Posted on 01/04/2007 4:58:32 AM PST by grjr21
It also says drug smuggler to an airport screener, especially if it's in a suitcase, filled with a white powder (instead of sand or water), and there's three of them.
Unless you're saying she had three hands?
Assuming she keeps one, she only has two friends? Uh-huh.
You're hearing hoofbeats and you're trying to convince me that they could be zebras. I prefer the simpler explanation.
This woman was not trained or employed as an airport drug screener. It is not any more reasonable to expect her to know how drugs are smuggled than it is to expect the airport drug screeners to know the fine points of her comparative literature.
Yeah. Forcing.
Would you do what she did?
How many drug smugglers put drugs into condoms and then put them in a suitcase? Drug smugglers put drugs into condoms and then swallow them. They don't put them in their luggage. Sheesh.
The circumstance that "forced" the city to prosecute the woman in question was the city's use of an evidence lab that couldn't tell the difference between DEA Schedule I controlled substances and wheat flour. Of course, given the reputation the city of Philadelphia has for quality policing, such performance standards should probably be considered par for the course.
You should go to work for them, rp, and quit posting here. The average IQ of FreeRepublic and the city of Philadelphia would both increase.
The careless ones. The stupid ones. The arrogant ones. The forgetful ones. The ones who plant them in other people' luggage. The ones who think they're being clever.
Can you cite a sigle case of this ever happening - someone putting drugs into condoms and then attempting to smuggle the condoms in thier, or someone else's luggage?
I don't disagree. But what came before that was the "circumstance" of a dingbat attempting to "smuggle" three condoms filled with a white powder through an airport screener.
"You should go to work for them"
And you should go through airport security with a suitcase containing an innocent length of pipe, a battery, and some wires wrapped around them (to merely hold them together). You can explain they were for some friends.
While I'm in Phildelphia (raising their IQ), I'll visit you in prison -- you can tell me about how unfair life is.
First they came for the ignorant condom carriers, I remained silent; I was not....
She should have gotten more than the $180K. Another brilliant waste of resources fighting the failed and unwinnable war on some drugs.
In condoms? Not that I'm aware of, but I don't see why not. Maybe they have.
The Ignorant Condom Carriers would be a good name for a rock band.
Why are you assigning motive? She wasn't attempting to smuggle anything---she was attempting to travel with three condoms filled with flour in her suitcase. The evidence proves precisely that.
The real story, as you agree, is that the Philadelphia police cannot tell cocaine from flour, and cannot staff their department with personnel able to tell the difference without the use of technology. This whole issue could've been cleared up by one person on scene with enough experience to tell coke from flour on sight/smell/taste alone. At $180,000, the city got off lightly.
If you're in Philly and I'm in prison, we'll each have our own problems to deal with. =]
If you're a cop, you don't taste stuff you suspect could be drugs, and probably don't smell it either, no matter what they show on TV.
You just don't.
Is it possible for an experienced narcotics officer to tell coke from flour by sight?
If you don't see why "in a condom" vs in a toothpaste tube, footpower container, or anything else you would normally expect to see in luggage, and isn't transparent enough to see what's in it, then no amount of explaination is going to help.
I have no idea, really.
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.