24-Year-Old Gets 3 Life Terms in Prison for Witnessing a Drug Deal: The Ugly Truth of Mandatory Drug Sentencing

Quote from TRNT : You are correct. But why should I? It is in the post I responded to DF.

No, it isn't. You merely make the same unsubstantiated claim in the post to darkfrog.

You rarely, if ever, include the "how" or "why" in your posts - just declarations of your own opinions.

Quote : It is not the form that makes the comment trollish. It is the trollish comments that makes it trollish. You did not comprehend that?

Didn't you just claim a few posts ago that it was the form, not the contents, that you objected to?

How can I comprehend any of your claims when they so often contradict each other?

Quote : Your sarcasm detector is broken? Poor babay!

So it's okay for you to use sarcasm, but if anyone else does (who disagrees with you), then that's trolling.

Quote : You think "force" is not used in burglaries? Now you are totally off-balance.

Some force can be used in burglaries, but it's not a necessary element of the crime.

Person leaves car unlocked. Another person opens unlocked door without permission & steals a gps unit. Was that a burglary? What force was used?

Quote : Other than the few nuggets that I responded to, your post reminds me of Seinfeld: "A show about nothing!"

Not surprising given the heaping pile of nonsense to which I was replying...

Quote from smegalicious : No, it isn't. You merely make the same unsubstantiated claim in the post to darkfrog. You rarely, if ever, include the "how" or "why" in your posts - just declarations of your own opinions.

That is nonsense. The answer was there. If you disagree, provide the post and prove your point. If not, just butt out.

Quote from smegalicious : Didn't you just claim a few posts ago that it was the form, not the contents, that you objected to? How can I comprehend any of your claims when they so often contradict each other?

I don't think so. You have a quote? I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend this. you must be really frustrated by now.

Quote from smegalicious : So it's okay for you to use sarcasm, but if anyone else does (who disagrees with you), then that's trolling.

Not at all. Did I call you a troll solely because you were saecastic? I don't think so. I dont even remember if you were sarcastic. If you disagree bring a quote. If not, butt out.

Quote from smegalicious : Some force can be used in burglaries, but it's not a necessary element of the crime. Person leaves car unlocked. Another person opens unlocked door without permission & steals a gps unit. Was that a burglary? What force was used?

Why does it have to be a necessary element. When there is force, there is......errr....force. Do you have difficulty comprehending that? Should I draw you a picture?

Quote from smegalicious : Not surprising given the heaping pile of nonsense to which I was replying...

The reason you are not surprised is because you are quite used to.....err.....YOU. Too bad for you, you gotta be you.

Quote from TRNT : What "actually?" You need not have a weapon to have violence.

I never said you HAVE to have a weapon, yet your scenario which I originally replied to was a clear case of a burglary turning into a robbery because the perpetrator used a weapon to threaten the home owner.

Quote : And now you are focusing on weapons rather than the original topic of whether or not drug dealing is a violent crime. Not a peep on that, eh?

You were the one that went off topic by trying to compare drug dealing to other crimes such as burglary and robbery.
I am not focusing on weapons but I am continually pointing out that using the threat of violence while in the commission of a crime is what constitutes a violent crime. It seems the only thing you are doing is trying to confuse the issue by claiming there is some kind of "controversy" regarding what is and is not a non-violent crime but have failed to provide any actual support for this belief of yours.

Quote : [1] Wow, Someone who is not welcome by me is welcome by you. Shocking!

Actually, anyone is welcome to join into conversations in TP threads. This is exactly what public forums are about. If you don't like it, you and I can argue via PM.

Quote : [2] All words have (dictionary) definitions based on their usages. These are rather objective. FBI definitions or others' are somewhat arbitrary and may or may not align with common usages. The question is whether drug dealing should be considered violent crime or not. The rest is kinda besides the point nit picking.

Dictionaries reflect common usage because that's where they get their definitions. Common usage may or may not reflect the legal use of a word. The FBI, being the main law enforcement org of the US, helps create definitions to avoid legal ambiguities. Considering we are talking about going to prison for certain crimes, we are in the realm of the law so agreeing to use the legal use of these words is appropriate. If you have another definition for which you think we should use, then you are welcome to present it, but if we can't agree on definitions than we really can't have a reasonable discussion.

Quote : [3] Some robberies include no violence per se. Now you say the mere inclusion of a weapon makes it violent. Fine, but realize that now we are into that territory of somewhat arbitrary definitions. So then would redefining it so that any real and significant potential of violence also makes it a violent crime be a (more) reasonable thing? I say we could go either way. And there are others who have made similar points.

No, I said brandishing a weapon, i.e. threatening force, is what makes it a violent crime. If I burgle a house with no one home but I have a weapon on me and I am caught, my lawyer could reasonably argue that it was still a burglary with a secondary weapons charge, rather than a more severe robbery charge.

Quote : [4] Hmm. I don't know.....it seems FBI does not distinguish between a bank robber that uses a fake weapon* vs a mass murderer shooting many dead. What travesty! (*What about fake weapons, btw. Still violent?)

The FBI doesn't distinguish between robbery and murder? That's something I did not know. Do you care to provide evidence for this interesting tidbit?

Fake weapon or not, if the threat of force is used, and reasonable persons believe that they are being threatened with a real weapon, then it clearly is a threat of violence. The robber is counting on the fact that people think the weapon is real, correct? However, I have heard of these types of cases getting better plea deals or lesser sentencing by a jury precisely because the weapon was fake which demonstrated the lack of real intent to hurt people. This is the whole point that violent crimes are and should be treated more harshly by society. A check hanger that swindles $100,000 from a bank gets a lower sentence than an armed robber than get's away with $5,000.

Quote from TRNT : That is nonsense. The answer was there. If you disagree, provide the post and prove your point. If not, just butt out.

Lastly, you invoked potential of violence as justification for "violent" classification. Fine. The same with burglary. If people are inside or people come home burglary has a potential of becoming violent. So by your own argument it should be classified as violent. The fact that you would then simply change its name is somewhat besides the point.

Here you classify burglary becoming robbery based on the use of force/violence as "simply changing its name". Yet, later, you agree that it is, in fact, a totally different crime.

So what substantiation have you provided for your claim that burglary should be considered a violent crime? The fact that burglary can *become* robbery (a totally different crime) doesn't support your claim that mere burglary itself is a violent crime.

Again, shoplifting can *become* assault if the thief is confronted & responds violently. Does that mean shoplifting should be considered a violent crime?

Quote : I don't think so. You have a quote? I'm sorry if you cannot comprehend this. you must be really frustrated by now.

Yes, because the problem with your statement was its form and not its content.

....

It is not the form that makes the comment trollish. It is the trollish comments that makes it trollish. You did not comprehend that?

So, yes, I have trouble "comprehending" your contradictory nonsense.

Quote : Not at all. Did I call you a troll solely because you were saecastic? I don't think so. I dont even remember if you were sarcastic. If you disagree bring a quote. If not, butt out.

Calling another poster a troll is against the rules.

If you think it's "trollish" then have the balls to mod alert it. If not, keep your ad hominems to yourself.

Quote : Why does it have to be a necessary element.

It doesn't *have* to be. But it currently is. If you wish to change the legal distinction btw burglary & robbery, fine. But you might want to provide some compelling reasoning for doing so.

Quote : When there is force, there is......errr....force. Do you have difficulty comprehending that? Should I draw you a picture?

And in the burglary example I gave, there was no force. Do have difficulty admitting that? Or is there another reason you routinely refuse to provide a direct answer to questions asked of you?

Quote from darkfrog : I never said you HAVE to have a weapon, yet your scenario which I originally replied to was a clear case of a burglary turning into a robbery because the perpetrator used a weapon to threaten the home owner. You were the one that went off topic by trying to compare drug dealing to other crimes such as burglary and robbery.

I never said you have to have a weapon either. And you need not a wepon per se in order to committ roberty. A cole 400 pound rough looking young alts can eaily rob an elderly couple with no weapons per se.

And at this point i am not even sure what we are discussing. That is how ollow your nitpicking is.

I am saying drug dealing should be classifies as a violent crime. Yet gave no input on that.

Quote from darkfrog : I am not focusing on weapons but I am continually pointing out that using the threat of violence while in the commission of a crime is what constitutes a violent crime. It seems the only thing you are doing is trying to confuse the issue by claiming there is some kind of "controversy" regarding what is and is not a non-violent crime but have failed to provide any actual support for this belief of yours.

I compared drug dealing with burglary and robbery because I think all three should be classified an violent crimes. So what? Sue me. And if others disagree with me, so be it. What is to you?

Quote from darkfrog : I Actually, anyone is welcome to join into conversations in TP threads. This is exactly what public forums are about. If you don't like it, you and I can argue via PM.

You do not get it. Perhaps "anyone" is allowed or entitled to join, but it does not mean I have to welcome them. Especially when the person is a small vindictive mental midget who thinks she is in the next dershowitz.

Quote from darkfrog : Dictionaries reflect common usage because that's where they get their definitions. Common usage may or may not reflect the legal use of a word. The FBI, being the main law enforcement org of the US, helps create definitions to avoid legal ambiguities. Considering we are talking about going to prison for certain crimes, we are in the realm of the law so agreeing to use the legal use of these words is appropriate. If you have another definition for which you think we should use, then you are welcome to present it, but if we can't agree on definitions than we really can't have a reasonable discussion..

Listen and listen carefully. Stop lecturing me. I know all about FBI and its designations. I think the FBI definition should change. Now sue me. Or keep pounding you feet. I think we should consider thinking about changing the definitions. Sue me.

Quote from darkfrog : No, I said brandishing a weapon, i.e. threatening force, is what makes it a violent crime. If I burgle a house with no one home but I have a weapon on me and I am caught, my lawyer could reasonably argue that it was still a burglary with a secondary weapons charge, rather than a more severe robbery charge..

I have no idea what your beginning "no" is supposed to mean. I am saying the real potential of violence should be a better indication than threat of violence,or perhaps in addition to it. That is my position. That is my opinion. What is it to you? Sue me.

Quote from darkfrog : The FBI doesn't distinguish between robbery and murder? That's something I did not know. Do you care to provide evidence for this interesting tidbit?

Are they not both classified as violent crimes?

Quote from TRNT : I am saying drug dealing should be classifies as a violent crime. Yet gave no input on that.

Where does the line end?

Should shoplifting be considered a violent crime? Isn't that just another form of "burglary"? What about drug use? After all, isn't there a "real potential of violence" from someone hopped up on meth?

(I believe I've asked the same questions before. I expect to get the same non-answers.)

Quote : I compared drug dealing with burglary and robbery because I think all three should be classified an violent crimes. So what? Sue me. And if others disagree with me, so be it. What is to you?

Silly us... We attempted to debate you re: your claims on a public debate forum.

How crazy...

Quote : You do not get it. Perhaps "anyone" is allowed or entitled to join, but it does not mean I have to welcome them. Especially when the person is a small vindictive mental midget who thinks she is in the next dershowitz.

Damn. If you can't even answer the questions posed to you by a mental midget, what does that say about your own debating skills -- or lack thereof?

And I'm sorry to have to tell you that there's no "perhaps" involved. Go start your own private debate forum and you can exclude any & everyone who dares to disagree with your opinions.

Quote : Listen and listen carefully. Stop lecturing me. I know all about FBI and its designations. I think the FBI definition should change. Now sue me. Or keep pounding you feet. I think we should consider thinking about changing the definitions. Sue me.

We are not in a court room. We are in a public debate forum. What reasoning have you given for considering such a change?

Quote : I have no idea what your beginning "no" is supposed to mean. I am saying the real potential of violence should be a better indication than threat of violence,or perhaps in addition to it. That is my position. That is my opinion. What is it to you? Sue me.

And just what is supposed to be the different btw "the real potential of violence" and the "threat of violence"? Talk about semantic nitpicking.

Your opinions literally mean nothing to me. But when you choose to repeatedly post them on a public debate forum, they are -- gasp! -- open to criticism. Shocking news, I'm sure...

Quote from smegalicious : Where does the line end?

It ends where we want it to end. For example we say up to reasonable doubt, guilty. Else, not guilty. Same here: reasonably real and significant potential for violence, violent crime. Else, non violent.

Could you really not figure that out for yourself?

Quote from smegalicious : (I believe I've asked the same questions before. I expect to get the same non-answers.) Silly us... We attempted to debate you re: your claims on a public debate forum. How crazy...

"crazy laugh"eh? You are your emoticon.

Your silly whining is not debate. From outset I said drug dealing should considered violent crime because of the real potential for violence. You never took the time to debate that like an adult.

Quote from smegalicious : Damn. If you can't even answer the questions posed to you by a mental midget, what does that say about your own debating skills -- or lack thereof? And I'm sorry to have to tell you that there's no "perhaps" involved. Go start your own private debate forum and you can exclude any & everyone who dares to disagree with your opinions.

well , have you heard the saying, " one mental midget can ask a question where thousands of wise men cannot answer it?

But most of them time I did answer you, THEN I told you to butt out. Now, butt out.

And that is what a perhaps is. But ok, say rules says you are entitled to participate. So what? I need not welcome your participation when act immature.

Quote from smegalicious : We are not in a court room. We are in a public debate forum. What reasoning have you given for considering such a change?

Ok, once again.....we should use real potential for significant violence as a criterion. Now I am sure yet again you will claim I did not answer your question and claim that I not give any reasoning. Sheesh!

Quote from smegalicious : And just what is supposed to be the different btw "the real potential of violence" and the "threat of violence"? Talk about semantic nitpicking.

Really? Are you sure? Let's see if DF agrees with that. He went as far as claiming that you were channelling him. This ought to be delicious.

At any rate, the two are different. But even so, burglary has a real potential for violence. If you think that is the same as threat of violence, then it seems you are arguing that burglary should be classified as violent crime.

Soooo delicious.

Quote from TRNT : I am increasingly irritated by bait and switch article titles. Some of these are original titles and some put together by the OPs. I opened this thread thinking that a person was convicted of merely witnessing a drug deal and now I read he was charged because he introduced drug dealer to each other. I am thinking if I carefully read the indictment, I might discover that he was charged with facilitating drug dealing which might be the legal equivalent of drug dealing yourself. I hate this bait and switch.

totally agree. reminds me of that kid that was convicted of statutory rape that everyone gets angry about.

Quote from TRNT : It ends where we want it to end. For example we say up to reasonable doubt, guilty. Else, not guilty. Same here: reasonably real and significant potential for violence, violent crime. Else, non violent.

That's two distinct qualifiers that haven't been present in your previous statements. Do they actually mean anything? If so, what?

Quote : Could you really not figure that out for yourself?

I managed to figure out that you selectively replied to my post, going so far as to edit *out* the direct questions that I asked of you.

Quote : "crazy laugh"eh? You are your emoticon.

Not surprising given what I'm dealing with...

Quote : Your silly whining is not debate. From outset I said drug dealing should considered violent crime because of the real potential for violence. You never took the time to debate that like an adult.

How does the "real potential for violence" in drug dealing differ from that of drug using? Or of shoplifting? Or any other typically non-violent crime?

How am I supposed to debate like an adult when you refuse to answer questions like an adult?

Quote : But most of them time I did answer you, THEN I told you to butt out. Now, butt out.

Complete & utter bullshit.

Here's a smattering of the questions that you have so far refused to address:

According to such a system of classification, wouldn't *every* crime have the potential to turn violent & therefore be labeled as a "violent" crime?

Okay... So which has more real potential for violence? A theft occurring while the victims are not even on the premises? Or a theft occurring while the thief is threatening to use force against the victims?

How can burglary have a "real potential for violence" when the victims aren't present for the theft?

Person leaves car unlocked. Another person opens unlocked door without permission & steals a gps unit. Was that a burglary? What force was used?

How is whether or not force is involved a "somewhat arbitrary demarcation" when determining if a crime is violent?

So what substantiation have you provided for your claim that burglary should be considered a violent crime? The fact that burglary can *become* robbery (a totally different crime) doesn't support your claim that mere burglary itself is a violent crime.

Again, shoplifting can *become* assault if the thief is confronted & responds violently. Does that mean shoplifting should be considered a violent crime?

Should shoplifting be considered a violent crime? Isn't that just another form of "burglary"? What about drug use? After all, isn't there a "real potential of violence" from someone hopped up on meth?

Quote : And that is what a perhaps is. But ok, say rules says you are entitled to participate. So what? I need not welcome your participation when act immature.

Gee, I'm so sorry that my participation interferes with your ability to act immature.

Quote : Ok, once again.....we should use real potential for significant violence as a criterion. Now I am sure yet again you will claim I did not answer your question and claim that I not give any reasoning. Sheesh!

I am asking you to *expand* on your repetition.

An analogy for the sake of example:

"Purple is the best color."

"Why is purple the best color? What is your reasoning for believing that?"

"I already told you that purple is the best! Sheesh!"

That's essentially what has transpired over the last page or so...

Quote from TRNT : Really? Are you sure? Let's see if DF agrees with that. He went as far as claiming that you were channelling him. This ought to be delicious.

I am sure that I asked you a question that you refused to actually answer.

Quote : At any rate, the two are different.

Of course... No rationale, no explanation, no reasoning, just mere repetition of the same unsubstantiated claims over & over again...

Quote : But even so, burglary has a real potential for violence. If you think that is the same as threat of violence, then it seems you are arguing that burglary should be classified as violent crime.

I asked you what the difference was. You provided no such difference & merely stated that they are different. So how can I possibly reach a conclusion as to whether they are the same or not when I have no information to use to compare them?

Quote from TRNT : I never said you have to have a weapon either. And you need not a wepon per se in order to committ roberty. A cole 400 pound rough looking young alts can eaily rob an elderly couple with no weapons per se.

Threat of force can be present without a weapon, no one has said otherwise. I'm only pointing out how your scenario, the one YOU chose to present way back at the beginning of this derailed circus you created, was that the burglar had a weapon and USED It when the owners came home. By definition that becomes a robbery, precisely because of the threat of force, which in this case happened to be a weapon.

Quote : And at this point i am not even sure what we are discussing. That is how ollow your nitpicking is.

So in your mind, answering your question completely serious and with good intentions (to teach you something), becomes nitpicking.

I'll remind you since you aren't even sure, you said, "I might agree that drug using is non-violent but drug dealing? Would burglary be considered non-violent too?"

I answered in the affirmative that non-violent crimes do include burglary because of the way the law defines burglary.
You then came back and mentioned there is some controversy regarding whether burglary is a non-violent crime or not and I told you I was unaware of any such controversy. You still have not presented any links or substantiation that there is any such controversy except your head.

Quote : I am saying drug dealing should be classifies as a violent crime. Yet gave no input on that.

Really? You don't think the fact that I'm defending (and attempting to explain) the current definitions of violent and non-violent crime is also input on whether or not drug dealing should remain classified as a non-violent crime? Do you understand ANYTHING I have posted here? I mentioned earlier about using a search engine and the very first link I got says:

What constitutes a non-violent crime is often a judgment call. We have excluded crimes that clearly involve violence but include most other crimes that do not necessarily involve violence. For example, we include weapons possession and sale crimes.

In addition, elements of some crimes on our list include conduct that is both non-violent and violent. For example, the crime of failure to obey an officer (CGS § 14-223) punishes failing to stop driving when signaled by an officer but also imposes a higher penalty if failing to stop causes death or serious physical injury. It is unclear from the DOC data available to us whether offenders listed under this statute violated the non-violent or violent portion of the statute.

For the crimes of conspiracy, attempt, and criminal liability for another, the data does not specify the crime that was the object of the conspiracy or attempt or the reason for the criminal liability. That crime could be violent or non-violent.

The next link was from a law office that said,

What are Non-Violent Crimes?

Non-violent crimes are those crimes that do not involve the use of any force or injury to another person. The seriousness of a non-violent crime is usually measured in terms of economic damage or loss to the victim.

Most non-violent crimes involve some sort of property crime such as larceny or theft.

What are Violent Crimes?

Violent crimes or violent offenses involve the use of force or injury to the body of another person. The seriousness of a violent crime is usually determined by the degree of physical harm caused to the victim. The use of a weapon can raise the seriousness of the crime.

Some crimes are classified as violent crimes even if the plaintiff was not injured, for example crimes that involve the threat of injury to the person. Also, the characteristics of the victim can alter the seriousness of the charges, for example, if a police officer, woman, or child was the victim of the violence.

and then continues...

Some non-violent crimes are often raised to a level of violence. For example, it is common for fraud, a non-violent crime, to involve some form of violence. This can happen if the fraud was forced under threat of harm or coercion (i.e., forcing a person to sign a contract under threat of harm to them or their loved ones).

If you have a problem where the law makes a distinction between the two, then you should be able to verbalize exactly why yet still have not done so in spite criticizing those of use that understand and agree with the legal distinction.

Quote : I compared drug dealing with burglary and robbery because I think all three should be classified an violent crimes. So what? Sue me. And if others disagree with me, so be it. What is to you?

Excuse me for attempting to answer your questions as they were presented to me, including the, "Violent or non violent?" at the end of three scenarios presented.

Quote : You do not get it. Perhaps "anyone" is allowed or entitled to join, but it does not mean I have to welcome them. Especially when the person is a small vindictive mental midget who thinks she is in the next dershowitz.

You have been acting unreasonable and dismissive and now you have the nerve to come up with an unwarranted personal attack? You have acted upset when you perceived even a hint of a personal insult yet you seem to have no problem calling someone stupid and vindictive, from what I can tell is unprovoked.

Quote : Listen and listen carefully. Stop lecturing me. I know all about FBI and its designations. I think the FBI definition should change. Now sue me. Or keep pounding you feet. I think we should consider thinking about changing the definitions. Sue me.

It only sounds like lecturing because I see you ignoring basic reason, both legally and common sense reasonableness.

Quote : I have no idea what your beginning "no" is supposed to mean.

An answer to the only question that was in the quoted portion of the post I was replying to.

Quote : I am saying the real potential of violence should be a better indication than threat of violence,or perhaps in addition to it. That is my position. That is my opinion. What is it to you? Sue me.

The threat of violence usually constitutes a real potential and that's exactly what smeg, the law and I have been trying to point out. If smeg comes over to my house and I sell her an ounce of really dank green buds, and she leaves my house without incident, do you think that crime should be classified as violent or non-violent?

Quote : Are they not both classified as violent crimes?

Of course they are both violent, but that doesn't mean they don't distinguish between them. Did anyone here say ALL violent crimes are equally bad or all non-violent crimes are equally bad?

The post you were responding to explained very clearly that violence is a distinguishing FACTOR in crimes because we as a society (and most normal people) agree that violence is an important factor in how we decide the punishment. Is this something you disagree with?

You appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing. You haven't made a point or supported your opinion in any way and have basically. My interpretation of your position is that you believe ALL drug dealing crimes should be considered violent, regardless of their individual situation. I am pointing out that the law looks at the actual specific incident so as not to be arbitrary.

Quote from TRNT : Really? Are you sure? Let's see if DF agrees with that. He went as far as claiming that you were channelling him. This ought to be delicious..

She asked you a question. I agree with asking you the question, too bad you elected to ignore it....like you have been doing with most of the questions put to you in this thread.

Quote from smegalicious : That's two distinct qualifiers that haven't been present in your previous statements. Do they actually mean anything? If so, what??

Name the two. (I think you are just stalling hoping some miracle happens meanwhile.)

Quote from smegalicious : I managed to figure out that you selectively replied to my post, going so far as to edit *out* the direct questions that I asked of you.

LOL. Can one edit *in* a question? At any rate, you are stalling/deflecting. I edit *out* stuff all the time. If you think there was a brilliant question of yours that was edited *out*, just qoute it. I see what I can do.

Quote from smegalicious : Not surprising given what I'm dealing with...

yawn...

Quote from smegalicious : How does the "real potential for violence" in drug dealing differ from that of drug using? Or of shoplifting? Or any other typically non-violent crime? How am I supposed to debate like an adult when you refuse to answer questions like an adult?

It is less.

About you acting like an adult thing.......the odds are against that. Sorry.

Quote from smegalicious : Complete & utter bullshit.

yawn...

Why don't you just butt out?

Quote from smegalicious : Here's a smattering of the questions that you have so far refused to address: [1] According to such a system of classification, wouldn't *every* crime have the potential to turn violent & therefore be labeled as a "violent" crime? [2] Okay... So which has more real potential for violence? A theft occurring while the victims are not even on the premises? Or a theft occurring while the thief is threatening to use force against the victims? [3] How can burglary have a "real potential for violence" when the victims aren't present for the theft? [4] Person leaves car unlocked. Another person opens unlocked door without permission & steals a gps unit. Was that a burglary? What force was used? [5] How is whether or not force is involved a "somewhat arbitrary demarcation" when determining if a crime is violent? [6] So what substantiation have you provided for your claim that burglary should be considered a violent crime? The fact that burglary can *become* robbery (a totally different crime) doesn't support your claim that mere burglary itself is a violent crime. [7] Again, shoplifting can *become* assault if the thief is confronted & responds violently. Does that mean shoplifting should be considered a violent crime? [8] Should shoplifting be considered a violent crime? Isn't that just another form of "burglary"? What about drug use? After all, isn't there a "real potential of violence" from someone hopped up on meth?

You have the immature habit of claiming a question has not benn answered when you do not like the answer. So let's see.

1. We cut it off where we want to cut it off. Remember "reasonable doubt"? Could you not have figured this out for yourself, even after I had already answered it?

2. This too has been answered. You are now resorting to outright lies.

3. Again already answered. But since it is short I repeat: residents could come home while criminals are there.

4. "Utter bullshit." you are stalling....hoping for a miracle.

5. I do not recall the context of this. If I ignored it, it is probabely because it is "utter bullshit." But maybe I did answer and you are just lying.

6. Because burglary has real and significant potential for violence. But where this started was whether or not drug dealing is a violent crime. So I had already answered that too. More lies from you.

7. No. That one was already answered too.

8. Already answered. The answer is "no." I also remarked that that was a good point.

You have the immature habit of claiming a question has not benn answered when you do not like the answer.

Quote from smegalicious : Gee, I'm so sorry that my participation interferes with your ability to act immature.

More immature catchphrase from you. Yawn...

Quote from smegalicious : I am asking you to *expand* on your repetition. An analogy for the sake of example: "Purple is the best color." "Why is purple the best color? What is your reasoning for believing that?" "I already told you that purple is the best! Sheesh!" That's essentially what has transpired over the last page or so...

Huh? Convulsing?

Quote from smegalicious : I am sure that I asked you a question that you refused to actually answer.

huh? That was totally nonsence. Are you convulsing? When caught with your pants off act all crazy and hope people will be distracted?

i'm tapping out. thats just too much.