A federal judge said Friday that Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration did not commit a crime when it sent undercover investigators into gun shops to attempt illegal weapons purchases as it prepared to sue the dealers.Then if no "straw purchases" were made, that must mean the dealers did not commit any crimes in selling the guns.
Cases dismissed?
This is why the entire "it's OK as long as the courts SAY it is OK" nonsense doesn't ever convince me. As long as imbeciles become judges (through the mechanism of "The Dilbert Principle") court decisions will be as meaningless as horoscopes.
ReplyDeleteKent -
ReplyDeleteDon't you mean "The Peter Principle?"
If not, what is the "Dilbert Principle?"
It's a variation.
ReplyDeleteJust like how the feds pursue the sellers of steroids most vigorously, and not the athletes. It allows for legal sting operations.
ReplyDeleteEquality is equal application of the law. So the next time a "civil rights leader" decries the continued existence of inequality, you may nod your head in agreement (but have something different in mind.)
David, of course, brilliantly points out the pothole of illogic that is about to dent the rim of Justice.
Kent also points out a principle of mine that's a bit different from the "Peter Principle". I don't have a name for it, and I have yet to reduce it to a workable size.
It's like this:
I will safely assume that we all understand the differences between the Constitution and its Amendments, the Bill of Rights and other statutory law. If every grant of power, rule of order, statute and limitation within a body of law is subject to arbitrary changes that establish precedent -- "interpretation" for example -- then the layers of contradictions will produce a system with a high degree of disorder. This is the exact opposite of the intended consequence of law: to establish order. When the system becomes chaotic, those who have the power to inflict the most violence upon their opponents will be the rule-makers. Basically, we will be reduced to a level of civilization that predates (one of?) the oldest examples of equal treatment under the law, as demonstrated thousands of years ago in Exodus.
A legal system with a high degree of disorder also produces uncertainty. No one is really certain if he has violated a law or not, so to emerge from the bowels of the system unscathed is mostly dumb luck. It's also anyone's guess whether a violation within such a disordered legal system will produce a punishment of community service and a fine, or 50 years in a federal prison. Contradicting laws also tend to multiply as opponents try to counter each other's efforts. The intent may be good, but it simply worsens the situation by producing, say, 20,000 little rules that no human could possibly comprehend when attempting to make a decision that falls within the bounds of the law. Just assume you are in violation of some rule. Hammurabi's laws seem almost humanitarian in comparison.
It's a wonder that the BATFEFL ("former liberties") isn't an example that is studied in academia, since it provides a contemporary example of this type of disordered system, a "microcosm" of what we can expect from the whole government. It primarily derives its authority from a punitive tax law which categorized goods without regard to scholarly consideration, and another law which directly contradicts parts of a previous law which may not be superseded. It's no wonder that it conducts itself in violation of citizen rights and liberties, and exacts punishments without the accused receiving so much as a forewarning from written procedures. (Even so, why should written policy be afforded the same consideration as law created by a legislature?) The confusion also produces the almost comical example of the idiot who stands in the center of chaos and demands to know who is the authority... when it's him!