Tracy S. Morris

Quirky Mysteries, Screwball Fantasy and Sassy History

Monday Musings: Character Motivation

Written By: Tracy - May• 24•10

It used to be easy to tell the good guys from the bad guys.  The good guys wore white hats and the bad guys wore black.  These days, the line is a lot more blurry than that.  Thomas Harris devoted an entire book about his unrepentantly evil bad guy Hannibal Lecter, and despite the movie’s retconning, in the book series the bad guy won. 

Even the heroes of stories aren’t always squeaky clean. In the television show Supernatural, the heroes of the story are hunters who spend their free time scamming money through credit cards and hustling pool so that they can make fast cash and move on to their next hunt. 

This is a departure from stories of times past.  In Victorian times, there were plenty of trees killed in the names of penny dreadful characters such as Dracula, Dr. Jekyll, Sweeney Todd or Varney the Vampire.  But by the final page of the story, the antagonist is ultimately killed.   (In the case of Varney, again and again and again.)

What is it about less than likeable characters that make them compelling to watch?

 Everyone likes the idea of the Superman character, but it’s Batman that draws the readers.  Part of it is the character’s motivation.  The road to hell may be paved with good intentions, but if a character has good intentions there is more of a chance that readers will like, or at least identify with him. 

Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect. But the bad guy who still takes the time to call his mom on mother’s day shows that he has a human side. One that cares enough to call his mother.

Character motivation is something you shouldn’t neglect in writing. Always consider why your character is doing what they do in a story, and find some way to convey that to a reader. 

Motivation is what makes antiheroes likable, even if they do things that the reader won’t think is likeable.  In Steven Sondheim’s version of Sweeny Todd, the character is motivated by getting revenge on a judge who had him sentenced to prison. 

Hannibal Lecter shouldn’t be a very likeable guy.  He kills people and then likes to serve them up gourmet style.  But Harris turns Lecter from the villain into the antihero by first giving him his own, even more villainous opponent, and then giving him noble motivations (first to rescue agent Starling, and in the prequel, avenging his sister’s death). 

In the novel that I’m working on now, the main character is going to have to steal an arcane artifact from her employer in order to use it to save a friend.  This is a problem, because in the first few chapters of the book, she chastised her primary antagonist because he steals arcane artifacts on a regular basis. 

Part of the issue that I’m wrestling with is what makes her any better than her antagonist, if she’s in the process of doing the exact same thing?  And what will make my readers continue to root for her if she gets up on a high horse in one scene, and then sinks to the same level halfway through the book? This makes her own moral code seem slippery and hard to pin down.  What I decided was that the reason it was okay for her to steal (just this once) when she was self-righteous over her frenemy stealing was that her motivations were noble (helping another friend) while her enemy was motivated by self-interest (adding to his collection). 

This is actually pretty consistant with human nature.  People who don’t live by a sense of honor that is written in stone sometimes justify their actions thusly.  Even so, I’m leaving room in the rewrite stages to change this if my first readers find that it makes her too unlikeable.

Motivation makes characters more three dimensional.  Characters who don’t seem to have their own internal motivation come across as cardboard cutouts to the people reading the stories.  But if you want to get your readers invested in a character, motivation is what will separate the likeable characters from the unlikeable ones.



 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

231 Comments

  1. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

      • Tracy says:

        Added back 🙂

        One of the biggest problems with paladin characters is that they can seem morally inflexible. Rorschach’s moral inflexibility was interestingly handled in Watchman. He couldn’t live in a world that had shades of gray. When he hit a point where he would have to change his own moral code or accept death, he chose death.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

    • stormsdotter says:

      To date, the only likable paladin I’ve seen is Elizabeth Moon’s Paksenarion.

      By the way, I’m another Broad, adding you to my f-list.

  2. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  3. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  4. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  5. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  6. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  7. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  8. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  9. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  10. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  11. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  12. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  13. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  14. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  15. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  16. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  17. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  18. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  19. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  20. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  21. Paladin characters have their place, but there are times when they seem too perfect.

    This is why folks like characters which are more human. They can identify with a hero who is more on their own level. Hence the popularity of Rorschach vs the other Watchmen characters.

    He did what he felt he had to, but he stuck to his guns.

    Course, the rationalisation your character is contemplating is exactly why not too many people can be paladins.

    There is always the temptation to slip (as slippery a slope as it is) ‘just this once’, for the sake of a highly nebulous greater good. ^_^

  22. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  23. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  24. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  25. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  26. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  27. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  28. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  29. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  30. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  31. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  32. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  33. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  34. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  35. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  36. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  37. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  38. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  39. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  40. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  41. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  42. Thank you!

    This is a good essay. I have linked to it.

  43. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

    • Tracy says:

      When I was researching this topic, I went in assuming that the antihero was a recent thing. But I think the Victorians had their fair share of antiheroes. Of course, the antihero in a Victorian plot still had to die in the end. Because the stories were still morality plays.

      I think that may be why the better-known Victorian antiheroes are still relevant. Because deep down, sometimes we do root for Dracula, the Phantom of the Opera and Sweeney Todd.

  44. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  45. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  46. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  47. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  48. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  49. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  50. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  51. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  52. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  53. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  54. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  55. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  56. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  57. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  58. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  59. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  60. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  61. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  62. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  63. Arrived here through ysabetwordsmith’s link.
    Agree on what you say. I think, though, that one of the reasons why people seems to relate better to a ‘human’ anti-hero rather than to a paladin type is, IMHO, that very often writers seem to take the easy way out with paladins.

    An anti-hero as protagonist has to have some kind of redeeming quality, at the very least to show some endearing human element, be it, as you say, calling his mother on mother’s day or taking home stray animals.
    Sadly in many cases authors seem to think that the ‘good guys’ don’t need to be nuanced and make the choice to do the right thing appear easy, obvious and effortless, with not a shadow of internal struggle, or conflict between personal desires and tendencies and the character’s moral compass.
    Good needs not be perfect,in fact should not be, and needs not be boring either. 🙂

  64. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

    • Tracy says:

      Re: Another chance to quote my own work!!!

      . I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral.

      I liked the last paragraph especially. Very thought provoking. At least, you got me thinking.

  65. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  66. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  67. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  68. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  69. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  70. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  71. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  72. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  73. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  74. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  75. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  76. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  77. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  78. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  79. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  80. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  81. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  82. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  83. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.

  84. msstacy13 says:

    Another chance to quote my own work!!!

    Marked quarters are a crime, by the way. There’s a Federal Currency Regulation against it, and using them for complimentary songs on a jukebox violates Nebraska tax laws, because the practice defrauds the state of revenue. But neither Treasury nor the Nebraska Department of Revenue have ever impounded a jukebox, so far as I know. Enforcing the law is sometimes more expensive than letting it bend.

    And even though I could easily thumb my nose at the Treasury Department while happily cheating the state out of a few pennies in tax revenues by accepting and using a defaced quarter, I couldn’t imagine perpetrating outright fraud with Drew. The worst we’d ever done was plant a wireless microphone without a warrant, and written it up as a paid informant. We didn’t even have to break in. They’d left a window open, and the screen was loose, and I just pulled the screen away from the sill while Drew watched my back. Then I reached in and hooked the microphone on a drape. We’d taped it to a bent paper clip for that purpose.

    We just got a few names and phone numbers that way, and didn’t use them as evidence per se, but since we had allegedly gotten those numbers from a paid informant, we had probable cause. That meant we could get a warrant for those phone records. This led to a conviction in Drew’s possession case, and a plea-bargained manslaughter conviction against the same suspect for me.

    Come to think of it, that lousy bastard will be eligible for parole this summer, so we’ll probably arrest him again next year, unless someone has fixed that screen. The battery in that microphone went dead long ago.

    If our paid informant scam had gone wrong, somehow, and I’d been caught with my hand in the window without a warrant or probable cause, Drew wouldn’t have left me holding the bag, nor would I have shot him. And if this wrongful conviction of mine blew up, the Department would stand behind me, even if they had to tell bald-faced lies to do it.

    When a gangster gets caught, his mob lets him play the patsy, but he doesn’t resent it, because it’s part of that Nothing-personal-just-business criminal ethic. I guess that’s the difference between cops and robbers, between good guys and bad guys. I can’t say it’s a moral conflict, because it’s really not a matter of righteousness trumping evil, it’s only a question of ethics, two degrees of corruption at war with one another. One is predicated on the hope that things can and will gradually improve. The other assumes a downward spiral. You’ll have to decide for yourself which standard you’d rather see triumph. I won’t blame you if you favor a strong dose of forthright dishonesty over a lesser amount of disingenuous law and order, but neither will I have much sympathy for you when the violent society you’ve embraced leaves you in its filthy wake.