Posted on 04/05/2006 12:57:02 PM PDT by JTN
In the course of researching paramilitary drug raids, I’ve found some pretty disturbing stuff. There was a case where a SWAT officer stepped on a baby’s head while looking for drugs in a drop ceiling. There was one where an 11-year-old boy was shot at point-blank range. Police have broken down doors, screamed obscenities, and held innocent people at gunpoint only to discover that what they thought were marijuana plants were really sunflowers, hibiscus, ragweed, tomatoes, or elderberry bushes. (It’s happened with all five.)
Yet among hundreds of botched raids, the ones that get me most worked up are the ones where the SWAT officers shoot and kill the family dog.
I have two dogs, which may have something to do with it. But I’m not alone. A colleague tells me that when he and other libertarian commentators speak about the 1993 raid on the Branch Davidian compound in Waco many people tend to doubt the idea that the government was out of line when it invaded, demolished, and set fire to a home of peaceful and mostly innocent people. But when the speaker mentions that the government also slaughtered two dogs during the siege, eyes light up, the indifferent get angry, and skeptics come around. Puppycide, apparently, goes too far.
One of the most appalling cases occurred in Maricopa County, Arizona, the home of Joe Arpaio, self-proclaimed “toughest sheriff in America.” In 2004 one of Arpaio’s SWAT teams conducted a bumbling raid in a Phoenix suburb. Among other weapons, it used tear gas and an armored personnel carrier that later rolled down the street and smashed into a car. The operation ended with the targeted home in flames and exactly one suspect in custody—for outstanding traffic violations.
But for all that, the image that sticks in your head, as described by John Dougherty in the alternative weekly Phoenix New Times, is that of a puppy trying to escape the fire and a SWAT officer chasing him back into the burning building with puffs from a fire extinguisher. The dog burned to death.
In a massive 1998 raid at a San Francisco housing co-op, cops shot a family dog in front of its family, then dragged it outside and shot it again.
When police in Fremont, California, raided the home of medical marijuana patient Robert Filgo, they shot his pet Akita nine times. Filgo himself was never charged.
Last October police in Alabama raided a home on suspicion of marijuana possession, shot and killed both family dogs, then joked about the kill in front of the family. They seized eight grams of marijuana, equal in weight to a ketchup packet.
In January a cop en route to a drug raid in Tampa, Florida, took a short cut across a neighboring lawn and shot the neighbor’s two pooches on his way. And last May, an officer in Syracuse, New York, squeezed off several shots at a family dog during a drug raid, one of which ricocheted and struck a 13-year-old boy in the leg. The boy was handcuffed at gunpoint at the time.
There was a dog in the ragweed bust I mentioned, too. He got lucky: He was only kicked across the room.
I guess the P.R. lesson here for drug war opponents and civil libertarians is to emphasize the plight of the pooch. America’s law-and-order populace may not be ready to condemn the practice of busting up recreational pot smokers with ostentatiously armed paramilitary police squads, even when the SWAT team periodically breaks into the wrong house or accidentally shoots a kid. I mean, somebody was probably breaking the law, right?
But the dog? That loyal, slobbery, lovable, wide-eyed, fur-lined bag of unconditional love?
Dammit, he deserves better.
Radley Balko is a policy analyst with the Cato Institute.
Got it.
You seem to have decided to start working both sides of the debate, asking questions and then providing your own answers. Maybe this time it will turn out like you want it.
I asked questions, you gave answers (which I found illogical), and I restated them for clarification. I was working off you position that it "wasn't about 'Legalization'", but about putting things back where they belonged.
Apparently you think I misstated your position. Please amplify. I'll make them simple, so I don't get confused, please respond by number.
1. Are you for or against the legalization of drugs?
2. Is the problem, as it relates to the thread, that there is abuse or that the wrong government is involved in the abuse?
3. Do you believe the Federal government has the Constitutional power to regulate and/or prohibit the imports from abroad?
4. What if any authority do you believe the FBI should have?
Now if you can answer those, per the numbers, I won't have to restate things for you in order to grasp your positions.
As there was no possibility of due process or even an alleged crime, I'm pretty sure the correct term is "armed robbery".
Loaded question. If I say I'm for it, then you tell me I don't have anything to complain about. If I say I'm against it, I want to see babies hooked on crack.
2. Is the problem, as it relates to the thread, that there is abuse or that the wrong government is involved in the abuse?
Another loaded question. Whichever one I choose, you'll deride me for not caring about the other.
3. Do you believe the Federal government has the Constitutional power to regulate and/or prohibit the imports from abroad?
That one may be loaded too. Is this a choice between no power an all, and unlimited power for any reason (or none at all)?
4. What if any authority do you believe the FBI should have?
They should have the power to investigate federal crimes.
Got it. I'll work on getting the federal gov. out of classrooms and you can work on getting the to stop chasing drug runners.
That didn't look like a reply from someone interested in a serious, civil discussion. If I misunderstood, I apoligize.
Well, I don't see the hostility in my questions. As I said, your responses up to the point of that post, brought me to the conclusion of question #2 about your position. This didn't seem logical to me (thus the question mark), so I stated what I inferred was your position as clearly as I could, and asked if I was correct. Simply answering the question would clarify this issue.
In response to that question, I am concerned about the abuses, but wgt the federal government's involvement I think the first qustion to be addressed should be wheather they should be involved at all. As long as that's in question, wheather or not they're doing it right or not seems to be rather moot.
Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right?
The 14th makes clear that governments cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. - In other words, laws must be both written & enforced using Constitutional due process.
--- No reply. --
Now, I see SampleMan say:
Look friend, the only thing "loaded" about my questions is that they are clear, thus requiring clear answers.
I still have no freakin idea what your real positions are ---
I'm not trying to trick you, I'm trying to understand your position.
This is difficult as you back away from everything, ---
I see hypocrisy.
If you can't have a civil, honest discussion with me, where you address the challenges to your ideas, ---
Care to address my challenge to your ideas, sampleman?
The 14th Amendment does not make a case for the legalization of drugs. As for due process, there is a case that you can make concerning certain aspects of drug enforcement.
I am doin my best here to make heads or tales of the cryptic points being made, but no one appears likely to define a clear agenda any time soon.
Like I said, I'm closer than 95% of the population to you folks and you're shootin to kill. You have zero chance of persuading anyone of anything until you can get beyond your own indignation. If you can't, simply pick out a bar stool, sit down on it, and spend the rest of your life bitching.
Tell me again about the section of the Constitution that makes drug use a unenfringable right?
The 14th makes clear that governments cannot deprive people of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. - In other words, laws must be both written & enforced using Constitutional due process.
Justice Harlan on due process:
"-- The full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property; the freedom of speech, press, and religion; the right to keep and bear arms; the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . . "
Poe v. Ullman, supra, 367 U.S. at 543, 81 S.Ct., at 1777
Thus we see that prohibitory laws violate due process, since they declare you guilty by mere possession of the 'sinful/illegal' object.
The 14th Amendment does not make a case for the legalization of drugs.
Of course it doesn't. -- It makes clear that governments must use due process in the writing & enforcement of valid laws. Prohibitions on drugs violate due process, as per Harlan.
As for due process, there is a case that you can make concerning certain aspects of drug enforcement.
Yep, - a case you avoid in favor of prohibitory 'laws', - laws repugnant to our Constitutions principles.
I am doin my best here to make heads or tales of the cryptic points being made, but no one appears likely to define a clear agenda any time soon.
FR's clearly stated 'agenda' is constitutional restoration. -- What's yours?
Like I said, I'm closer than 95% of the population to you folks and you're shootin to kill. You have zero chance of persuading anyone of anything until you can get beyond your own indignation. If you can't, simply pick out a bar stool, sit down on it, and spend the rest of your life bitching.
Whatta bunch of bull. -- You are simply another prohibitionist, trying to get your own 'agenda' across by using subterfuge, as your initial question above proves.
I don't concur with your interpretation of the stated case.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
Arbitrary would be random and without reason. To say that the purposes for banning and regulating drugs is random and without reason is unfathomable. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it arbitrary.
Don't think you'll have much luck getting to a majority with your attitude either, so I'm not much worried about it. Assuming that taxation equates to a form of regulation, the outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion provides another lesson in how the framers read the Constitution on this subject.
I'm curious about how far you've thought this out though. Is regulating certain drugs such as antibiotics for the purpose of general public health OK, and if so why penicilin, but not crack? If not, do you find legitimacy in any regulations on water, food preparation, radio frequencies, etc.
Of course it doesn't. -- It makes clear that governments must use due process in the writing & enforcement of valid laws. Prohibitions on drugs violate due process, as per Harlan.
As for due process, there is a case that you can make concerning certain aspects of drug enforcement.
Yep, - a case you avoid in favor of prohibitory 'laws', - laws repugnant to our Constitutions principles.
Well, at least someone was finally clear about advocating the free use of drugs (I'm not saying you think being a crack head is good, so let's not get bogged down on that).
Straw argument. Drug use can be reasonably regulated by the States, without using prohibitions.
I don't concur with your interpretation of the stated case.
[Harlan on Due Process] "-- It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . .
Arbitrary would be random and without reason.
Word game again. -- Banning ~some~ drugs, and not alcohol is, for instance, "arbitrary".
To say that the purposes for banning and regulating drugs is random and without reason is unfathomable. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it arbitrary.
The war on ~some~ drugs is an arbitrary prohibition, unconstitutional as proved by the 18th Amendments necessity.
Don't think you'll have much luck getting to a majority with your attitude either, so I'm not much worried about it.
Your 'slip' shows. A "majority" does not rule in our Constitutional Republic.
Assuming that taxation equates to a form of regulation, the outcome of the Whiskey Rebellion provides another lesson in how the framers read the Constitution on this subject.
That specific whiskey tax was repealed, proving how the people behind the framers read the Constitution on this subject. -- And again, your support for it proves your agenda.
I'm curious about how far you've thought this out though. Is regulating certain drugs such as antibiotics for the purpose of general public health OK, and if so why penicilin, but not crack?
Get real. Reasonable regulations about drugs are Constitutional. Prohibitions are not.
If not, do you find legitimacy in any regulations on water, food preparation, radio frequencies, etc.
So much for your previous claim:
"-- I'm not trying to trick you, I'm trying to understand your position. If you can't have a civil, honest discussion with me, where you address the challenges to your ideas, ---"
I see hypocrisy.
Care to address my challenge to your ideas, sampleman?
Even though this question was not directed at me, I'd like to answer it. I think that the case for regulating antibiotics is much stronger than the case for regulating recreational drugs, as there is a legitimate public health concern in the overuse of antibiotics; specifically, the threat of drug-resistant diseases. By restricting the use of these drugs, the government is protecting you from the threat of contracting a disease that cannot be treated due to another's misuse of them.
In the case of recreational drugs, all or nearly all of the harm associated with their use falls on the user, and usually even they are not hurt. Most of the justification given for regulating recreational drugs is that of protecting people from hurting themselves. I don't see that as a legitimate function of government.
Of course, I do believe that regulating recreational drugs by placing a minimum age on their use is legitimate. That is not what I mean by "regulate".
If regulating drugs for the purpose of general public health is OK, why not have Hillary Care, with the government being in firm control of any drugs you might take your entire life?
It would be a logical extension of the arguments they make that extend their control of interstate commerce to encompass the internal commerce of the states. The only way they can effectively regulate the drugs you take is to control all the means by which you might acquire them.
I'm able to make distinctions, that aren't all or nothing. Selling antibiotics over the counter, would result in their becoming totalling useless within 10 years. Your all or nothing approach applies to everything. e.g. If speed limits are OK, then why not have Hillary ride in your right seat with a cattle prod to enforce it and make them all 5mph? I have no problem making logical distinctions.
It would be a logical extension of the arguments they make that extend their control of interstate commerce to encompass the internal commerce of the states. The only way they can effectively regulate the drugs you take is to control all the means by which you might acquire them.
I don't concur that it would be a logical extension. Fathomable, but not logical.
This perhaps defines our differences the best. I don't see any problem here. Banning cocaine, but not coffee is no more arbitrary than making 30mph legal in a residential area, but 100mph illegal. Your argument that it must be all or nothing simply doesn't apply to life in general or the Constitution (try screaming FIRE in a theater). Its unfortunate that you can't get past using personal insults to discuss this.
Neither do I, but I'm nonetheless asked to choose between being "for or against legalizing drugs", with no middle ground in sight.
I don't concur that it would be a logical extension. Fathomable, but not logical.
Do you consider the arguments that resulted in the creation of the "substantial effects doctrine" that gives the federal government authority over intrastate commerce to be a logical extension of the interstate commerce clause?
Arbitrary would be random and without reason.
You're playing word games again. -- Banning ~some~ drugs, and not alcohol is, for instance, "arbitrary".
To say that the purposes for banning and regulating drugs is random and without reason is unfathomable. Just because you don't agree with something doesn't make it arbitrary.
The entire war on ~some~ drugs is an arbitrary prohibition, unconstitutional as proved by the 18th Amendments necessity.
This perhaps defines our differences the best. I don't see any problem here. Banning cocaine, but not coffee is no more arbitrary than making 30mph legal in a residential area, but 100mph illegal.
Yep, you see prohibitions on drugs/alcohol as no "problem", despite the obvious unconstitutional violations of due process in making & enforcing such 'laws'.
Your argument that it must be all or nothing ---
Silly 'straw' claim. I say drugs/alcohol can be reasonably regulated. - You are lamely insisting I argue otherwise.
--- simply doesn't apply to life in general or the Constitution (try screaming FIRE in a theater).
Reasonable regs prevent us from "screaming" in a theater, as you well know. -- You've built another 'straw man', -- do you have any other type of rebuttal?
Its unfortunate that you can't get past using personal insults to discuss this.
Its unfortunate that you can't get past using straw men ploys & imagining that I'm using personal insults to discuss this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.