Release List Reviews Shop Join News DVD Giveaways Video Games Advertise
DVD Reviews | Theatrical Reviews | Price Search Buy Stuff Here
DVD Talk
DVD Reviews DVD Talk Headlines HD Reviews


Add to My Yahoo! - RSS 2.0 - RSS 2.0 - DVD Talk Podcast RSS -


Go Back   DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Other Talk > Religion, Politics and World Events

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-05-10, 01:59 PM   #26
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

I'd say "all this is going to lead, one day, to officers shooting a child in the process of a warrant service, and they will not be punished". Except that it happened. In Lima, Ohio. They shot a mom holding her infant. The mother was killed. The baby's had a finger shot off. The police investigation found it to be justified.

Until officers start speaking out against this type of thing, the people who say "there's no such thing as a good cop" start to become believable.
__________________
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:03 PM   #27
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,061
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

I can't believe there's anyone defending the contents of that video.
__________________
I do Tracer's bidding! -Slop101
Third World countries are worthy of our derision. -Sean O'Hara
Personally, I would say that Tracer Bullet is leading you in the wrong direction. -Supermallet
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:03 PM   #28
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Dog View Post
I said "already exists imminent danger." You barging into the home with guns drawn is creating imminent danger where it did not previously exist. But I'm not qualified, so.....
"Barging into a home" where you believe a serious crime is underway is precisely what serving a search warrant is, and it's inherently dangerous. Regardless of whether the police go in which daisies or Glocks.

Saying to serve a search warrant on a suspected drug dealer, or anybody you believe to be involved in a felony, without guns drawn and readied is just stupid, quite frankly. I'm not saying you're stupid, but it's a dumb idea, and it does show how detached from reality you are on the subject.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:06 PM   #29
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
Perhaps you could take more effort to know what you're talking about? Officer safety or the destruction of contraband are BOTH grounds for no knock warrants under Wilson v Arizona.

We aren't talking about a no-knock in this case anyway.
Well you can obviously fool some people with nonsense like that, but 'raid' style 'no knock' warrants were created to prevent the loss of evidence. That's the simple fact of it, and why what I posted above is absolutely accurate. Surprisingly, a violent action like a paramilitary raid on someone's home in the US resulted in violent encounters. Give someone 5 seconds to decide if the violent intruders are coming in to kill your whole family in your home, or whether they are self-deluded 'just following orders so everything I do is right' cops and that situation is a damned likely to result in violence. No surprise the police state later uses the violence created with immoral laws and police state actions as a justification of furthering the immoral police state's 'legal' activities. So we've gone from 3,000 'raids' in 1980 to over 50,000 'raids' this year... and they justify themselves!

Neat how that works huh? Well obviously it muddied the waters enough to fool you, but it seems pretty simple and basic stuff to me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
True. Any more than you disagreement with a law makes enforcement of a law immoral.


Did that seem clever to you? Wow.
__________________

"We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing." - Charles Bukowski
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:10 PM   #30
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 120,493
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
"Barging into a home" where you believe a serious crime is underway is precisely what serving a search warrant is, and it's inherently dangerous. Regardless of whether the police go in which daisies or Glocks.

Saying to serve a search warrant on a suspected drug dealer, or anybody you believe to be involved in a felony, without guns drawn and readied is just stupid, quite frankly. I'm not saying you're stupid, but it's a dumb idea, and it does show how detached from reality you are on the subject.

You're not understanding me.

You serving the warrant is creating the imminent danger. It did not already exist. There was no threat to human life. Now with you going in, fully locked and loaded, you're putting every life on the premises in danger (police and suspects). Again, a danger that did not exist before.

I never said serve a search warrant w/o guns drawn. Please stop attributing things to me and then saying "I am detached from reality." You're not saying I'm stupid, but you're basically implying it, made all the worse by inventing comments by me. By the way, if we had your requirement that only an "expert" can have a valid opinion on a serious issue, political debate would be rendered meaningless. If there was argument over a legal issue, a few of us could tell the rest STFU you ignorant fools. That's hardly fair.

But if your attitude is indicative of the general police attitude, it's no wonder why they seem to hate external (civilian) oversight. Hell, I don't think they're too fond of internal oversight.
__________________
"A question for you. Would you rather Bucknell make the NCAA's once every 20 years or so and get ass raped by teams like Kansas in the first round or have them drop down a rung to a confernce where they can compete for a title?"
- Josh Hinkle
1st Round Final Scores: Bucknell 64 Kansas 63 | Bucknell 59 Arkansas 55

Last edited by Red Dog; 05-05-10 at 02:15 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:13 PM   #31
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
Realistically, what kind of danger does a pit bull pose to law enforcement officials wearing the sort of gear that the officers in the video were wearing?
I know that everybody loves to assume that all pit bulls are vicious, deadly beasts, but if the dog was raised well, in a loving home, they can have a temperament like most any other pets.
__________________
A paternalistic attitude that refuses to consider all citizens as responsible is anathema to the democratic ethos.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:16 PM   #32
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: frass canyon
Posts: 16,249
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Dog View Post
You're not understanding me.

You serving the warrant is creating the imminent danger. It did not already exist. There was no threat to human life.
but there was MARIJUANA in the house.
__________________
A paternalistic attitude that refuses to consider all citizens as responsible is anathema to the democratic ethos.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:28 PM   #33
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,061
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyalTea View Post
but there was MARIJUANA in the house.
There was? Oh fuck, shoot them all and bill the bullets to their estate.
__________________
I do Tracer's bidding! -Slop101
Third World countries are worthy of our derision. -Sean O'Hara
Personally, I would say that Tracer Bullet is leading you in the wrong direction. -Supermallet
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:30 PM   #34
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 6,135
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet View Post
I can't believe there's anyone defending the contents of that video.
It really is astounding. I can see someone defending the officers, if it was balanced by admitting the system under which they were operating is flawed and needs to be fixed. It just blows my mind that someone would defend the system though. For fuck's sake, the president of the country admitted to using pot and coke and yet somehow this kind of bullshit still abounds.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:32 PM   #35
DVD Talk Legend
 
Dr Mabuse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 75 clicks above the Do Lung bridge...
Posts: 18,950
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracer Bullet View Post
There was? Oh fuck, shoot them all and bill the bullets to their estate.
Then use the deaths to make a case for needing even more SWAT team members, with even more firearms and body armor, and even more armored personnel carriers for civilian LE, because they had to shoot people at the last major 'pot bust' and thus that violence surely justifies the advancement of the police state and more raids with more violence.
__________________

"We're all going to die, all of us, what a circus! That alone should make us love each other but it doesn't. We are terrorized and flattened by trivialities, we are eaten up by nothing." - Charles Bukowski
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:41 PM   #36
DVD Talk Legend
 
spainlinx0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: NJ
Posts: 14,184
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

You don't understand. POT DESTROYS LIVES!

By the way not every "dealer" is armed. You would be surprised how many people sell drugs that aren't Scarface.
__________________
XB1: Scorpy Gkar
PS4: ScorpyGkar
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 02:49 PM   #37
DVD Talk Hero
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 25,061
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by spainlinx0 View Post
By the way not every "dealer" is armed. You would be surprised how many people sell drugs that aren't Scarface.
It's like we live in a world where Weeds doesn't exist!
__________________
I do Tracer's bidding! -Slop101
Third World countries are worthy of our derision. -Sean O'Hara
Personally, I would say that Tracer Bullet is leading you in the wrong direction. -Supermallet
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:02 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 799
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Digg this story so it gains traction.

More people need to be aware of this bullshit.

I think Radley Balko put it best:

Quote:
This is the blunt-end result of all the war imagery and militaristic rhetoric politicians have been spewing for the last 30 years—cops dressed like soldiers, barreling through the front door middle of the night, slaughtering the family pets, filling the house with bullets in the presence of children, then having the audacity to charge the parents with endangering their own kid. There are 100-150 of these raids every day in America, the vast, vast majority like this one, to serve a warrant for a consensual crime.

But they did prevent Jonathan Whitworth from smoking the pot they found in his possession. So I guess this mission was a success.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:04 PM   #39
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcatlh
Until officers start speaking out against this type of thing, the people who say "there's no such thing as a good cop" start to become believable.
Considering this is coming from a lawyer, it's funny. I hear that about lawyers, especially criminal defense lawyers, on a daily basis. I'd actually expect a lawyer to be above using the sentiment, but I suppose not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Mabuse View Post
Well you can obviously fool some people with nonsense like that, but 'raid' style 'no knock' warrants were created to prevent the loss of evidence. That's the simple fact of it, and why what I posted above is absolutely accurate. Surprisingly, a violent action like a paramilitary raid on someone's home in the US resulted in violent encounters. Give someone 5 seconds to decide if the violent intruders are coming in to kill your whole family in your home, or whether they are self-deluded 'just following orders so everything I do is right' cops and that situation is a damned likely to result in violence. No surprise the police state later uses the violence created with immoral laws and police state actions as a justification of furthering the immoral police state's 'legal' activities. So we've gone from 3,000 'raids' in 1980 to over 50,000 'raids' this year... and they justify themselves!

Neat how that works huh? Well obviously it muddied the waters enough to fool you, but it seems pretty simple and basic stuff to me.
I stated a simple fact. The dual justifications are, for the past 15 years at least, both to prevent the destruction of evidence OR to deal with exigencies regarding safety, or a combination of both. I have no idea what the original justification from the first time police ever used no-knock warrants was (nor do you, I believe), but since the Supreme Court addressed the issue, officer safety HAS been a primary justification for them.

And it doesn't change the fact that this was not a no-knock, so your usual off topic screed on the issue has nothing to do with the facts at hand. The knocked and announced their presence multiple times, and the homeowner opened the door.

Quote:


Did that seem clever to you? Wow.
At least as clever as trotting out "I was only following orders" shtick. Jackbooted thugs, Nazi Germany. I get it. Never mind that we're talking about laws that have consistently been upheld as legal and supported by the public, or about police doing their job enforcing those laws.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spainlinx0
By the way not every "dealer" is armed. You would be surprised how many people sell drugs that aren't Scarface.
Some lawyer can attempt to make that case some day. Courts have overwhelmingly recognized that illegal drug distribution and possession of weapons are heavily linked, such that it's almost a given to assume that somebody dealing drugs will be armed.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:06 PM   #40
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

As someone pointed out, how does this jive with the Peelian Principles?

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.

8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.
__________________
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:10 PM   #41
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Work. Or commuting. Certainly not at home.
Posts: 17,816
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Just curious, Captain... is there anything that the police could conceivably do that you'd consider to be "going too far"? Or will you always blindly justify the actions of police, no matter what? The law sucks. To say "we're just following orders!" is ridiculous and insulting to the public.
__________________
"An avidity to punish is always dangerous to liberty. It leads men to stretch, to misinterpret, and to misapply even the best of laws. He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:15 PM   #42
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Dog View Post
You're not understanding me.

You serving the warrant is creating the imminent danger. It did not already exist. There was no threat to human life. Now with you going in, fully locked and loaded, you're putting every life on the premises in danger (police and suspects). Again, a danger that did not exist before.

I never said serve a search warrant w/o guns drawn. Please stop attributing things to me and then saying "I am detached from reality." You're not saying I'm stupid, but you're basically implying it, made all the worse by inventing comments by me. By the way, if we had your requirement that only an "expert" can have a valid opinion on a serious issue, political debate would be rendered meaningless. If there was argument over a legal issue, a few of us could tell the rest STFU you ignorant fools. That's hardly fair.
Yes, they could have prevented the danger altogether by not serving the warrant. If that's your answer for the situation, then I just reject that. People don't get to break the law because it might be dangerous to catch them.

Maybe you can explain how police could safely serve search warrants in such situations? In my view and experience, it's an inherently dangerous situation when you're (lawfully) trying to intrude upon a person who 1) you believe is involved in a serious crime that could send that person to jail for years, 2) you're going into a building that is as close to a defensive stronghold to that person as you can get, 3) you're having to announce your presence prior to going in, and 4) you have reason to believe the person is armed. There's no version of that situation that isn't dangerous for officers, so as I was saying, the guns being drawn and readied are a necessity until the situation is secured.

Quote:
But if your attitude is indicative of the general police attitude, it's no wonder why they seem to hate external (civilian) oversight. Hell, I don't think they're too fond of internal oversight.
I'm not sure where you get the latter from. As to the former, I'll concede to external civilian oversight for police when bar complaints are handled by a civilian oversight board instead of lawyers, if you believe it's that easy for lay people to understand all relevant issues.

Both groups are already overseen by civilians at civil trials and criminal trials when it reaches that point. Before that point, we're usually talking about matters of professional discretion or judgment, which I'd like to see left to people who know what the hell they're talking about.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:34 PM   #43
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcatlh View Post
Just curious, Captain... is there anything that the police could conceivably do that you'd consider to be "going too far"? Or will you always blindly justify the actions of police, no matter what? The law sucks. To say "we're just following orders!" is ridiculous and insulting to the public.
Sure. If the police break the law, then they went too far.

The law is the law, whether you or I think it sucks. It's not "orders," no matter how much you'd like to conflate this to the Nazis using that language. It's the law, and enforcing it is precisely what the police are there to do. As pointed out earlier, police are free to quit if they believe a law is immoral. Or even if they believe it's bad policy. Whatever I think of the wisdom of the policy of the drug laws, I don't believe the laws relating to them to be either illegal or immoral. The courts have held that up multiple times. Our elected representatives have done the same, both by enacting the laws and by not repealing them. The general public seems to support the laws, if opinion polls are to be believed. YOU, or Red Dog, or a dozen or hundred or thousand or ten thousand internet forum dwellers disagreeing with the law neither changes the law's legal validity nor makes its enforcement immoral.

In places where the public wants the laws repealed... they are.* And the police stop enforcing them. Funny how that works. (*Not counting places where a city decided it's going to repeal state drug laws... the law doesn't quite work that way, Denver).

Hell, I'll even criticize some police when they didn't break the law if they showed bad judgment. For example, in the thread where the state trooper pulled over the paramedic for failing to yield, I thought that was a legal stop, but I think I stated then it was poor-decision making on his part.

Edit:
Quote:
As someone pointed out, how does this jive with the Peelian Principles?
Considering Peel was one of the first to get us started towards the militarization of police, I'm not sure that Mabuse would want you quoting him.

I'd say things have changed massively since Peel's time, but on the public and the police end. The public used to have a far greater duty in preventing crime than they have now, and they've seemed to largely want to abdicate that responsibility, with law enforcement becoming more of the police's problem. I think the general public would freak out if we went back to a hue and cry system, personally, but that's probably a necessity if you don't want police to be so intrusive on our end. That, or have the legislatures stop passing so many damn laws for us to enforce.

Last edited by CaptainMarvel; 05-05-10 at 03:38 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:38 PM   #44
DVD Talk God
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Directionally Challenged (for DirecTV)
Posts: 120,493
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMarvel View Post
Yes, they could have prevented the danger altogether by not serving the warrant. If that's your answer for the situation, then I just reject that. People don't get to break the law because it might be dangerous to catch them.

Maybe you can explain how police could safely serve search warrants in such situations? In my view and experience, it's an inherently dangerous situation when you're (lawfully) trying to intrude upon a person who 1) you believe is involved in a serious crime that could send that person to jail for years, 2) you're going into a building that is as close to a defensive stronghold to that person as you can get, 3) you're having to announce your presence prior to going in, and 4) you have reason to believe the person is armed. There's no version of that situation that isn't dangerous for officers, so as I was saying, the guns being drawn and readied are a necessity until the situation is secured.

Putting aside the folly of this war...

Why does there have to a armed confrontation when the occupants are present?

What are the primary goals of drug enforcement? I'm no expert, but it would seem to me that it is twofold:
1. Get the drugs off the streets.
2. Arresting, prosecuting and convicting drug dealers with a priority given to certain drugs.

Now the ideal would be to remove as much drugs as you can from the streets, arrest as many guilty perps as you can, all the while minimizing casualties (on all sides: cops, perps, innocents). You have to weigh all these considerations, and it doesn't appear to me that a no-knock paramilitary raid is the optimal solution. And you have to do all this in a way that minimizes mistakes (particularly ones the police can't take back).

I would think minimizing casualties should be the paramount concern with #1 being the 2nd concern. Therefore, if you have a no-knock warrant, presumably you can enter the house and search at any time. Why do it when you know the bad guys are there, and as you say, are presumably armed and dangerous. Why don't you wait until they leave? Hit the house, confiscate the evidence and arrest them at a later point when as you say: they wouldn't be in a fortified defensive stronghold. Why are you hitting them when they are in a good defensive position? And if the police make a mistake in fact, executing a hit in this fashion can easily result in an irreversible mistake.

Then you get sting operations where the drugs have already been removed from the streets? WTF is the point of that? Let's catch more bad guys. I say leave it the fuck alone.



Quote:
I'm not sure where you get the latter from. As to the former, I'll concede to external civilian oversight for police when bar complaints are handled by a civilian oversight board instead of lawyers, if you believe it's that easy for lay people to understand all relevant issues.

Both groups are already overseen by civilians at civil trials and criminal trials when it reaches that point. Before that point, we're usually talking about matters of professional discretion or judgment, which I'd like to see left to people who know what the hell they're talking about.

There isn't much overseeing going on because prosecutors aren't inclined to prosecute police wrong-doing, and that's if it even makes outside the walls of the police. That's the problem. There is extremely little civilian oversight over an agency that wields a tremendous amount of power and has the full force of gov't behind it.
__________________
"A question for you. Would you rather Bucknell make the NCAA's once every 20 years or so and get ass raped by teams like Kansas in the first round or have them drop down a rung to a confernce where they can compete for a title?"
- Josh Hinkle
1st Round Final Scores: Bucknell 64 Kansas 63 | Bucknell 59 Arkansas 55

Last edited by Red Dog; 05-05-10 at 03:51 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:40 PM   #45
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
arminius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Here I Is!
Posts: 6,968
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Couldn't they just have written a ticket and left it on the door? They went in looking for pot right? How the fuck do you outlaw a plant anyway? The whole thing is idiotic.
__________________
Seek not the favor of the multitude; it is seldom got by honest and lawful means. But seek the testimony of few; and number not voices, but weigh them. I Kant
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:42 PM   #46
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,968
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by wildcatlh View Post
It's sad how this post will be completely ignored. This is the kind of thing that I read about in school. That is, I read about it happening in Nazi Germany. Or Communist Russia. This happens in the United States of America. Every single day. This happened over A JOINT.

This country's priorities are beyond screwed up.
I remember a few years ago hearing a radio interview with an ex-DEA agent that really got me hot. This guy was one of the nation's top agents, and he quit his career because his job was too morally offensive.

Specifically, he mentioned that the war on drugs is going after mid class people that might have a pot plant or something minor. The officers get an adrenline rush by busting in their house with guns and scaring people. The local government gets big money as they can sieze someone's entire house and property if they have a single weed plant.

The guy went completely 180 and made a website showing people how to fight the feds lol

www.nevergetbusted.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 03:42 PM   #47
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 38,108
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by spainlinx0 View Post
You don't understand. POT DESTROYS LIVES!

By the way not every "dealer" is armed. You would be surprised how many people sell drugs that aren't Scarface.
I know (or have known) three "dealers," by which I mean people who I knew could reliably sell me an ounce of pot if I were so inclined. I'd be surprised if any of them had handled anything more dangerous than a pair of scissors.
__________________
These are my DVDs
360 GamerTag: William T Bunny
PSN ID: William_T_Bunny
"JasonF can do no wrong!" -- Rockmjd23
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 04:05 PM   #48
DVD Talk God
 
kvrdave's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 86,189
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Damn, got all serious and shit in here.
__________________
“The illegality of cannabis is outrageous, an impediment to full utilization of a drug which helps produce the serenity and insight, sensitivity and fellowship so desperately needed in this increasingly mad and dangerous world.”

― Carl Sagan
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 04:08 PM   #49
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
CaptainMarvel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Posts: 8,169
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdaddict32 View Post
I remember a few years ago hearing a radio interview with an ex-DEA agent that really got me hot. This guy was one of the nation's top agents, and he quit his career because his job was too morally offensive.

Specifically, he mentioned that the war on drugs is going after mid class people that might have a pot plant or something minor. The officers get an adrenline rush by busting in their house with guns and scaring people. The local government gets big money as they can sieze someone's entire house and property if they have a single weed plant.

The guy went completely 180 and made a website showing people how to fight the feds lol

www.nevergetbusted.com
He wasn't DEA. He was a local podunk officer working on a task force, and that guy is a disgrace. He was featured on NPR's "This American Life" a few weeks back, and he was a total fuckstick. He admitted to all sorts of unethical and illegal behavior while he was a police officer, such as trying to incite people into a pursuit. I believe he got caught taking money off somebody, but I can't remember if it was prosecution or a civil suit that ended up costing him his job. When he got caught and his administration didn't support him, that's when he decided to he was going after police, and he decided to try to parlay that into a money making scheme.

I have absolutely zero problem with people trying to catch the police in unethical behavior, but to hold that douche bag up as some sort of hero is absurd. He's a shitty person doing an admirable thing for the wrong reasons.

Edit: It was Episode 405: Inside Job for anybody interested. His department didn't support him after an illegal search, which pissed him off, so he left the force, got onto drugs, and started trying to catch cops. He admits to lying to obtain warrants, stealing money, and all sorts of other illegal behavior.

Last edited by CaptainMarvel; 05-05-10 at 04:18 PM.
  Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-10, 04:19 PM   #50
DVD Talk Legend
 
Sean O'Hara's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Vichy America
Posts: 13,402
Re: This is what the "War on Drugs" looks like

Quote:
Originally Posted by spainlinx0 View Post
You don't understand. POT DESTROYS LIVES!
I know a guy who started with pot, moved to cocaine, and now runs the world's largest criminal organization. His thugs go around killing people in third world countries, sometimes including American citizens who've betrayed his organizations. The cops should go after him, but he lives in a mansion, in the middle of a real shit-hole city, full of armed paramilitary troops who are sworn to die for him.
__________________
"If you read my last number of tweets, only one opinion can be formed - that our President, and therefore "leader," is grossly incompetent!"
-Donald Trump

Blog | Twitter
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:18 AM.


Copyright 2011 DVDTalk.com All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0