When People Finally See a Drug Raid

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
ck
Posts: 1906
Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 11:29 pm

Post by ck » Thu May 13, 2010 8:52 pm

Cool Hand wrote:
ck wrote:Yep, and I have seen the video previous to today and agree it was pretty fucked up. For all of these drug raids and ones that go wrong, it isn't really making a dent in illicit drug trade. It is for nothing.
It is for naught is right. Actually, it has done tremendous harm to our society. The War on Drugs has always been far more damaging to our culture and society than drug abuse and/or addiction in the aggregate ever has. Individual tragic cases notwithstanding, I'm speaking of the aggregate toll on our society.

CH
Absolutely. I live in a prison town (3 prisons here and the state's death row is also located here) and I'm willing to bet that the majority imprisoned here are probably doing time for drug-related convictions (be it use, manufacture or distributing). Where we're located is also THE major route to take from Texas to Chicago and therefore we see a lot of runners through here.

Coincidentally I just saw this article pop up on Yahoo--

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100513/ap_ ... d_drug_war
MEXICO CITY – After 40 years, the United States' war on drugs has cost $1 trillion and hundreds of thousands of lives, and for what? Drug use is rampant and violence even more brutal and widespread.

Even U.S. drug czar Gil Kerlikowske concedes the strategy hasn't worked.

"In the grand scheme, it has not been successful," Kerlikowske told The Associated Press. "Forty years later, the concern about drugs and drug problems is, if anything, magnified, intensified.

User avatar
Vorticity
Posts: 960
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2005 4:06 pm
Location: Los Alamos, NM

Post by Vorticity » Thu May 13, 2010 9:03 pm

Cool Hand wrote:I think the first reaction many, if not most SWAT officers have when encountering dogs in homes is that the dog(s) pose a threat to their safety. After all, dogs are very territorial and very protective of it, and many can be extremely aggressive towards anyone or anything the dog perceives to be a threat or intruder in their territory. The default safe thing for the officers to do is to neutralize (euphemism for shoot to death) any dogs they see or hear. I'm not defending the practice or condoning it, but trying to explain it from their perspective, and I do have some exposure to their perspective from years of interacting with them.
But you could just as easily say...
After all, people are very territorial and very protective of it, and many can be extremely aggressive towards anyone or anything the person perceives to be a threat or intruder in their territory.
...and it would be just as true.

I'm completely serious. People are irrational and could do anything, and are therefore a "threat". Why not just shoot them? In the interests of officer safety.

(Edited to change the quote attribution so it doesn't look like Cool Hand made the hypothetical statement I constructed.)
Last edited by Vorticity on Thu May 13, 2010 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain
Been thanked: 130 times

Post by Cool Hand » Thu May 13, 2010 9:46 pm

Vorticity wrote:
Cool Hand wrote:I think the first reaction many, if not most SWAT officers have when encountering dogs in homes is that the dog(s) pose a threat to their safety. After all, dogs are very territorial and very protective of it, and many can be extremely aggressive towards anyone or anything the dog perceives to be a threat or intruder in their territory. The default safe thing for the officers to do is to neutralize (euphemism for shoot to death) any dogs they see or hear. I'm not defending the practice or condoning it, but trying to explain it from their perspective, and I do have some exposure to their perspective from years of interacting with them.
But you could just as easily say...
Cool Hand wrote: After all, people are very territorial and very protective of it, and many can be extremely aggressive towards anyone or anything the person perceives to be a threat or intruder in their territory.
...and it would be just as true.

I'm completely serious. People are irrational and could do anything, and are therefore a "threat". Why not just shoot them? In the interests of officer safety.
I agree. I was merely trying to explain the rationale officers typically use for neutralizing dogs.

I also agree with your point about persons, and after listening to many officers discuss arrests and calls for service to homes and businesses, your point is frighteningly close to the truth. In other words, I've noticed that many officers have itchy trigger fingers and shoot human beings in those tense situations too, you know, for officer safety. I've seen the ugly results in some cases, with instances of citizens being killed in their own homes, and with a couple of instances in which cops were shot and killed answering routine calls or making routine traffic stops.

There is too much of an "us" vs. "them" mentality in many police circles. That should give lots of us pause. I've always feared the police and other government officials as a whole more than individual criminals on the street. I'm much more likely to face an unpleasant encounter with government/police than strange muggers/assailants, even if I keep to myself, pay my taxes, and mind my own business.

CH
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd

User avatar
Mentat
Posts: 10271
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 11:00 pm
Location: Hangar 18
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 124 times

Post by Mentat » Thu May 13, 2010 10:27 pm

Cool Hand wrote:
Mentat wrote:
Cool Hand wrote:
ck wrote:Yep, and I have seen the video previous to today and agree it was pretty fucked up. For all of these drug raids and ones that go wrong, it isn't really making a dent in illicit drug trade. It is for nothing.
It is for naught is right. Actually, it has done tremendous harm to our society. The War on Drugs has always been far more damaging to our culture and society than drug abuse and/or addiction in the aggregate ever has. Individual tragic cases notwithstanding, I'm speaking of the aggregate toll on our society.

CH
It's a modern witch hunt.
In a way, but I would say its scope is much broader than of the European or Salem witch hunts. It's an assault on individual liberties and a grotesque abuse and expansion of the police powers of government at all levels. It keeps increasing, and to the police and to citizens who support the War on Drugs, there is never enough law enforcement against drug possession or distribution or manufacturing. You could enlist every citizen and put them into law enforcement positions and it still wouldn't be enough for them.

It's pointless and accomplishes nothing positive. It's a tremendous drag on our society and economy and law enforcement, judicial, and corrections resources that far outweighs the deleterious effects of drug abuse. Government and law enforcement simply do not distinguish between drug use and drug abuse. To them, drug use = abuse. Using their philosophical approach, smoking a J at home while watching The Three Stooges is as wrong as shooting up heroin in an alley while your 8-year-old kid is home alone without supper. I don't know anyone who would make that claim as a practical matter, but their stance lends itself to that equivocation.

It's sad and even tragic in cases when persons abuse drugs and let them ruin their lives or those around them. Nevertheless, that's going to be true whether we keep illicit drugs illegal or not. Some persons will use them regardless of their legal status. Some persons will abuse them regardless of their legal status. The only difference is the collateral consequences to individuals caught up in the legal system and to society at large by keeping prohibition in effect. Remove prohibition, and all the ancillary effects fall away, including all that drug violence and murder. You don't see 20,000 persons a year being murdered in Juarez over cigarettes or beer.

CH
I don't even get who's keeping the whole war machine going. I know there are plenty of old curmudgeon busies who like to have their noses in everybody's lives, the gods forbid somebody somewhere is happy, but it seems to me that for a society as ours, progress would have taken it down. I take it that there are plenty of people who have been negatively affected by the war on drugs or are more liberal in there leanings against it.

Then again, pot heads aren't the most likely people to go out and vote. :lol:
It's "pea-can", man.

Lapis Sells . . . But Who's Buying?

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22240
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Post by gnome » Thu May 13, 2010 10:41 pm

The way people respond to politics is why it goes that way. Anyone who proposes loosening laws or easing up on the war on drugs is going to be immediately accused of coddling criminals and helping dangerous predators bring drugs to our precious children.

Anyone who runs on law and order and promises to bring the law down on drug dealers and cokeheads is going to have a quick and easy voter base.

So, the only way it'll stop is when people see through this farce and vote smarter. They have to stop paying attention to campaigns that claim one's opponent is pro-crime because they are insufficiently aggressive against criminals.

Just maybe this can happen with marijuana.

I am reminded of an old clip (Kids in the hall?) of competing campaign commercials where they are trying to one-up each other on the death penalty. "Sure, my opponent's in favor of the death penalty, but is she willing to pull the switch herself?" (shot of candidate pulling a big lever down while smiling at a condemned man in the electric chair). "Sure, my opponent will pull the lever himself, but will he dance on their grave?" (shot of candidate dancing a jig on the grave of executed killer)...

and so forth...
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 33644
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1760 times

Post by Grammatron » Thu May 13, 2010 10:48 pm

Mentat wrote: Then again, pot heads aren't the most likely people to go out and vote. :lol:
IDK, marijuana legalization has made very significant progress in the past 10 years. It almost feels like we are on the cusp of it being legal everywhere.

En folkefiende
Posts: 17511
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2004 4:38 am
Location: Waiting for an electrician

Post by En folkefiende » Thu May 13, 2010 10:51 pm

gnome wrote:The way people respond to politics is why it goes that way. Anyone who proposes loosening laws or easing up on the war on drugs is going to be immediately accused of coddling criminals and helping dangerous predators bring drugs to our precious children.
Yep.

Anyone who runs on law and order and promises to bring the law down on drug dealers and cokeheads is going to have a quick and easy voter base.
Yep.

So, the only way it'll stop is when people see through this farce and vote smarter. They have to stop paying attention to campaigns that claim one's opponent is pro-crime because they are insufficiently aggressive against criminals.
This country is Victorian-era stupid about this. It is a shameful fact that our new prohibition (drugs) is just entirely and utterly as much a total, abject, destructive and murderous failure as our previous prohibition against alcohol.

There is no place in history where drugs, sex, and alcohol have been successfully banned over the long run.

NO PLACE.

It is sheer, utter imbicility to criminalize drug USE. Sale, yeah, I'd say so, but use? That's imbicility of the first order.

It's almost as stupid as USING THEM.
Formerly jj, the enemy of the people, aka the bullies who rant and lie here.

User avatar
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 47728
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 787 times
Been thanked: 1489 times

Post by Nyarlathotep » Thu May 13, 2010 11:13 pm

gnome wrote:
So, the only way it'll stop is when people see through this farce and vote smarter.
AKA the Pony Principle.
Bango Skank Awaits The Crimson King!

User avatar
Nyarlathotep
Posts: 47728
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 2:50 pm
Has thanked: 787 times
Been thanked: 1489 times

Post by Nyarlathotep » Thu May 13, 2010 11:14 pm

Grammatron wrote: It almost feels like we are on the cusp of it being legal everywhere.
Betcha not. For the very reasons Gnome outlined. Any politician who proposes such a thing will soon be an ex-politician.
Bango Skank Awaits The Crimson King!

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22240
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Post by gnome » Thu May 13, 2010 11:16 pm

Nyarlathotep wrote:
gnome wrote:
So, the only way it'll stop is when people see through this farce and vote smarter.
AKA the Pony Principle.
I'll revise it. It will also change when people think they're smarter and have seen through this farce because they've been redirected to a different farce.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
Cool Hand
Posts: 9999
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 4:09 pm
Location: Earning my avatar in the rain
Been thanked: 130 times

Post by Cool Hand » Thu May 13, 2010 11:24 pm

Grammatron wrote:
Mentat wrote: Then again, pot heads aren't the most likely people to go out and vote. :lol:
IDK, marijuana legalization has made very significant progress in the past 10 years. It almost feels like we are on the cusp of it being legal everywhere.
Really? Maybe it just feels that way because you live in California.

Visit and stay in the South and Southeast a while, and you might get a different impression. In fact, just this week my governor signed into law a bill passed overwhelmingly in both state houses banning so-called "K2," a/k/a "fake pot," which is a synthetically created drug with cannabinoids which mimic THC and bind to the same receptors in the brain, and for good measure, they banned Salvia divinorum as well. Similar laws/bills have passed or are pending in KS, KY, TN, GA, LA, MO, FL, NY, ND, and other states. By the end of the year, it is likely several other states will have criminalized possession of K2 and similar drugs, and the DEA will likely schedule it, placing it on Schedule I alongside marijuana, cocaine, LSD, and heroin.

http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/ ... xml&coll=1

See wikipedia's latest update on similar laws in other states, which has been changing a lot in the past month or so as surrounding states compete to jump on the bandwagon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JWH-018

Many nations in the EU have already banned K2 as well. This is the wrong direction in the war on drugs. The legislative knee-jerk reaction is, "What? This stuff gets you high? How come it isn't illegal? Well, then, let's pass a law and make it illegal right away!" In fact, that's exactly how K2 got banned in my state and in Georgia.

CH
....life purpose is pay taxes -- pillory 12/05/13

And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again
The sun is the same in a relative way, but you're older
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death.

"Time" -- Pink Floyd

User avatar
corplinx
Posts: 20266
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 228 times
Been thanked: 679 times

Post by corplinx » Fri May 14, 2010 11:42 pm

I am a US Army officer, currently serving in Afghanistan. My first thought on reading this story is this: Most American police SWAT teams probably have fewer restrictions on conducting forced entry raids than do US forces in Afghanistan.

For our troops over here to conduct any kind of forced entry, day or night, they have to meet one of two conditions: have a bad guy (or guys) inside actively shooting at them; or obtain permission from a 2-star general, who must be convinced by available intelligence (evidence) that the person or persons they're after is present at the location, and that it's too dangerous to try less coercive methods. The general can be pretty tough to convince, too. (I'm a staff liason, and one of my jobs is to present these briefings to obtain the required permission.)

Generally, our troops, including the special ops guys, use what we call "cordon and knock": they set up a perimeter around the target location to keep people from moving in or out,and then announce their presence and give the target an opportunity to surrender. In the majority of cases, even if the perimeter is established at night, the call out or knock on the gate doesn't happen until after the sun comes up.

Oh, and all of the bad guys we're going after are closely tied to killing and maiming people.

What might be amazing to American cops is that the vast majority of our targets surrender when called out.

I don't have a clear picture of the resources available to most police departments, but even so, I don't see any reason why they can't use similar methods.
http://reason.com/blog/2010/05/14/more- ... n-the-mili

User avatar
Geni
Posts: 5883
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2004 9:02 am
Location: UK

Post by Geni » Sat May 15, 2010 2:21 am

Cool Hand wrote: Many nations in the EU have already banned K2 as well. This is the wrong direction in the war on drugs. The legislative knee-jerk reaction is, "What? This stuff gets you high? How come it isn't illegal? Well, then, let's pass a law and make it illegal right away!" In fact, that's exactly how K2 got banned in my state and in Georgia.

CH
One of the nice things about modern chemistry is that it is probably technicaly posible to come up with new recreational drugs faster than it is posible to ban them.

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 21959
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1425 times
Been thanked: 1274 times

Post by Anaxagoras » Sat May 15, 2010 3:13 am

Cool Hand wrote:As awful as that video is, raids like that occur every day throughout the US. The ACLU and lawyers who have been paying attention have been arguing for a couple of decades that the War on Drugs is actually in effect a war on US residents and their civil liberties, especially their protections under the Fourth Amendment. It is not hyperbolic to make such a claim.

The DEA and the FBI regularly work with local SWAT teams from local police forces to conduct drug raids in persons' homes like depicted above. I know of a local case recently where the FBI asked a local SWAT team to execute a federal search warrant for drugs at a particular house and was with them when they used a battering ram to knock down the front door. The federal agent on the ground confirmed for the SWAT team before they broke down the door, using his Google map, that the SWAT team had the correct house. They broke in, used their proper tactics for clearing a house, and stumbled upon the occupant whom they awoke from his sleep. He thought he was being burglarized and had his gun in his hand for self defense -- in his own house, in his own bedroom even -- so they open fired, shooting him four times.

They hit him twice in the balls. He survived, but he has no balls now, and it was the wrong house and the wrong guy.

Yeah, think of the children. Keep drugs away from kids.

Collectively, we're fucking idiots to have that as the rhetoric driving our national drug policy.

CH
Damn, that's crazy.

:nope

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 22240
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 381 times
Been thanked: 408 times

Re:

Post by gnome » Wed Sep 26, 2018 1:00 pm

Grammatron wrote:
Thu May 13, 2010 10:48 pm
Mentat wrote: Then again, pot heads aren't the most likely people to go out and vote. :lol:
IDK, marijuana legalization has made very significant progress in the past 10 years. It almost feels like we are on the cusp of it being legal everywhere.
8 years later and we are even MORE on the cusp!

But it can't be denied that movement towards legalization continues.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2