Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Update on Chesapeake, Virginia Drug Raid
A local television station has obtained copies of the search warrants leading to the drug raid in which 28-year-old Ryan Frederick shot and killed police officer Jarrod Shivers.
The initial warrant claims a confidential informant told police Frederick was operating a sophisticated marijuana grow operation in a detached garage near his home. The warrant says the informant first informed police about the operation in November, and that the informant was in both the garage and Frederick's bedroom within 72 hours of the raid. The raid seems to have been conducted solely on the word of the informant. It makes no mention of a controlled buy at the house, nor does it mention any surveillance or other corroborating investigation.
Let's assume the informant was telling the truth. Why in the world was the forced entry necessary? If this guy was running a sophisticated grow with a hydroponic watering system, there's no way in hell he could have disposed of the evidence. Why not wait until he wasn't home to execute the search warrant? Why force confrontation? Frederick had no prior criminal record. Even if he were growing plants, it's hard to fathom that a guy would knowingly kill a police officer over some marijuana plants.
Here's where it gets weird. After the initial raid, the police obtained a second search warrant to go back into the home. The return sheet for that warrant lists a gun, some ammunition, a "shoe," a TV, and few other items. It says nothing about any drugs, hydroponic equipment, or drug paraphernalia. Perhaps the police only searched the house on the second sweep, and didn't search the detached garage. But it's been more than four days now, and police have yet to say anything about finding any drugs at all in Frederick's home, much less a major marijuana operation in his garage. When police legitimately find drugs in one of these raids, that's generally one of the first things they release to the public. It makes the raid appear justified. And it makes the suspect appear guilty. Perhaps they'll come forward with all of this in ensuing days. But right now, it's odd that they haven't.
The article also mentions that the court had to postpone Frederick's arraignment because he hasn't been able to find an attorney.
Note: Please refrain from making disparaging remarks about Officer Shivers in the comments section. The man left behind a family. We also don't yet know what happened. Criticize the policy and tactics all you like. There will be lots of time to figure out what happened in this particular case. But let Officer Shivers' family mourn. Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated.
|1.22.08 @ 11:59PM|#
When police legitimately find drugs in one of these raids, that's generally one of the first things they release to the public. It makes the raid appear justified. And it makes the suspect appear guilty. Perhaps they'll come forward with all of this in ensuing days. But right now, it's odd that they haven't.
Looks like it's taking the police a little longer than they had
expected to dig up all the "drugs, hydroponic equipment, or drug
paraphernalia" that they um... "found" at the site. They probably
had to call around to neighboring jurisdictions for help when they
realized their reach had exceeded their grasp with this ambitious
warrant.
And, if the cops have learned anything from these raids-gone-bad,
it's how to get their story straight first. Unlike their police
work in general, when fabricating excuses they know it's important
to take their time to do the job right the first time.
Ventifact|1.23.08 @ 12:09AM|#
One other thing that doesn't make sense is why an informant
would make such grand and specific claims if he didn't know them to
be true.
Also, props for the class displayed in the final paragraph of the
post, Mr. Balko.
.|1.23.08 @ 12:09AM|#
In before Nancy_Randian makes an asshole out of himself. Well on this comment thread anyways.
Mona|1.23.08 @ 12:11AM|#
But let Officer Shivers' family mourn. Going forward,
comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of
this one--will not be tolerated.
That man and his family may well be as much a victim of this
militarized war on (people who use) drugs as so many others have
been, a lot of cops included.
Argo|1.23.08 @ 12:12AM|#
"In before Nancy_Randian makes an asshole out of himself."
But by an amazing coincidence, you got in at the exact time you
made an ass of yourself.
.|1.23.08 @ 12:17AM|#
"In before Nancy_Randian makes an asshole out of
himself."
But by an amazing coincidence, you got in at the exact time you
made an ass of yourself.
Only because you were slower.
Cosmo-Blasphemy Boundary Test |1.23.08 @ 12:26AM|#
The man left behind a family.
He shouldn't have done that.
|1.23.08 @ 12:38AM|#
Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or
celebrating the death of this one--will not be
tolerated.
Not be tolerated? I assume that means they will be removed, and the
offending commenter might possibly be banned?
It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of speech. So much is
tolerated here, it's one of our greatest strengths. Where else do
you see such engagement of dissenting views and even trolls.
I understand the sentiment being expressed here. I agree that such
comments are inappropriate and contemptible. Still, I'd rather see
chastisement over censorship.
At least the policy is being stated up front so we know where the
line is being drawn.
.|1.23.08 @ 12:40AM|#
We also don't yet know what happened.
Very true. Which is why I have confined my comments to those
commenting on the situation.
After the initial raid, the surviving police
obtained a second search warrant to go back into the home.
miche|1.23.08 @ 12:46AM|#
Radley,
Thank you so much for remaining human while documenting inhumane
acts. You are a gentleman and can only bring positive light to our
position on this matter.
|1.23.08 @ 12:54AM|#
It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of
speech.
What did they do, shut down your blog or something?
thoreau|1.23.08 @ 12:55AM|#
Warren, you know the libertarian boilerplate as well as I do:
"It isn't censorship because it's a privately owned yadda yadda
yadda...."
And I, for one, cannot bring myself to celebrate any death
resulting from the insane Drug War. It may be that some of the
victims of the drug war were eager participants in the insanity,
but that's no reason to rejoice in a death. In a world with sane
policies those people would be alive to make their own mistakes at
their own expense, and maybe even learn some lessons.
LibertyPlease|1.23.08 @ 1:01AM|#
And I, for one, cannot bring myself to celebrate any death resulting from the insane Drug War.
Then you sir, would be more civil than
many of our nation's hired peace officers.
Metal Messiah|1.23.08 @ 1:04AM|#
It occurs to me that our second amendment rights are
incompatible with the police state we are trying to create.
Thanks to the second amendment, the American people have the right
to keep arms for self defense. As such, every time the police go to
arrest someone they're looking at a potential exchange of
gunfire.
And we also find ourselves living in a political climate that seeks
to criminalize any number of non-violent victimless crimes ranging
from marijuana possession, gambling, prostitution and
pornography.
At some point, we're either going to have to give up our right to
keep and bear arms or stop using the legal system to punish sin and
vice and save the SWAT teams for actual violent offenders.
fire_the_Judge|1.23.08 @ 1:18AM|#
Of course, the person really responsible for all of this has judicial immunity.
LibertyPlease|1.23.08 @ 1:22AM|#
It occurs to me that our second amendment rights are incompatible with the police state we are trying to create.
I hearby propose calling it the Hero State, and nominate Bush for
the Congressional Medal of Tyranny Herodom for filing
that amicus brief with SCOTUS to do away with those pesky 2nd
Amendment Privileges!
|1.23.08 @ 1:33AM|#
Wow, LibertyPlease, that site you linked to, pretty heady
stuff:
This was like 3 posts in:
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!
Then this one a few minutes ago:
JackBootedBlueLine, Kiss my ass, BITCH!! Anytime you think
you're so bad just call 911 and level some threats to your local PD
that are not so anonymous. You are a civilian NOTHING - act like
it. Your thoughts, opinions, and the air you breathe are NOTHING.
Crawl back in your hole and smoke or inject your dope and continue
your dungeons and dragons fantasy world where you are a lord with
something to input. Other than that you're not a boil on this
Detective's ass who actually contributed something to the world he
lived in. Is there something is thread bringing out the
mentals????
LibertyPlease|1.23.08 @ 1:40AM|#
You are a civilian NOTHING - act like it.
Yeah, we're all just civilians now. Well, except for those
superiorly badged civilians.
|1.23.08 @ 2:39AM|#
In before Nancy_Randian makes an asshole out of
himself
Eh, wot's all this now? Some kind of low buzzing sound mixed with
the putrid stench of santorum.
It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of
speech.
Warren, like thoreau said: You know better.
For all of you quoting the militant sentiments given by a few (or
many) commenters on a police officers' discussion board, so what?
Would you like it if they quoted some of horrible crap that was
posted here last week as representative of libertarians?
No? then why would you do the same thing?
|1.23.08 @ 2:57AM|#
"For all of you quoting the militant sentiments given by a few
(or many) commenters on a police officers' discussion board, so
what? Would you like it if they quoted some of horrible crap that
was posted here last week as representative of libertarians?"
I think an important consideration is how many commenters are
saying these things, and how others respond to them. I haven't
looked at the particular thread where the repugnant "You are a
civilian NOTHING" line comes from, but I have gone to other police
discussion threads, and in my experience this sort of shit 1) is
much more common, and 2) goes unchallenged far more often than
occurs here.
Maybe your experiences are different; if so, I'd be curious to hear
about them. Otherwise, that's a hugely important difference. If
shitbags like Hagbard (on a previous thread on this topic) are
quickly and widely criticized here, while "You are a civilian
NOTHING" guys are accepted or even encouraged on those threads,
there's not much comparison. A lot of groups have assholes like
that; how others respond to them is more telling than their
existence.
|1.23.08 @ 4:11AM|#
If shitbags like Hagbard (on a previous thread on this
topic) are quickly and widely criticized here, while "You are a
civilian NOTHING" guys are accepted or even encouraged on those
threads, there's not much comparison. A lot of groups have assholes
like that; how others respond to them is more telling than their
existence.
Well said.
M|1.23.08 @ 4:16AM|#
Reading the different opinions people post stimulates me to
consider viewpoints other than my own. Reading still others'
responses to those viewpoints, I learn more about those others than
I had known from their previous comments, and am sometimes moved to
appreciate more humane aspects of posters I might have been more
familiar with from their cruder expressions.
I was repeatedly gratified to see the rally championing individual
officers' safety while roundly condemning the policies these agents
execute. At the same time, those who, to me shockingly, celebrated
the death of a servant of aggression gave me occasion to think
through the implications more concretely. Witnessing, and perhaps
participating in, the conflict offers me new angles for future
discussions with others and within my own mind. I am still new
enough to libertarianism to profit from exposure to opposing
viewpoints that seem obvious to their respective possessors.
Unpopular expressions and their ensuing disputes are more
instructive than the many, many gratuitous insults and cuss-words I
read here. The latter material is something I accept as the price
for more useful information for which I've learned to skim, and
when it becomes burdensome, I take a break. Access to what
flourishes under license for expression is what draws me back.
|1.23.08 @ 4:23AM|#
"It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of speech."
Your freedom of speech is in no way affected by how the owners of
this web site choose to operate it. Say what you want, on your own
dime, on your own site. When you post on someone else's site, you
accept their terms.
-jcr
M|1.23.08 @ 4:25AM|#
What, btw, is the legal status of tasers in private ownership, which would seem one way to prevent this sort of thing?
|1.23.08 @ 4:34AM|#
One little tidbit before I go to work ... and it is a bit off topic, but in keeping with the scary neo-con, chest-thumping, knocking down your doors to keep you safe attitude ... talk about Petraeus in 2012 is starting to heat up now. Here is the link
I like Ike and George W(ashing|1.23.08 @ 6:44AM|#
One little tidbit before I go to work ... and it is a bit
off topic, but in keeping with the scary neo-con, chest-thumping,
knocking down your doors to keep you safe attitude ... talk about
Petraeus in 2012 is starting to heat up now. Here is the
link
Because every other general we've elected has been a warmongering
neo-con, anxious to involve us in foreign wars and completely
beholden to the military-industrial complex.
|1.23.08 @ 6:53AM|#
Don't count on an attitude similar to Radley's from the blue brotherhood who will gleefully cheer at the execution of Ryan Frederick.
|1.23.08 @ 7:49AM|#
What, btw, is the legal status of tasers in private
ownership, which would seem one way to prevent this sort of
thing?
Legal almost everywhere, ineffective against body armor.
|1.23.08 @ 8:10AM|#
"Your freedom of speech is in no way affected by how the owners
of this web site choose to operate it. Say what you want, on your
own dime, on your own site. When you post on someone else's site,
you accept their terms."
I swear "libertarians" are a trip sometimes.
Freedom of speech is good because:
1. More freedom is good (y'know, "liberty")
2. Speech does no one direct harm
3. More speech is beneficial to society
Sure, an entity that is actively shutting down others speech is of
course worse than one denyng speech on its own (fairly public mind
you) forum. But one can still criticize the latter as wrong. All
Reason/Balko needed was to argue as Balko did above that
criticizing the cop is wrong. Fight speech with speech.
You guys should be called "privatarians" or "contractarians" since
at heart whether there is more freedom in the world is at best a
secondary concern to your property rights worship.
LibertyPlease|1.23.08 @ 8:11AM|#
What, btw, is the legal status of tasers in private ownership, which would seem one way to prevent this sort of thing?
As the police keep demonstrating, Tasers are a punative measure to
be used only when there is no danger. If there are armed intruders
in your house your best bet is a 12ga loaded with 00 buckshot.
Taser is too risky, and besides, the non-LEO versions are defanged
(like everything else).
I'm not advocating shooting police, but with the way they execute
these RAIDs you won't be able to tell who is invading at first. You
have to protect you and yours first, then sort out if they were
random criminals or the state-sponsored kind.
|1.23.08 @ 8:13AM|#
"If this guy was running a sophisticated grow with
hydroponics and a watering system, there's no way in hell
he could have disposed of the evidence."
Hydroponics is a watering system.
Dave W.|1.23.08 @ 8:32AM|#
My proposals (well, I think I might have ripped nos. 1 and 4 off
Mr. Balko):
1. legalize the drugs (I think the US is far likelier to
decriminalize drugs than to cut back on gun rights).
2. failing #1, no SWAT raids for a couple crack rocks or a bag of
weed -- exclude evidence from SWAT raids unless the evidence shows
a crime of violence (from before the swat raid was called). If the
drug stash is large enough then a conventional service of search
warrant will be sufficient to preserve the evidence, and if the
drug stash is small, then there is no need to put police officers
and non-police officers at risk. This could be done by extending
the exclusionary rule.
3. Failing #1 and #2, there should be heightened requirements to
get a warrant for surprise entry raids. No "confidential
informants." If there is an informant, then you bring him before
the magistrate. Also, a higher evidentiary standard than mere
probable cause should apply for a surprise entry raid.
4. make police officers film the notice given at the SWAT raid, so
that if the police are going to say that they "announced," after
the raid goes badly and a copper catches one in the teeth, then we
can see if that is really true before charging the unsuspecting
occupant of the dwelling with murder one.
|1.23.08 @ 8:41AM|#
Legal almost everywhere, ineffective against body
armor.
If one were to attempt using a taser on a cop, one would probably
get a few magazines emptied into one - unless the officer was
alone.
|1.23.08 @ 8:59AM|#
I think the US is far likelier to decriminalize drugs than
to cut back on gun rights
Really? I mean... really!?
Rimfax|1.23.08 @ 9:00AM|#
What's the drink count so far? I'm confused. I think that I drink for Mr. Nice Guy's comment....
Episiarch|1.23.08 @ 9:01AM|#
Legal almost everywhere, ineffective against body
armor.
Also ineffective against multiple assailants.
You guys should be called "privatarians" or "contractarians"
since at heart whether there is more freedom in the world is at
best a secondary concern to your property rights
worship.
I guess you don't understand the First Amendment then. Not
surprising, but it's funny that you would feel comfortable exposing
yourself as an idiot like that.
|1.23.08 @ 9:03AM|#
I don't know the importance of this but does the confidential informant share any responsibility in this from a legal standpoint?
|1.23.08 @ 9:15AM|#
I trust the Reason moderators to balance offensive posts/posters
with care. This is day-in and day-out one of the best blogs out
there.
Removal of offensive posts is usually move effective than bans
which seem to encourage the really vile to adopt a new pseudonym
and get more agressive.
As to the matter at hand, I don't see justification for forced
entry except where there is strong evidence of multiple armed
suspects. In every other case, detaining the person
entering/leaving and then searching the property seems far safer
for all involved.
Haven't the cops ever heard of Recon?
|1.23.08 @ 9:16AM|#
MNG, No, No Please. No more complicated labels that take days to
sort out.
Radley is only saving us from ourselves. It only takes one or two
radical assholes to give enemies of freedom enough fodder to hang
us.
|1.23.08 @ 9:23AM|#
You guys should be called "privatarians" or "contractarians"
since at heart whether there is more freedom in the world is at
best a secondary concern to your property rights
worship.
I didn't realize freedom and property rights were separable.
PoliceLink|1.23.08 @ 9:24AM|#
The cop discussion degenerated pretty quickly - not good on a condolences thread. However, there's a new (non-condolences) thread on PoliceLink to discuss the issues...
|1.23.08 @ 9:25AM|#
Question: What is the liklhood that the alleged criminal will be
found to be not guilty of any drug related crime yet still be on
the hook for killing a police officer when the only reason for
firing during the raid was that his home was being invaded? Yeah, I
thought so.
The problem I see from this is that the officers death will always
be solely placed on the alleged criminal (even if no other crime is
ever found). Neither the judge, the commanding officers, the
deceased officer, nor the informant will take any heat here. (OK,
maybe the informant to some small degree.) The end result will be
that such raids will continue as they always have and potentially
more police and homeowners will be killed unnecessarily. Rarely, do
we learn from our mistakes.
By the way, why do cops TRUST informants? Seems ironic.
Taktix®|1.23.08 @ 9:34AM|#
I swear "libertarians" are a trip sometimes.
I know it's early, but...
DRINK!
|1.23.08 @ 9:36AM|#
So Radley, we can still celebrate the death of "civilian
nothings" all we want, right? Yeehaw!
(And thanks for the suggestion, Taktix. I think I just might.)
|1.23.08 @ 9:47AM|#
I know it's early, but...
Let's not keep up appearances.
We're all alcoholics, let's embrace our inner wino and be on with
it!
So Radley, we can still celebrate the death of "civilian
nothings" all we want, right?
No, "we" cannot, and considering it wasn't a problem on the board
(whereas the celebration of a LEO's death was), I hardly see the
need for Mr. Balko to address it.
"we" are subject to the rules of this website. So suck it up.
Dave W.|1.23.08 @ 9:50AM|#
Really? I mean... really!?
1. I cross posted that post from another discussion. That comment
wasn't really relevant here, so I should have deleted it.
2. However, it is interesting as to why guns came up in discussion
at the other board. The other board is more international than
here, and the comment you tend to get is: "since you guys have gun
rights, of course this type of police behavior is needed." I don't
agree, but that is what outsiders looking in, say, fwiw.
3. Finally, to answer your question: as far as any large changes
go, I do think decrim of drugs is more likley than crim of guns. As
far as small changes go, that is probably likelier in the gun area
than the drug area. But, that is just a gut instinct. I don't
really have an articulable basis for this hunch.
|1.23.08 @ 9:52AM|#
Dave W:
A heightened evidentiary standard for SWAT raids is reasonable. But
we're in the midst of a right-wing shift away from the
exclusionary rule, not towards embracing it. Remember all the
hullabaloo about Scalia's "new professionalism" in police work?
When it becomes apparent that our Constitutional rights depend on
some crazy, out-of-touch, made-up shit from Justice Scalia and the
American public buys into it, I can't imagine we'll
progress towards a more sensible policy. We haven't shown any sense
in the past, why would Americans all of the sudden "get it"?
Dave W.|1.23.08 @ 10:08AM|#
A heightened evidentiary standard for SWAT raids is
reasonable. But we're in the midst of a right-wing shift away from
the exclusionary rule, not towards embracing it. Remember all the
hullabaloo about Scalia's "new professionalism" in police work?
When it becomes apparent that our Constitutional rights depend on
some crazy, out-of-touch, made-up shit from Justice Scalia and the
American public buys into it, I can't imagine we'll progress
towards a more sensible policy. We haven't shown any sense in the
past, why would Americans all of the sudden "get it"?
If the exclusionary rule is in flux, then that may present an
opportunity for change in a way that helps everybody.
One compromise would be to get rid of the exclusionary rule for
very serious crimes only, but to enforce it more seriously when the
evidence is evidence of something less than murder, rape or
kidnapping.
Another compromise would be to keep the exclusionary rule in the
case of surprise entry raids, but get rid of it in the case of
raids with notice to the suspect.
By letting go of some applications of the exclusionary rule that
rub crime-nuts the wrong way, we may be able to strengthen in
contexts that matter, using a sort of jurisprudential ju-jitsu.
B|1.23.08 @ 10:36AM|#
"Note: Please refrain from making disparaging remarks about
Officer Shivers in the comments section. The man left behind a
family. We also don't yet know what happened. Criticize the policy
and tactics all you like. There will be lots of time to figure out
what happened in this particular case. But let Officer Shivers'
family mourn. Going forward, comments calling for the death of
cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be
tolerated"
That you actually have to tell people on this site not to make
disparaging comments about the death of a man devoted to protecting
the citizenry of his town speaks volumes about the people who post
here on a regular basis. What is even worse is that people on this
site actually seem to be indigant about the rule. Absolutely
pathetic.
I guess this asinine mindset partially explains why so many people
have spilled so much ink apologizing for the vile bigot, and
interference-runner for Truthers, Ron Paul.
|1.23.08 @ 10:38AM|#
I cannot mourn Officer Shivers' death when his brothers have raided my house, lied to get the search warrant, and threatened to sodmise me in front of my two year old daughter. Will they not celebrate if their lies and coerced confessions rip me away from my daughter? He made his bed and I will not mourn.
|1.23.08 @ 10:45AM|#
comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the
death of this one--will not be tolerated.
Thank you, Radley.
B|1.23.08 @ 10:47AM|#
"It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of speech"
No one is limiting your freedom of speech you hyperbolic
primadonna. This is a privately owned-site, not an agent of the
government. I guess if someone came on this site and started making
vile racial statements about black people and how horrible they
were, Reason would have to tolerate it? Oh wait, I am still
thinking about the Ron Paul newsletters.
You have just as much right as you always did to smear this cop,
you just have to do it elsewhere, or are you suggesting Reason be
compelled to post your opinion. Wow, what a remarkably libertarian
impulse, poser.
Frankly, I think they should post your comments. That way, this
site can be held up for richly-deserved ridicule along with the
sites that cheer Tony Snow's cancer recurrence and Dick Cheney's
heart condition. Because let's face it, the commentary from the
posters here is no more insightful then that found on Democratic
Underground.
|1.23.08 @ 10:48AM|#
That you actually have to tell people on this site not to
make disparaging comments about the death of a man devoted to
protecting the citizenry of his town speaks volumes about the
people who post here on a regular basis
B,
Thanks for making nice broad generalizations about all regular Hit
and Run posters based on the comments of a few drop-ins. You're
doing great work there.
B|1.23.08 @ 10:49AM|#
"I cannot mourn Officer Shivers' death when his brothers have
raided my house, lied to get the search warrant, and threatened to
sodmise me in front of my two year old daughter. Will they not
celebrate if their lies and coerced confessions rip me away from my
daughter? He made his bed and I will not mourn."
His brothers? So now all police are awful because of the actions of
a few bad apples? Wow, the reactions to a reasonable restriction
are even more retarded than I thought they would be.
PoliceLink|1.23.08 @ 10:52AM|#
This post surely wins the thread over at the PoliceLink thread,
where any attempt to suggest that Ryan Frederick may have a chance
of being proved innocent results in deletion:
with that being said and as I will say I feel you are a attempting to inflame an arguement and to distrute the order of this site and your numerious name changes shows this
and since you feel your opinion is a calm and rational one then my opinion is stated the same for a person to come onto a police site and desicreate a posting of condulences is the highest form of if disrespect and then to further question legalities without proof to those who request proof ( or as you might state, " prove your an expert witness") otherwise I see you as malitiously and with forethought attempting to create an inflamed situation.. you have shown no real evidence to support otherwise . your tacide responses of my condulences to the family is a smoke screen for your launches of your manifestios you've posted under a number of different names.. and the sooner this situation is resovled the better your posts have no redeeming value to this site
Join in the
fun...
B|1.23.08 @ 10:54AM|#
"B,
Thanks for making nice broad generalizations about all regular Hit
and Run posters based on the comments of a few drop-ins. You're
doing great work there.'
I am not making broad generalizations, genius. I am making reasoned
observations based upon quite a bit of experience reading the
comments that are always made by a large percentage of the people
that post here. I can't remember a story ever posted on this site
where the death of a police officer was not cheered in a case like
this. And this is exactly why the author felt the need to make the
restriction, because it is so common on this site. All one has to
do is read the replies by the various crybabies concerning said
restriction to know I am right.
T|1.23.08 @ 11:01AM|#
I guess if someone came on this site and started making vile
racial statements about black people and how horrible they were,
Reason would have to tolerate it?
Paging Grand Chalupa... Grand Chalupa, you have a comment from a
Mr. B...
JC Denton|1.23.08 @ 11:03AM|#
His brothers? So now all police are awful because of the
actions of a few bad apples? Wow, the reactions to a reasonable
restriction are even more retarded than I thought they would
be.
Not defending Bob Dobbs and his opinion, but haven't you just
painted all "regular" posters here as essentially vile for the
postings of a few (in your 10:36 comment), and now condemn a man
for painting all cops as awful based on the actions of a few?
Isn't there a word for that?
|1.23.08 @ 11:05AM|#
It saddens me when H&R limits our freedom of
speech.
You do realize that this is Reason's house. When people spout
obscene, disgusting, morally objectionable things in my house, I
show them the door. I don't generally invite them back. How about
you?
DavidS|1.23.08 @ 11:10AM|#
You do realize that this is Reason's house.
I think we all get the private property argument, J sub D. I think
Warren was simply stating his opinion that this should not be dealt
with by banning people.
Personally, I disagree (mostly because Radley's work on this issue
will be discredited very easily if he does not take this line), but
Warren's was a reasonable opinion, coherently stated.
|1.23.08 @ 11:11AM|#
Why is Ryan Frederick having trouble getting a lawyer? Is is
lack of funds or are the legal beagles afraid of the cops?
comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the
death of this one--will not be tolerated.
Amen. For those who don't like it, you're not welcome in my house,
either.
|1.23.08 @ 11:16AM|#
So, can we all agree to celebrate the fact that Ryan
Frederick survived?
Hell yes. Nobody should die over marijuana. Not cops, not users,
not dealers. Nobody.
PoliceLink|1.23.08 @ 11:19AM|#
So, can we all agree to celebrate the fact that Ryan
Frederick survived?
Not if you're posting on PoliceLink you can't seemingly:
glad to see that this turned back into what it was supposed to be to begin with....a tribute to Det Shivers! R.I.P. brother and lets hang this bastard Frederick!!
T|1.23.08 @ 11:19AM|#
So now all police are awful because of the actions of a few
bad apples?
No, all police are awful because there is a systemic problem with
how police departments are organized and trained. The actions of a
few bad apples simply serve to point out just how badly broken the
system is at this point.
Anarcho Agoro|1.23.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Those vaunted LEOs were sent to kick down a man's door in the
dark of night, seize the man by force (to be imprisoned and
ransomed), and search his home for valuables to seize. I feel
exactly as much sorrow for the dead man as I would for a gangland
enforcer subjected to the same treatment while trying to execute
the same brigand's mission and calling it a "job".
The self righteous outrage being heaped upon those not displaying
proper sorrow for the tragic loss of human life is not moral in
nature. It's nasty monkey troop politics taken to semantics.
Aspiring troupe leaders find an unpopular monkey to beat on, so as
to demonstrate to teh observers how bad-ass they are.
*insert that appropriate Robert Anson Wilson passage here*
|1.23.08 @ 11:31AM|#
For the record I know that not all police are not awful. The fact is I vacation with police officers who know me and love my daughter. They will be at my trial to vouch for my character and my innocence. Officer Jarrod Shivers was a narcotics officer. This is the fact which removes all pity from my heart. If a beat cop was killed stopping a bank robery I would mourn. Officer Jarrod Shivers made his bed and I will not mourn.
|1.23.08 @ 11:32AM|#
This is really very simple. When a large group of loud, armed
men in body armor breaks into your house, the only sensible thing
to do is lay face down on the floor, put your hands behind your
head, and comply with instructions. After all, the government
authorized the search warrant, and the government would not do
anything unethical in the process of obtaining a search warrant.
Only a criminal would object to having his home searched by the
police.
Fear is a useful emotion. Only a criminal would not feel fear and
consider defending his home against armed invasion. Law-abiding
citizens have nothing to hide and should welcome the government
into their homes with open arms, as soon as the police officers
decide it is okay to uncuff them.
Remember, as civilian nothings, it is our civic duty to obey
precisely and instantly every order given by any police officer. A
badge gives a police officer infinitely more freedom and authority
than an ordinary person, as well as the privilege of being simply
"better" than people who are not police officers. To a seasoned,
well-trained police officer, all civilians are potential criminals,
and it only makes sense that police officers be as aggressive as
they possibly can in order to protect themselves from harm. If a
few civilian nothings are injured or killed along the way, those
civilian nothings should die knowing that they were helping to
promote peace and order.
However, every police officer who dies in the line of duty is a
martyr and a saint. He will be instantly canonized by his peers and
regarded as a hero by the civilian nothings of his jurisdiction,
who know that, however he may have acted in life, his death was a
senseless atrocity, a sacrifice in the long war to prevent criminal
civilian nothings from doing horrible things that hurt other
people, like smoking marijuana or playing poker in their living
rooms.
T|1.23.08 @ 11:33AM|#
Hell yes. Nobody should die over marijuana. Not cops, not
users, not dealers. Nobody.
Amen to that.
Jennifer|1.23.08 @ 11:37AM|#
And I, for one, cannot bring myself to celebrate any death
resulting from the insane Drug War.
I haven't "celebrated" the cop's death, nor will I, but I will say
this: if someone had to die in one of these bullshit raids, better
the cop than the innocent homeowner victimized by a legalized home
invasion.
And "he was only doing his job" is not an excuse anymore than "I
was only following orders" was.
|1.23.08 @ 11:46AM|#
I read a lot of people talking about holding the informant responsible, to which I would ask: "What informant?"
Jennifer|1.23.08 @ 11:54AM|#
Meanwhile, here in Connecticut the state Supreme Court just
ruled that a town can't fire a cop for merely lying on an arrest
warrant. (At least not if the town misses a filing deadline.) Cops
truly are above the law, remember.
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hr/hc-blonoappeal0119.artjan19,0,2738986.story
It was unclear Friday when Rajtar would return to work. His
award includes more than $80,000 in wages and more than $19,000 in
medical expenses. The town is also required to repay $11,000 to the
state in unemployment benefits Rajtar received.... Rajtar was fired
after internal affairs said he had lied on an application for an
arrest warrant in connection with an investigation of an incident
at Lee's Famous Recipe Chicken on Blue Hills Avenue.
Shame on anyone a few months ago who cheered when this cop
initially lost his job. He probably has a family to support and
everything, poor guy.
|1.23.08 @ 12:07PM|#
"What's the drink count so far? I'm confused. I think that I
drink for Mr. Nice Guy's comment...."
Well, my post went a little farther than decrying Reason's
"unreason" or such, which I've thought was usually the drinking
game. I've said this many times before that I think libertarianism
is often a misnomer. Libertarians that I meet here are usually fine
and dandy, in fact eager to advocate the rightessnous of (rather
than perhaps lamenting the neccesity of) practices that end up in a
net decrease in the exercise of, yes, liberty as long as it was
done by "voluntarily contract" or in relation to someone's property
rights. Hence my suggestion that a more appropriate name would be
"propertarians" or "contractarians."
J sub D-I'm not sure your house analogy is apt. An internet site is
more like a billboard than a house, and a billboard inviting
comments is more like a chalkboard...To then whine when someone
writes something you don't like is sad...
R C Dean|1.23.08 @ 12:33PM|#
They are real ban happy over at the policelink.
Could it be any other way?
|1.23.08 @ 12:35PM|#
Eh, some cites are more tolerant than others, I find. I had always had The Feral Genius tagged as one of the tolerant ones, until recently, for example.
|1.23.08 @ 1:04PM|#
this is interestong
http://www.idaho-post.org/
Idaho police school slogan about going out and causing PTSD. just
commentary on the mental state of future police officers
Jennifer|1.23.08 @ 1:07PM|#
An internet site is more like a billboard than a house, and
a billboard inviting comments is more like a chalkboard...To then
whine when someone writes something you don't like is
sad...
As is writing on the chalkboard and then getting indignant if the
owner erases your scrawls.
x,y|1.23.08 @ 1:22PM|#
Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or celebrating the death of this one--will not be tolerated.
1. Reason is not a state actor, so First Amendment issues are moot.
That said, this would definitely be a case of restricting speech.
There just happens to be no legitimate legal or moral
violation.
2. I don't know if you'll call this "celebrating," but the guy made
his bed and now he has to sleep in it. Of the millions of
professions he could have practiced, he choose one that involved
engaging in nighttime military-style raids on a plant grower
(allegedly) with no evidence to support the claim but a
confidential informant. I feel sorry for his friends and family,
but let's not pretend the police officer was a saint.
PoliceLink|1.23.08 @ 1:32PM|#
Third attempt to discuss
the issues over at PoliceLink.
Here's a sample:
I have executed over a thousand search warrants. I don't think I need some piss-ant telling me how to do my job. So take your so called "White paper" and wipe with it.
And...
Yeah, CalTom is probably running a meth lab in his kitchen and wants to know under what circumstances would he have unexpected guests for dinner.
M|1.23.08 @ 1:46PM|#
does the confidential informant share any responsibility in this from a legal standpoint?
Today's New York Times tells
us that the police have been remunerating some confidential
informants by supplying them street drugs. Now, what testimony
could be delivered in better faith than that of an addict bartering
for his fix?
|1.23.08 @ 1:52PM|#
The actions of a few bad apples simply serve to point out
just how badly broken the system is at this point.
It's not just a few bad apples, it's the system that allows these
creeps to operate with impunity. The thin blue line immediately
surrounds them and shields them from the outrage of the citizens
they are sworn to protect.
|1.23.08 @ 2:17PM|#
"Doing his job" is tantamount to "just following orders."
In the immortal words of Superchicken to his faithful sidekick,
"You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred."
My time is better spent mourning the death of our freedom from
unreasonable search and seizures and our rights to be armed so that
we can protect ourselves.
When enough Americans stop mourning dead jack booted thugs who were
just doing their jobs and mourn the loss of our freedoms (and the
freedom of one man who sits in jail for defending himself and his
property) then we can reclaim our liberty.
|1.23.08 @ 2:20PM|#
But it's been more than four days now, and police have yet to say anything about finding any drugs at all in Frederick's home, much less a major marijuana operation in his garage. When police legitimately find drugs in one of these raids, that's generally one of the first things they release to the public.
Got that right Radley. Sadly, I expect this to run along the same
lines as Cory Maye. I guess the only good thing is Dr. Hayne
doesn't work in Virginia.
|1.23.08 @ 3:49PM|#
Couple of thoughts:
--the confidential informant could conceivably be held criminally
liable if he lied to the police. But he almost certainly can't be
sued over it, because statements to police and in court are subject
to absolute privilege under slander/libel law.
--People don't become cops because they are rocket scientists or
good at nuance. As such, the reactions at PoliceLink are entirely
predictable. Cops are really nothing more than hired muscle. It's
the people pulling their strings that need to be questioned,
removed from office, and sued into bankruptcy.
--Radley's work on this and other cases is maybe the best
libertarian work going on at present. Unfortunately, our society is
going in the wrong direction. I fully believe that our descendants
will have to fight for their liberty again someday.
|1.23.08 @ 3:51PM|#
...why would you come to this sight and disrespect LEOs and
others by citing a paper that is obviously left-wing liberal
oriented.
Wow...
Who knew?
|1.23.08 @ 3:56PM|#
I see nothing wrong with Radley asking for us to respect the
officer that was killed. I do have a little bit of a problem with
the "rights" issue.
Hummmm, rights don't apply to private institutions? Maybe that's
why government is moving more toward privatizing. And, if my
question is true, why would people who support freedom support a
mechanism to remove freedom?
If freedoms are only in affect against government, and we want less
government, what happens to our freedoms?
Freedom of speech protects unpopular speech. I'm not sure why said
freedom should be alienated in a forum in which the public is
encouraged to speak. If you want to "privatize" H&R you may do
so by requiring registration and link that registration to conduct
agreement. If you don't like want the peanut gallery has to say,
keep them out.
Granted, Reason has the ability to remove what ever posts it
wishes. But if it does so, it is not constant with people who
believe in free speech. Having said that, censorship rarely happens
here.
|1.23.08 @ 4:45PM|#
Vic, as libertarian government's sole role is to protect from
force and fraud, that should be their action, not taking our rights
away and either selling them back to us piece meal via licensing or
simply banning them. Those are improper roles of government.
Now, if you're an anarchist, then there is no proper role of
government, so my recommendation would be to get a holster for that
gun and make sure it's loaded before heading outside. You would be
completely responsible for your own self-defense from force and
fraud.
|1.23.08 @ 6:36PM|#
Going forward, comments calling for the death of cops--or
celebrating the death of this one--will not be
tolerated.
Yeah, I know Radley Balko/Reason has a right to place whatever
restrictions they like on comments, up to and including eliminating
comments entirely. However, what is gained by restricting such
comments, as childish as they may (or may not) be? I doubt that the
slain officer's family is reading this comment thread; so how would
it interfere with their mourning process?
There are many rude and inflammatory remarks posted in the comments
section, and directed at other posters (who actually do read the
comments, and whose feelings might be hurt). Why single out the "I
dance on dead cops' graves" type for prohibition? It smacks of
political correctness, and dare I say, cosmotarianism.
|1.27.08 @ 6:37PM|#
I know this is a bit off topic and I do offer my condolences to
Officer Jarrod Shivers family. My father in law was an officer and
kept getting knocked down the ladder of command simply because he
wasn't P.C. enough.
Anyway, I've noticed through this website that multiple people have
questioned what penetrateds body armor. Now don't get me wrong I do
not condone a Rambo appearance to the police and simply trying to
shot everyone down. If by some may hap I were to receive a search
warrant I would let the officers in the house, but they would have
to announce and not do one of thoughts wonderful "no announce
raids" that they seem to be so enamored with now a days. Far to may
actual criminals have already figured out how to catch people off
there guard. One thing that doesn't require you to go through a
waiting period to buy is a bow. Now I shot an English long bow, but
some people might want to try a compound or recurve as they are
much easier to pull. Get at least a 50 pound pull with Bodkin arrow
points. This is quite latterly medieval technology, but it still
works. This was specifically designed to go through change mail and
with a heaver pull (100 pounds +) plate armor. This also requires
that you a) build a bit of muscle and b) have to be intently
pointing it at someone with enough draw force to do some damage. It
wouldn't get ride of all the mistakes (I've been fired at twice
accidentally by novices) but it would cut down on them.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245