So my neighboor just got raided by SRT

Illegal drugs, brig, it was't a drug store, anytime a child is endangered you should have more than you door kicked in

Why are you guys jumping to conclusions over what they busted the house for? You don't know if it was pot, or something else. Illegal is still illegal.

Is this a thread about the Government introducing crack cocaine to the U.S. citizens of Los Angeles..then telling the police to get on top of it?

Click to expand...

Yes, join in.

Probably an illegally run dog fighting ring. That's my guess.

...it's considered very bad form to insult your forum hosts and all the rest of the guests here until you've been around for at least three weeks...

Click to expand...

Oh, SNAP!

One of the other Neighbors has heard that Meth was being sold there.

Click to expand...

Meth = psychosis. Period. No exceptions.

perhaps he was posting in the how to hide your weapons thread

Did you see who was arrested, was it one of the kids? Could be
many reasons,but my guess would be someone made some kind of threat.

I like the JBT acronym the best.

Sans Authoritas said:

I don't care who took an oath to uphold what law. "Following orders" justifies nothing. If I took an oath to smoke crack every day, I would not be bound by it. No one is bound to uphold an immoral oath.

Click to expand...

You should care about the oaths, and about the law. It's what separates us from anarchy. If police or other government agencies and officials break the law they should be prosecuted just like anyone else. If you don't like a law you vote to change it.

If the government get so corrupt that it can't be saved then you overthrow it. That's how we got this country. However, as Thomas Jefferson wrote, that has to be the very last option, it must be used only after every other solution has been tried. It is NOT something to undertake lightly. The words "following orders" being spoken defensively implies a Nazi style problem. I'll agree that you should never have to follow illegal orders, but it sounds like the police in this case may have had just cause. Of course we don't know anything concrete yet, but if there was proof of a meth lab they are likely justified. If there was a pot garden in there they were likely justified. Whether anyone likes it or not pot is illegal, if enough people want it changed they may try to do so (don't count on my support, I'll be fighting you the whole way.) Since it's illegal there are people willing to profit off the misery of others and they don't care about who tries to stop them. I believe the police are justified in taking them down. There have been some hard take-downs up here of vast pot growing operations. If they'd have needed to borrow my guns to accomplish it I'd have gladly loaned them out.

RP88 said:

I'm sorry, but since when did pot ruin lives? I mean, of course an idiot can get baked out of his mind and try driving and hit someone, resulting in jail time. But since when did pot make you go cold to the world and rape and ruin the lives of others, sell all your stuff and make you end up homeless and broke, etc. etc. just so you can score a five-minute fix? Or better yet, when has pot really interfered with someone's ability to hold down life responsibility?

Click to expand...

Come on up to rural Alaska. It happens in my village all the time. I've never used weed, but I've never really hated it until I saw what it does to people. Harmless my butt.

CASE:
.........but I've never really hated it until I saw what it does to people. Harmless my butt.

POINT:

I seriously doubt they went kicking doors in over a little pot. Now maybe if the guy was dealing elbows of the stuff that would be different.

Pot ought to be legal, sold and taxed like alcohol.

The worst thing I have ever heard of someone high on pot do was eat an entire box of Cap'n Crunch.

Man, it made my stomach hurt for three days.

What's an "elbow of pot"? Never heard that before...

Anytime drugs are bieng dispensed regaurdless of type, where children are involved, the local athorities have an obligation to intervene, by whatever means necessary.

Click to expand...

Well, I have no idea why SWAT went into that residence. Don't think anyone else does either. I saw one post mentioning a "rumor," which, because it's a "rumor" should be summarily disregarded. And most of this thread has had very little to do with the OP, and less to do with firearms. But the quote above.... that... that kind of struck a nerve with me.

"For the chilluns" is the universal excuse to deny liberties these days. Especially the 2nd.

Study Documents How Shooting Ranges Poison Children; One of the Nation's Top Lead Polluters

Click to expand...

In 1996 there were 44 children and teens 19 years of age and younger shot and killed with firearms in Colorado: 16 in firearm homicides; 23 in firearm suicides; four in unintentional shootings; and one firearms death of unknown intent.3

Click to expand...

"We recoil at the blood of children shot down by firearms. But the gun industry sees children as the lifeblood of the firearms business," Diaz said.

Click to expand...

The above quotes are from VPC. This one's from Google:

Results 1 - 10 of about 278 from www.vpc.org for "children". (0.18 seconds)

Click to expand...

"For the chilluns" as a blanket excuse for trampling liberty is pure, crap.

Now, I'm not saying that liberties were trampled in this case. Can't. Apparently, NO ONE KNOWS anything about this case. So it's all just rumor, conjecture, and a bunch of people throwing unsolicited opinions on vaguely related matters into the wind.

And, I apologize, but the "for the chilluns" crap REALLY strikes a nerve with me.

could they have been after one of the kids? PC fraud? Violence? Auto?

So we established that it wasn't "for the children." Let us know if you find out the reason.

if the owner didn't get taken out its hard to call. having the wrong guests at the wrong time can get you raided. brings back memories of granma telling me be careful the company you keep. if you find out what really happened let us know it helps to quiet the annoying chgildren. hard facts kill their buzz.

For the sake of public safety, the routine use of Southern Refrigerated Transport, Inc. teams must be stopped. Enough is enough!

savetheclaypigeons, I seriously doubt that Flava Flav only smokes pot, that guy is on a lot harder **** than that. I agree that pot should be legalized and taxed. I heard (can't say for sure) that it is less harmfull then tobacco.

*sigh* What have you all done to my thread. *cries*

Click to expand...

It's SOP for the forum. Here are the steps:
1. Post a story with incomplete or "details to follow" info
2. People wildly theorize about what happened while waiting for more details.
3. Thread degrades into bouts of jack-booted-thuggery anger or takes off on random tangents, with the occasional post containing more speculation
4. Thread degrades further and the moderators lock it
5. Further information comes out, someone starts a new thread. Proceed to step 2 and repeat process.

It's SOP for the forum. Here are the steps:
1. Post a story with incomplete or "details to follow" info
2. People wildly theorize about what happened while waiting for more details.
3. Thread degrades into bouts of jack-booted-thuggery anger or takes off on random tangents, with the occasional post containing more speculation
4. Thread degrades further and the moderators lock it
5. Further information comes out, someone starts a new thread. Proceed to step 2 and repeat process.

Click to expand...

... ... I now have recursive deja vu. How is that possible?

Sans Authoritas' rantings:

I don't care who took an oath to uphold what law. "Following orders" justifies nothing. If I took an oath to smoke crack every day, I would not be bound by it. No one is bound to uphold an immoral oath.

I said nothing against the government or police. I spoke against criminals posing as government officials and policemen.

Click to expand...

And what does an oath mean to you? Are you saying that if we were to go into a fight and we swore an oath to cover each others back that I could not count on you to do as you swore? Is that the type of man you are?

And you talk about morals? What morals? You don't have any if you wouldn't live up to your oath!

And who made you judge as to whether these LEO were upholding an "immoral oath" or not? Did someone make you lord and master over all of us and forget to tell us?

If you are so dissatisfied with how things are done here, why don't you do something it other than just bitch and moan about what others are doing.

Better yet why don't you tell us a little about yourself and why you feel the police and government in particular is out to get you. Maybe this way we'll understand you a little better!

And yes, you are LEO bashing and do in nearly every thread you post in.

I apologize to the other posters. I'm sure you are tired of me going off on this subject, but as I have said in other posts, LEO bashing is unfair. But when they deserve it I will blast them and anybody else. But LEO, military, and gov. officials are human just like us all. Just because some are bad doesn't make them all bad!

I guess I should stay with the technical threads!

Sans Authoritas wrote:

I don't care who took an oath to uphold what law. "Following orders" justifies nothing. If I took an oath to smoke crack every day, I would not be bound by it. No one is bound to uphold an immoral oath.

I said nothing against the government or police. I spoke against criminals posing as government officials and policemen.

Click to expand...

Grizzly Adams wrote:

And what does an oath mean to you? Are you saying that if we were to go into a fight and we swore an oath to cover each others back that I could not count on you to do as you swore? Is that the type of man you are?

Click to expand...

I was speaking about an oath to uphold "laws" such as, "It is illegal to smuggle slaves to Canada on the Underground Railroad." Laws against certain material substances, including prohibitions against certain firearm configurations, fall into this category. Because something has been legislated against (or for) does not make the enforcement of such laws moral. Nor does such legislation necessarily morally bind anyone. Do you deny this fact?

Grizzly Adams wrote:

And you talk about morals? What morals? You don't have any if you wouldn't live up to your oath!

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have any morals if I, as an alleged peace officer, took an oath to do anything but protect the individual lives, liberty and property of individuals. I wouldn't have any morals if I arrested people for having a substance that is less dangerous than alcohol, or for having a firearm that didn't pass some politician's muster on "acceptable." I wouldn't have any morals if I upheld such "laws:" oath or no oath.

Grizzly Adams wrote:

And who made you judge as to whether these LEO were upholding an "immoral oath" or not? Did someone make you lord and master over all of us and forget to tell us?

Click to expand...

I'm not lord and master over anyone else, Grizzly Adams. Feel free to mock the ideas I propose. Feel free to ignore them. I won't hold a gun to your head to make you obey my will. But there are plenty of people who would think nothing of holding a gun to your head because you possessed a substance less dangerous than alcohol. There are plenty of people who would think nothing of holding a gun to your head for the "crime" of having a rifle with a barrel of 15.5'' long. Peopel who would think nothing of putting a gun to your head for carrying a firearm without a slip of paper saying the government is magnanimous enough to give you permission to defend your God-given life with the best means in existence. People who would think nothing of holding a gun to your head for anything, simply so long as it was classified as "illegal." Do you approve of such insane and irrational people? You seem to support them.

Grizzly Adams wrote:

If you are so dissatisfied with how things are done here, why don't you do something it other than just bitch and moan about what others are doing.

Click to expand...

Do something? Such as convince my fellow men not to give their support to arbitrary and foolish laws and those who enforce them? I'm on it.


Grizzly Adams wrote:

Better yet why don't you tell us a little about yourself and why you feel the police and government in particular is out to get you. Maybe this way we'll understand you a little better!

Click to expand...

I don't feel the police and government (or their criminal impostors) are "out to get me" in particular. That's like saying a 3-year old with a bulldozer is "out to get someone." He's not. He just doesn't have the maturity, logic and level of consciousness to see and comprehend the damage he's doing. Just because people don't see how damaging their actions are does not mean their actions are not damaging.

Grizzly Adams wrote:

And yes, you are LEO bashing and do in nearly every thread you post in.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I have no respect for someone who would help throw a non-violent person in prison for 5 to 10 years for having a 15.5'' barrel on a firearm. Do you, Grizzly? Please answer that question. Does the mere fact that they are "following orders" cut it for you? That's not protecting anyone's life, liberty or property. (Real policework.) That's asinine law-worshipping. Laws should prohibit things that actually harm other people. Period. Anyone who uses violence or the threat of violence to enforce anything besides those laws has made himself a violent criminal.

Grizzly Adams wrote:

But when they deserve it I will blast them and anybody else. But LEO, military, and gov. officials are human just like us all. Just because some are bad doesn't make them all bad!

Click to expand...

When lumberjacks or schoolteachers, paid by the government, and acting with state approbation, begin kicking down people's doors for marijuana, (a substance less dangerous than alcohol,) or for having inanimate objects with metal protrusions under an approved length, I'll start complaining about their actions. But I won't call them lumberjacks or schoolteachers. I'll call them thugs with no business doing what they're doing. Thugs whose job title has nothing to do with the actions they are supposed to be undertaking. In the same way, I won't give use the honorable title of "policeman" for anyone who performs such actions. Because they're not policemen. Just garden variety thugs who happen to have government approbation.

-Sans Authoritas