# Who "wins" when drug raids go wrong?



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

So I recently read an excellent article written by a friend of mine, who poses a question that really needs discussing.

The issue involveds greying the line between drug enforcement actions on marijuana vs harder drugs, and specifically how they are carried out with no knock crash the door down raids to seize marijuana.

We need to stop the creeping militarization of our police forces. SWAT-style enforcement of non-violent drug crimes is a travesty created by bureaucracy wanting to expand their budgets and get better toys, the dehumanizing of drug criminals, and a media frenzy of fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

Note that neither he or I are saying that SWAT isn't necessary for hardcore drugs, situations involving known felons with weapons, raids on crack houses where weapons are always present, etc... but rather strictly for those places where marijuana is simply present.

Law enforcement has been increasingly trying to grey the line between two different types of situations, and instead simply empolys a "let's always just err on the side of caution (for us the cops) and go in guns drawn, crazy confusion and with our superior training and skills overwhelm the situation. With our amount of practice we should rarely screw up."

By doing so, we are seeing that many agencies are increasingly screwing up and bringing needless danger into situations.

Read on and give me your thoughts....



> *Here was his first example&#8230;*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So it seems to me also...

Note I say all of this having been in law enforcement, and understanding what it is like to put your life on the line to go into dangerous situations where "unknown dangers" are a significant factor. I'm not trying to lessen the fact that there is serious risk for law enforcement in the performance of their duties .... just that there could be other ways of taking non violent offenders into custody, to reduce the additional risk exposure to the general public and fellow officers.

Ryan


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Is raiding a private residence with guns drawn an acceptable way to enforce suspected nonviolent drug-law violations?


You never know what you will encounter when you go through the door. Dozens of police are killed every year in response to domestic disputes. It all depends on how many dead police per year you are willing to accept. At first that sounds like a smart *** remark, but it isn't, it's real. There would be ten times the number of dead police as there are accidental shootings of innocent people now. Naw, far more than ten times.

If you restrict police further than they are already restricted (and they restrictions are way more than you might think) you will see police forces loosing long time policemen fast if they are not willing to double even triple salaries. If you think about it how much would you need to be paid in a large city to risk your life a couple times a week?

In tragedies there are no winners, and more often two losers. Whether it is a private citizen or a policeman that shoots someone they have to deal with that the rest of their lives.

In most cases something went wrong before a firearm is discharged. Police should knock and identify themselves, and in this case the man was a fool to shoot through the door. That left him liable, and that is why he is being prosecuted. He made no attempt to identify his target. It's much like a hunter shooting into the brush because he saw it move.

In many cases police receive false information. Sometimes it is an accident, sometimes it's the neighbor giving a false report to bring grief on a neighbor. In the on purpose instances they should face felony charges themselves.



> Frederick has not been convicted of any felony crimes in Chesapeake





> Cosner described Frederick as "a quiet boy."


Aren't they always? The guy might be ok, but I rarely hear about a tragedy and one of the victims isn't painted as a saint. The guy is a victim, but I wonder why they say he had not committed a felony in Chesapeake? Why didn't they say he was guilty of no felony anywhere?



> just that there could be other ways of taking non violent offenders into custody, to reduce the additional risk exposure to the general public and fellow officers.


I am sure when there is another way they do it that way. Why would any sane person risk their lives when they don't have to? Sure there are some cowboys out there, but normally even they are not stupid enough to risk their life for no good reason. I am also sure that when they make a mistake and someone is killed because they didn't follow procedures they will face prosecution. That doesn't make the news, but police now often carry heavy liability insurance. Don't knock, get the wrong home, shoot someone without knowing what your doing, spend the next 5 to 10 behind bars with people you have arrested. That's as good as a death sentence in many cases.

I don't have the solution, but I don't think anyone does. It takes training, discipline, knowledge, etc, but 20/20 hindsight beats all that.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> > Is raiding a private residence with guns drawn an acceptable way to enforce suspected nonviolent drug-law violations?
> 
> 
> You never know what you will encounter when you go through the door.


I think the point he was trying to make is...

Why go "thru" the door for a non violent offender, for possessing marijuana?

Noone is denying that there are many many times this is simply not feasible.

But he isn't talking those times. He is saying, "if you are going to bust someone for marijuana crime, there are many opportunities to apprehend the person outside the home, at work, etc etc..

He was keeping it strictly focused seperating different types of SWAT scenarios, and saying that no SWAT is needed for some types of arrest actions.

make sense?


----------



## Hardsell (Jan 29, 2007)

How does one determine what drugs are in the house without going inside? This question assumes that law enforcement officials know exactly what type of drugs will be discovered in the house. If that was in case, they'd also know how many people where in the house and if they posed any danger. The question based on assumption, and is therefore flawed.
Secondly, if we were to track every suspect down and arrest them in a more "peaceful" manner, the cost would be enormous. You go to where you know the suspect will most likely be, therefore saving time and energy. Unless you enjoy paying taxes...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> He was keeping it strictly focused seperating different types of SWAT scenarios, and saying that no SWAT is needed for some types of arrest actions.


Sure that's true, and many times SWAT isn't needed. I would guess enforcement doesn't use them if they don't need them. It's like we are trying to guess a situation that we know nothing about. When we second guess it's like I have something under my hat that your friend has no idea what it is. I tell him I need a knife to cut it. He says no you don't. How would he know that, or if SWAT is needed. Most often in the 30 second sound bites, or the two paragraphs in the paper we only get a snapshot from a 10 minute video. 
I suppose the reason they rush into a house with drugs is because the guy is going to run for the bathroom and flush it. I would say they must knock, identify themselves loudly, then enter. Most times they should still be fast enough. If they miss a few, oh well. 
If anyone thinks some drugs should not be unlawful fine, but don't make police enforce laws then ridicule them for doing it. If people don't like how things are change them. Police will not rush a house for pot if it's legal. Society is to blame for most problems, not the police, they just do the job we tell them to, and in a manner they are told to.
There is so much red tape for a policeman now days it's a wonder they catch anyone.


----------



## Hardsell (Jan 29, 2007)

To greatly reduce the chance of of having a SWAT team raid your house... Don't break the law.


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

Hardsell, I'm with you.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

To much missing from the story to form a opinion but as in most all the articles I read by Dominic Holden the slant is obvious as well as his disdain for anything the LEO's do to enforce drug laws.


----------



## Bobm (Aug 26, 2003)

Drugs should be legalized and treated as a mental disorder, if they were the profit motive would taken out of them and 99% of the violence would dissappear.

There was a 80 year old lady killed here in Atlanta by cops kicking down her door, oops wrong person.


----------



## Bgunit68 (Dec 26, 2006)

There is a new show on Spike called DEA. It follows DEA agents in Detroit. It's a little different than the regular "Cop" shows. It's pretty good.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

Hardsell said:


> To greatly reduce the chance of of having a SWAT team raid your house... Don't break the law.


I agree 100%. Should the LEO's perhaps knock on the door and get permission to see if someone is smoking an ILLEGAL drug!!!
If you want the enforcement to change, get the law changed, otherwise deal with the consequences!!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> There was a 80 year old lady killed here in Atlanta by cops kicking down her door, oops wrong person.


There was a entire family killed near me by a pot head high and driving on the wrong side of the highway with no headlights, oops wrong lane. Maybe had the cops kicked down his door he would be dead and they would be alive.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

> There was a entire family killed near me by a pot head high and driving on the wrong side of the highway with no headlights, oops wrong lane. Maybe had the cops kicked down his door he would be dead and they would be alive.


I to wish that guy was dead and not the family but you cant blame the drug. Just like you cant blame alcohol for DUI's and you cant blame guns for killing people. It is all the individuals fault. I have a hard time with this topic and I dont know which way I lean. But I do know right now it is illegal and law enforcement should use every precaution necessary.


----------



## Hardsell (Jan 29, 2007)

bobm:
I don't believe your response is the best answer. The individuals will always be to blame. Every time and individual purchases drugs a decision is made. Those individuals have the same ability to say "no" to purchasing those drugs as they have to saying "yes." To suggest that by making drugs illegal that violent crime would drop by 99% is incredibly naive. 
If the government suddenly made driving while intoxicated legal, do you think we'd have less DUIs? The fact is that these individuals are breaking the law. It doesn't matter if it's marijuana or coke. It doesn't matter if it's a small infraction or a large one.The law is generally black and white with some shades of grey. It's very clear to me. Knowingly break the law, go to jail. No excuses.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Guess you miss understood or I was poor at expressing my point. No one was blaming the drug. Was blaming the guy that was using the illegal drug and the call to make it legal. Which do you think would increase the chances of a repeat occurrence, keeping it illegal or making it legal. Seems like a no brainer to me.


----------



## Hardsell (Jan 29, 2007)

Just because it's hard to enforce doesn't mean that it shouldn't be enforced. The laws are created to protect the people. These individuals are putting themselves and their families at risk by breaking the law. One could say that if they break drug laws, they are likely to break other drugs. Even if they made drug use legal, would these individuals be just as likely to be pursued for other legal infractions. This is purely speculation, but it is something worth considering. 
Compare it to our current immigration situation. If the government said that it's too difficult to enforce, we should throw away the law and allow individuals to just come and go as they please. Then the illegal immigrants complain about how terrifying the raids are on their families, that the ICE officers are tearing apart their families. While in reality if they hadn't come to the US illegally, they wouldn't be in this predicament.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Hardsell said:


> How does one determine what drugs are in the house without going inside? This question assumes that law enforcement officials know exactly what type of drugs will be discovered in the house. If that was in case, they'd also know how many people where in the house and if they posed any danger. The question based on assumption, and is therefore flawed.
> Secondly, if we were to track every suspect down and arrest them in a more "peaceful" manner, the cost would be enormous. You go to where you know the suspect will most likely be, therefore saving time and energy. *Unless you enjoy paying taxes*...


Asking a liberal if they like paying taxes is liking asking a fat girl if she wants a cupcake :wink:


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Bobm said:


> Drugs should be legalized and treated as a mental disorder, if they were the profit motive would taken out of them and 99% of the violence would dissappear.


I agree 100%.

The 'War on Drugs' is another ambiguous war that can't be won. We've dumped hundreds-of-billions of dollars into it and we still have more drugs coming into this country each year.

The bottom line is we simply can't afford to keep locking up drug offenders. What we've done hasn't worked, it's time to try a new approach. Instead of targeting the suppliers, we need to target the consumers. We need more treatment and rehabilitation. By giving out severe sentences to non-violent criminals we've only created more career criminals.

It's total BS that a rapist spends less time in prison on average than a non-violent drug offender.

Letting out people like Alfonso Rodriguez and locking up drug dealers makes absolutely no sense to me.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Alaskan Brown Bear Killer said:


> Asking a liberal if they like paying taxes is liking asking a fat girl if she wants a cupcake :wink:


I think a better analogy would be asking a "conservative" to be fiscally conservative is like asking a fat girl NOT to eat a cupcake. They just can't do it!


----------



## sdeprie (May 1, 2004)

I understand where Bobm is coming from. I don't believe there is any correlation between leagalizing drugs and legalizing drunk driving. If you take the criminal element out of drug use, you will have government controls, just like the alcohol industry has. Was there less alcohol during Prohibition? I doubt it. But it was uncontrolled. The criminal element was in charge of it and lots of poison alcholol was out there. Repealing Prohibition did not legalize drunk driving. Legalizing drugs does not mean legalize use while driving. I don't know about treating it like a mental disorder, however. I already take care of too many psychiatric patients and the resources are getting less all of the time.


----------



## southdakbearfan (Oct 11, 2004)

What don't people understand about the word "ILLEGAL" any more?

You can't have touchy feely moments about what laws are more important to enforce. The law is the law.

Those that want it legalized, get it on a ballot. How come nobody tries that? Because it would go down in a ball of flames and the arguement would be over.

There is a movement to make everyone think that no one cares anymore so it should just be legalized, but, not by putting it on the ballot. Why, see above reason, and it is a basic effort to circumvent the will of the people.

Same mentality is why this country is slowly beginning to swirl the drain. They argue about illegal immigrants, saying, well most are good people, and blah blah blah. Illegal is illegal. You make a free will choice to break any law, you deal with it.

Most poachers never hurt anyone either, lets make that legal too while we are at it. 99% of speeders never hurt anyone, why have a speed limit. ETC ETC.

Illegal drugs are bad and they are illegal period.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Matt Jones what color is the sky in your world? I read your posts and envision you as a computer literate teenager that believes everybody is entitled to what everybody else has with working for it. I would like to talk to you in 20 years when you are giving up 37 cents of every dollar you make in taxes so druggy Johnny can have a big screen TV and affordable gas to drive to meet his dealer. You say build more rehabs. I say build more prisons and run them with confiscated drug money. Drug rehab facilities are a huge waste of money and time. The numbers needed to treat, to have a positive outcome are outrageous. I will compliment you on having a stance you believe in though no matter how different it is from mine.


----------



## HOTWING (Jul 3, 2007)

Ryan, get your head checked.

Do you have any idea what kind of people Law Enforcement have to deal with? When the Police got a guy who sold them pot, meth, Rx drugs that is often times all they need for a search warrant of that particular persons home. The Police may or may not know if the guy sells in large quantities or not, and it shouldnt matter. However, when they come to serve the warrant they well be ready for anything. As they should be.

When your talking about drug dealers, there are usually firearms involved. Wheather it be a Phoenix Arms .380 or a AK47, you can bet your life that the Police will not take any chances. So if the SWAT Team gets called out or the Officer who works for a three man department grabs his personal rifle to serve a warrant, so be it. We dont care if we look paramilitary or not, were going home at the end of our shift.

When you go camping you often times prepare for the worse. Rain, snow, ect. Its no different than Police work. Prepare for the worse.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

HOTWING said:


> Ryan, get your head checked.
> 
> Do you have any idea what kind of people Law Enforcement have to deal with? .


My observations are spot on. If you are asking me that question it is clear you didn't read my entire post.

It is also clear from the rest of your post that you don't have a full grasp of all the factors involved in my position statement, nor do you have an accurate grasp of the law, police tactics, or the differences between soft and hard drugs.

I'll not waste my time trying to prove something further to those who don't grasp the fundamentals of the topic in which they reply.

Ryan


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

So just because there was Marijuana involved there will never be guns involved?? These so called "soft" drugs are still ILLEGAL!!! Tell the LEO's that they no longer need to use force on soft drugs, that would be foolish. Maybe there are less weapons used by these types, but not always, and as said, always prepare for the worst case scenario, otherwise you could pay with your life. THat is a gamble I would not be willing to take!!


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

swift said:


> Matt Jones what color is the sky in your world? I read your posts and envision you as a computer literate teenager that believes everybody is entitled to what everybody else has with working for it.


Funny, you just described my view of most politicians...Replubicans and Democrats.

Let me ask you this, do support us being in Iraq?

Because if you do then you're no better than the leeches on welfare. You want the government to provide you with a service (in this case a military one) without having to pay for it. If you're for the war, then you're for racking up massive amounts of deficits that will be paid for by our future generations...not yourself.

Really, how is that any different than providing social programs to people who didn't work for it.

I'm a fiscal conservative. My main view of government is they need to drive our economy and balance the budget. That is first and foremost. Any other issues are secondary really.

The Republicans have proven to be far worse then the Democrats when it comes to this.

I'm in favor of seeing spending cut unilaterally. That means for both social programs and military spending.

If you aren't for spending cuts to the military...then you are a fiscal liberal and want the government to provide you with services that you do not pay for. It's the same as welfare.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

As far as this subject, I believe we could deal with the drug problems in this country cheaply and more effectively through rehabilitation.

The costs associated with how we deal with it now, ranging from overuse of our penal system, expensive prison budgets, and DEA costs in foregin countries, are not cheap and have been extremely inneffective. In a lot of cases, they have only compounded the problem.

So swift, I think you're view of me is wrong. When deciding where I stand on an issue, my first objective is deciding what will work the best for the least amount of money.

Because I don't like paying taxes either. But I'm realist, and understand that in order to cut taxes we need to have a government that spends less. Wouldn't you agree?

The war on drugs has proven to be a colossal waste of money. We need to try a different approach instead of continuing to burn money on this winless effort.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Hmmm

Looks like the *Georgia Supreme Court is starting to lean *my way too...



> Georgia's top court is considering a case brought by two murder suspects who argue they shouldn't face the death penalty because they didn't know the intruder they shot and killed was a police officer using a special warrant.
> 
> The Georgia Supreme Court's ruling *could change the way police use special warrants *- known as "no knock warrants" - that are intended to prevent suspects from getting rid of evidence *and* _to protect officers from potentially violent suspects._
> 
> ...


Sending drug cops to barge into someone's house in the middle of the night is begging for a gun to be pulled (by a resident who doesn't know it's a cop). If a gun _*is*_ pulled, the officer pretty much has to shoot. So either the cop gets shot or a resident is *shot before proven guilty*.

There may be a time and place for no-knock raids, but suspected nonviolent drug-law violations shouldn't make the cut.

Period.

Ryan


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

djleye said:


> So just because there was Marijuana involved there will never be guns involved?? These so called "soft" drugs are still ILLEGAL!!! Tell the LEO's that they no longer need to use force on soft drugs, that would be foolish. Maybe there are less weapons used by these types, but not always, and as said, always prepare for the worst case scenario, otherwise you could pay with your life. THat is a gamble I would not be willing to take!!


Try looking at this from an entirely different viewpoint. In many places other than North Dakota, there is other more serious crimes to fight and investigate. Soft drugs (e.g, specifically marijuana), simply aren't worth the time, cost and hassle of enforcing. Consequently, most larger metros, other foreign countries, etc... simply don't care if you have personal usage amounts of it on your person. Small states like North Dakota for example, derive much of their "justification" for extra officers, bigger budgets, and "tougher stance on drugs" and spend a great deal more time trying to enforce possession laws that in other places wouldn't get you a second look, or the case would be summarily dismissed from court.

Consequently because of the realization of all of this, when someone gets arrested, detained, etc etc... they don't pull a gun, they don't resort to violence, they basically care less... it isn't a big deal.

So to answer your question Dan, the answer is... when asked a different way, is that "No, guns and/or violence is rarely a factor when an arrest is made strictly for possession of marijuana."

Make sense?

It doesn't seem to matter if juridictions decide to make them MORE legal, or NOT illegal, the Federal Government in it's inept "War on Drugs", insists on wasting valuable Federal Tax dollars enforcing laws it's own agents find dubious.

Therefore if you simply concede that knocking down a door isn't necessary for non violent, marijuana based offenses, you completely eliminate the need for ANY type of action in that regards, which should suit all of us much better that we eliminate that possibility from the equation. No gamble needs to be taken. People won't use guns for a misdemeanor offense.

I know it is hard here for many to rationalize my thinking on this, but try considering you are being fed propoganda by your government entities that distort and shape your viewpoints. Being isolated in that part of the country, gives people a mindset of "All drugs are bad ...bad... bad"... however they conveniently ignore that nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol are all drugs too... they are just choosing which ones are deemed "legal" by some governing body.

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Because if you do then you're no better than the leeches on welfare. You want the government to provide you with a service (in this case a military one) without having to pay for it. If you're for the war, then you're for racking up massive amounts of deficits that will be paid for by our future generations...not yourself.


I think your smart enough to know that is a legless argument. If it wern't for the abuse and wasted money on a lot of social, welfare, and pork barrel projects we could pay for a half dozen of wars of the type we now are engaged in and still be no where near a deficit. We pay far more than enough in taxes to pay for what the federal government was originally required to do for the people. The only possible outcome in the end to the we need more taxes crowd is 100% taxation for the mother land. I think a couple other countries have already tried that. It didn't work.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

cwoparson said:


> I think your smart enough to know that is a legless argument. If it wern't for the abuse and wasted money on a lot of social, welfare, and pork barrel projects *we could pay for a half dozen of wars of the type we now are engaged in and still be no where near a deficit*. We pay far more than enough in taxes to pay for what the federal government was originally required to do for the people.











Legless argument? Come on! Even if military spending was 100% of our budget there's no way we could afford to be in 6 similar conflicts. How much money do you think the federal government has? I don't know about you, but I like having driveable roads as well as many other things in the budget that aren't military related.

Here's some info on how much we spend. I'll be honest, I'm not trying to hoodwink anyone here...some of these sources are biased (like most sources online, or anywhere for that matter). If you do a search on defense spending you're going to find all kinds of figures. One thing is in common though, all estimates are for a lot of $$$. Even the with the lowest estimates, the military accounts for a huge piece of pie.

Also keep in mind that these aren't balanced budgets. These are charts of what makes up our current budget...and keep in mind that are current budget is operated with deficit spending. If it wasn't for other countries helping us monetarily, we'd be screwed.





















> HOW THESE FIGURES WERE DETERMINED
> 
> urrent military" includes Dept. of Defense ($653 billion), the military portion from other departments ($150 billion), and an additional $162 billion to supplement the Budget's misleading and vast underestimate of only $38 billion for the "war on terror." "Past military" represents veterans' benefits plus 80% of the interest on the debt.*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

If you go back in time you will see that the only thing government was involved with was defense. If the whole world was sane we could cut defense, but we know that isn't reality. The reality is we maintain our military, or we surrender. It's only recent history that the government has taken over the role of momma. I'm want a strong defense, and I am willing to pay for it. 
I'm not willing to pay for social programs, because they are not distributed equally. One kid goes to college free while a person will less money has to get a loan. Sometimes it's decided by what your parents do for a living, sometimes it's by income, and other times its by preferential treatment of gender or race. What government is poorest at is doing things fairly. The politically correct in government have good intentions, but the harder they try not to be sexists and racists the more sexist and racist the government becomes. The only answer is keep social programs to a minimum. 
As far as drugs legalize them, or enforce the law, but don't expect officers to risk their life. It's easy to talk, but would you go into an unknown situation half heartedly. You never know what is going to happen. My brothers brother-in-law was shot seven times when he stopped a man for going through a stop sign. He had no bullet proof vest. The small town couldn't afford those luxuries, or health insurance. He lived. The perp didn't.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Don't know where your getting your charts from but at present our total "mandatory" spending now consti­tutes 54.3 percent of total federal spending. Most of this spending is devoted to entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security with the rest going to welfare and give away programs.

Take a look at that second chart you posted. Looks impressive with the two slices of the pie showing past and present military spending. Problem is it is in complete contradiction with the first pie in your post.

Now for some honesty in pie charts which was left out. Just what comes under the heading of military spending? Most people only think about personnel, operation and maintenance. What else comes under military spending that is there wheather we are in Iraq or not. Procurement, Research & Dev., Construction, Family Housing, DoD misc., Retired Pay, DoE nuclear weapons, NASA, International Security, Homeland Security, State Department, and other military (non-DoD). Those are all jobs. Jobs that are filled with people working and feeding their families. those jobs were being filled and paid for before Iraq and they will be filled and funded for after Iraq. It's not all about bullets and bombs as some would like everyone to believe.

When the day comes that we start determining whether to fight a enemy by the cost in dollars is the day you had better learn what direction Mecca is at.


----------



## HOTWING (Jul 3, 2007)

"Being isolated in that part of the country, gives people a mindset of "All drugs are bad ...bad... bad"... however they conveniently ignore that nicotine, caffeine, and alcohol are all drugs too... they are just choosing which ones are deemed "legal" by some governing body. "
Oh my God, he's starting to sound like Obama. Isolated in that part of the country. Those governing bodies are elected by us. If we wanted to all be pot smoking hippies, we would elect those that reflected are beliefs. 
Until then, if ya like the refer and think cops are bad guys move to Kalifornia and leave the rest of us alone.


----------



## Matt Jones (Mar 6, 2002)

Plainsman, I respect that fact that you would be willing to pay higher taxes to fund our military. So far though, you're the only person who has manned up. At least someone gets it.



cwoparson said:


> When the day comes that we start determining whether to fight a enemy by the cost in dollars is the day you had better learn what direction Mecca is at.


That's extremely easy to say when you don't have to flip the bill.

Most of this country strongly disapproves of this war. I truly believe that the minority who still support it would not do so if they had to pay several thousand more a year in taxes to fund it. If that happened it'd be time to "bring the troops home."

I just don't get it when it comes to most conservative's views these days...what happened to them? All I hear is bytching about paying for social programs here at home and how terrible the Democrats are for wanting to get out of Iraq or that they're going to raise taxes.

...Yet, when it comes to Iraq they try to point out 'all the good we're doing.' How we're helping to build them this shining democracy and putting up schools and repairing their infrastructure. Even though the process has been painstakingly slow, progress has been little, costs are mounting exponentially, and American lives are being lost in the process...not too mention that instead of being grateful it's made them hate us.

At what point did the conservatives start caring more about a bunch of muslims who are trying to kill each other than their own countrymen?

Conservatives view spending money to build schools in America a joke..."it's a waste of tax dollars!"

Building schools in Iraq however, and that's well worth it?

Raising taxes to enhance and improve our weakening infrastructure is an outrage!---"How dare those Liberal bastards even mention it!"

...Yet driving our country into the ground economically with deficit spending to do build an infrastructure in Iraq is also well worth it to them?

I'm sorry but I don't give two shytes about anyone living in Iraq. I think we should be worrying about ourselves. I think welfare is a joke too, but you know what? At least that money is going to an American. I'd rather see it spent here at home, then to do anything that benefits a muslim in a country half-way around the world.

I just can't see how anyone can bytch so much about social programs in this country but be behind us funding an entire country! Iraq is the biggest social program in the history of this country...and the money isn't even being spent on us!

It's time to pull the plug on Iraq. We can collectively agree as a country that it was a mistake, that we attacked the wrong country, that the people there don't want to kill us...they just want to kill each other, and start worrying about improving our own country.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Matt, lets at least try to be a little honest here. Using your pie chart again which is over blown and bloated you only have to look at the fine print in the military spending section. It shows about 7-8% of the budget is being spent for Iraq and Afghanistan war combined. Probable a good guess means 5% of the budget is being spent on the Iraq war. Not the budget busting figure the liberals are trying to peddle.

Building schools for Iraqi children? have you take a look at what that consist of? Sand and mortar square building that are put up in a couple days. Not the multi million schools we build for our children here in the USA. I love it how the liberals reach down into the mud and try to paste these thing into a debate, knowing all along they are not truthful. A farmer in North Dakota probable spends more on building a hay shed than that spent on a school building in Iraq. Ditto for the roads you complain about. A graded and hard packed road wouldn't cut it here in America where we build highways that costs millions per mile. More liberal twisting.

I think you know all this but still you insist in twisting the facts just to try and dupe the people of this country about what is actually going on. Nothing more than a liberal tactic that doesn't hold water.

Yes it is true the Iraqi's don't want us in their country. Just like the Japanese and the Germans didn't want us in their country. Ask those Iraqi's if they want us to leave they will say yes. As those same Iraqi's if they want us to leave right now and they say oh no, not right now. We want you to leave as soon as the extremist are stopped and we can hold our own. What they don't want is for us to be in their country forever.Why is it the liberals and media never put this in the true context of what the Iraqi people are saying? We both know why don't we.

BTW, I think you misunderstood what Plainsman was saying to you. I don't think he was agreeing with your tax raising position to fund our military. I could be wrong but I believe he was saying spending money on the military is a must, but raising taxes to fund the military is not necessary. I also think he was saying cutting out pork spending and unnecessary and wasted social programs is a must. I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong.

Now if you will excuse me I'm so bitter about flipping the bill with the tax return payment I just mailed in, I think I'll get my gun and go shoot something. Not to worry though, I'll stop by the church and repent.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> BTW, I think you misunderstood what Plainsman was saying to you. I don't think he was agreeing with your tax raising position to fund our military. I could be wrong but I believe he was saying spending money on the military is a must, but raising taxes to fund the military is not necessary. I also think he was saying cutting out pork spending and unnecessary and wasted social programs is a must. I'm sure he will correct me if I'm wrong.


Your correct you would not have to raise taxes. However, I did say I would be willing to pay more in taxes to fund the military. The world is so full of nut jobs that the military is a must. It is first and foremost in my mind. 
You are correct in my position on social programs. I am sorry for the truly needy. Think what we could do for them if we would cut out the lazy. Why should a man who has worked 30 years and becomes disabled live the same life as a lazy bum who has never worked and lived on welfare for that same 30 years. It is no accident it works that way. The liberals have found that they can buy votes from the lazy with our hard earned money.
With farm commodities up we could save many times the cost of the Iraq war. I see there was a recent meeting in North Dakota and it was for a permanent ag disaster program. Tell me any other business that has a permanent disaster program. I'm not sure which cost more the military or agriculture. We didn't learn much in the 1930 dust bowl years. With support prices land that should be pasture or hay is broken up and put into grain. When it produces nothing it's a disaster. Get government out of farming and the farmer and taxpayer will both benefit. Agriculture is a perfect example of politicians trying to create government dependence.

Help the needy to heck with the lazy. With a little effort the government can discern between the two.

Matt is right about the current republicans. Notice I said republicans not conservatives. Conservatives are still conservative, but the current republicans have lost their mind. I sometimes wonder if they think there are so many freeloaders that they have to play the spending game with liberals. Who was it that said "when the populace finds they can vote themselves prosperity a democracy is doomed"?


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Conservatives are still conservative, but the current republicans have lost their mind.


I can't disagree with that but unfortunately the alternative scares the hell out of me. Got to thinking the other day about John McCain and it occurred to me that maybe McCain though not a true conservative, is really a JFK Democrat. Certainly not a good thing for some conservative ideas but not really all that bad either. Just thinking out loud.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

OH MY GOD did I see a pie chart!!! I did not read all the posts but RYAN it all comes down to this, how do you know who is not a violent offender? Walk up to the suspect and ask him to come with you and if you get a bullet in the back then go in with SWAT? Yeah unfortunatly when you find out they are violent it is to late!!


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

cwoparson said:


> > Conservatives are still conservative, but the current republicans have lost their mind.
> 
> 
> I can't disagree with that but unfortunately the alternative scares the hell out of me. Got to thinking the other day about John McCain and it occurred to me that maybe McCain though not a true conservative, is really a JFK Democrat. Certainly not a good thing for some conservative ideas but not really all that bad either. Just thinking out loud.


You know... cwoparson that has some true merit... He sorta does have some of the same stances/politics.

I never considered that of him before.


----------



## djleye (Nov 14, 2002)

> they are just choosing which ones are deemed "legal" by some governing body.


ABsolutely, and that is the point. They are ILLEGAL drugs and they should be enforced. Just because they are or are not in some places, doesn't mean they are any less illegal.
And, fwiw, I lived in Chicago for a few years, and they had drugs back then too!!!! I have seen what they do to people and I have seen the devastation they can cause so I don't need the education. Until pot is legal, expect the consequences when using it, your door might get kicked in!!


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

I....................................no, on second thought I won't say it, won't give you my opinion.

I won't because until YOU are the one who is going through that door, not knowing for sure what you are going to find on the other side, you really have no idea what it is like. Even in a small town like Jamestown.

I could tell you, but you'd likely just call me a liar anyway.

huntin1


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

djleye said:


> > they are just choosing which ones are deemed "legal" by some governing body.
> 
> 
> Until pot is legal, expect the consequences when using it, your door might get kicked in!!


Just remember the same thing was said about alcohol back in the days of Prohibition. Sadly, marijuana is less dangerous than alcohol, yet has been demonized through propoganda to be worse....

And fwiw, there have indeed been places that have tried legalizing it thru the ballot box ... and successfully too. However the DEA and other federal and local agencies have ignored the will of those people, and continued prosecuting/arresting without regard to the decision.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

huntin1 said:


> I....................................no, on second thought I won't say it, won't give you my opinion.
> 
> I won't because until YOU are the one who is going through that door, not knowing for sure what you are going to find on the other side, you really have no idea what it is like. Even in a small town like Jamestown.
> 
> ...


Huntin1

Hopefully you understand the point I'm trying to make. I believe you know me better than almost anyone on this forum, as you've known me for many years growing up, sitting around our kitchen, at Hunter Safety meetings etc.... I respect your thoughts immensely.

My point is that if law enfocement simply treated marijuna the same way we treat a DUI arrest (e.g, a misdemeanor), there would be no danger. There is no inherent need to bust down a door for someone possessing personal quantities of marijuna... ever. If however someone is dealing the drug, and there is evidence in the search warrant of them dealing in multiple different types of drugs, that is entirely a different story.

Noone (including me) was implying that busting down a door in a SWAT situation isn't a dangerous job. Far from it. What I am saying, is jurisdictions should be limiting the use of SWAT teams to truly dangerous situations. That line is getting more and more blurred, as departments are now routinely calling out the team for more and more incidents.

We have essentially started allowing police departments to become quasi para military forces. This is wrong. Many departments have fully embraced the idea, as guys personally love playing with all the latest/greatest gadgets, guns, technology. Many of those who are drawn to law enforcement in the first place love the idea of getting to use those types of tools. Many are former career military themselves. Thus the easy slide into making the police departments more militaristic in practice too....

It is time for the police to have stricter policies on the criteria needed to trigger a SWAT response. That is the bottom line point. If you look at how laws were "enforced" even a decade ago, you'd see that things have started going down this slippery slope of Special Ops SWAT tactics for all types of things it was never originally intended for...

If you reflect on how the way things used to be, vs how things are now done... ask yourself... what changed?

Huntin1 I'd never ever call you a liar. I have way too much respect for you personally to ever do that. Hopefully that wasn't directed at me?

Feel free to PM me...

Ryan


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> However the DEA and other federal and local agencies have ignored the will of those people, and continued prosecuting/arresting without regard to the decision.


Local authorities cannot over ride a federal law. If they try then the local law is illegal. They can add to a federal law but cannot pass their own law that voids the federal law. The DEA and other federal and local agencies are following the constitution which is the real will of the people, not some half baked board members in a city that haven't outgrown the 60's period.


----------



## huntin1 (Nov 14, 2003)

No Ryan, it wasn't directed at you, not directed at any one person.

Since I've been at this for 29 years I can relate what was going on a decade ago, even 2.

When I started in 1979 most people we arrested freely admitted being in the wrong, they rarely fought you. They took their lumps and hoped like hell that they would get away with it the next time. In the first 15 years I worked in law enforcement here I never had one weapon of any kind pulled on me. The past 14 however, I've not been so lucky, and in fact have come very close on several occasions to pulling the trigger myself. Pretty amazing since I haven't really been on the street much for 7 years.

In my opinion police departments are reacting to a trend in our society, they are basically having to change tactics because of the increased violence that criminals are dealing out to citizens and police officers alike. Whether most people realize it or not criminals are becoming more violent, more willing to use weapons to avoid arrest, less likely to just admit that they have done something wrong and not at all willing to accept any kind of punishment for it.

You may have a point if it weren't for the increase in illegal activity that for the most part goes hand in hand with illegal drug use, even marijuana.

I am not pretending that I have any answers here. Police departments are becoming what they need to be to cope with the societal problems which are becoming worse and more violent each year. We may not like it, may not agree with it, but that's the way it is, as I see it.

And for the most part I place alot of the blame on social workers and liberal judges.

huntin1


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> We have essentially started allowing police departments to become quasi para military forces. This is wrong.


It isn't wrong Ryan, even the SWAT teams are sometimes outgunned. As mentioned by huntin1 you don't know what you will run into even in small town North Dakota these days. Often crystal meth is associated with pot. Leave your ice house for a couple weeks and there is a chance they will make meth in it.

I don't know if the public has seen some of the movies huntin1 and I see in enforcement. In California a few years ago two bank robbers held of SWAT for about half an hour and they shot a half dozen police officers. They were finally stopped when some police borrowed weapons from a sport shop. The guys had flack suites and full auto weapons.

The pot isn't a nonviolent drug either. It appears that way to many younger professional people, but people are dying every day to supply those people. They are dying in the dessert, and innocent people are dying when stumbling into pot fields in our National Forests. There are fish hooks hanging on trails intended to catch you in the face, and if you should stumble into them they are totally ok with killing you.

I have talked to people who used pot for eight, nine, ten years and they have all said that after years they stopped because they noticed they were loosing their mental edge. Don't know if they were just using that as an excuse or if it was real. I know I am 60 and loosing it, but these guys were 30 and more forgetful than me.

I was just watching the news of two people in Phoenix I think. The guy was making his girlfriends two year old daughter inhale pot. The kid was choking and he kept shoving this glass pipe in her mouth. They were stupid enough to video it, then when they needed more money for pot the hocked it. They left the video on the recorder and the pawn shop owner called the police. Now I know alcohol makes people do stupid things, but back in college in the 1960's I never seen anyone do things on alcohol as I did on pot.

Legalize or not, but if the majority of American say no and want it enforced they will have to expect police to want to go home to their family in the evening. Perhaps a few innocent will be harmed, but if they are not ready a lot of innocent people will be harmed. The number of innocent dead will take a huge jump, because don't forget the police officer is innocent too. He is doing the job society tells him to do.

When drug raids go bad no one wins. When they go right society wins. It's a tough world and we have to decide what's worse one dead innocent civilian, or 100 dead innocent police. It's a loose loose situation that we are forced into.


----------

