Another Marijuana Myth Goes Up In Smoke by Paul Armentano
- 06-10-2006, 03:31 PM
Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
- 06-10-2006, 03:53 PM
Sure, a school teacher would be educated and would also know that he was carrying too much at one time.
A couple of questions.
1. Why was this car suspicious?
2. Why was this cop able to search this vehicle to find the pot?
3. Why was this pot stored in anything other than a locked glovebox or trunk?
4. Was this 400 grams of pot in a brick form or stored in individual baggies making them believe intent was to sell?
I'm not saying your friend is a bad person. I also know that there are many upstanding people who are later found to have violated laws and they are usually weighed in when deciding punishment. Was this guy given a leniant sentence?
06-10-2006, 04:02 PM
1) In Canada any suspicion of drug content in the vehicle lies soley with the discression of the Officer.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
2)Same as above
3)I'm not sure. Everybody has made mistakes.
4)No, one larger brick. However the Crown decided this was too large of an amount to reduce the charge to a summary conviction of simple Possession.It was fairly leniant. But do you consider ruining his carreer leniant?
06-10-2006, 04:07 PM
Well, I can't comment on Canadian law but in the states there wouldn't of been probable cause to search the vehicle with what you described.
No I wouldn't consider it leniant but in all honesty he ruined his own career by taking that risk. I have sympathy for thse types of people becaus they are good people. Smoking pot does not make you a bad person. It makes you a person who broke the law.
But how does an officer get suspicion of drug content from looking at a vehicle? Smoke billowing out of the windows or was the car in a known drug area at 2am? This is what baffles me.
06-10-2006, 04:10 PM
The city I live it, despite of it's size has a very large crack-cocaine problem. Per capita, probably one of the worst I have ever seen, especially amonst minors. It was late and he was coming home from his girls house, the guy from afar probably did not look very shady and the officer pulled him over. The officer smelt Marijuana, and then had probable cause for a search.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
06-10-2006, 04:30 PM
I see. Sorry for your friend's situation. I just wish that until the laws change people were more carfeul about putting themselves in these situations.
06-10-2006, 04:49 PM
Once more, tell that to the cops out here. Your opinion is in direct conflict with reality as I've witnessed and personally experienced.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
Once more, your statements show how divorced from reality you are on this subject. When discussing the WoD, especially on marijuana, government and proprohibition reps routinely site federal statistics of people locked up for weed when they damn well know that the vast majority of people serving time for weed possession and dealing are in state and local prisons and jails. It's a nonsense strategy that takes about one second to see through, but it's still used to somehow convince people that law enforcement is only concerned with big fish.So if it's a harsh law they serve pen time and it's unfair but if they serve under a year in a local pen then it's to avoid stats???
<QUOTE]And those guys smoking at a concert had designated drivers right or took local transit?[/QUOTE]
Transit genius. People who live in Brooklyn don't often have cars as there are subways and cabs galore, and more often than not party busses to take you to the concert. A few friends of mine recently used such a bus that left from the Port Authority to the recent Pearl Jam concert. Your assumption seems to be that all users are irresponsible by default. That's your opinion I assume. It's bull****, but as I've said you're welcome to it.
My actions? Your reasoning seems to be that whatever the government decides to make illegal is just dandy, and anyone who violates the law however ridiculous, immoral and unethical that law is somehow has to 'take responsibility.' So I guess if they outlaw certain books all those authors they lock up will just have to ;take responsibility for their actions,' eh? ****ing bull**** subserviant state zombie attitude, and I'm so God damn sick of it. I truly hope one day the government decides it doesn't like something you or some member of your family does, and then they or you can 'take responsiblity' for your actions and sit and rot in prison next to some guy doing twenty years for possessing one more arbitrary dosage unit of weed or acid or whatever than the government thought he should have.What the **** ever. You're just not in a logical frame of mind to even debate this reasonably. Blame the others for your actions but remember that later on when you finally wise up and enter the real world.
06-10-2006, 05:11 PM
[QUOTE=bpmartyr]Are we even talking about the same thing here? These people knew what they were dong was against the law, gambled and lost.[.QUOTE]
So any question of whether or not the law is right or wrong is completely out. As said, you put the state above morals and ethics. If you don't, and a law is wrong, then no matter if someone broke it they don't deserve to be in prison.
Tell that to the founders of this nation, one of the things they were especially pissed about was unfair imprisonment, usually the result of trial by hand selected jury or no jury at all. What a bunch of whiners.All for a high. Fing stupid. You could say the same about me I guess. I gamble with my drug use but I will not whine that the laws are unfair or immoral if I am sitting in jail. That is just adolescent.
Been to Columbia lately, or any other nation getting ripped to shreds from corruption because of the massive criminal cash flow caused by prohibition? Seen people starving because their crops were destroyed by defoliant because some DEA ****head decided their might be weed or coca plants mixed in? Spent any time in Mexican border towns where they have dozens of murders if not more on a weekly basis by drug gangs? Oh wait, I'm sorry you're right, that's Pfizer and Phillip Morris doing that.It's not like people are killing millions of unborn babies and our laws do nothing to stop it or anything.
Be my guest. The classic example is usually when your actions adversly affect someone else, as injurring them or their property. Since molesting a kid hurts them, you'd justly be in prison. Since smoking weed or using any drug is not inherently dangerous or harmful to others, it doesn't count. The reason that standard is usually considered the best is because once you go beyond that any law is justified. Once you eliminate the need for a victim in a crime, all behavior is subject to criminal prosecution on the whim of law makers.Furthermore, who decides what laws are good and bad? By what moral authority shall we use as the crux? What if I think molesting children is my right?
The laws we have... made by people who are elected by those with whom you are not very impressed...From what I see of the overall level of judgment of the average american ..... I am not impressed. I'll stick to following the laws we have, or at least accepting responsibility for my actions.
I may rave a bit, that's because I've seen both the harm caused by *******s who use drugs and the harm caused by *******s who have devoted their lives to stomping out drug users, and the latter are by far more destructive and disturbing. Because I've seen entire inner city neighborhoods devastated by the War on Drugs and people, mostly blacks, skulking around in those neighborhoods just feeding their addictions and hatred. And no one gives a ****. Those neighborhoods are only growing, and it's the War on Drugs not the drugs that's causing this. Pretty soon they'll explode. The effects of this war are immense and horrible.You are intelligent CDB, I do not dispute that. I just think you lack perception at times. Perhaps due to your obsessive over-thinking. <---- Totally poking fun bro. It's all good.
I haven't lost perception, I've perceived only too well. I may have lost perspective as I've seen a lot of otherwise good folks get ****ed to varying degrees by these laws. People who call a cab when they're drunk instead of driving, people who have called me and who I've picked up at train stations at five in the morning so they wouldn't have to drive. Perhaps that's where the difference lies as I was raised around people who used drugs responsibly and I know only too well that the laws don't discriminate between them and scum who perhaps do belong in prison.
06-10-2006, 05:43 PM
Just wait, eventually one of your wants will be criminalized. And you may comply, but if it doesn't at least cross your mind to ask who the **** is anyone to tell me I can't do x, y or z, I pity you.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
No more gang violence surrounding the trade because of the removal of the black market. Safer products with legal recourse for those harmed by tainted products. Age restrictions that can be reasonably enforced to keep kids away from drugs. Massive savings in costs, not to mention lives saved, corruption stiffled and no morekids who made one mistake getting saddled with criminal records essentially screwing them for life.If someone could give me a list of benefits of legalizing the drug because making it a non crime I could possibly be swayed(not that you care to sway me). It seems that the growing list of reasons are all circular with the laws of it.
Perhaps they have a point? Perhaps you can explain the reason why it's necessary to live under a legal structure where it's literally impossible to walk down the street without breaking about ten trillion laws per mile? Suppose one of those people violated a small law, a ridiculous one. Say they merged to the right to make a turn before the turning lane started. That's illegal you know. Suppose they resisted arrest. What would you do? Suppose they resisted to the point where you were in a position where killing them was the only option? Oh yeah, there's the rub of it: all laws are enforced with the threat of death. Don't believe me, break a law and resist its enforcement on you at every level. You'll be dead soon enough. Or perhaps so long as there are unsolved murders perhaps cops shouldn't be out handing out parking tickets. But then again that's important revenue...Being a cop you learn that no matter what you make a stop or arrest for. That person thinks that you would be serving better by stopping people doing 'real crimes' no one thinks their crime is real.
I did. I was an activist for quite some time on the subject. But perhaps you'd like to explain how the laws are supposed to be changed if no one changes their mind on this issue and the government has everyone brainwashed that if weed is legalized soon 13 year olds will be whoring themselves out behind dumpsters for a hit? People like me I guess we're supposed to change people's minds without engaging them at all, right? change the law, but shut up while you're doing it and don't try and convince anyone you're correct that it should be changed. Gee, that's an effective strategy.I don't agree with many laws out there but it's hard to complain about them if I haven't actively went out and voted or did my best to change them. If you want pot legalized then get to work on it. Don't cloud it with fake issues like millions in jail for smoking a joint. Put real data and facts behind it.
Because that is the biggest bull**** statement you've made thus far. The ONLY reason their lives will be destroyed by weed use is because the government has stepped in and decided to make it a crime. By that standard you could outlaw red hair and those who had the gaul, the temerity to say, "Hey, **** that, my hair color is none of anybody's business," and then wind up in jail for not dying their hair appropriately, robots like you would come out and say, "Well gee, what do you expect with that kind of behavior. Garsh, all he had to do was dye his hair..." Take away the law and all of sudden their lives aren't being ruined by wweed use anymore. Gee, guess it wasn't the weed but the law that was their problem.I would be willing to bet that most people willing to sacrifice their way of life for a little pot are also the ones willing to drive drunk, willing to steal, willing to not get auto insurance etc. Is this a bold and broad statement? Yup but what else can you say about people who complain about their lives being ruined but at the same time keep doing the crime that will ruin it?
No, but when you suspend all judgement and place the law and its enforcement above all else, like right and wrong, justice and injustice, in my opinion you become less than human. At that point you're a drone. Suppose the law does get reversed, what do we do with all those people in jail and prison for nonviolent offenses? Let them out and say "Sorry guys, sorry for those last few years in hell. Our bad. Here's a couple of bucks, try and start a career"? Or just leave them there? The very fact that these laws could change and that you'd be faced with such a situation should be enough to make any reasonable person wonder whether or not they should be laws at all, and whether or not this "that's the law" attitude espoused by you and others is really appropriate.Harmless drug? Maybe or maybe not but it is illegal. You do it and you take the chance of punishment. The same if you speed, drink and drive, use steroids. It isn't like it's a hidden law you don't know about.
06-10-2006, 05:50 PM
Simple solution to this problem.
Legalize all drugs and then make huge increases in penalties for all drug related crimes such as drunk driving, child endangerment, domestic abuse, etc.
This way people can do w/e the hell they want in the privacy of their own home AND the government can protect the people even BETTER by removing drug dealers, increasing penalties for crime, etc.
06-10-2006, 05:54 PM
**** him, he broke the law. I've dealt with Jay's type before, he simply will not believe there is such a thing as a nondeviant user. In part it's because he deals with scum all day as a cop, and lots of scum do use drugs. Problem his he confuses correlation with causation, choice with inherent. Your friend must have done somthing else, or must be evil on some level, because the other part of it is nonstop government brainwashing on the subject.Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier
Even should he acknowledge that your friend doesn't belong in jail he will either say he knew what he was getting into, or that it's a necessary sacrifice. It will not occur to him to think beyond the law to the right and wrong of the matter. He won't give a **** about your friend's career going down the toilet. He won't give a **** about the time taken away from his life, living in a hell he does not deserve to be in with people he does not deserve to be around. Your friend broke The Law, and nothing matters more than that.
06-10-2006, 06:17 PM
US vs Place. A dog sniffing does not constitute a search. Perhaps I should see if I can did up the badge number of the state trooper that stopped my friends and I on the way home from camping years ago. The guy who made us wait by the side of the road for an hour and a half so a dog could come and sniff the car. No ticket given, no drugs in the car. But hey, legally it's not a search. Those dogs are often to be found at checkpoints around here as well. There's also New York vs Belton, which essentially eliminates the need for a warrant for a car search. It has even been ruled I believe that cops can search people's cars if they fit a drug courier profile, said profile incidentally fitting damn near every car in the nation. I remember one version of the drug courier profile that started out the description of the type of car a courier would drive, saying it would either be a large, medium or small model car. Gee, narrows it down a lot, doesn't it?Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
06-10-2006, 06:19 PM
Exactly. Won't ever happen though so long as people are convinced that use itself is evil.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
06-10-2006, 06:24 PM
On to the quote fu though...
And yours conflicts with mine. See how people can have different opinions? What I have seen with my own two eyes tells me this isn't something to legalize.Once more, tell that to the cops out here. Your opinion is in direct conflict with reality as I've witnessed and personally experienced.
And can equally be shown by the opposing parties in the form they wish to see. Many stats are focused on certain areas to keep too many generalized stats from showing or clouding the picture. This isn't a phenomenon known only to the gov't or to pot stats. It's used by all.Once more, your statements show how divorced from reality you are on this subject. When discussing the WoD, especially on marijuana, government and proprohibition reps routinely site federal statistics of people locked up for weed when they damn well know that the vast majority of people serving time for weed possession and dealing are in state and local prisons and jails...
There are already laws i'm against and those that i'm both against and makes me have to choose either to continue and chance my career and life and my family's life or avoid/change what i'm doing.I truly hope one day the government decides it doesn't like something you or some member of your family does, and then they or you can 'take responsiblity' for your actions and sit and rot in prison next to some guy doing twenty years for possessing one more arbitrary dosage unit of weed or acid or whatever than the government thought he should have.
1. Gang violence of pot wars? Hmm, other drugs and guns etc would also stop because pot was legal? Gang violence would continue as always.No more gang violence surrounding the trade because of the removal of the black market. Safer products with legal recourse for those harmed by tainted products. Age restrictions that can be reasonably enforced to keep kids away from drugs. Massive savings in costs, not to mention lives saved, corruption stiffled and no morekids who made one mistake getting saddled with criminal records essentially screwing them for life.
2. Safer products but also ran but your gov't/business drones with prices and potency differences. Not to mention large pot fields to supply these that would also be violated because there's always people wanting something for free so you're still getting pot related crimes. AND you will still have dealers for selling pot for cheaper prices and 'better' potency and laced with products for a better high.
3. Age restrictions..This one actually made me chuckle a bit. Like restrictions with ciggs and alcohol that we're constantly arresting kids for abusing but then again we have unsolved murders in every district so why are we even making these arrests?
4. So introducing what would be a huge business into the economy would lower corruption and cost savings with ads,lawyers,law suits, product testing, etc etc...EDIT
If you live in the US resisting arrest may get you taken down but for the most part it will not net you a death especially in your example of merging in a right lane. You can only use force needed to control a suspect and that doesn't include deadly force unless it is being used on you or another(dumbed down simple version). And every cop out there should be working unsolved murders...Again, forget any other crime cause there's a murder case out there somewhere and adding 2000 cops per case isn't over kill. EDITDon't believe me, break a law and resist its enforcement on you at every level. You'll be dead soon enough. Or perhaps so long as there are unsolved murders perhaps cops shouldn't be out handing out parking tickets. But then again that's important revenue...
When the day comes that someone is born with a joint in their lips as a natural body part then this example will make sense. As of right now it's an arguement over hair dye. I'm partial to black myself.Because that is the biggest bull**** statement you've made thus far. The ONLY reason their lives will be destroyed by weed use is because the government has stepped in and decided to make it a crime. By that standard you could outlaw red hair and those who had the gaul, the temerity to say, "Hey, **** that, my hair color is none of anybody's business,"...
Anyone who disagrees is a drone, got it. Anyone who follows laws are drones, got it. Laws change and society changes as does everything else in life. Maybe one day pot will be legal and I hope it's in your life time so you can enjoy every moment of it. However right now it's illegal. I also use discretion when making arrests or traffic stops by using the totallity of the evidence and the person i'm dealing with. I've known too many people who have been arrested(including me making the arrests) for having small amounts on them or even being high while being stopped for another reason. While I haven't kept track of them I have met a few of them later on and none of them were screwed for life. Like I said before...A SINGLE BUST WILL NOT RUIN A LIFE!No, but when you suspend all judgement and place the law and its enforcement above all else, like right and wrong, justice and injustice, in my opinion you become less than human. At that point you're a drone...
Last edited by Jayhawkk; 06-12-2006 at 12:05 PM.
06-10-2006, 06:36 PM
Since you replied while I was replying...
First, that dog search has to be done in a reasonable time.
Second, He would have to have a reason to use a dog to search.
Third, had he found something he better of had 1 and 2 in order or the drugs found would of been fruits of the poisonous tree and not used anyways.
You're also assuming that I believe that illegal searches and ******* cops making unwarrented stops do not happen. I know there are crooked cops who abuse their powers and I am also aware that there are laws on the books that don't make sense.
I believe pot should not be legalized because of what I have seen on a professional and personal basis. Not because it's inherintly evil or because i'm a drone.
Did you even read the case law? You never needed a warrant to search a car when making an arrest to begin with. Ever heard of inventory prior to towing? This was also off of a plain view law and others...New York vs Belton
06-10-2006, 06:43 PM
Forget alcohol and tobacco.. if the government really cared, they'd ban sugar! That's right, sucrose is the #1 killer in America, more than drugs or alcohol. You should have to be 21 to buy candy or refined sugar products, but we give it to little kids instead, setting them up for all kinds of future health problems before that can weight the risks of use. Is sucrose intrinsically bad? No, sugar is natural are useful in human physiology. It just get's abused out of human nature. In the book of Genesis, God clearly gives us all seed bearing plants and herb to use. He even comments that "it was good" after He created it. Sorry guys, but pot really should be legal and I don't wanna start a spiritual argument either. Would it get abused though, probably. Is is physically addictive or damaging, not really if used responsibly. I quit cold turkey over 6 years ago after using regularly for a looooong time, and had no withdrawals at all. I do miss it psychologically though. It was the only drug that never lied to me. It was an honest drug that had many benefits and never promoted greed or physical withdrawal like other drugs did. As for the gateway theory, the first drug I ever used was dbol! So I guess roids' are gateway drugs too (lol).Originally Posted by TINYTOAD
06-10-2006, 06:46 PM
I smoked pot pretty much all through high school a couple times a day actually. I don't touch the stuff anymore i just don't like the feeling anymore, it also increases estrogen and smoking anything for that matter is not good for your lungs, that's why i don't do it anymore. But i could care less if people want to go ahead and light up, hell the amount of guys i know that deal the stuff is insane. Cigarettes are the one that really urks me though, younger and younger ppl are getting addicted and it just really digusts me. I really hope one day that cigarettes are illegal. As for legalizing pot i'm not sure about that one, i mean it's not like it's really going to affect the dealers they'll just move on to pushing the hard stuff. But i see no problem in getting pot from a doctor for a medical condition.
06-10-2006, 06:53 PM
Amsterdam was nice, I may go back. I find it a weird attitude though, that someone born in this country, raised in this country, who has hurt no one has to go elsewhere to live their lives as they wish. One would think that meeting the above criteria they'd be welcomed in a peaceful nation.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
And at one time I agreed. Perhaps you should broaden your view a bit before you decide to lock up 70 million people, who according to the government have at one time or another used pot or some other illegal recreational drug. Do you honestly think they all belong in jail?And yours conflicts with mine. See how people can have different opinions? What I have seen with my own two eyes tells me this isn't something to legalize.
Why does it never occur to you to speak out that you think a law is wrong? Certainly as a cop the enforcing of a law you think is wrong has to make your stomach twist, and no doubt your voice as a cop would carry more weight than the average citizen. So what are the rest of us to do when people like you stay silent and simply do the job regardless of your feelings?There are already laws i'm against and those that i'm both against and makes me have to choose either to continue and chance my career and life and my family's life or avoid/change what i'm doing.
Of course I want the whole shebang legal. Sorry if that wasn't clear. As intense as some drugs are, I'd prefer they be sold by legal companies who could be held responsible for their sale and use. All substances sold on the black market have violence surrounding their import and sale. Admittedly the legalization of marijuana alone wouldn't get rid of all gang violence, but it would certainly seperate a rather innocuous weed from the much harder drugs, not to mention save a ****load of enforcement money on both federal, state and local levels.1. Gang violence of pot wars? Hmm, other drugs and guns etc would also stop because pot was legal? Gang violence would continue as always.
Yeah, to think of all those out of control 'raids' by citizens on tobacco fields... And I guess that's why we still have a massive black market in liquor once that prohibition was ended. Oh wait, we don't... Ah never mind about that. Weed is different. Do you have any clue how insane what you're saying sounds? People raiding fields? Who the **** grows marijuana in a field anymore? Do you know how much time would be spent seperating the plants for proper budding in a frigging field? And I guess people would have to concentrate their 'raids' in August, as that's really the only time naturally grown weed buds correctly in the northern hemisphere. You'd think that window would make it easy to stop all those raids. Oh that's right no, you don't know what you're saying, because again you don't have a clue what you're talking about.2. Safer products but also ran but your gov't/business drones with prices and potency differences. Not to mention large pot fields to supply these that would also be violated because there's always people wanting something for free so you're still getting pot related crimes. AND you will still have dealers for selling pot for cheaper prices and 'better' potency and laced with products for a better high.
It's very simple: would you rather have a network of legal dealers who at least make somewhat of an effort to check on age, or do you want a network of illegal dealers who never check on age, and in your own view not only fail to do that but push other drugs on kids? What would you rather have? Because you're not going to get rid of the drugs. You've been trying for decades and they're still here. Failure complete, what practical solution would you rather have? As an aside when I was a kid it was easier to get weed than liquor, and still is if I can trust my teacher friends. Hell liquor you needed to find someone unscrupulous to get it for you. Weed was delivered to your frigging front door, as well as coke and steroids and anything else you wanted, because the whole distribution and sale system was by default unscrupulous.3. Age restrictions..This one actually made me chuckle a bit. Like restrictions with ciggs and alcohol that we're constantly arresting kids for abusing but then again we have unsolved murders in every district so why are we even making these arrests?
Do you prefer your lobbyists out in the open and using money legally, or in the shadows and using guns and offerring bribes? Again, a simple choice. As far as reality, compare the governments of Mexico and Columbia to our own and then get back to me. The levels of corruption in those countries are only made possible because of the massive cash flow to be had on the black market. And there are people on the take here as well. At least in the legal markets you know who the 'lobbyists' are, and there are laws to control them to an extent.4. So introducing what would be a huge business into the economy would lower corruption and cost savings with ads,lawyers,law suits, product testing, etc etc...And you say i'm divorced from reality? Good ****ing lord man. You have issues.
If you live in the US resisting arrest may get you taken down but for the most part it will not net you a death especially in your example of merging in a right lane. You can only use force needed to control a suspect and that doesn't include deadly force unless it is being used on you or another(dumbed down simple version).[/QUOTE]
I said resist at all levels. Say you try and issue the ticket, he drives away. You follow, he goes faster. He goes home, you give chase and try to arrest, he fights back. Every escalated attempt by you to enforce the law engenders an escalation in resistance on his part. At what point will you walk away and decide enforcement is not worth it? No level is the answer. You completely miss the point, there is no law that if you don't comply with it will not result in your death. Or do you carry those guns just to scare people, and the level of force used to enforce a law is a judgement call left to you?
How about this: don't pay your taxes. **** 'em. When the government comes to collect, resist. Resist every effort to collect. Let me know at what point they decide to say **** it, and walk away.
Haven't smoked in a good long time.And every cop out there should be working unsolved murders...Again, forget any other crime cause there's a murder case out there somewhere and adding 2000 cops per case isn't over kill. How about reply to me when you're not stoned?
Very well, let's outlaw pink coats then. You missed the point again, and I'm tired of explaining it so just puzzle it over if you must.When the day comes that someone is born with a joint in their lips as a natural body part then this example will make sense. As of right now it's an arguement over hair dye. I'm partial to black myself.
That is not what I said but if you must resort to such idiocies then be my guest. When someone has to misrepresent what you've said to make a point, it usually means they've lost the argument. Thanks, you can go back to your all important job of hunting down and locking up Grateful Dead fans now.Anyone who disagrees is a drone, got it. Anyone who follows laws are drones, got it.
06-10-2006, 06:55 PM
Nothing like an honest drug. Those are the ones I search for. Caffeine isn't honest. Sure, it tells me it'll get me up with tasty goodness but it treats you like a prostitute. Once it's done its thing it takes off and leaves you hung out to dry feeling like **** with nothing to show for it but memories a a headache.
06-10-2006, 07:04 PM
You are the one who is using straw man arguements to get a rise and reaction. You are the one who is upping all the stats and making it seem worse than it is. My friend this and my friend that doesn't have any more weight than mine.
Let's try and use the resist scenerio again. If I make a stop and keep trying to arrest someone and they refuse then this is what would happen...
1. Pursuit of vehicle need backup
2. Calls in local and adjacent agencies for backup
3. Ends up at house with multiple officers
4. Officers try and subdue suspect
5. Suspect resists with just his person and multiple officers will use less than lethal force
6. Uses knife gun etc then presentation of force is made
7. Suspect still comes at them with gun or weapon
8. Suspect dies from running from a merging traffic ticket stop
9. Suspect is/was an idiot.
Last edited by Jayhawkk; 06-12-2006 at 12:06 PM.
06-10-2006, 07:04 PM
No, he wouldn't. By federal ruling of the SCOTA a dog sniffing is not a search, therefore there is no need for a warrant or cause of any kind.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
See above, look up the ruling from the other post. You're wrong.Third, had he found something he better of had 1 and 2 in order or the drugs found would of been fruits of the poisonous tree and not used anyways.
But previously...You're also assuming that I believe that illegal searches and ******* cops making unwarrented stops do not happen. I know there are crooked cops who abuse their powers and I am also aware that there are laws on the books that don't make sense.
You're really misinformed here. And I am a cop and I also know that no one is searching a locked glovebox or trunk and I also know that no one is doing a complete search of your vehicle...What if you're wrong? Does it not occur to you that in your capacity as a cop the people you're likely to deal with are not going to be the creme de la ****ing creme of humanity no matter what substance they're using? How many **** up drunks do you see in a given day, and does that mean we should make alcohol illegal too now and start indiscriminently locking up all drinkers, because your personal experience dictates it and **** everyone else?I believe pot should not be legalized because of what I have seen on a professional and personal basis. Not because it's inherintly evil or because i'm a drone.
You don't need one when not making an arrest either because the protections have been dumbed down. But then again you're the guy who said no cop was conduction illegal searches and then said you know cops conduct illegal searches. Maybe you need some time to work things out?Did you even read the case law? You never needed a warrant to search a car when making an arrest to begin with. Ever heard of inventory prior to towing? This was also off of a plain view law and others...
06-10-2006, 07:11 PM
Good, so you admit I am right. Now to 9, who is the idiot, the suspect or the cops who killed him over a moving violation? Because this would be the escalation NO MATTER THE OFFENSE. Jay walking or murder, the escalation would be the same. Perhaps if death is the logical end result or extreme law enforcement, maybe we need to take greater care over what laws we enact. And perhaps when people's lives are literally at stake, 'that's the law' shouldn't trump right and wrong.Originally Posted by Jayhawkk
You're more than right, I can be a prick on this issue. I don't apologize as it's only luck that I didn't end up in prison on nonviolent offenses, and I would have been put there in part by someone just like you. Your blithe willingness to destroy the lives of otherwise peaceful people says to me you deserve some pokes and prods, as they're certainly less harmful and more justified than the gun you'd pull out to kill a pot smoker to enforce your precious laws in extreme circumstances.
Oh, and as an edit I have to go out now, after all it is Saturday. And you know what? I'm the designated driver, which means I'll be driving around a bunch of stoned, drunken partying mother****ers while dead sober. Oh wait no, I'll be plastered. There's no such ****ing thing as responsible use when it comes to drugs...
06-10-2006, 07:14 PM
No cop LEGALLY is searching etc etc...There's plenty of case law where these things are thrown out because of ****ed up stops...Are there cases of cops getting away with doing it? of course but that isn't the scope of the arguement and would take 10 more threads.
You're confusing a k-9 officer making a stop and an officer without k-9. there's a difference because of the time factor among other things. You better have reason for detaining a person long enough to have a dog handler get to the scene and search. Make this a habitual thing with no results or weak cases and it'll end quick.
06-10-2006, 07:18 PM
He would be the idiot since he took it to that extreme that forced the cops hand. The cop didn't know anything else about this person. Just that he ran when making a simple traffic stop. You know how many stops that started out simple ended up killing officers?
And there's many accounts of cops pulling out guns and killing people just sitting there minding their own business smoking a joint?
Last edited by Jayhawkk; 06-12-2006 at 12:07 PM.
06-10-2006, 07:25 PM
Actually something that was said earlier would be something I could agree on.
legal is but increase the penalties of crimes involving use. i.e.,driving while high etc. Making very stiff penalties for both children and parents for underage use(of course to and extent regarding parents who are shown to clearly play an active role). Strong penalties for use/selling/buying in school zones.
I would also raise the legal limit to 25. At 21 you're having enough of a time trying to stay sober.
Similar Forum Threads
- By BatCountry in forum Weight LossReplies: 43Last Post: 05-13-2012, 08:54 PM
- By superdrollover in forum Supplement LogsReplies: 60Last Post: 07-29-2007, 12:35 PM
- By powerlifter in forum AnabolicsReplies: 7Last Post: 10-20-2004, 07:30 PM
- By supersoldier in forum General ChatReplies: 7Last Post: 09-06-2004, 12:36 AM
- By Bean in forum AnabolicsReplies: 11Last Post: 10-22-2003, 03:36 PM