Another "victim" in the "lost" war on drugs.

[hopper68]

It was not a no knock. He wasn't surprised. Several other people in the apartment had already been detained and he was hiding in the closet.

Feel free to resume speculating, though.

YOU SIR SHOULD BE BANNED!! HOW DARE YOU USE FACTS!!

Our minds are made up, please do not confuse us with facts.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

some times i wonder why our country is going to hell and then i read a thread like this. we have cops and some g.i. joe doll lover boy from khyber pass that think its funny that a person was killed in his bed by the cops because the war on drugs laws said its ok. America has lost her morels and you God less souls need prayer, meds, and therapy to get you through the stockholm syndrome your suffering from. never forget karma is a b**ch

I heard morels are good eatin'.

 

[hammer24]

I heard morels are good eatin'.

Delicious! But, I didn't realize we'd lost them! I just thought they were a seasonal thing.

 

[deal me in]

all 100% legal and constitutional (something people love to support, as long as it is helpful to their cause, controlled by elected persons

I'm more interested in whether you believe the war on drugs is moral and right. Do you think it is, and if so, why?

 

[IndyDave1776]

It seems that we have come back to the usual set of problems:

1. Given that most drug laws are the product of the federal government, show me where the authority exists to prohibit or otherwise control them, or to bribe or extort the states into doing likewise:

[h=3]Section 8[/h]1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;
3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
4: To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;
5: To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;
6: To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
7: To establish Post Offices and post Roads;
8: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
9: To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;
10: To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;
11: To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
14: To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
16: To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
17: To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, byCession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;--And
18: To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powersvested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

2. As is often the case, we find the specific circumstances dealing with the police versus an individual who most would not consider much of a loss to society. The problem is that the things which can be done to one can be done to all, but the focus gets shifted onto the less than upstanding decedent rather than the far more significant and broader issues like the constitutional nature of paramilitary-style police raids. Just as leftists hold up sympathetic images of small children and puppies or dance in their innocent blood as the case may be, we are focusing on the person of an apparent ne'er do well rather than the matters of principle which can affect any of us without warning, if nothing else when the wrong house gets raided, or a raid is executed on the intended location based on faulty information, which has indeed been known to happen.

3. We also fail to consider the Constitution as what it is, specifically a binding contract between the government and the governed. We often further fail to consider that incidental or deliberate misinterpretation by 9 politicians in black robes does not change the content of the document. Please note that activist judges are largely a product of the post-FDR landscape and that the Supreme Court has never recovered from being completely packed during Roosevelt's four terms in office.

In the end, I don't like drugs or ne'er do wells, but I fail to see the authority for such raids. I am more concerned that the same thing could happen to us when a leftist congress and president decide to outlaw guns and the Supremes decide that, somehow, this is constitutional, perhaps by imposing, say, a $1 million per gun and $1 million per bullet tax rather than an outright ban. After all, John Roberts says that anything goes so long as it is considered to be a tax!

 

[Stickfight]

I am more concerned that the same thing could happen to us when a leftist congress and president decide to outlaw guns and the Supremes decide that, somehow, this is constitutional, perhaps by imposing, say, a $1 million per gun and $1 million per bullet tax rather than an outright ban. After all, John Roberts says that anything goes so long as it is considered to be a tax!

As you are fond of not letting people read between the lines, please point me to the line where I can find your Justice Roberts quote in here.

TTFN, off to buy some readily available drugs.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As you are fond of not letting people read between the lines, please point me to the line where I can find your Justice Roberts quote in here.

TTFN, off to buy some readily available drugs.

Making a sarcastic reference to the logic that necessarily accompanies his determination that it is in fact a tax therefore constitutional under the federal government's authority to levy taxes is a far cry from flagrantly disregarding the Constitution or inventing passages which do not exist. Nice try. Better luck next time.

 

[jrogers]

It was not a no knock. He wasn't surprised. Several other people in the apartment had already been detained and he was hiding in the closet.

Feel free to resume speculating, though.

If true the guy was a moron.

But that doesn't excuse ruining lives over non-violent drug offenses.

 

[ticktwrter]

Wow! some of you need your meds adjusted. Some of you think the police have nothing to do but harass everyone. Have serious errors been made and caused death? Yes, is is a "daily" event? NO!

 

[ticktwrter]

If true the guy was a moron.

But that doesn't excuse ruining lives over non-violent drug offenses.

The ONLY one who ruined lives is the scum who was hiding in the closet and decided to take his chances and pull a gun on the police.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Wow! some of you need your meds adjusted. Some of you think the police have nothing to do but harass everyone. Have serious errors been made and caused death? Yes, is is a "daily" event? NO!

If I were to say what I am thinking I would probably get banned, but yes, when confronted with a steady stream of examples who do exactly that and worse, it becomes very easy to believe that this represents the majority.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If true the guy was a moron.

But that doesn't excuse ruining lives over non-violent drug offenses.

What about violent drug offenses? Mexican drug cartels aren't run by Ghandi.

I get it. If they legalized pot tomorrow I'd say "great" and move on, as I don't really get the prohibition against it. I also won't sit here and pretend that the illicit drug trade is not the driving force behind the majority of non-domestic violent crime in our city every day.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

If I were to say what I am thinking I would probably get banned, but yes, when confronted with a steady stream of examples who do exactly that and worse, it becomes very easy to believe that this represents the majority.

I think I'm going to start posting every misuse of a firearm by non-LEOs county wide, especially those who legally accessed the firearm used. Seeing as how we have members who comb the national news for any missteps by the police and then use that to portray it as normal. You throw a wide enough net, you'll find what you seek.

Let's see a few things that pop into my mind that I was recently involved in:

Husband shoots wife who comes home from vacation, states he thought she was an intruder. She states she told him it was her before he shot.

Sister shoots brother. They originally say it was a drive by, she then states she thought he was an intruder.

Man with gun in his jacket pocket accidentally shoots himself in the thigh. Claims robbery, admits to shooting himself when confronted with the evidence. Lied because he believed he was Brady disqualified due to a pending charge, but was not found to be at the time of the report.

"Friend" accidentally discharges shotgun while "safely" pointing it downward. Fills man's heel with bird shot. (Impressive X-ray, you could play connect the dots and make anything you wanted).

How many do you want before it becomes easy to believe that they represent the majority? Should I include crimes committed by people with no previous record? Like the drunk who got in a fist fight outside of a bar, flashed gang signs, then retrieved a gun from his vehicle after making threats to shoot people but was intercepted by an observant off duty officer as he returned to the bar? How about people using firearms who "have served their time and should have all of their rights restored"? The night with 7 people shot in Marion Co? The night with 4? Both within a week of each other?

Shall we start at the first of the year and just see how many I can find in one county of the US vs how many Rambone and his ilk can find of the police nationwide? If so, will it become very easy to believe that they represent the majority of gun owners?

 

[rambone]

What about violent drug offenses? Mexican drug cartels aren't run by Ghandi.

I get it. If they legalized pot tomorrow I'd say "great" and move on, as I don't really get the prohibition against it. I also won't sit here and pretend that the illicit drug trade is not the driving force behind the majority of non-domestic violent crime in our city every day.

Black markets are violent because they are illegal. Prices of drugs are sky high because of the risk involved, not because the goods are so difficult to grow or make. With huge money to be made, gangs and cartels are willing to kill in order to keep their share of the black market. Drug offenders are willing to turn to violence when threatened with losing their freedom. People are willing to take shots at cops because the alternative is getting locked in a cage for 10 years over something harmless.

Just look at the violence of the alcohol prohibition days. Why don't people do battle over kegs of beer anymore? Because the black market is gone.

There would be much less violence without the prohibition laws. Cops would have a much safer work environment.

 

[IndyDave1776]

I think I'm going to start posting every misuse of a firearm by non-LEOs county wide, especially those who legally accessed the firearm used. Seeing as how we have members who comb the national news for any missteps by the police and then use that to portray it as normal. You throw a wide enough net, you'll find what you seek.

My point is that I personally don't have to throw a nationwide net. As a non-criminal, it is pathetic that my biggest source of stress on the job is law enforcement. For example, it doesn't take long of not being able to take a **** in peace in Ohio on account of the motor carrier division camping the rest areas for inspections which require no more cause than my existence to shade my view (no, I am not enjoying the change to regular deliveries deep into Ohio). Killing children and raping puppies is not necessary to reinforce a negative view. Constantly being a problem of a more mundane sort is sufficient. Getting away with it because the Supreme Court ruled 30 or so years ago that participation in a 'highly regulated' industry introduces 'less expectation of privacy' (i.e., driving a truck cancels one's Fourth Amendment rights) I am subject to as much 'inspection' (often in tandem with a regular trooper acting out their own version of the Coast Guard's bogus 'safety inspections' which are in truth warrantless searches) as they see fit with potential actions against me which come with no recourse of any kind even if completely fictional, even if dismissed or acquitted in court.

Unfortunately, just as you have to deal with the dregs of general society, I have to deal with the dregs of law enforcement. I make a deliberate effort to not allow this to color my general view, but I have to admit that hearing about things going right is helpful since I so rarely encounter it on my own while living with constant irritation every day. On that note, a while back one of our LEOs posted a few threads on police business going right. I would like to see more of that as I do realize that having a highly adversarial relationship with law enforcement does leave me with an image that certainly does not apply to all, but it is hard to believe on blind faith in something one never sees and of which one never sees evidence.

 

[armedindy]

mean spirited straight from the OP...but seeing as you kept insinuating that some of us would be devastated and that we may have knwon him, i take it you celebrated the spilling of this persons blood? all over a plant? id rather have loser pot smoking friends than someone as bitter and mean hearted as you sir...that is all

 

[Kutnupe14]

All I will say, and actually can say, is that you guy (who often cite the idiocracy of the media, unless it concerns coppers), don't know squat, diddley, or bo.

 

[rambone]

I think I'm going to start posting every misuse of a firearm by non-LEOs county wide, especially those who legally accessed the firearm used. Seeing as how we have members who comb the national news for any missteps by the police and then use that to portray it as normal. You throw a wide enough net, you'll find what you seek.

Let's see a few things that pop into my mind that I was recently involved in:

Husband shoots wife who comes home from vacation, states he thought she was an intruder. She states she told him it was her before he shot.

Sister shoots brother. They originally say it was a drive by, she then states she thought he was an intruder.

Man with gun in his jacket pocket accidentally shoots himself in the thigh. Claims robbery, admits to shooting himself when confronted with the evidence. Lied because he believed he was Brady disqualified due to a pending charge, but was not found to be at the time of the report.

"Friend" accidentally discharges shotgun while "safely" pointing it downward. Fills man's heel with bird shot. (Impressive X-ray, you could play connect the dots and make anything you wanted).

How many do you want before it becomes easy to believe that they represent the majority? Should I include crimes committed by people with no previous record? Like the drunk who got in a fist fight outside of a bar, flashed gang signs, then retrieved a gun from his vehicle after making threats to shoot people but was intercepted by an observant off duty officer as he returned to the bar? How about people using firearms who "have served their time and should have all of their rights restored"? The night with 7 people shot in Marion Co? The night with 4? Both within a week of each other?

Shall we start at the first of the year and just see how many I can find in one county of the US vs how many Rambone and his ilk can find of the police nationwide? If so, will it become very easy to believe that they represent the majority of gun owners?

I sympathize with what you are saying. You seem like a reasonable person. Let me attempt to explain why I think there are some big differences between what you are saying... and what I do.

To demonize every police officer making a mistake would be stupid (I actually see tons of these stories and ignore them). When a cop does something negligent, or evil, and gets punished for it, fired, or arrested, then I don't make a big deal about it. When the department shows some integrity and flushes out the bad apples, I respect that. No complaints.

The part that gets me riled up is the systematic abuse. When bad things happen, and keep happening, and get celebrated, and nothing changes --- that is what makes me sick. The bad cops that are impossible to fire. The lives ruined because of awful, senseless laws. The violent raids being used on petty, victimless "crimes". The brutality that is constantly deemed "justified." The double standards. On and on.

I saw a story today of an officer killing 6 people in a car accident. That's a tragedy. If it turns out that he was totally drunk and negligent, and his department tries to cover his ass so that he faces no consequences, that would qualify as systematic abuse.

If a gun owner shoots his friend on accident, he's a negligent idiot. If a gun owner purposely breaks into his neighbor's home because the guy inside likes to get high, I call that an unjustified criminal act. If that gun owner starts getting paid to break into homes on a regular basis -- because LOTS of people like to get high -- I call that systematic abuse.

So to say that I'm trying to make police look bad is missing the point. There are people who blindly bash police, but I try not to be one of them. I'm here to expose the rotten parts of system. People who take me really personally have usually built their identity around the system.

 

[ticktwrter]

Rambone, I think there's a big difference between an officer doing his job and enforcing the laws or a validly signed search warrant and some gun owner breaking in to a house.

 

[rambone]

Rambone, I think there's a big difference between an officer doing his job and enforcing the laws or a validly signed search warrant and some gun owner breaking in to a house.

But what makes one break-in "valid" and the other "not valid"? Law? The majority made a rule?

So if the majority got together and made a rule that everyone with alcohol in their house was going to get a team of armed visitors breaking down their door..... that's "valid"?

What about rights? The right to pursue happiness? The right to own property? The right to use your body how you please? Are these ideas "invalid" because the majority wills it?