War on Drugs claims another innocent victim

[shanek]

Police Storm Wrong Apartment, Resident Dies of Heart Attack (http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/news/wabc_051603_raiddeath.html)

Police smashed down an apartment door and used a flash grenade in their search for a potentially dangerous suspect. But it was the wrong apartment, and the woman who lived inside is now dead after suffering a heart attack.

What happened at 310 W. 143rd Street was meant to be the end result of a drug investigation based on confidential information from a police informant. But it is now among the most tragic errors of the NYPD.

Lucille Ross, Building Resident: "She was such a lovely person. If something was to happen with her like this, I want to know why."

Police Commissioner Kelly did say a "flash grenade" was used at apartment 6F before officers entered. It may be the use of that flash grenade broke procedure. The ESU lieutenant who used it is now on administrative leave pending the investigation. Those grenades have been used 85 times this year.

[CFLarsen]

And your point is....?

[Reaver]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
And your point is....?

That if she'd have had a gun she would've been able to defend herself from these intruders. Duh.

[shanek]

The point is exactly what I stated in the title! She'd still be alive today were it not for the insane War on Drugs! Sheesh...

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by Reaver
That if she'd have had a gun she would've been able to defend herself from these intruders. Duh.

These "intruders", as you call them, were the police. Do you advocate the killing of police officers?

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
The point is exactly what I stated in the title! She'd still be alive today were it not for the insane War on Drugs! Sheesh...

How do you know that she would be alive today, if there had been no War on Drugs?

Was her bad heart caused by the War on Drugs?

The police has never used these kinds of tactics before the War on Drugs?

People have never died from heart attacks when the police has entered their homes before the War on Drugs?

I have said it before, and I will gladly say it again: You are one poor skeptic.

You don't like the War on Drugs. Fine. I'm not particularly warm to the idea. But you are allowing your biases to influence your critical thinking.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
How do you know that she would be alive today, if there had been no War on Drugs?

Because if there hadn't been this insane War on Drugs, with all of the police power behind it, there would have been no raid in the first place to trigger her heart attack.

The police has never used these kinds of tactics before the War on Drugs?

No. Most of these tactics are unprecedented. Along with asset forfeiture, etc.

[quote]You don't like the War on Drugs. Fine. I'm not particularly warm to the idea. But you are allowing your biases to influence your critical thinking.

Oh, come on! Are you honestly saying she still would have died if the police hadn't raided the wrong house?

This is eseentially your argument: "But, your honor, how do we know the victim wouldn't have died anyway if my client hadn't shot her in the head?"

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Because if there hadn't been this insane War on Drugs, with all of the police power behind it, there would have been no raid in the first place to trigger her heart attack.

BEEP! Wrong assumption. You have to prove that no person had ever died during a police raid before the War on Drugs. Can you do that?

Originally posted by shanek
No. Most of these tactics are unprecedented. Along with asset forfeiture, etc.

"Most"? How do you know what tactics the police would have used, had there not been a War on Drugs? I can see that the police in Denmark use different, and sometimes stronger, measures in their daily work than 20 years ago, but we don't have any War on Drugs here. So how do you explain that?

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, come on! Are you honestly saying she still would have died if the police hadn't raided the wrong house?

I don't know what would have happened, that's all I am saying. And you don't either. Unless you're psychic, of course...

Originally posted by shanek
This is eseentially your argument: "But, your honor, how do we know the victim wouldn't have died anyway if my client hadn't shot her in the head?"

No, because the person wasn't shot, but had a heart attack.

You are a poor skeptic.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
BEEP! Wrong assumption. You have to prove that no person had ever died during a police raid before the War on Drugs. Can you do that?

Why would I need to? Why would that invalidate the fact that this woman would be alive were it not for the War on Drugs?

"Most"? How do you know what tactics the police would have used, had there not been a War on Drugs?

Pretty much the only other time they break in and raid a house is if there's a kidnapping victim or some other form of immediate danger. "Suspecting someone of drugs" doesn't fall into that category, and yet drug raids are routine!

I don't know what would have happened, that's all I am saying. And you don't either. Unless you're psychic, of course...

Oh, yeah, I'm sure her fatal heart attack was caused by the pea soup she had for breakfast. :rolleyes:

Some more facts:

http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/hemp/prohibition/22.gif

[Martin]

Shane, I think what Claus is getting at is that you need to demonstrate that the total number of these cases which have occured since the beginning of the War on Drugs is higher than it would have been had the War on Drugs never taken place.

Yes, this woman died because of the War on Drugs. Yes, it is very probable that she would still be alive had the War on Drugs never happened. But what you need to show is that whatever the police would have been doing instead would not have been as dangerous.

I don't neccesarily disagree with you, but this case doesn't actually prove anything. It's just argument from emotion.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Why would I need to? Why would that invalidate the fact that this woman would be alive were it not for the War on Drugs?

Because you have to show that she died of the measures that the police are using now, and that she could not have died, had they e.g. broken down the door with axes (or whatever they use).

Originally posted by shanek
Pretty much the only other time they break in and raid a house is if there's a kidnapping victim or some other form of immediate danger. "Suspecting someone of drugs" doesn't fall into that category, and yet drug raids are routine!

You know, you use "elastic" terms an awful lot for someone who claims a direct link. "Pretty much" won't cut it. Nobody ever died of a heart attack during a drug raid before the War on Drugs? That's what you have to show.

Originally posted by shanek
Oh, yeah, I'm sure her fatal heart attack was caused by the pea soup she had for breakfast. :rolleyes:

Hey, I'm not saying that she didn't die of the commotion. I am just questioning your reasoning that it has to be the War on Drugs that killed her.

Originally posted by shanek
Some more facts:
(Image removed)


Yes, that's nice: 12 years old data, and nobody knows what the numbers were before or after. You pick two numbers out and base your whole argument on that.

You are a poor skeptic.

Martinm,

Thanks for clarifying! :)

[shanek]

Here are more people who apparently would have suddenly died of internal hemmorhaging or something anyway had it not been for the War on Drugs:

John Adams (http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/10/06/shooting06.shtml)
Alberto Sepulveda (age 11) (http://www.modbee.com/local/story/2555543p-3054515c.html)
Patrick Dorismond (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n374/a02.html)
Ismael Mena (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1341/a07.html)
Mario Paz (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n926/a08.html)
Pedro Oregon Navarro (http://www.lulac.org/Issues/CivRight/HC10-19.html)
Rev. Accelyne Williams (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/caas/library/PoliceBrutalityjpegs/BostonOfficial_Jet.jpg)
Donald Scott (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n725/a01.html)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Martinm
Shane, I think what Claus is getting at is that you need to demonstrate that the total number of these cases which have occured since the beginning of the War on Drugs is higher than it would have been had the War on Drugs never taken place.

Yes, this woman died because of the War on Drugs. Yes, it is very probable that she would still be alive had the War on Drugs never happened. But what you need to show is that whatever the police would have been doing instead would not have been as dangerous.

The point is, the police shouldn't have been doing it AT ALL!!!! It doesn't matter how many others might or might not have been killed!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Here are more people who apparently would have suddenly died of internal hemmorhaging or something anyway had it not been for the War on Drugs:

John Adams (http://www.tennessean.com/sii/00/10/06/shooting06.shtml)
Alberto Sepulveda (age 11) (http://www.modbee.com/local/story/2555543p-3054515c.html)
Patrick Dorismond (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v00/n374/a02.html)
Ismael Mena (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n1341/a07.html)
Mario Paz (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v99/n926/a08.html)
Pedro Oregon Navarro (http://www.lulac.org/Issues/CivRight/HC10-19.html)
Rev. Accelyne Williams (http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/caas/library/PoliceBrutalityjpegs/BostonOfficial_Jet.jpg)
Donald Scott (http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v98/n725/a01.html)

Yes, that's nice, dear. Now show that nobody died from a heart attack in a police raid before the War on Drugs.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Because you have to show that she died of the measures that the police are using now, and that she could not have died, had they e.g. broken down the door with axes (or whatever they use).

Why would that matter? They shouldn't have been there at all, and wouldn't have had it not been for the War on Drugs!

You know, you use "elastic" terms an awful lot for someone who claims a direct link. "Pretty much" won't cut it. Nobody ever died of a heart attack during a drug raid before the War on Drugs? That's what you have to show.

No, I don't, because THAT DOESN'T MATTER! WHAT MATTERS IS THE POLICE SHOULDN'T BE CONDUCTING THESE DRUG RAIDS AT ALL!!!!

Hey, I'm not saying that she didn't die of the commotion. I am just questioning your reasoning that it has to be the War on Drugs that killed her.

Because that was the impetus for the police busting into her house!

[Frostbite]

Sh*t happens...

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, that's nice, dear. Now show that nobody died from a heart attack in a police raid before the War on Drugs.

Why should I have to? These raids WOULD NOT have happened at all had it not been for the War on Drugs!

[Martin]

Originally posted by shanek
The point is, the police shouldn't have been doing it AT ALL!!!!No, indeed. But if they hadn't been doing that, they probably would have been doing something else. Would that 'something else' have been less dangerous? More? Just the same? Again, this one case demonstrates precisely nothing. You need to go deeper.

[shanek]

Originally posted by Martinm
No, indeed. But if they hadn't been doing that, they probably would have been doing something else.

Why? Given the large amount of police resources and personnel dedicated to the War on Drugs, the likelihood is that after the War is stopped they will be downsized, and therefore not doing anything police-related at all!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by shanek
Why would that matter? They shouldn't have been there at all, and wouldn't have had it not been for the War on Drugs!

"Shouldn't" is a political argument, or at least an opinion: You don't like War on Drugs. Fine. But you have not demonstrated that they wouldn't have been there, had it not been for the War on Drugs. Repeating a claim does not make it true.

Originally posted by shanek
No, I don't, because THAT DOESN'T MATTER! WHAT MATTERS IS THE POLICE SHOULDN'T BE CONDUCTING THESE DRUG RAIDS AT ALL!!!!

There you go again, "shouldn't". Yes, you do, because you claim that this would not have happened, had it not been for the War on Drugs. Ergo, you need to show that this could not have happened before the War on Drugs.

Originally posted by shanek
Because that was the impetus for the police busting into her house!

No, she died (probably) from the commotion when the police entered. What you need to demonstrate is that this could not have happened before the War on Drugs.

Originally posted by shanek
Why should I have to? These raids WOULD NOT have happened at all had it not been for the War on Drugs!

Prove it. That's all I am asking you to do. And it seems that you cannot.

Originally posted by shanek
Why? Given the large amount of police resources and personnel dedicated to the War on Drugs, the likelihood is that after the War is stopped they will be downsized, and therefore not doing anything police-related at all!

On the contrary, the police would be reassigned to other areas of crime. There's a lot of it, you know...

I think it is obvious that we are not going anywhere. You made a claim, you have not been able to back it up.

You are a poor skeptic. End of debate.

[Martin]

Originally posted by shanek
Why? Given the large amount of police resources and personnel dedicated to the War on Drugs, the likelihood is that after the War is stopped they will be downsized, and therefore not doing anything police-related at all! That's a distinct possibility, yes. But can you demonstrate it to be the case? I think the best starting point would be to lay out a brief explanation of what you think are the main reasons for the War on Drugs. Then we'll have something concrete to work with.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by shanek


Why should I have to? These raids WOULD NOT have happened at all had it not been for the War on Drugs!

That's true, but what if the NYPD had made the same mistake but while enforcing some other law, let's say a law concerning armed robbery for instance. Would you be claiming that this woman was a victim of the war against armed robbery? I doubt it.

Unfortunately, the police make mistakes while enforcing laws. That alone is no excuse for repealing them. If it was, there wouldn't be any laws left on the books.

[synaesthesia]

It's just a matter of fact that prohibition has the potential - and tendency - to feed very large amounts of money into a very unsavory portion of the population. Once this has happened, whether you support or oppose the drug war, the fact remains that we must take active stepts to do something about it.

The problem with the drug war is that we have conflabulated two connected but independently important problems. One is the multibillion dollar, international network of black markets. The second is the abuse of psycoactives.

The fight against drug abuse is being fought in such a way that the more effective your policy is against it, the more lucrative the illegal substances become. The more lucrative they become, the more dangerous and powerful become criminal organizations and so to with the government agencies meant to fight them.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
"Shouldn't" is a political argument, or at least an opinion: You don't like War on Drugs. Fine. But you have not demonstrated that they wouldn't have been there, had it not been for the War on Drugs.

:rolleyes: Why else would they have been there?

There you go again, "shouldn't". Yes, you do, because you claim that this would not have happened, had it not been for the War on Drugs.

And it wouldn't. The police had no other reason whatsoever to raid her house. And statistically, the vast majority of us go through our entire lives without police raiding our houses. So yes, we can very much assume the police wouldn't have raided her house had it not been for the War on Drugs!

On the contrary, the police would be reassigned to other areas of crime. There's a lot of it, you know...

Not when compared to the War on Drugs. The majority of police resources are used to wage this war, and almost two thirds of all prison inmates are drug offenders!

[shanek]

Originally posted by Scorpy
That's true, but what if the NYPD had made the same mistake but while enforcing some other law, let's say a law concerning armed robbery for instance. Would you be claiming that this woman was a victim of the war against armed robbery? I doubt it.

Because the police have a proper mandate to enforce armed robbery. There is no such mandate under the Constitution to wage a War on Drugs; hence, they are responsible for any accidents they cause.

Let's say someone robs a bank and then hits and kills an old lady while trying to get away. I think we can all agree that they are guilty of murder, even though accidents kill old ladies all the time and those who cause the accidents are not all guilty of murder.

Unfortunately, the police make mistakes while enforcing laws.

Which is exactly why they shouldn't be enforcing bogus laws!

[CFLarsen]

shanek,

You are not a skeptic, at least not when it comes to this subject.

You clearly have several serious issues with this. You are mixing opinions, beliefs and doubtful statistics to "prove" your point. You pontificate, and you have no intention of looking at the data in a skeptical manner.

In this case, you are as bad as the worst creduloid. I'm sorry to say.

[dingler44]

Originally posted by shanek
The point is exactly what I stated in the title! She'd still be alive today were it not for the insane War on Drugs! Sheesh...

Another interesting deduction might be that if she'd never been born, she never would have died.

It's tragic, yeah. But the day accidental human death stops occuring will be the day humans are extinct.

The occasional, publicized casualities of the War on Drugs are hardly useful in judging the War's utility.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by shanek


Because the police have a proper mandate to enforce armed robbery. There is no such mandate under the Constitution to wage a War on Drugs; hence, they are responsible for any accidents they cause.


And if the Amercan people amended the Constitution last year so that even you would agree the War on Drugs was Constitutionally mandated, would this woman be alive today? No. She was the WRONG person. Would her death have been any less tragic? No. She was the WRONG person. Would the police be any less liable? No. She was the WRONG person.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, that's nice, dear. Now show that nobody died from a heart attack in a police raid before the War on Drugs.

How is that relevant at all? I'm sure there were similiar situations during alcohol prohibition. Police have made mistakes as long as there have been police. The drug war increases the size and scope of what the police do. If there were less raids because drugs were legal, then this woman's chances of being accidentally raided would drop dramatically. The woman like thousands of others, is dead because of the drug war.

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


How is that relevant at all? I'm sure there were similiar situations during alcohol prohibition. Police have made mistakes as long as there have been police. The drug war increases the size and scope of what the police do. If there were less raids because drugs were legal, then this woman's chances of being accidentally raided would drop dramatically. The woman like thousands of others, is dead because of the drug war.

That's like saying a person who got killed by a drunk driver is dead beacause people are allowed to drive cars. I suppose if you disapprove of cars, such reasoning would make sense to you.

Personally, I think the War on Drugs needs a serious rethink. However, I think using this incident as an argument against it is stretching things abit. Ostensibly, the woman died because of police error. I see no reason to shift the blame up to a higher level of abstraction except that by doing so her death can be exploited as anti-drug war propaganda.

[shanek]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
shanek,

You are not a skeptic, at least not when it comes to this subject.

You clearly have several serious issues with this. You are mixing opinions, beliefs and doubtful statistics to "prove" your point. You pontificate, and you have no intention of looking at the data in a skeptical manner.

In this case, you are as bad as the worst creduloid. I'm sorry to say.

Considering that you have made this statement about me in every single thread where we are on opposing sides, you'll forgive me if I don't consider this a burning indictment.

[GrapeJ713]

Originally posted by Scorpy
That's like saying a person who got killed by a drunk driver is dead beacause people are allowed to drive cars. I suppose if you disapprove of cars, such reasoning would make sense to you.


No, I disapprove of people driving drunk. The odds of being killed by a drunk driver while minding your own business in your own home must be astronomical. The flash grenade and a police mistake is what directly caused her death, she was still a casualty of the drug war. That is like saying wars don't cause deaths, it's all those bullets, bombs and shrapnel that cause deaths. It isn't much of an abstraction.

Main Entry: 1cause
Pronunciation: 'koz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin causa
Date: 13th century
1 a : a reason for an action or condition : MOTIVE
b : something that brings about an effect or a result

[RichardR]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Yes, that's nice, dear. Now show that nobody died from a heart attack in a police raid before the War on Drugs.Why does he need to “show that nobody died from a heart attack in a police raid before the War on Drugs”, to demonstrate “She’s still be alive today were it not for the insane War on Drugs!”?

If there had been no war on drugs, the cops would not have raided this woman’s house in the misunderstanding that there was someone connected to the drug trade there. That is because, if there was no war on drugs, having “someone connected to the drug trade there” would not have been a crime. It therefore seems reasonable to assume there would have been no raid. So shanek’s point, that “She’s still be alive today were it not for the insane War on Drugs!” is a reasonable point.

[RichardR]

Originally posted by Martinm
No, indeed. But if they hadn't been doing that, they probably would have been doing something else.And you need to demonstrate they would have been doing that "something else" at the same woman's apartment for her to be just as dead as she is now.

[Frank Newgent]

Originally posted by CFLarsen

Yes, you do, because you claim that this would not have happened, had it not been for the War on Drugs. Ergo, you need to show that this could not have happened before the War on Drugs.

In a related story...

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=299865#post299865

Which particular war on drugs are you referring to, anyhow?

[Martin]

Originally posted by RichardR
And you need to demonstrate they would have been doing that "something else" at the same woman's apartment for her to be just as dead as she is now.

ARGHHH! DAMNIT! DID YOU EVEN READ MY FSCKING POST?! WHY DO I BOTHER? :p

[Reaver]

Originally posted by CFLarsen


These "intruders", as you call them, were the police. Do you advocate the killing of police officers?

Sorry I forgot to put a smiley.

[shemp]

What's the big deal? Just another one for the woodpile, right? Who cares how many dark-skinned people get killed? We have to root out and execute every drug user, from the crack addicts down to the kid smoking a cheap joint, right?

Just another murder in the name of righteousness. I'm sure Dubya slept well last night.

[tamiO]

What happened at 310 W. 143rd Street was meant to be the end result of a drug investigation based on confidential information from a police informant.

I have to wonder how reliable is the information from police informants?

Are these informants people who are looking to get their own drug sentences reduced?

I heard a story about a man who was arrested for possessing a weed. He was told that if he could provide some information they would reduce his sentence. He sent them on a goose chase. His sentence was reduced.

What a crazy circus.

[shanek]

Originally posted by tamiO
Are these informants people who are looking to get their own drug sentences reduced?

Almost always.

I heard a story about a man who was arrested for possessing a weed. He was told that if he could provide some information they would reduce his sentence. He sent them on a goose chase. His sentence was reduced.

I've got a crazier story for you.

Lonnie Lundy hired Richard Rankin only to fire him when he failed a drug test. When Rankin was arrested as a drug dealer, he was told he'd get a reduced sentence if he fingered the bigger fish. He pointed the finger at Lundy, Lundy was arrested and charged despite the fact that no corroborating evidence was found to back Rankin's story. Lundy was convicted and sentenced to life without parole based on nothing but Rankin's testimony.

Later, Rankin had a change of hard and recanted. He wanted to take back his testimony, realizing that it would mean serving out his original sentence; but his conscience could not allow Lundy to spend his life away from his family. The Judge refused to hear him, declaring his previous testimony truthful and said that if Rankin persisted he would be charged with perjury.

Lundy's family appealed to Sen. Richard Shelby, who refused to intervene because it would "send the wrong message." But later, when Shelby's own 30-something son was stopped at customs with 15 ounces of hashish, the Senator intervened and his son didn't spend a single hour in jail.

This is not about justice. This is not about safety. This is not about enforcing the rule of law. This is about wielding power, plain and simple.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by shanek
I've got a crazier story for you.

Got two more! (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/cases/) :)

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by GrapeJ713


No, I disapprove of people driving drunk. The odds of being killed by a drunk driver while minding your own business in your own home must be astronomical. The flash grenade and a police mistake is what directly caused her death, she was still a casualty of the drug war. That is like saying wars don't cause deaths, it's all those bullets, bombs and shrapnel that cause deaths. It isn't much of an abstraction.

Main Entry: 1cause
Pronunciation: 'koz
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old French, from Latin causa
Date: 13th century
1 a : a reason for an action or condition : MOTIVE
b : something that brings about an effect or a result

She's not a casuality of the drug war! As far as the drug laws were concerned the woman was innocent. She WOULD have been left alone if the law had been enforced properly. It was the NYPD's mistake that sent them to her apartment, not the drug war.

[schplurg]

"War on Drugs claims another innocent victim".
I agree.

Let's try this approach:
The less raids that the police conduct, the less likely it is that an innocent will be killed. The war on drugs significantly adds to the total number of police raids, increasing the possibility of innocent deaths. If the war on drugs did not exist, many raids would never take place, meaning that less innocents would die. Since the war on drugs has proven to be ineffective at stopping the trafficking and use of drugs, it has failed. Therefore, people are needlessly dying for a cause that has been proven ineffective.

If there was no war on drugs, less innocent people would die in police raids.

Yes, you do, because you claim that this would not have happened, had it not been for the War on Drugs. Ergo, you need to show that this could not have happened before the War on Drugs. This particular incident, which is what is being discussed, would not have happened if drugs were legal, or "decriminalized". Yes there is a one in a trillion chance that this exact same woman would have been killed in the exact same raid on this exact same day for some other reason, but I would not call that critical thinking.

I think Shane's statement that this woman wouldn't have been killed if there was no war on drugs is much more probable, therefore I'll stick with that. It is true that police make errors like this in all kinds of busts, so this error is not the outstanding factor. One could also say that the war in Iraq didn't claim lives, and that it was the bullets and explosives that did most of the actual damage.

Shane, I think maybe people just need to disagree with you regardless of how many hairs they have to split to do it. Would you like a pillow to soften the blow of your head pounding against this brick wall? ;)

[shanek]

Originally posted by Scorpy
She's not a casuality of the drug war! As far as the drug laws were concerned the woman was innocent. She WOULD have been left alone if the law had been enforced properly. It was the NYPD's mistake that sent them to her apartment, not the drug war.

This is very well-reasoned and rational, and there's only one thing that stops it from being convincing.

As I said earlier, police raids in most other areas are rare things. Police try to avoid them if they can. In the area of drug enforcement, they're almost standard procedure. By taking something that is known to be hazardous and undesirable, and making it simply the way of doing things in the Drug War, they are most certainly responsible for what happened. Yes, the woman was innocent, but the law is supposed to protect the innocent! Where was the law to protect her? The ones who were supposed to be protecting her were the very ones that killed her! And I have to say it yet again: If this had been just about any non-drug related crime, the raid would most likely never have taken place. There would have had to have been an extreme circumstance, like an ongoing kidnapping where the victim's life was in real danger.

I think more people should read Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/) by Peter McWilliams, another innocent victim of the Drug War.

[shanek]

Originally posted by schplurg
Shane, I think maybe people just need to disagree with you regardless of how many hairs they have to split to do it. Would you like a pillow to soften the blow of your head pounding against this brick wall? ;)

Sometimes I feel like I need it. The thing that really gets me is, these are people who understand skepticism and critical thinking.

[tamiO]

Originally posted by Synchronicity

Got two more! (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/snitch/cases/) :)

Thank you. I am reading the interviews. This is outrageous to say the least. :eek: :(

[Scorpy]

Originally posted by shanek


This is very well-reasoned and rational, and there's only one thing that stops it from being convincing.

As I said earlier, police raids in most other areas are rare things. Police try to avoid them if they can. In the area of drug enforcement, they're almost standard procedure. By taking something that is known to be hazardous and undesirable, and making it simply the way of doing things in the Drug War, they are most certainly responsible for what happened. Yes, the woman was innocent, but the law is supposed to protect the innocent! Where was the law to protect her? The ones who were supposed to be protecting her were the very ones that killed her! And I have to say it yet again: If this had been just about any non-drug related crime, the raid would most likely never have taken place. There would have had to have been an extreme circumstance, like an ongoing kidnapping where the victim's life was in real danger.

I think more people should read Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/books/aint/) by Peter McWilliams, another innocent victim of the Drug War.

Why not just change the way drug laws are enforced?

[shanek]

Originally posted by Scorpy
Why not just change the way drug laws are enforced?

Because victimless crimes can't be enforced any other way. There's no victim, no one to complain, no one for the police to act on behalf of.