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.
No more arbitrary than picking a speed limit, or a legal age for consumption or driving.
"-- Its unfortunate that you can't get past using personal insults to discuss this. --"
As I noted earlier, you're a hypocrite by your own words.
Although I think there are Constitutional problems with the War on Drugs (my views can be pretty much summed up by Clarence Thomas' dissent in the Raich case), that is not the point I am trying to make.
When I say that I don't think protecting people from themselves is a legitimate function of government, I meant that I think that such laws are immoral. I think it's wrong to point a gun at the head of someone who is hurting no one but himself and say "Thou shalt not" because we think it's bad for him. In the words of C.S. Lewis "No sin, simply as such, should be made a crime. Who the deuce are our rulers to enforce their opinions about sin on us? - a lot of professional politicians, often venal time-serveres, whose opinion on a moral problem in one's life we shd attach very little value to."
In a practical sense, there is also a problem. I would want very high taxes on cocaine to cover its impact on social services. The drug companies would demand as much oversight of cocaine manufacture as you have in Aspirin. Trial lawyers would demand an incorporated producer. The end result would be that "recreational drugs" would still be expensive. Not at all likely to solve the associated crime.
Aspirin is pretty cheap, and I see no reason to believe that recreational drugs would not be cheaper if they were legal. Sure, there would be oversight, and regulatory costs, but I don't know why recreational drugs would be much more expensive than most over the counter drugs. Or tobacco or alcohol for that matter.
I'm personally and religiously not ready to take a "thin the herd" approach.
That's not a position that I take either. I'm a bit sickened by some of the comments I see on these boards that run along the line of "Just legalize it all and watch the losers kill themselves. That'll solve the problem!" Rather, in addition to my position that prohibition is immoral, I believe that drug prohibition is much more damaging than the actual drugs. I already discussed some of the statistical evidence on prohibition and the homicide rate, but there is another reason I think prohibition is wrong - it's bad for the people who still end up using. Users end up using drugs that are of questionable purity, may be less likely to seek treatment (for emergencies or dependency), and may have to deal with thugs to get drugs.
On top of all this is the threat of arrest. The vast majority of drug users use a few times, quit and that's the end of it. No addiction and no ill effects at all. But what if these people, who would otherwise be fine, are arrested and prosecuted? Now they have criminal records and a tougher time getting a decent job. Some of them are pretty promising people whose lives are ruined, not by drugs, but by bad public policy.
All in all, I very much appreciate your candor, and I hope you now trust that I too am trying to be very honest and get to the heart of the issue and to the key areas where we likely disagree.
Thank you. I admit that I didn't have high hopes when I saw your first comment on this thread, but yes, I see that you are interested in discussing this intelligently, which is a real rarity around here. Take care.
I find it comforting that the only justifications trotted out for banning some drugs but not others arrives in the form of easily refuted analogies.
Why is the speed limit 30mph in some places and 100mph in others? Because of the risk one poses to others depending on the road conditions.
Why is alcohol legal but marijuana and cocaine are illegal? It's certainly not because of any risk to others. And it is certainly not in proportion to the magnitude of harm to the self. Are you in favor of seat belt laws?
I can predict that your response will refer to some sort of correlation between illegal drugs and violent and/or economic crime (i.e., real crime). Besides reminding you that using the fruits of prohibition to justify continued prohibition is a circular argument, I might also remind you that the American tradition is not to punish people based on crimes that they might commit. If a junkie or crackhead robs or steals, punish them for robbing and/or stealing.
There is no need to make being a junkie or crackhead a crime in and of itself. And there is certainly no need to criminalize responsible marijuana smokers, as there was never a need to criminalize responsible alcohol drinkers, based on the presumption that some people might act irresponsibly while using those substances.
Have you ever noticed that we didn't have a drug problem before the War on Drugs? It might have something to do with market forces pushing the supply towards extremely potent products that are more easily concealed and have a higher profit density.
Nixon, the mastermind of the WoD, was an advocate of methadone treatment for heroin addicts. Even he recognized that opiate dependency, once entered, was far more effectively treated as a medical issue than as a criminal justice issue.
Marijuana was very nearly decriminalized at the federal level in the late 70's (until Stroup screwed up on a personal level). We have not learned anything new about marijuana in the past thirty years, yet policy has shifted from tolerance to crusade. Why is that? Is there any rational basis for it?
I think the answer has something to do with people that hate freedom. Many people do, but they won't admit it to themselves. They truly believe they are serving the interests of freedom by locking adults in cages, for nothing more than choosing to ingest the incorrect plant or chemical compound. The rationale is that, after all, drugs steal your mind and enslave it, so we are serving freedom by caging you and presumably preventing access to your plant or chemical of choice, freeing you from your TRUE captor. (In effect, this has a dubious level of success.)
Let's see, which situation do I enjoy more freedom in? One in which I have entered into a pitiful condition by willfully ingesting a dependency-forming substance; or in a socially funded jail cell or mandatory treatment, with my possessions and bank accounts stolen, my student aid revoked, my housing rescinded, my children removed, and with a permanent criminal record, on an offenders list, and perhaps no right to vote to change the injustice I've received?
To address the inevitable personal attacks, I make no secret of the fact that I imbibe in certain substances for recreational, medical and/or spiritual reasons. There is no reason to mention which substances, because there is no moral distinction between them, only artificial distinctions based on a superficial technical understanding of each and a heavy helping of general paranoia - and indignation toward anyone who would be so audacious as to temporarily alter their experience of life, and value this experience enough to place it above obeying the laws of man.
Life's short. Face it - ruining others' lives because they choose to experience it in a different fashion than you is indefensible. When someone has threatened or harmed you, they have wronged you. When you feel that someone *may* threaten or harm you based on nothing more than the way they conduct themselves, that is called paranoia. Seek help.
Or better yet, educate yourself. Sometimes the only way to understand your fellow man is to walk a mile in his shoes. But only do this if you are prepared for the revelation that you will receive. It may be staggering in its profundity, or it may be staggering in its triviality. To make this suggestion requires some amount of chutzpah, but think about it; a bunch of virgins regulating sex would be the height of absurdity, but we think nothing of taking this absurd approach when it comes to defining drug policy.
Isn't that odd?
Which part did you find to be a personal insult? I'm often closer to the mark than even I know.
You seem to not understand the meaning of the word hypocrite. A peaceful man is not a hypocrite for returning fire.
Which part did you find to be a personal insult?
Accusing me of being paranoid in your last post [202].
-- Which part of my post did you find to be a "personal insult" when you initiated that charge?
You seem to not understand the meaning of the word hypocrite. A peaceful man is not a hypocrite for returning fire.
Your post at #185 was not made by a "peaceful man". You were not returning anyones 'fire' at that point.
-- Admit it; -- you initiated hypocrisy here, -- at 185, and were called on it.
Well said runderwo.
Both of Samplemans replies serve to prove your bold point about paranoia..
You again appear to be having problems with word definitions. Paranoia isn't a synonym of fear. It certainly isn't a synonym for prudence. You are arguing that a person who avoids a rabid pit bull is paranoid, because he hasn't actually been bitten. You are really starting to crack me up (no pun intended).
Whatchya got beyond "hypocrisy" and "Paranoia"? With enough time I might be able to correct all of your vocabulary problems.
As I was cranky last night (post surgery) I went back and read my #185 to tacticalogic. Not finding anything, I read it again. Still nothing. In fact tacticalogic and I built on these posts and had a rather good discussion. Not trying to be cute, but are you sure my post 185 is what you are talking about concerning hypocrisy? Indeed, you may want to read all my posts, and select out where I've been a hypocrite. If I've opened fire on someone without provocation, I want to apologize. The only one I can think of would be if someone found no humor in my opening post. But let's be clear, disagreeing with you doesn't de facto make someone a hypocrite or a paranoid, and drawing lines of differing severity isn't arbitrary.
I tell you what. You write me off as a nitwit. I can live with that. And
I'll write you off as someone incapable of seeing beyond their own paranoia.
I've got you sized up, categorized, and filed. So have a happy life on your barstool, or bong if you so prefer.
-202-
Rundero to S-man on paranoia:
When you feel that someone *may* threaten or harm you based on nothing more than the way they conduct themselves, that is called paranoia.
Seek help.
Well said runderwo.
Both of Samplemans replies serve to prove your bold point about paranoia..
S-man:
You again appear to be having problems with word definitions.
It only appears that way to you, S-man. Both of us can see your paranoia in your insistence that others are so afflicted.
Paranoia isn't a synonym of fear. It certainly isn't a synonym for prudence. You are arguing that a person who avoids a rabid pit bull is paranoid, because he hasn't actually been bitten.
Reasonable men write reasonable laws regulating pit bulls. - Paranoids insist that we prohibit pit bulls from the USA.
You are really starting to crack me up (no pun intended).
The jokes on you kid, with your pit bull 'reasoning'.
Whatchya got beyond "hypocrisy" and "Paranoia"? With enough time I might be able to correct all of your vocabulary problems.
Whatever. Feel free to play your word games.
Anyone can read your hypocrisy, -- evident at #185, -- and my reply to that hypocrisy at #189.
Hmmm... Well, I guess I'm satisfied that everyone can read the posts and come to their own conclusions, but I'm a little more than 100% certain that you are the only one obsessing (notice correct use of fifty cent word) about it, so perhaps the best response is, "Whatever, dude."
May I suggest that if you want to win more converts to your theories, you should also take a public stand apposing laws against beastiality, incest, polygamy, religious human sacrifice (voluntary of course), etc. These are definately the issues that will help get the public on your side. Good luck with that.
Paranoia isn't a synonym of fear. It certainly isn't a synonym for prudence. You are arguing that a person who avoids a rabid pit bull is paranoid, because he hasn't actually been bitten.
Reasonable men write reasonable laws regulating pit bulls. - Paranoids insist that we prohibit pit bulls from the USA.
You are really starting to crack me up (no pun intended).
The jokes on you kid, with your pit bull 'reasoning'.
May I suggest that if you want to win more converts to your theories, you should also take a public stand apposing laws against beastiality, incest, polygamy, religious human sacrifice (voluntary of course), etc.
May I suggest that if you want to promote paranoid prohibitions about bestiality, incest, polygamy, religious human sacrifice (voluntary of course), etc... -- That you review our Constitutions 14th Amendment first?
You will find that both writing & enforcing such prohibitive 'law' violates due process, as prohibitions are repugnant to our basic Constitutional principles protecting life, liberty, or property.
Now I didn't mention regulating pit bulls. Interesting that you would go there. I illustrated the difference between reasonable fear and paranoia.
As you are dying for me to make a regulation analogy, I'll do it. I do not require proof of your particular dog biting to pass a leash ordinance. At the same time I'm not going to apply the leash ordinance to all pets, such as parakeets and rabbits. Indeed, I would even allow a service dog on an airplane, while forcing your pit bull to ride in luggage. This isn't paranoid, hypocritical, or arbitrary. Its called a sense of proportionality based on likely outcomes.
The jokes on you kid, Thanks Dad, does that mean everyone has to stop snickering at you. Am I grounded? Do I still get the car next Saturday night?
May I suggest that if you want to promote paranoid prohibitions about bestiality, incest, polygamy, religious human sacrifice (voluntary of course), etc... -- That you review our Constitutions 14th Amendment first?
And I thought you might actually back away from one of those. My bet was on bestiality, but each to his own. I can hear those converts stampeding to you right now.
You will find that both writing & enforcing such prohibitive 'law' violates due process, as prohibitions are repugnant to our basic Constitutional principles protecting life, liberty, or property.
Nonsense. As good measure, I'll throw in a prohibition against 300 pound women wearing thong bikinis in public.
Despite the fact that your entire argument is "read the 14th Amendment" and your particulars are so weak that no majority has agreed with them in 220 years, I'm going to throw you a bone.
If someone wants to grow or manufacture their own mind numbing chemicals for their personal consumption and not distribute them, then I can't see a reason to regulate it. As with beer (200 gallons), a reasonable limit could be set for what constitutes personal consumption. This would not disallow the Baker Act concerning people who's mental acuity becomes a serious danger to themselves or others, based on actual events.
- I can only surmise that in your mind you've made a logical response to my last post.
Dream on. -- And get help with your cognitive problems.
You casting stones on "cognitive problems" is too rich. No thanks on the dream/brain enhancers, I'll just "say NO".
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.