Darryl Strawberry arrested.....again.

[pyonir]

feel sorry for him? no. i can't feel sorry for people that have that many chances. i could honestly care less what happens to him now, as long as he is not free to roam the streets and potentially injure someone.

 

[SuperTool]

Has he hurt anyone except himself? It's his life, he should be allowed to dig his grave if he wants too. Throwing someone in jail for doing something that is really none of your business, unnecessarily infringing on someone's freedom when it serves no purpose. The government is destroying people's lives and then coming around saying it's for their own good.
It's truly despicable.

 

[pyonir]

<< stop acting on assumptions >>


with all due respect, maybe you should explain your answers so that the others don't have to make assumptions on what you mean. just a thought.

 

[MrDingleDangle]

<< feel sorry for him? no. i can't feel sorry for people that have that many chances. i could honestly care less what happens to him now, as long as he is not free to roam the streets and potentially injure someone. >>



im not saying u should...but u shouldnt say that i shouldnt either...

its just a difference of opinions

and im not saying he should be on the streets...he belongs in jail..

 

[jobberd]

<< with all due respect, maybe you should explain your answers so that the others don't have to make assumptions on what you mean. just a thought. >>

Why? I just put in my opinion (not answers), nothing more. Maybe I didn't dwell on it because it would go too off-topic from the convo at hand, or maybe because I don't KNOW what the answer is? Just because someone doesn't explain their reasons fully does NOT mean that anyone can just twist what they say into whatever they want it to mean. Argue what I say all you want, but don't twist it to mean something else. With your logic, if I ask you if you are a Buddhist and you say no, it is therefore ok for me to assume (and act on that assumption) that you are an atheist because you did not explain/elaborate your answer

<< Has he hurt anyone except himself? >>

If you followed the link that Aceman provided, you'll see that he did.

 

[pyonir]

<< im not saying u should...but u shouldnt say that i shouldnt either...

its just a difference of opinions

and im not saying he should be on the streets...he belongs in jail.. >>


yep, just a difference of opinions. and i don't say that you shouldn't care either. how you want to feel is your business



<< Just because someone doesn't explain their reasons fully does NOT mean that anyone can just twist what they say into whatever they want it to mean >>


on a message board? sure it does. that is what most here do best. that and judge people. i wasn't attacking you, just making a suggestion.

 

[SuperTool]

<<

<< Has he hurt anyone except himself? >>

If you followed the link that Aceman provided, you'll see that he did >>


Well, then he should be prosecuted for assault, not drug offences.
This would be silly if it wasn't so tragic.

 

[CKDragon]

The bottom line is that if he wasn't a famous person, he would've been in jail a long time ago, for a very long period of time. He doesn't deserve more special treatment after all the special treatment he's already been given.

You can argue all you want about if our system of handling drug abuse is right or wrong, but if it was you or I that had 5+ counts of possession, we'd be with Bubba right about now.

CK

 

[jobberd]

<< on a message board? sure it does. that is what most here do best. that and judge people. i wasn't attacking you, just making a suggestion. >>

With your logic,if you claim you are not Buddhist, it is therefore ok for me to assume (and act on that assumption) that you are an atheist because you did not explain/elaborate your answer.

<< Well, then he should be prosecuted for assault, not drug offences. >>

I don't believe the report said what he was being charged for. Regardless, certain drugs do affect a user negatively directly. Otherwise, there would be no correlation between violence and alcohol

 

[SuperTool]

<<

<< Well, then he should be prosecuted for assault, not drug offences. >>

I don't believe the report said what he was being charged for. Regardless, certain drugs do affect a user negatively directly. Otherwise, there would be no correlation between violence and alcohol >>


Yet if someone hits someone else when drunk, we charge them with assault, not alcohol posession.

 

[pyonir]

<< With your logic,if you claim you are not Buddhist, it is therefore ok for me to assume (and act on that assumption) that you are an atheist because you did not explain/elaborate your answer. >>


if i didn't explain myself. sure. if i didn't explain myself i wouldn't jump down your throat for assuming i as an atheist because i didn't say one way or another. i would explain it to you if you were wrong about me, i wouldn't get all defensive and upset about it. (btw, you would have been correct in your assumption, i am an atheist.)

 

[jobberd]

<<

<<

<< Well, then he should be prosecuted for assault, not drug offences. >>

I don't believe the report said what he was being charged for. Regardless, certain drugs do affect a user negatively directly. Otherwise, there would be no correlation between violence and alcohol >>


Yet if someone hits someone else when drunk, we charge them with assault, not alcohol posession. >>

That's because alcohol is legal. And who is to say Strawberry will ONLY be charged with drug posession or assault and not both?

<< if i didn't explain myself. sure. if i didn't explain myself i wouldn't jump down your throat for assuming i as an atheist because i didn't say one way or another. i would explain it to you if you were wrong about me, i wouldn't get all defensive and upset about it. >>

But that doesn't make sense. It's flawed logic to assume one answer is correct simply because another isn't. I wouldn't even have minded that much if Sepen said it in nicer terms, but I do not appreciate people putting words in my mouth.

<< btw, you would have been correct in your assumption, i am an atheist.) >>

Lucky guess