Flint Police Plan Marijuana Arrests Despite Vote

[LongHairBri]

Flint police plan to arrest people for marijuana possession despite a vote on a city ballot proposal to decriminalize marijuana in some cases.

The Flint Journal reports about 57 percent of ballots counted as of Wednesday on the proposal to decriminalize possession of less than an ounce of marijuana by those 19 or older were in favor of the change. The city said in a statement, however, that the proposal is "symbolic in nature."

Brian Morrissey is from the Coalition for a Safer Flint, the group that gathered signatures to get the initiative on the ballot. He says he's disappointed with the city's decision.

Similar ballot measures in Detroit and Grand Rapids got voter support Tuesday. And AnnArbor.com reports Ypsilanti residents voted to redirect police from enforcing marijuana laws

[CaveatLector]

The thing is that you can only have under 1 oz and be on private property to qualify anyway. So anyone involved in a traffic stop is not covered by this. It is a pretty narrow ordinance.

[michaelscott]

The thing is that you can only have under 1 oz and be on private property to qualify anyway. So anyone involved in a traffic stop is not covered by this. It is a pretty narrow ordinance.

Yeah, dont see it helping much except perhaps domestic disturbances from picking up an extra charge. Still a move in the right direction.

[GanjaWarrior]

def better situation than they had on Monday....maybe not perfect, but a step, and that's more than we get out of the feds.

[tricloud]

Votes like these are bigger than some may think. We took individual cities on the medical marijuana issue before we legalized medical marijuana state wide. It shows that the people are ready for a necessary change. If we can take Flint and Detroit then we can probably pass legalization state wide if we were to write a good petition and get the signatures.

 

If we remember correctly not many cities respected the medical marijuana proposals. Come to think of it, the state still don't even want to accept reality. It takes time for things to change but I can see we are on our way. Legalization will probably be coming to our state and many others in the near future. These local legalization efforts are the proof.

 

Even if the cops don't respect the law a jury will. Courts are scared to death of jury trials in marijuana cases. Why? Because they rarely win and it costs big cash for them to loose. Always demand a jury, you may be surprised at how fast they drop your case after you refuse several plea offers.

Edited November 9, 2012 by tricloud

[phaquetoo]

Votes like these are bigger than some may think. We took individual cities on the medical marijuana issue before we legalized medical marijuana state wide. It shows that the people are ready for a necessary change. If we can take Flint and Detroit then we can probably pass legalization state wide if we were to write a good petition and get the signatures.

 

If we remember correctly not many cities respected the medical marijuana proposals. Come to think of it, the state still don't even want to accept reality. It takes time for things to change but I can see we are on our way. Legalization will probably be coming to our state and many others in the near future. These local legalization efforts are the proof.

 

Even if the cops don't respect the law a jury will. Courts are scared to death of jury trials in marijuana cases. Why? Because they rarely win and it costs big cash for them to loose. Always demand a jury, you may be surprised at how fast they drop your case after you refuse several plea offers.

 

Well said, and its true, ive asked for 3 jury trials no convictions on any of them! always ask for a jury trial, and dont take any pleas!

 

Peace

Jim

[CaveatLector]

Courts are scared to death of jury trials in marijuana cases. Why? Because they rarely win and it costs big cash for them to loose. Always demand a jury, you may be surprised at how fast they drop your case after you refuse several plea offers.

It doesn't cost the courts more if a jury comes back not guilty than if it comes back guilty. How do you come up with that? Also, how does a court lose? Courts aren't in the business of winning or losing.

[tricloud]

It doesn't cost the courts more if a jury comes back not guilty than if it comes back guilty. How do you come up with that? Also, how does a court lose? Courts aren't in the business of winning or losing.

 

It costs the courts more for a jury trial and they know it;s a waste. lol and the remark about winning or losing is funny. The courts wouldn't exist if they never won a case. Where do you think their revenue comes from?

[CaveatLector]

It costs the courts more for a jury trial and they know it;s a waste. lol and the remark about winning or losing is funny. The courts wouldn't exist if they never won a case. Where do you think their revenue comes from?

You aren't making any sense. How do courts win a case?

[Restorium2]

It costs the courts more for a jury trial and they know it;s a waste. lol and the remark about winning or losing is funny. The courts wouldn't exist if they never won a case. Where do you think their revenue comes from?

Us. Their revenue comes from tax payers. They don't care how they spend it. I've been on a few juries and the prosecutors aren't afraid of jurors. They prosecute frivolous cases every day that waste money. You can sit there on the jury with your mouth hanging open out of shock with the lack of evidence they have and they prosecute anyway. That's not just medical cannabis either. Sometimes they prosecute to punish a person even if they know they can't win. You are way out of touch.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Restorium2

[tricloud]

Ok bro, the folks I know who got their case dropped because they demanded a jury trial are all a figment of my imagination.

[Restorium2]

Ok bro, the folks I know who got their case dropped because they demanded a jury trial are all a figment of my imagination.

It's all in the details. You are assuming way too much.

[bobandtorey]

Ok bro, the folks I know who got their case dropped because they demanded a jury trial are all a figment of my imagination.

 

And what cases do you know that I don't ?

Their have not been any cases you still cant even tell a jury that you are a medical marihuana card holder the judge wont allow it unless you are talking about a lower court then yes

[t-pain]

not to be snooty, but if the charges were dropped before a trial, there wouldnt be any cases to look at...

there may be only arrest records and warrants to look at.

[Highlander]

for what it is worth, I heard an interview on NPR with Flint's main Dept. of Public Safety guy. He said that they would continue business as usual, which would be to issue tickets for misdemeanor possession incidents. There was no discussion of arrests for this.

Edited November 9, 2012 by Highlander

[greenbuddha]

Government employed or elected prosecutors don't like to lose court battles, makes them look bad in case they want to run for office or go back into 'private law practice, and if a 'law' can't be upheld by the court, soon the courts and the 'prosecutors' hesitate to pursue casses under those laws.

 

With a jury trial, 'unfavorable' laws are very often not upheld by the citizen juries, and the court 'officials' know it. If you demand a 'jury trial' when charged under an 'unfavorable law' the odds go down that the courts will win the case.

 

Do the 'math'.

[Highlander]

Government employed or elected prosecutors don't like to lose court battles, makes them look bad in case they want to run for office or go back into 'private law practice, and if a 'law' can't be upheld by the court, soon the courts and the 'prosecutors' hesitate to pursue casses under those laws.

 

With a jury trial, 'unfavorable' laws are very often not upheld by the citizen juries, and the court 'officials' know it. If you demand a 'jury trial' when charged under an 'unfavorable law' the odds go down that the courts will win the case.

 

Do the 'math'.

 

For the sake of accurate discussion, courts don't will or lose a case. The court is the location of the trial, and the judge is the referee. Saying a court wins a case is like saying stadium wins a football game.

 

People should not confuse the courts where cases are tried with the prosecutors ["The People"] who bring the cases there. Know your enemy. There are MMJ-friendly judges trying cases brought by MMJ-unfriendly prosecutors. It is important to understand the difference between the court and the prosecutors so you can accurately assess your "enemy."

[tricloud]

Th

Saying a court wins a case is like saying stadium wins a football game.

 

Sure sure...... Does the losing football team pay fines and victims rights fee's to the stadium?

[greenbuddha]

For the sake of accurate discussion, courts don't will or lose a case. The court is the location of the trial, and the judge is the referee. Saying a court wins a case is like saying stadium wins a football game.

 

People should not confuse the courts where cases are tried with the prosecutors ["The People"] who bring the cases there. Know your enemy. There are MMJ-friendly judges trying cases brought by MMJ-unfriendly prosecutors. It is important to understand the difference between the court and the prosecutors so you can accurately assess your "enemy."

 

 

Of course 'courts' don't win or lose a case, 'prosecutors' win or lose the case.

 

And the 'enemy' is the 'power and politics' that are in the 'implied' authority' of the courts and those that make money and seek 'power' through those courts.

 

Yes, know your enemy!

[Willy]

For medical marijuana cases at least, it is easy to confuse when you are sitting right there, as the judges so often defer to the prosecutors that it seems as if they are on the same side and defense is on the other.

 

 

You mean there not?

[Herb Cannabis]

Government employed or elected prosecutors don't like to lose court battles, makes them look bad in case they want to run for office or go back into 'private law practice, and if a 'law' can't be upheld by the court, soon the courts and the 'prosecutors' hesitate to pursue casses under those laws.

 

With a jury trial, 'unfavorable' laws are very often not upheld by the citizen juries, and the court 'officials' know it. If you demand a 'jury trial' when charged under an 'unfavorable law' the odds go down that the courts will win the case.

 

Do the 'math'.

 

I hope that you are right, my life depends on it. I will not take a plea deal.