Suspect puts drugs in his mouth; cop breaks his neck

reply to post by DimensionalDetective


I do not see anything wrong. He didn't do it to kill him, nor did he do it to injure him.

He was trying to cause a regourgatation. But it's one simply unique person who died instead.

If he didn't want his neck broken, he shouldn't have taken drugs which eat your bones and skin.

He did not follow orders and rebelled He got the result.

Originally posted by rcwj75

Originally posted by CuriousSkeptic
The cop just broke the suspect's neck.

Wow, kind of surprising you're a southern cop with the way you think and what you say.

Again who's fault is it REALLY that this incident took place? hmmmmm?

Hah, I see you are of the mind set that ignores a law being measured by the crime. You simply see a black and white scenario and act on that, never considering the morals.

It would be the likes of you, justifying slavery, because someone helping to free a salve is a mere criminal. The moral act, in your eyes, is ignored.

Decades come and go, yet your ilk remain. Humanity is doomed.

Originally posted by grimreaper797
reply to post by CuriousSkeptic

 

Yeah because drug dealers/users NEVER break other laws or kill a cop when confronted.

Ahhh... I wonder if Charles Mansen ever drank milk.

Lets round up milk drinkers, because Im sure all of the people in jail drink milk.

Yes.

Unless we're going to manipulate things to create an agenda. no?

Criminals may use drugs. That does not make all drug users criminals.

My god...


[edit on 14/7/2009 by Ha`la`tha]

Why have they cut sections from the video?

All I can see is man talking to officer, cut to officer asking man to open hand and then struggle ending in man being pinned on car, cut to officer asking man to 'spit it out' then struggle with officer and man landing on floor.


I don't think I can really judge what happened from a video that has clearly been cut to shreds.

Originally posted by star in a jar
The war on drugs is totally out of control

Except it's not a war on drugs..

It's a war on freedom

Brought on by the nanny state epidemic spreading globally where the governments tell you what you can do and tell you what is safe for you.

No longer can you decide or choose for yourself, you must allow the government to make your decisions.

I wish we could live in a world were people are free to do whatever they damn well wish as long as it is does not infringe on another persons freedom.

And by law the cop did nothing wrong, he was following procedure, what he has been taught & trained to do, it is not his fault for what happened it is the fault of the people we put in charge and install the crazy systems we have to abide by!

Originally posted by rcwj75
reply to post by niteboy82

 

Hey if they drop all the drug laws tomorrow it won't hurt my feelings one bit. BUT, be prepared. Be prepared for the REALITY of drug abuse to hit you, your family, and your wallet. You have ANY idea the lengths these jerkoffs will go to get their next fix?????

No we all know you have no clue.

Legalise the drugs these 'jerkoffs' want and you're looking at a few dollars a hit. Now look at the lifestyle. Yeah I see people lining up to get into that - it's not opening doors to people, it's giving those already there a choice, other than the one you happily see them die for.

Who will take care of the people laying in the streets tweeking? YOU? Who will pay their bills? Who will deal with them when they are told it is LEGAL to use meth, heroin, coke, lsd, pcp, etc....are you sure you understand what will happen if we open the floodgates on these drugs?

God you are insane.

Now when you turn your concern to the bloke up the road guzzling down his whiskey and failing in all aspects of his life, instead of saying "Oh jolly mr Watkins, he's such a silly old man, guffaw!" then maybe you have a point.

The REAL drug dealers operate under names associated with strong alcohol. Jim Beam, Johnny Walker, Jack Daniels, etc etc.

Originally posted by rcwj75
Tell that to the 3 burglary victims I dealt with Saturday when 2 crack heads broke into their homes and destroyed EVERYTHING to steal what they could to sell...FOR DRUGS. Guess what...we had victims.

WHY? Because they cant go to the local and buy a cheap bang,

Oh but you can go buy a beer anytime you like.

Why is it so hard to grasp? Your beloved laws are creating the crime. Then you use the crime to enforce the law.

Gah... Im letting this get to me too much. Maybe I need a drink...

No question alcohol is one of the worst drugs out there - and that is why there are laws in place for it.
Can you drive a car drunk? No. Operate machinery? No. Be out in public? Thats why there is the public drunkenness law.

As far as Im concerned as soon as you step foot outside your house high/drunk what happens to you is your own fault. I dont have problems with people getting high and watching the shenanigans of spongebob and patrick... but when they endanger lives of others yes it is my problem, and should be yours too.
And if they sell... I think they ought to go straight to jail.

Listen, the police did not kill this man. He died of "excited delirium."

Adversus solem ne loquitor.

[edit on 7/14/2009 by LostSailor]

Originally posted by rcwj75

Originally posted by Epic Wolf

You're missing the big difference here. Taking the drugs should not be a crime.

I agree, if you wanna get high, go for it, but the second your FIX becomes a burden on ANYONE but yourself, or you cause problems, thats it....I am fine with people who wanna shoot up meth...go right ahead...and when you OD, lose your teeth, etc...touch poop....but again, when you make that choice you should be 100% on your own...and there should be NOOO programs available to those who wanna do them.

Wow, I actually agreed with you right up to the last bit - no programs available to help people?

Uhh... Why?

Look, no one LIKES addiction. But addiction should not be a damn crime. USE should not be associated with ABuse. and while they are often associated, they are not the same.

BUT people who fall into addiction, abuse and a lifestyle that for them is a cycle of hell, WHY not help them?

Or do you also say dont fee the homeless, dont care for the poor sick, ignore the impoverished and lets only cater to the working class?

I am not sure.

I'm actually suprised noone tried to claim that the drugs killed the man

Although one could argue that the drugs ultimately did kill him as if he never had them in his possession he wouldn't have ended up in that situation.

Still I'm all for freedom and personal choice, if a person wants to take drugs it should be their own choice and the business of no others.

I don't know when all of this went to drug abuse instead of the topic at hand ...the thread is getting added to, too fast to keep up lol

but on the subject...

Don't know about where you are, but Canada's cities have meth programs (free) where the junkees line up (registered with doc's note) for their daily 'juice'. In this town, one of the clinics is right across from a highschool. After they get their 'juice' they hang out in an enclosed area with picnik tables and they socialize with others that get the same treatment. They just seem a lil hyper afterwards when they get on a city bus, likely calmed down by the time they get where they are going.

I can only assume this is the way a government keeps them from 'jonsin' for a kick and from roaming the streets upset and angry. I assume most of them are unemployed and on the welfare system.

The one clinic alone has approx. 300 show up daily and these are city/country-wide.

Jails have the same program within their walls. I assume they keep lowering the dosage until a person can kick it.

Originally posted by drwizardphd
I think it's about time we passed a law that an officer cannot touch you at all unless you are or are attempting to directly harm the officer or another person, or are trying to flee. No tazers, no pepper spray, no chokeholds.

There is absolutely no reason for the police to even touch you otherwise. It's an invasion of privacy, a violation of decency and all too often ends up with people getting hurt, or worse, dying.

Was this person on drugs? Yes. Was he going to harm anyone other than himself? No. Did he deserve to die?

I don't think I need to answer that one.

These people are ABUSING their power. Its time we put the 'protect' back in 'protect and serve'.

That's a stupid comment. You're saying that a police officer cannot frisk you to see if you're carrying a knife or a gun? That he cannot stop you from attempting to destroy evidence of a crime by touching you and restraining you?

The US Supreme Court has found that a police officer has the right to perform a protective frisk of a suspect - known as a Terry Frisk (Named for Terry v. Ohio).

Just because some police officers cross the line, it doesn't mean that the entire practice of frisks is wrong. With that attitude, you'd be banning guns because bad people can use them to do bad things.

Originally posted by Blanca Rose

Originally posted by Epic Wolf

However, taking drugs only hurts the user; what he chooses to do under the influence of these drugs is a matter that might turn criminal.

[edit on 7/13/2009 by Epic Wolf]

How many times are you going to say this? I want YOU to tell this to my husbands 3 granddchildren who are 12, 8, and 3 years old.

Their father is sitting in a Louisiana jail with a $250,000 bond because he had a meth lab on the property where they lived. Their mother, who was not home at the time of the bust abandoned them, and fled the state.

They are now living with their aunt who already has 3 children of her own.

Drugs do not just hurt the person who takes them. Get it straight!

BLIND HATRED does not help either.

Joe bloggs takes meth. Goes to work, works 38 hours a week, friday night goes has a blast. Sniffer dogs at the train he gets off at, sniff him out. He is arrested for 1/4 a gram of gear. He's taken to the lockup, and busted.

Joe had no ill intent, and was looking forward to a groovy night out.

The law MADE him a criminal.

If your strawman histrionics work, then so should MINE.

Oh and replace the word METH with any substance in the illegal pharmacopoeia range.

reply to post by Ha`la`tha


But what happens 2 years down the road when Joe is so jonesed that he knocks over an old lady for 50 bucks to get his fix??

laws are in place to keep the casual user from becoming a full blown feind,,



[edit on 14-7-2009 by Redpillblues]

Originally posted by Ha`la`tha
Oh and replace the word METH with any substance in the illegal pharmacopoeia range.

I would also like the mention that now, legal highs are becoming a new danger in the world of drugs to party goers. Most of the drugs that are legal at least have the benefit of many years of research so people know the risks involved with taking them.

However now, although legal these new drugs which are basically chemically identical to illegal drugs just with an extra molecule added here & there to change the chemical structure (thus making them legal) do not come with any research and could potentially be far more dangerous than the drugs that are illegal.

Yet most folk, well mainly all do gooder curtain twitching nobodies who feel a need to intefere with other peoples lives won't bat an eyelad at the new drugs because they are legal (so there's nothing to worry about right ? The government has said it's ok so they must be ok).

But nobody thinks about that unfortunately. One of the biggest dangers at the moment is Gamma-Butyrolactone (GBL for short) which is a prodrug of GHB (fairly new popular party drug until it became banned hence the uptake of GBL consumption). However it's worth noting that GBL is commonly used as a reagent in paint stripper and the difference between an overdoes on this stuff (which can cause a coma or even worse death) is in the single mililitres, yet it's legal for people to take and nobody complains about it.

I just find the hypocracy rather funny that most people only complain about the dangers of illegal substances without bothering about the dangers of legal substances.

Let me just say first that I am not a fan of the 'war on drugs'. Like the previous experiment with the prohibition of alchohol, its simply making criminals richer, and our governments poorer. Besides, why should my government take interest in how John Q Public decides to recreate?

However, based on the dashboard video, the officer did nothing wrong. The guy brought this on himself when he refused to open his hand to show the officer what he had in it. And then chose to struggle rather than simply give it up. From the officer's perspective, the guy may have had a weapon to use against him. The officer had a personal right to know what it was. When an officer is making a stop or arrest, he is at potentially great risk of harm from the person stopped. Think about it for a second - you are the cop, you stop someone, they get out of the car, and you have no idea of what they are up to, or perhaps whoever else may be in the car. When that person struggles, the officer must interpret it as a fight for his life. And until that person ceases to struggle, the threat remains. And that guy was no wimp, he was a big boy, and definately had the potential to do harm to that officer.

I know many folks here will disagree with me, and bring up various examples of police brutality and abuse of authority. Okay, that may sometimes be the case. But in this specific example, and in the western world in general, it doesn't apply. Yes, there are bad cops, but the vast majority try to do the right thing all the time.

Until we all just decide that no form of government is useful, and we might as well have anarchy, we still rely on people lke that officer to keep things relatively sane. Police are why, I feel safe walking down my street without having to wear a firearm, why I can leave my house for a vacation and have a reasonable expectation that it will be there undisturbed when I return, and why when I drive my car, I am pretty sure that the car on the other side of the road will stay on his side of the line. Let's stop trying to characterize all the police, and every stop, as if its just another brick in the road to tyranny and dictatorship. Afterall, some form of 'police' will be necessary in whatever form of government you may wish we rather had.

Originally posted by Redpillblues
reply to post by Ha`la`tha

But what happens 2 years down the road when Joe is so jonesed that he knocks over an old lady for 50 bucks to get his fix??

He wouldn't need to if he could get them on prescription.

laws are in place to keep the casual user from becoming a full blown feind,,

The laws are in place to generate revenue my friend.
If they really wanted it to stop, they could, all they would have to do is lock away the 1's that produce the stuff. But like I said there's alot of revenue to be made by some. ecpecially the secret producers. Its just an old fashioned pyramin scheme with only 1 winner and everybody eles has to suffer because of it.

yeah sure lets make meth legal..

I'm sure you would say that if this was your sister or mother..

Originally posted by Ha`la`tha


BLIND HATRED does not help either.

You are absolutely correct, that I have a hatred of drugs, but I am not blind, and it is crass of you to assume so.

I have seen friends die over drug usage, rob, steal, and ruin entire families. I have had personal heirlooms, and money stolen by family members that are addicted. I have seen people be incarcerated for years because THEY chose to do drugs. It was their choice, and nobody forced them to do drugs.

I have the same feelings about alcohol as I do for drugs. Why should somebody feel a need to do them after working 38 hours of work is beyond me. What's wrong with being in the here and now? Isn't reality good enough to enjoy?

The reality is, this man died because he made the choice to have drugs in his possetion. He chose to be on the road with them, endangering other people. How is it fair for somebody to do that, while endangering other people? How is it fair to the rest of society, that chooses not to do drugs, or drink and drive? The dope head was an idiot who made the wrong choices resulting in his own death.

Laws are in place for a reason. If you choose to break them, then face the consequences.

It's you who are blind that you find justification in blaiming laws that are put into place to protect people, and that means even you.