war on drugs kills again

[phylodog]

I understand that you take the perspective that the police are always right. Please explain how you justify your position?

It's easy to justify my position. I've been doing this for 13+ years and I've never been wrong (not in the context of this topic/discussion). It's difficult to explain my point of view because I actually have years of experience in this sort of thing as opposed to many here who gain their perspective and form opinions based on whatever media garbage they can dig up on the Internet.

I still find it humorous that any news story painting LE in a negative light is good as gospel and representative of the hundreds of thousands of police officers not involved in the story yet any news story which casts a negative spin on gun owners is a "hit piece" and obviously written with an agenda behind it.

God bless America where we have the right to be as blissfully ignorant and hypocritical as we want.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's easy to justify my position. I've been doing this for 13+ years and I've never been wrong (not in the context of this topic/discussion). It's difficult to explain my point of view because I actually have years of experience in this sort of thing as opposed to many here who gain their perspective and form opinions based on whatever media garbage they can dig up on the Internet.

I still find it humorous that any news story painting LE in a negative light is good as gospel and representative of the hundreds of thousands of police officers not involved in the story yet any news story which casts a negative spin on gun owners is a "hit piece" and obviously written with an agenda behind it.

God bless America where we have the right to be as blissfully ignorant and hypocritical as we want.

I choose to believe that you are knowledgeable and conscientious in your work with the understanding that this is not universally true. In the event of an unpleasant event, I anticipate a 25% chance of dealing with someone of similar attributes. I would also say that in the event a person is engaged in activity that would justify police action, he should know it, and also that events like the old woman gunned down by a SWAT team after an informant (falsely) informed regarding her address in the effort to feed the police their weekly ration of expected information are the exception. That said, I know full well that if someone comes crashing in on me, they shouldn't be. Of course, the guilty still have the potential for the 'visit' to be from other criminals and not the police.

On a happier note, I will say that I have been privileged to have encountered some fine police. I am particularly impressed with those in Plainfield. I have lived in other places in which if I had police coming in one door and criminals in the other I would feel surrounded by hostiles, in some cases of the very same nature. On a different tangent, it has been said 'in for a penny, in for a pound'. Why should I believe that the police who will lie to invent 'probable cause' over a traffic violation would limit themselves to that? Why not in securing a warrant? Or secure the warrant for the wrong location based on faulty information which was not adequately verified? I find it particularly difficult to deal with having (like most) been conditioned from childhood to consider police to be on the side of truth, justice, and the American way and still having to deal with results largely to the contrary, which also brings in the dangers of generalizations, although I will generalize concerning invaders.

I generally do not take media reports at face value regardless of their similarity or dissimilarity with that which I am predisposed to think otherwise, and consider your point regarding the double standard concerning the police to be valid. Original source material rather than commentary is the key. That said, I do not expect anyone else to accept my observations as gospel, but I most certainly do, and they will be considered irrefutable evidence so far as I am concerned. I am also concerned that we are rapidly approaching the point at which individual liberty and Constitutional rights can no longer be said to exist, particularly as observed through the lens of William Pitt's statement that necessity is the plea of tyrants and the creed of slaves. I will grant that law enforcement would be much easier if individual liberties were established with boundaries more similar to those afforded incarcerated inmates than what we generally expect, but at that point, we definitely could no longer be said to live in a free society.

 

[jsharmon7]

My suggestion would be that if you are truly a law-abiding citizen then you do what you feel is best if a team of people come breaking into your house. Personally, I'm as concerned about the police falsely kicking in my door on a no-knock warrant as I am about aliens coming through my toilet. I'm not trying to be a smartass, just saying how I feel about the likelihood of such things. From what I've seen, I've got little chance of defending myself for very long anyway if a true SWAT team were to break into my home. I'm not a high speed, low drag operator though and I'm realistic about my abilities and limitations. If a group of home invaders throw a flashbang through my window, and then enter in formation through my smashed-in door with flashlights and rifles then I'm probably screwed anyway. I'll probably take my chances talking my way out of it before I'd try to outdraw a group of people with weapons already drawn and riot shields. I was always told that discretion is the better part of valor though.

 

[1911 DeadHead]

Flashbangs and such, I'd lay down, but if a couple of guys came in my door and just yelled "POLICE!", I wouldn't take their word for it.

 

[IndyDave1776]

As I see it, under most circumstances having any armed group invade is much like a woman being raped in an Islamic country. However it works out, you lose. Under those circumstances, I see no disincentive to go for broke.

 

[mrjarrell]

Case closed. The suspect in this case has apparently hanged himself in his cell. How convenient. Now there's only one side of this story that will ever be told.

Suspect in Killing of Officer Found Dead in Cell - ABC News

 

[phylodog]

How convenient.

How beautifully typical.

 

[rambone]

Its time for a ceasefire in the Drug War. How many more people need to die over vegetation? Is there a stupider reason on the planet to break into someone's home?

 

[rambone]

The very same department was responsible for this homicide only a couple months before the raid on Matthew Stewart.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WV6Bq8xeQrU

 

[Liberty1911]

Its time for a ceasefire in the Drug War. How many more people need to die over vegetation? Is there a stupider reason on the planet to break into someone's home?

So what is your solution to the perceived problem?

 

[HARVEYtheDAMNED]

Does anyone on here actually support the drug war? Why not prohibition then?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Case closed. The suspect in this case has apparently hanged himself in his cell. How convenient. Now there's only one side of this story that will ever be told.

Suspect in Killing of Officer Found Dead in Cell - ABC News

Sounds like a veiled accusation that the jailers killed him to shut him up.

 

[rambone]

So what is your solution to the perceived problem?

End prohibition.

 

[Liberty1911]

End prohibition.

How?

 

[rambone]

How?

Repeal every drug law. Abolish every drug agency.

 

[Liberty1911]

Repeal every drug law. Abolish every drug agency.

Ok, how? Vote for the "right people"? What's your plan of action to bring this about?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

Repeal every drug law. Abolish every drug agency.

I can understand repealing laws that criminalize marijuana, but what about the laws criminalizing meth, heroin, cocaine, etc? If the laws are repealed and there is an increase in overdoses and deaths from increased use, do the police and EMS still have to respond to try to save the user? If someone wants to use whatever drug they want without criminal penalty they should accept whatever physical penalty comes along, without outside intervention.

 

[Liberty1911]

I can understand repealing laws that criminalize marijuana, but what about the laws criminalizing meth, heroin, cocaine, etc? If the laws are repealed and there is an increase in overdoses and deaths from increased use, do the police and EMS still have to respond to try to save the user? If someone wants to use whatever drug they want without criminal penalty they should accept whatever physical penalty comes along, without outside intervention.

Yeah, good luck with that logic. Rambone wants ALL drugs legalized immediately. Personal responsibility is on the to-do list. If we all have to bear the welfare costs of drug abusers, well that's just the price of freedom.

 

[jbombelli]

Yeah, good luck with that logic. Rambone wants ALL drugs legalized immediately. Personal responsibility is on the to-do list. If we all have to bear the welfare costs of drug abusers, well that's just the price of freedom.

IF there was truly personal responsibility here, there wouldn't BE any welfare costs of drug abusers to bear. They'd be bearing their own costs.

 

[Liberty1911]

IF there was truly personal responsibility here, there wouldn't BE any welfare costs of drug abusers to bear. They'd be bearing their own costs.

True, and I wouldn't have a problem with legalization then either.

I was just pointing out Rambone and his supporters want all drugs legalized immediately without regard for the cost to society.