Has Highway Stop Procedure Changed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Patrick - in the best of worlds, you are correct. Been to the People's Republik of Denver lately? If my renter is busted twice for disturbing the peace on MY property, it can be confiscated. A couple of loud parties and you take the home from the landlord? Yes. No due process.

Also, just like alcohol, one can control their actions while under the influence of LSD, PCP, heroin, cocaine, etc. Just like alcohol, if you cannot control yourself when drinking (using drugs) you can control yourself beforehand, when you choose to use, and how much. If I ate a sheet of acid, then I'm obviously a moron. But a single line of coke at a party doesn't turn me into a menace to society. I know the difference, and I'm the one who's responsible for my actions if I eat the sheet of acid and then go (insert horrible crime here), just like one who drinks to excess, then drives.

If we, as a society, quit treating people like children and make people take responsibilty for themselves, their actions, and yes, even their children, maybe our society will grow up. As a productive, responsible member of society who's tired of paying for other's indescretions with my tax dollars and my freedoms, I must say that the current way of dealing with drugs (and personal responsibility in general) isn't working. If this is a "War on drugs." we're losing. Those of you who think such things should still be outlawed need to come up with something better - if you can do it without such high cost (in money and freedom) I'm all ears. If not, give it up.
 
Patrick...
Yes, I agree that the original intent was to merely expand RICO...however, as we all know (or should know) new law uses exisiting law as precedent.
In Oakland Calif, police now seize and sell vehicles used by men cruising for prostitutes. And, worse, a conviction is not necessary. The rationale is to "clean up" targeted areas of the town that have been used by prostitutes.
As well, once a bureacracy gets ahold of someone's assets, it can take months if ever for the person to get them back, and generally, no recompense for loss, inconvenience and expense is given.
Example: almost 4 yrs ago a local middle-class family was subjected to a "dynamic entry" early in the morning. Wrong house and the real drug dealers were out on the street with the rest of the neighborhood watching this. In short, the children were taken by child protection, both the parents lost their jobs and house before it was all straightened out. They sued the county and won, but the county appealed and it is still under appeal. The real drug dealers packed their tents and quietly slipped out within a few days.
The only good to come out of this, is that the county Narcotics Task Force has been reinned in for awhile, as this was one of many abuses. Alas, the county still won't pay. And no, I have no intimate relations to any of these incidents.

[I suggest this thread be locked and a new one started...man this is a long one to load up :)]

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
I was going to stay out of this thread because all it seemed to be accomplishing was providing a space for the pro druggers to vent. Then Patrick came on and I decided to give my 2 cents worth. Patrick is right! I agree with you 100% I am a cop too. I know exactly that there are two sides to the story, but we don't get to tell ours. That's because we are professional. BGs go to tthe bar and tell evrybody who will listen what a jerk the cop was that just stopped him. How long would we keep our jobs if we went down to the local cafe and spouted off about every detail of Joe BGs DUI arrest the night before!

I thought this was a gun forum. Stop comparing the "right to use drug" to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The right to defend yourself is a God given one. Use of drugs is not a right. The reasons of ":personal choice" sound like the crap the Posse Comitatus up here in ND use to avoid taxes and drive without licenses, and generally disavow that they have to obey any federal laws at all.

Patrick, you da man!
 
as i said in the other thread that discussed this topic, the war on drugs is not, and will not ever be won. there will always be a demand for some kind of substance to get you high or whatever. the "war on alcohol" otherwise known as prohibition, didn't work, it caused more trouble than anything else. the spreading of organized crime and everything that goes with it. the same thing is happening now, except now our rights are being tramped on. if stopping and searching you, just because you have "the look" isn't unconstitutional what the hell is? i don't care if a person does drugs, gets drunk, or runs around his backyard buck naked, as long as it's not creating a hazard to anyone but themselves. if it esclates into something hazardous to the general public, then arrest them. this search and seizure stuff is BS. i'm not anti-leo, my brother-in-law {the one i claim} is a cop. it ain't the cops, it the laws. Dakota Law Dog, this isn't pro-drug, it's pro-freedom, it's pro-constitution, it's pro- lets get our government under control. ok, i'm through!

------------------
fiat justitia
 
Dakota Law - Who gives you the right to decide what I may ingest? Where do we draw the line? My point is that if the majority says I can't smoke marijuana, and you say "that's okay" and enforce the law they pass, but say that the right to protect ourselves is "God-given" you're being a bit hypocritical. What happens when the majority decides that you can defend yourself, but you can't have a gun? Do you only obey/enforce the laws you agree with, or do you believe in personal freedom? Or is it all okay as long as you're the one in charge, so you can keep your gun?

If we were to really punish people for their misdeeds, without clemency for state of mind, I don't think there would be a problem with druggies running wild. Without thousands of non-violent drug users in jail, the space would be freed up to lock away, for a looooong time, those who truly are dangerous. If some guy high on pot crashed his car into someone else's and killed them, and we treated him like any other first degree murderer (he knew what he was doing = forethoght), and got away from this wussie 20 years on death row crap, we'd put a real damper on driving under the influence. Much more than our current laws.

I return to my original point - what we're doing now isn't working. Can you think of a way to make it work, without infringing on my freedoms and taking lots of my money to do it? If not, maybe we should try it my way...

My way - no victim, no crime. If there's a crime, punish fairly (though most these days may call my fair severe), and swiftly. No excuses. If you've been using drugs and commit a crime, the punishment should be especially severe, not lessened because of state of mind. When I say no victim, I mean an individual or named (individually) group, not society or "the State." Perfect? No, there can be no perfection in a diverse society, but I think it much better than what we have now.

[This message has been edited by Morgan (edited 12-28-98).]
 
you think you have a right to ingest what ever you want? When somebody is on a ledge, then we shouldn't try to talk him in. Someone has a gun in their mouth, then he should have the right to ingest the bullet. Or if someone is holding a knife to their thre year old daughter's throat and saying to the cops, "Just shoot me", we should do it because that's his choice and we all go home a sleep soundly.

yea legalize drugs, that's a good plan. Make it legal for kids to drink too, because if it's legal, they won't want to do it any more.

Now if you wanted to legalize prostitution, I'm with you
 
Dakota -

Damn straight I have the right to ingest a bullet.

Of course you should try to talk a desperate person off the ledge. They'd have jumped if they weren't just crying out for help (unless, of course, they're waiting for the cameras - in which case you should push them).

Yes, you should shoot the pitiful waste of organic matter that holds a knife to his three year old daughter's throat and says to the cops "Just shoot me..." The world's better off without such cowardice.

I think you and I agree on the crystallization of justice, but disagree on where the line should be drawn. I respect your opinion even if I disagree with it. Unfortunately for me, if the erosion of individual rights in the name of "safety" continues, your God given right to self-protection will be intact in five years, but I, as a non-LEO, will be relying upon you and your bretheren to protect me and mine.

I reiterate - either you're pro individual freedom or against. The middle ground is that of hypocrites and politics.
 
Certain things and activities pose a danger to society. Cars and guns are dangerous. Drinking and drugs are dangerous. Should they be banned?
What should be banned?
Or should USE be banned?
This debate will never end.

------------------
Better days to be,

Ed
 
Dakota..
Talking someone off a ledge is different from
making laws that prevent buildings high enough to have a ledge.
Talking someone out of swallowing a bullet is different from making laws that deny access to a gun in order to prevent "bullet eating"; and searching people on the profile they may have a gun and thereby potentially eat a bullet.
You shoot the guy with the knife to his daughter's throat because he'd kill her otherwise, not because you are honoring his request....he had a stronger "negotiating" position than you.
As for LEOs not "spouting off"...ever been to a cop bar?

The reason the anti-gunners are successful is that have no qualms about restricting any right they choose. They use the same form of rhetoric and rationale that you do about drugs...further restrictions and authority for the greater good. "You have cash and a flashy car, prove its not drug profits". "You have a gun(s) prove you won't hurt anyone with them".
You are against drugs but favor prostitution...prostitution has been proven over and over again to be a public health hazard. The danger is not between just you and the prostitute.

Before you dismiss me as a "pro-druggie", note that I have not stated that drugs should be legalized. I do take exception to the increased trampling and restrictions of Constitutional rights in a "war" that can never be won on the current playing field. Personally, I have no problem at all with drugs, prostitution and gambling being illegal...and they have been for years. So deal with it when you can, within the reasonable constraints. I've noticed that murder and theft have never been eradicated by the law. We live in an allegedly free society....
that means that there is inherent in that a certain lack of orderliness and lawfullness. We put up with it and deal with it the best way we can because the alternative is supposed to be unacceptable.


------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Morgan, thank you for your post. I respect your opinion as well, vehemently disagreeing as I do. I didn't mean to step on anyones feelings. I have just seen so many bad things with drugs, well enough said.

We probably agree totally on how criminals are treated by the courts. Slap on the wrist, lift weights in prison, come out a super human criminal. I am in favor of capital punishment, and even if it isn't a deterrent, there are no repeat offenders.

I think I was wrong about one part above- criminals aren't humans. Humans respect the rights of others, criminals don't even respect themselves.

Also, I know and have worked with cops that think the world is their playground to arrest any and all for what ever they can make up. They disgust me as much as they do you. Too bad with a ll the tests, evaluations , and hoops to jump thru, they can't come up with a test to measure common sense. Fortunately, those guys are few and far between up here in fridgid ND. Yup, another blizzard raging as we speak. Common sense is, however, disappearring up here as well.

And a better year to us all!
 
DC

I said what I did about prositution with more than a little facetiousness. You tell me that prostituion has proven over and over to be a public health hazard, but won't listen to the "proof" from what ever source that drugs are a proven problem either.

What do you mean about cops spouting off at "cops bars". I don't see what you are referring to.
 
Dakota...
I didn't say legalize drugs did I? I didn't defend drug usage, did I? Therefore you have no idea whether I listen to or don't listen to "proof" that drugs are harmful. I stated my position on drugs. Where you and I apparently differ is on how much authority and lack of substantive evidence you may use.

The "spouting off" reference was to yours about how LEO don't talk in public about their activities. There are bars that LEO tend to congregate, and they bitch and moan as much as anyone else.



------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
LEOs and rest, I do not think that anyone out there believes that the war on drugs is being won, or that it is a war.
At a cost of 50 billion a year, there must be a better way.
In general, our federal law enforcement agencies are out of control. They don't seem to have anyone in charge, and badly need congressional oversight. The attorney general of the US is a joke. GLV
 
I apologize for the mistake of listing you as pro legalization. My mistake. But I have never stated I agree with the confiscation issues raised on this thread. I have stated that I don't agree with cops that do nothing but try to put notches on their belt no matter what it takes and who they screw over. Agreed, our experiences are different because of geographic location.. Where do you llive?

As for spouting off to other cops, who else would listen to us vent?

Not trying to offend, and if I did I apologize.

Being from ND we do have a great deal less interference from the Fed. Much more rural setting, Just this crappy winter stuff to put up with. I think we agree that the government in general wants to be in every thing in our lives. But people keep electing the politicians that do this to them.

I agree the war on drugs is not going to be won the way the government is fighting it. But Legalization won't solve it either. And I agree that kicking violent offenders out of prison to put in minimum mandatory drug offenders is crap.

This truly is a topic that can heat up. I'm glad we can discuss this on line, as it makes for more polite conversation. but it is one of those issues that people generally don't change their mind about.

Now, do you prefer Glocks or USPs?
 
Yeah it is a touchy issue :)
I live in Calif, a rural county that has been "discovered". Grapes are driving out the cattle and farmers, and bringing in liberal yuppies....with their fears and their socialism and their city crime. I'm way too young to feel so nostalgic about the "good ol days" ;) I apologize for getting hot

I prefer USP

------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
 
Class act, all!

This thread might easily have turned real ugly. Instead it's proved that passionate discourse and disagreement can occur without resorting to personal attacks.

I thank each of you for your contributions and behavior. I think I've learned a great deal.

I'm only locking this thread due to its length...the loading time is real long. I encourage any of the participants to continue it in a new thread.
Rich Lucibella
ps: Remember, minds are like parachutes...they can only help us in the "open" condition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top