I was looking for the thread with the snitch discussion, and I searched Topix (much too much stuff though). Here's a canned link:
http://pvnm.com/-m-q-V_g -
I realized there's a lot of 'snitching' of all sorts going on. In some instances, there's a revenge reaction, but on many occasions, it's not a profit-loss issue, but a betrayal.
Then, I realized the PERFECT question. You see, there's a famous historical case of a snitch, long held up as an example.
Judas snitched out Jesus.
While it's true that Jesus was technically guilty of the victimless crime of blasphemy (in their view), and was thus deserving of the death penalty (by stoning), Judas didn't have to turn him in.
Judas was just following the law.
Jesus was a criminal.
Was that ok?
The Ukiah Daily Journal
Snitches: Good, Bad?
Click on an option to vote
313
votes
- Posted in the The Ukiah Daily Journal Forum
- Hot Polls | Recent Polls
-
59 comments
Comments
|
“Pot is a gift from God” Joined: May 10, 2008 Comments: 1191 ISP: Oakland, CA |
|
|
You are comparing the commercial growers to Jesus and the victimized neighbors to Judas? Chronic marijuana use does distort your view of reality, does it not?
|
|
|
In the Last Temptation of Christ, Judas was portrayed as the most loyal apostle as he saw to it that the prophesy was set into action in spite of the fact that it would mean death to his beloved Jesus. So... whose law was Judas following? Mans or Gods? Just a philosophical question.
|
|
|
“Pot is a gift from God” Joined: May 10, 2008 Comments: 1191 ISP: Oakland, CA |
Not really. I was considering situation of the friend of two other friends, one of whom is cheating on the other. In either situation, one is confirming the trust of one while betraying that of the other. But GA brings it to another level in questioning whether the betrayal portrayal itself is the betrayal. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Judas |
What's more, Judas was a "paid informant." He didn't snitch out of the goodness of his heart or a sense of public duty, he snitched for profit. "Thirty pieces of silver" or something, wasn't it? So, Judas wasn't the first paid informant, as apparently the practice was already used by law enforcement, as there wasn't any quibbling as described in any of the scriptures I read, the money was readily handed over. So the question isn't just snitching, it's what the snitching is meant to do. Did Judas betray Christ because he believed that Christ was a criminal, that he was evil? Did he tell because he didn't like Christ? Or did he tell because he was hungry and was too stupid to have a job? Or, even worse, did he lie? Did he snitch because he had the mentality of a paid informant even back then, and just wanted to get rid of a rival at any cost? What if he knew that Jesus wasn't anything special, that he wasn't the Son of God or anything, and wanted to move in on his territory? Who knows? But, thirty pieces of silver is what in today's monetary exchange? Paid informants get paid a lot of money now, some who infiltrate gangs and motorcycle clubs are millionaires. Was Judas extremely wealthy after he was paid? Or was that just chump change? Now, his snitching was more than just "dry snitching," which is just leading law enforcement on a goose chase in order to make good the dry snitcher's own escape. Judas didn't dry snitch, he really put the finger on Christ. Or, maybe if Judas believed the Son of God was another man rather than Christ, that was true successful dry snitching, as Jesus died rather than the real Son of God. But that's just speculation now on a snitches' mentality and motivation for telling for pay. We will never really know, as these types of snitches are so deceptive you can never get the real truth from them. They lie to law enforcement, to the victims that they frame and lie about, and to whoever else they speak to. This type of informant is truly evil. Judas, whether he fingered the true Christ or not, was truly evil. He was an evil snitch. Or an effective dry snitch. Except to the crucified Jesus, who, no doubt, felt that there was no difference between Judas' snitching or dry snitching, as he was killed anyway. Old people calling the law about a purse snatching or something is expected in any society, that's the way it works. A citizen will always tell on something, and we should be happy about that or we wouldn't even have any society to live in. Or, if a person operates on the edge of criminality or light drug use, dry snitchers should be expected, as it's a fairly allowable life style in that element. But a paid informant, a confidential paid informant who lies, cheats, and steals while framing you, the unsuspecting and law-abiding victim, is un-needed and unwanted in any level of society. They are just evil people. "'Tis better to take the food stamp and eat moldy bread than to take the shekel of the cop who pays the fee of the paid informant; woe be unto him who does." Where was that said? Was that an omitted verse or something? |
|
|
Edmund Burke said, ‘The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.’
|
|
|
Snitches get stitches.
http://video.google.com/videosearch... http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200704/stop-sn... http://video.google.com/videoplay... http://www.youtube.com/watch... So far the county of Mendocino has been dealing with hippies, wait till the REAL drug dealers show up. I know a bunch of Drug Dealers in Baltimore that would love to teach the MCSD what real crime is about. STOP SNITCHING |
|
whoe thats some cold **** check it out |
|
The REAL drug dealers are already here. Time to turn them in and weed them out. |
|
You must have never been to a real city and seen real crime....... |
|
|
Another difficult area is when an innocent person is arrested. "Innocent" here meaning someone who has been arrested before, but is innocent in the current arrest. A person who has a criminal history, but is factually innocent at the present.
A good bet is that this type of criminal didn't snitch in his or her previous arrest if there were codefendants involved. There was probably a good deal of deception used during the court process. Even if the person was arrested singly, if there was no one else criminally involved, the person wouldn't be expected to tell on himself. He or she didn't snitch. But now the person is innocent of the crime. If he gives the true story to the arresting officers, is that snitching? Is he snitching by telling the truth? First answer is no, of course not. He's merely giving the truth for once. But now the truth doesn't get anyone in trouble, the wrongfully arrested person isn't telling on any criminal co-conspirator, he's actually telling on the police who made a bad arrest. And that's when trouble starts. Law enforcement really doesn't wish to be criticized for making false arrests. I suppose it looks worse for them than we know, it really throws the intelligence and morality of the arresting officer into doubt. So now this officer has a past offender in custody who really isn't supposed to be there. Would that officer expect the person to lie to him as the offender has lied in the past? But as there is no one for the offender to protect now, he tells the truth and places the officer in trouble. This is snitching in the police officer's opinion, and now he calls the offender a snitch. This is worse trouble for the offender than the criminal element believing a person to be a snitch, as law enforcement will to go to great lengths to discredit a trouble maker (which the offender now is). If a criminal will lie to protect a co-conspirator, why won't he do it for a cop? Why get a cop into trouble? The offender lies about everything to the police, why doesn't he lie this time? He's been to jail before, he's probably going to do a crime again once he's released anyway, so what if he's not guilty just this once? Big deal, it's OK, just do the time and everything'll be all right. There are people who are called "cop groupies." You read about them, but not much. There are people who will lie for the police just because they like them, people who will create evidence and give perjury for the police just to get someone in trouble because the police doesn't like him, he's trouble to them somehow, he's a "problem child." And, if the offender described herein should win his case, or be released before trial due to the charges being dropped, he could be subjected to the scourge of police groupies who will hound him just about everywhere and call him a snitch. A snitch? How so? He didn't tell on anyone because there was no crime and no criminality was involved. Because he snitched on the police by beating his case, he became an informant to the court as the court believed him for once. He told, and proof of his snitching is his freedom, his being back in the community and not in jail. The police have a good supply of persons who will lie for them and ruin a person's life. The question about snitching isn't as cut and dried as the public would think, it's not just a scum crook worried about losing his stature in the criminal community. It's about who gets to tell the truth, who gets to be a reliable source for matters in court. The truth is, if the wrong people are allowed to become credible and are given validity in court or by the police, then the wrong types of laws are created and we get the wrong society to live in. So this question of snitching is important to all of us, not just the street drug user, but to the entire nation. And that's not even talking about writs, like Habeas Corpus. |
|
|
Hey, keep those HIFCA tips coming, the Feds are planning a wake up party for Willits and Covelo next! Gotta love forfeiture land that can be bought for a song and a dance at auction if you have cash.
|
|
Home invasion robberies, murder, armed robbery, felony drug dealing on a grand scale. What do you consider real crime? We choose to live here because we don't want to all the crime and violence that you find so tolerable. Why not go back to the city if you like it so much there. |
|
|
Why Can't We All Just Get Alooongggg!!!!
|
|
You make a great argument for ending FEDERAL prohibition, but why keep beating the dead horse? At least 70% of everyone in Mendocino County agrees with you. That is no reason for Mendo to set ourselves up as the dope growing/drug dealing marijuana capital of the world by having more permissive rules than the rest of the state. I know you and your dope dealing friends like the profit margin, but explain how it benefits the rest of us to be a haven for dope dealers. |
|
|
WE are not talking about criminal snitches who are trying to save their own ****. We are talking about innocent neighbors/victims who are reporting criminal dope dealing activity that threatens our communities. Even the old hippies are geting fed up with the corporate growers. The Island Mtn. raid was a result of citizen complaints. Keep those calls coming!
|
|
That's because hippies are crybaby snitches. |
|
ANd you are the new breed thug grower who doesn't give a s*** about the neighbors or the environment? |
|
I second that. |
|
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prop. 8 and its proponents wrong | 6 min | SanFranJeff | 884 |
| Don't legalize marijuana | 7 min | John | 32 |
| Marijuana Meth Connection | 7 min | Former Ukiahan | 516 |
| Who Makes the MONEY for Fueling Mendocino Count... | 9 min | COST SAVINGS | 2 |
| METH LABS IGNORED- Despite $11,000,000 BUDGET! | 11 min | Lord Foul | 3 |
| Pot Busts Hit Shopkeepers Hardest | 13 min | Lord Foul | 192 |
| Should Our Sheriff Dept. GO GREEN? | 15 min | Check it OUT | 2 |
The Ukiah Daily Journal Forum