Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: tokugawa on October 07, 2016, 11:23:32 AM
-
http://www.gazettenet.com/MarijuanaRaid-HG-100116-5074664
synopsis- Old lady gets raided for pot plant, (a, as in one) cops take it and leave.
They tell the homeowner "as long as you don't insist on a warrant for us coming on your property and searching,, we won't file charges."
How very sweet of them. Reminds me of some of the "plea bargain" deals.
-
Well, I just burned up another "free look" at the Hampshire Gazette's pages. Time to clear my cookies, I guess.
I think LEOs ought to be able to use a certain amount of field judgment, but I agree that raiding without a search warrant on the premise that "if you don't tell on us, we won't tell on you" is pretty sleazy, if not illegal.
Apparently, the lady and her son might go to court over it. Not sure what good it will do in terms of their own situation, or even if they have some kind of standing, but it sure will increase publicity over the "war on some drugs," as one of our posters calls it.
Colorado brought in $135M in fees and taxes on marijuana sales last year. This does not take account of the $ saved in incarceration costs for pot users and the initial enforcement costs.
Like with helicopters and special IR equipment and the salaries of the officers and like that there.
-
Well, I just burned up another "free look" at the Hampshire Gazette's pages. Time to clear my cookies, I guess.
I think LEOs ought to be able to use a certain amount of field judgment, but I agree that raiding without a search warrant on the premise that "if you don't tell on us, we won't tell on you" is pretty sleazy, if not illegal.
Apparently, the lady and her son might go to court over it. Not sure what good it will do in terms of their own situation, or even if they have some kind of standing, but it sure will increase publicity over the "war on some drugs," as one of our posters calls it.
What the cops did was definitely illegal, but she didn't have a medical use card, so her having the plant was also illegal. She wants to stand up for her rights, but that unfortunately includes the right to be arrested and charged for breaking the law.
Yes, what the cops did was wrong and an incredibly wasteful use of police (and National Guard) resources, but you have to look at it from their perspective: They put a pot grower out of business, no shots were fired, and everyone went home at the end of his/her shift.
-
Sure is a good thing they got that dangerous plant off the streets
Im sure relieved that I have laws to tell me what my rights are and what morality is
-
All that for 21 *expletive deleted*ing plants?
What an embarrassing waste of time and money
-
What's extremely low maintenance and looks a lot like pot on a thermal imager?
-
What's extremely low maintenance and looks a lot like pot on a thermal imager?
Anything that requires a lot of grow lights. Also, some types of Japanese maples have been mistaken for pot in the past...
-
My late aunt used to grow castor bean plants. Very pretty foliage and flowers but from a distance kind of looked like Weed.
One Summer she had a unmarked dark chopper making regular "low and slow" flyovers of her garden.
It was going on for several weeks and I was visiting for one of the fly overs. Not much more than 100' off the deck and moving at maybe a walking pace.
We went out to watch and I waved and motioned fro them to come on down. They didn't and my aunt said she never saw them after that.
-
Colorado brought in $135M in fees and taxes on marijuana sales last year. This does not take account of the $ saved in incarceration costs for pot users and the initial enforcement costs.
Ayup
-
My late aunt used to grow castor bean plants. Very pretty foliage and flowers but from a distance kind of looked like Weed.
One Summer she had a unmarked dark chopper making regular "low and slow" flyovers of her garden.
It was going on for several weeks and I was visiting for one of the fly overs. Not much more than 100' off the deck and moving at maybe a walking pace.
We went out to watch and I waved and motioned fro them to come on down. They didn't and my aunt said she never saw them after that.
Do a flyover in any county in Eastern Iowa and the ditches are full of hemp. Weeds now, but left over from the days of growing hemp for fiber.
-
<aside>
I think Colorado allows you to grow 4 plants for personal use without being challenged as a dealer. State law, not federal.</aside>
Sure is a good thing they got that dangerous plant off the streets
I'm sure relieved that I have laws to tell me what my rights are and what morality is
Basic agreement here. The majority decided to make it illegal to sell cars and booze on Sunday (both laws now repealed). I mean, why not St. Swithun's Day (July 15th) as well?
I believe that was one of the nation's founders' overriding fears: the tyranny of the majority. Hence we were set up as a republic, not a democracy.
-
If the search was illegal, they should be acquitted anyway... :police:
-
If the search was illegal, they should be acquitted anyway... :police:
It would just cost them money in attorney fees.
What would it do to our system if the Govt was liable for the courts/attorney costs of the defense if there was an acquittal?
-
I believe that was one of the nation's founders' overriding fears: the tyranny of the majority. Hence we were set up as a republic, not a democracy.
That's great in theory, but it's long dead in practice. I went to high school in the 1950s and 60s. Even back in 8th grade Social Studies class (which I guess they call "Civics" today) we were taught that the United States is a democracy. What they DIDN'T teach us was about the electoral college (which I still don't understand), or about the fact that senators were originally elected by the state legislatures rather than by direct popular vote.
-
If the search was illegal, they should be acquitted anyway... :police:
The process IS the punishment, anymore. They can bankrupt us, ruin our lives for years, we walk away innocent ,worn out paupers. What a deal.
-
It would just cost them money in attorney fees.
What would it do to our system if the Govt was liable for the courts/attorney costs of the defense if there was an acquittal?
Not sure about an acquittal, as the threat of paying acquittal might increase charges in hope of making something stick, or pushing for a plea bargain. Ohio has a rule with appeals. If an appeal is found to be without a reasonable basis, the appealing party can be ordered to pay costs. So, maybe have the jury or judge evaluate if there was a reasonable basis for charges, and award costs to the defendant if not.
-
The process IS the punishment, anymore. They can bankrupt us, ruin our lives for years, we walk away innocent ,worn out paupers. What a deal.
My idea, because of what Mech mentioned - charging more to justify conviction on something to justify the whole 9 yards, was to make the expenses properly part of the punishment.
IE if they do $100k of damage to your house in order to find 1 partial joint or such, and the jury, which isn't allowed to know the damage they caused, only fines you $1000, then the government owes you $99k.
If they do $1k damage and you're fined $2k, then you only owe $1k. Come up with some figure, likely $10k-20k, per year of imprisonment. DO NOT LET THE JUDGE OR JURY CONSIDER THE DAMAGE POLICE DID WHEN CONSIDERING PUNISHMENT.
-
That's great in theory, but it's long dead in practice. I went to high school in the 1950s and 60s. Even back in 8th grade Social Studies class (which I guess they call "Civics" today) we were taught that the United States is a democracy. What they DIDN'T teach us was about the electoral college (which I still don't understand), or about the fact that senators were originally elected by the state legislatures rather than by direct popular vote.
Electoral college is relatively easy. Okay, Representative government, IE government by representation. Back in the day, election periods were shorter than today, and without mass media, odds were that you might get to see the major candidates ONCE during an election cycle if you lived in a big city(or were willing to travel), and remember, most didn't live in the big cities.
So, you end up voting for somebody to pick a president for you. Electoral college. One representative per representative - 2 for the senators(who were selected by state governments at first) and however many representatives you had(population based), which were directly elected.
The senate was supposed to be the 'snooty' side, equivalent to the house of lords. They figured that it'd be more professional, being picked by each state government. They were to represent the state's interests in the federal government, while the representatives were to represent the people.
Anyways, back to the college. So the college goes to Washington DC, and they do their voting for president. While bound for a given candidate, theoretically speaking, if the current candidates died, which was much more common back then, or turned into raving loonies, the college could select somebody else, and we'd still have a president when the time came, without having to hold another election.
-
IE if they do $100k of damage to your house in order to find 1 partial joint or such, and the jury, which isn't allowed to know the damage they caused, only fines you $1000, then the government owes you $99k.
Still doesn't help as long as they're just diverting more taxpayer money. It needs to come out of the same predetermined overall budget as salaries, bonuses, equipment, etc.
If they lose it all, they'll just have to make do with volunteers using last year's equipment until they learn.
-
I believe that was one of the nation's founders' overriding fears: the tyranny of the majority. Hence we were set up as a republic, not a democracy.
No, I think one of their overriding fears was a distant, out of touch government, unresponsive and uncaring about the needs of the local populace. (Read the Declaration's list of grievances.)
That is why they set up a Federal Republic, where most power was to be exercised as close and as accountable to the people as possible.
Our problem isn't with the "Republic" part or the "Democracy" part. Our problem is we've lost federalism.
-
No, I think one of their overriding fears was a distant, out of touch government, unresponsive and uncaring about the needs of the local populace. (Read the Declaration's list of grievances.)
That is why they set up a Federal Republic, where most power was to be exercised as close and as accountable to the people as possible.
Our problem isn't with the "Republic" part or the "Democracy" part. Our problem is we've lost federalism.
I must not understand federalism. I'll have to dig up copies of The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers for a refresher. I thought federalism meant a stronger national government, and that it was the anti-federalists who wanted to keep as much power as possible at the state level.
Do I have it reversed?
-
I must not understand federalism. I'll have to dig up copies of The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers for a refresher. I thought federalism meant a stronger national government, and that it was the anti-federalists who wanted to keep as much power as possible at the state level.
Do I have it reversed?
No, you are correct in the naming of the parties. It's confusing because federalism means the dispersing of power through multiple entities, rather than concentrating it in one. Federalists wanted a stronger central government and Anti-federalists were for more decentralized power.
(As another note, even the Federalists would be shocked at the centralization we have today and would gladly side against the current state of the government.)
-
That's great in theory, but it's long dead in practice. I went to high school in the 1950s and 60s. Even back in 8th grade Social Studies class (which I guess they call "Civics" today) we were taught that the United States is a democracy. What they DIDN'T teach us was about the electoral college (which I still don't understand), or about the fact that senators were originally elected by the state legislatures rather than by direct popular vote.
It's called Social Studies. Civics is not taught in school anymore. They do go over the Constitution, but just in generalities.
-
We had a civics class that included a 1/2 year of state government and a half year of federal govt. We didn't study the constitution, but we did cover representatives, senators, and the electoral college. I don't know if they still do that these days.
I do wonder if we should go back to Senators being chosen by the states (and recalled if the legislators want). I think some of the concentration of federal power is due to states no longer having any say in federal laws. Would state appointed Senators vote to hold states hostage with their own tax money? Maybe.
I like the electoral college. I am fine with winner take all states for delegates. I just think a straight up mass populace vote would not be good in the long run. I think people are too impatient for "change" and forget that it will go badly more often than it will go good.
-
On the reimbursement thing, it wasn't just this case that had me thinking. I am almost done reading "Thank God I Had a Gun" by Chris Bird. One story I finished had a guy going for months facing charges of essentially brandishing and threatening some punks. He called 911, but so did the other party and the cops believed them and pretty much assumed he was lying. After delays, his lawyer finally found a 911 call from a witness who backed up the old man's story and gave license plate numbers and descriptions. The police and prosecutors pretty much failed to thoroughly investigate the incident and there were a few outright lies on the police report. His lawyer thinks the prosecutor never bothered to listen to the 911 tapes, much less check for other calls.
IMO, he should be able to get his attorney fees and other losses reimbursed over that. I am just not sure how to do so it doesn't become another abused system. Also, a big part of the cost these days is for getting bailed out of jail. If someone does not have bail money, how long are they required to sit and rot without a speedy trial?
https://www.amazon.com/Thank-God-Had-Gun-Self-Defense/dp/098359015X/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1476126527&sr=8-2&keywords=had+a+gun
-
If someone does not have bail money, how long are they required to sit and rot without a speedy trial?
This. It's unfortunate the Founders didn't put a number (and a suitably small one) on that.
-
I have been thinking about Texas Law Shield or Second Call Defense lately just for some insurance if something happens. Those are just for self defense incidents though.
-
I wonder just how many lives have been essentially destroyed by either incompetence or outright malfeasance on the part of some government toady and then "Oops sorry about that, move along now" and they manage to "move on" with what little is left of their life and either slide into oblivion or ?? ?
This country has too many Harvey Milquetoastes and not enough Marvin Heemeyers.
-
Well, I just burned up another "free look" at the Hampshire Gazette's pages. Time to clear my cookies, I guess.
I think LEOs ought to be able to use a certain amount of field judgment, but I agree that raiding without a search warrant on the premise that "if you don't tell on us, we won't tell on you" is pretty sleazy, if not illegal.
My brother once admitted he was carrying a substantial amount of pot on him. Cop dumped most of it on the side of the road, taking it down to "misdemeanor, but you're still going to jail" amount.
-
My brother once admitted he was carrying a substantial amount of pot on him. Cop dumped most of it on the side of the road, taking it down to "misdemeanor, but you're still going to jail" amount.
The overwhelming bulk of police are normal mostly decent folks. Granted it is a job that can leave one jaded pretty quickly, but mostly decent. Sometimes it is easy to forget this.