So it goes before a grand jury

[cassandrasdaddy]

folks seem to have real strong feelings about their weed

more than a few die over it

 

[Aguila Blanca]

Who here really thinks that it was just coincidence that the guy had pot and a gun at the same address that a warrant for drugs was issued???

I find it interesting that so many people have issues with the cops for not giving the individual more time between yelling "warrant" and busting the door open, especially since so many here would rather be "judged by 12 than carried by 6" or "keep it chambered and not tip off my position to the BG by chambering a round".

How many here, if you were cops on a raid, would yell "Police.... let us know when you're ready!", and stand at the door waiting for a response? How many here would give an opponent that edge in a confrontation? Very few, based on many posts I've read on this forum. So why should a cop? They yell "POLICE... WARRANT... " to announce themselves... not to give the bg time to get ready.

The guys executing the warrant don't issue it, they go off of what they are told. They go in assuming that they have sufficient grounds to be there, and that the person(s) that they are after doesn't want to be caught, and that they may be armed and dangerous. That may also explain why they go at 2 a.m.--SURPRISE!!!

B4 anyone gets too critical of the guys serving the warrant, look at it from their perspective.

This may surprise you, but the entire point of a search warrant is that it's a legal document authorizing a search, and describing several things: the address of the premises to be searched, and the nature of the item(s) to be searched for. Since marijuana is not lethal, there is no need to serve a warrant specifying that they are looking for a GARDEN by the use of a SWAT team and a no-knock warrant.

A search warrant is supposed to be handed to the person who answers the door, and that person is supposed to be given an opportunity to read the warrant in order to at least ascertain that a serious error hasn't been made. Like other semi-recent cases in which no knock warrants have been served on the wrong apartment, and even the wrong street.

I don't much care if marijuana gets legalized or not, but I very much agree with those who argue that possession of marijuana should never EVER be grounds for a forcible entry warrant. Not only "no-knock," but any forcible entry warrant. Don't forget, the bleeding liberal courts have ruled that when the SWAT team taps on your door at 3:30 a.m. and whispers "Police. We have a warrant, can we come in? they only have to wait about 20 seconds before they can start smashing through the front door. I don't know about you, but I sleep on the second floor. Even if I were already awake (highly unlikely at 03:30), there is still no way on God's green earth that I could switch on a light, find my bedroom slippers, walk the length of the upstairs hallway, go down the stairs and get to the front door within 20 seconds. Or even 30 seconds. Hell, as deeply as I sleep they'd have to pound on the door for five minutes to even have a prayer of maybe waking me up. The door is on the front of the house and my bedroom windows are on the back. They are usually closed tight -- I use heat in the winter and a/c in the summer.

This type of raid is unjustifiable and inexcusable.

 

[Eric F]

Sans Authoritas this line of questioning has nothing to do with this thread I will send you a pm ok?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

This is about principle, Cassandras. It is not about weed, which I have never used or abused.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The shooter in this case admits he did not see who was breaking the door down so therefore he could not know if they had weapons or even intentions of doing bodily harm to him. It was an illegal shoot regardless of the police departments legal or illegal search tactics. One illegal move does not justify illegal relaliation.

The legal standard for the use of lethal force for self-defense, even in states that don't have a so-called "Castle Doctrine" law (which term is now widely used to describe "no duty to retreat" laws rather than Castle Doctrine laws) is that the actor has a reasonable fear of death or serious (some states say "grievous" bodily injury. The classic test is what's called the "reasonable man" test: would a theoretical "reasonable man" in the same situation feel in fear of death or serious bodily injury?

I don't know about you, but I was brought up to the quaint notion that locks are for honest people. My front door is locked. If someone is smashing through my front door -- I do NOT assume they want just a glass of water, I assume they are intending to do bad things to me. Yes, in such a situation I would be in fear of death or grievous bodily injury, and I submit that any "reasonable person" would be in fear of same. And, if so -- shooting through the door at the assailants (which is what someone smashing in your door is) would be a reasonable self-defense response.

Which is the reason this type of raid should never be allowed when all they're searching for is marijuana.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

funny folks would postulate that a pot bust should involve warm milk and cookies, but attempt this vision in as thread about a pot bust where the mellow dude shot aq cop through a door. strange

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Just substitute "beer" with "marijuana" in this post, imagine it set in the 1920's, and see how you consider the event. When brewers were at risk of having their stuff stolen or destroyed by competition. Even if it was only a single bottle of beer, in this case.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Eric F]

Just substitute "beer" with "marijuana" in this post, imagine it set in the 1920's, and see how you consider the event. When brewers were at risk of having their stuff stolen or destroyed by competition. Even if it was only a single bottle of beer, in this case.

well the diffrence would be I would not wait for them to get to the door before I would start shooting........um wait a minute this would mean no nfa rules right? well I guess I could stay sober for a few yeasr so I can have a new machinegun with out a stupid tax stamp.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

You call it "stupid," yet it's the law to have a tax stamp. Yet you see nothing wrong with men violently knocking down doors to enforce a stupid law, because it's a law? You are espousing contradictions, Eric.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[rickoshea]

I really shouldn't, but....

It all boils down to this.... Right now pot is illegal and booze isn't. If the guy had a keg he would be fine (or at least better off) and got just as good a buzz if not better (per Sans).

Is booze any better than pot? I personally can't say, but don't see why it is worse, or should be illegal from what I know of it.

But the guy chose the illegal stuff, and now he's paying for it.

"...Since marijuana is not lethal, there is no need to serve a warrant specifying that they are looking for a GARDEN by the use of a SWAT team and a no-knock warrant."

Were the cops wrong in how they handled it? Maybe. But they followed the "rules" as set by the court, and did what they thought was the safest course of action. We do know the guy was armed (now), and for all we know the cops knew it beforehand, and that may be why they acted as they did. Or not.

The upshot is that there was a guy who was breaking the law and armed. Can anyone here say positively that if the cops knocked he wouldn't have shot anyway? Anyone here want to be at the door to find out?

 

[plexreticle]

No Knock Military door kicking civil abuse is so common that the general public is desensitized to it.

This guy will go to trial for murder 1.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

rickoshea wrote:

But the guy chose the illegal stuff, and now he's paying for it. . . . The upshot is that there was a guy who was breaking the law and armed. Can anyone here say positively that if the cops knocked he wouldn't have shot anyway? Anyone here want to be at the door to find out?

Rick, why was anyone at the door in the first place, except to enforce an asinine restriction on a substance less dangerous than alcohol? Law or no law, what is law supposed to do but protect the actual individual rights of real individuals? If it fails to do that, is it really a law? No. It's a bunch of people with force of arms saying you can't do something for the sole reason that they said you couldn't do something, and who will use violence on you if you fail to obey them! That is not justice, that is insanity, sir!

-Sans Authoritas

 

[plexreticle]

Rick, why was anyone at the door in the first place, except to enforce an asinine restriction on a substance less dangerous than alcohol? Law or no law, what is law supposed to do but protect the actual individual rights of real individuals? If it fails to do that, is it really a law?

I agree. When will people wake up and understand the government is suppose to work for us not subject us.

 

[Eric F]

You call it "stupid," yet it's the law to have a tax stamp. Yet see nothing wrong with men violently knocking down doors to enforce a stupid law, because it's a law? You are espousing contradictions, Eric.

Its not a contradiction to say I will follow the laws but add that I think this one is stupid. I have been consistant I have never said I would break the stupid laws or any laws. In fact there are a lot of stupid laws like any place you can ride a bike with out a helmet but you have to wear a seat belt, just stupid.

I agree. When will people wake up and understand the government is suppose to work for us not subject us.

in this case the government was working for the comunity that Fredrick lived in, they have eliminated a drug dealer, well were suposed to eliminate a drug dealer, stay tuned for more details. either way in relation of the tragic loss of Shivers the PD took a chance (a poor chance) and missed, did Frederick allready sell his stuff? unknown. Was there any selling going on? also unknown. right wrong or indifrent all parties were incorrect in their actions. Both have fault and by all means had Frederick not been conducting illegal activity(pot personal use or otherwise) this would have likely never hapened.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

There is a contradiction in believing a law is stupid and still supporting its enforcement, and there is a difference between enforcing/supporting a stupid law and obeying a stupid law.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[rickoshea]

Sans,

Because it's their job and they were told to do it. I never said I agree with the law (it doesn't affect me either way), per se, but I don't fault the cops, nor do I support the guy who shot.

From a perspective I can see how he could claim self defense, but he legally wasn't in the right (i.e. did something to bring the cops there) or he would be at home right now.

Further, there hasn't been a big national show of support to overturn this law, so who's to say the majority of people aren't in favor of keeping it? And if that's the case, it must be a good law.... in a democracy.

 

[brighamr]

"Police said that report will not be released."

They hold a public office, that report should be public.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

rickoshea wrote:

Because it's their job and they were told to do it. I never said I agree with the law (it doesn't affect me either way), per se, but I don't fault the cops, nor do I support the guy who shot.

The Nuremberg defense? "They were told to, so they did it, so their actions are justified, no matter what?" What is logic coming to?

Would you say the same thing about cops enforcing the Fugitive Slave act? No, really? Would you?



rickoshea wrote:

Further, there hasn't been a big national show of support to overturn this law, so who's to say the majority of people aren't in favor of keeping it? And if that's the case, it must be a good law.... in a democracy.

Being powerless to stop a huge boulder after you've started rolling it down the hill into a group of people does not change the fact that what you did was stupid, and does not alter the fact that it continues to crush innocent people!

Once people realize what they've done, the dominoes continue to fall. It's like trying to stop spit after you've expectorated. It is very easy to pull a trigger, and very difficult to undo the consequences. The best bet is not to unwisely pull the trigger to begin with. But you must still try to stop the bleeding when you've been careless and hurt an innocent.

The majority of Americans must not have cared that human beings were legally being kept in slavery. It must have been a good law. Logic!

-Sans Authoritas

 

[rickoshea]

brighamr,

Yeah. That bothers me.

 

[rickoshea]

Sans,

Bit of a leap, wouldn't you say? Based on that argument (to that extreme), everybody should be accountable to themselves, period. No supervisors, no bosses, no President, no generals, no judges, no high courts.

Like it or not, we have a legislative and legal system that has approved of these actions and laws, and it's someone's job to enforce it. Trying to arrest someone is not the same as trying to exterminate or enslave an entire race.

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Rick, you didn't answer the questions. At all. I am following your logic to its ultimate conclusions. Prove that I am wrong.

Does following orders/enforcing laws, no matter how stupid or evil those orders/laws are, justify the action of enforcing those stupid and evil orders/laws, so long as they were orders/laws passed down by a majority?

Where do you draw the line? I draw it at "enforcing only those laws that protect the individual life, liberty and property of individuals from unjust aggression or fraud." Is that unreasonable?

Tell me: would you approve of policemen enforcing the Fugitive Slave Act?

-Sans Authoritas

 

[rickoshea]

Well, I thought I did. What part of "...Like it or not, we have a legislative and legal system that has approved of these actions and laws, and it's someone's job to enforce it. Trying to arrest someone is not the same as trying to exterminate or enslave an entire race." didn't answer your question?

The "ultimate conclusions" are yours, not mine, even though you are asking my opinion (you're not a member of the Iranian Govt, are you)?

Lets try this.... We live in a democracy, which, like it or not, is loosely based on majority rule.
"...All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic: No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to protect the rights of minorities--whether ethnic, religious, or political, or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens."--Google search.

"...Where do you draw the line? I draw it at "enforcing only those laws that protect the individual life, liberty and property of individuals from unjust aggression or fraud." Is that unreasonable?"

Define unjust. That is very subjective. Most people in jail think prison is unjust. Those on death row think capitol punishment is unjust. Illegal immigrants think requiring citizenship is unjust. Accusing O.J. was unjust. Based on that definition, taxes of any kind are unjust, as is government in general, as it is not for the "individual". Talk about a loose end.

As for the fugitive slave act, I would not approve of that law, and would try to overturn it. As to the officer enforcing that law, he has to live with his conscience, and would get no support from me, in any sense. He can choose to be a cop or not.

But I must stress I wouldn't in my wildest dreams equate drugs with slavery. To me, that's like me saying I'm getting a gun for home defense any you expecting to find an 88 in my front yard. Or that if I say I think it's ok to do 60 in a 55 you think I mean it's ok to do 110. Your conclusion, not mine.

 

[PC40]

Unfortunately, the guys whose duty it is to break down the doors (and we need these guys) don't necessarily have the luxury of the weeks or days or hours to weigh all of the evidence for or against the alleged perpetrator, do they? They must, to some extent, have blind faith in public servants whose hind parts will never be in jeopardy, who will never have to face legal action for their decisions, who have hopefully put a few pieces of the puzzle together correctly so that they don't needlessly risk anyone's life over a piece of stinky, mildly psychoactive flower.

 

[Poor East Texan]

Should NOT have been a raid. And I say similar to what I already did.... it would be a HOOT to be on this jury!

 

[Wheeler44]

Unfortunately, the guys whose duty it is to break down the doors (and we need these guys) don't necessarily have the luxury of the weeks or days or hours to weigh all of the evidence for or against the alleged perpetrator, do they? They must, to some extent, have blind faith in public servants whose hind parts will never be in jeopardy, who will never have to face legal action for their decisions, who have hopefully put a few pieces of the puzzle together correctly so that they don't needlessly risk anyone's life over a piece of stinky, mildly psychoactive flower.

I could understand your position if the crew serving the warrant hadn't "staked out" Fredericks home and saw no excessive traffic that would indicate a "drug house"

I would also presume that they had at least a passing knowledge of who Fredericks was as his mother worked for the local Sheriffs Office for over 20 yrs. and, IIRC he (Fredericks) was involved in a lawsuit regarding a situation that evolved from her work place.

Edit to add:

They must, to some extent, have blind faith in "Confidential Informants" whose hind parts will never be in jeopardy,

there fixed it for you.