[coopersmith]

To me the question goes to the need for the whole country to stop putting people in jail for marijuana and other minor offences. We can no longer afford to put people in jail,[the U.S. has more people in its jails than any other country in the world] for minor drug offences. Marijuana laws are as arcane as Probation was in the 20s. Marijuana will be legal out of necessity to tax it for revenue and the need to empty jails of people who smoke a joint now and again.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by edub

You wouldn't know copyright violation if it sat on your face and wiggled. And as to your previous post, the Judge in this case was subject to legal action to prevent her from doing what she is or was doing. Since there is no prosecution, it is not a matter of a "conviction." As in the article, it seems a Circuit Court Judge has ruled that what she was doing is in fact contrary to law. But again, this has nothing to do with a conviction.

BTW, if you want to read the article, it is from the Detroit Free Press. Google it.

Bydand was right, you did copy the article verbatim, which is copyright infringement and against TOS here. I edited your post down and added a link to the article.

Carry on.

[edub]

Originally Posted by magellan

Bydand was right, you did copy the article verbatim, which is copyright infringement and against TOS here. I edited your post down and added a link to the article.

Carry on.

I'll be sure to follow the correct format in the future.

Newspaper articles are considered public domain and are not protected by copyright laws. In fact many newspapers simply recycle stories from other papers or from news clearing houses like Reuters and AP. It is considered an ethical standard to not present other's work as your own - I don't think I did that.

Anyway, I will be sure to adhere to TOS in the future.

[Bydand]

Originally Posted by edub

You wouldn't know copyright violation if it sat on your face and wiggled.

Um, yes I would. Maybe you should read up on the subject a bit more.

You know you are showing more and more signs of being a Troll. First you call somebody who has been on the forum a while a troll because they don't agree with your point of view, then you resort to childish insults when you are called on to follow simple TOS. Oh yeah, more "rules and regulations" you seem to find yourself skirting because they don't fit your ideas.

[Bydand]

Originally Posted by edub

I'll be sure to follow the correct format in the future.

Newspaper articles are considered public domain and are not protected by copyright laws. In fact many newspapers simply recycle stories from other papers or from news clearing houses like Reuters and AP. It is considered an ethical standard to not present other's work as your own - I don't think I did that.

Anyway, I will be sure to adhere to TOS in the future.

Actually newspaper articles ARE copyrighted works. The way the AP works is that newspapers, magazines, television, and other media buy and maintain an agreement with the AP to use the works printed by the AP. Try being a paper and using AP stories without having that license and you will see how well the written word IS under copyright. There are only 4 or 5 categories of things that are not automatically under copyright protection in the US, newspapers are NOT one of them. Whoever told you newspapers are considered public domain is 100% wrong.

[magellan]

Originally Posted by edub

I'll be sure to follow the correct format in the future.

Newspaper articles are considered public domain and are not protected by copyright laws. In fact many newspapers simply recycle stories from other papers or from news clearing houses like Reuters and AP. It is considered an ethical standard to not present other's work as your own - I don't think I did that.

Anyway, I will be sure to adhere to TOS in the future.

Please do. And you did pass that article off as your own words, as you never once mentioned or alluded to the fact that it was a Free Press article until Bydand called you out on int. FYI, newspaper articles are not "public domain", they are copyright protected intellectual property. The re-use of entire newspaper articles between media outlets is entirely contractual through syndication.

Why don't we all discuss overreaching judges now. Otherwise, I'll lock this thread and call it a night.

[Smooth23]

A 19 year old isn't a kid by any stretch of the imagination.

They shouldn't be drinking, or rather they shouldn't put themselves in a position with any possibility to get caught drinking by authorities at that age. When I was that age I drank at my parents routinely and casually. I think it promoted responsible drinking habits, and didn't hurt anyone or anything.

I think its perfectly OK to throw 19 year olds in jail for breaking the terms of their probation... As far as them not supposed to be jailed for anything related to an MIP, how exactly does that work? Isn't the idea of probation so as that it's a CHANCE to stay out of jail. Meaning follow these terms and you stay out of jail, if you don't you go back to jail. Without jail, it's essentially an unenforceable punishment.

Also, I'm in the crowd where I think adding massive fines and such to every little crime in this state is nothing but a money-grabbing scheme of granholm and company. Don't even get me started on the 'driver responsibility' fee.

[MittenDweller82]

Originally Posted by Smooth23

A 19 year old isn't a kid by any stretch of the imagination.

They shouldn't be dri//www.city-data.com/forum/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11656860nking, or rather they shouldn't put themselves in a position with any possibility to get caught drinking by authorities at that age. When I was that age I drank at my parents routinely and casually. I think it promoted responsible drinking habits, and didn't hurt anyone or anything.

I think its perfectly OK to throw 19 year olds in jail for breaking the terms of their probation... As far as them not supposed to be jailed for anything related to an MIP, how exactly does that work? Isn't the idea of probation so as that it's a CHANCE to stay out of jail. Meaning follow these terms and you stay out of jail, if you don't you go back to jail. Without jail, it's essentially an unenforceable punishment.

Also, I'm in the crowd where I think adding massive fines and such to every little crime in this state is nothing but a money-grabbing scheme of granholm and company. Don't even get me started on the 'driver responsibility' fee.

Not to get off topic (if there is a "firm" topic?) but when you realize that the most common arrest in Michigan is driving on a suspended license, it becomes clear why the responsibility fee was implemented. Several years ago (usually I have evidence although this time I'm pulling it out of my memory) I read an article in the free press that stated nearly 25% of drivers on the road in Michigan are uninsured and unlicensed....the most in the US. The driver responsibility fee creates a perpetual cycle of poverty and doom, as I have witnessed several friends fight for years to reinstate their driving privileges. Many other states have "graduated" programs that reward those who are serious about getting their lives back on track, and provide them with limited driving privileges once they complete therapy.

Getting a collection notice in the mail because you cannot pay your driver responsibility fee, due to the fact that you cannot drive to employment, and having a judge care little about your starving family is insane government to me...but that is Michigan.

[edub]

I wonder why people advocate such harsh standards for others when they clearly wouldn't advocate them for themselves.

If we are going to put kids in jail for MIP, why don't we also put people in jail for speeding? Don't speeders kill people? Why not give someone 30 days for parking by a fire hydrant? Isn't that dangerous? If someone drives on a suspended license why not just put them in jail for the length of the suspension so they can't drive?

If you back Draconian enforcement for some people, shouldn't you do it for everyone? After all, we are not talking about a teen who drives drunk and kills 10 people, we are talking simple possession even if they are in their own home.

And to reiterate, this judge is subverting the law. She concocted a scheme in which she uses impossible probation terms as a tool to subvert Michigan law and impose punishment that higher courts have deemed excessive.

Get a clue! It could just as easily be you receiving that kind of treatment.

[Bydand]

Originally Posted by edub

I wonder why people advocate such harsh standards for others when they clearly wouldn't advocate them for themselves.



Get a clue! It could just as easily be you receiving that kind of treatment.

I would advocate it for everyone, myself included.

The trick is NOT to break the law in the first place. A concept you seem to have a hard time grasping. There is an old saying "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime." it holds as true today, as when first uttered a LONG time ago.

Before I get sucked into a long drawn out discussion with you that is off topic, I am just going to circumvent it by adding you to my ignore list. Less than 30 posts, forum member for less than a week; and you are already insulting and trying to stir up arguments. That is called "TROLLING", which you fit into that category like it was meant for you and your posts.