Marijuana Raid Leads To Cops Shooting The Family's Dogs

Off Topic
261

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Eli, I have to give credit for your previous few posts.[/quote]

Coming from an ornery bastard such as yourself. Thanks.
People with two entirely different political viewpoints can find common ground in common sense.

Its what I don’t get about ‘republicans’ these days. What happened to a minimally intrusive government? Let me light something on fire, and inhale the smoke of a weed that grows all over ditches in the U.S.

…If I want to. Even though I probably don’t cause last time I tried I nearly had a panic attack for like 5 minutes.

262

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]vikingrob wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Actually it’s neither. I didn’t realise that I was not intitled to an opinion.

Funny thing is I haven’t called anyone names or questioned their intelligence, just given my opinion.

Same can’t be said for most of the “pro marijuana” crowd.[/quote]

Ok now take the average of your two opinions, and lo and behold you’ll realize that some people smoke like dirtbags and other people smoke and do fine.

263

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:

Well…as much as I agree with you, they received a search warrant from a judge…so it must not have been the most unreasonable thing at the time.

It’s funny to see people call eachother names as if to somehow discredit them, or to have people make bizzarely disproportionate scenarios as if to somehow make a logical point.

Keep it up guys, im in for the night[/quote]

^This. Great post. Especially the part about name calling and disproportionate scenarios… that sort of thing is running rampant in here.

.greg.[/quote]

Great post except for the part about the warrant. Have you guys heard about the recent philly cop corruption cases. These guys were straight up fabricating evidence for warrants. Having a criminal informant buy drugs at one house and claim he bought 'em at a suspected drug dealers house.

they were doing all kinds of other ridiculous abusive stuff. Disabling security cameras at bodegas and stealing money, candy etc. Oh yeah, after arresting the owner for, I shit you not, selling ziploc bags that the police claimed were paraphanalia. What. The. Fuck.

Prohibition is stupid. What good are we doing by jailing addicts by the way? That ell teach em a lesson and ruin their employment prospects for the rest of their lives all but ensuring they will end up back in crime school. <— I mean our overcrowded abusive prison system.

I’m not whining about the shabby treatment of violent offenders. Fuck those guys. Its just the guy doing time for posession that I don’t get.[/quote]

Again, that’s a very extreme case. You act like it’s the norm, when in reality it’s clearly the exeption.

264

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
The question I asked had nothing to do with the bill of rights. I asked for an example of laws that arent smart to follow but you went off m a tangent and didn’t answer my question.

I never said anything about respnses to “the same level” crimes in many states I said when has someone gone 7mph over the speed limit and been shot at for it?

You obviously can’t stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand which is:

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

What can you argue about that? (hint: nothing. So I’m sure you’ll try to change it around and bring up some other issue to try to pigeon hole me but I’m done debating you cause you seem to not be able to stay on topic here)

.greg.[/quote]

We can argue about the quantity. The quantity they were expecting suggests operations of organized crime and you could probably expect to find weapons and money on the premises also. This scenario merits SWAT

The quantity that they did find indicates that this guy likes to occasionally smoke weed as do millions of other americans. This scenario does not merit SWAT.

Furthermore they did not take precautions to safeguard the innocent. I find this indicates arrogance and sloppy police-work. Im sure you can think of a dozen ways they could have done this better. They could have knocked on the door during daylight for example. They could have set up a sting where they wait for the guy outside of his house.
[/quote]

How are they supposed to know exactly how much the guy has? If their intel suggests a large quantity they need to prepair for that eventuality. Why is that so hard to understand?

265

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.

266

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]vikingrob wrote:

[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.
[/quote]

Actually it’s neither. I didn’t realise that I was not intitled to an opinion.

Funny thing is I haven’t called anyone names or questioned their intelligence, just given my opinion.

Same can’t be said for most of the “pro marijuana” crowd.[/quote]

Ok now take the average of your two opinions, and lo and behold you’ll realize that some people smoke like dirtbags and other people smoke and do fine.
[/quote]

Something we agree on. I’ve had friends that used cocaine every so often and held down good jobs etc. But for every “sucess story” there’s at least one horror story.

I’ve seen the same thing with weed. Most people who use it are fine. Others (especially young people) are not.

267

I may have missed it, as I had to skip a few pages, but have any of you bothered to try to get a copy of the affidavit used for the search warrant? They are public record, you know.

As for the level of force used to enter the house and effect the arrest…here’s my question. How many of you, sitting here complaining about the use of SWAT teams, etc., have ever served a warrant of any kind? Any of you? How about a high-risk warrant? Hmmm? Anyone? Ever had to breach a door, not knowing what’s on the other side? Ever had to go in soft, to hunt out a fugitive who may or may not be hiding in a house? Ever had to run point on an entry team, praying that the CI who gave the cops the information about the interior of the house wasn’t lying?

If you haven’t, then my polite suggestion to you is to stop telling the people who have done so how to do their jobs. You have NO IDEA why those tactics are in place, or why warrants are run that way. You can sit there and piss and moan about “police brutality” and “Nazi-states”, and all that other BS, but the bottom line is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics was developed by teams all over this country, in response to an officer being killed or wounded…and making sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Don’t like the results? Tough. Police tactics are developed to respond to patterns in criminal behavior. Not the other way around. Til you get your ass out in front, on the sharp edge of the spear, you can stow the complaints about the tactics.

268

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

The studies have already been conducted and they show weed is harmless.

MAPS, the multidisciplinary association for psychedelic studies, http://www.maps.org/ , is doing a hell of a job getting government approval and funding for all sorts of drugs, including MDMA for post traumatic stress disorders, various psychedelics for treating addictions to the real dangerous drugs, and medical marijuana.

I am a regularly donator to the cause and it is these types of organizations that are actually conducting real studies that will end up hopefully leading to changes in drug laws.

Sadly, due to the sheepish nature of our current society, it will take something major to not only get then approved for legitimate medical uses, but also for recreational users or self medicators.

269

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
The question I asked had nothing to do with the bill of rights. I asked for an example of laws that arent smart to follow but you went off m a tangent and didn’t answer my question.

I never said anything about respnses to “the same level” crimes in many states I said when has someone gone 7mph over the speed limit and been shot at for it?

You obviously can’t stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand which is:

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

What can you argue about that? (hint: nothing. So I’m sure you’ll try to change it around and bring up some other issue to try to pigeon hole me but I’m done debating you cause you seem to not be able to stay on topic here)

.greg.[/quote]

We can argue about the quantity. The quantity they were expecting suggests operations of organized crime and you could probably expect to find weapons and money on the premises also. This scenario merits SWAT

The quantity that they did find indicates that this guy likes to occasionally smoke weed as do millions of other americans. This scenario does not merit SWAT.

Furthermore they did not take precautions to safeguard the innocent. I find this indicates arrogance and sloppy police-work. Im sure you can think of a dozen ways they could have done this better. They could have knocked on the door during daylight for example. They could have set up a sting where they wait for the guy outside of his house.
[/quote]

How are they supposed to know exactly how much the guy has? If their intel suggests a large quantity they need to prepair for that eventuality. Why is that so hard to understand?[/quote]

Why should officers be storming into a nonviolent offenders home ready to kill any possible “threat”?

270

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I may have missed it, as I had to skip a few pages, but have any of you bothered to try to get a copy of the affidavit used for the search warrant? They are public record, you know.

As for the level of force used to enter the house and effect the arrest…here’s my question. How many of you, sitting here complaining about the use of SWAT teams, etc., have ever served a warrant of any kind? Any of you? How about a high-risk warrant? Hmmm? Anyone? Ever had to breach a door, not knowing what’s on the other side? Ever had to go in soft, to hunt out a fugitive who may or may not be hiding in a house? Ever had to run point on an entry team, praying that the CI who gave the cops the information about the interior of the house wasn’t lying?

If you haven’t, then my polite suggestion to you is to stop telling the people who have done so how to do their jobs. You have NO IDEA why those tactics are in place, or why warrants are run that way. You can sit there and piss and moan about “police brutality” and “Nazi-states”, and all that other BS, but the bottom line is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics was developed by teams all over this country, in response to an officer being killed or wounded…and making sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Don’t like the results? Tough. Police tactics are developed to respond to patterns in criminal behavior. Not the other way around. Til you get your ass out in front, on the sharp edge of the spear, you can stow the complaints about the tactics.[/quote]

With instances like the one I’ve provided in the link it’s hard not to criticize the tactics.

271

[quote]mapwhap wrote:

Don’t like the results? Tough. [/quote]

When people with as much power as law enforcement begin thinking like this, we all have a problem.

272

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
I may have missed it, as I had to skip a few pages, but have any of you bothered to try to get a copy of the affidavit used for the search warrant? They are public record, you know.

As for the level of force used to enter the house and effect the arrest…here’s my question. How many of you, sitting here complaining about the use of SWAT teams, etc., have ever served a warrant of any kind? Any of you? How about a high-risk warrant? Hmmm? Anyone? Ever had to breach a door, not knowing what’s on the other side? Ever had to go in soft, to hunt out a fugitive who may or may not be hiding in a house? Ever had to run point on an entry team, praying that the CI who gave the cops the information about the interior of the house wasn’t lying?

If you haven’t, then my polite suggestion to you is to stop telling the people who have done so how to do their jobs. You have NO IDEA why those tactics are in place, or why warrants are run that way. You can sit there and piss and moan about “police brutality” and “Nazi-states”, and all that other BS, but the bottom line is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics was developed by teams all over this country, in response to an officer being killed or wounded…and making sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Don’t like the results? Tough. Police tactics are developed to respond to patterns in criminal behavior. Not the other way around. Til you get your ass out in front, on the sharp edge of the spear, you can stow the complaints about the tactics.[/quote]

I just tried to find the affadavit but I haven’t had any luck. Since you seem to be knowledgable about this sort of thing any chance you could help track it down.

As to your points about tactics, maybe you are right. I did find it suggested that this guy has multiple prior drug convictions, none for violent offenses (that I could find). My problem is not as much with police tactics. To some extent they are just following orders etc. However I have a big problem with them being asked to enforce laws that are unjust. Aren’t their jobs hard enough without having to wage an unwinnable ‘war on drugs’ especially when some of those drugs are all but harmless?

But back to tactics. Why did they knock on the door first? Clearly the best case scenario is he opens the door, sees hes fucked and surrenders. Or hell, panics and bolts and they’ll get him in the next five seconds anyway. What were the chances he was going to come to the door in the dead of night?

They serve warrants in the daytime sometimes right? I think we all think SWAT teams are bad ass. And I also see the need for caution, but wouldn’t the most cautious thing to be to not go in guns blazing? To find a way around the obstacle instead of straight through it?

273

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

No thats not what its like. Its like saying we shouldnt put people in jail for a basically harmless substance.

274

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Mettahl wrote:
Look up a list of successful people who smoke or used to smoke. You will find multiple presidents, other important political figures, top level athletes, CEO’s of big influential corporations, and obviously many celebrities.

Whenever we have a massive amount of people in the world who do or did smoke, it’s kind of dumb to make blanket statements about those that do. The group of “people who have smoked” covers a very wide array of personalities and work ethics, just like anything else that’s very common.[/quote]

Who made a blanket statement?
[/quote]

The guy with the shitty ex-roommates did.

275

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
The question I asked had nothing to do with the bill of rights. I asked for an example of laws that arent smart to follow but you went off m a tangent and didn’t answer my question.

I never said anything about respnses to “the same level” crimes in many states I said when has someone gone 7mph over the speed limit and been shot at for it?

You obviously can’t stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand which is:

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

What can you argue about that? (hint: nothing. So I’m sure you’ll try to change it around and bring up some other issue to try to pigeon hole me but I’m done debating you cause you seem to not be able to stay on topic here)

.greg.[/quote]

We can argue about the quantity. The quantity they were expecting suggests operations of organized crime and you could probably expect to find weapons and money on the premises also. This scenario merits SWAT

The quantity that they did find indicates that this guy likes to occasionally smoke weed as do millions of other americans. This scenario does not merit SWAT.

Furthermore they did not take precautions to safeguard the innocent. I find this indicates arrogance and sloppy police-work. Im sure you can think of a dozen ways they could have done this better. They could have knocked on the door during daylight for example. They could have set up a sting where they wait for the guy outside of his house.
[/quote]

How are they supposed to know exactly how much the guy has? If their intel suggests a large quantity they need to prepair for that eventuality. Why is that so hard to understand?[/quote]

What difference would the amount have made for tactics. Its not like hes going to be able to destroy the evidence if its a large quantity. The situation wouldnt be anymore or less dangerous if there had been more or less weed.

276

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]Eli B wrote:

[quote]gregron wrote:
The question I asked had nothing to do with the bill of rights. I asked for an example of laws that arent smart to follow but you went off m a tangent and didn’t answer my question.

I never said anything about respnses to “the same level” crimes in many states I said when has someone gone 7mph over the speed limit and been shot at for it?

You obviously can’t stay on topic and discuss the issue at hand which is:

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

What can you argue about that? (hint: nothing. So I’m sure you’ll try to change it around and bring up some other issue to try to pigeon hole me but I’m done debating you cause you seem to not be able to stay on topic here)

.greg.[/quote]

We can argue about the quantity. The quantity they were expecting suggests operations of organized crime and you could probably expect to find weapons and money on the premises also. This scenario merits SWAT

The quantity that they did find indicates that this guy likes to occasionally smoke weed as do millions of other americans. This scenario does not merit SWAT.

Furthermore they did not take precautions to safeguard the innocent. I find this indicates arrogance and sloppy police-work. Im sure you can think of a dozen ways they could have done this better. They could have knocked on the door during daylight for example. They could have set up a sting where they wait for the guy outside of his house.
[/quote]

How are they supposed to know exactly how much the guy has? If their intel suggests a large quantity they need to prepair for that eventuality. Why is that so hard to understand?[/quote]

Are you reading the posts that you’re replying to? He said that they did not take steps to safeguard the INNOCENT, which is true. I don’t care if the guy was a serial killer, steps still need to be made to protect the innocent wife and child. Like was said earlier, firing shots at dogs while you’re wearing bullet-proof gear does not agree with the idea of keeping the situation safe for the sake of the innocents involved.

277

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

Did you know that both of those are illegal? Yeah. That was an excellent example.

278

[quote]mapwhap wrote:
As for the level of force used to enter the house and effect the arrest…here’s my question. How many of you, sitting here complaining about the use of SWAT teams, etc., have ever served a warrant of any kind? Any of you? How about a high-risk warrant? Hmmm? Anyone? Ever had to breach a door, not knowing what’s on the other side? Ever had to go in soft, to hunt out a fugitive who may or may not be hiding in a house? Ever had to run point on an entry team, praying that the CI who gave the cops the information about the interior of the house wasn’t lying?

If you haven’t, then my polite suggestion to you is to stop telling the people who have done so how to do their jobs. You have NO IDEA why those tactics are in place, or why warrants are run that way. You can sit there and piss and moan about “police brutality” and “Nazi-states”, and all that other BS, but the bottom line is that EVERY SINGLE ONE of those tactics was developed by teams all over this country, in response to an officer being killed or wounded…and making sure that it doesn’t happen again.

Don’t like the results? Tough. Police tactics are developed to respond to patterns in criminal behavior. Not the other way around. Til you get your ass out in front, on the sharp edge of the spear, you can stow the complaints about the tactics.[/quote]

Law enforcement is supposed to have the burden of adapting themselves to situations based off of how violent or nonviolent they turn out to be. It isn’t supposed to be on the shoulders of the citizens to accept that, even if they didn’t do anything to merit being put into a situation where they’re being served by a SWAT team, that they’re at the mercy of preset tactics that are fit for a small arms battle. These kinds of things are supposed to be CAREFULLY handled by law enforcement agencies. Great, be ready for anything, and make sure that no cops get hurt. That’s wonderful. But the second more ass holes start to say “don’t like the results? Tough,” is the second that the average citizen needs to start being legitimately worried about their personal liberties.

279

[quote]KAS wrote:

[quote]EurekaBulldogLaw wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Because alcohol does not have the more serious side effects than the overwhelming majority of illicit drugs.

Shit’s worse for you than heroin and it’s still legal.

So I think you’ve got that last assertion wrong.

Especially since there have been studies. Marijuana is incredibly benign.[/quote]

The alcohol argument goen’t wash. It’s like saying we should legalize coke because it’s less harmfull than meth.[/quote]

LOL no, actually, it’s not like that.

The person I quoted said if weed is demonstrably harmful it should be illegal. Alcohol is demonstrably more harmful than the majority of illicit drugs and it is legal. Therefore, health reasons are not sufficient justification for a substance’s legality.

Let’s shh with the analogies, they confuse you too much.

280

[quote]ronaldo7 wrote:

[quote]Aussie Davo wrote:
Here is the problem I have with weed: IMO, no mind altering substance is without its side effects, be it short term or long term. Whatever, the problem is, we can never know whether or not it can be considered relatively harmless, because while it is banned, we will never have a properly funded long term study.

On the other hand, if they do legalize it, and we do have such a study and there is conclusive evidence found that it does have adverse effects, it will go right back to being banned again - only with harsher rulings.[/quote]

Do you even know about drugs? So do you actually believe that Alcohol has less side effects than weed or other “illegal” drugs?

Dude if you don’t know what you’re talking about please don’t comment.[/quote]

Oh you gotta love the fucking straw men in this thread.

Where did I say anything about alcohol? Where did I say I actually believe that alcohol has less side effects than weed or other illicit substances? That’s right, I didn’t. Stop putting words in my mouth.