She's symbolic of something, that's for sure.
Posted on 11/22/2006 7:35:17 AM PST by Dick Bachert
Now she's a symbolic victim. :-) Whoops, another morph.
Do you think that drug dealers will fold their tents and become upstanding citizens if drugs were legalized? There are always those who claim that most drug dealers are regular folks who just want to make enough to use a little of this or that and are "forced" into being criminals by our archaic drug laws.
Will all drugs be legalized for every age group? Why wouldn't the dealers simply target the still-illegal drugs for the still-underage customers, as many have stated they would do?
Perhaps the displaced drug dealers can open one of the revolving door treatment centers that will spring up, they are fairly lucrative and the customers usually return since the success rate is so low.
In the early 90's in my area, some of the drug profits dipped due to law enforcement crackdowns, so some of the gangs concentrated on robbing banks and stepped up their auto thefts and other property crimes to try and make up the difference. They recruited lots of underage kids to commit these crimes (less consequences, kept the older thugs out of jail). The drug problem is complicated and the criminal culture involved in it won't just go away due to legalization.
Probably an old cap and ball revolver. If it had been anything more modern than that the press would have blamed it on the gun.
This was a bad deal from the get go. An hours worth of real investigation would have shown their "annonymous informant" was full of sh*t. Too bad cops apparently don't do real police work any more.
"If drugs are legalized, doesn't that mean that they will be branded, marketed and sold? Will Merck come out with MadDash brand cocaine? Starball Express methamphetimine? How would the (now legal) user get his stash? If consumption were legal but distribution were illegal, you'd have essentially the situation we have now. If manufacture and distribution were legal too, then capitalist forces would end up promoting drug use. How do you resolve that one?"
If drugs are legalized they won't be sold for long. The addicts will soon lose any ability to make a living and so will again resort to theft for their habits.
Then the government will step in and "give" the addicts whatever drugs they demand. This has happened in Holland and Switzerland and is going to soon be done in the UK.
And the same people here who talk about how they are for less government will have brought about the government keeping God knows how many people addicted to drugs and otherwise cared for.
It's lunacy of the first order.
I'd like to nominate, posthumously of course, this 92 year old sharpshooter for the NRA Woman of the Year award. Door gets kicked in, and she gets off 3 shots and 3 hits. Outstanding. And I also like to nominate the 3 a$$hole cops for the Janet Reno/Waco Civil Rights Common Sense award. Don't show up at her door at 10:00 in the morning in broad daylight wearing uniforms, show up in the dark wearing plain clothes and kick in the door. Brilliant.
How do imbeciles rise to such lofty position of power and authority.
Check out http://www.cato.org/raidmap/ to see all of the stupidity on parade prizes that have happened. It would be funny if it wasn't deadly serious and kept the funeral homes busy.
I watched an episode of Dallas SWAT on A&E once and was shocked by the mentality of some of these jack booted thugs. I remember one of the only chicks on there describing what was going on in a certain episode as not being the "fun" part . I wished then for the ability to reach through the TV screen and slap her as hard as I possibly could.
She's symbolic of something, that's for sure.
Maybe a cold one? Some snacks?
We had a drug house next door to us in an upper middle class neighborhood in CA, that was owned by a little old lady, the grandmother of the drug dealer and his girl friend. They used to keep the drugs in a pipe in the front lawn, with a big guard dog chained right next to the pipe, so that anyone looking for the drugs wouldn't have enter the house. I guess maybe you'd prefer that in your neighborhood.
"I'd like to nominate, posthumously of course, this 92 year old sharpshooter for the NRA Woman of the Year award. Door gets kicked in, and she gets off 3 shots and 3 hits. Outstanding. And I also like to nominate the 3 a$$hole cops for the Janet Reno/Waco Civil Rights Common Sense award. Don't show up at her door at 10:00 in the morning in broad daylight wearing uniforms, show up in the dark wearing plain clothes and kick in the door. Brilliant."
Most reports have this kindly old lady shooting the police officers as they approached her house.
But don't let such details get in the way of your desire to suck your bong.
Imagine two heroin addicts with the same habit (use quantity). One is an ordinary Joe, the other a famous actor. As the cost of heroin goes up, due to greater enforcement (e.g. tax dollars spent), the two junkies spend more. More enforcement, greater risk/liability of the dealer, higher premium on the product.
Now, the cost has crossed the point where the "ordinary" Joe (minus that heroin addiction, of course) can no longer afford it, and probably doesn't really get it from a consistent source anyway. So, he ends up stealing a bit, trading for heroin. Maybe pawns some jewelry. Then, his habit gets worse, more expensive and he's getting to the point of robbing (the "ordinary Jane" might have been hooking by now). Now, you've got a junkie, who can't support a habit/addiction, trying to find money to pay inflated prices for unsafe/unregulated black market product, most likely helping spread HIV, HEP-C, etc.
The actor hasn't had any trouble with cost/product and hasn't resorted to crime to continue his habit. This hypothetical is really only on the consumer side anyway, nevermind what happens on the dealer/supply side where the serious violence occurrs over mega-bucks. These billions of dollars are partly to blame for our illegal immigration problem, considering who is in control of the money and the corruption that follows.
Drugs don't do anything for me there buddy, suck on your own bong. I am however a huge fan of the Bill of Rights. The 4th amendment more precisely.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Sounds appropriate.
According to a report on Instapundit.com, the officers were being fired at AS THEY APPROACHED THE HOUSE, rather than after having busted the door in.
Which kinda makes sense: you gonna tell me a 92-yr old woman squeezed off 3 shots and got three hits on targets less than 10 feet away, and who were somehow unable to overpower her?
"Regarding people resorting to prostitution/theft/other crime to support their habits, don't you think this would be greatly reduced if they didn't have to pay inflated black-market prices? The incentive for dealers is money. Why buy a product on the street when it can be purchased in a store (generally speaking)? If it's at a huge discount, fantastic! Let these drug-addled bums buy if for pennies on the dollar so they don't break into my house and get shot trying to steal my possessions! Better yet, they don't stab me or kill someone I care about trying to get the money to pay for another day. Have them go to a drug store (not a general type store) where there are armed guards all over the place!"
How much money can a crack addict or a heroin addict make?
The answer is none. They can't hold jobs. So no matter how cheap legalized drugs become, they will still be too expensive for those who are addicted to them.
So you will either have more crime (because of increased addiction) or you will have the gubmint giving out heroin like candy to anyone who wants it. (Which is happening in Europe.)
All the libertarians who claim to be for smaller government should love paying for drugs for addicts -- plus their upkeep for the rest of their lives.
Good thinking there! George Soros is very proud of you!
Oh, I just assumed you were stoned since you are ignoring the apparent fact that these officers were shot at as they ***approached the house.***
I missed that right in the Fourth Amendment.
The lamebrain media is portraying this as a legitimate drug raid and legitimate killing.
In reality, it's a murder of the innocent homeowner protecting her life and property from an unknown armed intruder.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
You also missed the fact that they had a valid search warrant.
I think you are saying the drug dealers might be bribing the officials, that may be true. I know for a fact though that the police lobby like crazy for the war on drugs and they especially like the forfeiture laws. The war on drugs is great job security and increased funding for the police, courts and prisons. It's a win win situation for the police, drug dealers and politicians.
We the people are the losers.
Man, all the Soros stooges are showing up.
You can buy a lot of internet outrage for $50 million dollars.
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.