Look at this picture. It's totally clear to me as to why they felt the SWAT team was necessary. Are those gang colors in his tie? /sarcasm
Posted on 07/31/2008 11:19:39 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
A police SWAT team raided the home of the mayor in the Prince George's County town of Berwyn Heights on Tuesday, shooting and killing his two dogs, after he brought in a 32-pound package of marijuana that had been delivered to his doorstep, police said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
and i also said that in certain circumstances, guns and drugs are looked upon in a similar vein in the eyes of the law.
you want the cops here to be fools. people like you relish this type of story. you swallow the media's potrayal of cops hook line and sinker. and then you impress your friends at parties by using cops as the punch lines of all these stories you find oh so funny.
as to your other silly post, the package was addressed to his wife who seems to have a different last name as her mayoral husband.
and he's a part-time mayor. the cops were under no obligation to "investigate" just who lived there. but they might have. no one knows.
So you admit, cops don't have to investigate anymore. Thanks for the confirmation.
“I wouldn’t want them using MJ on the job any more than anti-depressants, cold medicine, or alcohol either.”
“What they do off the job is none of my, or your, concern”
That is a ignorant statement. Are you saying that smoking something (marijuana, crack, etc) in your off-time only affects your performance, your mind in your off-time? That makes no sense and is totally ignorant.
So by your reasoning it would be perfectly fine for a surgeon to smoke marijuana nonstop while he’s off duty because that’s HIS time and it would have no bearing on his ability to do his job while he is on duty because it would obviously not affect him because he’s not smoking in the operating room.
Seriously? That’s your stance?
lol.
I believe people tell him this
If "don't engage. avoid eye contact. back a way slowly" doesn't work
I’m sure his stance is that he wants people to do their job sober.
Alcohol is perfectly legal, yet I would hardly want a surgeon to have a few shots before working on me, or anyone else. Why is it with booze surgeons are apparently able to make rational decision on its use?
If a surgeon were to smoke all the time but was capable and sober on his job I wouldn’t care.
“Alcohol is perfectly legal..................If a surgeon (policeman, firefighter, etc) were to smoke all the time but was capable and sober on his job I wouldn’t care.”
THAT is the usual destination that the “Weed is a harmless drug” takes us. Yet it is still an ignorant statement. Why? “Alcohol is perfectly legal...” Um, yah and let me know when alcohol doesn’t kill people. Because ALCOHOL DOES KILL PEOPLE. It continues to kill people because it is legal and has no stigma attached to it. It kills because it medically impairs anyone’s judgement who imbibes it.
You say “I would hardly want a surgeon to have a few shots before working on me, or anyone else.”
Again, another ignorant statement. Let me know when there was never (surgeon, policeman, firefighter, etc) anyone who drank alcohol on duty and put people at risk because they do because it takes over their lives and impairs their judgement (no stigma).
“Why is it with booze surgeons are apparently able to make rational decision on its use?”
What? Since when did ANYONE say that ANYONE makes rational decisions while drinking alcohol? That statement made no sense (see above).
You can argue that Marijuana has no medical or societal effect on society but that argument has no merit and is devoid of common sense.
I have never made the argument that alcohol doesn't kill people, or the argument that pot is harmless. And alcohol kills people because it has a toxic level to it and addicts like to push the line until their livers can't handle it no more. It would kill people regardless of any social stigma or legality. I'm sure it killed people during prohibition. In fact, it probably killed more people then due to the lack of quality control it had during that time.
You say “I would hardly want a surgeon to have a few shots before working on me, or anyone else.” Again, another ignorant statement. Let me know when there was never (surgeon, policeman, firefighter, etc) anyone who drank alcohol on duty and put people at risk because they do because it takes over their lives and impairs their judgement (no stigma).
How the hell is "I would hardly want a surgeon to have a few shots before working on me" an ignorant statement? Maybe you want a drunk doctor to work on you, but I don't. And I'm sure there have been plenty people of every profession who have worked drunk. However, as a society we have decided that these risks are not outweighed by the negative consequences of prohibition and the individual liberties adults have. But for some reason that logic doesn't apply with weed, and I fail to see why not.
What? Since when did ANYONE say that ANYONE makes rational decisions while drinking alcohol? That statement made no sense (see above).
It makes no sense because apparently you are incapable of basic reading comprehension. I would wager the vast majority of doctors don't get intoxicated before the work, and a majority of them drink on occasion. Somehow, they are able to separate work time from their own time. Imagine that. You can argue that Marijuana has no medical or societal effect on society but that argument has no merit and is devoid of common sense.
The slain cop’s family damned well ought to be suing whoever order him out on this mission.
We've spent trillions in incarceration, education, and rehabilitation. Recidivism rates are astronomical and only rivaled by sex offenders. More laws only increase the profit margin for dealers and smugglers. The extra-cash invariably find the weak to temp in our law enforcement and governments which in turn compounds the problems inherent in such an unwinnable "war" on some drugs.
Let the self destructive kill themselves off. There is little you can do, even in a fully monitored police state, to stop it.
The heavy users won't stay in those critical position jobs for long, the casual user won't be treated to "mandatory sentencing" that puts a baby raper back on the streets, and we'll take trillions in profits out of the drug cartels hands.
Further, if "We the People" had our full RKBA back, those going "out of control" in public would be duly ventilated for their stupidity thereby removing themselves from the gene pool. Eventually, the genetic malfunction that results in addictive weaknesses will be weeded out of the population.
But no... you Nanny Staters have to force "compassion" for the druggies and the rest of us down you throats at the point of a government gun and at the expense of the protections embodied in the Bill of Rights.
It is YOU who are the "ignorant" one here.
My experience too. SWAT should be for violent crimes...hostage situations and such.
“Perhaps it was a setup.
I can only guess what will be ‘found’ in the package when it is unwrapped. ...back at the sation.”
How did they know what was in the package?
Did you really say that?
Two Labs. One while it was running away.
Gee, what a bunch of tough guys. I'm so impressed.
NOT.
i am sure they ran her name from the address on the package. but that would only show previous arrests/convictions. of which she had none i believe. it would reveal nothing about her job or her husband.
you don't really believe they should have known all of that before they hit the door, do you?
It’s not a kidnapped child or hostage situation or burglary. It was a box of plants shipped to them. Without getting into the dubious idea of prohibition to begin with, if there is clearly no threat to anybody’s life, limb or property why should the situation be escalated to the point of sending in a paramilitary unit into a private residence?
What if there were children inside? What if the homeowner thought he was being robbed and defended himself in the confusion? What if there were two sweet labs residing in the home? None of those very likely outcomes, nor the outcome that occured was anywhere near worth it.
I understand that if life is at risk then they have to do the best they can with the information they have. That was not the case here. In a case without any reasonable threat to life or property then, yes, of course they should investigate first. If this guy is some kind of big time drug dealer an actual investigation might have even netted them bigger fish anyway.
Just because they’re cops does not excuse this kind of behavior. And shooting a couple of black Labs is just pure evil. Especially the one dog that was running away from the cops. Sorry to those who think LEO’s are above the law, but this kind of BS is why we have a Second Amendment.
One of thse days we’re going to see a headline: “Eight SWAT team members killed by 65 year old ex-Navy SEAL” when they do one-too many of these silly damned ‘mistakes’ of theirs.
Look at this picture. It's totally clear to me as to why they felt the SWAT team was necessary. Are those gang colors in his tie? /sarcasm
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.