Anti-Drug Warriors: 2; Innocent Puppies, 7 year old girls: 0

[Curtis Pride]

I wish if people didn't like threads, they would just not read them.

I never understood that.

-1 for you.

[Mookie4ever]

I just wish that people would stop complaining about other people complaining.

They sound like Sydney Crosby.

Here's one for you. The Pens just confirmed that Sid played hurt last night. What did he have? Diaper rash

[Dan Lambskin]

I just wish that people would stop complaining about other people complaining.

They sound like Sydney Crosby.

Here's one for you. The Pens just confirmed that Sid played hurt last night. What did he have? Diaper rash

i hear Aqua has had a lot of his dates cancel on him for the same issue

[Madison]

So just gloss over the fact that in spite of you talking about how them breaking the law got them in this situation in the first place, when the amount of pot found in their house wasn't even against the law...nothing?

Just ignore it? After 10 pages of you defending the situation with the rationale of "hey, if they didn't break the law, they wouldn't have been in this situation"?

Nothing?

What can I say that I haven't said already?

At the time the warrant was issued, there was enough evidence that the guy was a drug dealer, so SWAT was given a green light to go in with force. Generally, drug dealers have guns, so SWAT went in fully alert. A dog was shot, but nothing else "bad" happened in the raid. If the guy wasn't using or selling drugs, none of that would have happened because a warrant never would have been issued due to a lack of evidence, so it is all on him.

Since they screwed up by going in 8 days after the fact, they found very little and missed the bust. I've not said the guy should go to jail or anything since there wasn't really anything found. If I was saying they should jail him anyway, I could understand you (or anyone) disagreeing with that, but that isn't what I've been saying. I'm simply saying he is responsible for the raid since it was his choice to break the law and enough evidence was found to get a warrant and go in the way they did.

What I don't understand or agree with is that you want to blame SWAT for going in with force and shooting a dog in the process. Drug dealers are generally bad people that are armed with no telling what kind or how many weapons, and will use them. Also, quite a few drug dealers deal in multiple types of drugs and/or other illegal products/activites. So even if the SWAT team was told this guy was a pot dealer, they had no way of knowing if he was also dealing coke, meth, heroin, or possibly dealing weapons, child porn, or anything else at all. So they could go in all timid and possibly get killed, or go in strong and ensure their safety. You want them to be all nice guy about it since it's "only pot", while I could care less how hard they go in since we're talking about a drug dealer and one scratch on a police officer is worth more to me than a drug dealer's life.

The only real argument that can be made against the entire thing is if you think the warrant is/was invalid. If you disagree with the evidence, or with the snitch, or with anything we've been told, then you've got an argument against the warrant itself. And while it is easy to speculate about the warrant itself, we don't know if it was an undercover officer that was the snitch (and they can't tell us if it was or else they'd blow his cover), or any of the other real details. The police aren't dumb enough to tip their hand in this case since the guy didn't get busted, you know they are sitting back on some of the proof in order to bust him down the road. So even if you just want to argue the warrant, there's really nothing to argue there either.

Nuts and bolts: Illegal activities have consequences, some of those consequences cannot be predicted, and there are no grounds to argue, whine, or cry about those consequences because breaking the law is the choice that was made. Don't break the law, and you don't have to worry about things like this.

[Curtis Pride]

Generally, drug dealers have guns

And your evidence of this, is where? "Everyone knows this?" You watch too much TV.

If the guy wasn't using or selling drugs, none of that would have happened because a warrant never would have been issued due to a lack of evidence, so it is all on him.

Again, there is no proof he was selling illegal drugs. An informant said so. Apparently that informant was incorrect.

He was not using illegal drugs, because pot is legal in the quantities found in the house. "That doesn't prove he's innocent!" Yeah, that's what the presumption of innocence means.

Drug dealers are generally bad people that are armed with no telling what kind or how many weapons, and will use them.

IBID

I could care less

I'm assuming you actually couldn't care less.

how hard they go in since we're talking about a drug dealer and one scratch on a police officer is worth more to me than a drug dealer's life.

The only real argument that can be made against the entire thing is if you think the warrant is/was invalid. If you disagree with the evidence, or with the snitch, or with anything we've been told, then you've got an argument against the warrant itself.

I don't care if they saw with their own eyes, a pot farm, and a room filled with cocaine, there is still no reason to storm a house with military precision for a consensual crime - one in which no violence is implied. You seem to assume that drug dealers are like Tony Montana, but there was no reason to assume this guy was armed to teeth, and thus presented no immediate violent threat to anyone. Therefore, the risk of collateral damage which comes along with 10 heavily armed officers with live rounds was an unnecessary one. On the continuum of ways to apprehend suspects, there's far more appropriate ones between the storm-troopers banging in doors at night armed with live rounds, and the reading poems and singing Cumba-ya (that you think I'm recommending)

Illegal activities have consequences, some of those consequences cannot be predicted, and there are no grounds to argue, whine, or cry about those consequences because breaking the law is the choice that was made. Don't break the law, and you don't have to worry about things like this.

And again, they weren't doing anything illegal

[Mookie4ever]

I don't care if they saw with their own eyes, a pot farm, and a room filled with cocaine, there is still no reason to storm a house with military precision for a consensual crime - one in which no violence is implied. You seem to assume that drug dealers are like Tony Montana, but there was no reason to assume this guy was armed to teeth, and thus presented no immediate violent threat to anyone. Therefore, the risk of collateral damage which comes along with 10 heavily armed officers with live rounds was an unnecessary one. On the continuum of ways to apprehend suspects, there's far more appropriate ones between the storm-troopers banging in doors at night armed with live rounds, and the reading poems and singing Cumba-ya (that you think I'm recommending)

If someone has a room full of cocaine there is no reason to storm the house with military precisionÉ (why is my keyboard not doing punctuationÉ - I can`t get a freakin question mark)

There is absolutely violence implied with cocaine. It has a street value of $24K per kg and thousands of people die every year in activities associated with the trafficking of cocaine. I think that you too easily dismiss the violence and danger associated with the distribution of drugs. It`s a multibillion dollar industry protected with machine guns.

I have no idea what you mean by `consensual crime`but there is absolutely violence associated with the making, trafficking and use of coke and I want my cops to use big guns to stop it.

[urbanbreez]

If someone has a room full of cocaine there is no reason to storm the house with military precisionÉ (why is my keyboard not doing punctuationÉ - I can`t get a freakin question mark)

Uhm, okay.

There is absolutely violence implied with cocaine. It has a street value of $24K per kg and thousands of people die every year in activities associated with the trafficking of cocaine. I think that you too easily dismiss the violence and danger associated with the distribution of drugs. It`s a multibillion dollar industry protected with machine guns.

But didn't you just...

You did, you said "If some one has a room full of cocaine there is no reason to storm the house with military precision..."

Are you feeling alright? This isn't very much like you, and I know you, we've dueled in Mafia. side note: you lost.

They should or shouldn't storm houses that may or may not have cocaine?

I have no idea what you mean by `consensual crime`but there is absolutely violence associated with the making, trafficking and use of coke and I want my cops to use big guns to stop it.

You want them to have big guns because there is no reason tho storm the house with military precision?

[Madison]

And your evidence of this, is where? "Everyone knows this?" You watch too much TV.

You need evidence that drug dealers usually have weapons? The big pile of bodies with bullet holes in them each year from drug related activities isn't enough to convince you?

You live in some weird dreamworld, yet I watch too much TV? That's funny, but again, you simply cannot argue this situation, so all that is left is insults.

Again, there is no proof he was selling illegal drugs. An informant said so. Apparently that informant was incorrect.

He was not using illegal drugs, because pot is legal in the quantities found in the house. "That doesn't prove he's innocent!" Yeah, that's what the presumption of innocence means.

You can't argue what was or wasn't in the house 8 days ago, so you cannot say if the informant was right or wrong. I haven't said the informant was right, just that there was enough evidence to get a warrant for SWAT to go in hard.

Legal quantities at the time they entered, which is why I didn't say to toss him in jail. We have no argument here, I agree with you, so you can quit harping on that now. Done too many drugs to follow the conversation?

I don't care if they saw with their own eyes, a pot farm, and a room filled with cocaine, there is still no reason to storm a house with military precision for a consensual crime - one in which no violence is implied. You seem to assume that drug dealers are like Tony Montana, but there was no reason to assume this guy was armed to teeth, and thus presented no immediate violent threat to anyone. Therefore, the risk of collateral damage which comes along with 10 heavily armed officers with live rounds was an unnecessary one. On the continuum of ways to apprehend suspects, there's far more appropriate ones between the storm-troopers banging in doors at night armed with live rounds, and the reading poems and singing Cumba-ya (that you think I'm recommending)

That is insane. Bust cocaine dealers by asking them to please surrender? Too funny.

And again, they weren't doing anything illegal

You know jack squat what was going on at the time the warrant was issued, so give it a rest already. Prove he wasn't doing anything illegal at that time, and you've got a case, but you can't do that because you don't know. On the flipside, a police force and a judge had enough evidence to get a warrant, and not just any old go knock on the door and arrest him warrant, a go in hard and get him no matter what SWAT team warrant. What do you have? That 8 days later there wasn't an illegal amount of pot in his house. Sorry, that has nothing to do with what was going on when the warrant was issued.

[Madison]

Here Curtis, you'll love this article since it's so slanted against fighting against drugs, but even with their stance on it, even they repeatedly point out the violence aspect:

In Mexico, traffickers exploit a broken justice system. Investigators often fail to collect convincing evidence — and are sometimes assassinated when they do.

The violence spans Mexico. In Ciudad Juarez, the epicenter of drug violence in Mexico, 2,600 people were killed last year in cartel-related violence, making the city of 1 million across the Rio Grande from El Paso, Texas, one of the world's deadliest. Not a single person was prosecuted for homicide related to organized crime.

Gee, I'm not far from there, but what do I know about local news?

the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives

Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_on_re_us/failed_drug_war

But hey, what did you call it earlier....a "consensual crime"? Yeah, we're making up all this violence and all the deaths. Even the author of the article above is above is lying about it , while trashing the government for how they have handled drugs. That part fits so perfectly with the rest of what he's trying to accomplish in the article....



And as to anyone thinking drugs might be made legal, the article does point out this:

California voters decide in November whether to legalize marijuana, and South Dakota will vote this fall on whether to allow medical uses of marijuana, already permitted in California and 13 other states. The Obama administration says it won't target marijuana dispensaries if they comply with state laws.

Buuuuuuuuuttttt...... it also says this:

Obama is requesting a record $15.5 billion for the drug war for 2011, about two thirds of it for law enforcement at the front lines of the battle: police, military and border patrol agents struggling to seize drugs and arrest traffickers and users.

"For the first time ever, the nation has before it an administration that views the drug issue first and foremost through the lens of the public health mandate," said economist and drug policy expert John Carnevale

That last quote sounds pretty similar to what I've said a few times about the government having their hands on healthcare, and that affecting their decision to keep drugs illegal while continuing to get rid of others like tobacco.

[Dan Lambskin]

bump

quick summary is police raid house, 7 year old girl killed. sounds like the grandmother tried to struggle with the police so there is some blame on her end, but also sounds like police were only using flash-bang grenades because they were being videotaped for a TV show...also you'd think their intel could tell them children are present and maybe these arent the best tactics to use. i'm sure it will end up being a long drawnout cluster-bleep