I have a similar stance on drugs. My general philosophy about what the government should look to do is if their people want something, they should try to find a way to let them do it safely. If no way is possible, you make it illegal. That way you have as little prohibition as possible without things being too dangerous. With drugs like heroin, if people want to do it and they can afford it, I wouldn't be against having places where people can go and be dosed by professionals and remain there till sober. That said...I think having it be illegal is probably the better route given how addictive it is....but there's no reason why something like mar1juana is illegal.
So with your example of a toy gun in a bank, I agree. And what's the reason? Because in that situation, you are creating an "externality" -- a problem in the public sphere. So yes, anyone that did that should be punished. That's very different than consenting adults doing whatever in the privacy of their own homes. Let's look at your third sentence ("you are a liability...") Again, if a person is messed up/intoxicated on whatever, and they create a problem in the public sphere, then that should be punished. If you are doing meth in your own home, or selling it to someone who will then go on to consume it within their own home, how is that a danger to anyone but themselves? This should not be a crime in a free country. And if you are going to argue about "what about the children" in the home -- then it's child endangerment or some charge like that. If you are going to argue "what about the children who might buy [whatever]" -- I would say: this is where responsible parenting comes in. If the parents aren't responsible, who is that on? The parents. So, I don't think any of your analogies hold up under scrutiny. But I think it's not the first time you have advocated for the heavy hand of the state to do things, that you want them to do, that reduce freedom. And I'm opposed to such a philosophy. That's not to say that government shouldn't have laws that punish offenders -- but it's creating problems in the public realm that we should be focused on, and not what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes.
*If* it's taking place in the public realm, creating a public problem, then yes. If someone takes whatever and ODs in their own home, that's their business alone. Now I know someone could say "well, what about the ambulance and the ER people who have to come; and then the related hospitalization costs?" And I would respond: that's why this excessive "free health care" stuff needs to be reined in. That, and many other reasons.
I agree with a lot of your post, but if cops come bashing down your door heavily armed, how is that we think that the homeowner doesn't have the right to defend their lives and their property? Now, if someone is shooting police in the public square, as happened in Dallas, yes that is a crime that should be punished with deadly force, if necessary.
If the police have a warrant they have the right to bash down your door and you don't have the right to attack them. Shooting a cop that has a warrant in your house is no different than shooting a cop in the public square. Now I'm all for limiting when cops would be able to get warrants like that, but this situation would be one of those times where I would consider it acceptable
The notion that all people, even criminals, have rights is central to American democracy. Saying it's a fall back is absurd.
Saw this on reddit. It ties up all the questions nearly into a compact package. Busting the door in on a suspect that you believe is armed with 4 narcotics officers at 5 in the afternoon and leaving the back door uncovered so he can exit, circle around and shoot officers from behind strikes me as poor tactics, to be polite. And the house was under surveillance the entire time between the CI buy and entry, and the CI claimed he saw a large number of individual baggies containing heroin before he left, yet not a single milligram of heroin was located. Not even residue. I need to know where it went and how they moved it if you want me to believe it ever existed in the first place.
How ironic. The guy questioning police tactics, who a week ago, slammed me for questioning police tactics in the arrest of Roger Stone. Excuse me while I look for the exact wording, here it is, I found it... "What exactly are you basing this on? Could you detail your experience serving federal [state/local] arrest warrants?" Some people.. It's remarkable..
Everything i said in that thread dovetails perfectly here. It's almost like magic that the universe proffered up an example of how not to do things that so perfectly illustrates every point I made in that thread, and illustrates the potential cost of failure so poignantly. If you think that thread validates you, read it again.
The militarization of regular/community police plus their tactics and mindset is something we should all talk about, no matter what side you stand on; also the sources of their money and equipment is a fun topic.
It perfectly illustrates your hypocrisy. It’s remarkable. You slammed me for daring to opine about police tactics/procedure with regards to Stone yet here you are questioning HPD. Who are you exactly to questions the police tactics used here? Could you please detail your credentials to opine on such a subject?
Apparently, I'm someone who has done a much better job of educating themselves before speaking on the subject than you. I would think "dont leave the backdoor unattended when you breach" is something any 12 year old could tell you, but maybe not.
I've willfully stayed out of the whole Stone Imbroglio, but what actually went down there? Armed federal agents raided his house and executed a search warrant on a white-collar criminal, and an arrest warrant? Most likely with a bit too much force. Isn't that just a bit different than locals serving a warrant on a known dealer/house where there is good reason (were there actually undercovers?) to believe there are active firearms in play (and then even still maybe screwing it up)? What should have changed in either/both situations? I just want law enforcement to be better, I have no ulterior motive.
So what's the general thought about this? Did the police screw up? I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories but there's been a lot of smoke around this.
Last week when the Stone thing went down I, and lots of other folks too including people like Bill Maher, expressed the opinion that the FBI went over the top with the force/tactics used to arrest Roger Stone. When I expressed that opinion, Ottoman started kind of blasting me and said ""What exactly are you basing this on? Could you detail your experience serving federal arrest warrants?"" - questioning my ability to opine on the tactics/procedures used to arrest Roger Stone. I find it quite ironic we have Ottoman now in this thread questioning police tactics and procedure used by HPD. That's the genesis of my involvement here.
He said police should have only sent two officers and let him surrender and sending a whole bunch of officers to roust him was excessive. I indicated that they normally send a ton of officers if they send one to show overwhelming force for everybody's safety and that they probably were concerned he would destroy evidence. Both of these statements were later confirmed, either through details of Mullers warrant, or via explanation from former FBI officers. I further indicated doubt that he had any base of knowledge for making a declaration about what qualifies as "best practices" for serving an arrest warrant. If you are going to breach and clear a home you should do it with more than four officers if there is more than one room, according to every source I have. Best practice would also not have it being done at 5pm, when everybody is alert and attentive. The officers in the heroin raid did everything that the FBI agents serving the warrant on Stone didn't do and shouldn't have done, even if it would have been "more polite" to Stone.
In this case, 2 suspects and a dog were killed and 5 police officers were wounded. In the Roger Stone case, no one was killed and no one was injured and the arrest was executed without any implication of anyone's rights being violated. That doesn't necessarily mean that the force used to arrest Stone wasn't excessive, but it shouldn't be surprising that people are more concerned about the arrest methods where everything went to ****.
