Posted on 05/08/2010 4:31:30 PM PDT by The Magical Mischief Tour
Andrew has already posted this, and I'm late to the game because I couldn't bring myself to watch it, but nonetheless, I feel compelled to remark. Yes, folks, this is your war on drugs:
VIDEO:
After he watched it, my more temperate better half was literally shaking with anger. My anger is mixed with a sort of bleak despair that this sort of thing could happen in America, and worse, that so few people care. You shoot two dogs in front of a seven year old--who could have been killed by a stray round, and at the very least will carry this hideous recollection to the grave. And why? For misdemeanor pot possession?
This response is nonsensical. It's like hearing that they came too late to catch the family bootlegging cable. Sure it's illegal, and maybe it's even wrong. But "dealer-sized" pot possession isn't necessarily related to actual drug dealings--I have several friends right now who probably qualify, and I'm pretty sure they aren't going to do anything that merits a SWAT intervention, because those sorts of things can get you drummed right out of your Tuesday-night book club, not to mention how they'd take it at the Rotary.
SNIP
This is our nation's drug enforcement in a nutshell. We started out by banning the things. And people kept taking them. So we made the punishments more draconian. But people kept selling them. So we pushed the markets deep into black market territory, and got the predictable violence . . . and then we upped our game, turning drug squads into quasi-paramilitary raiders. Somewhere along the way, we got so focused on enforcing the law that we lost sight of the purpose of the law, which is to make life in America better.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
See post 15.
Clueless idiot. It is a crime because a law was passed making it illegal.
You would think so but lately around here it's sometimes hard to tell.
I could have jumped down the posters throat....
We won’t be legalizing the drug underworld.
Instead we would be decriminalizing choices made by individuals where drug usage is involved—huge difference.
Worked out pretty well with the repeal of prohibition, when we decriminalized the individual choice to consume alcohol.
And, BTW, these tactics used by police are getting worse, not better, considering the perverse incentives they have with forfeiture laws, especially in a time of tight budgets.
Very true, but smuggling illegals is not a multi billion dollar a year venture.
Those cops could have nabbed the guy outside going to work in the morning or whenever he came out side, there was no reason to jeopardize the kid and woman in the house let alone shoot the family pets.....and let's not go into how many times they get the wrong house.
I'm sure the kid will grow up with a real positive outlook on cops when he grows up too.
Jeez, what was in that post to make you start name calling?
And child endangerment.
I'll tell you something that doesn't work with me, that is trying to confuse thousands of years of the white man's relationship with alcohol, and Western Civilization's alcohol culture and the odd prohibition decade in America, with importing the Arab culture of Hashish and dope, forever.
What about the elderly lady in Atlanta who was victim to the ‘no knock warrant’ based on the false information of a drug addict. She protected herself and got shot over and over and over for it.
Yeah, that procedure REALLY helped America be a better place. /s
People have used these narcotics as long as they have been on the face of the earth.
It’s only since prohibition that the harder drugs have become more prominent. Crack only came about as a cheaper substitute for regular cocaine—the economics of it is just part of human nature.
Have you ever considered that if marijuana were legal, many people would never even get into the harder drugs?
But it's still illegal to manufacture alcohol. Under Rottndog rule will it still be illegal to grow dope?
|
Each person is allowed a certain amount of wine and beer that they can make.
Arresting criminals isn't risky? It's not dangerous?
Well, great! We'll let them grow catnip too!
I know what you mean - my 1st check is the poster’s sign up date - newbie merits further investigation - 2 year’s plus - its probably a misunderstanding ...
If I’m really wondering, I check their “In Forum” - posts to get a feel for their basic philosophy - in this case I did neither - til now - he’s a newbie but has coherent thoughts, good background knowledge with sarcastic tendencies - which could describe a lot of us here ... ;-)
This was not poor planning. It was poor character. These cops are pure evil.
That was my point. The 5th column of Warriors on Drugs in our midst really makes it hard to call oneself a conservative. I am not sure which is worse, shooting a dog or doing it in front of a 7 year old. If I were on the jury I would give $20 M to the owner for the dogs, trebled for malice, and $20M to the kid for the trauma, trebled for malice. Oh, did I say that would be against each SWAT member present + the chief of police + the DA.
I hope I get on that jury.
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.