November 26, 2006
Police Take Down Another Dangerous Grandma
Yet another wrong house no-knock raid on another elderly woman's house.
Comments are disabled.
Post is locked.
At least they didn't kill this one...
h/t : Glenn
Posted by: Ragnar at
03:00 AM
| Comments (98)
| Add Comment
Post contains 27 words, total size 1 kb.
1
With all due respect, it has not been confirmed that the Atlanta
shooting was a "wrong house" incident. At least not to my
knowledge. I can't find any new news on it. It's more than
possible that her son or grandson has been dealing drugs out of her
house. Happens all the time.
shooting was a "wrong house" incident. At least not to my
knowledge. I can't find any new news on it. It's more than
possible that her son or grandson has been dealing drugs out of her
house. Happens all the time.
Posted by: Oyster at November 26, 2006 06:35 AM (YudAC)
2
The team was looking for 24-year-old Reginaldo Ramirez, who lives next door to (Mrs.) Silva.
Yeah, happens all the time. You know how "those" people are.
Yeah, happens all the time. You know how "those" people are.
Posted by: Fuck R You Dumb at November 26, 2006 10:13 AM (a7sMc)
3
The war on grandmothers has to stop. We have spent trillions on the war
on drugs and to what effect. We have pretty much the same drug usage
rate as places that have decriminalized. We have the highest rate of
incarceration in the developed world.
on drugs and to what effect. We have pretty much the same drug usage
rate as places that have decriminalized. We have the highest rate of
incarceration in the developed world.
Posted by: Randman at November 26, 2006 10:33 AM (Sal3J)
4
You would think that if a Judge was to sign a 'No knock' warrant to enter a location he would want verification other than just the District Attorney's word that the address is where a suspect resides.
Judicial oversight exists for a reason, without the signature of a judge these warrants could not be executed, the sheer volume of the warrants is most likely leading to judges 'rubber stamping' the requests.
Misuse, and mistaken addresses can cost people their lives, therefore judges should be taking their 'stroke of a pen' actions seriously.
Judicial oversight exists for a reason, without the signature of a judge these warrants could not be executed, the sheer volume of the warrants is most likely leading to judges 'rubber stamping' the requests.
Misuse, and mistaken addresses can cost people their lives, therefore judges should be taking their 'stroke of a pen' actions seriously.
Posted by: davec at November 26, 2006 12:57 PM (QkWqQ)
5
While the left moans about the non-existent loss of civil liberties and suspension of habeus corpus due to the Patriot Act, atrocities like grandma hunting go ignored on a daily basis--and they've been ignored by the "progressives" for decades.
The left even fields assholes like Oyster who try to defend this thuggery and blame anyone else but the perpetrators. He'd by crying a different tune if they kicked his auntie's door down and pig-piled on him.
I know from experience that judges issue warrants thoughtlessly on the flimsiest of... ahem...unwarranted accusations. Anyone feeling spiteful can send the goon squad crashing through his neighbor's door with an anonymous call accusing them of drug manufacturing, child molestation, etc. Women can have men thrown in jail for looking at them cross eyed.
Judges tend to be crooked, and they aren't hindered by any kind of oversight whatsoever. These failed lawyers are the last people in the world (after the cops,) who should be making decisions on midnight assaults against the public, much less national security matters such as searches of terrorist hideouts without notification.
Worst of all, police departments never own up to their mistakes, even when victims successfully sue
them for damages. There is no recourse against crooked judges and prosecutors. Just ask the real victims in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax.
The left even fields assholes like Oyster who try to defend this thuggery and blame anyone else but the perpetrators. He'd by crying a different tune if they kicked his auntie's door down and pig-piled on him.
I know from experience that judges issue warrants thoughtlessly on the flimsiest of... ahem...unwarranted accusations. Anyone feeling spiteful can send the goon squad crashing through his neighbor's door with an anonymous call accusing them of drug manufacturing, child molestation, etc. Women can have men thrown in jail for looking at them cross eyed.
Judges tend to be crooked, and they aren't hindered by any kind of oversight whatsoever. These failed lawyers are the last people in the world (after the cops,) who should be making decisions on midnight assaults against the public, much less national security matters such as searches of terrorist hideouts without notification.
Worst of all, police departments never own up to their mistakes, even when victims successfully sue
them for damages. There is no recourse against crooked judges and prosecutors. Just ask the real victims in the Duke lacrosse rape hoax.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 03:21 PM (bLPT+)
6
I've been a little confused over the "wrong house" accusations over the Atlanta incident. I read this earlier this week. I think the link was on Drudge. http://stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/462/woman_92_shot_by_atlanta_police_in_drug_raid
Posted by: Maureen at November 26, 2006 04:19 PM (+Yj3l)
7
I've been a bit confused over all the "wrong house" talk about the Atlanta incident. I saw this link at Drudge earlier this week:
stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/462/woman_92_shot_by_atlanta_police_in_drug_raid
stopthedrugwar.org/chronicle/462/woman_92_shot_by_atlanta_police_in_drug_raid
Posted by: Maureen at November 26, 2006 04:21 PM (+Yj3l)
Posted by: davec at November 26, 2006 04:44 PM (QkWqQ)
9
Hey Jeff the Uninformed,
The cops bought drugs at Grandma's house before they got the warrant. Also drugs were found in the house. Back off Oyster jackass and read more than daily kos or the AJC for your facts. If you want to be pissed off at APD then fine just keep in mind the chief is black and the mayor is black. This is not a Evil White man in Power situation. This is a poorly executed police operation where plain clothed operatives executed a warrant. Personally I would have done the same thing each side did. If three asshats knocked on my door and kicked it in I would have opened up too. Also if I had a warrant and executed it then came under fire, I would have fired back as well.
And Ragnar, spend time in Atlanta before you try busting on the varied types of morons we produce.
The cops bought drugs at Grandma's house before they got the warrant. Also drugs were found in the house. Back off Oyster jackass and read more than daily kos or the AJC for your facts. If you want to be pissed off at APD then fine just keep in mind the chief is black and the mayor is black. This is not a Evil White man in Power situation. This is a poorly executed police operation where plain clothed operatives executed a warrant. Personally I would have done the same thing each side did. If three asshats knocked on my door and kicked it in I would have opened up too. Also if I had a warrant and executed it then came under fire, I would have fired back as well.
And Ragnar, spend time in Atlanta before you try busting on the varied types of morons we produce.
Posted by: SeeMonk at November 26, 2006 05:05 PM (n4VvM)
10
Davec:
After reading some of her other comments, I realize I was wrong about Oyster. (Sorry, Oyster!) However, her comment was so idiotically complacent, and even defensive of the criminal excess of our so called "criminal justice" system, that I mistook her for a leftist. Her comments are characteristically rational and reasoned, so this one surprised me.
She's not the only American unaware of the secret war the Criminally Unjust System is waging against John Q.
After reading some of her other comments, I realize I was wrong about Oyster. (Sorry, Oyster!) However, her comment was so idiotically complacent, and even defensive of the criminal excess of our so called "criminal justice" system, that I mistook her for a leftist. Her comments are characteristically rational and reasoned, so this one surprised me.
She's not the only American unaware of the secret war the Criminally Unjust System is waging against John Q.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 05:31 PM (bLPT+)
11
Hey Seemonk the hypocritical, if you think I'm a leftist you have a reading comprehension problem. Back off and pull your head out of your ass. A knockless warrant is never necessary, and there's no excuse for using Gestapo--that's right, i wote Gestapo--tactics against an old woman.
Drug dealers can easily and safely be arrested as they leave their residences, thus avoiding any danger to the innocent, as this grandmother clearly was.
There is no excuse for dickless cops dressing up in camoflauge fatigues like baby Rambos and terrorizing old women while they tear up their houses.
Oh, wait. The Cheif of Police and the Mayor of Atlanta (shit-hole,) are Black. That makes it O.K. then.
Fuck you, asshole.
Drug dealers can easily and safely be arrested as they leave their residences, thus avoiding any danger to the innocent, as this grandmother clearly was.
There is no excuse for dickless cops dressing up in camoflauge fatigues like baby Rambos and terrorizing old women while they tear up their houses.
Oh, wait. The Cheif of Police and the Mayor of Atlanta (shit-hole,) are Black. That makes it O.K. then.
Fuck you, asshole.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 05:39 PM (bLPT+)
12
P.S.,
When the police think a suspect actually is armed and dangerous, they prefer to nab them outdoors, because it's safer for everyone involved--although their own safety is their only real concern. Raiding a home that may have an armed suspect holed up inside is the height of stupidity, and it's rarely done.
Knockless warrants are an excuse to increase department budgets and act out sophomoric fantasies of "manly" heroism. It is the work of corrupt cowards.
There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of wimpy, "poorly executed police operation." That's why defending it is so despicable. This operation wasn't simply poorly executed, it was poorly conceived, authorized, and reviewed.
The police chief and his camouflaged cronies should be in jail. Why do these "urban assault team" morons wear camo in the city, anyway? Other than to indulge their sophomoric power fantasies, of course.
When the police think a suspect actually is armed and dangerous, they prefer to nab them outdoors, because it's safer for everyone involved--although their own safety is their only real concern. Raiding a home that may have an armed suspect holed up inside is the height of stupidity, and it's rarely done.
Knockless warrants are an excuse to increase department budgets and act out sophomoric fantasies of "manly" heroism. It is the work of corrupt cowards.
There is absolutely no excuse for this kind of wimpy, "poorly executed police operation." That's why defending it is so despicable. This operation wasn't simply poorly executed, it was poorly conceived, authorized, and reviewed.
The police chief and his camouflaged cronies should be in jail. Why do these "urban assault team" morons wear camo in the city, anyway? Other than to indulge their sophomoric power fantasies, of course.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 06:02 PM (bLPT+)
13
Jeff--I can't say I disagree with anything you've said in the above statements.
I just don't like you.
SeeMonk's a regular here. You're not. So why don't you go back to
Little Green Footballs or wherever the hell you came from. And don't
let the door hit your big ass on the way out.
I just don't like you.
SeeMonk's a regular here. You're not. So why don't you go back to
Little Green Footballs or wherever the hell you came from. And don't
let the door hit your big ass on the way out.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 26, 2006 06:21 PM (a7sMc)
14
SeeMonk sez:
And Ragnar, spend time in Atlanta before you try busting on the varied types of morons we produce.
SeeMonk -
Please elaborate.
And Ragnar, spend time in Atlanta before you try busting on the varied types of morons we produce.
SeeMonk -
Please elaborate.
Posted by: The All-Seeing Pirate Ragnar at November 26, 2006 06:54 PM (sUJHi)
15
HankHardly:
This isn't a circle jerking club. If you don't like my comments about See Monk's misplaced faith in the criminal justice system, or my retaliation for his idiotic attack, you can feel free to leave. If you don't care for debate, or you're just plain afraid of it, you shouldn't be commenting on a blog like this anyway. I don't give a shit who you like or dislike, because you're an obvious asshole and a moron. Just keep stroking Spank Monkey and keep your hands away from my crotch. Keep your obsession with men's fat asses to yourself.
I don't like you, punk.
This isn't a circle jerking club. If you don't like my comments about See Monk's misplaced faith in the criminal justice system, or my retaliation for his idiotic attack, you can feel free to leave. If you don't care for debate, or you're just plain afraid of it, you shouldn't be commenting on a blog like this anyway. I don't give a shit who you like or dislike, because you're an obvious asshole and a moron. Just keep stroking Spank Monkey and keep your hands away from my crotch. Keep your obsession with men's fat asses to yourself.
I don't like you, punk.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 07:47 PM (bLPT+)
16
P.S., You write like a woman. Why the manly screen name? Are you gender confused? Why the freakish dishonesty?
Asswipe.
Asswipe.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 07:50 PM (bLPT+)
17
Fuck yourself Jeff--go back to the Autonomist where cop haters and tin-foil hats like yourself thrive while searching the sky for black copters. This blog is for people who can think.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 26, 2006 08:13 PM (a7sMc)
18
Jeff is the type who likes to cast the first stone. Nevermind the fact he doesn't live in the neighborhood where the event took place. Nevermind the fact he has never seen it. There are places in Atlanta that are under seige by people dealing Meth where lots of gradparents live. They are full of section 8 rentals occupied by people who don't give a crap about anything except themselves. That is why a 92 year old woman is dead. Who was looking out for her the time leading up to the shooting? Not the guy selling drugs out of her home. Not Jeff or any of his reactionary anarchist pals either. The fact of the matter is there are parts of Atlanta that are like Baghdad when it comes to the laws of the jungle. Ask the Mayor about that. Ask John lewis and Dexter King.
Posted by: SeeMonk at November 26, 2006 09:49 PM (n4VvM)
Posted by: Heroic Dreamer at November 26, 2006 10:07 PM (2bJJN)
20
Guys like Jeff are the type who have the luxury of living in Bum-Fuck Egypt somewhere where drugs are sold twice a year and are therefor able to cast their dispersions from a safe distance. Typical hypocrite.
Nobody advocates the death of an innocent 22-, 42-, 72- or 92-year-old woman at the hands of police and an investigation should follow; even by an outside agency if need be. And if heads roll, so be it.
But when the public clamors for results, results, results, and safety, safety, safety, from an overwhelmed police force, they typically don't give two shits about how they get it -- until something like this happens. Then it's outrage.
You can be sure if somebody farted sideways on Jeff's block, he'd be crying like a child for police protection. But until then, he's leading the lynching.
Nobody advocates the death of an innocent 22-, 42-, 72- or 92-year-old woman at the hands of police and an investigation should follow; even by an outside agency if need be. And if heads roll, so be it.
But when the public clamors for results, results, results, and safety, safety, safety, from an overwhelmed police force, they typically don't give two shits about how they get it -- until something like this happens. Then it's outrage.
You can be sure if somebody farted sideways on Jeff's block, he'd be crying like a child for police protection. But until then, he's leading the lynching.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 26, 2006 10:17 PM (a7sMc)
21
Guys -
The question at hand isn't whether or not we should have cops or whether or not they should do their job. Those are strawmen. There's no necessary dichotomy between chaos in the streets and dead grandmas. I'm all for cops who are aggressive about stopping crime.
This is about the very specific law enforcement technique of the no-knock warrant, and even more specifically the plainclothes no-knock warrant. The facts of every no-knock gone bad are different, but most result from a lack of adequate investigation and/or sloppiness on somebody's part.
No-knock warrants have their place in the law enforcement bag of tricks. They should, however, be rare and be subjected to strict scrutiny by the judge--or maybe even a panel of judges--before they're issued.
Further, the authorities should be held liable for any damage, injury and death occurring as a result of an improper no-knock raid.
Alternately, we could send our elected officials back to Econ 101 for a semester, so they can understand why prohibition is doomed to failure...
I imagine I'll get in trouble for that one... ;-)
The question at hand isn't whether or not we should have cops or whether or not they should do their job. Those are strawmen. There's no necessary dichotomy between chaos in the streets and dead grandmas. I'm all for cops who are aggressive about stopping crime.
This is about the very specific law enforcement technique of the no-knock warrant, and even more specifically the plainclothes no-knock warrant. The facts of every no-knock gone bad are different, but most result from a lack of adequate investigation and/or sloppiness on somebody's part.
No-knock warrants have their place in the law enforcement bag of tricks. They should, however, be rare and be subjected to strict scrutiny by the judge--or maybe even a panel of judges--before they're issued.
Further, the authorities should be held liable for any damage, injury and death occurring as a result of an improper no-knock raid.
Alternately, we could send our elected officials back to Econ 101 for a semester, so they can understand why prohibition is doomed to failure...
I imagine I'll get in trouble for that one... ;-)
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 26, 2006 11:26 PM (74U3S)
22
BTW, Hank, I, for one, don't live in BumFuck Egypt.
I live in a city. A city where I've been beaten unconscious and had my home ransacked by thieves. In other words, I have more personal experience with crime than most.
At the same time, I've had friends who've been victims of this type of mistaken identity commando-style raid. I've also been forcibly removed from a premises by the police for no good reason.
If you've never been on the receiving end of police power, you speak without a full perspective on this subject. I'm not saying that as an insult. It's just a fact.
There are a whole lot of good, smart, hardworking cops in the world. I thank God for what they do and the professional way they do it. At the same time, there's also a share of cops that don't meet that description. Unfortunately, we have to account for that fact in our law enforcement policies.
I live in a city. A city where I've been beaten unconscious and had my home ransacked by thieves. In other words, I have more personal experience with crime than most.
At the same time, I've had friends who've been victims of this type of mistaken identity commando-style raid. I've also been forcibly removed from a premises by the police for no good reason.
If you've never been on the receiving end of police power, you speak without a full perspective on this subject. I'm not saying that as an insult. It's just a fact.
There are a whole lot of good, smart, hardworking cops in the world. I thank God for what they do and the professional way they do it. At the same time, there's also a share of cops that don't meet that description. Unfortunately, we have to account for that fact in our law enforcement policies.
Posted by: Ragnar, the All-Seeing Pirate at November 26, 2006 11:46 PM (rM3gY)
23
Jeff shows the difference between the right and left. We still love you Oyster.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 26, 2006 11:53 PM (aghaS)
24
Hank Hardly:
It takes a real asshole to distort my truthful observations about problems with the American criminal justice system into a lie about hating all cops, which would include my kid sister and brother in law. But then, acting like a priggish asshole is all I've seen you do on this blog, so I assume its your only talent. You sure haven't shown the ability to think.
As far as where I live goes, I've lived in Detroit, LA, Seattle, and Milwakee. Here in Omaha i've seen people selling crack in the street on multiple occasions. Where do you live? Belltown Seattle? The crime rate there is virtually nonexistant, and consists mainly of drunk in public charges. Ooohh, the scary mean streets.
Nothing excuses abuse of power by our paid civil servants, especially not your ass-licking drivel to the contrary.
What "overwhelmed" police force are you talking about? Urban assault teams are better armed than the Navy fucking SEALS, you raging ignoramus. Police budgets in most cities are through the roof. Cops blow away criminals regularly (boo hoo,) but a convenience store clerk has a far more dangerous job than the police do, with a far higher fatality rate.
I'm so sick of stupid lying cocksuckers like you who try to mischaracterize police work as thankless, horribly dangerous, and running on shoe-string budgets. The exact opposite is true. There's a reason that police departments have state of the art equipment and generous early retirement benefits. TV is filled with shows glorifying police officers.
Anyone who condones the terrorizing of old women is a worthless, piece of shit reprobate. Anyone who thinks the cowards who did this are decent human beings deserving of our respect and admiration, is the one who really wears a tinfoil hat.
Its no secret that most of the Military commandos who train America's S.W.A.T. and other urban assault teams hold the people they train in contempt as cowards, thugs, and bullies. These teams are trained to face terrorists and hostage situations, but they're used mainly to kick people's doors in.
I don't rely on police protection because that's not their job, and they have a poor track record when it comes to doing so. It's their job to enforce the law. They show up when the crime is over--usually long after it's over.
Why would I need someone less capable than myself for protection? Nearly half of the cops in this country are fat women. I can shoot straight and I don't need a gun or a phony screen name to protect myself.
You can lie about what I wrote all you want. That's your forte. My words are still here in black and white to prove you're a lying little weasel. You still haven't said why you pretend to be a man, and I haven't been kicked off this blog.
Fuck you, cunt.
It takes a real asshole to distort my truthful observations about problems with the American criminal justice system into a lie about hating all cops, which would include my kid sister and brother in law. But then, acting like a priggish asshole is all I've seen you do on this blog, so I assume its your only talent. You sure haven't shown the ability to think.
As far as where I live goes, I've lived in Detroit, LA, Seattle, and Milwakee. Here in Omaha i've seen people selling crack in the street on multiple occasions. Where do you live? Belltown Seattle? The crime rate there is virtually nonexistant, and consists mainly of drunk in public charges. Ooohh, the scary mean streets.
Nothing excuses abuse of power by our paid civil servants, especially not your ass-licking drivel to the contrary.
What "overwhelmed" police force are you talking about? Urban assault teams are better armed than the Navy fucking SEALS, you raging ignoramus. Police budgets in most cities are through the roof. Cops blow away criminals regularly (boo hoo,) but a convenience store clerk has a far more dangerous job than the police do, with a far higher fatality rate.
I'm so sick of stupid lying cocksuckers like you who try to mischaracterize police work as thankless, horribly dangerous, and running on shoe-string budgets. The exact opposite is true. There's a reason that police departments have state of the art equipment and generous early retirement benefits. TV is filled with shows glorifying police officers.
Anyone who condones the terrorizing of old women is a worthless, piece of shit reprobate. Anyone who thinks the cowards who did this are decent human beings deserving of our respect and admiration, is the one who really wears a tinfoil hat.
Its no secret that most of the Military commandos who train America's S.W.A.T. and other urban assault teams hold the people they train in contempt as cowards, thugs, and bullies. These teams are trained to face terrorists and hostage situations, but they're used mainly to kick people's doors in.
I don't rely on police protection because that's not their job, and they have a poor track record when it comes to doing so. It's their job to enforce the law. They show up when the crime is over--usually long after it's over.
Why would I need someone less capable than myself for protection? Nearly half of the cops in this country are fat women. I can shoot straight and I don't need a gun or a phony screen name to protect myself.
You can lie about what I wrote all you want. That's your forte. My words are still here in black and white to prove you're a lying little weasel. You still haven't said why you pretend to be a man, and I haven't been kicked off this blog.
Fuck you, cunt.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 26, 2006 11:55 PM (bLPT+)
25
Christ Seemonk: Why not put the blame where it belongs.
The Blacks. Imcompetent black government elected simply because they are black. The fact that they can't read a newspaper has nothing to do with it. Same as New Orleans. Only worse here. No African government is worth a shit. If I'm wrong I'm sure some lefturd liberal will show me where. Ha.
The Blacks. Imcompetent black government elected simply because they are black. The fact that they can't read a newspaper has nothing to do with it. Same as New Orleans. Only worse here. No African government is worth a shit. If I'm wrong I'm sure some lefturd liberal will show me where. Ha.
Posted by: Greyrooster at November 26, 2006 11:59 PM (aghaS)
26
SpankMonkey:
You attack me and then accuse me of casting the first stone. Who do you think you are with this "first stone" nonsense, anyway? Jesus?
Using the first hand knowledge argument is juvenile. I can tell you the surface and core temperature of the sun, even though I've never been there in person. I don't need to travel to grandma's house in Atlanta--someplace you've never been either--to know that those cops screwed up in a major way, and that their standard operating procedure resulted in an old woman's death.
Who was looking out for the old woman? Now you're going to blame me and her family for her death at the hands of gung ho retard cops? Just because you failed logic 101 doesn't mean the rest of us did.
You and your special needs pals defended the indefensible actions of these dickless cops who don't even have enough balls to admit they made a mistake. You're every bit the miserable prick that they are. You know that you're wrong, but you aren't man enough to admit it, so you and your dyke pal distort what I wrote and toss out a bunch of simplistic crap about dangerous neighborhoods and the imagined necessity of shooting 97 year old women dead in their living rooms.
Fuck you up the ass, queer-bait. Talk to me when you develop a conscious.
You attack me and then accuse me of casting the first stone. Who do you think you are with this "first stone" nonsense, anyway? Jesus?
Using the first hand knowledge argument is juvenile. I can tell you the surface and core temperature of the sun, even though I've never been there in person. I don't need to travel to grandma's house in Atlanta--someplace you've never been either--to know that those cops screwed up in a major way, and that their standard operating procedure resulted in an old woman's death.
Who was looking out for the old woman? Now you're going to blame me and her family for her death at the hands of gung ho retard cops? Just because you failed logic 101 doesn't mean the rest of us did.
You and your special needs pals defended the indefensible actions of these dickless cops who don't even have enough balls to admit they made a mistake. You're every bit the miserable prick that they are. You know that you're wrong, but you aren't man enough to admit it, so you and your dyke pal distort what I wrote and toss out a bunch of simplistic crap about dangerous neighborhoods and the imagined necessity of shooting 97 year old women dead in their living rooms.
Fuck you up the ass, queer-bait. Talk to me when you develop a conscious.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 12:11 AM (bLPT+)
27
I meant to write "conscience." Not that you'rre likely to notice the difference.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 12:15 AM (bLPT+)
28
Jeff--And it takes an even bigger asshole to refer to the police as "dickless cops", "the Gestapo", and the lawful execution of no-knock warrants as "an excuse to increase department budgets and act
out sophomoric fantasies of "manly" heroism. It is the work of corrupt
cowards."
And you would have anyone believe your kid sister and brother-in-law are supposedly cops? Yeah, keep the fantasies coming Jeff.
Your truthful obeservations? No-knock warrants were upheld by the Supreme Court THIS YEAR, you fucking idiot —— with judges placed by BUSH. Now, if you support the warrantless search tenets of the Patriot Act, how can you sit here and deny police the tools they would use to curb the sales and delivery of drugs in our own cities, in our own schools?
I'll tell you how: because you're a hypocritical know-it-all scumbag, not worth the typical undermanned, overwhelmed police force's responsibility to serve you.
Did an old lady die in a botched raid? Absolutely. Same in Iraq, a lot of old ladies have been dying simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But how can that be? The US military is the best trained, best funded, most state-of-the-art such organization in the world. Well it happens, you weasle, becusae that what happens im the midst of action, wheter police or military.
But in the US, you'd rather blame the guys that are trying to do the best they can with limited, YES LIMITED, resources, wouldn't you? You pathetic piece of shit.
I'd love to see you walk into a precinct in Omaha--a burg about as crime ridden as Provo, Utah--and spout this crap. You'd walk out speaking even higher than you do now. But that's right; you're trapped in a room, with only a keyboard to communicate with the outside world.
God but pussies like you gaul me.
As far as where I live goes, I've lived in Detroit, LA, Seattle, and Milwakee.
Bullshit. I've lived in Milwaukee nearly all my life and we wouldn't stand for a cock breath like you in our city. Tell me, where'd you live? What school did you go to when you lived here?
Why you contemptuous crotch stain, you haven't been out of Nebraska in your life.
Urban assault teams are better armed than the Navy fucking SEALS, you
raging ignoramus. Police budgets in most cities are through the roof.
Cops blow away criminals regularly (boo hoo,) but a convenience store
clerk has a far more dangerous job than the police do, with a far higher fatality rate.
COMPLETE bullshit, though I'm certain you have some personal insights into the convenience store clerk stats.
I guess the worse part of it is, miserable, lying pedophiles like you will get the same kind of protection as those who might actually appreciate it if the need ever arises. All I can hope is that if you're ever lying in the street and a cop car approaches, one of the two "dickless cowards" says to the other, "It's only Jeff Bargholz. Fuck him; keep driving."
Do everyone a favor, little-boy toucher -- piss off.
out sophomoric fantasies of "manly" heroism. It is the work of corrupt
cowards."
And you would have anyone believe your kid sister and brother-in-law are supposedly cops? Yeah, keep the fantasies coming Jeff.
Your truthful obeservations? No-knock warrants were upheld by the Supreme Court THIS YEAR, you fucking idiot —— with judges placed by BUSH. Now, if you support the warrantless search tenets of the Patriot Act, how can you sit here and deny police the tools they would use to curb the sales and delivery of drugs in our own cities, in our own schools?
I'll tell you how: because you're a hypocritical know-it-all scumbag, not worth the typical undermanned, overwhelmed police force's responsibility to serve you.
Did an old lady die in a botched raid? Absolutely. Same in Iraq, a lot of old ladies have been dying simply because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But how can that be? The US military is the best trained, best funded, most state-of-the-art such organization in the world. Well it happens, you weasle, becusae that what happens im the midst of action, wheter police or military.
But in the US, you'd rather blame the guys that are trying to do the best they can with limited, YES LIMITED, resources, wouldn't you? You pathetic piece of shit.
I'd love to see you walk into a precinct in Omaha--a burg about as crime ridden as Provo, Utah--and spout this crap. You'd walk out speaking even higher than you do now. But that's right; you're trapped in a room, with only a keyboard to communicate with the outside world.
God but pussies like you gaul me.
As far as where I live goes, I've lived in Detroit, LA, Seattle, and Milwakee.
Bullshit. I've lived in Milwaukee nearly all my life and we wouldn't stand for a cock breath like you in our city. Tell me, where'd you live? What school did you go to when you lived here?
Why you contemptuous crotch stain, you haven't been out of Nebraska in your life.
Urban assault teams are better armed than the Navy fucking SEALS, you
raging ignoramus. Police budgets in most cities are through the roof.
Cops blow away criminals regularly (boo hoo,) but a convenience store
clerk has a far more dangerous job than the police do, with a far higher fatality rate.
COMPLETE bullshit, though I'm certain you have some personal insights into the convenience store clerk stats.
I guess the worse part of it is, miserable, lying pedophiles like you will get the same kind of protection as those who might actually appreciate it if the need ever arises. All I can hope is that if you're ever lying in the street and a cop car approaches, one of the two "dickless cowards" says to the other, "It's only Jeff Bargholz. Fuck him; keep driving."
Do everyone a favor, little-boy toucher -- piss off.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 27, 2006 01:07 AM (a7sMc)
29
Jeez, calm down Jeff. I go away for a while and I get maligned
with
your over-reactionary vitriol. I never made any remark that this
isn't
a real issue. I never defended anyone and even included the fact
that
there was no further evidence in the Atlanta case to refute the initial
account. All I did was bring up the fact that comparing these two
particular incidents may not be right. Thanks for the apology,
but why finish it off with labeling my comment as "idiotically
complacent"?
Oh yeah, I'm unaware of the "secret war" by the "Criminally Unjust System" against John Q. [This is where I roll my eyes]
Jeff, aren't you guilty of what you have accused the police of?
Acting without all the facts? From what I've read here you're
deliberately conflating facts from separate incidents to justify your
broad brush painting.
According to what information is available, these incidents are not the
same at all. The only thing similar is that the home was occupied by
an elderly woman. In one case the police said they had bought drugs
earlier in the day at that particular house - in the other, the address
was obtained from a known criminal. The latter sounds like a major
screw up. I feel bad for that old woman and her family, but IF someone
she trusted was selling drugs from her house, who ever it is needs to
bear some responsibility.
That's all. Really. I'm not the enemy.
Both cases are under review. Wait and see. Personally, I hope the
whole "no-knock" warrant thing is severely restricted as a result, no
matter who was at fault.
with
your over-reactionary vitriol. I never made any remark that this
isn't
a real issue. I never defended anyone and even included the fact
that
there was no further evidence in the Atlanta case to refute the initial
account. All I did was bring up the fact that comparing these two
particular incidents may not be right. Thanks for the apology,
but why finish it off with labeling my comment as "idiotically
complacent"?
Oh yeah, I'm unaware of the "secret war" by the "Criminally Unjust System" against John Q. [This is where I roll my eyes]
Jeff, aren't you guilty of what you have accused the police of?
Acting without all the facts? From what I've read here you're
deliberately conflating facts from separate incidents to justify your
broad brush painting.
According to what information is available, these incidents are not the
same at all. The only thing similar is that the home was occupied by
an elderly woman. In one case the police said they had bought drugs
earlier in the day at that particular house - in the other, the address
was obtained from a known criminal. The latter sounds like a major
screw up. I feel bad for that old woman and her family, but IF someone
she trusted was selling drugs from her house, who ever it is needs to
bear some responsibility.
That's all. Really. I'm not the enemy.
Both cases are under review. Wait and see. Personally, I hope the
whole "no-knock" warrant thing is severely restricted as a result, no
matter who was at fault.
Posted by: Oyster at November 27, 2006 07:28 AM (YudAC)
30
So, aside from all the hyperbolic rhetoric above, there still lies the
essential question; are the cops nazi's, or simply incompetent idiots?
There really is no third option. Also, the courts no longer act as
impartial arbiters of justice, but are mostly actively working against
the Constitution by either letting criminals go free, or allowing the
cops to act like the Gestapo.
essential question; are the cops nazi's, or simply incompetent idiots?
There really is no third option. Also, the courts no longer act as
impartial arbiters of justice, but are mostly actively working against
the Constitution by either letting criminals go free, or allowing the
cops to act like the Gestapo.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at November 27, 2006 07:39 AM (v3I+x)
31
Now that I've read the rest of the commentary I'd like to personally
congratulate Jeff for employing just about every argument fallacy known
to man in one thread:
The Ad Hominem fallacy ("you're an obvious asshole and a moron." (That's only one instance))
The Appeal to Belief fallacy ("Police budgets in most cities are
through the roof." "Nearly half of the cops in this country are fat
women." etc...)
The Appeal to Common Practice fallacy ("I know from experience that
judges issue warrants thoughtlessly on the flimsiest of...
ahem...unwarranted accusations.")
The Appeal to Emotion fallacy ("He'd by crying a different tune if they kicked his auntie's door down and pig-piled on him.")
The Subjectivist Fallacy ("my truthful observations about problems with the American criminal justice system")
The Ad Baculum, Appeal to Fear fallacy ("Anyone who condones the terrorizing of old women...")
The Bandwagon fallacy ("Anyone who thinks the cowards who did this are
decent human beings deserving of our respect and admiration, is the one
who really wears a tinfoil hat.")
The Begging the Question fallacy ("Why do these "urban assault team" morons wear camo in the city, anyway?")
The Biased Induction or Biased Generalization or Biased Sample fallacy
("....shooting 97 year old women dead in their living rooms.")
And on it goes with:
The Ad Ignorantiam or Burden of Proof fallacy
The Post hoc fallacy
The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy
The Division fallacy
etc...
congratulate Jeff for employing just about every argument fallacy known
to man in one thread:
The Ad Hominem fallacy ("you're an obvious asshole and a moron." (That's only one instance))
The Appeal to Belief fallacy ("Police budgets in most cities are
through the roof." "Nearly half of the cops in this country are fat
women." etc...)
The Appeal to Common Practice fallacy ("I know from experience that
judges issue warrants thoughtlessly on the flimsiest of...
ahem...unwarranted accusations.")
The Appeal to Emotion fallacy ("He'd by crying a different tune if they kicked his auntie's door down and pig-piled on him.")
The Subjectivist Fallacy ("my truthful observations about problems with the American criminal justice system")
The Ad Baculum, Appeal to Fear fallacy ("Anyone who condones the terrorizing of old women...")
The Bandwagon fallacy ("Anyone who thinks the cowards who did this are
decent human beings deserving of our respect and admiration, is the one
who really wears a tinfoil hat.")
The Begging the Question fallacy ("Why do these "urban assault team" morons wear camo in the city, anyway?")
The Biased Induction or Biased Generalization or Biased Sample fallacy
("....shooting 97 year old women dead in their living rooms.")
And on it goes with:
The Ad Ignorantiam or Burden of Proof fallacy
The Post hoc fallacy
The Appeal to Ignorance fallacy
The Division fallacy
etc...
Posted by: Oyster at November 27, 2006 08:24 AM (YudAC)
32
Here is a forum that is mostly police and military. Get Off The X dotcom.
Please go their and let them know your opinion of the fat women and sophomoric fantasy lives that police are overrun with. They will be happy for your thoughts! (You will have to register to visit, but its free).
Please go their and let them know your opinion of the fat women and sophomoric fantasy lives that police are overrun with. They will be happy for your thoughts! (You will have to register to visit, but its free).
Posted by: JeepThang at November 27, 2006 08:41 AM (yZQoS)
Posted by: JeepThang at November 27, 2006 08:42 AM (yZQoS)
34
The local Atlanta news reported yesterday that the undercover cops serving the warrant on 92 year old grandma had purchased drugs at that house earlier in the day. I didn't follow the story all weekend but I caught that blurb last night.
Posted by: blackflag at November 27, 2006 10:14 AM (Mq5jS)
35
There needs to be much more oversight on "No knock" raids, and by extension on the raids themselves, all officers microphones should be open, and recorded during the raid.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36869.html
Cory Maye did not have a criminal record, and now sits on death row for the capital crime of killing a police officer, who he said did not announce themselves to be Police on entering his residents during a raid.
I put this down to two things, one lack of Judges and D.A's ensuring that the target location is the actual location of a suspect, because if I was on a SWAT team and was told to enter a location, I would enter it assuming my life is in danger as well.
The other would be like "the fog of war" in which officers react to other officers actions, such as the recent shootings where officers fired many more rounds needed to either subdue, or kill someone.
I am not sure of the criteria needed for a "no knock" warrant I am assuming that it is where a suspect may have a weapon and officers lives would be in jeopardy if having to announce. I would hope that it is not just given out for other situations, e.g evidence may be destroyed etc.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36869.html
Cory Maye did not have a criminal record, and now sits on death row for the capital crime of killing a police officer, who he said did not announce themselves to be Police on entering his residents during a raid.
I put this down to two things, one lack of Judges and D.A's ensuring that the target location is the actual location of a suspect, because if I was on a SWAT team and was told to enter a location, I would enter it assuming my life is in danger as well.
The other would be like "the fog of war" in which officers react to other officers actions, such as the recent shootings where officers fired many more rounds needed to either subdue, or kill someone.
I am not sure of the criteria needed for a "no knock" warrant I am assuming that it is where a suspect may have a weapon and officers lives would be in jeopardy if having to announce. I would hope that it is not just given out for other situations, e.g evidence may be destroyed etc.
Posted by: davec at November 27, 2006 12:02 PM (QkWqQ)
36
An absolute fallacy: Oyster has a valid argument.
There is no defense for what those cops did to those old women. Anyone who tries to defend their actions is a piece of shit.
Were you able to follow that, moron, or do I have to explain to you why murdering old women is wrong?
There is no defense for what those cops did to those old women. Anyone who tries to defend their actions is a piece of shit.
Were you able to follow that, moron, or do I have to explain to you why murdering old women is wrong?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 12:43 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Oyster at November 27, 2006 01:25 PM (SCVhh)
38
Hank Hardly:
What's with the butch response? Are you pissed off because I would dare criticize the killing of an old woman by dickless cops, or because I know you're a dickless dyke posing as a man?
The bottom line in your failed pissing match (besides the fact that you have to sit down to pee,) is that those overzealous assholes killed an old woman because they're fucking incompetent. Killing an innocent person is more than a simple error. They are a danger to the public they're supposed to serve, and deserve nothing but my contempt. The fact that you rabidly defend them makes you an unmitigated cunt. You even stooped low enough to slam the soldiers serving in Iraq, as though they're kicking doors down and shooting innocent old women. What a worthless piece of shit you are.
The candy asses who killed that old woman aren't even members of the same species as the soldiers serving Americans in Iraq. (As opposed to killing them.)
I'm not the one who kicked an old lady's door down and shot her dead. I didn't kick the door down at the wrong house and terrorize another old lady. Your dickless heroes did. I'm not the one you should be criticizing. Do you think it takes balls to kill an old lady? Is it brave and heroic to deny responsibility when you do? Is it's noble to excuse crimes like that?
You have no valid point to make. Your mindless and ineffectual insults are just a reflection of your stupid frustration. Applying my criticism of corrupt and incompetent cops to all police in the country is juvenile sophistry and misdirection on your part. Not all cops shoot old women. Just the ones you like so much.
Nobody questioned the legality of no-knock warrants, "you fucking idiot." I did question their efficacy and morality. You, on the other hand, are a staunch defender of incompetence and immorality. According to you, shooting old women curbs drug sales to the kiddies. (The Supreme Court is a joke, by the way. Say hi to fellow freak Bader-Ginsburg.)
Provide examples that the typical police force is under-funded and overwhelmed. Your bull-shit doesn't cut it. Were the nutless goons who killed that old woman "trying to do the best they can with limited, YES LIMITED, resources?"
Instead of me walking into a police station, why don't you come to my door and tell me what a pussy I am? That would be funny.
How is where I live or how long I've lived there relevant to the killing of old ladies in Atlanta, and why do you presume that anyone who has spent their entire life in Nebraska is ignorant? Is it becuase you're an ignorant bigot, or are you jealous because some people have the kind of job skills that attract employers in different states and countries?
Not everybody leaves one state for another to be part of a large homosexual community.
The Navy SEALS don't have their own assault vehicles and helicopters. TWAT teams do.
If you want stats on the murder rate for convenience store clerks, check Parade Magazine. Once a year, it prints a story citing the 25 most dangerous professions. Even breaking police listings into separate categories like sheriff, state patrol, police, etc., isn't enough to put a single one of those professions in the top ten. Covenience store clerks have a far higher fatality rate, and that's a fact. (Facts are those pesky little truths you disdain.)
I was a convenience store clerk when I was in college. What of it? You couldn't handle a job like that. Of course, you couldn't handle a wet dream on a rainy night.
Omaha has a relatively low murder rate, but it has one of the highest overall crime rates in the country. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about--not that the city I live in has anything to do with killing an old woman in Atlanta.
"God but pussies like you gall me."
I'm not sure why you assume I lived in Milwaukee as a child, rather than as an adult, but I did in fact live there as a child. I lived on 39th street and went to 37th street school. My brother and I were California natives, so naturally we kicked a lot of ass in dork-central Milwaukee.
We left after only 2 years because Milwakee sucks. While geeks like you were sniffing cheese, building igloos, taking in welfare cases from Illinois, and watching the crime rate grow faster than any other city in the country, we were surfing and skiing. Maybe if the Milwaukee police start killing old ladies, the crime rate will drop and the kiddies will be drug free.
You don't live in Milwaukee like you're insinuating. Just another of your lies.
I've already had the police "protect" me on multiple occasions. By protect, I really mean harrass and try to arrest. In 3 different cities. That's one of the reasons I know police forces across the country have huge problems when it comes to dealing with the law abiding public. Of course, you don't consider shooting old women to be a problem with the public.
It's about time you admit that you're a woman, and that you live in Seattle, not Milwaukee. You can come out as a rug-muncher while you're at it.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to trash your vapid arguments and humiliate you. It was fun.
What's with the butch response? Are you pissed off because I would dare criticize the killing of an old woman by dickless cops, or because I know you're a dickless dyke posing as a man?
The bottom line in your failed pissing match (besides the fact that you have to sit down to pee,) is that those overzealous assholes killed an old woman because they're fucking incompetent. Killing an innocent person is more than a simple error. They are a danger to the public they're supposed to serve, and deserve nothing but my contempt. The fact that you rabidly defend them makes you an unmitigated cunt. You even stooped low enough to slam the soldiers serving in Iraq, as though they're kicking doors down and shooting innocent old women. What a worthless piece of shit you are.
The candy asses who killed that old woman aren't even members of the same species as the soldiers serving Americans in Iraq. (As opposed to killing them.)
I'm not the one who kicked an old lady's door down and shot her dead. I didn't kick the door down at the wrong house and terrorize another old lady. Your dickless heroes did. I'm not the one you should be criticizing. Do you think it takes balls to kill an old lady? Is it brave and heroic to deny responsibility when you do? Is it's noble to excuse crimes like that?
You have no valid point to make. Your mindless and ineffectual insults are just a reflection of your stupid frustration. Applying my criticism of corrupt and incompetent cops to all police in the country is juvenile sophistry and misdirection on your part. Not all cops shoot old women. Just the ones you like so much.
Nobody questioned the legality of no-knock warrants, "you fucking idiot." I did question their efficacy and morality. You, on the other hand, are a staunch defender of incompetence and immorality. According to you, shooting old women curbs drug sales to the kiddies. (The Supreme Court is a joke, by the way. Say hi to fellow freak Bader-Ginsburg.)
Provide examples that the typical police force is under-funded and overwhelmed. Your bull-shit doesn't cut it. Were the nutless goons who killed that old woman "trying to do the best they can with limited, YES LIMITED, resources?"
Instead of me walking into a police station, why don't you come to my door and tell me what a pussy I am? That would be funny.
How is where I live or how long I've lived there relevant to the killing of old ladies in Atlanta, and why do you presume that anyone who has spent their entire life in Nebraska is ignorant? Is it becuase you're an ignorant bigot, or are you jealous because some people have the kind of job skills that attract employers in different states and countries?
Not everybody leaves one state for another to be part of a large homosexual community.
The Navy SEALS don't have their own assault vehicles and helicopters. TWAT teams do.
If you want stats on the murder rate for convenience store clerks, check Parade Magazine. Once a year, it prints a story citing the 25 most dangerous professions. Even breaking police listings into separate categories like sheriff, state patrol, police, etc., isn't enough to put a single one of those professions in the top ten. Covenience store clerks have a far higher fatality rate, and that's a fact. (Facts are those pesky little truths you disdain.)
I was a convenience store clerk when I was in college. What of it? You couldn't handle a job like that. Of course, you couldn't handle a wet dream on a rainy night.
Omaha has a relatively low murder rate, but it has one of the highest overall crime rates in the country. As usual, you don't know what you're talking about--not that the city I live in has anything to do with killing an old woman in Atlanta.
"God but pussies like you gall me."
I'm not sure why you assume I lived in Milwaukee as a child, rather than as an adult, but I did in fact live there as a child. I lived on 39th street and went to 37th street school. My brother and I were California natives, so naturally we kicked a lot of ass in dork-central Milwaukee.
We left after only 2 years because Milwakee sucks. While geeks like you were sniffing cheese, building igloos, taking in welfare cases from Illinois, and watching the crime rate grow faster than any other city in the country, we were surfing and skiing. Maybe if the Milwaukee police start killing old ladies, the crime rate will drop and the kiddies will be drug free.
You don't live in Milwaukee like you're insinuating. Just another of your lies.
I've already had the police "protect" me on multiple occasions. By protect, I really mean harrass and try to arrest. In 3 different cities. That's one of the reasons I know police forces across the country have huge problems when it comes to dealing with the law abiding public. Of course, you don't consider shooting old women to be a problem with the public.
It's about time you admit that you're a woman, and that you live in Seattle, not Milwaukee. You can come out as a rug-muncher while you're at it.
Thanks for giving me the opportunity to trash your vapid arguments and humiliate you. It was fun.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 02:10 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 02:13 PM (bLPT+)
40
Improbulus Maximus:
There is a third option. Many cops are incompetent Nazis. It's impossible to tell what proportion of them are, but the actions and policies of individual police chiefs are a good indication of what kind of cops they employ.
Of course, some people here would argue that the Daryll Gates wannabe in Atlanta is a good police chief, and that two old ladies victimized in short order doesn't indicate a severe problem.
There is a third option. Many cops are incompetent Nazis. It's impossible to tell what proportion of them are, but the actions and policies of individual police chiefs are a good indication of what kind of cops they employ.
Of course, some people here would argue that the Daryll Gates wannabe in Atlanta is a good police chief, and that two old ladies victimized in short order doesn't indicate a severe problem.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 02:23 PM (bLPT+)
41
Jeff, man, you need to chill a little I think. I tend to run a bit long in posts, but it's nothing compared to how you go off.
Back on Topic: I think that the no-knock is mostly a bad idea. There's just way too much that can go wrong with it for very little real gain. S.W.A.T. teams were made for hostage rescue and raids on entrenched suspects that the normal cops already failed in taking, not for serving an your run of the mill "we think you have some pot" warrant.
Under the idea of escalation this tactic would appear to be a bad idea. You have druggies who flush their stash in announced raids, occassionally the police get shot. In response the police start just barging in with guns ready to rock. It seems to me that the next step in the criminal mind now that they know the cops are employing this tactic would be to assume they're screwed anyway, practically garunteeing they open up on the cops or boobytrap entrances, making it more dangerous for everybody.
I think the thing that bugs me the most about this is the flagrant disregard for the citizenry being displayed by the officers. You have the well-documented cases where cops raid the wrong house and either the innocent occupant dies or goes to prison for defending themselves. The onus is currently on an occupant who is probably untrained for those kinds of situations to behave in a non-threatening manner to a lightning raid that is designed to confuse and disorient conducted in the dark by trained people in intimidating equipment. If the door on my house randomly goes down in the middle of the night and a bunch of big guys come in screaming you can be damn sure I'm going down fighting. I have my mom and sister to protect.
There's also the innocents in the surrounding area that could be hurt. We had a 3 county daylight no-knock raid when I was in junior high school on a whore/drughouse that had relocated from the city to our suburb. They decided to do the raid at the time the elementary school bus was unloading just around the corner (about 150 feet away). That was about 30 children, my little sister included, in the potential fields of fire from the house. About half of them had parents waiting at the stop to walk them home. Thankfully nodoby was hurt and the people inside gave no resistance, but if they had possessed even 1 firearm and fired it outside (intentionally or missed a cop) the results could have been devastating.
If the raids are to be used, then I think they should be recorded in all ways possible. Recording open-mic would be a start, but they should also have helmet cameras. It might cut down on the instances where the occupants said the police didn't ID themselves (but then there's the problem of the cops IDing themselves, blowing down the door and the occpuant not being awake until the door goes). It should also be made into law that the PD will be liable for all damages suffered as a result of an erroneous raid.
Back on Topic: I think that the no-knock is mostly a bad idea. There's just way too much that can go wrong with it for very little real gain. S.W.A.T. teams were made for hostage rescue and raids on entrenched suspects that the normal cops already failed in taking, not for serving an your run of the mill "we think you have some pot" warrant.
Under the idea of escalation this tactic would appear to be a bad idea. You have druggies who flush their stash in announced raids, occassionally the police get shot. In response the police start just barging in with guns ready to rock. It seems to me that the next step in the criminal mind now that they know the cops are employing this tactic would be to assume they're screwed anyway, practically garunteeing they open up on the cops or boobytrap entrances, making it more dangerous for everybody.
I think the thing that bugs me the most about this is the flagrant disregard for the citizenry being displayed by the officers. You have the well-documented cases where cops raid the wrong house and either the innocent occupant dies or goes to prison for defending themselves. The onus is currently on an occupant who is probably untrained for those kinds of situations to behave in a non-threatening manner to a lightning raid that is designed to confuse and disorient conducted in the dark by trained people in intimidating equipment. If the door on my house randomly goes down in the middle of the night and a bunch of big guys come in screaming you can be damn sure I'm going down fighting. I have my mom and sister to protect.
There's also the innocents in the surrounding area that could be hurt. We had a 3 county daylight no-knock raid when I was in junior high school on a whore/drughouse that had relocated from the city to our suburb. They decided to do the raid at the time the elementary school bus was unloading just around the corner (about 150 feet away). That was about 30 children, my little sister included, in the potential fields of fire from the house. About half of them had parents waiting at the stop to walk them home. Thankfully nodoby was hurt and the people inside gave no resistance, but if they had possessed even 1 firearm and fired it outside (intentionally or missed a cop) the results could have been devastating.
If the raids are to be used, then I think they should be recorded in all ways possible. Recording open-mic would be a start, but they should also have helmet cameras. It might cut down on the instances where the occupants said the police didn't ID themselves (but then there's the problem of the cops IDing themselves, blowing down the door and the occpuant not being awake until the door goes). It should also be made into law that the PD will be liable for all damages suffered as a result of an erroneous raid.
Posted by: Ranba Ral at November 27, 2006 02:44 PM (VvXII)
42
Jeep Thang:
Please show me a photo of a slim, attractive, female cop, then explain why dressing up like GI Joe to bust a suspected drug dealer isn't sophomoric.
While you're at it, please explain the adversarial "us versus them" mentality of most police departments. Why do they view the public as potential suspects when they have "To Serve And Protect" written on their cars?
I notice there are no cops here refuting what I've written.
I was watching "Cops" yesterday, and a self righteous, dim-witted prig of a pig arrested a teen aged girl for petty drug possesion. Instead of taking her home to her parents, this creep took her to jail. He even called her mother to the scene. Not to pick her daughter up, and help scare her straight, but to lecture the mother on television. Completely inappropriate, but all too common. The smug little scumbag was practically smirking while the poor girl cried her eyes out. Hopefully, he'll become one of the few cops in this country who are killed on duty.
Oyster would say this is an anecdotal argument, but I say it's indicative of the contempt many police departments have for the public. Anyone who has watched "Cops" knows that most of the police featured on that wretched show treat the public like shit, and assume everyone is guilty.
I'm sure they're just "bad apples," and not part of a nationwide problem. (I'm rolling my eyes here, Oyster.)
Please show me a photo of a slim, attractive, female cop, then explain why dressing up like GI Joe to bust a suspected drug dealer isn't sophomoric.
While you're at it, please explain the adversarial "us versus them" mentality of most police departments. Why do they view the public as potential suspects when they have "To Serve And Protect" written on their cars?
I notice there are no cops here refuting what I've written.
I was watching "Cops" yesterday, and a self righteous, dim-witted prig of a pig arrested a teen aged girl for petty drug possesion. Instead of taking her home to her parents, this creep took her to jail. He even called her mother to the scene. Not to pick her daughter up, and help scare her straight, but to lecture the mother on television. Completely inappropriate, but all too common. The smug little scumbag was practically smirking while the poor girl cried her eyes out. Hopefully, he'll become one of the few cops in this country who are killed on duty.
Oyster would say this is an anecdotal argument, but I say it's indicative of the contempt many police departments have for the public. Anyone who has watched "Cops" knows that most of the police featured on that wretched show treat the public like shit, and assume everyone is guilty.
I'm sure they're just "bad apples," and not part of a nationwide problem. (I'm rolling my eyes here, Oyster.)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 02:52 PM (bLPT+)
43
Blackflag:
How does an unsubstantiated claim by the Atlanta police department that they bought drugs at that house excuse the shooting of an old lady? You know that it doesn't.
The suspected drug dealer wasn't even home, which proves that he could have and should have been picked up leaving or returning to the house.
Why didn't they arrest the suspect when he sold them the fucking drugs? I'll tell you why: Because they're incompetent fucking goons who like to play dress-up and kick people's doors in!
How does an unsubstantiated claim by the Atlanta police department that they bought drugs at that house excuse the shooting of an old lady? You know that it doesn't.
The suspected drug dealer wasn't even home, which proves that he could have and should have been picked up leaving or returning to the house.
Why didn't they arrest the suspect when he sold them the fucking drugs? I'll tell you why: Because they're incompetent fucking goons who like to play dress-up and kick people's doors in!
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 03:01 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: JeepThang at November 27, 2006 03:14 PM (yZQoS)
45
Jeff:
Hopefully, he'll become one of the few cops in this country who are killed on duty.
Disgusting.
Hopefully, he'll become one of the few cops in this country who are killed on duty.
Disgusting.
Posted by: davec at November 27, 2006 03:15 PM (QkWqQ)
46
Ranba Ral:
Sorry for the length of my comments. I didn't think anybody but the assholes I was insulting would read the long ones.
Scumbags like Hank Hardly--who excuse the killing of old ladies--go apoplectic when they read long comments which point out their shortcomings. That's why I write them: I'm hoping they'll have a stroke or a brain aneurysm and drop dead.
I'm glad I'm not the only one with enough sense to recognize the problems inherent in no-knock warrants. You, Improbulus, Davec, and Danneskjold are the only other people here who aren't out to lunch.
Sorry for the length of my comments. I didn't think anybody but the assholes I was insulting would read the long ones.
Scumbags like Hank Hardly--who excuse the killing of old ladies--go apoplectic when they read long comments which point out their shortcomings. That's why I write them: I'm hoping they'll have a stroke or a brain aneurysm and drop dead.
I'm glad I'm not the only one with enough sense to recognize the problems inherent in no-knock warrants. You, Improbulus, Davec, and Danneskjold are the only other people here who aren't out to lunch.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 03:35 PM (bLPT+)
47
Davec:
Why is what I wrote disgusting? Why should I think that asshole deserves to live just because you think he does? Why did you take my hyperbole literally?
Why is what I wrote disgusting? Why should I think that asshole deserves to live just because you think he does? Why did you take my hyperbole literally?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 03:37 PM (bLPT+)
48
Jeff:
Wishing a cop being killed in the line of duty, is just disgusting, no matter what grievance you might have with their job skills. The funny thing is I agree with you in the sense that there are too many mistakes, to much rubber stamping on warrants and not enough oversight, but that was just a bridge too far.
Wishing a cop being killed in the line of duty, is just disgusting, no matter what grievance you might have with their job skills. The funny thing is I agree with you in the sense that there are too many mistakes, to much rubber stamping on warrants and not enough oversight, but that was just a bridge too far.
Posted by: davec at November 27, 2006 03:41 PM (QkWqQ)
49
Jeep Thang:
Bye. I guess you're going to a copophile site to tell them how cool they are for dressing up like GI Joe to serve warrants on petty drug offenders. (Maybe you can get your own outfit at an Army/Navy store and play cops and robbers with them.)
Either that, or you're busy looking for a slim, attractive, female cop. Good luck with that.
Bye. I guess you're going to a copophile site to tell them how cool they are for dressing up like GI Joe to serve warrants on petty drug offenders. (Maybe you can get your own outfit at an Army/Navy store and play cops and robbers with them.)
Either that, or you're busy looking for a slim, attractive, female cop. Good luck with that.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 03:44 PM (bLPT+)
50
Davec:
I disagree. The cop who permanently affected that girl's life in a very negative way deserves an ass-kicking. I was kidding about him getting killed, but I do think whoever was responsible for blowing away that old lady should be executed. No, I'm not kidding this time. I don't wish he would die in the line of duty, because then his family might get his retirement money and the city would have to pay for his funeral parade. (There's a waste of money for you. Why should cops be singled out for state funerals? The Border Patrol doesn't get them, and their job is much more dangerous.)
No, whoever is responsible for that heinous non-crime should be fired in disgrace and executed for causing an innocent person to be killed through sheer incompetence and gross disregard for the public he's supposed to serve. I'm a firm believer that some people need to die.
I disagree. The cop who permanently affected that girl's life in a very negative way deserves an ass-kicking. I was kidding about him getting killed, but I do think whoever was responsible for blowing away that old lady should be executed. No, I'm not kidding this time. I don't wish he would die in the line of duty, because then his family might get his retirement money and the city would have to pay for his funeral parade. (There's a waste of money for you. Why should cops be singled out for state funerals? The Border Patrol doesn't get them, and their job is much more dangerous.)
No, whoever is responsible for that heinous non-crime should be fired in disgrace and executed for causing an innocent person to be killed through sheer incompetence and gross disregard for the public he's supposed to serve. I'm a firm believer that some people need to die.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 03:52 PM (bLPT+)
51
Jeff:
I was watching "Cops" yesterday, and a self righteous, dim-witted prig of a pig arrested a teen aged girl for petty drug possesion.
I reserve my sympathy for the law-abiding that become victims of over aggressive Police policies, not those that break the law. If she did not have the drugs she would not have had the same problem, nor would she or her Mother have to sit through a lecture. Same goes for those who get beaten while resisting arrest, I reserve my anger for those beaten without cause.
I was watching "Cops" yesterday, and a self righteous, dim-witted prig of a pig arrested a teen aged girl for petty drug possesion.
I reserve my sympathy for the law-abiding that become victims of over aggressive Police policies, not those that break the law. If she did not have the drugs she would not have had the same problem, nor would she or her Mother have to sit through a lecture. Same goes for those who get beaten while resisting arrest, I reserve my anger for those beaten without cause.
Posted by: davec at November 27, 2006 04:09 PM (QkWqQ)
52
Davec:
A teen-aged girl shouldn't have her life permanently affected by a youthful indiscretion. In small towns and other civilized areas, the cops take kids like that home for their parents to deal with. They are impressed with the severity of their mistake and the possible consequences. Their names are put on a list (unless it's a really small community,) so that if they repeat the offense they may get official punishment.
Punishing a girl with a clean record serves no purpose other than to raise revenue in the form of fines and court costs for the local municipality to waste. Unless you count the sadistic jollies the cop got from busting a kid and lecturing her mother. He was not concerned with her welfare or the welfare of others. He was concerned with busting her for something he would never bust his own daughter for.
Whether you think first time offenders should be stigmatized for life or not, it is not the job of civil servants in the police force to lecture parents on child rearing. The guy was a prick and a bully, no "buts" about it.
Speaking personally, I wont ever be patronized like that by a mental and moral midget with half my education and a tiny set of testicles.
I'm not sure possession of drugs should even be a crime. Driving under the influence, babysitting while speeding on crack, etc., yes, but possession?
The incompetent and corrupt authorities cant stop drugs from being manufactured or smuggled into the country, but they have no problem throwing children behind bars and filling our jails with petty drug users. Yes, this is mainly done to justify huge budgets and build more fucking jails, whether you choose to believe that or not.
America's best and brightest don't tend to gravitate towards careers in law enforcement, but some of the most dishonest pricks in the country sure do. Unfortunately, they seem to be the ones who set policy, and they're giving honest cops a bad name.
A teen-aged girl shouldn't have her life permanently affected by a youthful indiscretion. In small towns and other civilized areas, the cops take kids like that home for their parents to deal with. They are impressed with the severity of their mistake and the possible consequences. Their names are put on a list (unless it's a really small community,) so that if they repeat the offense they may get official punishment.
Punishing a girl with a clean record serves no purpose other than to raise revenue in the form of fines and court costs for the local municipality to waste. Unless you count the sadistic jollies the cop got from busting a kid and lecturing her mother. He was not concerned with her welfare or the welfare of others. He was concerned with busting her for something he would never bust his own daughter for.
Whether you think first time offenders should be stigmatized for life or not, it is not the job of civil servants in the police force to lecture parents on child rearing. The guy was a prick and a bully, no "buts" about it.
Speaking personally, I wont ever be patronized like that by a mental and moral midget with half my education and a tiny set of testicles.
I'm not sure possession of drugs should even be a crime. Driving under the influence, babysitting while speeding on crack, etc., yes, but possession?
The incompetent and corrupt authorities cant stop drugs from being manufactured or smuggled into the country, but they have no problem throwing children behind bars and filling our jails with petty drug users. Yes, this is mainly done to justify huge budgets and build more fucking jails, whether you choose to believe that or not.
America's best and brightest don't tend to gravitate towards careers in law enforcement, but some of the most dishonest pricks in the country sure do. Unfortunately, they seem to be the ones who set policy, and they're giving honest cops a bad name.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 05:00 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:36 PM (t+vh2)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:36 PM (t+vh2)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:37 PM (bTz3Q)
Posted by: shemales pictures at November 27, 2006 06:38 PM (bTz3Q)
57
I don't believe they're filling jails other than county jails for so called "petty" drug use?
Punishing a girl with a clean record serves no purpose other than to raise revenue in the form of fines and court costs for the local municipality to waste.
Why stop at petty drugs, what other "petty" crime should we ignore? shoplifting? jay walking? I guess it all comes down to your personal beliefs in certain laws.
I don't think you can single out the Police for their share of "dishonest pricks" I think you'll find they're in every vocation
Punishing a girl with a clean record serves no purpose other than to raise revenue in the form of fines and court costs for the local municipality to waste.
Why stop at petty drugs, what other "petty" crime should we ignore? shoplifting? jay walking? I guess it all comes down to your personal beliefs in certain laws.
I don't think you can single out the Police for their share of "dishonest pricks" I think you'll find they're in every vocation
Posted by: davec at November 27, 2006 06:44 PM (QkWqQ)
58
She doesnt carry it for the rest of her life. when she turns 18 her record is purged. Juvenile court records are typically sealed in the first place.
Posted by: JeepThang at November 27, 2006 07:00 PM (yZQoS)
59
Instead of me walking into a police station, why don't you come to my door and tell me what a pussy I am? That would be funny.
Not a bad idea; you still live in Ord?
Instead of me walking into a police station, why don't you come to my door and tell me what a pussy I am? That would be funny.
Not a bad idea; you still live in Ord?
Posted by: HankHardy at November 27, 2006 07:55 PM (a7sMc)
60
Davec:
I don't take any pleasure in this. You seem like a semi-decent guy who cant admit that our criminal justice system is FBU, and that the cops tend to be Special Ed rejects.
American prisons incarcerate more petty drug offenders than any other felon. Not that being a felon means you're a bad guy anymore. "local" (county,) jails are overwhelmingly filled with petty drug offenders. Prisons are even worse.
Either you support this travesty of justice, or you oppose it.
Should first time shop lifters and (Good God,) jaywalkers be stricken with harsh sentences? If your answerr is "Yes," you're a hopeless asshole. (We both know you are.)
Only the police and court system have the authority to fuck a law abiding citizen up the ass for no good reason. Yay!
Why do you support this travesty of justice? I already know why, but I'm interested in your response. How are you going to pretend you're not a complete, scum-sucking asshole? Are you going to play the muslim card?
I don't take any pleasure in this. You seem like a semi-decent guy who cant admit that our criminal justice system is FBU, and that the cops tend to be Special Ed rejects.
American prisons incarcerate more petty drug offenders than any other felon. Not that being a felon means you're a bad guy anymore. "local" (county,) jails are overwhelmingly filled with petty drug offenders. Prisons are even worse.
Either you support this travesty of justice, or you oppose it.
Should first time shop lifters and (Good God,) jaywalkers be stricken with harsh sentences? If your answerr is "Yes," you're a hopeless asshole. (We both know you are.)
Only the police and court system have the authority to fuck a law abiding citizen up the ass for no good reason. Yay!
Why do you support this travesty of justice? I already know why, but I'm interested in your response. How are you going to pretend you're not a complete, scum-sucking asshole? Are you going to play the muslim card?
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 10:20 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 10:22 PM (bLPT+)
Posted by: JeepThang at November 27, 2006 10:54 PM (yZQoS)
63
Donal/Hank Hardly:
I don't live in Ord prison. I live in Nebraska, remember? The state I've never left, according to you?
Tell us what carpets taste like, dyke breath.
I don't live in Ord prison. I live in Nebraska, remember? The state I've never left, according to you?
Tell us what carpets taste like, dyke breath.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 27, 2006 11:44 PM (bLPT+)
64
I don't know what an "Ord prison" is. I do know where Ord, Nebraska is however. So do you.
Maybe I'll pop in to say hi. Butt. Lick.
Maybe I'll pop in to say hi. Butt. Lick.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 27, 2006 11:53 PM (a7sMc)
65
Donal:
I wish you really were prosperous enough to travel to Nebraska. My wife would love to kick you in the throat.
We're going to Washington and British Columbia soon. Maybe we'll see you around. Dyke.
I wish you really were prosperous enough to travel to Nebraska. My wife would love to kick you in the throat.
We're going to Washington and British Columbia soon. Maybe we'll see you around. Dyke.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 28, 2006 12:40 AM (bLPT+)
66
Jeff:
Sorry for my late reply, I have been rather busy.
The reason I support it is because I already have lived in a country that is soft on so called "petty crime", just like most people in the United States that support socialized medicine, you are unaware of what you are asking for.
A more relaxed criminal code, starts out with just a few things ignored, such as marijuana possession, then moves on with other people calling for other drugs to be reclassified such as ecstasy and LSD, eventually they relax other drugs, then they ignore other so called "petty" crimes such as shop lifting (with liberal judges suggesting no one goes to prison for shoplifting) it is a complete slippery slope.
It is paramount to people that vote "Yes" for Liquor being sold in their city, and "No" when it comes to putting a Liquor store in their Neighborhood -- they want the access, just do not want it where THEY live, would you support drug dealing on your street Jeff? or just in poor neighborhoods? how about dealers selling to your kids? or just outside ghetto schools?
Sorry for my late reply, I have been rather busy.
The reason I support it is because I already have lived in a country that is soft on so called "petty crime", just like most people in the United States that support socialized medicine, you are unaware of what you are asking for.
A more relaxed criminal code, starts out with just a few things ignored, such as marijuana possession, then moves on with other people calling for other drugs to be reclassified such as ecstasy and LSD, eventually they relax other drugs, then they ignore other so called "petty" crimes such as shop lifting (with liberal judges suggesting no one goes to prison for shoplifting) it is a complete slippery slope.
It is paramount to people that vote "Yes" for Liquor being sold in their city, and "No" when it comes to putting a Liquor store in their Neighborhood -- they want the access, just do not want it where THEY live, would you support drug dealing on your street Jeff? or just in poor neighborhoods? how about dealers selling to your kids? or just outside ghetto schools?
Posted by: davec at November 28, 2006 01:58 PM (QkWqQ)
67
Also Jeff, you ignore that breaking the law, be it by smoking marijuana or committing armed robbery, is a choice, as such you should be prepared for the repercussions of your decision if you are caught and prosecuted.
If I put down $2,500.00 on a Roulette wheel, and my number is wrong, I don't get a 'takes backsy" I have to live with my losses, same for anyone who knowingly breaks the law.
If I put down $2,500.00 on a Roulette wheel, and my number is wrong, I don't get a 'takes backsy" I have to live with my losses, same for anyone who knowingly breaks the law.
Posted by: davec at November 28, 2006 02:06 PM (QkWqQ)
68
Davec: I see what you are saying. You fear any reversal would result in incrementalism. But we already have imcrementalism. We keep incrementing the severity of enforcement with little good results. No we would not have to accept incremental steps to stupidity but we could do a little control and regulate for a couple of lesser drugs. It would one, create revenue. Two take some revenue from criminals. Create a business. Make these drugs safer by controlling production by regulation. Cast vics a lot of money on nyquill. But we would not have to go plain silly. I say put real coca cola on liquire stores and also allow the sale of regulated marajuanna in liquore stores to those 21 and over. Also add a law so that these must be sealed unless on provate property. Broken seal in public, go to jail. Combine the agency into ATF. It could be done with some common sense.
Posted by: Howie at November 28, 2006 02:11 PM (YdcZ0)
69
Howie:
So employers should also just stop drug testing employee's also?
As an employer that does not want employees that partake in recreational drug use, will I be able to deny them a job? fire them if I find out later they lied? what if a court finds that a drug user is an addict, and therefore considered handicapped (as some alcoholics have been) and as such I am discriminating and I am forced to pay compensation?
how about increased health insurance fees, should I be forced to pay those too?
How about if the Government forced all people that buy legalized Marijuana to have it identified on their drivers license so they purchase it, would you support that too? so I can look at your drivers license and reject you for a job? if you have the right too choose, so should I!
There is a plethora of laws and expenses that would also come with de-criminalizing just marijuana use, most of which would come down to the courts, and the Government to decide.
So employers should also just stop drug testing employee's also?
As an employer that does not want employees that partake in recreational drug use, will I be able to deny them a job? fire them if I find out later they lied? what if a court finds that a drug user is an addict, and therefore considered handicapped (as some alcoholics have been) and as such I am discriminating and I am forced to pay compensation?
how about increased health insurance fees, should I be forced to pay those too?
How about if the Government forced all people that buy legalized Marijuana to have it identified on their drivers license so they purchase it, would you support that too? so I can look at your drivers license and reject you for a job? if you have the right too choose, so should I!
There is a plethora of laws and expenses that would also come with de-criminalizing just marijuana use, most of which would come down to the courts, and the Government to decide.
Posted by: davec at November 28, 2006 02:43 PM (QkWqQ)
70
So are you going to fire the beer drinkers too. Employment is at the pleasure of the employer and employee. So no. And I think that, "I'm disabled becuase I'm a drunk or whatever" is sillyness. Damn leeches. Also, you should fire your employees who drink beer(recreational drug) on Saturday night and mark their license too just to be fair.
The effects of alcohol are expensive. Liver problems, accidents, some cancers, so on and so forth. Damn boozers are ruining everything. We should outlaw booze. And tobacco and fatty foods, pork, partialy hydrogenated oils of all kinds and french fries.
The effects of alcohol are expensive. Liver problems, accidents, some cancers, so on and so forth. Damn boozers are ruining everything. We should outlaw booze. And tobacco and fatty foods, pork, partialy hydrogenated oils of all kinds and french fries.
Posted by: Howie at November 28, 2006 02:58 PM (YdcZ0)
71
Howie:
You would be surprised how much of the same above nonsense is in front of the courts right now.
Employers have the right to refuse based on your recreational activities already, a lot of big companies have already banned smokers from gaining employment in their workplace, and have even fired those who refuse to quit.
I do not have to refuse to employ beer-drinkers, if I refuse smokers from employment already, so it is already a policy open for individual Corporations, however I would not hire anyone who smoked Marijuana, and that would be my right as an employer.
The problem of course would be in the first couple of years after legalization, there would be a disconnect that would allow open challenges in court because there is no case law, this would mean I would probably have to employ Marijuana smokers until I am protected from discrimination lawsuits by legislation. I would also have to incur more expenses on health insurance, because the Government protects their biggest lobby, for something I would have no control over, it's almost like taxation, without representation.
You would be surprised how much of the same above nonsense is in front of the courts right now.
Employers have the right to refuse based on your recreational activities already, a lot of big companies have already banned smokers from gaining employment in their workplace, and have even fired those who refuse to quit.
I do not have to refuse to employ beer-drinkers, if I refuse smokers from employment already, so it is already a policy open for individual Corporations, however I would not hire anyone who smoked Marijuana, and that would be my right as an employer.
The problem of course would be in the first couple of years after legalization, there would be a disconnect that would allow open challenges in court because there is no case law, this would mean I would probably have to employ Marijuana smokers until I am protected from discrimination lawsuits by legislation. I would also have to incur more expenses on health insurance, because the Government protects their biggest lobby, for something I would have no control over, it's almost like taxation, without representation.
Posted by: davec at November 28, 2006 03:16 PM (QkWqQ)
72
I guess my name is Donal, I live in the Washington or British Columbia area and Jeff's going to have his wife beat me up while there. Of course he'll have to route his Nebraska-to-Pacific-Northwest trip through Wauwatosa, Wisconsin and then actually find someone here named Donal to have her actually take a swing at, but, uh, that's OK with me.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 28, 2006 07:16 PM (a7sMc)
73
Davec:
I just went back and read my last comment to you, and I have to apologize for how insulting it was. Looking back, I don't know why i included the personal attacks. Maybe i was writing to you and thinking of Hank Hardly.
Anyway. Every profession has its pricks, but not all of them attract pricks. The criminal justice system does.
I don't believe the slippery slope argument is valid in this or any other case. It never pans out in reality. I also don't believe in absolutism. Just because that cop should have brought that girl home, doesn't mean I think no laws should be enforced. In any case, a law is only as good as the intent behind it, so the "rule of law" argument is specious. A law intended to criminalize and imprison recreational drug users is unjust and preys on the very society its supposed to serve.
I've lived in other countries with a more relaxed approach to crime, and except for petty theft, they had lower crime rates than America.
It's no secret that the countries that produce recreational drugs don't have drug abuse problems like America does.
The countries where recreational drug use is legal have virtually no drug related crime.
The crime rate in America is as high as it is because virtually everything here is illegal. Manufactured crime is a huge industry in America, especially at the local level, which is far and away the most corrupt segment of our government. Do you think speeding tickets are handed out more often than citations for running red lights and unsafe lane changes because speeding is more dangerous, or because the fines are larger? Speeding isn't more dangerous, so the answer is obvious.
If drugs were legalized, there wouldn't be any street level dealers. No, I don't want a pusher selling drugs to my kids, but I sure as hell don't want my kids thrown in jail for smoking pot.
Ecstasy and LSD aren't nearly as harmful as alcohol is, and I don't hear you calling for a return of the Prohibition.
I think everybody in the country has shoplifted at least once in their lives, usually when they were minors. I'll wager you've done it yourself. Should all of us be locked up? This is the type of behaviour that kids sometimes engage in because they have poor judgement. That's why adults should guide them, not imprison them. I don't want to see Jean ValJean thrown in prison either.
Despite the fact that gambling is extremely destructive, it is legal in this country, while recreational drug use is not. Betting money on a roulette wheel is not a good thing just because it's legal, and using drugs is not a bad thing just because it's illegal. Unjust laws need to be struck down, not overzealously enforced just to raise revenue for corrupt municipalities.
I don't smoke marijuana, and I don't want my kids to smoke it, but it has no proven, long-term, adverse, effects on those who smoke it. A guy who smokes a doobie on Friday night and raids his local 7-11 for pork rinds and other munchies can come into work on Monday morning and perform his job just as well as the guy who went to the gym and ate a healthy meal on Friday night.
I have no problem with you refusing to hire people who smoke pot, but I do have a problem with mandatory drug tests. They're a clear invasion of privacy, and they will eventually become illegal in the private sector. It's ridiculous that employers can violate the civil liberties of all prospective employees by forcing them to pee in a cup, but women can commit infanticide in the name of "privacy." The 4th amendment was written for a reason.
It all comes back to poorly written and repressive laws. Laws should not be enacted with the intent of preying on the public. Many are, and too many people have suffered already because of it.
As a man, I'm personally terrified that there are laws which allow any woman in the country to have me thrown in jail without question on a whim, or out of spite. This law was ostensibly enacted to protect women, but it's used by lying harpies and our crooked criminal justice system to punish innocent men across the country every single day. It doesn't protect women at all. It has caused a lot of violence against women, some of it justified. This obscene law is just the tip of the iceberg.
No knock warrants kill old women. Laws governing them need to be revised or tossed out, along with every other unjust law.
I just went back and read my last comment to you, and I have to apologize for how insulting it was. Looking back, I don't know why i included the personal attacks. Maybe i was writing to you and thinking of Hank Hardly.
Anyway. Every profession has its pricks, but not all of them attract pricks. The criminal justice system does.
I don't believe the slippery slope argument is valid in this or any other case. It never pans out in reality. I also don't believe in absolutism. Just because that cop should have brought that girl home, doesn't mean I think no laws should be enforced. In any case, a law is only as good as the intent behind it, so the "rule of law" argument is specious. A law intended to criminalize and imprison recreational drug users is unjust and preys on the very society its supposed to serve.
I've lived in other countries with a more relaxed approach to crime, and except for petty theft, they had lower crime rates than America.
It's no secret that the countries that produce recreational drugs don't have drug abuse problems like America does.
The countries where recreational drug use is legal have virtually no drug related crime.
The crime rate in America is as high as it is because virtually everything here is illegal. Manufactured crime is a huge industry in America, especially at the local level, which is far and away the most corrupt segment of our government. Do you think speeding tickets are handed out more often than citations for running red lights and unsafe lane changes because speeding is more dangerous, or because the fines are larger? Speeding isn't more dangerous, so the answer is obvious.
If drugs were legalized, there wouldn't be any street level dealers. No, I don't want a pusher selling drugs to my kids, but I sure as hell don't want my kids thrown in jail for smoking pot.
Ecstasy and LSD aren't nearly as harmful as alcohol is, and I don't hear you calling for a return of the Prohibition.
I think everybody in the country has shoplifted at least once in their lives, usually when they were minors. I'll wager you've done it yourself. Should all of us be locked up? This is the type of behaviour that kids sometimes engage in because they have poor judgement. That's why adults should guide them, not imprison them. I don't want to see Jean ValJean thrown in prison either.
Despite the fact that gambling is extremely destructive, it is legal in this country, while recreational drug use is not. Betting money on a roulette wheel is not a good thing just because it's legal, and using drugs is not a bad thing just because it's illegal. Unjust laws need to be struck down, not overzealously enforced just to raise revenue for corrupt municipalities.
I don't smoke marijuana, and I don't want my kids to smoke it, but it has no proven, long-term, adverse, effects on those who smoke it. A guy who smokes a doobie on Friday night and raids his local 7-11 for pork rinds and other munchies can come into work on Monday morning and perform his job just as well as the guy who went to the gym and ate a healthy meal on Friday night.
I have no problem with you refusing to hire people who smoke pot, but I do have a problem with mandatory drug tests. They're a clear invasion of privacy, and they will eventually become illegal in the private sector. It's ridiculous that employers can violate the civil liberties of all prospective employees by forcing them to pee in a cup, but women can commit infanticide in the name of "privacy." The 4th amendment was written for a reason.
It all comes back to poorly written and repressive laws. Laws should not be enacted with the intent of preying on the public. Many are, and too many people have suffered already because of it.
As a man, I'm personally terrified that there are laws which allow any woman in the country to have me thrown in jail without question on a whim, or out of spite. This law was ostensibly enacted to protect women, but it's used by lying harpies and our crooked criminal justice system to punish innocent men across the country every single day. It doesn't protect women at all. It has caused a lot of violence against women, some of it justified. This obscene law is just the tip of the iceberg.
No knock warrants kill old women. Laws governing them need to be revised or tossed out, along with every other unjust law.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 28, 2006 10:57 PM (bLPT+)
74
Jeff,
Ecstasy and LSD aren't nearly as harmful as alcohol is
I would not consider Ecstasy a harmless drug, it causes dehydration, and in some cases heatstroke. People that tried to overcompensate by drinking too much water have also died of water poisoning. It's longterm effect on the Brain has not been assessed either.
In our previous conversation I stated that I supported your call for the removal of a "no knock" warrant except in very rare cases of harm coming to civilians in a resident by members in the household, they should not be used at all.
SWAT teams carry both ballistic shields, body armor, and percussion grenades, they do not need the advantage of kicking down peoples doors in the middle of the night, especially when there is doubt they sufficiently identify themselves as Police Officers.
I actually think that more privacy will be removed in the private sector especially as there are no protections such as the 4th Amendment that apply to private Corporations.
Have you ever had a job that required a credit check? or criminal record check? its out there, I've seen it.
Ecstasy and LSD aren't nearly as harmful as alcohol is
I would not consider Ecstasy a harmless drug, it causes dehydration, and in some cases heatstroke. People that tried to overcompensate by drinking too much water have also died of water poisoning. It's longterm effect on the Brain has not been assessed either.
In our previous conversation I stated that I supported your call for the removal of a "no knock" warrant except in very rare cases of harm coming to civilians in a resident by members in the household, they should not be used at all.
SWAT teams carry both ballistic shields, body armor, and percussion grenades, they do not need the advantage of kicking down peoples doors in the middle of the night, especially when there is doubt they sufficiently identify themselves as Police Officers.
I actually think that more privacy will be removed in the private sector especially as there are no protections such as the 4th Amendment that apply to private Corporations.
Have you ever had a job that required a credit check? or criminal record check? its out there, I've seen it.
Posted by: davec at November 29, 2006 12:18 AM (QkWqQ)
75
Davec:
You didn't address most of my points, so I'm going to assume I convinced you.
As you know, I didn't claim ecstasy was harmless, I claimed it wasn't nearly as harmful as alcohol. We both know this is true. The harmful effects of ecstasy are pretty vague, because they haven't been studied properly, but I did have a former user tell me it caused her to have nightmares on a regular basis. I doubt it has many therapeutic benefits.
I'm glad you see the problems with no-knock warrants. I just wish you would see the problem with Gestapo style SWAT teams in general. Those assholes stand in opposition to nearly everything America stands for, and they know it.
Class action lawsuits and other legal actions ensure that the right to privacy will be honored in the private sector in the future. Employers are losing power, not gaining it. I'm an employer too, and the rules I have to dance to get more ridiculous every day. However, some of those rules are justified, and I support them 100%
It seems like nobody is exempt from drug checks these days, but this will change. Not only is it constitutionally illegal, but it's applied in a very discriminatory manner. I haven't had to take one since I entered management, but ALL of my employees have to take them.
It's been nice to debate someone who's able to think. I agree with most of what you write, but the criminal justice system in our country preys on its citizens. It needs a major fucking overhaul.
You didn't address most of my points, so I'm going to assume I convinced you.
As you know, I didn't claim ecstasy was harmless, I claimed it wasn't nearly as harmful as alcohol. We both know this is true. The harmful effects of ecstasy are pretty vague, because they haven't been studied properly, but I did have a former user tell me it caused her to have nightmares on a regular basis. I doubt it has many therapeutic benefits.
I'm glad you see the problems with no-knock warrants. I just wish you would see the problem with Gestapo style SWAT teams in general. Those assholes stand in opposition to nearly everything America stands for, and they know it.
Class action lawsuits and other legal actions ensure that the right to privacy will be honored in the private sector in the future. Employers are losing power, not gaining it. I'm an employer too, and the rules I have to dance to get more ridiculous every day. However, some of those rules are justified, and I support them 100%
It seems like nobody is exempt from drug checks these days, but this will change. Not only is it constitutionally illegal, but it's applied in a very discriminatory manner. I haven't had to take one since I entered management, but ALL of my employees have to take them.
It's been nice to debate someone who's able to think. I agree with most of what you write, but the criminal justice system in our country preys on its citizens. It needs a major fucking overhaul.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 29, 2006 02:32 AM (bLPT+)
76
Jeff:
I don't have much time to discuss, I am on a pretty tight deadline and I'm burning the midnight oil --
Re: Ecstasy, I have seen at least five people hospitalized for the above dehydration problem, and was at an event someone died. The use of it in night clubs or "raves" is dangerous due to the heat in the clubs packed with people.
In regards to removing SWAT teams, I believe it would be a bad decision, SWAT teams are highly trained, and weapon proficient.
If you were to ask Policemen to enter a house and secure the location you would see many more people killed e.x: the example of the shooting earlier this week with one Police officer discharging his weapon at least thirty times. You're a cops fan so you may have seen the one where an officer empties his clip through the read window of a car while stood about 2ft from his bumper and the suspect is apprehended uninjured down the road. If you missed "Combat Missions" on USA channel they pitted the Special Forces Green Beret / Navy Seals / SFOD-Delta / SWAT against each other in mixed teams. SWAT predominately won in C.Q.B.
I'll get back on thread tomorrow.
I don't have much time to discuss, I am on a pretty tight deadline and I'm burning the midnight oil --
Re: Ecstasy, I have seen at least five people hospitalized for the above dehydration problem, and was at an event someone died. The use of it in night clubs or "raves" is dangerous due to the heat in the clubs packed with people.
In regards to removing SWAT teams, I believe it would be a bad decision, SWAT teams are highly trained, and weapon proficient.
If you were to ask Policemen to enter a house and secure the location you would see many more people killed e.x: the example of the shooting earlier this week with one Police officer discharging his weapon at least thirty times. You're a cops fan so you may have seen the one where an officer empties his clip through the read window of a car while stood about 2ft from his bumper and the suspect is apprehended uninjured down the road. If you missed "Combat Missions" on USA channel they pitted the Special Forces Green Beret / Navy Seals / SFOD-Delta / SWAT against each other in mixed teams. SWAT predominately won in C.Q.B.
I'll get back on thread tomorrow.
Posted by: davec at November 29, 2006 03:12 AM (QkWqQ)
77
Juvenile Court Records are sealed.. at least in this state.
No, I don't watch court tv. I've worked in the court system for the last 8 years.
No, I don't watch court tv. I've worked in the court system for the last 8 years.
Posted by: JeepThang at November 29, 2006 11:20 AM (yZQoS)
Posted by: JeepThang at November 29, 2006 11:20 AM (yZQoS)
79
Someone actually moved Jeff up to management? Management of people? Well that's interesting. What company? Just curious because I want to keep an eye on the news for any mass suicides of rank-and-file employees from it in the coming months. Or more satisfying yet, the beating death of a mid-level manager by lower-level employees.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 29, 2006 07:09 PM (a7sMc)
80
Davec:
Alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy, and kills far more people. Drunks can kill other people, but I'm not going to dehydrate because some twenty-nothing popped ecstasy and danced his brains out in a hot, humid room.
Nobody should be carrying out the kinds of raids that killed that old woman, police SWAT, or otherwise.
SWAT teams should be used for their original purpose, not to terrorize and endanger petty drug offenders and the entire neighborhoods they live in.
I don't know what a CQB is, but it sounds like a game to me. I'm not surprised that TWAT teams are good at games. They like to play dress up, after all. (Sometimes like GI Joe, sometimes like the Gestapo or SS, all in black.
Military commandos train the TWAT teams, not the other way around. Commandos are far more effective, especially against the enemy. I will admit that TWAT teams are much better at killing Americans--especially the innocent ones.
Alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy, and kills far more people. Drunks can kill other people, but I'm not going to dehydrate because some twenty-nothing popped ecstasy and danced his brains out in a hot, humid room.
Nobody should be carrying out the kinds of raids that killed that old woman, police SWAT, or otherwise.
SWAT teams should be used for their original purpose, not to terrorize and endanger petty drug offenders and the entire neighborhoods they live in.
I don't know what a CQB is, but it sounds like a game to me. I'm not surprised that TWAT teams are good at games. They like to play dress up, after all. (Sometimes like GI Joe, sometimes like the Gestapo or SS, all in black.
Military commandos train the TWAT teams, not the other way around. Commandos are far more effective, especially against the enemy. I will admit that TWAT teams are much better at killing Americans--especially the innocent ones.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 29, 2006 08:33 PM (bLPT+)
81
Jeep Thang:
Juvenile court records are only sealed if the juvenile in question forces the courts to do so when he turns 18. Even then, police and prosecutors know that there is a sealed record, and regularly use that information in adult court trials. I suspect you already know this.
It's a moot point, because throwing kids in jail for petty, first time offenses can damage them for life, and lead to even more criminal behaviour. No doubt you'd like to see one of your children locked up if they commited a first offense like petty drug possession. No doubt.
If the defendant is over 18, it's even worse. Here in Omaha, Nebraska, they throw 18 year old kids in jail for jay-walking(!) and unpaid traffic tickets. This is complete bull-shit, and a travesty of justice.
Punishing petty drug users for their own self destuctive behaviour is idiotic, un-American, and a clear violation of a person's constitutional rights--despite the oppressive rulings of our corrupt courts.
I don't watch court TV either. It glorifies a corrupt and incompetent criminal justice system. I get physically nauseous if I have to watch it for more than 5 minutes.
I do think every American should watch "Judge Judy" at least once. She typifies the overweening arrogance and stupidity of most Judges in this country. The public needs to be aware that most Judges think they know better than everyone else on every subject.
If you work in the court system, you know that this is true.
If you don't want to be insulted by an adult, don't make juvenile suggestions. Why would I want to visit the hyper partisan website you linked? The people there wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthfull. Anybody who dressus up in camouflage fatigues to bust a pot smoker's door down has serious issues. Every adult was thirteen once, but all of us non-morons grew out of it.
I'm still waiting for a photo of a slim, attractive female cop. After police fired over 50 rounds into a car at unarmed men in New York City yesterday, they showed some female cops on the news. They were so obese, the steering wheels on their police cruisers jammed six inches into their corpulent guts--even though the seats were obviously pushed all the way back. Disgusting. They wouldn't even fit through the front door of their local Krispy Kreme. They ought to be helping Aqua Man fight crime with the other whales, not wasting the tax dollars of NYC on size 55 police uniforms and jobs they aren't qualified for.
I wonder how orcas like that are supposed to "protect the public," much less fight crime. They couldn't run ten feet if Brad Pitt were holding a box of chocolate at the finish line.
"Knock, knock!"
"Who's there?"
"Yorded."
"Yorded who?"
"You're dead, granny! 'Blam, blam blam! Budda, budda, budda!' Yee-haw! That'll teach yas to live in the same house wit' a drug dealer! The same drug dealer we didn't arrest when he sold us the fucking drugs in the first place! We're just doing our jobs. Hey Bill, your ass looks really cute in those fatigues. Are those Victoria's Secret, or Army Navy?"
You don't think that was funny? Neither did granny, but she's too fucking dead to complain about it.
Juvenile court records are only sealed if the juvenile in question forces the courts to do so when he turns 18. Even then, police and prosecutors know that there is a sealed record, and regularly use that information in adult court trials. I suspect you already know this.
It's a moot point, because throwing kids in jail for petty, first time offenses can damage them for life, and lead to even more criminal behaviour. No doubt you'd like to see one of your children locked up if they commited a first offense like petty drug possession. No doubt.
If the defendant is over 18, it's even worse. Here in Omaha, Nebraska, they throw 18 year old kids in jail for jay-walking(!) and unpaid traffic tickets. This is complete bull-shit, and a travesty of justice.
Punishing petty drug users for their own self destuctive behaviour is idiotic, un-American, and a clear violation of a person's constitutional rights--despite the oppressive rulings of our corrupt courts.
I don't watch court TV either. It glorifies a corrupt and incompetent criminal justice system. I get physically nauseous if I have to watch it for more than 5 minutes.
I do think every American should watch "Judge Judy" at least once. She typifies the overweening arrogance and stupidity of most Judges in this country. The public needs to be aware that most Judges think they know better than everyone else on every subject.
If you work in the court system, you know that this is true.
If you don't want to be insulted by an adult, don't make juvenile suggestions. Why would I want to visit the hyper partisan website you linked? The people there wouldn't say shit if they had a mouthfull. Anybody who dressus up in camouflage fatigues to bust a pot smoker's door down has serious issues. Every adult was thirteen once, but all of us non-morons grew out of it.
I'm still waiting for a photo of a slim, attractive female cop. After police fired over 50 rounds into a car at unarmed men in New York City yesterday, they showed some female cops on the news. They were so obese, the steering wheels on their police cruisers jammed six inches into their corpulent guts--even though the seats were obviously pushed all the way back. Disgusting. They wouldn't even fit through the front door of their local Krispy Kreme. They ought to be helping Aqua Man fight crime with the other whales, not wasting the tax dollars of NYC on size 55 police uniforms and jobs they aren't qualified for.
I wonder how orcas like that are supposed to "protect the public," much less fight crime. They couldn't run ten feet if Brad Pitt were holding a box of chocolate at the finish line.
"Knock, knock!"
"Who's there?"
"Yorded."
"Yorded who?"
"You're dead, granny! 'Blam, blam blam! Budda, budda, budda!' Yee-haw! That'll teach yas to live in the same house wit' a drug dealer! The same drug dealer we didn't arrest when he sold us the fucking drugs in the first place! We're just doing our jobs. Hey Bill, your ass looks really cute in those fatigues. Are those Victoria's Secret, or Army Navy?"
You don't think that was funny? Neither did granny, but she's too fucking dead to complain about it.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 29, 2006 09:13 PM (bLPT+)
82
Hank Hardly:
Losers always resent management. They think they can do the job better, which is pretty funny considering their positions in life. Competent workers get promoted, the rest just whine.
I see you provided a list of your favorite links. I didn't see doghnut dunking cop porn in there, but I guess even those perverts in San Fransisco would balk at that.
How are those no-knock warrants working out in Milwaukee? Is crime still through the roof and rising steadily? Maybe they need to shoot a few old ladies, and stop letting guys like Jeffrey Dahmer walk off with his next victim--who just happened to be naked, gibbering in a foreign language, and bleeding from his anus. More of that top-notch police work you keep bragging about.
Losers always resent management. They think they can do the job better, which is pretty funny considering their positions in life. Competent workers get promoted, the rest just whine.
I see you provided a list of your favorite links. I didn't see doghnut dunking cop porn in there, but I guess even those perverts in San Fransisco would balk at that.
How are those no-knock warrants working out in Milwaukee? Is crime still through the roof and rising steadily? Maybe they need to shoot a few old ladies, and stop letting guys like Jeffrey Dahmer walk off with his next victim--who just happened to be naked, gibbering in a foreign language, and bleeding from his anus. More of that top-notch police work you keep bragging about.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 29, 2006 09:24 PM (bLPT+)
83
And speaking of bleeding through the anus, how's life treating you these days, Jeff?
No, I don't resent management at all...the good ones are truly good - a
group of which I can't even fathom you might be included. But I guess
it's true, people sometimes are promoted to their level of incompetence
-- at which you'll likely remain for the rest of your pissed-off little
life.
As for my sub-standard "station in life," I'm a senior copywriter at
the Milwaukee offices of Chicago advertising agency. In my role, I
answer directly to a Group Creative Director. Lovely woman and not only
sharp as a tack, but exceptionally even-tempered and emotionally
mature.
So besides the fact I likely make in 5 months what you'll make in all
2006, I have the opportunity to see close-up how real management works.
Try it yourself some day; you may excel at it (doubtful.)
And we haven't had a SWAT team shoot an old lady on a no-knock in, oh, must be six or seven days now. Idiot.
No, I don't resent management at all...the good ones are truly good - a
group of which I can't even fathom you might be included. But I guess
it's true, people sometimes are promoted to their level of incompetence
-- at which you'll likely remain for the rest of your pissed-off little
life.
As for my sub-standard "station in life," I'm a senior copywriter at
the Milwaukee offices of Chicago advertising agency. In my role, I
answer directly to a Group Creative Director. Lovely woman and not only
sharp as a tack, but exceptionally even-tempered and emotionally
mature.
So besides the fact I likely make in 5 months what you'll make in all
2006, I have the opportunity to see close-up how real management works.
Try it yourself some day; you may excel at it (doubtful.)
And we haven't had a SWAT team shoot an old lady on a no-knock in, oh, must be six or seven days now. Idiot.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 29, 2006 09:59 PM (a7sMc)
Posted by: JeepThang at November 29, 2006 10:58 PM (yZQoS)
85
Jeff:
Alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy, and kills far more people. Drunks can kill other people, but I'm not going to dehydrate because some twenty-nothing popped ecstasy and danced his brains out in a hot, humid room.
The law DUI -- driving under the influence applies to both alcohol and drugs, arguing the actions of what occurs under the influence, be it drugs, or alcohol is plain silly, people have killed people while intoxicated by pcp, cocaine or Jack Daniels, both driving and in violent assaults.
I don't know what a CQB is, but it sounds like a game to me.
CQB stands for "Close Quarter Battle" and is the technique of assaulting, and using weapons in confined places e.g buildings.
Alcohol is more dangerous than ecstasy, and kills far more people. Drunks can kill other people, but I'm not going to dehydrate because some twenty-nothing popped ecstasy and danced his brains out in a hot, humid room.
The law DUI -- driving under the influence applies to both alcohol and drugs, arguing the actions of what occurs under the influence, be it drugs, or alcohol is plain silly, people have killed people while intoxicated by pcp, cocaine or Jack Daniels, both driving and in violent assaults.
I don't know what a CQB is, but it sounds like a game to me.
CQB stands for "Close Quarter Battle" and is the technique of assaulting, and using weapons in confined places e.g buildings.
Posted by: davec at November 29, 2006 11:03 PM (yaQM4)
86
Laws concerning DUI have nothing to do with who gets killed and who doesn't. It's illegal to "drive under the influence" whether you kill anyone or not. PCP isn't ecstasy, and it's a lot easier to drink yourself to death than ecstasy yourself to death. I've never heard of someone killing other people due to ecstasy induced rage or negligence.
Unless the TWAT teams killed their military opponents in "Close Quarter Combat," it was just a fucking game. I'm pretty sure I saw that crap on Spike TV, and it was a joke.
Unless the TWAT teams killed their military opponents in "Close Quarter Combat," it was just a fucking game. I'm pretty sure I saw that crap on Spike TV, and it was a joke.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 12:44 AM (bLPT+)
87
Creep Thang:
If you want me to die, I can always move to Atlanta and wait for the goon squad to serve a no-knock warrant. I guess anybody who criticizes over the top, incompetent, and overzealous police practices deserves to die, huh? And I'm not even an old lady.
If you want me to die, I can always move to Atlanta and wait for the goon squad to serve a no-knock warrant. I guess anybody who criticizes over the top, incompetent, and overzealous police practices deserves to die, huh? And I'm not even an old lady.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 12:47 AM (bLPT+)
88
Hank Hardly:
Nobody who brags about their income makes any money, and copywriting is a home for the mediocre. Most ad agencies have no clue how to market a product. The top ad agencies in the country are responsible for TV commercials, and most commercials are completely out of touch with their market audiences. Your writing doesn't even reach the level of sub-standard.
As I don't live in Milwaukee, I don't know much about bleeding anuses, but I'm sure you or the MPD could tell me all about it. A woman pretending to be a man is sure to know more about it than I am, and the only way you're not a woman is if you're a flaming fem.
By the way, killing old ladies is still wrong--even in Milwaukee.
Nobody who brags about their income makes any money, and copywriting is a home for the mediocre. Most ad agencies have no clue how to market a product. The top ad agencies in the country are responsible for TV commercials, and most commercials are completely out of touch with their market audiences. Your writing doesn't even reach the level of sub-standard.
As I don't live in Milwaukee, I don't know much about bleeding anuses, but I'm sure you or the MPD could tell me all about it. A woman pretending to be a man is sure to know more about it than I am, and the only way you're not a woman is if you're a flaming fem.
By the way, killing old ladies is still wrong--even in Milwaukee.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 12:56 AM (bLPT+)
89
A "fem?" No, you're a fem, a big ... fem. What, are we back in fourth grade?
I don't know much about bleeding anuses...
Don't be so modest Jeff; I'm sure you and your NAMBLA friends could go on and on about bleeding anuses.
Nobody who brags about their income makes any money
Oh-oh ... I'm breaking the rules then I guess. Oh, and now besides being steeped in forensics and law enforcement, you're also a marketing expert? Is that what your "management" experience lies? Gah.
Most ad agencies have no clue how to market a product. The top ad
agencies in the country are responsible for TV commercials, and most
commercials are completely out of touch with their market audiences.
Oh, and now besides being steeped in forensics and law enforcement,
you're also a marketing expert? Is that what your "management"
experience lies? Well, my agency's been going since 1955. I think we'll last a few more years. By the way, what's a "market audience?" Do you mean a "target market" or a "target audience?" Jeff, please don't try to sound all intelligent ... you just get mixed up and make an ass of yourself.
If you want me to die, I can always move to Atlanta and wait for the goon squad to serve a no-knock warrant.
But what if they don't have any openings for Second-Assistant-Nightshift-and-Weekend Managers at the Burger Kings in Atlanta? You'd starve before they could shoot you. Wait a second ... maybe you should check it out.
By the way, killing old ladies is still wrong--even in Milwaukee.
Well, in any event, you'd better hope they don't start shooting registered pedophiles with no-knocks in Omaha. You'd be SOL. Unless you sicked your wife on 'em. I hear she's a real throat kicker.
I don't know much about bleeding anuses...
Don't be so modest Jeff; I'm sure you and your NAMBLA friends could go on and on about bleeding anuses.
Nobody who brags about their income makes any money
Oh-oh ... I'm breaking the rules then I guess. Oh, and now besides being steeped in forensics and law enforcement, you're also a marketing expert? Is that what your "management" experience lies? Gah.
Most ad agencies have no clue how to market a product. The top ad
agencies in the country are responsible for TV commercials, and most
commercials are completely out of touch with their market audiences.
Oh, and now besides being steeped in forensics and law enforcement,
you're also a marketing expert? Is that what your "management"
experience lies? Well, my agency's been going since 1955. I think we'll last a few more years. By the way, what's a "market audience?" Do you mean a "target market" or a "target audience?" Jeff, please don't try to sound all intelligent ... you just get mixed up and make an ass of yourself.
If you want me to die, I can always move to Atlanta and wait for the goon squad to serve a no-knock warrant.
But what if they don't have any openings for Second-Assistant-Nightshift-and-Weekend Managers at the Burger Kings in Atlanta? You'd starve before they could shoot you. Wait a second ... maybe you should check it out.
By the way, killing old ladies is still wrong--even in Milwaukee.
Well, in any event, you'd better hope they don't start shooting registered pedophiles with no-knocks in Omaha. You'd be SOL. Unless you sicked your wife on 'em. I hear she's a real throat kicker.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 30, 2006 01:16 AM (a7sMc)
Posted by: davec at November 30, 2006 12:18 PM (yaQM4)
91
Hank Hardly:
Your comments have degenerated into nothing but peurile personal attacks--not that they were ever much more than that. Your mindless defense of police incompetence and murder were contemptible, but your lame personal attacks and unsolicited correction of my typos are just plain weak.
I have no reason to believe a thing you write, and you're obviously a moron. Here's looking at you.....geting your empty head blown off during a no-knock warrant issued to the wrong address. Or, if you prefer the classics, here's looking at you.....sucking mu dick.
I still know you aren't a man, and killing innocent old ladies is wrong.
Your comments have degenerated into nothing but peurile personal attacks--not that they were ever much more than that. Your mindless defense of police incompetence and murder were contemptible, but your lame personal attacks and unsolicited correction of my typos are just plain weak.
I have no reason to believe a thing you write, and you're obviously a moron. Here's looking at you.....geting your empty head blown off during a no-knock warrant issued to the wrong address. Or, if you prefer the classics, here's looking at you.....sucking mu dick.
I still know you aren't a man, and killing innocent old ladies is wrong.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 04:43 PM (bLPT+)
92
Davec:
We're down to a single point. I assume you've conceded all the others.
QCB competitions are games. The players can call them competitions, excercises, or play-acting, but they're games. The military's finest don't even bother with them.
Wikipedia is a joke. It's edited by guys like DidddleFuck and Salaam alyinkunt. I've never read a single entry that wasn't severely flawed, at the very least.
We're down to a single point. I assume you've conceded all the others.
QCB competitions are games. The players can call them competitions, excercises, or play-acting, but they're games. The military's finest don't even bother with them.
Wikipedia is a joke. It's edited by guys like DidddleFuck and Salaam alyinkunt. I've never read a single entry that wasn't severely flawed, at the very least.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 04:52 PM (bLPT+)
93
I moved to the other thread Jeff, the 50 shots one -- it is fresher.
The militaries finest don't even mess with it? the Navy SEALS, SFOD-Delta and the British SAS all train in CQB in their mock 'kill houses' the Marines use the same "Miles Laser Gear" that was used in the show to practice both CQB and MOUT.
Re: Wikipedia, I don't really see a problem in the article, but if you don't like the source there are thousands of articles written about CQB, most likely at .mil sites too.
The militaries finest don't even mess with it? the Navy SEALS, SFOD-Delta and the British SAS all train in CQB in their mock 'kill houses' the Marines use the same "Miles Laser Gear" that was used in the show to practice both CQB and MOUT.
Re: Wikipedia, I don't really see a problem in the article, but if you don't like the source there are thousands of articles written about CQB, most likely at .mil sites too.
Posted by: davec at November 30, 2006 05:56 PM (yaQM4)
94
Your comments have degenerated into nothing but peurile personal attacks
Ladies and gentlemen, the blackest kettle of them all cries foul. This isn't a circle jerking club. Your words. So cry me a fucking river.
You want peurility, scroll through your responses to other posters who took issue with your hyper-combative rhetoric.
Ladies and gentlemen, the blackest kettle of them all cries foul. This isn't a circle jerking club. Your words. So cry me a fucking river.
You want peurility, scroll through your responses to other posters who took issue with your hyper-combative rhetoric.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 30, 2006 08:37 PM (a7sMc)
95
Davec:
I wrote that the military's finest don't bother with CQB competitions. I didn't write that they don't bother with CQB training.
Not that TWAT teams are better at killing an embedded enemy than commandoes (they're too pussified to take the proper risks, even if they were as competent,) but being good at killing the public is nothing to be proud of.
I wrote that the military's finest don't bother with CQB competitions. I didn't write that they don't bother with CQB training.
Not that TWAT teams are better at killing an embedded enemy than commandoes (they're too pussified to take the proper risks, even if they were as competent,) but being good at killing the public is nothing to be proud of.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 09:19 PM (bLPT+)
96
Hank Handjob:
Learn the difference between puerile insults, and insulting refutations. It's a matter of substance. Your comments have none--dude looks like a lady.
Learn the difference between puerile insults, and insulting refutations. It's a matter of substance. Your comments have none--dude looks like a lady.
Posted by: Jeff Bargholz at November 30, 2006 09:21 PM (bLPT+)
97
Learn the difference between puerile insults, and insulting refutations.
Learn the fact that there is no difference, douchebag. You either refute or you insult. And if your "substance" need to be propped up by insults, guess you're not nearly as clever as you think, supercilious phrases and all.
So long, Geek.
Learn the fact that there is no difference, douchebag. You either refute or you insult. And if your "substance" need to be propped up by insults, guess you're not nearly as clever as you think, supercilious phrases and all.
So long, Geek.
Posted by: HankHardy at November 30, 2006 10:28 PM (a7sMc)
98
herbals@drugs.com
Posted by: how to last longer in sex at June 05, 2007 10:45 AM (GDKMt)
123kb generated in CPU 0.0215, elapsed 0.0628 seconds.
34 queries taking 0.0473 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
34 queries taking 0.0473 seconds, 253 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
