Pot Case Jurors Call For New Trial

Sacramento Bee ^ | Feb. 5, 2003 | Claire Cooper

[general_re]

Bad editing alert - ...in the performance of his legal duties.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...The undercover officer sells pot to an unsuspecting buyer, thus distributing it.

I'll bet he doesn't provide the papers and matches and encourage him to smoke it.

That is a red herring.

[philman_36]

Well, I'll wait and see what the appeal is based upon. I'm not going to conjecture.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...I'm not going to conjecture.

Fair enough.

[general_re]

I'll bet he doesn't provide the papers and matches and encourage him to smoke it.

That's not a required element of the crime of distribution of narcotics. Your local dealer commits a crime even if he doesn't offer you a light. Apparently, so does your local narcotics officer, according to the federal government.

That is a red herring.

That is the law. If Rosenthal can be arrested by federal agents for performing his official duties as a legally deputized officer of the city of Oakland, so can any state or local police officer whose actions fit the legal definition of "distribution". Won't they be surprised?

[philman_36]

That's not a required element of the crime of distribution of narcotics.
Word alert! narcotics...In a legal context, narcotic refers to opium, opium derivitives, and their semi-synthetic substitutes.
Marijuana, in a legal context, isn't a narcotic.

[general_re]

True. In a non-legal, layman's context, I think "narcotic" is generally freely substitutable for "illicit drug", though.

Point taken. ;)

[philman_36]

In a non-legal, layman's context, I think "narcotic" is generally freely substitutable for "illicit drug", though.
So right you are.
Today, the term is used in a number of ways. Some individuals define narcotics as those substances that bind at opiate receptors (cellular membrane proteins activated by substances like heroin or morphine) while others refer to any illicit substance as a narcotic.
Point given. };^)

[tpaine]

Mark Bahner:
"...The Constitution recognizes no "controlled substances"...except perhaps for those controlled by States."


Go sell controlled substances and see if you go to jail.
They maybe can't do that, but they "will" do that. (put you in jail.)


So big brother will always win.
"It appears that you are from DU."

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...So big brother will always win.

Not all the time. I just think there are more important things to do than sit around and smoke dope.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...If Rosenthal can be arrested by federal agents for performing his official duties as a legally deputized officer of the city of Oakland, so can any state or local police officer whose actions fit the legal definition of "distribution".

Comparing giving dope to dopers for the purpose of helping them smoke dope, and giving dope to dopers so they can be arrested is a red herring.

[tpaine]

Go sell controlled substances and see if you go to jail.
They maybe can't do that, but they "will" do that. (put you in jail.)
-dan-

So big brother will always win.
"It appears that you are from DU."
129 tpaine


>>>..."So big brother will always win."

Not all the time. I just think there are more important things to do than sit around and smoke dope.
-dan-

Sure. - Apparently one of them is to sit here at FR and parrot big brothers line on the drug war. Just like some do at DU, I'm told.

[general_re]

Comparing giving dope to dopers for the purpose of helping them smoke dope, and giving dope to dopers so they can be arrested is a red herring.

The objective act is identical. The difference lies in the fact that one has the authority of the state behind him, and the other does not. Rosenthal had such authority according to the city of Oakland.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Just like some do at DU, I'm told.

The dope smokers at DU agree with you.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Rosenthal had such authority according to the city of Oakland.

When someone pretends to have authority they don't have and take actions based on their claim, it is called acting under color of law.

It is still unlawful.

[tpaine]

Go sell controlled substances and see if you go to jail.
They maybe can't do that, but they "will" do that. (put you in jail.)
-dan-

So big brother will always win.
"It appears that you are from DU."
129 tpaine


>>>..."So big brother will always win."

Not all the time. I just think there are more important things to do than sit around and smoke dope.
-dan-

Sure. - Apparently one of them is to sit here at FR and parrot big brothers line on the drug war. Just like some do at DU, I'm told.
132 tpaine

The dope smokers at DU agree with you.
-dan-

Thanks for admitting your affiliation with those DU dopes.

[general_re]

When someone pretends to have authority they don't have and take actions based on their claim, it is called acting under color of law.

Once again, from the top: The notion of mens rea requires that the defendant actually intended to violate the law. Thus, an honestly held belief that the law sanctioned his activity is, by definition, exculpatory. The city had reason to believe that they could extend such authority to him, and proceeded to do so. As a result, he had a legitimate and honestly held belief that he did, in fact, possess such authority.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...Thanks for admitting your affiliation with those DU dopes.

I am not the one flaming everyone with claims that dope is good, lets all sit around and smoke dope and such garbage.

You are.

[Dan(9698)]

>>>...honestly held belief that he did, in fact, possess such authority.

There were a lot of cases in the 50s and 60s in the South where law enfocement types were held to be operating under color of law.

They also honestly believed they held the authority.

It didn't hold water then and it won't hold water now.

[tpaine]

Once again, from the top: The notion of mens rea requires that the defendant actually intended to violate the law. Thus, an honestly held belief that the law sanctioned his activity is, by definition, exculpatory. The city had reason to believe that they could extend such authority to him, and proceeded to do so. As a result, he had a legitimate and honestly held belief that he did, in fact, possess such authority.
-G re-

Our boy 'dan' has already admitted that 'honest beliefs' have nothing to do with his vision of american law, --- here:

"---Of course, the way you've phrased your statement makes it correct because there were no charges of conspiracy between the city and the defendant. Nice dodge. --"
73 philman_36


That is why I phrased it that way.
77 -dan-