Marion County will no longer prosecute simple marijuana possession

[Jin]

I think of Ron Swanson

Any question that starts with “should the government..”

The answer is automatically “no”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nra4ever]

Yes this was for publicity because the election is this Saturday for those of you that dont know how it works. Dont worry it's an election that you wont get to vote on the candidate. the person that wins will more than likely remain as prosecutor.

 

[KLB]

I'm not saying that failing to enforce weed possession laws would lead to homeless people shooting up and crapping in someone's yard.

I was just pointing out that enforcement of weed possession laws is irrelevant to me, since I don't smoke weed, but if they also decided to not enforce whatever laws would prevent homeless folks from shooting up and crapping in my yard, I'd be a little put out if I did have that problem and a cop came out and just shrugged his shoulders.

I hear they have that problem in San Francisco and some other cities on the west coast.

You might be disappointed if you ever have that issue. Sounds like trespassing, maybe a trip to rehab.

 

[KLB]

To be clear I could care less about someone smoking weed. As I stated before, the problem I see is SOMEONE is making a decision not to enforce the law. I don't know who that someone is and I don't know what decision they are going to make tomorrow that might affect me in a negative way. Again I will ask, what do we need a legislature for if the laws they enact are selectively enforced or ignored? There are many things that most would consider victimless crimes how many others are ignored and who makes that decision? That's my issue. Actually I agree completely with decriminalizing in this instance but if we are going to follow the law it's not my call and it's not the call of the politician that made it.


[FONT=&amp]NRA Life Member / [/FONT]Basic Pistol instructor[FONT=&amp] / RSO[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Under pressure, you don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training. That's why we train so hard" [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Unnamed Navy Seal[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]“Ego is the reason many men do not shoot competition. They don't want to suck in public” [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Aron Bright [/FONT]

Reread the second paragraph I wrote. There is nothing new about this concept. Prosecutors and law enforcement have always done it.

Have you ever not been pulled over while speeding? Know of a kid whose parents were called instead of being arrested?

 

[Denny347]

Officer discretion. For small crimes, we have a LOT of leeway on how WE choose to address the issue. Arrest is not always the best course of action. For MJ, I make them throw it away, dump it, and then let them go about their day. Prosecutors have the legal authority to decide who and what to prosecute. This is not unusual nor problematic, they just never advertised it.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Sort of like my recent visit to traffic court. The judge was a real nice guy, lot of joking around. He knew people drove there without a license, and he knew people were leaving there driving without a license... just told them to get one, and joked about it.

Were they technically breaking the law? Sure. Was it worth hassling them further over it? Nah.

 

[JollyMon]

I have no problem with them not prosecuting small quantities of MJ and I have no problems if it became legal here in IN.

I have no issues with someone wanting to smoke MJ any more then the person wanting to drink. If thats how one chooses to relax. Who am I to tell someone what they can and cannot do to their body.

The less government intrusion we have in this country the better, especially if it deals with the failed war on drugs and a green plant.

 

[KMaC]

Sort of like my recent visit to traffic court. The judge was a real nice guy, lot of joking around. He knew people drove there without a license, and he knew people were leaving there driving without a license... just told them to get one, and joked about it.

Were they technically breaking the law? Sure. Was it worth hassling them further over it? Nah.

No problem until they hit you or your car. If they don't have a license they don't have insurance and 99% probability that they don't have money either.

 

[Ziggidy]

Some cops use a "common sense" approach, and just tell someone to fix something instead of going by the letter of the law. Intent holds a lot of weight.

I agree whole heartily; however, that is usually done in a quiet setting between the cop and the individual. This is different. You have Mears openly stating his department will not take these cases on. News conference to tell the world.....leaves me uncomfortable. As already touched on, seems as though Mears is deciding what laws to follow and what laws not to follow; placing his own spin on that determination. What if people do not agree? What if the officer decides he will follow the law? Will the officer be reprimanded for following the law?

Is Mears' word better than the State Legislators? What's next? He is no different than those who are giving the finger to our constitution. We are country of laws for a reason. If the laws are wrong or need to be changed, we have a process for that. We have laws how to do that. What's next?

Common sense still needs to follow the law.

There is a line from a movie "Billy Jack" where he says (Paraphrase mine) "When the law breaks the law, there is no law."

 

[Ziggidy]

what I find interesting are the comments and arguments that claim it's no big deal, what's an ounce of MJ....it's a waste of time and such. Not many are looking at the "law" as being "the law". My claim it is wrong because it "is" law. Now, let's look at the anti-gunners; their argument. They do not like guns, hate the shootings and would like to remove guns from our "legal" gun owners. Our argument is the 2nd Amendment. The constitution states I can have a gun.....it's law. The only way things will change is through gun law changes.

Why is ok to reference "the law" with one, but sidestep the law with another? Just seems to me we use the law when it pertains to us but when it is something we really do not care about, or in this case MJ, all of a sudden it's ok to ignore the law?

It's this kind of pick and choose that has infiltrated our religions, schools and government......and we can only blame ourselves for this.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

The power to not enforce a law lies with the executive branch, but they lack the power to create new law. The legislative branch has the power to create (and repeal) law, but they lack a way to enforce it. Just as much a part of checks and balances as the jury box.

 

[Route 45]

what I find interesting are the comments and arguments that claim it's no big deal, what's an ounce of MJ....it's a waste of time and such. Not many are looking at the "law" as being "the law". My claim it is wrong because it "is" law. Now, let's look at the anti-gunners; their argument. They do not like guns, hate the shootings and would like to remove guns from our "legal" gun owners. Our argument is the 2nd Amendment. The constitution states I can have a gun.....it's law. The only way things will change is through gun law changes.

Why is ok to reference "the law" with one, but sidestep the law with another? Just seems to me we use the law when it pertains to us but when it is something we really do not care about, or in this case MJ, all of a sudden it's ok to ignore the law?

It's this kind of pick and choose that has infiltrated our religions, schools and government......and we can only blame ourselves for this.

Do you believe that everyone driving 1 mph over the speed limit should be pulled over and ticketed?

 

[HoughMade]

Do you believe that everyone driving 1 mph over the speed limit should be pulled over and ticketed?

I was just explaining to my wife on Sunday as we drove from Burlington, KY to Valparaiso in 4 hours flat that speed limits are limits in the sense that you may freely exceed them if you are willing to pay a fee for the privilege after the fact, and only if "asked".

 

[Ziggidy]

Do you believe that everyone driving 1 mph over the speed limit should be pulled over and ticketed?

I believe you understand my question, my post.

1 mph over? 1 oz MJ? 10 round limit? Ban armalite? Ban knives over 4 fingers?

My point, who is above the law and can actually determine which laws to follow or not; especially in an open forum. Slippery slope for certain. I truly can see the "executive branch" being swayed by popular support.

 

[Route 45]

I believe you understand my question, my post.

1 mph over? 1 oz MJ? 10 round limit? Ban armalite? Ban knives over 4 fingers?

My point, who is above the law and can actually determine which laws to follow or not; especially in an open forum. Slippery slope for certain. I truly can see the "executive branch" being swayed by popular support.

Failing to prosecute a prohibition law (marijuana) results in freedom. No prosecutor can "ban" anything, because this results in restrictions that are not based in law. Magazine restrictions and such are not even in the same ballpark. A better example would be if there was a magazine restriction in place and the prosecutor announced that it would not be prosecuted. That would be apples to apples.

Marijuana is still illegal, nothing has changed. It is just that the offense is so minor that it is ridiculous to assign resources to enforce and prosecute.

So I'll ask again. Do you think that law enforcement should dedicate resources to pulling over and ticketing everyone that is driving 1 mph over the speed limit?

When you figure out the answer to that question, you will figure out why governments must have discretion in the enforcement of laws.

 

[NHT3]

Reread the second paragraph I wrote. There is nothing new about this concept. Prosecutors and law enforcement have always done it.

Have you ever not been pulled over while speeding? Know of a kid whose parents were called instead of being arrested?

Just because it's been done before doesn't make it right. Yes officers have the latitude to give me a ticket or not and yes I have been released at that point. This is someone above the officer telling them not to arrest anyone for a particular offense. I guess we can agree to disagree.
I see all speeding violations less than 12 MPH as unfair and believe they should all be excused. If just a "little' marijuana gets you a pass then just a little speeding should also be excused shouldn't it? A politician issuing a blanket "get out of jail free" card for one offense while enforcing other laws as complete bull .
[FONT=&amp]NRA Life Member / [/FONT]Basic Pistol instructor[FONT=&amp] / RSO[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Under pressure, you don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training. That's why we train so hard" [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Unnamed Navy Seal[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]“Ego is the reason many men do not shoot competition. They don't want to suck in public” [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Aron Bright [/FONT]

 

[Ziggidy]

Failing to prosecute a prohibition law (marijuana) results in freedom. No prosecutor can "ban" anything, because this results in restrictions that are not based in law. Magazine restrictions and such are not even in the same ballpark. A better example would be if there was a magazine restriction in place and the prosecutor announced that it would not be prosecuted. That would be apples to apples.

Marijuana is still illegal, nothing has changed. It is just that the offense is so minor that it is ridiculous to assign resources to enforce and prosecute.

So I'll ask again. Do you think that law enforcement should dedicate resources to pulling over and ticketing everyone that is driving 1 mph over the speed limit?

When you figure out the answer to that question, you will figure out why governments must have discretion in the enforcement of laws.

You keep side stepping my point. Are sanctuary cities acceptable or even legal, based on discretion? Is advertising sanctuary cities legal to do? While I may agree that there should become discretion regarding some enforcement, I question the appropriateness and legality of these situations. By whose measure is the discretion acceptable? What if political support changes; does the discretion measure change?

There needs to be continuity and needs NOT be advertised via press conference; especially when others were not informed. The mayor, the police chief and others are questioning this because it raises all kinds of concerns. This should not be a discretionary decision of one individual who broke the news at a press conference.

Very shady and creates a very slippery slope. Buyer beware.

 

[Denny347]

Just because it's been done before doesn't make it right. Yes officers have the latitude to give me a ticket or not and yes I have been released at that point. This is someone above the officer telling them not to arrest anyone for a particular offense. I guess we can agree to disagree.
I see all speeding violations less than 12 MPH as unfair and believe they should all be excused. If just a "little' marijuana gets you a pass then just a little speeding should also be excused shouldn't it? A politician issuing a blanket "get out of jail free" card for one offense while enforcing other laws as complete bull .
[FONT=&amp]NRA Life Member / [/FONT]Basic Pistol instructor[FONT=&amp] / RSO[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]"Under pressure, you don't rise to the occasion, you sink to the level of your training. That's why we train so hard" [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Unnamed Navy Seal[/FONT][FONT=&amp]

[/FONT][FONT=&amp]“Ego is the reason many men do not shoot competition. They don't want to suck in public” [/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]
[/FONT][FONT=&amp]Aron Bright [/FONT]

No, no one is telling us NOT to arrest. PC is PC. Just don't expect prosecution. They have no legal authority to tell us who we can and cannot arrest.

 

[Route 45]

You keep side stepping my point. Are sanctuary cities acceptable or even legal, based on discretion? Is advertising sanctuary cities legal to do? While I may agree that there should become discretion regarding some enforcement, I question the appropriateness and legality of these situations. By whose measure is the discretion acceptable? What if political support changes; does the discretion measure change?

There needs to be continuity and needs NOT be advertised via press conference; especially when others were not informed. The mayor, the police chief and others are questioning this because it raises all kinds of concerns. This should not be a discretionary decision of one individual who broke the news at a press conference.

Very shady and creates a very slippery slope. Buyer beware.

So now we’ve gone from magazine restrictions to sanctuary cities, which is another irrelevancy. Immigration law is the purview of the federal government, it is not up to local officials to enforce. In fact, locals do not even have the authority to enforce immigration law.

If you agree that there should be some discretion, then what is your point? The measure of what discretion is acceptable is obviously the question of whether it infringes on rights or not.

 

[amboy49]

So if I’m sitting on the circle downtown Indy smoking a joint and the police walk by am I to assume they will continue walk ? Or will they stop, assert their police authority, and use the code infraction to perform searches or other investigations into other possible crimes ? If nothing found they’ll simply let me go - but if they discover I am a wanted felon, or holding more than one ounce of marijuana or other illegal substance, etc will they then arrest asserting probable cause. What if the smart attorney questions the arrest since no prosecution of the visible joint (only) is to result based on the prosecutor’s statement ?