This is the consequence of the war on drugs. [modified]
-
No explanation necessary. Just watch SWAT in action.[^] Nobody asked anybody to get the dog, they just shoot it.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
modified on Friday, May 7, 2010 10:19 PM
The police were executing a search warrant, and asked for them to call the dog off four times, wounded it, then asked them to call it off a bunch more times, and then killed it. The children were in the house, but nowhere near the dog, and did not see the dog during the entire video. I'm sorry for the dog,and I'm sorry for the cop who had to kill it. If the guy was innocent, I am sorry for him to.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
The police were executing a search warrant, and asked for them to call the dog off four times, wounded it, then asked them to call it off a bunch more times, and then killed it. The children were in the house, but nowhere near the dog, and did not see the dog during the entire video. I'm sorry for the dog,and I'm sorry for the cop who had to kill it. If the guy was innocent, I am sorry for him to.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
asked for them to call the dog off four times, wounded it, then asked them to call it off a bunch more times, and then killed it.
How does "Police Department don't move!" repeated four times constitute as them asking them to get the dog? What has America come to when your house is broken into by heavy duty law enforcement, your dogs are shot, and your family is terrorized because of a gram of marijuana?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
asked for them to call the dog off four times, wounded it, then asked them to call it off a bunch more times, and then killed it.
How does "Police Department don't move!" repeated four times constitute as them asking them to get the dog? What has America come to when your house is broken into by heavy duty law enforcement, your dogs are shot, and your family is terrorized because of a gram of marijuana?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
asked for them to call the dog off four times, wounded it, then asked them to call it off a bunch more times, and then killed it.
How does "Police Department don't move!" repeated four times constitute as them asking them to get the dog? What has America come to when your house is broken into by heavy duty law enforcement, your dogs are shot, and your family is terrorized because of a gram of marijuana?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
How does "Police Department don't move!" repeated four times constitute as them asking them to get the dog?
Did you really watch it? They yelled police with a warrant, broke open the door, you hear the dog, they start yelling "Call the dog off", a shot, the dog starts yelping. A few seconds pass, the same guy yells it again and shots three times, the dog stops making noise. I don't think they gave the owners time to call the dog off, but they did clearly yell it. I would be sympathetic with your argument on this one, IF you told what really happened. Other wise, you get a 'boy who cried wolf' reputation.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
How does "Police Department don't move!" repeated four times constitute as them asking them to get the dog?
Did you really watch it? They yelled police with a warrant, broke open the door, you hear the dog, they start yelling "Call the dog off", a shot, the dog starts yelping. A few seconds pass, the same guy yells it again and shots three times, the dog stops making noise. I don't think they gave the owners time to call the dog off, but they did clearly yell it. I would be sympathetic with your argument on this one, IF you told what really happened. Other wise, you get a 'boy who cried wolf' reputation.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
you hear the dog, they start yelling "Call the dog off"
You are hallucinating. Seriously. What meds are you taking again? It doesn't even matter, the issue is armed thugs breaking into your home at night, shooting your dogs, and terrorizing your family over a gram of marijuana.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
you hear the dog, they start yelling "Call the dog off"
You are hallucinating. Seriously. What meds are you taking again? It doesn't even matter, the issue is armed thugs breaking into your home at night, shooting your dogs, and terrorizing your family over a gram of marijuana.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
armed thugs breaking into your home at night, shooting your dogs, and terrorizing your family over a gram of marijuana
But Whitworth is a convicted cocaine distributer. It would be reasonable to assume that he would be armed, would it not? So, you send thugs to catch a thug; and they come at night, in overwhelming numbers. Who would you have sent, Officer Dibble? The pit bull was there to protect the home, whether from from thieves, fellow cocaine dealers or the police, it matters not - in that role it was likely to be maimed or killed. The police raided the house because they had been told Whitworth had a large amount of marijuana. As he is a convicted marijuana distributer, that was not improbable. If this guy had been an illegal immigrant drug dealer, the SWAT team would have been just as thuggish, the kid would have been just as traumatised, the dog would have been just as dead, and you wouldn't have cared one jot or iota. Indeed, you would not have known of it, because Uncle Al would not have bothered to publish the story.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
armed thugs breaking into your home at night, shooting your dogs, and terrorizing your family over a gram of marijuana
But Whitworth is a convicted cocaine distributer. It would be reasonable to assume that he would be armed, would it not? So, you send thugs to catch a thug; and they come at night, in overwhelming numbers. Who would you have sent, Officer Dibble? The pit bull was there to protect the home, whether from from thieves, fellow cocaine dealers or the police, it matters not - in that role it was likely to be maimed or killed. The police raided the house because they had been told Whitworth had a large amount of marijuana. As he is a convicted marijuana distributer, that was not improbable. If this guy had been an illegal immigrant drug dealer, the SWAT team would have been just as thuggish, the kid would have been just as traumatised, the dog would have been just as dead, and you wouldn't have cared one jot or iota. Indeed, you would not have known of it, because Uncle Al would not have bothered to publish the story.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
The armed thugs broke into his home, shot his dogs, and terrorized his family over a gram of marijuana, and he was charged with a misdemeanor. You are making up a lot of bullshit, and trying to deflect the core of the issue. All drugs need to be legalized, people who use or sell drugs are not generally bad people. However it is illegal so the criminals and gangs take over the market. Think alcohol prohibition, back then if you had a drink of alcohol your ass was going to prison. If you sold it you would get hit by armed police thugs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
you hear the dog, they start yelling "Call the dog off"
You are hallucinating. Seriously. What meds are you taking again? It doesn't even matter, the issue is armed thugs breaking into your home at night, shooting your dogs, and terrorizing your family over a gram of marijuana.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What meds are you taking again?
Do you really want me to start telling you to get help again, you poor sot?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are hallucinating. Seriously.
One of us is, seriously, and hallucinating is not a symptom of any of my mental illnesses. I rewatched the vid twice to make sure what the guy was saying. Are you really an illegal with Spanish as your first language? Is that why you had a hard time understanding?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It doesn't even matter, the issue is armed thugs breaking into your home at night, shooting your dogs, and terrorizing your family over a gram of marijuana.
That is not why they broke into his house at night and shot his dog. They did it because of his history. If they had the same tip on someone without his history, they would have handled it differently. Or else you would have a million of these vids, not just one or two. Now take your sorry ass to a psychiatrist and get diagnosed and treated.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
The armed thugs broke into his home, shot his dogs, and terrorized his family over a gram of marijuana, and he was charged with a misdemeanor. You are making up a lot of bullshit, and trying to deflect the core of the issue. All drugs need to be legalized, people who use or sell drugs are not generally bad people. However it is illegal so the criminals and gangs take over the market. Think alcohol prohibition, back then if you had a drink of alcohol your ass was going to prison. If you sold it you would get hit by armed police thugs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
What meds are you taking again?
Do you really want me to start telling you to get help again, you poor sot?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are hallucinating. Seriously.
One of us is, seriously, and hallucinating is not a symptom of any of my mental illnesses. I rewatched the vid twice to make sure what the guy was saying. Are you really an illegal with Spanish as your first language? Is that why you had a hard time understanding?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It doesn't even matter, the issue is armed thugs breaking into your home at night, shooting your dogs, and terrorizing your family over a gram of marijuana.
That is not why they broke into his house at night and shot his dog. They did it because of his history. If they had the same tip on someone without his history, they would have handled it differently. Or else you would have a million of these vids, not just one or two. Now take your sorry ass to a psychiatrist and get diagnosed and treated.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
One of us is, seriously, and hallucinating is not a symptom of any of my mental illnesses.
If you think "Police don't move!" sounds like "Get the dog" then you are hallucinating. Even if he did say "Get the dog." he is telling one of his subordinates to shoot the dog. They aren't going to let their victims move, they are to flop to the ground with their hands behind their back. Later in the video the police said "Forget the dog" to the wife and forced her in the position the authrorites wanted.
RichardM1 wrote:
They did it because of his history.
They did it because he had a gram of marijuana, they charged him with a misdemeanor. They had a database on him so they really wanted to teach him a lesson this time.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
RichardM1 wrote:
One of us is, seriously, and hallucinating is not a symptom of any of my mental illnesses.
If you think "Police don't move!" sounds like "Get the dog" then you are hallucinating. Even if he did say "Get the dog." he is telling one of his subordinates to shoot the dog. They aren't going to let their victims move, they are to flop to the ground with their hands behind their back. Later in the video the police said "Forget the dog" to the wife and forced her in the position the authrorites wanted.
RichardM1 wrote:
They did it because of his history.
They did it because he had a gram of marijuana, they charged him with a misdemeanor. They had a database on him so they really wanted to teach him a lesson this time.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
OK, I listened to it again, trying to hear what you said. Much as it pains me, you are right, it was "Police Department, don't move."
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They did it because he had a gram of marijuana, they charged him with a misdemeanor. They had a database on him so they really wanted to teach him a lesson this time.
I knew a woman who was sure she knew what other people were thinking, even if she was told otherwise by the people. She needs to be on more meds than I. You remind me of her. Did they know ahead of time that he only had a gram? How do you know why they did it? You know facts: Guy had a history. They had a tip. You can bitch about breaking the door without giving them time to open it. You can bitch that they should have tasered the dog. Either one of us drawing conclusions about their state of mind is just bullshit, beyond normal dealing with a known felon with an attack dog.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
OK, I listened to it again, trying to hear what you said. Much as it pains me, you are right, it was "Police Department, don't move."
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They did it because he had a gram of marijuana, they charged him with a misdemeanor. They had a database on him so they really wanted to teach him a lesson this time.
I knew a woman who was sure she knew what other people were thinking, even if she was told otherwise by the people. She needs to be on more meds than I. You remind me of her. Did they know ahead of time that he only had a gram? How do you know why they did it? You know facts: Guy had a history. They had a tip. You can bitch about breaking the door without giving them time to open it. You can bitch that they should have tasered the dog. Either one of us drawing conclusions about their state of mind is just bullshit, beyond normal dealing with a known felon with an attack dog.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
The guy and his family weren't deadly gangbangers, they were a family living in a middle class house, dogs and cats are part of the family too. They broke into their home, killed their pets, and terrorized them over a gram of marijuana. Remember what he is charged with, a minor misdemeanor. You can label him a big bad felon but that doesn't make him a deadly gangbanger.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
The guy and his family weren't deadly gangbangers, they were a family living in a middle class house, dogs and cats are part of the family too. They broke into their home, killed their pets, and terrorized them over a gram of marijuana. Remember what he is charged with, a minor misdemeanor. You can label him a big bad felon but that doesn't make him a deadly gangbanger.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The guy and his family weren't deadly gangbangers, they were a family living in a middle class house, dogs and cats are part of the family too.
So he was successful enough at his drug dealing to own a "middle class" house. Maybe that is another good reason to take him down.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
killed their pets
So, they killed two or more animals? Or is this more of the crying wolf?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
terrorized them over a gram of marijuana
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: You don't have a freaking clue, do you? You can't look back and say their decision was wrong based on what you know now, you have to look at what they did, based on the information they had at the time.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You can label him a big bad felon but that doesn't make him a deadly gangbanger.
Where did anyone say he was a gang-banger? When were gang-bangers the only deadly criminals? How does you acting childish about it make him any less of a felon, and any less of a danger?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
The armed thugs broke into his home, shot his dogs, and terrorized his family over a gram of marijuana, and he was charged with a misdemeanor. You are making up a lot of bullshit, and trying to deflect the core of the issue. All drugs need to be legalized, people who use or sell drugs are not generally bad people. However it is illegal so the criminals and gangs take over the market. Think alcohol prohibition, back then if you had a drink of alcohol your ass was going to prison. If you sold it you would get hit by armed police thugs.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The armed thugs broke into his home, shot his dogs, and terrorized his family over a gram of marijuana
No, over a suspected stock of marijuana that they had been informed he held. As Whitworth is a convicted distributor of cocaine and marijuana, they had every reason to believe their informants. He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanour of possessing of drug paraphernalia in exchange for dropping the charges of possessing marijuana and of endangering his child.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are making up a lot of bullsh*t
Just because Uncle Al doesn't give you the full story, you assume that I am inventing it?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
All drugs need to be legalized
Quite so, and prescribed by doctors, and dispensed by pharmacies. Then their price would fall, and there would be no profits for the gangs. I wonder who is funding all those Anti-Legalization charities that lobby Congress, you don't think it could be ...? No, perish the thought.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Think alcohol prohibition, back then if you had a drink of alcohol your ass was going to prison. If you sold it you would get hit by armed police thugs.
Gosh! What a spiffing analogy for the drugs trade! I wonder why others haven't thought of it? Oh, right! We did! In the 60s, when the USA was forcing us to adopt their stupid War on Drugs and criminalize addicts.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
The guy and his family weren't deadly gangbangers, they were a family living in a middle class house, dogs and cats are part of the family too. They broke into their home, killed their pets, and terrorized them over a gram of marijuana. Remember what he is charged with, a minor misdemeanor. You can label him a big bad felon but that doesn't make him a deadly gangbanger.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
they were a family living in a middle class house
And, that proves what? That he is an accountant? Don't be so stupid! Do respectable middle class people deliberately wreck others' cars with their pick-up truck, distribute cocaine and marijuana, have a long criminal record?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
dogs and cats are part of the family too.
Ahh!
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They broke into their home, killed their pets, and terrorized them over a gram of marijuana.
They raided their home, killed the Pit Bull guard dog that was attacking them, and 'shock and awed' them, over a tip off that Whitworth (a convicted cocaine and marijuana distributor) had a stock of marijuana on the premises. It was only when they searched the house that they found there was no stock of marijuana. You cannot rationally say that they raided the house for a gram of marijuana, they were hoping for much more.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Remember what he is charged with, a minor misdemeanor.
Well of course he was! No stock of marijuana was present in the house. You cannot be charged with a crime for which there is no evidence. :rolleyes:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You can label him a big bad felon
Nobody is labelling him anything. I am merely pointing out that he has a criminal record. That is what it is.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
but that doesn't make him a deadly gangbanger.
Only you have used the term gangbanger. US citizens have the right to bear arms. You yourself wrote it is illegal so the criminals and gangs take over the market. So, as a known distributor of cocaine and marijuana, it is not unreasonable for the police to assume that Whitworth might be armed and potentially dangerous; and seek to overwhelm any possible armed response.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
they were a family living in a middle class house
And, that proves what? That he is an accountant? Don't be so stupid! Do respectable middle class people deliberately wreck others' cars with their pick-up truck, distribute cocaine and marijuana, have a long criminal record?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
dogs and cats are part of the family too.
Ahh!
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
They broke into their home, killed their pets, and terrorized them over a gram of marijuana.
They raided their home, killed the Pit Bull guard dog that was attacking them, and 'shock and awed' them, over a tip off that Whitworth (a convicted cocaine and marijuana distributor) had a stock of marijuana on the premises. It was only when they searched the house that they found there was no stock of marijuana. You cannot rationally say that they raided the house for a gram of marijuana, they were hoping for much more.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Remember what he is charged with, a minor misdemeanor.
Well of course he was! No stock of marijuana was present in the house. You cannot be charged with a crime for which there is no evidence. :rolleyes:
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You can label him a big bad felon
Nobody is labelling him anything. I am merely pointing out that he has a criminal record. That is what it is.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
but that doesn't make him a deadly gangbanger.
Only you have used the term gangbanger. US citizens have the right to bear arms. You yourself wrote it is illegal so the criminals and gangs take over the market. So, as a known distributor of cocaine and marijuana, it is not unreasonable for the police to assume that Whitworth might be armed and potentially dangerous; and seek to overwhelm any possible armed response.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Is marijuana really so bad that they have to SWAT people over a gram of it? Just because someone has a history of drug charges that doesn't mean they need to be SWATed over a gram of marijuana, or any amount for that matter. It is clear that he wasn't selling it, its clear the police overeacted, and its clear that the war on drugs is a nightmare worse the prohibition of alcohol. He was charged with a little misdemeanor, you get those for littering. Are you saying that anyone who commits a little misdemeanor deserves a SWAT team to break into their home, kill their dogs, and terrorize their family? For a little misdemeanor?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
The armed thugs broke into his home, shot his dogs, and terrorized his family over a gram of marijuana
No, over a suspected stock of marijuana that they had been informed he held. As Whitworth is a convicted distributor of cocaine and marijuana, they had every reason to believe their informants. He pleaded guilty to the misdemeanour of possessing of drug paraphernalia in exchange for dropping the charges of possessing marijuana and of endangering his child.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You are making up a lot of bullsh*t
Just because Uncle Al doesn't give you the full story, you assume that I am inventing it?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
All drugs need to be legalized
Quite so, and prescribed by doctors, and dispensed by pharmacies. Then their price would fall, and there would be no profits for the gangs. I wonder who is funding all those Anti-Legalization charities that lobby Congress, you don't think it could be ...? No, perish the thought.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Think alcohol prohibition, back then if you had a drink of alcohol your ass was going to prison. If you sold it you would get hit by armed police thugs.
Gosh! What a spiffing analogy for the drugs trade! I wonder why others haven't thought of it? Oh, right! We did! In the 60s, when the USA was forcing us to adopt their stupid War on Drugs and criminalize addicts.
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.
Bob Emmett wrote:
Then their price would fall, and there would be no profits for the gangs. I wonder who is funding all those Anti-Legalization charities that lobby Congress, you don't think it could be ...? No, perish the thought.
In the last couple of weeks, one of the TV news shows had a piece on the pot farmers in 3 northern California counties who are major suppliers. We have a legalization for recreation law coming up for vote and the people up there plan on voting against it because they're afraid of a drop in prices. The cited that when the medical marajuana law passed, prices dropped from $6000 a pount to $2000 a pound. They even interviewed a woman from Colorado who was visiting shopping for a "plantation".
The wonderful thing about the Darwin Awards is that everyone wins, especially the members of the audience.
-
Is marijuana really so bad that they have to SWAT people over a gram of it? Just because someone has a history of drug charges that doesn't mean they need to be SWATed over a gram of marijuana, or any amount for that matter. It is clear that he wasn't selling it, its clear the police overeacted, and its clear that the war on drugs is a nightmare worse the prohibition of alcohol. He was charged with a little misdemeanor, you get those for littering. Are you saying that anyone who commits a little misdemeanor deserves a SWAT team to break into their home, kill their dogs, and terrorize their family? For a little misdemeanor?
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Is marijuana really so bad that they have to SWAT people over a gram of it?
Are you really so stupid that you cannot understand that the SWAT team raid was not because of one gram of marijuana?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Just because someone has a history of drug charges that doesn't mean they need to be SWATed over a gram of marijuana,
Are you really so stupid that you cannot understand that the SWAT team raid was not because of one gram of marijuana?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
or any amount for that matter.
So you don't think that criminals and gangsters (your words) dealing in drugs merit the police protecting themselves against an armed response?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is clear that he wasn't selling it
After the raid, it was clear that he wasn't selling from his house.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
its clear the police overeacted
No. The police were quite correct in taking precautions against a criminal drug dealer resisting arrest.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
its clear that the war on drugs is a nightmare worse the prohibition of alcohol.
No argument with that.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
He was charged with a little misdemeanor, you get those for littering.
So? They charged him with what the evidence supported.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Are you saying that anyone who commits a little misdemeanor deserves a SWAT team to break into their home, kill their dogs, and terrorize their family? For a little misdemeanor?
Again, are you really so stupid that you cannot understand that the SWAT team raid was not because of a little misdemeanour? Seeing a bus waiting at the stop, I decide to run to catch it. When I reach the stop: a) Route 22 - great, my bus - the run was worthwhile; b) Route 49 - not my bus - the run was not worthwhile. It is only after the run that I can determine whether that run was worthwhile or not. Does that simple analogy assist you in understanding that your whinge is purely about being wise after the event?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a
-
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Is marijuana really so bad that they have to SWAT people over a gram of it?
Are you really so stupid that you cannot understand that the SWAT team raid was not because of one gram of marijuana?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Just because someone has a history of drug charges that doesn't mean they need to be SWATed over a gram of marijuana,
Are you really so stupid that you cannot understand that the SWAT team raid was not because of one gram of marijuana?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
or any amount for that matter.
So you don't think that criminals and gangsters (your words) dealing in drugs merit the police protecting themselves against an armed response?
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
It is clear that he wasn't selling it
After the raid, it was clear that he wasn't selling from his house.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
its clear the police overeacted
No. The police were quite correct in taking precautions against a criminal drug dealer resisting arrest.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
its clear that the war on drugs is a nightmare worse the prohibition of alcohol.
No argument with that.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
He was charged with a little misdemeanor, you get those for littering.
So? They charged him with what the evidence supported.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Are you saying that anyone who commits a little misdemeanor deserves a SWAT team to break into their home, kill their dogs, and terrorize their family? For a little misdemeanor?
Again, are you really so stupid that you cannot understand that the SWAT team raid was not because of a little misdemeanour? Seeing a bus waiting at the stop, I decide to run to catch it. When I reach the stop: a) Route 22 - great, my bus - the run was worthwhile; b) Route 49 - not my bus - the run was not worthwhile. It is only after the run that I can determine whether that run was worthwhile or not. Does that simple analogy assist you in understanding that your whinge is purely about being wise after the event?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a
If they are going to conduct a search warrent, it needs to be civil. You don't need SWAT to burst in and shoot their dogs to conduct a search warrent on a middle class family while they are nearly sleeping. Two police officers could have civil knocked on the door and searched the house. This would have never happened if it weren't for the war on drugs, the guy might be a professional business owner instead of a criminal slapped by SWAT with a minor misdemeanor.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
-
If they are going to conduct a search warrent, it needs to be civil. You don't need SWAT to burst in and shoot their dogs to conduct a search warrent on a middle class family while they are nearly sleeping. Two police officers could have civil knocked on the door and searched the house. This would have never happened if it weren't for the war on drugs, the guy might be a professional business owner instead of a criminal slapped by SWAT with a minor misdemeanor.
Invisible Empire: A New World Order Defined (High Quality 2:14:01)[^] Watch the Fall of the Republic (High Quality 2:24:19)[^] The Truthbox[^]
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
If they are going to conduct a search warrent, it needs to be civil.
Not if you are raiding the home of a convicted criminal, a distributor of cocaine and marijuana, with a history of violence.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
You don't need SWAT to burst in and shoot their dogs to conduct a search warrent on a middle class family while they are nearly sleeping.
I had to protect a middle class wife and her middle class daughter from their axe wielding middle class husband and father. :-\ You hold the middle classes in too much respect. But he wasn't middle class, was he? He was a convicted criminal, a distributor of cocaine and marijuana, with a history of violence.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
Two police officers could have civil knocked on the door and searched the house.
Yeah, right. A convicted criminal, a distributor of cocaine and marijuana, with a history of violence, with the right to bear arms.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
This would have never happened if it weren't for the war on drugs
We've already agreed on that. It is irrelevant to your whinge.
CaptainSeeSharp wrote:
slapped by SWAT with a minor misdemeanor
Again, are you really so stupid that you cannot understand that the SWAT team raid was not because of a minor misdemeanour? The police were acting on a tip that Whitworth had a large amount of high-grade marijuana in his home. US citizens have the right to bear arms. You yourself wrote it is illegal so the criminals and gangs take over the market. So, as a known distributor of cocaine and marijuana, with a history of violence, it is not unreasonable for the police to assume that Whitworth might be armed and potentially dangerous; and seek to overwhelm any possible armed response. BTW: Which part of 'being wise after the event' did you not understand? Try 'with the benefit of hindsight', do you understand that?
Bob Emmett CSS: I don't intend to be a technical writing, I intend to be a software engineer.