Police Priorities: War on Drugs, or Violent Crime?

[9lock]

Where did I read something on - law enforcement has no obligation to protect - court case yada yada or something to that effect?

 

[UncleMike]

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.

 

[88GT]

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.

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.

 

[Panama]

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.

 

[rw496]

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.

True. At least in probable cause affidavits you have to swear it is true to the best of your knowledge. In the media you can say whatever you want no matter how unfounded in facts or distorted.

 

[Bummer]

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.

 

[Kutnupe14]

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.

 

[NYFelon]

It's not really faulty though. The item, in and of itself, has nothing to do with the violence. The criminalization of it's use and sale are what has wrought the violence. Lose the crime, lose the violence.

 

[serpicostraight]

i spent many weekends in amsterdam where drugs are legal and never once seen any violence. everybody there is actually very relaxed for some reason.

 

[Fletch]

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.

It is also faulty logic to imply that policing/attacking the trade in contraband somehow helps the violence situation more than policing/attacking the actual violence would, especially when, as the article illustrates, actual violence is being ignored in favor of policing trade.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Where did I read something on - law enforcement has no obligation to protect - court case yada yada or something to that effect?

I believe you are referencing the DeShaney case.

DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or perhaps Castle Rock?

Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jbombelli]

the effects of legalization aside... uhhhh drugs and violent crime go hand in hand. Is anyone going to dispute that?

No more so than violent crime and any OTHER lucrative black market. Like for example, "blood diamonds." There's an awful lot of violence in that black market.

 

[Bummer]

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.

 

[phylodog]

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.

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?

 

[Fletch]

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.

 

[UncleMike]

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.
Never mind that in a nation of laws, like this one, the final decision rests with the Courts, not the Officers tasked with enforcing the Laws.

 

[phylodog]

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 worked narcotics for several years on two separate occasions. I never received any financial incentives for the work I did. Money (forfeitures) was never a motivator nor did it have anything to do with the targets I chose to investigate.

I did it because I enjoyed the work. My targets were born of opportunity. I didn't write the laws and my personal beliefs are irrelevant. I've stated many times that I could care less if all currently illegal drugs were legalized tomorrow. I could also care less if all speed limits were lifted tomorrow. You could likely find just as many people who would disagree with me as those who would not.

The decisions surrounding the constitutionality of some laws are made by those who chose to become educated in such things. I did not. Smarter men than I have been educated, hired, elected or appointed to make those decisions. They aren't mine (or any other police officer's) to make. It isn't in our job description or within our legal authority and if that were to change tomorrow the screams would awaken the dead and we could all start shooting the zombies that apparently 50% of the gun owners in this country are obsessed with.

We can keep laying it all on the backs of the cops though, it's nothing new. It requires much less thought on the subject and we all know easy is the name of the game.

 

[TMU317]

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.

 

[jbombelli]

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.

 

[TMU317]

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.

Yea, but my point was that violent crime which is related to illegal drugs is not necessarily always a result of the criminalization of those drugs. Whether a drug (heroin for example) is illegal or legal, has nothing to do with the fact that there are countless individuals who are completely consumed by it. So much so that they admittedly commit burglary, larceny, armed robbery, etc in order to fuel their addiction. Would making heroin legal suddenly eliminate this problem?