08-23-2016, 04:20 AM
Because that is sort of the implication. I'm supposed to feel bad for this poor guy since he got arrested for a crime that most liberty lovers detest - and because he was poor he stayed locked up. Sure, I hate the "crime" because I cannot fathom how it could even be legal to arrest someone for walking while drunk. Of course nobody told me I should feel bad for him, but that's the implication. I'd rather attack the crime, challenge that legal authority that the city has to regulate victimless behavior. But instead the debate is here because he was too poor to post bail. Yet he was getting drunk and walking the town. Makes it hard for me to emotionally attatch to this case since he's a friggen idiot. And the "debate" is whether "poor" people should be held to a bail they cannot afford.
So when that happens my mind jumps straight to defending the law- well the law is the law, what the hell is he doing going out getting drunk when he knows it's illegal in his town. Especially if he can't afford a bail that is probably a fraction of the amount that his drinking habit costs. And what makes him any different than the poor asshole who steals something and is "too poor" to post his bail? When the crime is real and the victims are real, will the "poor man" defense hold up? That makes me really really not care about this poor idiot.
When I was younger me and my friends would go midnight surfing down by the fishing pier all year long. The city ordinance is no surfing within 200' of the pier, but that's where all the lights were.... So we went. We were poor teenagers with just enough cash to buy weed and surf wax. But when we went down to surf the pier or when we decided to shoot the pier (ride under it) we always had to make sure we had enough money to pay the Man because some fucker would always call the cops. $25 fines each time. Best just to skateboard up to the town hall the next day and pay it. If your gonna intentionally break the rules, you have to be able to and ready to pay the consequences.