bronco78 wrote:seeker_two wrote:jimandyen wrote:
What would you like to see happen to him?
seeker_two wrote:
1. I am not a troll. And I'm not an "anarcho-capitalist"....and I'm not even sure what that means. If anything, I'm quite conservative, both fiscally and socially. And I don't see the logic in a budget-constrained state expending resources to prosecute a crime that has little if any ramifications against society and no clearly-defined victims. Let DPS, TSRA, and the NRA shut this "instructor" out of the instructing business....but don't waste money Texas doesn't have to try, convict, and imprison this guy on our dime.
OK, when I start repeating myself, I'm done with this one....I look forward to seeing the press releases and police reports on how this turns out....and how much taxpayer money we blow on it....
Y'all have a nice day.....
IN the Military, we call your position and action Selective Enforcement ie, only enforce the rules (regulations and laws) you agree with. Ignore the opposite .
In your opinion, what metric or standard do you propose we apply to select which laws we enforce?
You have given us this example… But what metric(s) did you apply to come to your decision?
Simply put.. how are you deciding which laws not to enforce?
He indicated that "we" were free to prosecute, if "we" were willing to pay for it. So it sounds to me like he is proposing the taxpayers implement some kind of polling, or voting with dollars as to which laws get enforced. If you believe that a crime needs to be enforced, you put some money into that crime's "pot". So, I gather, when someone is accused of a crime, the pot is checked for that crime, and if there's enough money in it, the prosecution proceeds. If not, the accused must be let go. Seems like a rather willy-nilly way to run a society.
)
