Maybe John. But said rehab would need to focus on fiscal responsibility rather than drug addiction.
Remember, this was about extra money, not about a junkie trying to get high.
Cops on strings...
- Thread starter Randwolf
- Start date
Remember, this was about extra money, not about a junkie trying to get high.
I dont know your friend or this case so no comment.
Well, I was worried there for a moment...
Maybe not, but is there now or has there ever been a law that you consider unjust? Would you obey such a law in all cases, regardless? What happened to the concept of penalties being commensurate with the crime?
Of course not. Obviously. Duh.
I knew we could find something to agree upon.
My point exactly. Do you believe this is just? How about fair? Can you ever repay your debt to society? Perhaps a scarlet letter is in order...
Yes, yes it will. See above. Hardly worth it to society in cost / benefit terms.
No. It was not. That doesn't mean that the authorities weren't behaving arbitrarily and capriciously. Nor does it mean that she "deserved" what happened. Does the government, specifically that of the U.S., ever make mistakes, Arthur? One would gather that you do not believe this to be possible under any circumstances, at least as far as your post history shows...
Sure.
No, I believe in civil disobedience as a measure against unjust laws.
But if I was breaking a law on purpose I'd make sure I was willing to "do the time".
You know that's not a guarantee.
Penaltys for some things tend to be much worse than for other things.
That's life.
But that's what one has to consider before breaking the law on purpose.
I don't know the exact sentence, but Oxycodone is a damn powerful narcotic and so one would expect fairly severe penalties for selling it (vs just possession).
Hard to say.
Might have scared her straight.
Don't know what would have happened had she not been caught now, it could have ended up worse you know.
Give me a break.
There isn't any doubt that she was selling illegal narcotics in your story and the penalty is the penalty, so the authorities arrested her for breaking the law. That's neither arbitrary or capricious.
Why yes it does.
Of course.
This doesn't sound like one though.
BS
The Govt and its agents are people and so of course they make mistakes.
The fact that the police don't hand down sentances though tends to help mitigate mistakes made by the police.
Arthur
Good, there is hope...
Really? Ever heard of Kent State? How much "time" are you willing to do? Or does the government perhaps overreact in some cases?
Although the OP incident certainly pales in comparison to a massacre, I would venture to say that drug related offenses have ruined hundreds of thousands of lives. These are non-violent offenders, yet 500,000 Americans were imprisoned for such crimes in 2008 alone. (Wiki)
Um, yeah. Not even a fantasy anymore. As I'm sure you are aware:
Anything seem wrong with this picture, Arthur?
Yeah. That's life. Pretty pathetic dismissal for such a serious problem, but I guess it could always be worse.
Maybe, but that doesn't make said laws and associated penalties just, moral, ethical or fair.
Really? Why? Because you don't know anything about it and therefore it's very bad and very scary?
Did you know...
Fifty one tons? Seriously? Since it's such a "damn powerful narcotic" (presumably meaning it's an evil substance) then why so many prescriptions? Furthermore, if it's prescribed by doctors with impunity, why should someone who sells a half-dozen pills deserve to be raided by SWAT? This level of force was hardly necessary to execute the warrant. Which is my point. It's not about the sentence (probation) but rather the tactics used by the police to bring this dangerous fugitive to justice. Why can't you see this?
No, it's not hard to say. The arrest was botched. Period.
Why? Why should you deserve a break, Arthur?
Sure it is. What else would you call a system that allows this...
...yet that same system sends a squad of heavily armed police through a housewife's window? I call it arbitrary and capricious.
Why, no, no it doesn't.
Listen again. Hear the sound of breaking glass? That was a mistake. As evidenced by the final sentencing outcome. Go reread the facts and try to rethink a bit, Arthur.
I agree. I just don't see much evidence for sincerity in your statement here.
That's good. At least you end on a point we can both agree upon. The courts helped to mitigate a mistake made by police in this case as well. Very good.
Yeah, it was over 40 years ago and it was by the fuckin National Guard and it was a protest and had nothing to do with illegal drugs, or a drug raid.
Not relevant to this issue at all.
Sure.
So?
There is no RIGHT to be arrested with the least amount of show of force by the police as possible.
Randwolf said:
So?
We aren't discussing if drugs should be legal or not because currently they ARE illegal and she was simplly breaking the law, not PROTESTING the fact that drugs should be legalized (which would make your reference to Kent State a bit more relevant)
But clearly illegal drugs have plenty of baggage
http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=26004
From South Florida:
http://www.tcpalm.com/news/2010/dec/02/prescription-drug-related-deaths-outnumbering-to/
Randwolf said:
Again, a different issue, and you and her can protest and campaign all you want to legalize drugs but still she knew that at the time they were illegal and the risk she was taking by illegally selling this powerful narcotic.
Randwolf said:
Never taken it, but from what I understand it is associated with a lot of deaths, and heartache from those who take it illegally and become addicted to it.
http://www.oxyabusekills.com/victims.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/15/us/oxycontin-deaths-may-top-early-count.html
http://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=26004
Randwolf said:
You can't be serious? Of course it's prescribed by doctors with impunity as it has valid uses. But, she wasn't a doctor, she was a known criminal who was illegally selling narcotics.
Big fuckin difference.
Police don't have the luxury of knowing how someone will respond to being arrested and because evidence can be rapidly disposed of often have to make dramatic/fast entrys to prevent loss of evidence.
Randwolf said:
Nothing to see, because if you break the law, the law has the RIGHT to arrest you with any show of force they think is necessary.
Note, they DID NOT HURT HER.
They just arrested her.
Randwolf said:
No, apparently it wasn't botched at all since she was arrested.
Randwolf said:
Nope, you can't compare California police to Florida police as each state's police is entirely independent and each arrest is handled as each department sees fit based on what they know at the time. (In OJs case the police obviously had the fact that he was so well known that he really couldn't flee). But often what the police know is limited and thus they are allowed to come in with a full show of force if they have any indication that it might be necessary and there is no requirement that the police not show up with a show of force if they think it is needed, and they do nothing wrong, even if it turns out that the force wasn't needed.
Randwolf said:
Why, yes, yes it does.
Randwolf said:
BS, The SWAT team arrested her safely (for all concerned) and she was subsequently found guilty, so indeed there was no mistake at all.
A bit of broken glass is a nit in the overall scheme of things.
Randwolf said:
Nope as there was no mistake by the police.
She was selling drugs, got arrested for it by the police, convicted of it by the courts, and is now serving her sentence.
It would only have been a mistake if she was found to have been innocent.
But you've already admitted that wasn't the case.
Arthur
Last edited:
I would like to say that the reason, or a big part of the reason, that police in the US are so cavalier is precisely because of people like adoucette and those who think the same way.
The "everything is ok, and everything will be ok, the US government is doing a great job" types.
It's fucking pathetic. People like that deserve all the shit they get. Someone should report suspicious activity at adoucette's house. No, really.
Social disobedience: set up a group of anonymous tipsters whose job is to keep the police running around, busting in doors of completely innocent citizens. This group would be perfoming a social duty: exposing the real nature of government, the government which is doing a "great job".
Or don't the police trust anonymous tips? Wouldn't they be just as happy with the intel, since it would give them an opportunity to strut their stuff and arrest some bad guys?
Someone tell me that a phone call to the local cops about suspicious packages being delivered at adoucette's address, or any other address, won't give them a reason to kick down his, or anyone's, door. And that adoucette will still be convinced: it was necessary, there's a war being fought after all. War is hell.
The "everything is ok, and everything will be ok, the US government is doing a great job" types.
It's fucking pathetic. People like that deserve all the shit they get. Someone should report suspicious activity at adoucette's house. No, really.
Social disobedience: set up a group of anonymous tipsters whose job is to keep the police running around, busting in doors of completely innocent citizens. This group would be perfoming a social duty: exposing the real nature of government, the government which is doing a "great job".
Or don't the police trust anonymous tips? Wouldn't they be just as happy with the intel, since it would give them an opportunity to strut their stuff and arrest some bad guys?
Someone tell me that a phone call to the local cops about suspicious packages being delivered at adoucette's address, or any other address, won't give them a reason to kick down his, or anyone's, door. And that adoucette will still be convinced: it was necessary, there's a war being fought after all. War is hell.
Last edited:
The relevance was raised by you. I don't think you would care to suffer arbitrary, capricious and unjust misuse of power and offered one example that should support this assertion, namely Kent State. This should be especially apparent since you claim civil disobedience as the answer. Do you understand now?adoucette said:
I never said that there is. I still hold my original position - the government sometimes overreacts and misuses its power. The OP is a case in point.adoucette said:
So you did make the cognitive leap, after all. Bravo...adoucette said:
Clearly, but no one is debating whether illicit drug use, specifically Oxycodone, can have negative side-effects. So what's your point?adoucette said:
No, the underlying legislation is inherently a part of this discussion. However, that is not my main issue. I have problems with the excessive force used in executing an arrest warrant for what turned out to be a very petty transgression, in the scope of things.adoucette said:
You hear correctly. If you want to argue whether possession and / or sale of any particular substance, or drugs in general, should logically be prohibited, open a new thread. Or use one of the gazillion existing ones. As you said, "We aren't discussing if drugs should be legal or not". This thread is primarily addressing use of Gestapo style techniques to execute a warrant. Get it yet?adoucette said:
Of course. Except that it's out of hand. None the less, the substantive part of my reply is "why should someone who sells a half-dozen pills deserve to be raided by SWAT?". This is the bit you keep ignoring. Why is that Arthur?adoucette said:
Finally. Something relevant and on point. Thank you. However...adoucette said:
"They just arrested her." Seriously? Police don't always affect an arrest utilizing a half dozen commandos, do they? How do they determine when to do so?
Recall that the State's position on the OP case was allegedly based on a six month investigation. What did they investigate? One would think that they would have surveilled the location, noted traffic patterns, checked known associates, etc. You know, try to ascertain the "risk" ahead of time. This is not a "party" girl. She is a single mother living in mid-suburbia. She was holding down a job. She didn't stay up entertaining all night. She had no criminal record. FFS, she was even a "safe-driver". She. was. not. a. dangerous. criminal.
(Note: Safe-driver is an actual legal designation given to US drivers that have had no tickets or accidents for x amount of years, varying by state.)
Do you get the picture, Arthur? They botched the investigation and they botched the arrest procedure. They were working on false intel, at best.
Or - They behaved arbitrarily, capriciously and unjustly. Which is patently true, at least after the fact. Which is what burns me - they were grandstanding, for whatever reason.
(Just think of how many more people they could put behind bars here in the US if they stopped wasting money on this sort of egregious BS, Arthur!
)Sure I can, Arthur. This problem is not endemic solely to the state of Florida. See my post #14 and Fraggle's post #15. The problem is nationwide. Your response here is extremely weak and your reasoning specious.adoucette said:
"The most common use of SWAT teams today is to serve narcotics warrants, usually with forced, unannounced entry into the home."
While there may be "no requirement" per se, the Fourth Amendment of the U.S.C. comes to mind. At least to my mind, although probably not to yours. You seem to favor a police state, since you are apparently completely unable or unwilling to even fathom the notion that there might be a problem here. What say you, Arthur?adoucette said:
Bullshit. It was not handled properly. You can prattle away all you like in blind adoration of governmental tactics, regardless of which extreme we're considering (i.e. OJ or the OP), but I ain't buying. Thanks though.adoucette said:
So THAT's IT?
Your whole point is you don't know why the police did what they did?
That YOU, her friend of 20 years knew she wasn't a threat, so the police should have as well?
ROTFLMAO
The charge they were arresting her on was a serious charge.
Surveilence doesn't tell you if she has a gun in the apartment, or if she might fight back.
Still, they didn't hurt anyone making the arrest.
They made the arrest and at the end of it, everyone was unharmed.
They broke a little glass doing so, but so what, if everyone is safe?
They were totally within the rights of the USC.
GET OVER IT.
There is nothing like a police state, but if you don't want the police breaking down your door in the middle of the night, then DON'T sell illegal narcotics.
Simple.
Arthur
Feel free, but I have good reason to doubt they would believe you.
That's how you expose "the real nature of government". Give them false information so that you potentially endanger them and others,and possibly cause them to not be able to do their real job?
You're the one who is fucking pathetic.
Total BS.
The police have no interest in busting down doors of innocent people.
Which maybe why I have never had any negative dealings with the police.
Nor has anyone in my family.
Nor has any of my friends.
Strange how that works though, but I find that if you obey the laws the police don't hassle you.
Arthur
Or just let them endanger themselves and others all by themselves?adoucette said:
Right. The police have psychic powers, they can tell when a tipoff is bogus, everyone knows that.
What is this trademark or logo you keep posting? it's about as meaningful as a smudge on a windscreen.
Is it there to remind us all of something?
It doesn't do a bloody thing for me, personally. Except for something like "damn, time to use the wipers again". But I suppose if you need to do it . . .
Poor baby.
I will keep on laughing.
And enjoying my life.
And, since I don't deal illegal drugs (or hang out with people who do) I really don't have any fear that the police will come for me.
So yes, I am indeed free.
I'll be on my boat on the river with my friends and family this weekend, and having a damn good time and you know what?
Not one tiny minute will be spent worrying about the police.
Neat how that works.
Because your friend brought this on herself.
And that's the fact that no matter how you try to spin this we always get back to.
If she didn't break the law and sell illegal narcotics, then none of this would have happened to her.
Arthur
"Someone" noticed a boat acting suspiciously on the "river", and you know what?
The police arrived. (yep!)
After a couple of hours trashing the boat and yelling at everyone, they left.
Well, at least someone had a damn good time.
If they hadn't broken the law, which they hadn't, none of this would have happened. But it did look suspicious.
And remember, it's because your country needs you, to spy on your neighbours.
The police arrived. (yep!)
After a couple of hours trashing the boat and yelling at everyone, they left.
Well, at least someone had a damn good time.
If they hadn't broken the law, which they hadn't, none of this would have happened. But it did look suspicious.
And remember, it's because your country needs you, to spy on your neighbours.
Well actually the USCG is the legal authority on my river, and they have never once hassled me.
But then I operate my boat in a safe manner, so I can't imagine why they would.
Indeed, I can't even imagine what I'd need to do to "act suspicious", but the normal reason the USCG stops someone is that they are operating the boat in an unsafe manner.
Your paranoia and imagination runs away from you.
Arthur
That's exactly what the nice sheriff told me to do--let my paranoia and imagination run where it may.adoucette said:
That's why I was sure someone on the boat was waving an assault rifle around.
But of course, "nice" people don't get dobbed in to the cops; I just wasn't sure if you were really a Republican; sorry about that, bro. But's all's fair and all that, eh?
arfa
Either you haven't been boating long, you live in an area with very few USCG boats, you sail in a dinghy, you're extremely lucky or you're lying.
You pick.
Also, this is no reflection on whether you are law abiding and a safe boat operator or not. Part of their duties include stopping and boarding boats at random.
Over the 25+ years that I've been operating a boat (usually a 30 to 35 footer) in Florida Gulf waters and inland I've been stopped at least 20 times and boarded at least 10.
I've never had a hassle from these people (except one time I was short one life-jacket) and they have always been friendly. But make no mistake - you will get stopped.
And yes, that includes you, Arthur.
It's a 32' cruiser.
And I've been stopped for several safety checks over the years, which of course I always passed. I'd never be short a life preserver for instance, but I don't call that stop being HASSLED.
The safety check is part of their job.
Indeed, one of my first stops of the each new season is the USCG station where they give my boat a good looking over and in doing so have pointed out a number of small things over the years that I hadn't noticed but weren't part of the actual safety requirements. Since I've been going to them in the opening of the season I've never been stopped on the river.
Since where I dock my boat is about half a mile from the CG station I see them ALL the time, but then they remember me too and I guess that's why they no longer stop me.
Arthur
You're kidding. We share a similar life experience?
Wow. I've seriously got to adjust my lifestyle...