You wrote:
“Charge him for a picture? As a conservative you’re willing to waste government resources for that? For that?”
No. I am willing to spend resources on prosecuting him for drug use, however, and he’s already admitted that was the case. The picture is evidence of a crime, not a crime in itself. I do not confuse the one with the other.
“As for treating him like everyone else, I could mail this tool of a DA a picture of me smoking pot and claim that I did it in his county. For some bizarre reason, I really doubt he would waste the money and time to launch an investigation about it.”
Actually, I think if you did smoke pot, admitted it, and sent him the picture of it, he would prosecute you for basically being a moronic tool. It is the job of the DA to prosecute criminals. Since Phelps already admitted committing a crime - as was documented in the photo - then the DA has reason to believe a prosecution may be a worthwhile pursuit. He might decide against it for any number of reasons.
Ask yourself, however, the following:
1) Since Phelps admitted he smoked pot when the phot was taken, doesn’t that mean Phelps did in fact break the law?
2) That would mean the photo is evidence of that crime. Why shouldn’t a DA act on such evidence?
I never thought I’d see the day when conservatives would make a Bill Clinton kind of defense:
It’s just sex. Everybody lies about sex.
It’s just a picture of him smoking pot. Every 23 year old does stupid things.
He’s a dumba$$. Period. He violated the law and admitted it already. He’s a convicted drunk driver. He’s a dumba$$. This is no one’s fault but his own. Conservatives believe people are responsible for their own actions. Smoke the dope, dumb enough to film it, go to jail. Oh, well.
You’re willing to spend resources to charge him for a piddly misdemeanor case? Not me. I’d be angry if most cops spent that much time worrying about misdemeanor cases.
And there’s no way a cop would arrest me if I sent him a picture of me smoking pot and claimed that I did it in his jurisdiction. For one, I could just as easily backtrack on that statement. But the bigger, more practical reason is that a DAs case load is actually pretty full in most cases in this would be towards the very top of the “Who Gives a Damn” barrel.
As for your questions:
“1) Since Phelps admitted he smoked pot when the photo was taken, doesn’t that mean Phelps did in fact break the law?
2) That would mean the photo is evidence of that crime. Why shouldn’t a DA act on such evidence?”
1) Sure, I guess, if we assume that it was actually pot in there. I would wager it was.
2) Not if acting on the evidence is a waste of dollars for the “reward” of charging someone with a lame little misdemeanor. There’s a reason we have misdemeanor crimes. It’s because by their nature they are low priority and not a big deal. Maybe if it were a violent sort of misdemeanor that would be one thing, but this is rather petty as far as misdemeanors go.
They wouldn’t put him in jail. They’d fine him. The case would be a media circus. They’d end up spending way more money on it than they’d ever collect in fines. It wouldn’t be worth it, in financial terms, and I think it would hurt the sheriff and the prosecutor politically. I personally would send money to their opponents in the next election, as would I’m sure many other people from around the country.