Virginia Cop Killed in Drug Raid; Suspect Says He Was Defending His Home

Officer Jarrod Shivers was shot and killed while executing a search warrant in Cheseapeake, Virginia Thursday night.

The suspect had no criminal record (at least in the state of Virginia). And he says in an interview from jail he had no idea the undercover cops breaking into his home were police. The suspect, 28-year-old Ryan David Frederick, also says a burglar had broken into his home earlier this week.

Though the raid was apparently part of a drug investigation, police aren't saying what if any drugs were found. They won't even confirm that police had the correct address. But they have arrested Frederick and charged him with first-degree murder.

More to come, I'm sure.

Comments

some dude | January 19, 2008, 5:01pm | #

First degree? As in, premeditated!?

sage | January 19, 2008, 5:02pm | #

Thanks, Radley. Too much of this gets forgotten about, so we're counting on you.

Andrew Jackson | January 19, 2008, 5:03pm | #

This is an unfortunate occurance, but it appears to be an accident. If the police did not identify themselves, in addition to this being the wrong house, I cannot imagine one would hold that man responsible. People get freaked out judicial activism, but I am more worried about militarization of law enforcement.

pinko | January 19, 2008, 5:07pm | #

Thanks Radley. It's interesting that the article takes the whole attitude that "these unfortunate events are on the rise" without at all mentioning that someone is actually making the decision to put both cops and potential innocents in grave danger when they do this shit. No one questions the wisdom of no-knock and forced-entry raids. People seem to have internalized the notion that it's okay for cops to forcibly enter houses in plain clothes in the dark based on the thinnest of pretexts. I will be interested to hear more info on this case as is filters in.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 5:09pm | #

some dude --

In many states, First-degree murder encompasses more than premeditated murder.

It often also includes murder undertaken during the commission of another felony (such as robbery-murder or rape-murder), even if the killing itself was unintentional or of the moment. It can also include murders of certain classes of public official (police, fire, rescue) if the murderer had reason to believe that the victim was a member of one of those groups (i.e. an announcement, badge, or uniform in view).

shrike | January 19, 2008, 5:12pm | #

Perhaps the police were monitoring his Google searches and e-mail via the domestic wiretapping program and discovered this anti-American activity going on close by. We should be proud of our newfound surveillance capabilities - the collateral damage suffered in these raids are a small price to pay for a compliant citizenry.

isildur | January 19, 2008, 5:12pm | #

"If the police did not identify themselves, in addition to this being the wrong house, I cannot imagine one would hold that man responsible."

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

LarryA | January 19, 2008, 5:14pm | #

I cannot imagine one would hold that man responsible.

"One" isn't. The cops and prosecutor are.

"Unfortunately, these types of events are increasing instead of decreasing. And it’s a very sad trend.”

Agreed, but probably not the way he meant it.

I wonder why the gun control folks, who jump on every other kind of shooting, aren't touting this as a reason to disarm people?

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:19pm | #

I wonder why the gun control folks, who jump on every other kind of shooting, aren't touting this as a reason to disarm people?

I would say that a lot of the gun-control crowd receives its intellectual fuel from the Left, who have an anti-authoritarian streak in them.

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 5:20pm | #

He should get a metal and a ticker tape parade.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 5:27pm | #

You know, Hagbard? That's pretty disgusting.

javier | January 19, 2008, 5:31pm | #

He should get a metal and a ticker tape parade.

if you mean the guy that is sitting in jail now, yes. It is our right to shoot anybody that kicks down our doors. do you think he tried ringing the doorbell and saying 'police department. I have a warrant to search the premise'. of course not, they think they in fallujah or some shit.

javier | January 19, 2008, 5:33pm | #

I still can't get over it. PLAIN CLOTHES. who the fuck serves a warrant in plain clothes?

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:34pm | #

He should get a metal and a ticker tape parade.

Mouth-breathing asshole!

Only someone who's a Wannabe TUFF GUY would say vile shit like that.

The last thing anybody wants after taking a human life is to get a bunch of pats on the back. Taking a life isn't an easy thing to do, and the glib manner you treat it with shows you're a superficial little fucker.

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 5:35pm | #

No sympathy for the state's hired thugs.

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 5:37pm | #

I'm sure, Ayn_Randian, you would have been cool with it had it been the other way around. The homeowner in a pool of blood over a mistaken raid. Know where you stand.

pinko | January 19, 2008, 5:38pm | #

"I wonder why the gun control folks, who jump on every other kind of shooting, aren't touting this as a reason to disarm people?"

I can only speak for myself, as someone who thinks there should be some control and regulation on firearms.

I, and lots of other folks like myself, think the confines of one's home is sacred and inviolable space and that it's entirely reasonable for someone to use his/her right to bear arms to fire first when an unidentified someone kicks in your door.

I think it's fine to keep a gun at home. I'm just not into rocket launchers, assault rifles, and gun fetishism in general. But I will be a co-belligerent with gun enthusiasts in such cases as this. What Randian said as well.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:41pm | #

I'm sure, Ayn_Randian, you would have been cool with it had it been the other way around. The homeowner in a pool of blood over a mistaken raid. Know where you stand.

I'm sure you need to put down the crystal ball, Kreskin.

No sympathy for the state's hired thugs.

Oh really? I suppose that includes Servicemembers too then?

Where does the death parade end for you, Hagbard? Should all cops be drug out on to the street and shot?

What about the legislators? The prosecutors? The judges? The clerks? All of their secretaries?

pinko | January 19, 2008, 5:43pm | #

Jesus Hagbard,

I despise cops as a rule, but I don't dance on graves like that.

Bill Cooke | January 19, 2008, 5:43pm | #

My email to the police.
I do feel sympathy for anyone killed, but in life you pay for your poor decisions.
--------------------------
"Why the gentleman who was defending his house should be charged with murder is beyond me. When police officers insist on dressing up like ninjas and acting like terrorists these things are bound to happen. If anyone comes busting down my door in the middle of the night he can also expect to get shot. I'm sorry the fellow died. But if you have to charge someone the police command should be charged with manslaughter for their reckless disregard for human life in setting up these absurd raids.

I hope I'm on the jury.

sic semper tyrannis"

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 5:43pm | #

"Servicemen", dam right. The state's hired hitmen and mass murders. The legislators, prosecutors and judges all the a fair trail before we hang'm.

VikingMoose | January 19, 2008, 5:44pm | #

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:34pm | #
He should get a metal and a ticker tape parade.

Mouth-breathing asshole!

Only someone who's a Wannabe TUFF GUY would say vile shit like that.

The last thing anybody wants after taking a human life is to get a bunch of pats on the back. Taking a life isn't an easy thing to do, and the glib manner you treat it with shows you're a superficial little fucker.

you said it!!! well played, Sir!

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 5:45pm | #

No obscenties. I promised myself.

So...difficult...to....restrain...my...fingers...

VM | January 19, 2008, 5:48pm | #

jsub -

i got it - hay hagbard. wishing for the death of another human is really twaddlenockish. you are a twaddlenock.

TWADDLENOCK. You scruffy-looking nerf herder. Quixelnosh.

there.

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 5:50pm | #

Shows how superficial your commitment is basic rights when you'd let armed thugs just gun you down in your own homes. The cops (and solders) are the one's who are willingly choosing to commit the aggressive acts, why should I not be pleased when things go the other way? Come back and tell me what an ass I am when the last of your pathetic liberties have been extinguished.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:51pm | #

The state's hired hitmen and mass murders.

*Bewilderment*

Um, Hagbard? Perhaps you should just man up then and stop paying the State to hire us.

Or did you think that money came out of thin air?

So, here's what you meant to say:

"The state's Hagbard's hired hitmen and mass murders.

The legislators, prosecutors and judges all the a fair trail before we hang'm.

Ah, a show trial, then, given that you've already predetermined their fate.

We need a new term for the anti-state Zealots. I mean other than Bloviating Fuckbags; that one's already taken for O'Reilly.

VM | January 19, 2008, 5:51pm | #

thank you for all of your work on this topic, Radley. Comfort and condolences to officer Shivers's family. Comfort and condolences to Mr. Frederick and family.

another useless death courtesy of the drug war.

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 5:53pm | #

Ayn_Randian - I'm totally innocent. Never given them a dime.

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 5:54pm | #

Hagbard -

Fuck you. Fuck you till the sun is a red giant. Eat mokey shit for the rest of your godforsaken, cocksucking, flea bitten life. You are no better the the pimple on a crack whores syphillitic cunt!

We will now return you to the kinder, gentler, J sub D.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:55pm | #

Come back and tell me what an ass I am when the last of your pathetic liberties have been extinguished.

THE HIGH-PREIST OF THE CHURCH OF THE ANTI-STATE HAS SPOKEN THUS:

"THE END TIMES ARE UPON US, AS I HAVE PREDICTED. ALL HAIL ME AND MY AMAZING INSIGHT!

"I AM SO SPECIAL; I GET TO SEE THE END TIMES AND I PREDICTED THEM!"

And Pilly Pecker replies:

"OHM...OH THE SWEET ESCHATON..."

Or, Hagbard, in other words, you're jumping at shad...look a black helicopter!

| January 19, 2008, 5:55pm | #

the Left, who have an anti-authoritarian streak in them

Funny stuff.

they think they in fallujah or some shit

Soldiers don't have the delusion of invulnerability-when-armed that cops do, and they know this is how you get shot.

Should all cops be drug out on to the street and shot?

That would be unfair. They can get capped in their beds like the rest of us.

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 5:57pm | #

Ayn_Randian - I'm totally innocent. Never given them a dime.

Oh, a societal parasite, huh fucktard? Many will mourn the cop's death. I'll shit on your grave. Fuck you again.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:57pm | #

I'm totally innocent. Never given them a dime.

Oh, good...a saint in the New Church of the Anti-State (Reformed).

Is it because you've never been gainfully employed? Or perhaps is it because momma ain't thrown you from the basement?

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 5:58pm | #

Neither Ms. Rand. I'm old and gainfully employed. Next guess?

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 5:59pm | #

They can get capped in their beds like the rest of us.

I'm curious to know how death wishes are helping any.

Do you think that the descriptor "thinks cops should be executed" is a helpful label in today's modern political discourse?

What planet are you from?

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 6:01pm | #

I've seen maggots feeding on dogshit that I have more respect for than you, Hagbard. Your lack of basic human consideration must make your mother so proud. Oh, she disowned your worthless ass? If you aren't a case for retroactive abortion, there is none.

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 6:02pm | #

What's your problem Rand? Dirty Harry offs the bad guys and everyone applauds. Which side are you on? Those defending themselves or those attacking them? Oh wait, you've already told us the answer to that.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 6:02pm | #

I'm old and gainfully employed. Next guess?

I'm not giving you any more attention than you deserve, which, coincidentally, is none at all.

Curious, though, how you justify using state services (which you undoubtedly do) and not paying for them?

Is being a man too hard for you or something?

Although I should have guessed you were old, given that said age group typically has a problem with constipation. Not coincidentally, your mental constipation shows the same point of origin as the more typical kind.

Bingo | January 19, 2008, 6:03pm | #

Lol @ jsubd... surprised you made it 3 weeks

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 6:04pm | #

Hagbard, you're an ignorant lying asshole to boot. Go find a septic tank to feed in.

Episiarch | January 19, 2008, 6:04pm | #

I have a question. Of those arguing here, who has already started drinking? I'm just about to start myself.

Minion of URKOBOLD | January 19, 2008, 6:05pm | #

BZZT. HAGBARD DOESN'T REALIZE THAT AYN_RANDIAN WASN'T GUESSING. IT IS YOU WHO IS MISTAKEN.

YOU ARE IN YOUR GRANDMA'S BASEMENT. WITH EMPTY CHEETOS BAGS ALL AROUND.

AND YOUR UFC WWE COSTUME WRINKLED ON THE FLOOR WITH BLOOD, MUCUS, FECAL MATTER, AND SEMEN NEARBY.

WE DO NOT WANT TO KNOW WHAT TYPE OF BATIN YOU'RE INTO, BUT IT LOOKS EPIC.

EPI - SAME HIER. ABOUT TO START.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 6:07pm | #

Those defending themselves or those attacking them?

Big words for a little mind.

Maybe you should get out there and start killing police officers and Soldiers. You know, put your tuff-guy words where your mouth is.

Come on, man up and go prove yourself, you little coward.

Which side are you on?

How about the 'side' that says this is tragic all around and someone dying is almost always a sad event?

The 'side' that says human life is precious, can be gone any second and is really wasted on crap like the Drug War?

The 'side' that realizes that trying to change things doesn't involve dancing on the graves of police officers and Soldiers?

You know, truth...justice...and that good stuff.

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 6:09pm | #

Damn, people like that wothless lying scum just fire me up. Ha Ha, somebody with a family who loves and depends on them is dead. I'll just post in anonymity and act like I'm some sort of badass when reallly I'm a worthless cowardly cunt. Fuck him. He's not even worthy of my bile.

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 6:10pm | #

I'm stone cold sober, and meant every foul word I posted.

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 6:10pm | #

And I won't be drinking tonight because I know myself better than that.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 6:13pm | #

Hagbard, you're an ignorant lying asshole to boot. Go find a septic tank to feed in.

Not that he doesn't deserve it, but what happened to the "kinder, gentler J sub D" we were promised?

brotherben | January 19, 2008, 6:18pm | #

>sits quietly in the shadows offering J sub D some mouthwash and unconditional absolution...


and a pat on the back

javier | January 19, 2008, 6:18pm | #

We need a new term for the anti-state Zealots

Consistent?

I've already started drinking. I have my drug dealer's bachelors party tonight!!!

Bill Cooke | January 19, 2008, 6:19pm | #

I think our line should be this:
1. We are sorry the fellow is dead.
2. We have concern for the poor bastard sitting in jail who probably didn't realize this guy was a cop and thought he was a burglar.
3. We must resolve to stop the drug war, or at least the reckless way these raids are carried out.

Even if you think this cop was a scumbag, it is not right to gloat about it. Express some sympathy for him and continue to work to stop these things from happening in the future.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 6:23pm | #

javier -

Please. I could destroy your tiny-minded little anarchism in a second, and have done so against much smarter opponents than you.

you're out of your league, Sonny Jim.

FWIW, you already have a Savior in your Religion: the Anarchrist.

I have my drug dealer's bachelors party tonight

If I were less benevolent I would hope that you overdose, but I'm not an evil little fuck like you are.

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 6:23pm | #

...but what happened to the "kinder, gentler J sub D" we were promised?

He'll be back. I'm doing control exercises as I type. Most people are deserving of being addressed in a polite, or at least civil, manner. Regretfully some aren't, and I find it very difficult to give it to them.

One of my shortcomings, no doubt.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 6:23pm | #

I have a question. Of those arguing here, who has already started drinking? I'm just about to start myself.

Not I, although I once read Reason while Robo-tripping, and it suddenly seemed much more...reasonable.

Drink!

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 6:25pm | #

Bill Cooke -

Exactly.

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 6:27pm | #

You "libertarians" are such frauds it makes me lmao.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 6:27pm | #

He'll be back. I'm doing control exercises as I type.

I hear that deep nose-to-abdomen breathing cools the encephalic cavity a good degree and a half or so. Apparently, the human brain works much more efficiently when cooler. For me, however, it just makes me dizzy.

Most people are deserving of being addressed in a polite, or at least civil, manner. Regretfully some aren't, and I find it very difficult to give it to them.

One of my shortcomings, no doubt.

Oh not at all. I generally agree, but there are occasionally individuals that need to be called out abusively, or rather without the false modulation of politeness to blunt the contempt.

javier | January 19, 2008, 6:29pm | #

Please. I could destroy your tiny-minded little anarchism in a second, and have done so against much smarter opponents than you.

who said I was an anarchist???

If I were less benevolent I would hope that you overdose,

I'll give it a shot but its just pot. I stay far from the hard stuff.

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 6:31pm | #

javier,

Once upon a time I dealt drugs. Unlike you, I retained my humanity throughout the whole experience. I'm sorry you're too mentally weak to do that. Like many people, you lack strength, mental and moral.

shrike | January 19, 2008, 6:32pm | #

Kathryn Johnston.

She was the 92-yr old killed by three cops on a forged no-knock warrant in Atlanta about a year ago. The cops then planted drugs in her home.

I bring it up because the tone was Soooooo much different on Reason.com back then.

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/116863.html

Its hard to have sympathy for any jack-boot in this war on the American people.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 6:33pm | #

You "libertarians" are such frauds it makes me lmao.

Who's the fraudulent old bastard who lets others fight his "Death-Unto-All-Cops" jihad?

Chickenhawk.

Jim Bob | January 19, 2008, 6:35pm | #

Hagbard= cop posing as a troll.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 6:37pm | #

Its hard to have sympathy for any jack-boot in this war on the American people.

Tell you what: go to the family of a police officer killed in the Drug War and say that to their face. Then post it on YouTube.

Anything less makes you an amoral little twerp.

I find it strange that someone would wish death upon those who are, for the most part, good people doing what they think is the right thing.

Perhaps you can tell me this: any sympathy for fallen Soldiers in the Iraq War?

. | January 19, 2008, 6:37pm | #

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 6:23pm | #
javier -

Please. I could destroy your tiny-minded little anarchism in a second, and have done so against much smarter opponents than you.

you're out of your league, Sonny Jim.

FWIW, you already have a Savior in your Religion: the Anarchrist.

I have my drug dealer's bachelors party tonight

If I were less benevolent I would hope that you overdose, but I'm not an evil little fuck like you are.

Well it looks like Habard doesn't win the asshole intartube tuffguy title for this thread.

Nancy_Randian for the win!

Hagbard | January 19, 2008, 6:39pm | #

No, I'm telling it like it is. But you can't handle the truth. And no Jim Bob, I'm not a cop. I'm one of the few libertarians left here.

Looks like poor Rand and J sub D having nothing better to do than post to ever topic on Reason. Who's paying you?

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 6:44pm | #

No, I'm telling it like it is. But you can't handle the truth. And no Jim Bob, I'm not a cop. I'm one of the few libertarians left here.

I dunno, Hagbard. For me, ideological purity plays second fucking fiddle to being a human being.

When your beliefs cause you to celebrate the misfortunes of others, it's time to reassess your beliefs.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 6:49pm | #

Looks like poor Rand and J sub D having nothing better to do than post to ever topic on Reason.

I'm in a different time zone and I'm fortunate enough to not be doing "work" right now. I'll leave it at that.

I'm one of the few libertarians left here.

Of course you are; that's what they all say:

"I'm the TRUE LIBERTARIAN around here!"
"But you were once sympathetic to that one police officer who died...HERETIC!"

crimethink | January 19, 2008, 6:53pm | #

Well, I'm sure the police have learned their lesson from this: all no-knock warrants must be served by SWAT teams.

. | January 19, 2008, 6:56pm | #

Please. I could destroy your tiny-minded little anarchism in a second, and have done so against much smarter opponents than you.


still waitin'

or do you have a madrassa to go paint ?

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 6:59pm | #

Looks like poor Rand and J sub D having nothing better to do than post to ever topic on Reason.

I'm retired. Wise and weary. You're a cowardly punk who lacks human compassion and morality.

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 7:02pm | #

Well, I'm sure the police have learned their lesson from this: all no-knock warrants must be served by SWAT teams.

Unfortunately, that is what they'll conclude. Amped up, poorly trained, paramilitary goons kicking in the door accompanied by flashbangs and mass confusion.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 7:05pm | #

still waitin'

For what? Ask a question; open your mouth and speak, son. It's what most intelligent people do when they want to know something.

or do you have a madrassa to go paint ?

Don't you have a Furry Convention you're late for?

Tired for Liberty | January 19, 2008, 7:34pm | #

I consider myself to be a civilized human being. And yet, I feel no remorse for the death of this cop. None. Goddammit, when you execute a search warrant in plain clothes, knock down a door, unannounced ... you should expect to face some well deserved fire. If you die ... oh well, I guess. I suppose I have heard one too many of these stories, and my capacity for compassion is being drained. I truly wish it weren't so ...

mediageek | January 19, 2008, 7:36pm | #

Hagbard, as a gun-toting, AR-owning gun nut who thinks that the home owner made the right decision to defend his domicile, I find your ghoulish delight in this death to be absolutely despicable.

In other words, pretty please, with sugar on top, stay the FUCK off of my side.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 7:38pm | #

I consider myself to be a civilized human being. And yet, I feel no remorse for the death of this cop. None.[...]If you die ... oh well, I guess.

Your 'human being' card is hereby revoked. Please drop off your silly man-suit at the coat check on the way out.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 7:39pm | #

In other words, pretty please, with sugar on top, stay the FUCK off of my side.

Also, what he said.

Minion of URKOBOLD | January 19, 2008, 7:40pm | #

Don't you have a Furry Convention you're late for?

"." is the 'worst yiffing partner, EVAR', QUOTH THE WEIBSKOBOLD.


TIRED. Mr. STEVEN CRANE CONSIDERS HIMSELF TALL. YOU ARE BOTH MISTAKEN. SENSELESS DEATH IS HORRIBLE AND AWFUL. WE ARE SORRY FOR THE DISRUPTED, DESTROYED LIVES AND FAMILIES.

MEDIAGEEK AND RANDIAN AND JSUB AND OTHERS HEREBY WIN THE THREAD.

*proves this by withering the aforementioned Mr. Steven Crane's taint*

Kool | January 19, 2008, 7:42pm | #

Finally!! A REAL libertarian! Did he march through a Nebraska blizzard with a clipboard? (That is how one becomes a real libertarian, right?)

Seriously, is this discussion actually happening?

I'm going to pour a Maker's, try to find any leaf I may have left, and try to forget anything I've just read.

Lurkers: welcome
Trolls: go away
People who relish in others death and the family's despair: go far far far away.

P.S. I'm thankful people like Rand and Jsub post regularly (and many others), it lets me save time by lurking and not actually posting.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 7:43pm | #

I suppose I have heard one too many of these stories, and my capacity for compassion is being drained. I truly wish it weren't so ...

Oh, good...you let the State take away your humanity. Way to give them that victory.

zig zag man | January 19, 2008, 7:46pm | #

"Though the raid was apparently part of a drug investigation, police aren't saying what if any drugs were found. They won't even confirm that police had the correct address."

The police need to get their li..,er story straight. You know, some evidence needs to be created and some must be shredded. It's how the "New Professionalism" works.

mediageek | January 19, 2008, 7:46pm | #

Humanity is what should lead one to the self evident conclusion that these sorts of raids must absolutely be ended or at least only used in the most dire of circumstances.

chancelikely | January 19, 2008, 7:46pm | #

Look, is it possible to:

1.) Mourn for the cop, and feel sorry for his family

and

2.) Acknowledge that his own actions (and a SWAT culture in police departments) led fairly directly to his own death

?

mediageek | January 19, 2008, 7:48pm | #

Chancelikely, yes, it is.

But even a cursory skimming of Hagbard's posts show that he seems to take great delight in the deaths that resulted from this situation.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 7:52pm | #

Of course it is, chancelikely.

But it is more than a hop, skip, jump from understanding what factors played into the cause of someone's death all the way to feeling no sympathy or pain (never mind rocking out the schadenfreude) over the same.

One is a decent intellectual reaction. The other is sociopathic.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 7:59pm | #

chancelikely - what everyone else said.

But, let me ask you this: what's the better way to stop the raids:

1) Scream "DEATH UNTO PIGS!!", thereby decreasing the intellectualism and the political and social acceptability of libertarian views

OR

2) Say "This could have been avoided!" and explain how.

ktc2 | January 19, 2008, 8:03pm | #

At exactly what point does use of force against all the state thugs (cops), henchmen (prosecutors, judges, politicians), etc. become the correct moral response?

Are we really that far from it now?

As I recall our founders were blowing their heads off for far less than we endure now.

J sub D | January 19, 2008, 8:12pm | #

As I recall our founders were blowing their heads off for far less than we endure now.

I believe the rallying cry was "no taxation withot representation".

I'm not saying that a 2nd revolution won't be necessary, but we do have representation.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 8:16pm | #

J sub D --

And besides, there is good reason to believe that they (at least at the beginning) cared a great deal more about the "no taxation" part than the "representation" part...especially since representation by population in parliament would have led to a token delegation and the same taxes as ever.

I fairly doubt any parliamentary representation offer would have been accepted by the colonies.

Milo | January 19, 2008, 8:26pm | #

I would like to suggest the following:
Maybe a fund should be started so that the family of the Officer can sue the asses off of the Police Department, legal types, and government departments involved in rubber stamping this warrant in an effort to change how a warrant is obtained/served in the future. Oh, and for a little $$$ so that any orphans can still go to college when the time comes. wipes dog turd from the bottom of shoe, lest some of it be soiled when kicking the hell out of Hagbard

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 8:27pm | #

As I recall our founders were blowing their heads off for far less than we endure now.

If by that you mean "Attempting to formally redress their arguments with a dictatorial king and then, finding themselves rebuffed, reluctantly choosing to start a revolution" than, yes.

ktc2, once that formal and informal redressment evaporates AND the government has shown itself to be unresponsive to the will of the People, then it might be the time. Maybe. But it requires intellectual thought and serious commitment, not just blind and random violence. And even then I'd be hesitant.

Remember the American Revolution only had, what, 30% or less popular support?

Don't forget, though, that "the People" are NOT libertarian, so don't use that as an excuse.

I fairly doubt any parliamentary representation offer would have been accepted by the colonies.

Well, perhaps the taxation part was the practical catalyst, but the representation argument for revolution would have been seriously undercut by said token delegation.

Remember that people were pretty desperate NOT to have to revolt; a token delegation would've strongly undercut the "moral" argument for revolution in the eyes of many supporters.

Heh...if Britain didn't have a crazy king we could all still be subjects of the Crown. Huh.

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 8:30pm | #

Milo - not only is that a humane thing to do, but it's brilliant strategy to boot.

It puts government in check (hopefully) and makes the rubber-stampers think twice; it has a "human interest" face to it.

Awesome.

ktc2 | January 19, 2008, 8:31pm | #

Who (outside the government) still thinks the government is responsive to the people?

Nobody I know.

I'm not saying grab your guns and march on D.C. or your state capital.

I'm asking is there a "litmis test" so to speak for when armed rebellion (however futile) is justified?

Anonymoose. | January 19, 2008, 8:35pm | #

I'm asking is there a "litmis test" so to speak for when armed rebellion (however futile) is justified?

I think the absolute line is when they try to take your guns. Up until then, use your best judgment.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 8:36pm | #

I'm asking is there a "litmus test" so to speak for when armed rebellion (however futile) is justified?

The following is true of at least 25% of citizens: You and three people you know personally have a family member or close friend who was grievously victimized by the man.

Or if they'll be punch and pie afterwards.

But not cake. The cake is a lie!

Ayn_Randian | January 19, 2008, 8:41pm | #

Who (outside the government) still thinks the government is responsive to the people?

I think the fact that politicians still pander to different interest groups prove they are VERY responsive to the people. I just don't happen to LIKE what most of "The People" prefer.

ktc2 - we don't have anything approaching "sham" or "farcical" elections, do we? I mean, most people walk into the booth, pull the lever and the shit becomes (or fails to become) law.

That sounds pretty responsive to me.

Johncjackson3rd- VP Cosmotarians for Ron Paul | January 19, 2008, 8:48pm | #

Well, at least the shooter is a white guy. That means he might have a chance with the self-defense claim ( in case you didnt know, only white people have the right to property, gun rights and self defense in many areas/minds. the "populist paleos" like it that way).

ktc2 | January 19, 2008, 9:16pm | #

Hmm...don't know about that. I'd say our elections are pretty much a farce.

In fact the South Park episode with the choice between the giant douche and the turd sandwich is a pretty damn good representation of them.

Dose | January 19, 2008, 10:16pm | #

"The last thing anybody wants after taking a human life is to get a bunch of pats on the back. Taking a life isn't an easy thing to do, and the glib manner you treat it with shows you're a superficial little fucker."

While thats true, takeing a HUMAN life is a difficult thing, that isnt part of the issue here....he didnt take a HUMAN life, he shot a pig...even if it was a pig in human clothing...it was still a pig...if everybody would do the same we might see a free country in our lifetime

mediageek | January 19, 2008, 10:51pm | #

Dose, you don't believe that and I can prove it.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 19, 2008, 11:11pm | #

He should get a metal and a ticker tape parade.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 19, 2008, 11:12pm | #

Well, that was strange. The entire comment was there when I tapped submit

Cactus | January 19, 2008, 11:13pm | #

Good. The only crime is that the homeowner didn't kill the entire entry team.

These home invasions will only stop when multiple members of the entry teams have to be hauled out in body bags every time the thugs bust down a door.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 11:14pm | #

Dose, you don't believe that and I can prove it.

Yikes! It's tinfoil hat time, people!

The Wine Commonsewer | January 19, 2008, 11:14pm | #

Trying it again........

He should get a metal and a ticker tape parade.

That would be Medal.....

...he didnt take a HUMAN life, he shot a pig.....

Wait, did I just walk through the looking glass into the sixties? Apparently I shouldn't be mixing the Oxycodone with the Pinot Noir.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 19, 2008, 11:19pm | #

A First Degree Murder charge? Somebody needs to explain to me how this was, in any way, premeditated.

And they wonder why some folks call them pigs.

Troubleshooter | January 19, 2008, 11:30pm | #

Check this, and many like it, out.

http://www.policelink.com/news/articles/9395-cop-killer-in-custody-after-standoff

In all of the list I read, not one person questioned the situation.

And Law Enforcement wonders at the growing distaste for it.

A sampling:

"Godspeed Brother! ........ OK, I don't want to jump to conclusions, but I am getting SICK AND TIRED of hearing about Officers getting shot and our fellow Warriors not returning fire! Hello, F-ing cover fire Gents, get the job done! This is really something that pisses me off, we are breeding a bunch of victimsnot warriors! If your fellow Warrior is going to be on point and he/she takes a round or gun fire???? Lay down SUPPRESSIVE FIRE A.S.A.P. so you can get your fellow Officer out of the kill zone! We out here on LAPD had a bunch of Officers serving a warrant on a 187 suspect and after the knock and notice, he put 7 , 45 caliber rounds from a Glock 21 through the door, and NO ONE in the stack laid down any cover fire!!! WTF??? Those little hand canons you have on your hips and the boom sticks you have while on point are not for show, they are for business, so get the job done! Decide RIGHT NOW weather or not you can take a life and if you can't I have two words for you, Paper or Plastic! Wow, this shit pisses me off, suspect in custody??????? Congratulations! One shot fired, yeah, by the suspect, are you F-ing kidding me? My fellow Warriors who do not have their minds right, better shit or get off the pot! Unbelievable!"

Troubleshooter | January 19, 2008, 11:32pm | #

TWC,

They have decided that the actual defining characteristic of Murder 1 no longer applies when dealing with governmental functionaries.

Shoot The Man(tm) and it's the injection express.

A. Sol. | January 19, 2008, 11:33pm | #

"What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether the would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family?"

Would you apologist clowns be so quick to clamor in defense of a mafia goon, shot dead by a frightened man targeted for a kidnapping in the wee hours of the morning? C'mon, the mobster's got a family at home that "loves and depends on him" and everything...

I didn't think so...

but make the goon a cop, and shitheels can't help but salute, even though the act is virtually identical.

Elemenope | January 19, 2008, 11:38pm | #

TWC --

I covered the Murder One thing at 5:09. Check it out.

Rimfax | January 19, 2008, 11:58pm | #

Uh, this thread really turned into a complete circle-jerk around Hagbard's comment. Is anybody keeping score? How many drinks do I need to take to catch up?

pinko | January 20, 2008, 12:23am | #

Wow Troubleshooter. That posting is something else...like someone held up a mirror to Hagbard. Maybe we can arrange a meeting between the two of them, and they could eliminate each other. Seems like a win-win.

mediageek | January 20, 2008, 12:32am | #

Apparently I shouldn't be mixing the Oxycodone with the Pinot Noir.

Awesome.

In other news, the cops probably won't knock when they come to check that Oxycodone script.

douglas gray | January 20, 2008, 1:02am | #

Thanks for the post Radley, it looks like Cory Maye all over again. It'll be interesting to see how the case unfolds..........

hdr | January 20, 2008, 2:39am | #

What the heck is happening to this nation?

BOB B. ROBERTS JR. | January 20, 2008, 2:56am | #

If you make a living breaking into people's houses with guns causing problems for them you should expect to get shot and killed. And that is what happened to this king shit cop.

Horror and moral terror are your friends. Use them. The courts will not help you. Only when these assholes become afraid of being summarily executed upon entering your home will this bullshit stop.

Burrow Owl | January 20, 2008, 3:29am | #

TWC Wrote:
"A First Degree Murder charge? Somebody needs to explain to me how this was, in any way, premeditated.

And they wonder why some folks call them pigs."

Well said.

Throughout this thread,a common theme seems to have emerged: ie, That we should pity those who have died in the act of persecuting others. Why should we take pity on someone who gets their ass kicked while they are engaged in the act of suppressing personal freedom?

To hell with the fascist fuckwits.

As much as I would prefer to see a peaceful resolution to the WOD, I have pretty much come to the conclusion that the insanity will not end unless and until the citizenry makes it absolutely clear that the continuation of present policy can (and will) be hazardous to the health of the oppressors.

Maurkov | January 20, 2008, 3:32am | #

Wow, I see a lot of handles I don't recognize spouting evil. Who sent the H&R url to Ron Paul's mailing list?

Hagbard, I believe the word you were looking for at 5:20 was 'medal.' Thank you so much for coming back (at 5:37) and offering us the false choice between being a statist asshole and anti-statist asshole. Good show. To you and all your sock puppet friends, know that when you express glee at the death of police officer, you lose any hope of (positively) influencing anyone outside of your .01%. That's why people are saying, "stay off my side." Your attitude inoculates people against what ever you stand for.

To the regulars, you're wresting with a pig, with all that that implies.

Bill Cooke | January 20, 2008, 4:43am | #

Again one should not be happy over the death of another. But looking at the criminal case, the cop does look like a criminal. That is generally the case with undercover cops as they want to blend in with the criminal element. If a man looking like that showed up at my house - and he wasn't in uniform - I would shoot him too in self-defense.

Casey Serin | January 20, 2008, 7:18am | #

Hagbard is a closeted homosexual.

Ayn_Randian | January 20, 2008, 7:50am | #

I'm reminded of a cracked.com quote:

"You may be wearing that Smurfs shirt for super-ironic reasons, but at the end of the day, you're a grown man in a Smurfs shirt."

You all may have perfectly valid reasons (in your own mind) that it's OK to take glee in the death of a police officer.

At the end of the day, you're still a grown man advocating for the death of a police officer: what's the difference between you and somebody else who thinks that breach of a moral code should mean death to the offender?

ktc2 | January 20, 2008, 10:27am | #

Um . . . perhaps because the cop INITIATED violence against another human being and was subsequently killed by that person in self defense?

I'm not advocating we go out and start executing cops. I'm not a blood thirsty moron but putting myself in the position of the person at home I can see how this happened and why it's morally justified.

He did what was right. Should he get a medal? No.

Should he be tried for murder one? No.

What should happen (and definitely will not) is a good review of what led to this situation, how it could have been avoided/neutralized and steps taken accordingly.

This will NOT happen because our moronic WOD where the ends (which will always be unattainable) justifies any means.

Fluffy | January 20, 2008, 10:49am | #

when you express glee at the death of police officer, you lose any hope of (positively) influencing anyone outside of your .01%.

Well, there are two questions to consider here:

The first question is "Under what circumstances would violence against representatives of the state be moral?"

The second question is "Under what circumstances would violence against representatives of the state be prudent?"

They don't produce the same answer. Your point is relevant to the second discussion, but not the first.

There is an infinite field for philosophical discussion of the relationship between the individual and the state that is entirely outside the second, prudential question.

anarcho agoro | January 20, 2008, 11:38am | #

anarcho agoro

That it was cops doesn't even come up on my radar. It was armed men kicking a man's door down in the dark of night, with the intent of kidnapping the sleeping occupant and seizing his property, for the "crime" of engaging in non state sanctioned free market transactions.

Even if it is in your state sanctioned job description, surprise invasions of someone's home, by force, with guns drawn, is risky business. Maybe if it were riskier, they'd stop doing it.

John | January 20, 2008, 11:44am | #

Anyone who kills a cop in uniform performing his duty, deserves the death penalty no questions asks. Any cop who kicks in someone's door without clearly identifying himself as a cop and giving the person a reasonable chance to surrender, deserves to get his head blown off. If you want to hold anyone responsible for this guy's death, hold the police chief who ordered him there to conduct this kind of raid. I am sorry but I don't have any sympathy for the cop in this case unless it some other facts are revealing showing that the raid was anything but a chaotic home invasion.

Sadly, the lesson the police will learn from this will be to shoot more often and be more militant. The lesson should be, "gee maybe we should stop kicking in people's doors and be more open about the fact that we are cops and you know like wear uniforms and badges and knock on people's doors so there is no question that they know who we are." Fat fucking chance that will happen.

Ayn_Randian | January 20, 2008, 12:17pm | #

ktc2 - I agree with most of your practical solutins (review, let's not glory in it on either side, let's get it fixed.

But this:

Um . . . perhaps because the cop INITIATED violence against another human being and was subsequently killed by that person in self defense?

Define "initiation of violence".
Bonus questions: Is that a faith to which you adhere, that is, you can reflexively point to any situation and declare guilt and innocence?

Principles are not substitutes for thinking.

John...let me fix that for you:

I am sorry but I don't have any sympathy for the cop Soldier in this case unless it some other facts are revealing showing that the raid Iraq War was anything but a chaotic home invasion. act of aggression

You know, John, some people think that Soldiers in so-called "immoral" wars deserve death; you're a lot closer to a lefty than you want to admit.

Maybe if it were riskier, they'd stop doing it.

Best you wire your house with Claymores, then.
Oh wait, you're not in the at-risk group? Then quit the hysterics and come up with some practical solutions to fixing.

Hint one: violence, or the advocation thereof, will not help.

M | January 20, 2008, 12:33pm | #

Question for the historians about the advice given by some here to encourage policy revision by freelance negative reinforcement: Has there ever been an instance in which private armed resistance to state-terrorism has resulted in any state's backing off without entirely ceasing to govern the resisting population? Ie, is there a known successful precedent for the strategy of guerrilla counter-terrorism (self-defense) merely pushing back a government's reach to status quo ante levels?

The Wine Commonsewer | January 20, 2008, 12:42pm | #

Ellie, I read that, thanks.

Ayn_Randian | January 20, 2008, 12:48pm | #

In all of the list I read, not one person questioned the situation.

I'll note that our "side" has failed to do the same thing...instead, some of us heard "drug raid" and "dead cop" and started spouting disgusting bullshit.

anarcho agoro | January 20, 2008, 12:54pm | #

your debate style here, as balanced against your chosen "Ayn_Randian" moniker, rankles me.

Maybe, so as not to sully Ayn's name and work with your decidedly low rent contributions hereabouts, you oughta change your forum name to "snarky and shrill statist".

Just a suggestion.

Do what you're gonna do.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 20, 2008, 12:57pm | #

AR, I tend to side with us but I am reserving judgment to an extent because we has been sandbagged before. Things sometimes are not as they appear.

OTOH, I can assure you if you come busting through my door you're going to get shot. I ain't afraid of much, but I am afraid of home invasion robbery.

BUT, nobody in their right mind is going to shoot a cop if they know that the cops are there to serve a warrant. That's movie script madness but rarely happens in real life because there is only one very predictable end to it.

I am not terribly surprised but I am deeply disturbed by the LAPD post by Trouble shooter. Known enough cops to not doubt the accuracy of the quote.

Interesting response to John, BTW.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 20, 2008, 1:00pm | #

Oh, and busting down somebody's door on a drug raid is pretty much initiating force. To get around that you might want to have the PD show up in uniform with a search warrant and knock politely on the front door during the day. You might also want to give the guy the opportunity to make a call to the PD to verify the warrant.

What? Can't do that? Oh, because he might flush the coke down the sewer.

Dave W. | January 20, 2008, 1:03pm | #

Has there ever been an instance in which private armed resistance to state-terrorism has resulted in any state's backing off without entirely ceasing to govern the resisting population? Ie, is there a known successful precedent for the strategy of guerrilla counter-terrorism (self-defense) merely pushing back a government's reach to status quo ante levels?

They are starting to wire houses to explode in Iraq.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 20, 2008, 1:03pm | #

Maybe if it were riskier, they'd stop doing it

Funny story about a guy I used to know and that response to cops writing traffic tickets but I can't tell it because this bb is being monitored by The Man

The Wine Commonsewer | January 20, 2008, 1:08pm | #

Burrow, thanks.

I knew an LA County Sheriff that once arrested an old man for pulling out in front of him and causing an accident. I asked him why he would do that and his response was something like anyone who would pull out in front of a cop with lights and sirens on is either drunk, on drugs, or mentally incompetent. In any case, they're going to jail.

And I see the whole arrest thing in this case as a manifestation of that kind of thinking. We do know that the guy shot the cop. It is possible that if the guy shot a civilian in the same circumstances that he may have been arrested (or not). It is highly unlikely that he would have been charged with the maximum possible charges.

Actually, the guy is lucky they didn't simply kill him (and his dog).

miche | January 20, 2008, 1:28pm | #

From the article:

...charged him with first-degree murder and use of a firearm in the commission of a felony.

Anybody else here think that the firearm charge is weird?

miche | January 20, 2008, 1:40pm | #

Also weird is the 8:30 bedtime.

Ayn_Randian | January 20, 2008, 1:48pm | #

Maybe, so as not to sully Ayn's name and work with your decidedly low rent contributions hereabouts, you oughta change your forum name to "snarky and shrill statist".

Maybe you should actually think some stuff through, instead of reflexively associating Ayn Rand's name with cop-killing anarchism.

"The use of physical force—even its retaliatory use—cannot be left at the discretion of individual citizens." - Ayn Rand

And what, pray tell, is "statist" (an ill-understood label thrown around by the small-minded) about my posts?

Saying that we should reserve judgement instead of leaping to conclusions until the full facts of the case are known?

Not leaping to endorse the "KILL THE PIGS!" attitude I'm snarky about?

your debate style here, as balanced against your chosen "Ayn_Randian" moniker, rankles me.

Life be hard. If that's what rankles you, I suggest you get some thicker skin. Sounds to me like you don't know too much about Ayn Rand.

zig zag man | January 20, 2008, 2:02pm | #

"Sadly, the lesson the police will learn from this will be to shoot more often and be more militant. The lesson should be, "gee maybe we should stop kicking in people's doors and be more open about the fact that we are cops and you know like wear uniforms and badges and knock on people's doors so there is no question that they know who we are." Fat fucking chance that will happen."

I agree with you John. All I can see on the horizon is an escalation of the violence and mayhem. As our police become more militarized and are adopting tactics used by special ops we citizens should be concerned enough to mobilize against this and put a stop to it.

Regrettably, those of us who see this decay in our social fabric are too small in number to be more than a nuisance to those who pull the strings.

As an old soldier that stood up to defend the ideals we as a nation held for so long and to see them crushed by the innumerable tresspasses of our government masters is almost too much to bear sometimes. Each of these actions add to the outrage and up the ante.

Unfortunately, I see no solution other than cover yours and your buddies' asses, keep low and try to defend your ground if you have to, and know when you need to fade into the background to continue the struggle.

Christ on a Cracker | January 20, 2008, 2:22pm | #

"It often also includes murder undertaken during the commission of another felony (such as robbery-murder or rape-murder), even if the killing itself was unintentional or of the moment. It can also include murders of certain classes of public official (police, fire, rescue) if the murderer had reason to believe that the victim was a member of one of those groups (i.e. an announcement, badge, or uniform in view


I don't have a problem with this. However, the cops involved (at least on the top ones that planned the operation) also must be held to a high standard. If ANYTHING happened outside of the official procedure, wrong address, obviously bad information, etc., the responsible persons must also be charged with officer's death. This was the logical, forseeable outcome from their negligence.

The cops have a higher standing under the law. The must also bear a higher responsibility. You can not have it both ways.

CoC

John | January 20, 2008, 2:48pm | #

Ryndian,

You are an amazing moron. I am mean truly amazing. Police work is not war. The police are not and should not be conducting war on our own citizens. To the extent that the police are conducting war on our own citizens they forfeit their moral authority.

As far as soldiers in war, the fact is that it is part of the job to get killed sometimes. They die so you don't have to. I say that as a veteran and someone who accepted that fact when I really was in danger. It is a tragedy when a soldier dies but ultimately it is part of his job description. As far as "amoral wars" go, well you are rooting for our soldiers to get killed you are rooting for the other side to win. If you are so stupid that you can't see the moral distinction between say the US and the Taliban, then frankly you are not worth the time it takes to respond to you.

Perhaps if you had better tastes in authors you might be a little brighter. But then again, if you were brighter, you probably wouldn't have wasted so much time reading Rand. Sort of a chicken and an egg thing I guess.

John | January 20, 2008, 2:50pm | #

Zig Zag Man,

Sadly you are right. I don't see a good answer to it. I would love to go run for DA but I doubt a "I am going to keep the dumb ass police from kicking in your door and shooting you" would win that many votes and even if it did, my district would be one island of sanity and respect in a ocean of insanity and dispect for fundemental rights.

SuperMike | January 20, 2008, 2:59pm | #

Wow, we have a tragic number of jerks on here today.

It sounds like me to have been a lamentable incident.

The rationale for all these enhanced police powers: no knock warrants, "dynamic entries", sophisticated surveillance, and plainclothes officers in the first place, is that police (and politicians) have become frustrated by the increasing sophistication of criminals (although one wonders if anything the dopers do is actually more sophisticated than the bootleggers in the thirties) and have tried to give the police tools to make it so that there are ways to catch even the most sophisticated criminals.

One problem with this is that these tools are inherently more risky, to civilians, to officers, to criminals, and to our liberties, and I don't think they've really taken that risk into account. I mean, how significant could the case against this guy have been? Why couldn't they have just knocked?

It's horrible that this guy got himself killed, but the first-degree murder charge tells me that the law-enforcement establishment is giving the suspect no benefit of the doubt. They don't seem to be accepting any of the blame as an institution; they talk at length about how hazardous a job it is, but don't seem to realize that they have some control over how hazardous it is. Given that it'll probably be difficult to say what really happened, because the two best witnesses are dead or not obligated to testify, The prosecutor must think he can railroad this guy based on "police officer good/ man who shoots police officer bad" thinking. It's sad that this can't be chalked up to a horrible accident. The police in that town would probably harass that guy to his dying day anyways.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 20, 2008, 3:02pm | #

.....keep low and try to defend your ground if you have to, and know when you need to fade into the background to continue the struggle.

The wisdom to know the difference. Amen.

Keepin' a low profile regards, TWC

Ayn_Randian | January 20, 2008, 3:03pm | #

John, you're a dumbass.

You were the one drawing moral equivalence, not me.

You think cops deserve to die because they wage an illegal war.

Some people think that Soldiers deserve to die because THEY wage an illegal war.

The only thing that keeps your side and the extreme left side screaming at each other is that you don't see the similarities in your own thinking.

FWIW, I don't think either the cop nor the Soldier deserves to die for ill-conceived policy proscriptions.

You are such a one-way thinker it's really pathetic.

I don't see a good answer to it.

Of course you don't, because you gave up on America a long time ago.

Instead of hollering about immoral this and immoral that, let's get down to the grit of coming up with better, more thought out policies that reduce human suffering at the hands of the State.

To do this, we have to be taken seriously in the mainstream.

And let me give you a hint: if you wouldn't walk into a bar and say "DEATH UNTO PIGS!", perhaps you shouldn't say it here, either.

J sub D | January 20, 2008, 3:05pm | #

We know this tragic event was initiated by a no-knock raid as part of the War on Drugs Sanity.

We know that the "War"on Drugs Reason has led to the militarization of our law enforcement community.

We know this has accomplished nothing but ratchet up the violence, endangering cops, non-violent suspects, and innocent bystanders.

We know that prohibition has had a corrosive effect on the integrity of the law enforcers and the resultant distrust and disdain of them by large parts of the citizenry.

We know that the only candidates who support ending the War on Drugs Personal Freedom are Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, who are garnering 1 and 7 percent in their respective parties.

Talk to your friends, neighbors, relatives and coworkers about this ineffective, needless, madness. Millions of minds have to be changed before we can end this insanity.

Ending it is the only sane, moral thing to do.

zig zag man | January 20, 2008, 3:16pm | #

"Talk to your friends, neighbors, relatives and coworkers about this ineffective, needless, madness."

I do this a lot. When I had a regular job, I was the resident conspiracy theorist and Libertarian. When I would talk about the excesses of the government, sometimes people roll their eyes and dismiss you for a while. Then something happens and a light comes on and they say to you, "Now I know what you have been talking about for so long." That's when you know your efforts are not for naught.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 20, 2008, 3:22pm | #

Also weird is the 8:30 bedtime.

I know people who crash that early on work nights, espc if they have to be to work at 5:00am.

Or, he may have been reading in bed. Prolly The Fountainhead.

Minion of URKOBOLD | January 20, 2008, 3:23pm | #

anarcho

SILLY RABBIT. IT IS YOU WHO IS SNARKY AND LOW RENT. AND NOT ONLY DO YOU RANKLE COCKLES, YOU MAKE THE SPINAL TAP SONG "CUPS AND CAKES" SEEM LIKE "ROCK NOW, ROCK THE NIGHT" BY EUROPE.

NOW, GO TO YOUR ROOM.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 20, 2008, 3:25pm | #

Hey, just looked at my mail from yesterday and I see on the sample ballot that MAD MAX is running for president in the Republican primary.

VM | January 20, 2008, 3:25pm | #

"We know that the only candidates who support ending the War on Drugs Personal Freedom are Dennis Kucinich, and Ron Paul, who are garnering 1 and 7 percent in their respective parties."

Jsub - dunno about the former mayor of Cleveland, but RP is against the federal drug war. these incidents wouldn't go away with his plans. argh!!!!!!

The Wine Commonsewer | January 20, 2008, 3:30pm | #

VM, assuming that RP was elected and succeeds in ending the drug war, I believe the incidents would diminish greatly.

Without the ongoing pressure and threats from the federal agencies charged with drug enforcement, the states would not have as much motivation to continue these efforts.

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 3:35pm | #

Yeah, ending the federal drug war effectively ends the state drug war. I mean, states can still enact prohibition laws if they want, but none do. Mostly because state governments don't have enough money and resources to run such an operation.

VM | January 20, 2008, 3:41pm | #

how would the incidents diminish? it's all at the state/local level?

or if his bully pulpit has that kind of influence, then his anti science or his DOMA support will also have a ripple effect...

re: funding - you could also imagine a more negative scenario where the cops would be harder to stop. it's really a difficult issue, and i really appreciate the discussion from you two!!! (head explodes from difficulty of issue)

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 3:44pm | #

how would the incidents diminish? it's all at the state/local level?

Well, how often do you hear of the police knocking down peoples doors in search of booze in "dry counties"?

andronoid | January 20, 2008, 3:57pm | #

Cesar, that's not a good analogy because there's no need to store booze in a dry county when you can just store it in a non-dry county next door. Same goes for drinking it.

I think the idea you're getting at though is that if one state legalized drugs all the other state would too, after they saw how much money was rushing into the drug state. So there would be much more pressure on the states to legalize than on the federal government.

robc | January 20, 2008, 4:08pm | #

Well, how often do you hear of the police knocking down peoples doors in search of booze in "dry counties"?

I know of one. He owned the farm next to my grandparents. Also the local gas station/grocery store. I think thats where you contacted him to buy the booze, but not sure about that. It turns out innocence can be bought.

J sub D | January 20, 2008, 4:11pm | #

Jsub - dunno about the former mayor of Cleveland, but RP is against the federal drug war. these incidents wouldn't go away with his plans. argh!!!!!!

The feds started the War on Drugs Minorities and continue to encourage/bribe the states to play along. Yeah, I know the Texas Rangers and Ohio State Police are all for it, but first things first. Get the federal government out of the equation.

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 4:13pm | #

I think the idea you're getting at though is that if one state legalized drugs all the other state would too, after they saw how much money was rushing into the drug state. So there would be much more pressure on the states to legalize than on the federal government.

Yes, and the fact that one is free to move between states without having ones car searched makes enforcement difficult. If Maryland legalized marijuana but Virginia didn't, I could just drive up to Maryland one weekend, buy a months supply of weed, then take it back to Virginia.

Joe Allen | January 20, 2008, 4:22pm | #

Radley Balko is a sell-out ferret.

Ayn_Randian | January 20, 2008, 4:54pm | #

Cesar - I am not quite sure that would work in practice.

Example: People who "bootleg" cigarettes from KY to OH (worth it because KY's tax is like, 3 cents and OH's is like 2 dollars) get caught a lot, and border gas stations and the like won't sell you 50-some odd cartons when your intent is obvious.

And yes, that's a wise business decision, if you ask me.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 4:56pm | #

A Randian,

I have to agree with you on that one

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 4:58pm | #

Randian,

Ex to your Ex. Nj to DEl. they limit your amount of Cigs. when purchasing to only what you will use in a month. It's regulated.

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 5:01pm | #

Example: People who "bootleg" cigarettes from KY to OH (worth it because KY's tax is like, 3 cents and OH's is like 2 dollars) get caught a lot, and border gas stations and the like won't sell you 50-some odd cartons when your intent is obvious.

Well, I just remember hearing from my father when he was growing up on the MD-WV border before there was a federal drinking age. The drinking age was 21 in Maryland but 18 in WV, and he said there was little problem going down to WV and getting three cases of beer or a few handles of liquor to take back to MD for a party.

Of course that was the mid 60s so the government in general was probably less authoritarian about things like that then they are now.

J sub D | January 20, 2008, 5:07pm | #

If I'm close to Ohio, Ill dash across the border to get a couple of cartons of smokes. That's $15.00. Im sure other disparities are much larger.

Just looked it up (for Michigan only). If I'm near Indiana, I'll double the savings. Wisconsin splits the difference. IOW any Michigand smoker near a border, buys his smokes out of state.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 5:13pm | #

JsubD

New Jersey does the same. We pay 60+ per carton. Del. is 28. I am trying to quit and refuse to cross the state line to feed my habit.

J sub D | January 20, 2008, 5:20pm | #

Cindy,

Maybe you should vow to walk to Delaware for cigarettes.

You'd save money and have another reason to quit the vile habit. ;-)

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 5:23pm | #

Save on gas, that's another issue in this state. Corzine passed a 60 cents tax over and above on our gas as well as an additional tax on Cigs, Alcohol and our toll roads are going to increase in the next 11 yrs to a trip on the parkway will cost at that time $100.00 from tip to tip of this state. We all just can't wait. Oh I'm quiting and that is why I'm on here more now...keeps my mind off of smoking.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 5:24pm | #

Addition to last post....And I'm getting an education as well...it's a win win situation I'd say.

Wylde Bill | January 20, 2008, 5:28pm | #

Well, I'm pretty pissed that the guy defending his home was charged with murder, when if the story had been him dead and the cop still sucking air the worst to happen to the cop (even if it were the wrong address) would be *maybe* a suspension (probably with pay) from the police force, and worst case, fired from their job for taking another person's life.

Obviously there is *not* "equality before the law" for all classes of citizens in this country- so, yes, I understand the feelings of those who say "good riddance" when you see one of those of the privileged, bureaucratic class "get theirs".

This is, of course, a purely emotional response, and doesn't recognize the individuality of the officer in question, who was, after all, "just doing his job" (or is it "just following orders"?)- and most likely, as someone else pointed out, with all of the best intentions in the world (insert reference to paving roads to hell here).

In less long-winded terms, the cop didn't make the system, I never knew him personally, so it's wrong to gloat over the death of this stranger who might have been a great guy, and someone you'd like to hang out with (as opposed to the Atlanta cops who planted dope in the house of the old lady they'd just killed).

One doesn't know, hence one should reserve judgement- and not express the glee one would feel if cops like these were the one's getting lead for dinner.

IOW's I'm sorry the guy got shot, but I don't think the guy who shot him is going to get a fair shake, and that (along with the records of police involved in "drug task forces") get's in the way of my pity for the cop...

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 5:40pm | #

I have conflicting ideas on this whole subject. I worked with 10 heroine addicts back 7 yrs ago and worked with my hometown PD and 3 surrounding PD's to allow me time with these addicts. Things worked out well and they are in society, functioning well now for 7yrs., which would otherwise not be. My youngest daughter majored in Criminal Justice/Forensics so I'm all over the place on this issue. I guess you would say that I am sitting on the fence with this issue. I'm not in favor of Raids and non-identification. I've seen that with my own eyes and what they do to a house and family. Not pretty. Yet hard drugs are...well I have issues with that. Maybe my compassion for people in general is getting in the way. Something needs to be done about raids such as these and about our laws in general. None of these things are working and people are dying over it.

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 5:44pm | #

Cindy-

Before 1914 one could buy pure cocaine or heroin over the counter in their local pharmacy. The world didn't end because of that, and I doubt it would today either.

apotheon | January 20, 2008, 5:50pm | #

I think there are some pretty odious extremes all over this discussion. Here's my take:

1. I feel for the guy in jail for doing nothing more dastardly than defending himself and his home from unidentified intruders.

2. I feel for the family of the cop who was killed.

3. I wish the cop wasn't killed, mostly because of the negative impact this is having on the victim of the no-knock raid and the potential (figurative) ammunition this will give some enemies of liberty.

4. The cop reaped what he sowed. It's possible he thought he was doing the right thing, but it's possible he didn't think so. Even if he thought he was doing the right thing, though, he arrived at that conclusion by failing to do even the minimal bit of thinking about the character of his own actions necessary to be a responsible, ethical human being. Anyone with an IQ over 60 should be able to figure out that breaking into someone's house without announcing yourself is a good way to screw up the life of people who don't deserve such treatment. Period. This makes it difficult for me to feel sympathy for the dead cop, though I am also not elated at his death, either. Cheering the death of a human being is absurd, even in circumstances like this -- but recognizing his culpability in his own fate, and being happy that certain worse potential outcomes were avoided, seems perfectly reasonable to me.

5. We still don't know all the facts of this case. I reserve final judgment until I know more.

No | January 20, 2008, 5:56pm | #

My compassion ends with the man who must spend the rest of his life knowing he took another man's life, no matter how justified he was in defending his home.

The man who died made the decision to break into that home, (period). Because our courts allow badged goons this action does not absolve him of his immoral actions.

Funny, if the home owner had killed a criminal attempting a strong-armed robbery we would be patting him on the back for giving society one less parasite to deal with. Why that doesn't apply in this situation???

Or do you think it was the first time the cop had terrorized the lives of your fellow citizens? Or is that where YOUR compassion ends?

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 5:56pm | #

This is very true. I believe at that time, we weren't aware of just how addictive these drugs were and they were used as pain killers. Medicine was not as advanced as it is now. However, I have a problem with our future (meaning kids)getting hooked on a drug that will in effect halt their ability to function in our society. Some of these are bright kids with a future. I can't save the world and jail is no place for them. It serves no purpose. Dealers are another issue with me. Raids on the wrong house...not good. Raids without identifing yourself on entry is smart. You can be killed, even if you are doing your job or following orders. People who enter into law enforcement are made aware that there are dangers of death involved so there's just another issue. No one is immune to a bullet and in circumstances such as this article pointed out, the dangers of such a job are very clear.

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 5:58pm | #

Cindy, the big effect of making these drugs illegal was not reducing addiction. Before 1914, the profile of the typical addict was a middle-aged housewife. It wasn't good that they were addicted, but at least they didn't have to commit crimes to feed their habit. At least the could take it safely, and at least dealers weren't looking for more and more powerful drugs that are easier to hide. Ex. without the drug war crack would have never been invented.

After they were made illegal, the typical addict is now a common street criminal.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:00pm | #

Raids without identifing yourself on entry is smart.

I meant Isn't smart.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:04pm | #

Cesar,

I agree. However, Imagine this, your wife taking care of your kids, high on cocaine...where's the safety? I raised to children and needed all my faculties to do so. A clear head to reason with them is one example. I could not have done so high as a kite. Women back then? Need I explain just how unhappy a lot of them were over their lifes circumstances...which was by the way their choice in the first place.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:06pm | #

In all actuality, the drug work crack down has done enough damage. I wonder though, if, there is any turning back should we stop it.

apotheon | January 20, 2008, 6:08pm | #

"However, Imagine this, your wife taking care of your kids, high on cocaine...where's the safety? I raised to children and needed all my faculties to do so. A clear head to reason with them is one example. I could not have done so high as a kite."

Now imagine the current state of affairs:

Single mothers taking care of their kids, high on crack (worse than coke -- or the meth that the housewives were actually taking at the time), living on the streets, doing tricks for the cash to feed their habits, unable to provide proper care for their kids in such circumstances even if they had clear heads.

Which is worse? This is the consequence of our "war on drug( user)s".

Sparky | January 20, 2008, 6:08pm | #

"Example: People who "bootleg" cigarettes from KY to OH..."

I lived outside of Kansas City when I was a kid (late 70s/early 80s), and I remember hearing of incidents of cops parked on the state line between KS and MO waiting to pull people over who bought booze in MO and brought it back to KS when buying was illegal in KS (I think this was because of Sundays sales laws, and I think I have the direction correct).

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 6:09pm | #

Cindy what you just said about cocaine could go for alcohol too.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:11pm | #

You know what? The powers that have been and be, have made such a mess of things. Crack may never go away and heroine either. I wonder that if this whole *drug war* thing is stopped, if the rest will calm down as well. There are those of us out there with the willingness and stamina to help those who do become addicts. Then the raids could stop. People would not be subject to the bullet. Although OD's will still happen but those were the addicts choices and that's just a fact of life in those instances. I've seen what that looks like and it's not pretty. I can even predict correctly 9 times out of 10 when that's about to occurr.

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 6:12pm | #

There are only two approaches to drugs that work:

One is legalization.

The other is the death penalty for possession. This is why Singapore doesn't have a drug problem.

Since I prefer to live in a free society, I think the former option is better.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:13pm | #

Cesar,

Right again. This is why I just said what I did in my newest post. I'm a long winded person who tries to shorten for the post and doesn't get everything down in one. Please have patience with me.

zig zag man | January 20, 2008, 6:14pm | #

"Before 1914, the profile of the typical addict was a middle-aged housewife. It wasn't good that they were addicted, but at least they didn't have to commit crimes to feed their habit. At least the could take it safely, and at least dealers weren't looking for more and more powerful drugs that are easier to hide."

But it's perfectly OK to destroy your life using legal substances. (/snark)

I also have a problem with the AMA / Big Pharma / Big Treatment, et al, telling me what substances I can ingest for whatever reason. Most new legal drugs have many side effects, yet the prohibitionistas want people to be required to use Prozac instead of Marijuana. Prozac has been shown to cause psychosis, Marijuana has way fewer side effects and yet it is illegal.

I want government out of my body, I want ownership of my body.

apotheon | January 20, 2008, 6:15pm | #

Cesar . . . please don't spread that around too much. There are too many people in this country who think that the death penalty for possession would be a good idea. I don't want to run the risk of seeing that turned into law.

Okay, so I'm kinda half-kidding about not spreading that around. I'm not kidding about the fact that there are quite a few people in this country who would probably think the death penalty for possession is a good idea.

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 6:17pm | #

Zig Zag-

Thats absolutely right. Big pharma would lose TONS of money if marijuana were legal since its effective for a lot of things. People could smoke that for pain instead of having to use the (much more addictive) Oxycontin/Vicodin.

But guess what? A plant get be patented, so they can't make money off of it.

Thats really the only reason I think marijuana is still illegal. I can be sympathetic to people who think cocaine and heroin should be outlawed, but I can never understand for the life of me what people have against marijuana.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:18pm | #

Zig Zag Man,

Don't even get me started on Big Pharma....that's just legalized addiction where people are led to believe they need to be on this stuff and it's not solving their problem. Here's what I say to doctors (I have some health issues, I'm a cancer remission for 24 yrs now and they don't know how I'm alive still.), you mask the problem here and create 10 new ones over there. Nothing solved and the risks are far greater than what you can buy out on the street. That's for certain.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:19pm | #

Cesar,

It's all about the money. The almighty buck always gets in the way doesn't it.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:21pm | #

Also Maryjane is known to be the best for chemo patience and it's supposed to work better than compazine (sp.?)and it kills the pain. I know that pain well and there isn't anything that works on it.

Bob Mologna | January 20, 2008, 6:23pm | #

"Ex to your Ex. Nj to DEl. they limit your amount of Cigs. when purchasing to only what you will use in a month. It's regulated."

The funny thing about this is that it means there is more scrutiny traveling between certain US states than there is between EU countries. Britain isn't even a signatory of Mastricht free movement treaty and still there is no theoretical limit to how many smokes or how much booze you can bring from France or Holland to the UK. The trick is to bring only one brand of smokes at a time, calculate how long they would last if you smoke 4 packs / day and stick to your story. For booze cruises, you are always having a BIG wedding.

Cesar | January 20, 2008, 6:28pm | #

You know, as much shit as the EU gets one thing it does right is freedom of movement.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:28pm | #

Bob,

LOL!!! That is something isn't it.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:32pm | #

I just want to say something here and now.

This is by far one of the nicest and respectful threads that I've been on so far. You guys are great.

zig zag man | January 20, 2008, 6:44pm | #

Cindy;

It is always a pleasure to exchange ideas with someone who is interested in solutions to the problems our country has with substances of all varieties.

Always remember, follow the money.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:49pm | #

Zig Zag Man,

Always follow the money and there in lies the root of the problem. Legalization could take the wind out of the sails of dealers. Less money to be made, the thrill of the risk is gone too. Big Pharma....Big Problem and a whole lotta money there.

J sub D | January 20, 2008, 6:50pm | #

This is by far one of the nicest and respectful threads that I've been on so far. You guys are great.

I guess you didn't read the first 100 or so comments. ;-)
I only post like that when somebody says something downright evil and is proud of themselves. Polite people get polite conversation, even if I think you're incredibly, stupidly wrong. Most folks here are like that.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:52pm | #

You want to know whatelse I wonder? Just how long before they make tobacco illegal? They already are calling that a drug. They are banning it from public places. I'm not against non-smokers here but the freedom and rights which are being lost with these laws. I for one, even if I do quit, will fight those laws because of the principle of the thing. Freedom and Rights.

zig zag man | January 20, 2008, 6:53pm | #

The other issue I have with the war on some drugs is:

use of drug X in any quantity whether it interferes with you're life or not.

equals

drug abuse

If you are managing your life, paying your taxes and contributing to society, you should not be punished by government sanctioned programs designed to keep you unemployable for metabolites in your urine.

Maybe when the cost of drug testing interferes with the bottom line of the economy by keeping responsible, hard working people from being fully employed and paying a higher tax rate, instead of barely anything (purely legally) the government will wake up.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 6:56pm | #

Polite people get polite conversation, even if I think you're incredibly, stupidly wrong.

I would hope that if, you think this way about me ever, that you would point out to me, nicely, where you think I'm being stupidly wrong. That's because I do feel that this is a learning experience. People learn from other people and no one is 100% correct all the time. I can have my head up my arse sometimes and not realize it.

Bob Mologna | January 20, 2008, 6:59pm | #

Whoops, of course the UK signed Maastricht. It's the Schengen treaty they never signed. My mistake. Still, it was nice running over to Amsterdam on the ferry to buy, ummm cigarettes. Now I'm in Arizona where there are res' stores everywhere for cheap smokes.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 7:02pm | #

Zig Zag Man,

One can only hope. However I doubt that the Gov. will see this. They have blinders on, all gung-ho over this issue. For years now these people by not being employed are now getting free this and free that and it's been putting a drain on the system. We are all paying for it. Health Care costs for one. Think about the Charity Care. They end up on that during an OD. Oh but try to get a child on that who's parents are hard working and just can't afford medical care. They have to go through H*ll just to get anywhere and many are rejected.

J sub D | January 20, 2008, 7:02pm | #

I would hope that if, you think this way about me ever, that you would point out to me, nicely, where you think I'm being stupidly wrong.

Nobody has ever been reticent in pointing out my stupidity and errors as they perceive them. Not always nicely, but I'm all grown up. The folks here will keep you honest ond on you toes. It's not something you need to worry about at Hit & Run. Just don't get too sensitive.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 7:03pm | #

Humorous note here...for the kiddies, light up people for SCHIP.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 7:04pm | #

J sub D,

Thank you. I'm usually not too sensitive. Those times hit when I'm over worked with not enough sleep, and everything else in my life is well..picture a 3 ring circus and me as the ring-leader.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 7:14pm | #

Oh and I did read the first comments. I was happy to see things settle down.

unbeliever | January 20, 2008, 7:37pm | #

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 7:39pm | #

Unbeliever,

And how does this information fix what just happened?

J sub D | January 20, 2008, 7:49pm | #

Nothing will "fix" what just happened. One man is dead, another's life is in tatters. Perhaps if the 4th amendmant that Unbeliever quoted were followed by law enforcement, this wouldn't have happened. I haven't seen anything to indicate that a 4th amendment violation occured, but it certainly wouldn't be the first time. IMHO, anytime a "confidential informant" is used as a basis for a search warrant, it's a violation of the 4th.

I haven't been to law school, but I do know how to read the English language.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 7:53pm | #

I am in total agreement there. This amendment is broken ever single day around our country and it needs to stop. Inaliable rights are being ignored.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 8:03pm | #

I just went back and re-read the article and the link. It would appear nothing was mentioned of an informant and I do realize the story is not complete. Odd though, that this man now in jail, had a mother who was employed by the dept? That's odd.

Cindy | January 20, 2008, 8:13pm | #

I have to go now. Enjoy the rest of the night everyone.

KenK | January 20, 2008, 9:05pm | #

I suppose the cops will just call in an air strike from now on. It is a WAR on drugs after all.

J sub D | January 20, 2008, 9:29pm | #

I suppose the cops will just call in an air strike from now on. It is a WAR on drugs after all.

It's been done.

smartass sob | January 21, 2008, 4:56am | #

@ Ayn_Randian:

Um, Hagbard? Perhaps you should just man up then and stop paying the State to hire us.

Or did you think that money came out of thin air?


Actually, much of that money does come out of thin air. It's usually known as deficit spending.

The Wine Commonsewer | January 21, 2008, 10:45am | #

Might not quite have the context right, but I don't think we get to choose to not pay the state.

Zeb | January 21, 2008, 4:35pm | #

Regarding the comparison of police to soldiers: Police are civilians (though they seem to forget that sometimes) and can quit any time they want to if they object to what they are asked to do. Soldiers get charged with desertion if they try to do that, and thus have a much stronger "just doing my job" defense when carrying out objectionable policy.

heh2k | January 21, 2008, 5:18pm | #

It really disgusts me that neither CNN nor Fox are covering these abuses of police power. It should be on the front of papers and should be a major presidential issue.

Wylde Bill | January 21, 2008, 10:33pm | #

The other is the death penalty for possession. This is why Singapore doesn't have a drug problem.

No.

I read an article about Singapore which talked about how all of the vice one could want there could be found across the bridge in Johor Baru- a different city, different country, and different laws.

That's where the folks who live there go to do all the things that'd get them executed in their hometown.

Singapore's lack of vice is all cosmetic.

Anarcho Agoro | January 22, 2008, 1:25pm | #

I'm back from my room.

"And what, pray tell, is "statist" (an ill-understood label thrown around by the small-minded) about my posts?"

well...

since you're praying....

I contend that if it were a gangland style goon that was shot, you wouldn't be burping sanctity of life junk like-

"The last thing anybody wants after taking a human life is to get a bunch of pats on the back. Taking a life isn't an easy thing to do, and the glib manner you treat it with shows you're a superficial little fucker."

What's more statist than devoting effort towards(faux pious) mourning of a state sanctioned goon, killed while doing his "job", effort than you would not be affording to a private sector goon killed under the same circumstances (given orders to go out in the dark of night, kidnap a man at gunpoint, and search his home for valuables to seize)?

If I shot and killed an armed Crips and Bloods style gang member trying to kick my door down, tie everyone in the house up, and steal our stuff? Fuck yeah I'm happy. And I'm betting you wouldn't have much of a problem with my glee.

That your fall back position in the debate involved including soldiers in the mix only serves to solidify my opinion.

statist!

(most of my friends are statists)

Did the cognitive dissonance kick off the statist reflex? Or was it visa versa?

yo | January 23, 2008, 10:47am | #

i haven't read all the comments but the ones i did fail to place the blame for this accident on the people who are responsible... that is the judge and/or prosecutor that approved the warrant based on nothing but heresy or the police officers that may have lied to get the warrant. it wouldn't have took very much 'police work' to tell if the guy had a major pot growing operation.

well informed individual. | January 29, 2008, 2:25pm | #

"Perhaps the police were monitoring his Google searches and e-mail via the domestic wiretapping program and discovered this anti-American activity going on close by. We should be proud of our newfound surveillance capabilities"

WHY? We should be proud to lose our freedom to do what we please in our own homes? This isn't right or fair, it's unjust. It seems to be everyday we are moving more into a communism-style of government and away from the freedoms our forefathers fought for us to have. It's disgusting that anyone would think that this is okay.
Yes, it isn't fair what happened to the officer but it isn't fair that this young man should be punished either. Too often people take the easy road and want to blame the person who makes it easier. The law can't blame the cop because then they would be admitting fault so they instead charge this young man with first degree murder. What about the man who is being charged with this. The man who was sleeping comfortably in his own home? What about his family? What about the rest of his life? No one knows the real facts and everyone goes off what the lying cops who have had to change their statements say because their cops. IT WAS AN ACCIDENT, IF THE COPS HAD BEEN DOING THEIR JOB, WHICH IS TO PROTECT AND SERVE THE COMMUNITY THEN THAT OFFICER COULD BE AT HOME RIGHT NOW WITH HIS FAMILY AND THAT YOUNG MAN COULD BE AT HOME WITH HIS. INSTEAD PEOPLE DO IGNORANT THINGS AND SADLY THIS COP HAD TO PAY FOR IT.