So it goes before a grand jury

[MASTEROFMALICE]

You have shaky intel from an informer.

That's the kicker. The intel was dead-on. Watch the trial.

I am still wondering how a 380 bullet, notorious for its low power and penetrating ability, actually killed an officer - who should have been wearing a protective vest - after passing through a door. If the homeowner possessed a 223 why would he use a 380 for defense against a group?

Easily. It missed his vest. It was really an oddball shot.

 

[Mr_Rogers]

MoM
Apparently you have some information that, for your own reasons, you do not wish to share on your posts. That's OK. All I expect is a FAIR trial, I am not interested in the guilt or innocence of the accused as long as the verdict is just. But, as you can tell, I am very skeptical about how this raid was handled. Any evidence that either convicts or exonerates the homeowner, unless it supplies some deep insight into the strategy of this event, is unlikely to effect my opinion on the apparent over-reaction of the police in this raid.

It may be that the homeowner was a terrorist with a nuclear weapon in his basement and the whole trial will be a sensation and, eventually, the actions of the police will be justified to the Nth degree but I don't see that now. To repeat, guilt or innocence is not my concern, the logic of the process is - and this is likely to be swept under the carpet in the hype surrounding the trial.

My question is, will anybody learn anything from the death of this officer, husband, father, son, or will we continue to make these stupid, stupid, errors in the way we serve warrants? Fact;
1. The man had a regular life, he did not lock himself in the house like a hermit. There is ABSOLUTELY no obvious reason why the man should not have been approached as he returned to his home and served a search warrant.
2. There is no obvious reason why the home was entered, precipitating the shooting, when the required evidence was supposedly in a detached building.
3. Was there actually any need to enter the garage when the homeowner was at home? A search warrant could probably have permitted an entry to the garage while the homeowner was safely, under observation, at work.

The process was bad and an officer was killed. What for, because it's more fun to kick in a door than open an unattended garage? Clearly, true "no-knock" and "3 seconds warning" raids are justified but they are over used. These incidents, however they are resolved, are damaging the relationship between the police and the people they serve. This cannot be allowed to continue.

By the way.
Please provide info on the bullet path. I am intrigued.

 

[Wheeler44]

That's the kicker. The intel was dead-on. Watch the trial.

Easily. It missed his vest. It was really an oddball shot.

I asked in a thread in legal and I'll ask here and probably in the "poll"

MoM, were you there? As in standing next to Det. Shivers?

You are alluding to being there, or otherwise having "knowledge" that everyone who wasn't there has. Please note the difference between "intel", "info" and "knowledge" as in saw it with your own eyes.

Remember GWB had info and intel that "proved" that Iraq was full to the brim with WMDs.

Please enlighten me.

 

[roo_ster]

MoM:

You injected no data as to the charged person's guilt/innocence.

I will assume fourth point of contact sourcing for the moment, but am more than willing to upgrade my assessment if pertinent data is produced.

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

methinks the phone records are gonna tell a tale

 

[Sans Authoritas]

rickoshea wrote:

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? I didn't say anything about trying to exterminate or enslave an entire race. I'm saying, would you support the enforcement of a law approved and passed by the legislature, that said it was against the law to free a slave?

rickoshea wrote:

Lets try this.... We live in a democracy, which, like it or not, is loosely based on majority rule.

Google wrote:

"...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.

How is a rule by a majority unjust or unfair when 51 percent of a population decides something? How can the majority make a fiat statement that something is just, but not in some cases? Why is something undemocratic if it is unjust or unfair? Who says? The majority?

And how would you define "oppression?" And by what rule do you judge "oppression," or "injustice," if you want to go say that the majority can morally pass and enforce any law they want, but not really? Where are you drawing your line? I can't see that you have a theoretical or practical line at all, Rick.

Google wrote:

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.

Who says that majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights? Who is able to say the majority has to do anything it doesn't want to? Who is able to enforce that? You just got done telling me that "orders are orders," so their actions were justified. Well, the majority gives orders.


Google wrote:

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.

Really? In a democracy, the "rights" (in other words, the ability to exercise rights, in the flawed modern sense) of the minority are absolutely dependent upon the goodwill of the majority, and are routinely trampled by the majority (or just by the powerful.) "Democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens." They do? So the U.S. laws and its governmental institutions were not actually a form of democracy until, oh, about 1968?

Sans Authoritas wrote:

"...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?"

rickoshea wrote:

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.

Justice is subjective? That is like saying color is subjective. Colors, in themselves, are not subjective. Colors are defined by a specific wavelength of light. Our perception of color may be subjective. As it is, something tells me that a murderer or rapist who thinks he shouldn't be executed for his crime doesn't have the best perception to begin with, because he obviously doesn't think that taking the life of an innocent or violating the body of an innocent is unjust. If one is justly able to defend oneself against murder or rape with lethal force, then it means that the offender has forefeited his life. Execution, in such a case, is a manifestation of justice.

I am not an illegal immigrant, and requiring that people get documents, under threat of violence, to say "you may peacefully work and live here and mind your own business" is absolutely unjust.

Let's define justice. Justice is "rendering to another that which is due to him." If you and I agree upon a certain wage for a certain amount of labor, in justice, you owe me the wage you promised so long as I provide the work I promised. Each person owes it to every other person to respect the other person's life, liberty and property, and to compensate them for any intentional or accidental violation of said life, liberty and property, insofar as it is possible. Why do you owe anything to anyone for working hard and peacefully, and minding your own business? Government didn't give you that. Government has always been the most notorious violator of rights and worker of injustice. 200,000,000 million people from the 20th century alone are corpses because governments had the means (taxation and conscription) and incentive to slaughter them, while no market-funded individual, group of individuals, or corporation could ever have done so.

Taxation is absolutely unjust. What is taxation but a group of people with a forced monopoly on certain services taking your property through force or the threat of force? You call that just? If I were a squeegee guy at a traffic light, do you think I would have the right to come up to your window, dip my squeegee into a grimy bucket of aggregate-laden water, proceed to scratch the tar out of your window, and demand, at gunpoint, that you pay me for the "service" that you had just received? Would you owe me anything, even if I had cleaned your windshield with clean water? No? Why not?

If not, explain to me how government has any right to demand payment for its "services" forced upon you against your will?

Ah, do I have to move if I don't like it? Do you consider taxation "voluntary" by me living in a particular area? If I drew a line in the sand out in the middle of nowhere, and said, "if you cross that line in the sand, I have the right to punch you in the face and take your money for the privilege of crossing that line," would I really have the right to punch you in the face for stepping into that box?

What planet would you like me to move to, if living in a place with taxes collected by violence or the threat of violence is "voluntary?"

I pay taxes. But not because I owe any government officials. I pay only because if I do not, I will be thrown in prison. So far, it's not quite worth it to refuse to pay taxes. Paying taxes because I am forced to does not equate to, "I owe the individuals who have created a violent monopoly on certain goods and 'services,' all of which I do not need, or could be provided by a voluntary and free market."

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.

Why? Why would you not approve of the law, or support the policeman enforcing it, given that the legislature, made up of the majority of the people the majority of voters chose, approved of and passed such a law? Why would you not support the police officer for "doing his job" and "following orders" in this case, given that your sole stated criterion was "the system approves of it?"

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.

I am not at all equating drugs with slavery. I am equating injustice with injustice by species, not by degree.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Thernlund]

You guys are all crazy. Never would have thought this would go on this long.

Shivers is dead because a) this should have never been a raid; and b) this raid should have never been; and c) no raid should have taken place.

Whoever thought that this was the safest option for the officers was off their rocker and has no business being in law enforcement.


-T.

 

[rickoshea]

Sans,

First off, this quote really surprised me.

".... I pay taxes. But not because I owe any government officials. I pay only because if I do not, I will be thrown in prison."

This from the the guy who used the "... The Nuremberg defense? "They were told to, so they did it, so their actions are justified, no matter what?"

Yet that is basically your own defense for obeying a law you disagree with (I was told to, so I did it 'cause I have to, but I don't like it). I believe you could also call it "Legal Positivism". You yourself said "...Legal positivism is a juvenile delusion: the idea that another grown adult saying "you should do it because I said so," is an actual reason to obey him."

Your words, not mine.

And on to the misapplied absolutes....

"... Who says that majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights? Who is able to say the majority has to do anything it doesn't want to? Who is able to enforce that? You just got done telling me that "orders are orders," so their actions were justified. Well, the majority gives orders."

They are called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, enforced by the democracy and legal system you seem to dislike. While not perfect and not always followed as intended, they can be credited with preventing one party from getting elected and then simply doing away with future elections altogether, if nothing else. That much of it has been working for 200+ years (Watergate comes to mind).

"....Really? In a democracy, the "rights" (in other words, the ability to exercise rights, in the flawed modern sense) of the minority are absolutely dependent upon the goodwill of the majority, and are routinely trampled by the majority (or just by the powerful.) "Democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens." They do? So the U.S. laws and its governmental institutions were not actually a form of democracy until, oh, about 1968?

Again, misapplied absolutes. Sure, democracies are flawed in the real world, that's why they are dynamic and evolve. If they weren't, there would be no need to allow for amendments to the Constitution, and the Civil Rights movement of the '60's would have been crushed, as well as the Viet Nam protests, the Matewan strikes, organized labor, woman's sufferage, the Emancipation and Prohibition, to name a few (all started b4 '68, btw).

".... Justice is subjective?" You bet, at least in the real world. Laws are made and repealed. Violations of laws very by degree (i.e. murder 1, 2 and 3, rape 1, 2, and 3, etc). Whether it's murder 1 or manslaughter, the victim is just as dead, and usually not by choice. But the view of the court and the juries vary, depending on their perception of the circumstances. Further examples: prostitution is illegal in some parts of the country, but not others. CC is legal in some parts of the country and not others. In the real world, justice is very subjective, which is why laws are dynamic (see last sentence of previous paragraph).

On to your next absolute:

"...Taxation is absolutely unjust. What is taxation but a group of people with a forced monopoly on certain services taking your property through force or the threat of force? You call that just?"

Feel free to overlook the fact that because of taxes you have a Military that, in part, has kept you from having German be your national language, allows you to vote, own a gun, and worship as you choose. Forget about the roads you drive on, the probable fire protection you have, and FDIC (bank insurance), and all the technology that comes from Govt funded research, to name a few. We'll just write those off, 'cause they are gifts from God. Whether you want to admit it or not, you benefit from things that taxes pay for, and thus you should pay for that benefit.

Do I claim all taxes are reasonable, fair or wisely spent? Hell no. I don't like being taxed, either. But I won't claim that all taxation is totally unjust, as you have.

I don't live in a hypothetical world of absolutes, so I'm getting weary of trying to justify my views to someone who insists on putting them in that context. You may think I am full of crap, and thats fine. I doubt we are going to find common ground. You are free to express your opinions on my views as you see them (even if it isn't how I meant them)--it's your Constitutional Right in this Democracy.
(Constitutional rights paid for by U.S. tax payers--some restrictions may apply).

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

anyone remember the role fred mcmurray played in the movie "mr roberts"

 

[lacoochee]

I hate snakes. Just sayin...

 

[Sans Authoritas]

Sans,

First off, this quote really surprised me.

".... I pay taxes. But not because I owe any government officials. I pay only because if I do not, I will be thrown in prison."

This from the the guy who used the "... The Nuremberg defense? "They were told to, so they did it, so their actions are justified, no matter what?"

Yet that is basically your own defense for obeying a law you disagree with (I was told to, so I did it 'cause I have to, but I don't like it). I believe you could also call it "Legal Positivism". You yourself said "...Legal positivism is a juvenile delusion: the idea that another grown adult saying "you should do it because I said so," is an actual reason to obey him."

Your words, not mine.

Rick, I don't think you're following. I pay taxes not because individuals in government tell me to, or because I "owe" them taxes, but because if I do not do what they say, they will imprison me.

Legal positivism embraces the concept that you are morally obliged to obey laws for the sole reason that lawmakers say you must obey the laws, not because a particular law actually has any objective foundation in justice.

If you were to pay a robber the money he demanded in order to save your own life, you would not be paying him because he had any just claim to the money, or because his threats were somehow morally binding upon you. You would be paying him because if you did not, he would unjustly kill or maim you. Do you see the difference?

I am allowed to suffer injustices for a good cause. On the same hand, I am not necessarily obliged to suffer injustices, either. In either case, I am not allowed to inflict injustice upon others for a good cause. Do you see the difference?

And on to the misapplied absolutes....

"... Who says that majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights? Who is able to say the majority has to do anything it doesn't want to? Who is able to enforce that? You just got done telling me that "orders are orders," so their actions were justified. Well, the majority gives orders."

They are called the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, enforced by the democracy and legal system you seem to dislike. While not perfect and not always followed as intended, they can be credited with preventing one party from getting elected and then simply doing away with future elections altogether, if nothing else. That much of it has been working for 200+ years (Watergate comes to mind).

You said that following orders is justified so long as the laws being enforced are made by the legislative system of a particular democracy, did you not? As I said, does a majority decision make something just or unjust, or is there actually an underlying reality of objective justice that is merely denied, ignored or recognized by most people, and this recognition is not an imposition of justice upon an objectively just or unjust act, but merely that: a recognition of its justice or injustice? Does a majority vote somehow suspend the laws of morality, and make it moral to enforce an unjust law? Do you even believe there is any such thing as an unjust law?

Sans Authoritas wrote:

"....Really? In a democracy, the "rights" (in other words, the ability to exercise rights, in the flawed modern sense) of the minority are absolutely dependent upon the goodwill of the majority, and are routinely trampled by the majority (or just by the powerful.) "Democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens." They do? So the U.S. laws and its governmental institutions were not actually a form of democracy until, oh, about 1968?

rickoshea wrote:

Again, misapplied absolutes. Sure, democracies are flawed in the real world, that's why they are dynamic and evolve. If they weren't, there would be no need to allow for amendments to the Constitution, and the Civil Rights movement of the '60's would have been crushed, as well as the Viet Nam protests, the Matewan strikes, organized labor, woman's sufferage, the Emancipation and Prohibition, to name a few (all started b4 '68, btw).

You say that democracies are flawed? How so? Are some laws that they pass unjust? Yet if they are unjust, it is somehow just to enforce those flawed laws? Do you see what I'm asking, Rick?

As for those movements, yes, they all started before 1968, but had not come to serious fruition until 1968, which was the point I was making.

".... Justice is subjective?"

You bet, at least in the real world. Laws are made and repealed. Violations of laws very by degree (i.e. murder 1, 2 and 3, rape 1, 2, and 3, etc). Whether it's murder 1 or manslaughter, the victim is just as dead, and usually not by choice. But the view of the court and the juries vary, depending on their perception of the circumstances. Further examples: prostitution is illegal in some parts of the country, but not others. CC is legal in some parts of the country and not others. In the real world, justice is very subjective, which is why laws are dynamic (see last sentence of previous paragraph).

As you say, laws are made and repealed. Not because justice itself is somehow subjective and mutable, but because people become more and more enlightened as to the true immutable nature of justice. That is why for most of human history, slavery was accepted and protected by law and custom in even the "civilized" societies. Today, the horrible practice is scorned by all civilized human beings: not because human nature has changed from slavery being morally acceptable to being unacceptable, but because our understanding of human nature and the dignity thereof has developed. Slavery was never moral, and never just. But at times, people did not recognize how terrible it was. That did not make it any less terrible a crime in itself.

Perceiving something in a particular way does not cause it to be how you perceive it. The fallacy that perception somehow creates reality is called idealism. If I believe that a tiger is a soft, cuddly, non-dangerous herbivore, it does not mean that the nature of the tiger is what I perceive it as. It means I am wrong. The tiger is objectively a carnivore that can easily kill a human being, whether I perceive it as such or not. The tiger's nature is objective, and is independent of subjective perceptions about that nature.

Rickoshea wrote:

On to your next absolute:

"...Taxation is absolutely unjust. What is taxation but a group of people with a forced monopoly on certain services taking your property through force or the threat of force? You call that just?"

Feel free to overlook the fact that because of taxes you have a Military that, in part, has kept you from having German be your national language, allows you to vote, own a gun, and worship as you choose. Forget about the roads you drive on, the probable fire protection you have, and FDIC (bank insurance), and all the technology that comes from Govt funded research, to name a few. We'll just write those off, 'cause they are gifts from God. Whether you want to admit it or not, you benefit from things that taxes pay for, and thus you should pay for that benefit.

In other words, "The end justifies the means." You are saying, quite simply, "All these alleged benefits spring forth allegedly only because government exists, so therefore, the means that the government used to allegedly attain these goals are just." That is a logical fallacy.

You are taking government as an a priori entity, preceding all civil society: that none of these things would be possible without forcing people at gunpoint to support them. That is a logical fallacy. You are denying the fact that all these services could have been provided by the free market. You are pretending that the German government (as has been stated, only a tax-funded government has the means or incentive to invade other countries) would have been able to come over and invade the U.S., but that without a violence-based, tax-funded government, the people would have been powerless to fight them off. That is a logical fallacy. Your inability to think outside the State does not mean that life without the State is impossible.

I don't live in a hypothetical world of absolutes, so I'm getting weary of trying to justify my views to someone who insists on putting them in that context. You may think I am full of crap, and thats fine. I doubt we are going to find common ground. You are free to express your opinions on my views as you see them (even if it isn't how I meant them)--it's your Constitutional Right in this Democracy.
(Constitutional rights paid for by U.S. tax payers--some restrictions may apply).

First, you're right, you don't live in a hypothetical world of absolutes. You live in an actual world of absolutes. Whether or not you are able to recognize absolutes for what they are is immaterial to whether or not those absolutes exist, and how well you are able to perceive and apply these absolutes is immaterial to the nature of those absolutes. Similarly, God does not exist because people believe he exists. He exists despite anyone's belief in him.

My rights are not dependent upon lines of ink scribbled upon any document, nor are they dependent upon any man or group of men telling me what rights I have. My rights may very well be violated, or denied, or they may be recognized. They are still my rights. You can take a man's firearms, but not his right to own them. You can take my wife, but not my right to have a wife. You can take my life, but not my right to live.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[phast12]

I have a real problem with the assumption that the yells of police etc... were heard by the home owner in all of the cases where this tactic is used. This has become the standard procedure for police for most forms of search warrant and not just when the person is a known violent criminal. I know that if I'm fast asleep or upstairs or many other parts of my house doing different things (watching tv, music, gaming. working) I don't hear people at the front door at all. This type of action must stop!!!

 

[Noxx]

I've said it before, I don't know why I feel compelled to add another voice to this thread simply to say it again, but I do.

It is absolutely ridiculous that time after time, police departments choose to instigate a violent, often deadly confrontation over other, less dangerous means of arrest. Arrest the man in his car, there's no danger in searching an empty house, there are no hostages, no serial killers, just a pothead and a police department with another "confidential informant".

Stupid. stupid. stupid.

Another LEO dead, another killer created by split second decisions in a situation that never should have evolved, and for what?

 

[cassandrasdaddy]

generally they want the dope and the suspect in the same place. it might come as a shock but otherwise on occaision they have been known to deny its belongs to them. even more shocking their lawyer will further that claim in court.

 

[LegalAlien]

No knock search at our house

Because of my significant other's juvenile delinquent teenager son's criminal activities, our house was raided and the front door forced open with a crow bar (steel encased door - opens outwards), by the local sherrifs without ANY prior warning. No verbal warnings. No knocking on the door to announce their presence. My GF and her son and his friends were at home at the time. I was at work.

Kid is now in a juvenile program for the next 18 months and we now have peace and quiet at home, but the front door still shows damage from the no knock assault.

Police strong arm tactics are alive and well and thriving in south FL. Not bashing the cops - just stating facts.

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

This topic *really* gets me going....

A. I don't believe for 1 second that they knocked and announced. Cops lie regularly when things go south, in my experience.** Of course they're going to say that now. Funny how they laud and praise the efficiency of "no-knock" raids in capturing substances when things go right. But mysteriously, every time it goes south, THAT was one where they DID decide to knock & announce for some reason.

B. Even if they did knock & announce (if the jury believes that), where's the proof that this guy HEARD the announcement of them being LEO? Any number of things could have prevented him hearing it.

C. Even if he DID hear them say "Police", so what? Criminals use that tactic all the time to gain entry or confidence of their victims. They should be required to show their ID's and uniforms as LEOs where the resident can view them through a window or peep hole, to verify true LEOs before allowing the invasion into his HOME, which he must obviously protect against criminal invaders.

Oh wait, I forgot - we can't let someone flush some plants, can we?

**Please note: Certainly not ALL cops lie -there are many good ones. But there are many many liars too. I've seen it personally on multiple occasions and so have many others, in this so-called "war on drugs". All's fair in love and war and drug collars.

 

[springmom]

Somebody once said that after three pages of a thread, all you have is people arguing. This thread is Exhibit A of that theory.

MasterofMalice, if you were there, as you seem to say, I can't imagine your superior officers particularly would welcome you discussing it here, even as obliquely as you are. I could be wrong, but just saying....

Springmom

 

[Noxx]

I'm a 31 year-old living in Virginia. I've been a cop for five years, was a college student for four years before that and a Marine four years before that.

Actually, we do know all of these things. You don't, yet, but we do

Don't worry fine citizens, we have the information and you don't. We act only in your benefit to protect you while you sleep blissfully unaware. Move along, all is well, nothing to see here. "Trust us".

 

[Mr_Rogers]

SpringMom,
I think one of the reasons this thread is dragging on is that there at least three intertwined topics. General critique of "law", the guilt of the shooter and feelings about " low announcement" police raids.

I am one of the people who is extremely against the idea of "low announcement" raids becoming the norm. Sure they are needed on occasion but we have seen so many unfortunate results that we really do have to question their value. I will be doing this with my local politicians - who just happen to be standing for re-election.

I look at my own situation and realize how easily I could be a victim of similar events. I own a few acres a fair distance from my home, a tree farm. I visit it perhaps three or four times a year. Now, I would not know if someone had set up a pot farm on my property. Imagine a hunter found pot and reported it to the police. My home gets raided with a "low announcement" raid.

I live on top of a hill with only one access, my drive. The drive is 400 yards long with a locked gate halfway up. The nearest house I can see from my property is one mile away. Now, being an innocent sort of guy with no reason to expect a police raid, what am I supposed to think if I hear my door being broken down at night?

Whoever is beating on my door drove to an isolated house and bypassed a locked gate on a long driveway. Police response is 20 minutes in our area. Since I have no reason to suspect it may be the police what would anyone expect my reaction to be? Many poster seem to think they would apparently put on a pot of coffee and wait. They are a lot cooler than I am.

 

[MASTEROFMALICE]

Don't worry fine citizens, we have the information and you don't. We act only in your benefit to protect you while you sleep blissfully unaware. Move along, all is well, nothing to see here. "Trust us".

Exactly!

 

[RP88]

so, has there been any updates on the case aside from retarded arguments that somehow drifted into the definition of the word 'democratic'?

so, breakdown:

-there was an informer who supplied evidence. The police have yet to say how the evidence - if any - was obtained.

-the informer has not been called into question. We do not know who or what he is. All we know is that he did not do a simulated buy from Frederick, yet was able to supply evidence of frederick's growing operation. I shudder to think how this was done (warrant-less break-in, anyone?).

-Mr. Frederick claims that his house was broken into just a few days before the raid, around the time they supposably obtained evidence of Mr. Frederick's operation. Once again, shudder to think.

-Frederick had no criminal record. None. Zip. Nada. Yet, the raid was deemed necessary, as if Frederick would have had time to get rid of or destroy several entire small tree-sized plants.

-The raid only turns up a possession-chargeable offense for drugs.

-despite the inconsistencies and the lack of anyone saying or producing anything, Frederick is charged with 1st degree murder and felony drug charges.

can anyone show some news or updates?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

RP88 wrote:

so, has there been any updates on the case aside from retarded arguments that somehow drifted into the definition of the word 'democratic'?

RP88, do you care about the science behind ballistics, or only that your firearm goes "bang" when you pull the trigger?

Similarly, such statements imply that you only care about the particular facts about this case, not whether, in principle, there should have been a "case" to begin with. You're not concerned with curing the gangrene, just covering it with a band-aid to make it look nice.

"Doing something," or "practicality" is absolutely nothing without linking an action to the reasoning behind it, and whether it achieves the intended effect. In other words, the practical is based wholly on the theoretical.

-Sans Authoritas

 

[Wheeler44]

Exactly!

Good, thanks for that, you have just advanced your position in this debate immensely.

Now if you would just clarify, were you also there when the cops in Miami were escorting drug shipments for pay?

 

[RP88]

I believe that I sarcastically stated how the raid was unnecessary given Mr. Frederick's record and the whole logical foul-up to begin with. I'm just merely staying on-topic.

even if weed is something that we all democratically think should not be illegal, the fact of the matter is that it is illegal. I'm more concerned with the looming possibilities of violating several of Frederick's constitutional rights in the process than I am about whether or not raids and weed should be legal or illegal.

This is more than just an example as to why raids are very stupid; it's also an example of how the police have too much power. They basically stepped over the constitution to get to Frederick, and for what? Nothing at all, thats what. No harmless but illegal weed. No evidence. Nothing. And, they are seemingly getting away with it. Railroading, much?

 

[Sans Authoritas]

RP88 wrote:

I'm just merely staying on-topic.

On the surface of the topic. That's not how the ultimate topic will be solved. You can waste time stopping every small fire started by sparks, or you can douse the source of the sparks.

-Sans Authoritas