Marijuana Raid Leads To Cops Shooting The Family's Dogs

Off Topic
221

This whole “War on Drugs” is a pile of shit. Trillions of dollars wasted, thousands of people killed…and what do we have to show for it…drug use still rampant, powerful drug cartels, and authorities trampling all over the constitution.

I’m tired of this shit. Who the fuck is the government to tell anybody what they can or can’t put in their bodies? The government is a partner to Big Pharma which is the biggest drug dealer on the planet.

I mean, it is okay to eat GMO Food with it’s unknown long-term health effects, take thousands of pills concocted in some government funded lab, with unknown long term health effects and sold by doctors partnered with Big Pharma and approved by the criminal FDA. Yet it NOT okay to grow a natural plant in your backyard and then smoke it.

Remember, more government always equals more tyranny. And for those of you who support this ridiculous expansion of government that has occurred under Clinton, Bush, Obama you can expect more of the same. More raids, made by more assholes with masks on, carrying enough body armor/weaponry to make it through D-Day, and doing it thinking they are right because they have a badge.

222

[quote]PaddyM wrote:
Well, maybe now he’ll stop smoking.

also:

Burton said police have fielded questions from several agitated callers concerning the two dogs shot. Some callers have received incorrect information that the corgi is the dog that was killed for being aggressive toward officers, and others told police they were told the pit bull that was killed because of its aggressive behavior was in a cage.

â??Itâ??s simply not true,â?? Burton said.

The chief, who is personally conducting the internal investigation, walked reporters through his understanding of the incident. Three officers shot at the pit bull, and the first missed completely, which is when the corgi is believed to have been shot in the paw, he said.

The pit bull acted aggressively toward a SWAT member again as they pushed into the home, which resulted in the animal being shot, he said. After being shot, it moved to attack a SWAT member, which is when the dog was killed.

â??It was not a mistake to shoot the pit bull,â?? Burton said. â??I wouldnâ??t be standing here if an officer had been bitten by a pit bull instead of the reverse happening.â??

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/chief-details-swat-incident/[/quote]

It was a fucking mistake. Some assholes in full gear come crashing through the door screaming, what’s a dog gonna do? The " Oh it was gonna attack and kill him" excuse doesn’t fly. There’s no excuse for shooting a dog who’s just trying to protect his home. It wasn’t rabid, it was a dog being a dog.

223

How can a dog even be a threat to someone geared up in bullet-proof equipment, solid face masks, etc?

224

Time to move to PWI where this belongs.

225

[quote]gregron wrote:

A. The police raided the house because illegal narcotics were believed to be on site.
B. They found illegal narcotics in the house.

.greg.[/quote]

The crime does not fit the punishment or the actions the police took to control this illegal activity. How can you not understand this?

Yes you are correct that if drugs had not been in the house then this incident would not have happened, hopefully right?(This is not always the case, my step dad is a police officer and he despises how shitty cops can be)

All to often police use excessive force in situations that do not call for the level of force they use. The guy had a minimal amount of pot in his house, the way they went about it calling in the SWAT is the wrong way. Not by just a little either.

Cops need much more reliable intel when making a raid as such and should do a better job investigating. What happened here just disgusts me. It seems as if you have been sheltered and never had a problem with the police, well if that is true then good for you.

When someone goes a little over the speed limit, cops don’t ram you off the road or throw spike strips down. Why? BECAUSE that would be excessive force that does not warrant the crime. They pull you over and you a ticket.

If you are driving drunk and going excessive speeds like a total idiot and putting everyone around you at risk, the cops have the right to run you off the road, because your actions warrant it.

I have no hatred for cops, they are just people. Some good some bad, most average at best. Just cause someone is a cop does not make them right, and that is what most middle class white Americans believe.

226

[quote]JonBlood wrote:
How can a dog even be a threat to someone geared up in bullet-proof equipment, solid face masks, etc?[/quote]

To be honest it’s because of the risk and hassle of dealing with the animal, not the actual damage the animal can inflict. I don’t agree with or condone it, it’s just not a matter how much a threat the dog actually is rather than the inconvenience of a dog barking at you and acting “aggressive”. I think them shooting the “dangerous” corgi exemplifies my statement.

227

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
Unsurprisingly, reason had a thing on it: Video of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family

The parents were charged w/ child endangering. [/quote]

Good. They know the potential consequences and yet they keep contraban around their kids. That’s just plain selfish.[/quote]

You get busted for personal use pot you generally aren’t going to be charged with child endangerment. It was a retarded face saving move to bring those charges.

Please explain to me how the child was in danger from mom and/or dad smoking pot to relax. No different than having beer or wine.[/quote]

No, beer or wine is legal. And if it were really the same then why bother with the weed in the first place?

Having your house raided is no doubt going to traumatize a child. That doesn’t mean we should let criminals hide behind their kids and not execute search warrants.[/quote]
Then let’s pretend for a while the parents were having a beer each to relax. Now let’s pretend it’s still prohibition era and the period-appropriate SWAT equivalent had busted in guns blazing. Is it still the parents who are endangering their children?[/quote]

Yup.

229

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
Unsurprisingly, reason had a thing on it: Video of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family

The parents were charged w/ child endangering. [/quote]

Good. They know the potential consequences and yet they keep contraban around their kids. That’s just plain selfish.[/quote]

You get busted for personal use pot you generally aren’t going to be charged with child endangerment. It was a retarded face saving move to bring those charges.

Please explain to me how the child was in danger from mom and/or dad smoking pot to relax. No different than having beer or wine.[/quote]

No, beer or wine is legal. And if it were really the same then why bother with the weed in the first place?

Having your house raided is no doubt going to traumatize a child. That doesn’t mean we should let criminals hide behind their kids and not execute search warrants.[/quote]
Then let’s pretend for a while the parents were having a beer each to relax. Now let’s pretend it’s still prohibition era and the period-appropriate SWAT equivalent had busted in guns blazing. Is it still the parents who are endangering their children?[/quote]

Yup.[/quote]

KAS

Telling everyone that his way of living is the ONLY way of living.

230

[quote]Sick Rick wrote:

[quote]PaddyM wrote:
Well, maybe now he’ll stop smoking.

also:

Burton said police have fielded questions from several agitated callers concerning the two dogs shot. Some callers have received incorrect information that the corgi is the dog that was killed for being aggressive toward officers, and others told police they were told the pit bull that was killed because of its aggressive behavior was in a cage.

�?�¢??It�?�¢??s simply not true,�?�¢?? Burton said.

The chief, who is personally conducting the internal investigation, walked reporters through his understanding of the incident. Three officers shot at the pit bull, and the first missed completely, which is when the corgi is believed to have been shot in the paw, he said.

The pit bull acted aggressively toward a SWAT member again as they pushed into the home, which resulted in the animal being shot, he said. After being shot, it moved to attack a SWAT member, which is when the dog was killed.

�?�¢??It was not a mistake to shoot the pit bull,�?�¢?? Burton said. �?�¢??I wouldn�?�¢??t be standing here if an officer had been bitten by a pit bull instead of the reverse happening.�?�¢??

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2010/may/06/chief-details-swat-incident/[/quote]

It was a fucking mistake. Some assholes in full gear come crashing through the door screaming, what’s a dog gonna do? The " Oh it was gonna attack and kill him" excuse doesn’t fly. There’s no excuse for shooting a dog who’s just trying to protect his home. It wasn’t rabid, it was a dog being a dog.
[/quote]

They simply didn’t care. They knew there were two dogs with one being large. Do these idiots really expect dogs to NOT do anything when a bunch of strangers storm into their home/territory?

These “officers” are fucking morons. I really hope these fuckers pay for what they did.

231

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]theuofh wrote:
Unsurprisingly, reason had a thing on it: Video of SWAT Raid on Missouri Family

The parents were charged w/ child endangering. [/quote]

Good. They know the potential consequences and yet they keep contraban around their kids. That’s just plain selfish.[/quote]

You get busted for personal use pot you generally aren’t going to be charged with child endangerment. It was a retarded face saving move to bring those charges.

Please explain to me how the child was in danger from mom and/or dad smoking pot to relax. No different than having beer or wine.[/quote]

No, beer or wine is legal. And if it were really the same then why bother with the weed in the first place?

Having your house raided is no doubt going to traumatize a child. That doesn’t mean we should let criminals hide behind their kids and not execute search warrants.[/quote]
Then let’s pretend for a while the parents were having a beer each to relax. Now let’s pretend it’s still prohibition era and the period-appropriate SWAT equivalent had busted in guns blazing. Is it still the parents who are endangering their children?[/quote]

Yup.[/quote]

Usually I try to be respectful of peoples opinions, but…

Are you just being annoying or are you an idiot?

It is one or the other.

I hope it is not an idiot, cause you obviously would not know if you were one.

232

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Hertzyscowicz wrote:
Then let’s pretend for a while the parents were having a beer each to relax. Now let’s pretend it’s still prohibition era and the period-appropriate SWAT equivalent had busted in guns blazing. Is it still the parents who are endangering their children?[/quote]

Yup.[/quote]

If it wasn’t obvious that this guy was just trying to troll this thread before, it is now. He’s just saying stupid shit because he knows it will get a rise out of people.

233

The parents should’ve known that you have to put a Mr. Yuck sticker, or a child proof cap, or a graphic image (of two potheads passed out on the couch?), or mark the package with a rating system before it’s acceptable to bring “dangerous” substances into the home!

Stupid fucking parents! Rip their family apart! Kill their pets! Fuck them all up with law enforcement!

234

[quote]Kvale wrote:
The parents should’ve known that you have to put a Mr. Yuck sticker, or a child proof cap, or a graphic image (of two potheads passed out on the couch?), or mark the package with a rating system before it’s acceptable to bring “dangerous” substances into the home!

Stupid fucking parents! Rip their family apart! Kill their pets! Fuck them all up with law enforcement![/quote]
Anyways…

235

[quote]Kvale wrote:
The parents should’ve known that you have to put a Mr. Yuck sticker, or a child proof cap, or a graphic image (of two potheads passed out on the couch?), or mark the package with a rating system before it’s acceptable to bring “dangerous” substances into the home!

Stupid fucking parents! Rip their family apart! Kill their pets! Fuck them all up with law enforcement![/quote]

I’m drooling in confusion.

236

[quote]Mettahl wrote:

[quote]Kvale wrote:
The parents should’ve known that you have to put a Mr. Yuck sticker, or a child proof cap, or a graphic image (of two potheads passed out on the couch?), or mark the package with a rating system before it’s acceptable to bring “dangerous” substances into the home!

Stupid fucking parents! Rip their family apart! Kill their pets! Fuck them all up with law enforcement![/quote]

I’m drooling in confusion.[/quote]

I’m not sure there’s a sentiment there to agree/disagree with.

237

[quote]Makavali wrote:

[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
I didnt read this whole thread but let me say this:

I despise Marijuana, I’ve never smoked it before, i’ve never really even considered smoking it(I’m happy to be drug free) Up until this year i never had a strong opinion about it. what changed my my opinion from neutral to hate was living with 2 stoners this year.

almost everynight id come home from a long tiring day at school at my house would reek like pot. The rest of the house would make an effort to keep the kitchen clean and managableable, (7 guys living together) only to be thwarted by these two roomates late night stoner cooking where theyd leave the most disgusting shit out for us to clean.

One of the guys was your typical stoner/surfer guy with a personality i couldnt stand at all, while the other was the whole Hunter S thompson stoner guy who trys come off as smart but all he really was, was a pathological liar (lying about his accomplishments and experiences in order to impress others).

I truely disliked this guy. on top this, our hunter S thompson friend sold weed out of his room in our house, i would of loved to see cops raid our house and see buddy get charged. In this siutation the cops were probably too careless, but for the most part i find myself agreeing with what gregron is saying.

to continue my rant,I honestly havent come across anyone who smokes on a semi regular basis who i don’t consider to lazy or unproductive, face it guys unless you abosolutely need the drug for some medical purpose, it’s just going to drag you down.

So for me the existence of this drug so far has only negatively affected my life, if it ever came to vote in canada, it would be a no decision for me, id vote against it.

[/quote]

Based on two guys you lived with.

It’s not hard to find losers and these guys fit the description well.

Your decision making however, is poorly thought out and basically shows that you swallow the proverbial kool-aid. Enjoy being deep throated by the propaganda.[/quote]

I have not been influenced by any propaganda, growing up in canada, I felt there was a very liberal attitude towards the drug, my opinion is totally based off my experience being around many different users. It’s not a poorly made decision.

238

On a semi-related note.

I miss Bill Hicks.

239

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]GrindOverMatter wrote:
I didnt read this whole thread but let me say this:

I despise Marijuana, I’ve never smoked it before, i’ve never really even considered smoking it(I’m happy to be drug free) Up until this year i never had a strong opinion about it. what changed my my opinion from neutral to hate was living with 2 stoners this year.

almost everynight id come home from a long tiring day at school at my house would reek like pot. The rest of the house would make an effort to keep the kitchen clean and managableable, (7 guys living together) only to be thwarted by these two roomates late night stoner cooking where theyd leave the most disgusting shit out for us to clean.

One of the guys was your typical stoner/surfer guy with a personality i couldnt stand at all, while the other was the whole Hunter S thompson stoner guy who trys come off as smart but all he really was, was a pathological liar (lying about his accomplishments and experiences in order to impress others).

I truely disliked this guy. on top this, our hunter S thompson friend sold weed out of his room in our house, i would of loved to see cops raid our house and see buddy get charged. In this siutation the cops were probably too careless, but for the most part i find myself agreeing with what gregron is saying.

to continue my rant,I honestly havent come across anyone who smokes on a semi regular basis who i don’t consider to lazy or unproductive, face it guys unless you abosolutely need the drug for some medical purpose, it’s just going to drag you down.

So for me the existence of this drug so far has only negatively affected my life, if it ever came to vote in canada, it would be a no decision for me, id vote against it.

[/quote]

Wow, weed sure has made your life shitty. I mean, stoners leaving food out in the kitchen? ROUGH.

This ain’t crack. Do you know how many people around you smoke/have smoked weed? I’d be willing to be a lot more than you think, and I’m not talking about ‘losers’.

Fuck outta here with yer ‘it brings everyone down.’ The most successful people I know hit the ganj.[/quote]

obviously my experience has been very different than yours, i never said it made my life rough, the asses who smoked it in my house pissed me off on a regular basis, i don’t like having to breathe their left over smoke.

Im well aware of those around me who smoke, i also know at least 3 people that used to smoke regulary, and they all have told me they are happier and more productive that they don’t anymore.

240

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Mettahl wrote:

[quote]Kvale wrote:
The parents should’ve known that you have to put a Mr. Yuck sticker, or a child proof cap, or a graphic image (of two potheads passed out on the couch?), or mark the package with a rating system before it’s acceptable to bring “dangerous” substances into the home!

Stupid fucking parents! Rip their family apart! Kill their pets! Fuck them all up with law enforcement![/quote]

I’m drooling in confusion.[/quote]

I’m not sure there’s a sentiment there to agree/disagree with.[/quote]

My “cool story” is a satirical examination of the dangerously ignorant and hypocritical thinking that many “law and order” types unwittingly exhibit in supporting such cases where the charge of “child endangerment” is predicated solely upon the presence of a residue of a controlled substance, and not because of any inherent, bodily dangers that can be directly attributed to the specific type or amount of residue in question.