another strawman that didn't stand a chance



objectively false.

Literally not an argument. I know you can do better



Whataboutism isnt an argument

you needed me to say that there are laws on the books that are intentionally meant to be used situationally at the discretion of officers? disorderly conduct is a good example, that law on the New York City municipal code is so long it's literally put in criminal justice textbooks as an example of bad laws that permeate because they're effective in crime control but inherently unjust.

beyond that i could get into prosecutorial discretion, or even jurisdictional discretion. marijuana law is a common use for both.

That's an argument for failure of enforcement. The law should be changed

Same for pot

Although he worded it badly, I have to agree with Snipe on this one. There are many laws in the US that are discretionary. We'd all love if that weren't the case.
The only other solution seems to be a situation like a police state.

Until we are a lot smarter we need at least some discretionary laws. I don't think that immigration is one of them, though. That issue needs to be seriously locked down.

Police state under your definition of smarter is terrifying

The only reason he is comparing the two is because he wants to extract some concession from conservatives. He doesnt actually believe the two situations are equal.

Well, I don't agree with his strawman comment about the "breaking up families" issue. But I do agree that some laws, ARE discretionary.

No, it isn't.

this is essentially 101 level criminal justice. some situations are created by societies that society wants stopped, but can't define. overly broad laws are created for this reason.

if i gave you a task of sitting down and defining "disorderly conduct" you'd come back a week later with a complicated mess of an ordinance just like New York City.

if i also asked you to define "pornography" you'd have as hard of a time defining it, thus the classic "you know it when you see it".

discretion is an important and necessary tool for law enforcement. many zealous undergrad students don't understand this and want it shut down just like you, generally a few group activities later they change their tune.

its pretty clear you just dont understand how application of laws work, nor how laws are created.



if this is directed at me, i dont care a fig for concessions. you said something objectively false about how law works, now you're doubling down.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Jun 18 2018 12:01pm

So which is your argument here. That some laws dont have zero tolerance, or that illegal immigration is one of them?

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Jun 18 2018 12:41pm