive office, this most recent charge of marijuana possession just got downgraded to a municipal charge. Disgusting. Whether Mr. Flood will be punished or not is one thing, but because its a municipal charge, it won't be on his criminal record. Somehow this didn't make the papers either.

I'll say it again - my views on marijuana aside, for now, the dealing and usage of marijuana is illegal in New Jersey and until the law changes, nobody should be above it. Especially when they've been arrested four times and still manage to keep their job. I know my boss would have kicked me to the curb long ago if I was arrested four times, guilty or innocent.

Why do my tax dollars have to support this? Is it that hard to find people who are drug free to work for Hudson County?

brewster wrote:
Quote:

borisp wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

Answer the question: Does you idea of "freedom from government safety regulations" include being treated at public expense if you are injured without your own ability to pay? Yes or no?

Already answered.

No, not clearly, it appears like you are trying to weasel out of actually choosing.

Annod wrote:
Hudson County Register's son arrested for marijuana possession, Jersey City police say



In November, Phillip Flood was charged with aggravated assault and making terroristic threats after a school security guard told him he could not park at School 29?s Clerk Street annex, officials said.

In 2007, Flood II was charged with selling marijuana out of his mother?s Mercedes at Wayne and Barrow streets, and he was charged with offenses including dealing drugs within 1,000 feet of a school and within 500 feet of a park, reports said. The matter was later downgraded to municipal court.

In 2006, the state charged Phillip Flood with unlawfully collecting $13,000 in unemployment insurance and he paid back the money and entered a pretrial intervention program, officials said.

In early 2008, Willie Flood was inducted into Channel 5?s ?Hall of Shame? after reporter Arnold Diaz aired an expose on her hiring her son as her council aide and as a data processor in the Register?s Office.

Phillip Flood gave up the $15,000 city job but kept the $40,000 county job, officials said, adding that he continues to hold the county post.



http://www.nj.com/jjournal-news/index ... nty_registers_son_ar.html

borisp wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

Answer the question: Does you idea of "freedom from government safety regulations" include being treated at public expense if you are injured without your own ability to pay? Yes or no?

Already answered.

brewster wrote:

Answer the question: Does you idea of "freedom from government safety regulations" include being treated at public expense if you are injured without your own ability to pay? Yes or no?

borisp wrote:

And I did not find that "or" to add anything. One doesn't need any conditions to insist on his rights.

brewster wrote:

There was an "OR" in the 1st line of my post, the option to do as you please but not take from others.

It sure sounds like you're supporting a right to healthcare you haven't paid for, that's a "taking from other people" isn't it?

I don't deny that personal risk reduction is a damn slippery slope from helmets to healthy eating. But we can do things like stopping subsidizing unhealthy food industries.

borisp wrote:
Quote:

brewster wrote:

I would be cool with this form of "no nanny state" Libertarianism if those who subscribe either have really great health insurance or carry a card saying "I refuse all forms of healthcare beyond my own resources under all circumstances". How many of the helmetless bikers zooming our roads do you think have insufficient insurance for the major head trauma they're taunting?

This is like a totalitarian MO :

1. Announce that you are going to provide some benefit, - at the expense of other people, of course.

2. Announce that since you now provide this benefit at the expense of other people, you just have to protect those other people, - and force them to behave "safely".

Every new program is used as a justification for the next one, - and always in order to "protect" us, - from the harm of the first program.

Somehow an idea that if the first program is harmful, we need to dismantle it, - is never considered. It is always used as a justification for the next step. And the next step. And the next step.

Ok, I have a question: where do you stop?

I mean, would you use the same logic to justify a law that would mandate:

A. Wearing warm clothes in winter?
B. Eating only Government-approved meals?
C. Washing hands regularly?
D. Doing Government-approved set of exercises?

Note, I do not argue that these are good, healthy things. I agree that they are. I am asking - are you going to FORCE us to do them, - based on the same reasoning that you just announced?

If not, - why not? Is there a difference a principle and logic?

Or is the difference only in that you want to move slowly, encroaching on our freedom step-by-step? What's your plan?

brewster wrote:

I would be cool with this form of "no nanny state" Libertarianism if those who subscribe either have really great health insurance or carry a card saying "I refuse all forms of healthcare beyond my own resources under all circumstances". How many of the helmetless bikers zooming our roads do you think have insufficient insurance for the major head trauma they're taunting?

brewster wrote:
I would be cool with this form of "no nanny state" Libertarianism if those who subscribe either have really great health insurance or carry a card saying "I refuse all forms of healthcare beyond my own resources under all circumstances". How many of the helmetless bikers zooming our roads do you think have insufficient insurance for the major head trauma they're taunting?

It's a funny coincidence, those most likely to abuse their bodies whether it's drugs, no helmets or extreme sports are also those most likely to not have insurance to cover the health crisis they're playing dice with. There's good analogy somewhere to the fact that the states that claim the most "rugged independence" and frown on big gov't, are the biggest net recipients of Federal cash. If you talk the talk you gotta walk the walk...

Seagull wrote: Quote:

jcresident0001 wrote: Then Move!!! All of you who think or believe its OK ... LEAVE ... look at NYC I do not want to see JC SINK to that level!!!!! Its the begining you idiots!!!!!

It's the beginning of what? Sensibility? The only idiots here are the ones like you that believe it's better to lock people up for minor drug offenses like marijuana possession instead of decriminalizing it and fining people. Maybe if the cops didn't spend their manpower and our tax dollars to arrest people for minor possession, they could focus on the much bigger issues at hand like the ever-growing heroin problem we have in this state. You said you "do not want to see JC SINK to that level", but I hate to break it to you since you must be living under a rock.......JERSEY CITY HAS A HEROIN PROBLEM.....a big one. WAKE UP or move 'cause we're already below that level.