Police smell meth, raid home, kill 80-year-old man, find no meth

2

Replies

  • SirGeorgeKillianSirGeorgeKillian Senior Member Posts: 5,458 Senior Member
    Unless life also hands you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck!
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    I'm in love with a Glock
  • ytreeideytreeide New Member Posts: 1 New Member
    I would rather stay silent and let people think I am stupid rather then open my mouth and prove it. (this is not an origianal quote)
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,544 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    I'm no attorney -- I'm just a lowly apartment dweller. But I do know that what are termed "booby traps" are generally illegal in most jurisdictions. Probably okay where you live, so go for it.

    Someone who injects some sort of irritant or other chemical into, as you say, a sprinkler system, then using it on police gathered outside the house can easily be charged with felonious assault on a law enforcement officer under the "booby trap" statutes. The charge might be overdrawn but I certainly wouldn't want to be charged with such and have to spend tons of bucks to prove otherwise, plus a nice jail cell for a few days.

    But the area where you live may likely not have "booby trap" laws or similar statutes. I'm sure you know the legal code at your place, so keen. Generally, however, any sort of "aggressive" type of action taken against LEOs can get someone in hot water. Whereas, other "passive" means (cameras, strong doors, etc) are perfectly okay.

    That's all I was saying. A "fortress mentality" is fine if it's defensive, but if it leans toward the offensive side of actions, care should be taken, is all. 'kay?

    A booby trap has an indiscriminate trigger. My sprinklers can only be activated by me.

    I will trade days or months in jail to prevent a single 'hole from pointing a weapon at one of mine. A little pepper spray to disperse cops that OBVIOUSLY have the wrong address will likely SAVE LIVES. Theirs and mine. The cops tell us peons when they pepper spray six year olds or passive protesters or men trying to check on their homes after tornados, that it is for our protection.

    Goose, gander...
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • SlanteyedshootistSlanteyedshootist Senior Member Posts: 3,947 Senior Member
    :yikes: The POWER ELITE strike again. :rotflmao:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_SXJ18EkNw
    The answer to 1984 is 1776
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,715 Senior Member
    Sam, if the cops happen to be crowded around the front door about to break it down at the same time I happen to flip the switch to the irrigation pump to squirt some fishy fertilizer on the bushes, then that's just tough noogies. Better they puke their toenails up than break down the door and be greeted with something much worse.

    No Knock raids are way too common. If the cops want to play "Army" then they should join up with the real thing and volunteer for the sandbox instead of getting their kicks gunning down civilians.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Sam, if the cops happen to be crowded around the front door about to break it down etc

    I just guess that my experience with cops is different from yours or Cali's. Police don't raid my lowly apartment more than, oh, 2-3 times a month of late, crashing down my front door or gathering in large clusters ready to perform nazi-style busts.

    I do remember arguing with a cop about 4 years ago when he wrote me a ticket for jumping the red light. And then the officer who came by when I phoned 911 about a guy selling newspaper "prescriptions" at 2am door to door? After he checked the area for the guy, who'd apparently run off, the cop and I chatted about guns and I gave him a diet pepsi. Does that count?

    Now of course here in crime-free Houston we don't get police raids anyway, much. Okay, yeah, they did invade my apartment last week, but it was limited to just 4 assault vans and 2 copters, definitely fewer than 200 cops. They did use that 'dozer to bust through my front wall, true. But small stuff really, compared with what some of the folks in the forum apparently have to put up with.

    Thing is, for that last raid, I'd forgotten to fill the moat with sulfuric acid earlier, 2 of 3 of my machine gun defensive nests were out of commission from the last raid in August, and we only had a dozen ARs per person for defense. I guess I coulda set off the buried mines and then raked the remaining invaders with .50cal quads from my guard tower, but hey, I was watchin' the news at the time. And I'm just saving the tac nuke for any genuinely bad stuff.

    Of course I'm just kidding here... I actually don't have police raids at all here. None. I understand that puts me in the minority, as most folks in this forum seem to have constant threats by the LEOs in their area, vans full of Swat routinely pulling up at their front doors, black-suited cops w. their ARs ready, breaching tools at hand, kinda like the Seals at binLaden's house in Zero Dark Thirty. Whole teams of nazi-police squads knocking down the next door neighbor's place, night after night of searchlights, loudspeakers. That would sure get my dander up.

    And I can understand how some of the guys here feel, being constantly harassed by thuggish cops, whole teams of these jackbooted thugs roaming the neighborhood, nearly every night another big scale raid on innocent people, gunfire constantly, having to spray acids out of your home's plumbing constantly, wreaks havoc on the grass, not to mention the half-tracks tearing up the sod.

    I mean, here it is Saturday night and I'm after all stuck square in the depths of a crime-ridden area. I've got just 3 ARs, four shotguns, 4 1911s, and a couple of .44mags within reach, my girlfriend has her trusty AR (pink stock!) and wears her dual Colt .45 wheelguns, true. But I've been kinda lax in installing the acid sprays and razor wire, automatic traps w. spikes at the bottom, that sorta thing. It's just that, since I really haven't been raided (nor have my neighbors), I've fallen off task on doomsday prepping the place. Now if I were raided constantly or at least threatened by raids as are some here, hey, I'd be digging the fortifications by first light.

    And yeah, I know... "You just wait! Wait the nazi cops come crashing down your own door, gathering first outside in a threatening manner, then you'll wish you'd installed the special pepper spray nozzles! Hah, then it'll be too late!"

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,650 Senior Member
    Damn it finally happened.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,345 Senior Member
    Well, at least you're not going to resort to exaggeration or hyperbole. I respect that about you.:roll:


    Sam, you make it sound like the folks who criticize these actions are seeing JBT behind every tree or believe that this sort of thing happens with enough frequency that no-knock break-ins are the norm. We don't believe that. However, we do believe in that time-honored mantra of the left: "If it saves just one life..." Friend, when wrong is done by one of us, we point it out and correct it. When wrong is done on this scale, it also must be corrected.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,544 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    And yeah, I know... "You just wait! Wait the nazi cops come crashing down your own door, gathering first outside in a threatening manner, then you'll wish you'd installed the special pepper spray nozzles! Hah, then it'll be too late!"

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

    There are more than 50,000 SWAT raids per year (137 per day - most are for consensual crimes), and that is OK with you as long as it only happens to someone else? When the wrong homes are hit (est 5-10 per day) there are no repercussions for the police. The taxpayer will likely pay for the death or damage, but the cops rarely get punished.

    BTW, the sprinkler system was modified to keep deer out of my garden and apples. We joked about using it to keep boys away from our daughter.


    http://www.wtoc.com/story/23419033/swat-raids-wrong-home-in-search-for-gang-member-at-large
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • farm boyfarm boy Senior Member Posts: 987 Senior Member
    Sam see Eli's post above.
    I am afraid we forget sometime that the basic and simple things brings us the most pleasure.
    Dad 5-31-13
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Well, at least you're not going to resort to exaggeration or hyperbole. I respect that about you.:roll:


    Sam, you make it sound like the folks who criticize these actions are seeing JBT behind every tree or believe that this sort of thing happens with enough frequency that no-knock break-ins are the norm. We don't believe that. However, we do believe in that time-honored mantra of the left: "If it saves just one life..." Friend, when wrong is done by one of us, we point it out and correct it. When wrong is done on this scale, it also must be corrected.

    Yeah, I use satire and overstatements a lot, just my way of poking some fun.

    But what you guys are saying made me think a lot, and I realized my own shortcomings in things like this. Too often I'm going with my own personal experiences in forming opinions and I'm not paying attention to the stuff that happens to others, by comparison.

    We had a similar difference of opinion in another thread relating to distances in self defense situations. I stated that I don't really practice SD shooting much beyond 30-40 feet, simply because such situations haven't occurred to me. And so I was unduly short-handed with others, those who said that practicing SD handgun shooting should be done at 100yds or further.

    I discounted this and I see that essentially I was just going on my own personal experiences here. The actual, real life, self defense (or at least, confrontations with someone when I had a firearm) occurred at about 10-20 feet, the most distant being maybe 40 feet. But they all occurred at "up close and personal" distances.

    And naturally, I therefore based my own self defense "scenario practice" on similar situations ---- a possible mugger approaching in a gas station lot, a woman being assaulted on the street near my home, a woman seeking refuge at my apartment when her ex beat the hell out of her, etc. Nothing has ever occurred, even potentially, at anything beyond 50 feet max. So I sort of "closed in" my thoughts about future events based on my personal experiences. Okay so far?

    Now, with others here, I got admonitions regarding that SD practice should be done at 100+yds. Why? Well, understandably, it's what these people have had happen to them in their lives. Very understandable under the circumstances. And if I'd had 100yard self defense incidents in my "personal memory bank" then it would be very natural for me to want to practice at those distances.

    So what I did was to base my assumptions solely on my own experiences and tended to ignore the actual, real life (but different) experiences of others here. Mea culpa.

    And same for this situation... Back in the mid-60s I got harassed by cops for being a "hippie" w. long hair and peace-sign bumper stickers, and so on, got pulled over and searched all the time, totally without reason, and I knew it was because of my appearance.

    And some cops did it for the fun of it, "because they could", and wanted to hassle drug-crazed hippies. But they just went through the motions. Other cops, real jerks, threw their weight around and I knew damn well that they'd be as rough as they wanted with blacks or Hispanics.

    So yeah, I HAVE known nasty cops, known as "black glovers" to us. But they were the exception and in truth didn't have the sanction of their bosses, just were not stopped.

    But... I really have seen NO evidence in my life of the sort of blast-in raids or massive group incursions into a totally innocent citizen's home. (And yes I know that instances of this DO occur. But I also know that car crashes occur and that hasn't stopped me from driving).

    In other words, for MY PERSONAL experience, I have no indication that there are roving bands of Swat teams ready to assemble en masse just outside my front door just before the breaching charges are let go. Nor black-booted raids, nor some SA-style nazi behavior. I have seen the occasional cop act like a jerk, true, but no expansion of this into "full scale" storm trooper actions.

    So, just like my basing a closer-up self defense distance (20-30 feet max, usually closer) on my personal experiences, and not seeing that others here have had their own personal SD experiences in that 100-yd zone, I was understandably biased, basing my opinions on what had personally happened to me. And of course, others here did the same, except that their own personal experiences relate to those 100yd zones.

    And the same for the sort of storm trooper (SA) raids that they are concerned about. I'm sure that if I had been through the sort of police harassment that others here describe, I'd be concerned, too --- cops roaming in their attack gear, assembling on my front lawn, late night "knock and enter" activity? Damn sure I'd be concerned! And would likely also do the same thing that others here recommend, video recordings and alarms all over, dogs in large amount and size, specially set up irritant sprays, high security barriers, and so on.

    It's all really based on what we've PERSONALLY been exposed to. And for me, a lowly apartment dweller in the middle of Houston, the last time I saw Swat was 2 months ago, a woman barricaded herself inside her townhouse about 4 blocks down the street, threatening to shoot the neighbors. So Swat came and blocked off the streets and set up a perimeter, talked (tried to at least) to the woman, but she'd already shot her lover and herself as the cops were arriving. The interaction I had with Swat was when I turned down that street and the officer at the sawhorse told me "Sorry, Sir, you'll have to make a turn here. We've got an incident and the street's closed."

    So that's the extent of my own Swat experience, things like that. Very benign.

    Do more outrageous things happen? Sure, there are authentic stories about police excesses all over. And sure, if such things happened to ME you can bet I'd be taking the sort of "invasion prepping" that others here recommend. But I've not taken out meteorite insurance nor have I erected a hardened roof because of that chance. For me, I simply do not see the dangers in a police-raid invasion scenario, and think it's kinda looney. Not that it doesn't happen, but that the chances of it are so rare and unlikely that I'm disinclined to take precautions (living in Houston I've got hurricane insurance but not earthquake, for example).

    But where I've been kinda pushy is that I didn't take the time to consider how such swat-raid concerns are of much greater concern to others, based on the police where they live, or on their own personal experiences undergoing just one unlawful raid. I'd pay no attention to those who teased me about "seeing nazis under my bed" because the damn nazis had BEEN THERE!

    Exactly the same as those who, from their own personal experiences, had been subject to self defense situations occurring at 100+ yards, it happened to them and they therefore took precautions accordingly.

    So let me apologize for being unfair. I was basing my opinions on my own personal experience only, not allowing for the real-life accounts of those others here who had totally difference experiences with the police where they live.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,650 Senior Member
    samzhere wrote: »
    So let me apologize for being unfair. I was basing my opinions on my own personal experience only, not allowing for the real-life accounts of those others here who had totally difference experiences with the police where they live.

    We are not all as cold as a cucumber as you put it Sam.

    And I tell you this with honesty, as I'm trying to describe how things are inside, I've been threatened, I've been shot at, I've been close to shooting somone on several occasions. And I was cold as ice during.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • SlanteyedshootistSlanteyedshootist Senior Member Posts: 3,947 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    We are not all as cold as a cucumber as you put it Sam.

    And I tell you this with honesty, as I'm trying to describe how things are inside, I've been threatened, I've been shot at, I've been close to shooting somone on several occasions. And I was cold as ice during.

    Happened to me too. But realized I was standing in a walk in freezer and not the rest room at the local market. They said someday they might let me shop there again. But probably not.
    The answer to 1984 is 1776
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,345 Senior Member
    Happened to me too. But realized I was standing in a walk in freezer and not the rest room at the local market. They said someday they might let me shop there again. But probably not.


    The folks working at those upscale organic health food places are so touchy!
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,345 Senior Member
    Sam, I like you. I'd stand for the adult beverage of your choice (or whatever) if we ever cross paths.

    However...

    Recalling the thread you mention, NOBODY said that self-defense drilling SHOULD be done @ 100 yards. What was said is that, if you can hit at 100, you be able to hit MORE ACCURATELY at the shorter distances. IOW, accurate @ 7 yards doesn't necessarily mean accurate @100, but the reverse isn't true. Hitting @ 100 makes a hit @ 7 much more likely.

    On the other issue; There is no reason not to hold these guys' feet to the fire. Heck, the worst that happens in the period between the shooting and any possible punishment which may or may not ever happen) is paid 'administrative' time off. If they've done nothing wrong, then they don't need to worry, right?

    Yes that last sentence should be read with the sarcasm sensor turned off and the voice it's read with should be dripping with irony.
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • stepmacstepmac Member Posts: 172 Member
    So the 80 year old guy smelled like meth? Wow, that's pretty smelly stuff. A bar of soap properly applied would probably have saved his life.

    What? I am making a joke of this? I'll tell you want the joke is, some of you people want to use drugs. The joke is on you.
  • stepmacstepmac Member Posts: 172 Member
    Those SWAT guys are pseudo Military types. Cops are not soldiers. Nor should they behave as soldiers do. Now it appears that all police depts don't feel complete unless they build a SWAT team. Why is that? We got along okay without them before. Cops are not soldiers, but now in their black outfits and helmets they seem to believe they can act like infantrymen. Remember GI's don't need proof to attack, all they need is the order. I believe that SWAT teams are getting a little heavy handed and if so aren't our freedoms at risk?
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,544 Senior Member
    stepmac wrote: »
    I'll tell you want the joke is, some of you people want to use drugs. The joke is on you.

    You've never cracked a beer? The Feds outlawed that particular drug (at least then they had the decency to amend the COTUS) "for our own good" and look what happened. The mob was born, the 1934 NFA passed, and police corruption was rampant. Ruthless organized crime, gun control, and police expansion/corruption. Sound vaguely familiar?

    The people at that time realized the demand for alcohol NEVER decreased and the Volstead Act was repealed. When will we realize the demand hasn't decreased?
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • jbp-ohiojbp-ohio Senior Member Posts: 9,450 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    You've never cracked a beer? The Feds outlawed that particular drug (at least then they had the decency to amend the COTUS) "for our own good" and look what happened. The mob was born, the 1934 NFA passed, and police corruption was rampant. Ruthless organized crime, gun control, and police expansion/corruption. Sound vaguely familiar?

    The people at that time realized the demand for alcohol NEVER decreased and the Volstead Act was repealed. When will we realize the demand hasn't decreased?

    No. There is no comparison between alcohol and drugs, including pot. You can drink a beer or two with dinner, you can have a glass of wine because you like the taste and it is heart healthy.

    Drugs have no other purpose (besides medical necessity) than to get high.
    "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not." Thomas Jefferson
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    ytreeide wrote: »
    I would rather stay silent and let people think I am stupid rather then open my mouth and prove it. (this is not an origianal quote)

    I seem to think Mark Twain said this originally.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Sam, I like you. I'd stand for the adult beverage of your choice (or whatever) if we ever cross paths.

    However...

    Recalling the thread you mention, NOBODY said that self-defense drilling SHOULD be done @ 100 yards. What was said is that, if you can hit at 100, you be able to hit MORE ACCURATELY at the shorter distances. IOW, accurate @ 7 yards doesn't necessarily mean accurate @100, but the reverse isn't true. Hitting @ 100 makes a hit @ 7 much more likely.

    On the other issue; There is no reason not to hold these guys' feet to the fire. Heck, the worst that happens in the period between the shooting and any possible punishment which may or may not ever happen) is paid 'administrative' time off. If they've done nothing wrong, then they don't need to worry, right?

    Yes that last sentence should be read with the sarcasm sensor turned off and the voice it's read with should be dripping with irony.

    Good points... (make mine an IPA, please)...

    Quickly, re. the 100yd practice thing, I've mentioned this before but I don't want to become accustomed to the scenarios of self defense at 100yds or further because it might then get me to wrongly take a shot when "true" self defense wasn't a legal basis. I might overreact, in other words, and pick a target that wasn't a real threat and therefore get myself in hot water legally.

    Yes I can practice at 100yds but the "presentation" and my whole sight picture and stance is different for longer targets, that changing at about 30-40 feet. Closer, I work on very fast reaction and quick fire, 2-3 rounds, center mass, almost always "point & shoot" without even using the sights. I've got the muscle memory and technique pretty well down pat for a fairly close distance. But any further, then I start using my aiming w. sights and there's a slight disconnect between this longer aim technique and my "fast response" and up close technique.

    Maybe I'm doing something wrong? I dunno. But when I've gone shooting with my pals, all of whom have CHLs and are active self defense shooters, I can "present" and fire accurately (at short distances) faster than anyone else. Whereas, if we zoom out to 60ft or further, my speed and accuracy are about the same as theirs.

    So I focus on what "brung me" as the joke goes... I really, really cannot conjure up any sort of scenario which would occur to me that would invoke SD shooting at 100yds. Yes we can imagine any sort of "ninja raid" scenario where there are teams of baddies all engaging poor little me, but I know that's not gonna happen. What WILL happen to me (others may be different!) is a carjacking, mugging, or street assault at pretty much arm's reach distances. So that's what I'm gonna practice for self defense. Sure, for longer shoots, I'm happy to reach out and touch that 100yd target, keen. But when I focus on self defense scenarios that might occur to ME, they're nearby.

    I actually DO shoot differently, aiming and stance and even grip, at longer distances. Maybe that's bad, but it's how I shoot. Which is why I focus on close events.

    On the raiders, totally agree there needs to be a thorough investigation. Heads should roll. If the raid was ill advised (which it seems to be), yeah, stick it to them.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    No. There is no comparison between alcohol and drugs, including pot. You can drink a beer or two with dinner, you can have a glass of wine because you like the taste and it is heart healthy.

    Drugs have no other purpose (besides medical necessity) than to get high.

    True. Point being however, why not let someone get high off pot in his own home, same as the guy can get a bit toasted on beer?

    I think that it's a good idea to decriminalize small amounts of weed for personal use. Too much cop hours wasted otherwise. Possession with intent to sell? Yeah, make that a class 1 misdemeanor or 3rd degree felony.

    My point being, not to generally say it's "okay" to get high, but that this simple act at home isn't worth the cop's time, better spent on crack or meth labs, etc.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    We are not all as cold as a cucumber as you put it Sam.

    And I tell you this with honesty, as I'm trying to describe how things are inside, I've been threatened, I've been shot at, I've been close to shooting somone on several occasions. And I was cold as ice during.

    That statement is gonna hang around my neck forever, albatross style, but I'll stick by it because I'm playing straight with you guys. My point -- which may have been understood or you guys just wanted to gig me about what I said, either way... is that I, for some reason, don't tend to rattle in a tight situation. My ex-wife often called me a cold fish. So did my Dad once.

    This may be a personality flaw or whatever. I was trying to be honest in the context of that original posting because I was trying to convey that I am very non-rushed in a crisis, car wreck or earthquake or fire or a huge water tank flood, whatever. And when confronted. I'm not trying to be "cool" or "mr iceman" or anything else. It's just how I've always been, even as a kid. In Boy Scouts we had this big accident, a large old tree "fort" collapsed with a bunch of us kids in it, some got busted up pretty good, broken legs, and so on. It was a stupid mistake by the leaders who didn't check the older foundations. But anyway, about 20 of us went down nearly 40 feet when the thing collapsed. I got a sprained wrist. But immediately after, other boys were hollering and crying and whatever (yes those uninjured) and some adults were running in circles. I never blinked and immediately started to look for the most injured and help them, as did others around me. But all that time I never had the slightest jitters or panic or anything else. I got joked about it afterward, too. At my research lab we had a huge tank of water burst and flood 2 floors of a building, I didn't scream or holler or yell or anything, just dodged the wall of water best as I could (got washed down a hallway) then got up immediately and went to help.

    The ONLY reason I mentioned this in the first posting was that I was trying to convey that in a near-shoot scenario, I've never become jittery or panicky or anything else, just stood there, and kind of stupidly if you think about it, didn't retreat or look for cover or anything else. Just stood there and responded. That's just my makeup, pretty cold fish emotionally in a crisis. It's not a "pretend persona" being "kewl" or in control or whatever. In fact my lack of reaction in not seeking shelter might be a danger to me. But that's how I've always been, a damn cold fish emotionally. So I did mention that during the original thread about rushing or panicking (or not) in a self defense scenario. I'm full up with acolytes lately, so please don't emulate or glorify my behavior. It ain't worth it.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Eli wrote: »
    Quite often you (as well as horselips) voice opinions that would be more appropriate coming from a semi-**** teenage girl, rather than an adult (I'm assuming fully mentally capable) gun owner.

    Thing is, there exist other venues of logic beyond yours, and having an alternate view doesn't make it "teenage" or "****". I didn't accuse others here of that, simply saying that their own experiences were different from mine, that I've never felt threatened by a Swat raid or had the slightest inclination to prepare against one.

    I was very clear that I said that others of the opinion that prepping for such a Swat raid was a good idea wasn't "****" or any other insult, thank you very much, I disagree with them but I'll leave it up to the insult peddlers to hurl lowhanging fruit.

    I only said that such prepping was not in my realm of behavior and that I just didn't see the need for ME to plan for such. Others here have obviously had run-ins with nazi-SS-type squads of roving cops, all black-shirted and ready for some home invasions. And I also said that if that had happened to me, sure, I'd be making plans to repel boarders, too.

    But I haven't.

    Do these raids occur? Sure they do. Do they occur without good reason? Yep.

    But OTHER gun-type things also occur. For example, we've all read about drive-by shootings, where some thugs randomly spray a house and sometimes wound or kill someone inside. Happens all the time. But what I have NOT done is install special wall-armor and composite doors or armored glass windows at my place, either.

    My not prepping for a driveby shooting is EXACTLY the same as my not prepping for a bogus Swat raid. The chance of either happening is so near zero as to be zero anyway. Same precisely as my not having earthquake insurance in Houston (but I do have flood and hurricane coverage). I'd drive myself nuts if I were to try to prep for every possible disaster or bad potential, I'd be like some goofy apocalypse prepper you see on TV. Naw, it ain't me babe.

    What I DO have is quick access to a loaded .45 and a couple spare magazines, however. This to deal with the genuine (but remote) chance of a thug-style home invasion, 2 or 3 thugs kicking in my front door some late night or trying to steal my car or similar. I've got that possibility covered.

    Back to the home invasion that started this thread... I DO believe that a big investigation needs to be done, and if needed, heads roll. We cannot live in a society that distrusts the average cop. Never.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,544 Senior Member
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    No. There is no comparison between alcohol and drugs, including pot. You can drink a beer or two with dinner, you can have a glass of wine because you like the taste and it is heart healthy.

    No comparison, huh? In case you didn't notice, I briefly compared the effects of Prohibition, not the prohibited items themselves. I gave the comparisons with historical accuracy. Prohibition has not decreased drug use, but it has severely eroded the 2A and the 4A.

    I've said it 100 times. Legalize it all. We already live around drug addicts. I prefer to live with junkies only and not militarized police that can say "I smell meth. Let's skip all investigation and storm the man's castle and OOPS! we killed an old guy in the dark."

    At least with junkies, we stand a chance at defending ourselves.
    jbp-ohio wrote: »
    Drugs have no other purpose (besides medical necessity) than to get high.

    And what's your point? Who are you to tell adults that they can't get high? Millions of people get high and don't rape, murder, and steal. Reefer Madness wasn't a documentary.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,624 Senior Member
    Thank God we have the Laboratory of The States. Let's see how things develop in those new stoner paradises - Colorado and Washington. If things do well there, we can expand the experiment to druggies in other states. And then we can watch some more. After awhile we'll know whether we should make recreational mind-altering drugs legal everywhere, or re-criminalize them where they were legalized.
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    CaliFFL wrote: »
    No comparison, huh? In case you didn't notice, I briefly compared the effects of Prohibition, not the prohibited items themselves. I gave the comparisons with historical accuracy. Prohibition has not decreased drug use, but it has severely eroded the 2A and the 4A.

    I've said it 100 times. Legalize it all. We already live around drug addicts. I prefer to live with junkies only and not militarized police that can say "I smell meth. Let's skip all investigation and storm the man's castle and OOPS! we killed an old guy in the dark."

    At least with junkies, we stand a chance at defending ourselves.

    And what's your point? Who are you to tell adults that they can't get high? Millions of people get high and don't rape, murder, and steal. Reefer Madness wasn't a documentary.

    I don't necessarily agree with legalizing all drugs but I do agree with your posting otherwise. (see, folks, Cali and I might actually have common ground on some things, who woulda thunk it?)

    Alcohol... we DO draw a line with that, generally on a basis of when it's harmful to others or a general civic hazard (like drunk driving or drunks tearing up a bar or a drunk beating up his wife). Yes there are flaws in our legal posture re. alcohol but the general intent is I think correct: Low to moderate alcohol consumption is of no danger to society, if you include a solid enforcement of impaired driving.

    And I'd put the exact same on pot smoking, even the newer stuff that's pretty potent. I've never denied that I once used recreational drugs and the worst I could imagine in danger would be, oh, maybe being so stoned that you put 8 frozen pizzas in the oven at the same time then forgot to get them out, filling the kitchen with smoke and the brain with stupid goofy panic.

    It is however a fantasy and a lie that smokers will say that it's "okay" to drive stoned. BS! It's very very possible to be so high on weed that you can hardly find the keyhole or the pedals and that you can actually "forget" how to drive. Dangerous.

    So let's put impaired driving in a special section, as we all agree it's a hazard, whether from booze or drugs or texting.

    Thing about weed is that even in its newer more intense variety, it's got a fairly wide "safe" zone that's similar to moderate booze consumption. And therefore, as I see it (my opinion only), possession of weed for consumption is okay and should be decriminalized.

    Not so however with other drugs, like meth or crack or heroin. For these drugs there is essentially no "safe usage zone" because the effect is so intense and the addictive power so great. There are simply no "recreational" crackheads. So for these drugs I say, no legality at all and strong penalties for manufacturing or sale.

    I realize that our old pal Cali, among others here, is a true civil libertarian, an "idealist" libertarian (small "l") in that he's firmly on the side of individual liberties and not very much on the side of group order. Which he seems at first to be "oddball" in saying that all drugs should be legal, when in fact he's being true to his personal freedom beliefs.

    And he's not "wrong" (or as some here have implied, a "semi-**** teenage girl") just because I disagree with him. I respect him because he's at least consistent and reliable in his concerns about personal liberties. My only objection is that he's focusing his beliefs within a cultural environment that would essentially require a frontier or agrarian society with virtually no interaction between people except maybe at a monthly swap and barter meet. He dearly wishes this as true but our world has changed since the 18th century (and he knows it -- I'm not saying he's stupid), but with a closer population, either urban or at the least suburban, interaction between people (not of the same family unit I mean) is always going to be the norm now.

    I've talked before about this delicate balance, how the pendulum of freedom swings from total personal liberty (protect the individual) on one side to total urban rigidity (protect the group) on the other. Right now, with the nanny state and political correctness, and a liberal admin in power, individual freedoms are suffering. I foresee it swinging back over the next 2-3 decades, but anyhow...

    Our great Constitution tried to effect a compromise between individual freedoms and group needs, and did about the best job that could ever be done, assuming that fallible humans did the writing. Mistakes were made, like that stupid "militia" clause in the 2A, or the failure to outright ban slavery.

    So, yeah, Cali, if we all lived on large rural estates of swooping forests between each homestead and virtually no contact, total legality of drugs would make sense. But the vast majority of folks today live in towns or suburbs or cities where the next door crackhead imagining orders from heaven to shoot everyone can surely interrupt your nice day. So we have what we hope are sensible drug laws and hopefully sensible cops to enforce this.

    I think that we have to separate the general concept and purpose of a law and its enforcement from the occasional bad law and poor enforcement. In my mind, banning crack? Good idea. Idiotic ill-advised raids? No way. But deal with the bad operations and bad cops and leave the law in place.

    And part of dealing with bad operations is at the top, where we get excessive nanny-state mindsets in charge. They mean well, wanting a drug-free society, but they have this "get the lawbreaker now" excessive enthusiasm. Sounds good on TV but that belief system filters down the ranks and soon you've got street cops thinking they're Popeye Doyle.

    Cops here in the Houston area are interesting in that it's a sort of mixed bag. We don't have the leering fat redneck deppity eager to rough up a black honor student (any more) but we also don't have the PC-rattled "NYC TV cop" who can't shoot. In fact Houston area cops do a pretty damn good job of shooting bad guys. They practice a lot and they aren't reluctant to fire.

    On the other hand we've got a namby pamby mayor here who has this new "no-PIT" policy on chases, so we get these idiotic simon-sez slow speed pursuits where the perp drives all over and 4-5 HPD cars follow. Looks stupid on the TV news copter coverage and makes the cops look impotent (which they're not). Last spring we had this long chase that we watched at the bar TV for fun, perp drove all the freeways and had a row of Houston cops following him for, oh, 80 minutes, all over town. Then the guy headed east on I-10 and the second he left Houston limits, a Texas Hiway Patrol cruiser slipped into to the chase as the lead pursuit, and the Tx State cop simply shot out the guy's tires, took about 1 minute and the guy stopped and gave up, message delivered.

    What our cops here don't seem to be doing is a lot of faulty raids. With an active talk radio bunch plus TV coverage, I'd be reading about them, and they don't seem to be doing "bad" raids these days. Lots of good crackhouse busts, though. And the word seems to be out, that it's not a good idea to try to shoot it out w. Houston cops. So lots of arrests on TV, plenty of DeShawns in cuffs for crack, lots of Willie Waynes in cuffs for meth. Fine with me.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,253 Senior Member
    As my recent stupid attack aptly demonstrated, it's not necessary to be drunk, stoned, or otherwise impaired to become a hazard to oneself and everybody else on the road. All it takes is about two seconds of being distracted from the task at hand- - - -in my case, herding 3 tons of steel down a 2-lane road. While our esteemed libertarian colleagues might live in a fantasy world where exercising one's personal liberties trumps all the rules society chooses to make to promote responsible behavior and codify consequences for being irresponsible, there's got to be a certain amount of structure to prevent, or at least curtail the tendency toward anarchy.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • CaliFFLCaliFFL Senior Member Posts: 4,544 Senior Member
    OK, let's legislate and outlaw distraction on the road. That will prevent all accidents caused by guys hauling 6000 lbs of steel. Anything else would be anarchy.
    The question isn't who is going to let me; it's who is going to stop me.

    Ayn Rand
  • samzheresamzhere Banned Posts: 10,923 Senior Member
    Teach, I think that Cali's got you stuck on this one. I agree with you that we need to codify our behavior rules into enforceable laws but as he points out, the patent existence of such laws doesn't ensure adherence. Compliance has to follow out of the law or its tenets.

    Ideally, and I think that Cali is eager for such a society to exist, people obey the principles within the laws because they make a conscious decision to conform to a reasonable code of group conduct so that society functions smoothly. What we don't want is that people behave a certain way simply out of fear of the legal consequences of breaking those laws. It would obviously be far better if the former case were the controlling item, people acting decently "just because it's better" instead of acting that way out of fear.

    Incidentally, in terms of religious theory, "following the law" is called "legalism". If you follow the law [of God] because you know it's the right thing to do, it's called "resultant legalism" and if you follow the law because you're afraid of being punished, it's called "prevenient legalism". The same terms can apply to civil obedience or civil "good conduct".

    Cali's right that laws (or as you, Teach, say, "structure") don't actually cause you to behave better, case in point that existing law on distracted driving didn't prevent the crunch.

    Outside of a dog, a book is a man’s best friend. Inside of a dog, it’s too dark to read. - Groucho Marx
2
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.