Says the expert on all things LE
It'd be a shame if you actually had one frame of reference for all of the LE posts you make claiming to have an understanding of the job. Instead you combine your hatred of cops with the lapping up of whatever the media wants to spoon feed you and regurgitate the end product as if you have a clue as to what you are talking about.
Wow. That story was one of the most sensationalized pieces of crap I have read in a while..even for the media that was bad. First, seizing assets is not that easy. It has to be proven that it is proceeds from illegal activity..selling drugs, illegal gambling, or any other illegal activity. Nobody is seizing your car because you smoke weed in it. Second, that girl was housing a drug dealer. The search warrant said they were searching for NATE..so it was an arrest warrant..right? Which means a judge found probable cause to charge him with a crime..a felony if they were doing all that. I could go on forever, but I thought most people on here were the type that didn't buy into journalistic sensationalism.
Says the expert on all things LE
It'd be a shame if you actually had one frame of reference for all of the LE posts you make claiming to have an understanding of the job. Instead you combine your hatred of cops with the lapping up of whatever the media wants to spoon feed you and regurgitate the end product as if you have a clue as to what you are talking about.
With all due respect the PC affidavit isn't exactly immune to manipulation and corruption either. Jose Guerena is dead because a probable case affidavit proved nothing more than he was the brother of a likely drug dealer.
the effects of legalization aside... uhhhh drugs and violent crime go hand in hand. Is anyone going to dispute that?
Yes.
When's the last time you saw a Beer distributor gun down his competition in an argument over territory?
Criminalize something people are willing to pay for and violence follows. It's not the thing, it's the criminalization. Want to end the violence? End the Narco-Totalitarian Drug War.
Not disagreeing, but since it IS criminalized the violence is there. The article is not talking about how to stop violence, but implying that violence doesnt surround the item in question. Which obviously is faulty logic.
Where did I read something on - law enforcement has no obligation to protect - court case yada yada or something to that effect?
the effects of legalization aside... uhhhh drugs and violent crime go hand in hand. Is anyone going to dispute that?
Not disagreeing, but since it IS criminalized the violence is there. The article is not talking about how to stop violence, but implying that violence doesnt surround the item in question. Which obviously is faulty logic.
Ahh, but drugs and violence are not what go hand in hand. Violence goes hand in hand with criminalization.
Are there non-violent pot-heads? Yes. In fact, the vast majority are non-violent. Ultimately it's the people who are drawn to the large sums of money to be made from criminalized activities that cause the violence. It's not the drug that is the problem, it's the money. It's not even the money itself, but the people drawn to the money.
So, I must continue to argue that it's the criminalization that violence surrounds, not the thing criminalized.
The story in the OP speaks of the incentives that draw LE away from preserving the peace and into interdicting illicit trade. I would readily agree that politicians are responsible for putting the incentives in place, but I believe that at some point the LE organizations need to be held responsible for keeping to the principles they supposedly exist for, instead of just chasing pots of money.I agree. Would you agree that since it is the criminalization that creates the issue, and that since LE does not create the law, the problem is that of politicians who create the laws and devise the enforcement plans and not the police officers tasked with enforcing the laws?
And next will come the "Thou shalt not enforce a bad law." argument.I agree. Would you agree that since it is the criminalization that creates the issue, and that since LE does not create the law, the problem is that of politicians who create the laws and devise the enforcement plans and not the police officers tasked with enforcing the laws?
The story in the OP speaks of the incentives that draw LE away from preserving the peace and into interdicting illicit trade. I would readily agree that politicians are responsible for putting the incentives in place, but I believe that at some point the LE organizations need to be held responsible for keeping to the principles they supposedly exist for, instead of just chasing pots of money.
Ahh, but drugs and violence are not what go hand in hand. Violence goes hand in hand with criminalization.
Are there non-violent pot-heads? Yes. In fact, the vast majority are non-violent. Ultimately it's the people who are drawn to the large sums of money to be made from criminalized activities that cause the violence. It's not the drug that is the problem, it's the money. It's not even the money itself, but the people drawn to the money.
So, I must continue to argue that it's the criminalization that violence surrounds, not the thing criminalized.
Is the "war on drugs" referenced here only referring to marijuana? I believe the article only mentions marijuana, but what about heroin, cocaine, meth, etc? What about those who commit violent crimes such as armed robbery to fuel their addiction to heroin? Like a guy who has no income but needs cash to purchase more heroin/cocaine/meth and robs a gas station and ends up murdering the cashier? Or one who robs a guy walking to his car? Or is breaking into cars and is interrupted and murders the person who interrupts him? There are countless violent acts committed everyday by individuals searching for a means to fuel their addiction.
Well... what about them? They do that now. And they get arrested and prosecuted for it. If drugs were legalized, there would I'm sure still be some that would commit crimes for their stash. And I may be going out on a limb here, but I would bet that robbery and murder would still be illegal.
The fact that some people can't hold their liquor and end up fighting and killing someone else is no reason to ban liquor.