92 yr old woman resists police state, pays with her life

[lew]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

No we arent. The main point is main suspect not there, 4am no knock warrants, and a citizen dead because she defended herself from random invaders. The fact it was a drug bust only adds to the problem but is not the main one.

Exactly.

The drug thing adds insult to injury.

[six6ftr]

How is it that the cops were not aware of the occupants of the house before entering. Where is the surveillance? Real police work would have shown that they saw their suspect enter the house so the moved in for the arrest. Now you have an informant talking to the media saying that he was told to lie by the police.

[Donkey®]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

No we arent. The main point is main suspect not there, 4am no knock warrants, and a citizen dead because she defended herself from random invaders. The fact it was a drug bust only adds to the problem but is not the main one.

There is nothing random about cops with warrants...and they certainly shouldn't be considered "invaders."

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by Diesel66

No we arent. The main point is main suspect not there, 4am no knock warrants, and a citizen dead because she defended herself from random invaders. The fact it was a drug bust only adds to the problem but is not the main one.

Okay, so again, I'll ask you. If you don't like no knock warrants, then how do you propose entering into a house to serve a warrant without giving the occupants the opportunity to flush drugs down the toilet? Your only answer so far was an undercover policeman. What exactly does that mean? The undercover guy convinces the occupant to open the door, and then the uniformed officers appear out of the bushes and rush in?

[SpicyMcVoodoo]

Originally Posted by six6ftr

How is it that the cops were not aware of the occupants of the house before entering. Where is the surveillance?

Something tells me real cops don't have the man power to do surveillance before every warrant they serve.

[lew]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Okay, so again, I'll ask you. If you don't like no knock warrants, then how do you propose entering into a house to serve a warrant without giving the occupants the opportunity to flush drugs down the toilet? Your only answer so far was an undercover policeman. What exactly does that mean? The undercover guy convinces the occupant to open the door, and then the uniformed officers appear out of the bushes and rush in?

If it's a large enough dealer that it requires multiple officers to break into the residence, there won't be enough time to flush away the evidence.


Your argument rests upon the idea that some big drug dealer worthy of an armed warrant into a house at 4am is only going to have a small amount of drugs on him that will be able to be flushed down the toilet. Your whole "theory" here is full of holes.

[Diesel66]

Originally Posted by SpicyMcVoodoo

Okay, so again, I'll ask you. If you don't like no knock warrants, then how do you propose entering into a house to serve a warrant without giving the occupants the opportunity to flush drugs down the toilet?

The same way they have done it in the last 50 years.

Your only answer so far was an undercover policeman. What exactly does that mean? The undercover guy convinces the occupant to open the door, and then the uniformed officers appear out of the bushes and rush in?

Go during the daytime with a massive force that is clearly police ?

Unless it is a hostage situation or something similar, no knock warrants in the middle of the night are not worth the risk/loss of rights. Cops start doing these more often and everyone will be afraid to defend their house.

[Diesel66]

Drug raid informant says he was asked to lie | ajc.com

oh shit

Atlanta police Chief Richard Pennington confirmed Monday that the informant now claims police asked him to lie about his role in an alleged drug buy that led to the shooting.


The informant, who has not been identified, complained to department officials that the drug investigators involved in the bust had asked him to go along with a story they concocted after the shooting, said Pennington. He said the informant had been placed in protective custody.

The informant told an Atlanta television station that the officers asked him to lie to provide them cover in the shooting.

Pennington confirmed the television station's account of what the informant had claimed and said it mirrored what the informant had told his internal affairs unit over the weekend.

"The informant said he had no knowledge of going into that house and purchasing drugs," Pennington said. "We don't know if he's telling the truth."

All seven narcotics investigators and a sergeant have been suspended with pay pending the investigation, Pennington said. Their names were not made public.

"The complete truth will be known," Pennington said.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Cocaine destroys lives, I'd say it's a pressing reason.

No it doesn't.

[Diamond Cross]

Yes it does:

Cocaine Effects

Cocaine effects are extremely detrimental on the body and the consequences related to cocaine effects can eventually lead to permanent damage, addiction and death. While each person who uses this drug reacts to it differently, there are two distinct categories of cocaine effects: short-term effects and long-term effects. Even if a person has only used cocaine once, he/she can experience short-term cocaine effects. Long-term cocaine effects appear after increased periods of use and are dependent upon the duration of time and amount of cocaine that has been consumed.

Short-term cocaine effects are noticeable immediately and although they are not always damaging, in some cases they have caused serious bodily damage and death. Deaths related to cocaine effects are often a result of cardiac arrest or seizures and respiratory failure. * Some of the short-term cocaine effects first time users experience includes increased energy, decreased appetite, and increased heart rate and blood pressure.

Short-term cocaine effects include:
Increased blood pressure
Constricted blood vessels
Dilated pupils
Mental alertness
Increased energy
Increased heart rate
Decreased appetite
Increased temperature

People who try cocaine often get hooked to the short-term cocaine effects, namely feeling as though they have increased energy. The quick high keeps users feeling energetic and able to endure longer in physical activities. New cocaine users often try cocaine to increase productivity at work and in other areas of their lives so that they can work longer and harder. While these results may seem promising in the beginning, increased tolerance and dangerous life choices often follow repeated cocaine use.

One cocaine effect, appetite suppression, is very popular for people looking to lose weight or maintain a low weight. Fashion models have been known to use cocaine in order to stay thin. Cocaine users often go days without eating and if this behavior is continued it can lead to addiction. Increased heart rate, blood pressure, constricted blood vessels, dilated pupils, and increased temperature are all short-term physiological cocaine effects. When taken in large quantities, cocaine will intensify the user's high and may cause violent and erratic behavior on the part of the user.

Long-tem cocaine effects are noticeable as cocaine abuse continues and tolerance builds. Since cocaine is a highly addictive drug, it can lead to major medical complications and health problems. Some of the these complications include heart disease, heart attacks, respiratory failure, strokes, seizures, and gastrointestinal problems. Other physical symptoms include convulsions, nausea, blurred vision, chest pain, fever, muscle spasms, and coma.

As the habit of using cocaine becomes increasingly important, behavior such as lying, heating, stealing, absenteeism at work and denying the use of cocaine, is an evident side effect. While these behaviors are not directly related to the use of cocaine, these cocaine effects are often present due to the lifestyle of the addict.

Other long-term cocaine effects include:
Addiction
Paranoia
Irritability
Restlessness
Auditory hallucinations
Mood disturbances

With continued use, many cocaine addicts develop a higher tolerance for the drug over time. Addicts are also said to "chase the high"; meaning they continue to use cocaine seeking the feeling they felt the first time they used it. For people addicted to cocaine and cocaine effects, this high will never again be felt in the same way, and this addiction can lead to insanity and death.

Spencer Recovery Centers specializes in the treatment of cocaine effects and cocaine addiction. We understand the pain of addiction and provide drug treatment and recovery options that are customized for each individual. If you or someone you love has a substance abuse problem and needs help, contact us today. For more information and consultation call Spencer Recovery Centers at 800.281.4166.

Link:

Cocaine Effects, Cocaine Withdrawal, Cocaine Treatment

It's no joke and no laughing matter.

[lew]

Cocaine can destroy lives.


But so does a million other things.


America used to be about choice - about having the freedom to choose something. We no longer have that. If someone wants to choose to possibly put their life in danger by using coke, that is their choice and they should be allowed to do that.

Just like if someone chooses to get in a car and drive somewhere today. Far, far more people die every year from driving than they do from coke overdoses.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

Yes it does:
Cocaine Effects



It's no joke and no laughing matter.

Fine.

Dihydrogen-monoxide Effects

• Also called "hydroxyl acid", the substance is a major component of acid rain;
• Contributes to soil erosion;
• Contributes to the greenhouse effect;
• Accelerates corrosion and breakdown of electrical equipment;
• Excessive ingestion may cause various unpleasant effects;
• Prolonged contact with its solid form results in severe tissue damage;
• Inhalation, even in small quantities, may cause death;
• Its gaseous form may cause severe burns;
• It has been found in the tumors of terminal cancer patients;
• Withdrawal by those addicted to the substance causes certain death within 168 hours;

It's no joke and no laughing matter.



I guess we should ban water because that shit destroys lives.


Case in point: "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." That applies to drugs, pencils, "sporks", soap shanks, and all sorts of shit that we make. Don't blame drugs for an individual's decision to destroy their own life.

PS-
As long as we're going to compare chemical compounds, should we also investigate the amount of deaths attributed to water and compare them to the amount of deaths attributed to cocaine? How many drownings are there every year?

[Diamond Cross]

So no dangerous substances should be banned then?

Fine, let's let the average citizen own a pound of Uranium and oh say Get rid of the no lead poisoning and abestoes and use them, and let's get rid of the pollution control laws and force everybody to smoke ten packs a day and allow drunk driving with no penalties.

I mean who really gives a shit if some drunk driver runs over some five year old boys. Oh and lets remove things like rape and child sexual molestation too while we're at it. After all it's fun to do those things and nobody really gets hurt.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

So no dangerous substances should be banned then?

It depends on how they're dangerous. If they're inherently dangerous, as in, they are ALWAYS dangerous to humans, then there should be a ban. Cocaine is actually used in some surgeries to open the nasal cavities, so it can serve a non-dangerous purpose. Not to mention that using it in small amounts isn't dangerous. It's up to the user to regulate their own intake. One can overdose on water (overhydration) and die. Some deaths related to MDMA are actually the result of overhydration. It's about moderation and good judgement.

Fine, let's let the average citizen own a pound of Uranium

What are the harmless purposes for owning uranium?

and oh say Get rid of the no lead poisoning and abestoes and use them,

You could get rid of those, but I'm not likely to go into your building. And I'm sure it would be hard to find employees willing to work in that environment. BTW, asbestos is only dangerous if it's airborn ... and even then, it's really not that bad. In any event, I would support keeping those banned since there's really no benefit to unbanning them.

and let's get rid of the pollution control laws

Pollution has been proven to be a cause of respiratory diseases. I wouldn't want to live in an area that didn't have pollution laws.

and force everybody to smoke ten packs a day

So now you're in favor of forcing people to do things?

and allow drunk driving with no penalties.

Drunk driving is irresponsible and puts others in danger. By your logic of banning cocaine (it's attributed to deaths resulting from poor decisions while under the influence of the substance), we should ban alcohol. Are you in favor of banning alcohol?

I mean who really gives a shit if some drunk driver runs over some five year old boys.

The parents of the five year old boys probably give a shit. I'll bet they would want the drunk driver punished, hence the "drinking and driving" laws, as opposed to some "war on alcohol" bullshit.

Oh and lets remove things like rape and child sexual molestation too while we're at it. After all it's fun to do those things and nobody really gets hurt.

I can't help by see a correlation between this line of thinking and those that say that the allowance of homosexual marriage will result in people marrying goats and fucking babies.

[Diamond Cross]

There's no risk in those substances and they don't destroy lives, so they should'nt be banned. Child molestation doesn't really harm the child and could be beneficial to the child so shouldn't be illegal.

So anything that doesn't destgroy lives and isn't really harmful should be legal. Much like cocaine.

It's either all or.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by Diamond Cross

There's no risk in those substances and they don't destroy lives, so they should'nt be banned.

Which substances. You've brought up quite a few. Be specific.

Child molestation doesn't really harm the child and could be beneficial to the child so shouldn't be illegal.

Child molestation is a sexual act with a child, not a substance. But if you want to get into that, I'd say that children do not have the capacity to make responsible decisions. While most decisions are left to the parents, not all are, and for a good reason. Parents should be able to choose whether or not a young child shall have sex with an adult. Because of the child's lack of capacity to understand the subject, we acknowledge that having sex with a child is a forceful act (a type of coercion), even if the child is willingly doing it. I favor protection from force of any kind.

So anything that doesn't destgroy lives and isn't really harmful should be legal. Much like cocaine.

Is that to suggest that child molestation doesn't destroy lives? I'm pretty sure that there's a psychological consensus that would disagree with you. In any event, I believe that there should only be protection from "force and fraud."

It's either all or.

Typical American political bullshit. "All or nothing." "With me or against me." "Left or right." "Democrat or Republican." "Liberal or conservative." I think this statement is indicative of your propagandized political views.

[JaJae]

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

Which substances. You've brought up quite a few. Be specific.

How about cocaine? Cocaine is a highly addictive drug that has strong negative effects on the brain and body, thus having strong effects on the person's personality, mental health and personal life.

To say

Originally Posted by Dumpy Dooby

I guess we should ban water because that shit destroys lives.

is a bit of an absurd defense to the statement that cocaine destroys lives.

[Dumpy Dooby]

Originally Posted by JaJae

How about cocaine? Cocaine is a highly addictive drug that has strong negative effects on the brain and body, thus having strong effects on the person's personality, mental health and personal life.

Those are all problems associated with bad judgement and lack of moderation. If people prefer to kill themselves with cocaine, I see no reason to stop them. If they start doing stupid shit to feed their habbit, then throw them in jail. Rehabs are available for those that no longer want to impair their judgement (didn't our president have a cocaine problem at one time?). There's a lot of Wall Street corporate buffs that use drugs, especially cocaine and meth, and they still manage to function in society. Psychologists call them "functional drug addicts." So if that's what it takes for these people to function, then let them. If it makes them become disfunctional, then punish them. It's really a simple process.

To say

is a bit of an absurd defense to the statement that cocaine destroys lives.

It's not if you read the rest of my posts explaining why I chose that particular "absurd" defense. My comparison to guns was also relevant, as was my comparison to drunk-driving.