SWAT Team invades home and kills dog for a joint.

[ATOMonkey]

Couple of questions for people to ponder.

Why does Mexico have Drug Cartels?

Why do these cartels smuggle dugs into the US?

Why do these cartels use violence to accomplish their drug trade?

What other things manufactured or grown in Mexico and sold in the US have a violent cartel supporting it?

Why do Gangs fund themselves through illegal drug sales instead of selling cookies or brownies?

Take a minute, mull it over...

 

[IndyMonkey]

Have you ever been to Mexico? I'm not talking about tourist areas in Mexico either.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Yes.

 

[Gamez235]

Hmm..

Couple of questions for people to ponder.

Why does Mexico have Drug Cartels?

Because America has an appetite for illegal drugs to the tune of 321 billlion dollars...

Why do these cartels smuggle drugs into the US?

For a chance at 321 billion dollars, duh.

Why do these cartels use violence to accomplish their drug trade?

You think someone is going to just hand over 321 billion dollars.

What other things manufactured or grown in Mexico and sold in the US have a violent cartel supporting it?

321 billion dollars.... Come one it worked for the first 3.. jheez..

Why do Gangs fund themselves through illegal drug sales instead of selling cookies or brownies?

That industry is worth on 2.1 billion dollars as of 2009. And quite frankly Hostess has that one pretty well staked..

Take a minute, mull it over...

Mulled...

 

[ATOMonkey]

Why is it that cartels and gangs are the only ones going after this $321B market?

So, you're telling me, that because cookies and brownies are legal, that a company found a way to mass produce, package, distribute, and retail the product to the market? Interesting... Do you find that more people bake their own cookies and brownies, or do they more often buy the pre-packaged ones? Is there any kind of black market for cookies and brownies?

 

[downzero]

Make a dynamic entery into speedway and prone everyone out.

Guys, seriously? This guy was a DRUG DEALER.... what has his dealings at his home done to his community? This wasn't about one (1) single joint that they found in his house. The Judge would laugh you out of his chambers if you asked him for a search warrant.

In Lake County you have to have at least 2-3 transactions (recordings on camera) before the prosecutor will even accept dealing charges. We hit a house this past Thursday in a neighborhood where we have had drive by shootings, recent rash of burglaries, and an armed home invasion that were linked to this guys house. The street was flooded with neighbors from an apartment building applauding our actions. I had a chance to watch one of the recordings and saw the drug dealer's three year old daughter standing in the corner of the kitchen watching Daddy pinch off the brick for our CI. Is this the kind of guy some here would support?

Before a SWAT team is activated, certain criteria must be met, such as past known violence or lengthy history of violent felony arrests, threats of murdering police that try to arrest, known to be heavily armed, etc. I'm not sure how some agencies get the wrong address as I have been fortunate enough to never experience this. We have a lot of intel with our own guys (not CI's) watching & tailing a subject prior to the raid.

Now about the SWAT teams.... they are here to stay fellas and are needed! Some situations call for a tactical response and regular patrol are not geared or trained to handle them. If your police department isn't prepared to handle serious situation.... what do you do... who do you call? I do not know of a single SWAT team in operation that has been activated for ANY misdemeanor warrants or arrests.

I know all of our guys are top notch, very professional & most of us are prior military. We have received some of the best training throughout the country and are required to attend FBI SWAT school for certification. Even then your put in the rear with the gear until you've proven yourself. We just don't throw on our gear and go out to play army.

I've read some disturbing articles on INGO about how law enforcement should or shouldn't enforce the laws. Don't hate the Police for enforcing the laws your fellow Americans have voted for. If you don't like the laws that are currently on the books, vote for someone who shares your same opinions & objectives to get the laws changed.

Most of the time I see posts on INGO about how the police are the bad guys. Ive been in LE fifteen (15) years and can only recall two bad apples that were hired on my department and they have been investigated and fired for their actions. No cover ups, no thin blue line BS! They tarnish the shield for the rest of us. We will always see stories about bad police work as none of us are perfect. We are still & will remain the Good Guys! I believe our community strongly supports us through both the good and bad. As long as we have that support... we are good to go

I have two comments about this:

1. This guy was not a drug dealer. He had less than a gram of marijuana, which from my search of the internet, amounts to less than the amount needed to roll a single joint. I don't use marijuana so I can't verify that, but a gram is not very heavy on my reloading scale, so this seems reasonable to me.

2. If everything else you say in you post is true, I want to work for your department. I highly doubt it, though, because I've watched cops protect other cops, most of them are in unions, and because you started by saying that SWAT is only used for dangerous warrant service and then went on to say that you've never seen them used for a misdemeanor service. Considering that all felonies are not violent, and very very few warrant that sort of violent response, I still remain unconvinced that your department is doing anything but wasting our tax dollars on heavily armed and equipped teams so that your officers can, as you call it, "play army."

With that said, I'd probably take a job on your department if I could be assured that I'd never have to bust someone for drugs and everything you say is true. Somehow I highly doubt there is a constitution-loving, careful, respectful police department, but if there is such a thing, I wouldn't mind working there. Freedoms need protecting on both sides.

I doubt it exists, though. Probably just a more subtle form of "Us vs. them" exists on your department.

 

[IndyMonkey]

Yes.

So you know that a great job pays 20.00US a day,(if you can even find a job) and the crime rate is rediclous?

If you know that, why are you asking why mexicans smuggle drugs into the US?

 

[MinuteMan47]

For those of you who have been labeling as "druggies"...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._and_gun_rights_activists_are_terrorists.html

Now YOU are a TERRORIST.

 

[jeremy]

For those of you who have been labeling as "druggies"...

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo..._and_gun_rights_activists_are_terrorists.html

Now YOU are a TERRORIST.

LOL...

I am already considered a Terrorist for the training and schools that my Country sent me to...

 

[MinuteMan47]

Why is it that cartels and gangs are the only ones going after this $321B market?

So, you're telling me, that because cookies and brownies are legal, that a company found a way to mass produce, package, distribute, and retail the product to the market? Interesting... Do you find that more people bake their own cookies and brownies, or do they more often buy the pre-packaged ones? Is there any kind of black market for cookies and brownies?

Lost me on that one...

 

[ATOMonkey]

So you know that a great job pays 20.00US a day,(if you can even find a job) and the crime rate is rediclous?

If you know that, why are you asking why mexicans smuggle drugs into the US?

Socratic method.

They smuggle drugs into the US because there is a market for it and relatively little competition and low barriers to entry.

Why is that?

Because Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Phillip Morris, et al aren't in the market.

Why is that?

Because it's illegal to do so.

Logically, if drugs were legal and were manufactured legally, there would more competition for the evil-doers, and greater barriers to entry in the market, as the evil-doers would have to provide a high quality product at a low price at a retail outlet. Since they could not compete, or at least take a significant loss in revenue, they would have less money with which to do evil, leading to less evil being done.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Lost me on that one...

Just trying to draw connections to how gang revenue would dry up if we legalized drugs.

Gangs don't sell cookies and brownies, because there's no room for them in the market. They would be competing with Dolly Madison, Hostess, Crispy Cream, etc etc.

Gangs sell drugs, because there's no one to compete with, other than rival gangs, and rather than improving the product or lowering the price, they shoot the competition.

Same reason bootlegging and all the crime associated with it pretty much so dried up, because Miller, Coors, Busch, Heaven Hill, Jim Beam, etc. started producing and selling a reputable product that could be bought at retail outlets.

 

[MinuteMan47]

Just trying to draw connections to how gang revenue would dry up if we legalized drugs.

Gangs don't sell cookies and brownies, because there's room for them in the market. They would be competing with Dolly Madison, Hostess, Crispy Cream, etc etc.

Gangs sell drugs, because there's no one to compete with, other than rival gangs, and rather than improving the product or lowering the price, they shoot the competition.

Same reason bootlegging and all the crime associated with it pretty much so dried up.

Gotcha... Sorry, must be all the pot from my college days.

 

[ATOMonkey]

No problem. Luckily, beer and booze only kills the slow brain cells. Drinking made me much more smarter.

 

[jeremy]

No problem. Luckily, beer and booze only kills the slow brain cells. Drinking made me much more smarter.

LOL
Right Cliff!

 

[Phil502]

I have two comments about this:

1. This guy was not a drug dealer. He had less than a gram of marijuana, which from my search of the internet, amounts to less than the amount needed to roll a single joint. I don't use marijuana so I can't verify that, but a gram is not very heavy on my reloading scale, so this seems reasonable to me.

2. If everything else you say in you post is true, I want to work for your department. I highly doubt it, though, because I've watched cops protect other cops, most of them are in unions, and because you started by saying that SWAT is only used for dangerous warrant service and then went on to say that you've never seen them used for a misdemeanor service. Considering that all felonies are not violent, and very very few warrant that sort of violent response, I still remain unconvinced that your department is doing anything but wasting our tax dollars on heavily armed and equipped teams so that your officers can, as you call it, "play army."

With that said, I'd probably take a job on your department if I could be assured that I'd never have to bust someone for drugs and everything you say is true. Somehow I highly doubt there is a constitution-loving, careful, respectful police department, but if there is such a thing, I wouldn't mind working there. Freedoms need protecting on both sides.

I doubt it exists, though. Probably just a more subtle form of "Us vs. them" exists on your department.

How do you know he was not a drug dealer that was out of product by the time the cops busted in his door?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Let us suppose for a moment that some Congress and President suddenly decide to abolish the laws criminalizing possession and sales of controlled substances and alcohol and tobacco. Aside from a gradual reduction in the amount of drug cartel activity, can anyone hazard an _educated_ guess as to the outcome? Would anyone care to research and report on the _current _ numbers of lives being lost due to driving while impaired and correlate and extrapolate the likely trends if _more_ body-chemistry-altering substances become more widely available?

Keep in mind, I'm the guy who is in favor of airlines personnel handing a loaded revolver to each passenger boarding a commercial aircraft, so I'm not opposed - in principle - to "legalizing" everything; I'm just skeptical that very many lives would be saved, even in the long run, given our current societal mores.

For instance, how do you reconcile a "just say no" anti-drug campaign aimed at children, with open use of, and ready access to, an addicting substance. It's easy to allow that adults are responsible for their behavior, but while a single drink of beer or a single cigarette may be "addicting" to a vanishingly small minority of people, some drugs are addictive from the first use. Do we just declare experimenting kids "casualties of freedom"?

 

[serpicostraight]

Let us suppose for a moment that some Congress and President suddenly decide to abolish the laws criminalizing possession and sales of controlled substances and alcohol and tobacco. Aside from a gradual reduction in the amount of drug cartel activity, can anyone hazard an _educated_ guess as to the outcome? Would anyone care to research and report on the _current _ numbers of lives being lost due to driving while impaired and correlate and extrapolate the likely trends if _more_ body-chemistry-altering substances become more widely available?

Keep in mind, I'm the guy who is in favor of airlines personnel handing a loaded revolver to each passenger boarding a commercial aircraft, so I'm not opposed - in principle - to "legalizing" everything; I'm just skeptical that very many lives would be saved, even in the long run, given our current societal mores.

For instance, how do you reconcile a "just say no" anti-drug campaign aimed at children, with open use of, and ready access to, an addicting substance. It's easy to allow that adults are responsible for their behavior, but while a single drink of beer or a single cigarette may be "addicting" to a vanishingly small minority of people, some drugs are addictive from the first use. Do we just declare experimenting kids "casualties of freedom"?

i always hear people saying drugs leads to violence crime etc but i spent 8 years in europe and many weekends in amsterdam where drugs are legal and i never seen any of the mayhem alot of people associate with drugs.

 

[ATOMonkey]

Oh it's easy to reconcile "Just say no" with it being legal.

We do it with alcohol and smoking already.

Also, part of the "just say no" thing was to educate kids on the effects of drugs, how addictive they are, and the consequences to using them. No reason to stop educating kids.

You could make meth legal and sold at the wal-mart checkout tomorrow and I still won't try it. I've seen what happens to meth users and it's baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaad. No thankyou.

Also, we have some data as to the effect of legal drugs on society, as they've only been illegal for a relatively short while.

Most people don't show up to work drunk or high because they're afraid of losing their job. Just because drugs are suddenly legal doesn't mean you can show up to work all cracked out and expect to keep your job. That's enough of a reason to scare off most people.

Once you see a person stoned out of their mind, falling down drunk, or so high they can't sit still, those are also good deterrants, or at least a good example for moderation.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

i always hear people saying drugs leads to violence crime etc but i spent 8 years in europe and many weekends in amsterdam where drugs are legal and i never seen any of the mayhem alot of people associate with drugs.

That's their society, not ours. I'm talking about the foreseeable consequences to our society, if any. Just because you didn't see any violence or mayhem associated with legal drug use doesn't mean there are no negative consequences. Possible negative consequences aside, isn't The Netherlands, like most of the rest of Europe, a largely socialist society? That mindset doesn't seem compatible with the types of freedoms many of us are advocating in this forum.