ATF Proud of Expensive "Stash House" Scam to Arrest Drug Thugs

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, & Explosives is very proud of its hot new venture: using "fake drugs, big bucks to snare suspects." USA Today reports:

The U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the agency in charge of enforcing the nation's gun laws, has locked up more than 1,000 people by enticing them to rob drug stash houses that did not exist. The ploy has quietly become a key part of the ATF's crime-fighting arsenal, but also a controversial one: The stings are so aggressive and costly that some prosecutors have refused to allow them. They skirt the boundaries of entrapment, and in the past decade they have left at least seven suspects dead.

The USA Today story, which includes video clips as well, documents just how much time and effort goes into setting up fake drug crimes rather than actually uncovering, stopping, and solving actual drug-related crime.

The arrests don't come cheap. A single case can go on for months and require dozens of federal agents and local police officers.

Former ATF supervisor David Chipman, who left the agency last year, said the public deserves to know more about how the ATF is using its resources. "There are huge benefits, and there are huge downsides," he said. "Do you want police to solve crimes, or do you want them to go out and prevent crimes that haven't occurred yet? What are the things you're willing to do so that your kid doesn't get shot?"

The story discusses in detail the case of William Alexander, a low-level crack dealer and beauty-school dropout, who got snared in the ATF's sting operations. It's a depressing read from multiple angles, none more so than this: If federal law enforcement agents think instigating and then prosecuting fake crime is more important than reducing the real thing, we're pretty screwed as a country.

Read the whole thing.

More Reason on ATF - which somehow not only managed to avoid total dismantling after Waco and tons of other disasters but actually increase its purview to include "explosives."

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • sarcasmic||

    There isn't enough crime to justify the police state, so crime must be invented.

  • ||

    False. Crime is given the oppportunity to occur in a (somewhat) controlled environment. It helps save innocents and helps convict the guilty. Analogize to bait cars, wherein cars (owned by the cops, or sometimes cooperative dealerships) are left with keys in the ignition to catch thieves.

    Would you rather street cops take reports and sometimes recover cars after often dangerous pursuits and/or dumped and stripped OR use a bait car in which the car is recovered intact (kill switch), no pursuit and almost always goes without a hitch?

  • WTF||

    I guess you missed this part:

    The stings are so aggressive and costly that some prosecutors have refused to allow them. They skirt the boundaries of entrapment, and in the past decade they have left at least seven suspects dead.
  • ||

    No, i didn't miss that part. If SOME are done improperly, then we deal with those cases as required. We don't throw baby out with bathwater

  • fried wylie||

    We don't throw baby out with bathwater

    Of course not.

    You just stop washing the baby in that rusty washtub with the jagged edges.

  • sarcasmic||

    Bait cars don't catch thieves. They catch stupids. And if your car is stolen because you left the keys in it, then you're stupid.

  • ||

    that's wonderful but we take TONS of stolen car reports where people leave the keys in it, and in many cases, the engine running. This is how real crime ROUTINELY occurs in the REAL world where we investigate them. I took such a report 2 days ago for pete's sake. I recovered a stolen car and involving assault deadly weapon the other day as well. This is how real crime occurs

  • sarcasmic||

    Then apparently there are TONS of stupid people out there. That's all I've got to say about the matter.

  • Agammamon||

    Still not worth setting up bait cars - and taking cops away from violent crime - to catch someone who drives off in a stolen car because the owner was an idiot.

  • RightNut||

    This doesn't sound analogous to bait cars. With a bait car police just leave the keys in the car and let criminals see and steal the car. With these stings it seems like they are coaxing them into it. That sounds very much like entrapment to me.

  • ||

    No, it doesn't. you don't, nor do I , know if it was entrapment. The article doesn't provide sufficient case facts for that determination

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    You just said you don't know if it was entrapment.

    Just above you said it was perfectly proper.

    I say you're a typical cop, so blinded by teh authoritay that you couldn't see straight through a toilet paper tube.

  • some guy||

    How many people caught with a bait car only took the bait because it was absurdly easy to do and not because they were out looking for cars to steal? In other words, how many criminals do bait cars catch and how many do they create?

  • sarcasmic||

    In other words, how many criminals do bait cars catch and how many do they create?

    Exactly.

  • some guy||

    I admit, I don't know the answer to this question and I seriously doubt anyone credible has done a study on the matter. I've heard of police using bait cars only in areas where a rash of vehicle thefts have happened. I've also heard of them using bait cars in poor neighborhoods where the bait is more likely to be taken. Either way, it seems like entrapment to me.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I admit, I don't know the answer to this question and I seriously doubt anyone credible has done a study on the matter.

    What would you study? Maybe take a poll of the thieves and ask: "If the car wasn't sitting there ready to steal would you have stolen it?"

  • some guy||

    I'd look at whether they were connected with other thefts. Survey them asking if they ever stole a car before this one. Keep track of them to see if they ever get caught stealing another car. Things like that.

  • Zeb||

    I don't know, but I'd think you have some inclination to criminality if you drive off in a car that is not yours just because you can. I wouldn't do that. Shit, where I live, people leave their car running at the store all the time in the winter. And I think it is great that people feel they can do that. And even if you want to call the victim stupid, they are still the victim and stealing their car is still criminal.
    I don't have so much problem with the bait car thing, because it catches people committing actual crime. It's not entrapment, because they know damn well that stealing a car is illegal even if it is easy.

  • Agammamon||

    A something to consider to counter your argument.

    This sort of thing encourages a culture in which cops expand the use of stings to catch more criminals, even to using cops disguised as prostitutes or drug dealers (stuff we here usually don't think of as crimes in the first place) or, as in NYC, cops placing bait wallets on the ground and nabbing people

    *simply for picking the wallet up*.

  • Agammamon||

    Or, now that I think of it, the FBI *encouraging* terrorist plots among people who normally wouldn't do anything more than sit around and bitch.

  • gaoxiaen||

    I've found a wallet and a stolen purse and turned them into the police. I guess I wouldn't do that in New York.

  • Agammamon||

    Bullshit - bait cars are a perfect example of the state manufacturing crimes.

    Even on the bullshit tv shows, where only the best, most cop glorifying clips are show, most of the people caught are just guys wandering down the street who saw an easy opportunity.

    Rarely do these sorts of things catch car stealers/burglerers that do this sort of thing regularly. If that bait car wasn't there then no crime would have been committed because most people aren't going to break in.

    Its the same damn thing with these houses.

  • Duke||

    Appreciate the first nut punch of the morning. Actually, not the first one for me: http://dailycaller.com/2013/06.....or-months/

  • Floridian||

    Did we not just have a brickbat about a principal saying he wanted to blow up the school? In jest of course. If I recall nothing happened.

  • Almanian!||

    "..or do you want them to go out and prevent crimes that haven't occurred yet?"

    Why the fuck do we have a Pre-Crime Unit if it's not going to be used to prevent crimes that haven't occurred yet? Jesus - how hard is this??!

  • SIV||

    The ATF arresting armed robbers is wrong?

  • Hugh Akston||

    The ATF posing as co-conspirators to coax people into committing armed robbery is wrong, yes.

  • SIV||

    Arresting people who are predisposed and willing to rob and kil other people seems fine to me. Much better than the usual ATF enforcement of unconstitutional law.

  • Zeb||

    I'll give you that, at least. But the traps in these cases have way too much potential to become deadly or involve innocent people.

  • sgs||

    "Arresting people who are predisposed and willing to rob and kil other people seems fine to me. "

    Even if it's something that creates a much greater possibility of violence in a residential neighborhood?

  • SIV||

    They're the ATF, I expect they are going to fuck up some. The overall idea of having a sting that recruits people who are fully willing to commit armed robbery and murder and takes them off the streets is good. I only wish they just shot them dead as they entered the stash house.

  • Jerryskids||

    It's much easier to solve crimes when you already know whodunit 'cause youdunit. Same with the FBI busting 'terror plots' that they instigate and enable.

    What sorts of crimes is the NSA going to be instigating to justify their budget and operations do you suppose?

  • ||

    It's no different than using bait cars (something I admit the canadians are better at than US. Vancouver and BC cops set up some really awesome sting).

    Presenting bad guys with the opportunity to commit crime, as long as its not entrapping, is a good thing. It often saves INNOCENT VICTIMS from victimization. In the case of bait cars, that's one stolen car that gets recovered and no pursuit is necessasry (see: kill switch)

  • Brandon||

    Vancouver and BC cops set up some really awesome sting).

    Subliterate authority boner!

  • ||

    As long as they aren't entrapping (which is determined on a case by case basis), it's a good thing. People who see these as fake crimes are similar to those who see stolen bait cars as "fake cars" or "manufactured crimes". As long as it's not entrapment, and leaving a car with the keys in the ignition - aint - it's good PROACTIVE police work.

    Similar analysis is required for the dead people. Drug/weapon stings involve people prone to use deadly force and as long as the shoots were individually justified, the dead are responsible for their own demise.

    I want the BATFE to be proactive. In the long run, dead drug/gun runners who use deadly force and are taken out are not as concerning as innocent victims who are often taken out in so called "real crimes"

  • Andrew S.||

    It's the BATFE's presence, and the idiotic laws it enforces, that causes the existence of the drug runners in the first place. They have to justify their own existence with these stunts while people like you lap it up and ask for more.

  • ||

    Rubbish. I am 100% against the drug war. GIVEN the drug war, and it's a given, ceteris paribus, proactive taking down of GUN runners and/or their drug activity, is a good thing vs. reactive police work.

    We can both agree that the drug war should be disbanded and the BATFE should be enforcing violent crime and not victimless crime (drug crimes)

  • Dweebston||

    Yes, but one position legitimizes their shady efforts and thereby legitimizes the drug war generally. The other holds up borderline entrapment as an indication that the drug war is a failure and the whole apparatus should be disbanded.

  • Floridian||

    I like you Dunphy but we don't agree. There should be no BATF.
    Alcohol: legal
    Tobacco: legal
    Fire arms: legal

    We don't need an enforcement organization for legal activities.

  • WTF||

    Like the t-shirt says, ATF should be a convenience store, not a government agency.

  • sarcasmic||

    We're talking about things that are legal only if you ask permission and take orders. So we need enforcement to be sure people have asked permission and are taking orders. Because that's what freedom means: asking permission and taking orders.

  • some guy||

    Yes. There's a difference between legal and regulated.

  • Floridian||

    Not everything that is regulated has a paramilitary organization assigned to watch over it. These three don't need one either.

  • some guy||

    Psh. Next you won't want a paramilitary org enforcing Florida's beautician licensing regulations! What would you do without the Nails, Hair and Makeup Agency?

  • Andrew S.||

    You participate in the drug war. You are 100% in favor of the drug war. Stop the damn drivel and the "I'm one of the good ones!" crap.

  • sarcasmic||

    I find it impossible to admire someone who cheerfully enforces laws that they know to be immoral and unjust.

  • Andrew S.||

    Exactly. It's why I didn't think about going for an opportunity to clerk in the DA's office while I was in law school (ended up spending that summer working in a family law clinic... suing the state). I couldn't justify even doing grunt work for that apparatus.

  • Zeb||

    That's my only issue with Dunphy, really. You have to draw a line somewhere beyond which "just doing the job" is not an excuse. I put arresting people for drug "crimes" firmly across that line. Sorry, but if you lock someone up for use, possession or dealing of drugs, and no actual crime with a victim, you are just as bad as I would be if I grabbed someone off the street randomly and locked them in my basement for no reason at all. I can accept that in some sense police are necessary, but until the war on drugs is gone, I can't excuse those who are willing to arrest people for victimless crimes any more than guards at Auschwitz (yeah, I went there) who were just doing their job. Not saying that they are just as bad necessarily, but it is a difference of degree, not kind.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not saying that they are just as bad necessarily, but it is a difference of degree, not kind.

    In principle there is no difference.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And here we go!

  • Outlaw||

    They're the fucking ATF. Why isn't the DEA pissed off that they're encroaching on their territory?

  • fried wylie||

    This.

    It's not that it's about stepping on toes. Drug crimes are not their mission.

    Up next: IRS agents to man naval vessels.

  • SIV||

    They are arresting home-invading armed robbers who in many cases have agreed to murder their victims. The DEA doesn't give a shit about those crimes unles it is to grant immunity for them in exchange for drug intel.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    The stings are so aggressive and costly that some prosecutors have refused to allow them.

    No asset forfeitures? Fuck that. There's looting to be done.

  • Duke||

    As long as it's not entrapment, and leaving a car with the keys in the ignition - aint - it's good PROACTIVE police work.

    Only a low IQ cop would think something like that. Have you ever heard the old saying, “Locked doors keep honest people honest?” Your only tool is a hammer so of course everything looks like a nail to you. I don’t want what you want. So please get your “proactive" law enforcement garbage off my lawn.

  • Outlaw||

    Amen.

  • ||

    And fwiw, in patrol, a substantial # of auto thefts and prowls involve unlocked cars and/or INNOCENT victims who leave their keys in the ignition.

    They are real victims of "real " crime.

    And I'll put my "low IQ" up against yours anyday of the week, anon troll

  • Duke||

    "Anon troll?” Are you referring to me? I’ll gladly put my wits against yours. How ‘bout let’s start with 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 litigation...

  • ||

    I'm referring to anybody who makes dumb ad homs about me being a low iq cop

    hth

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "About my being a low IQ cop," you mean.

    I don't think it's fair to call you a low IQ cop. You're probably above average for a cop.

  • Rrabbit||

    Duke should apologize to low IQ people for comparing them to cops.

  • sgs||

    Oooh looks like DUke scored.

  • ||

    Spare me the ad homs.

    No honest person is enticed by a car with a key in the ignition - to steal it.

    if you are so enticed, you are a thief

    Fortunately, law enforcement sometimes uses stings to catch such scumbags.

    And fwiw, in patrol, a substantial # of auto thefts and prowls involve unlocked cars and/or INNOCENT victims who leave their keys in the ignition.

    They are real victims of "real " crime.

  • Duke||

    No honest person is enticed by a car with a key in the ignition - to steal it. if you are so enticed, you are a thief

    Gee whiz aren’t you the judgmental little police man today!

  • ||

    Yes, god forbid. I'll call a thief - a thief. I arrested one yesterday for possession of a stolen MV and assault ODW (tried to run down the person who was being victimized).

    That's a good thing. He was a thief and a violent one at that.

    And just like the thieves in the bait cars, except in those cases, no innocent risks getting run down by the bad guy.

  • anon||

    You're a true moron. The most likely demo of a person willing to steal a bait car would be teenagers looking to go for a joyride that don't fully comprehend the consequences of their actions. A person that knows how to steal a car probably knows to avoid a car sitting in a conspicuous location with the keys in it.

  • SIV||

    Bleeding heart libertarians?

  • sgs||

    "Yes, god forbid. I'll call a thief - a thief."

    Aren't you the same "cop" who admitted you saw other cops commit crimes and didn't arrest them?

    Yes, yes you are.

  • anon||

    If you're a big enough of an idiot to be worried about your car getting stolen, yet you leave your keys in your ignition for it to get stolen, yet fail to have insurance against theft, then there's terribly little anyone can do for you.

    And no, the police aren't catching car thieves. They're catching idiots willing to perform a crime of opportunity.

    What you're saying is the cops should be able to arrest me at the grocery store for stealing because the cashier didn't ring up that snickers bar in my cart.

  • SIV||

    Where did the 1930s liberal come from?

  • Brandon||

    if you are so enticed, you are a thief/

    So entrapment doesn't exist, period.

  • Zeb||

    I have to agree with Dunphy here. Stealing a car with key in is stealing. And bait cars are not entrapment. Where I live, there are loads of opportunities to drive off in other people's cars without having to break in or hotwire it or whatever. Do I do that? Fuck no. Because I am not a fucking thief. If you think that stealing a car because someone made it easy to steal is any less of a crime, you need to reexamine a few things.

  • sgs||

    "Stealing a car with key in is stealing."

    That was never in question, now go back, reread the discussion, and see if you can't figure out what you missed little guy.

  • Zeb||

    Go fuck yourself, condescending prick.

    I'm saying I don't object to bait cars because it puts no one in danger and catches people committing actual crimes that should be crimes.

  • John||

    I think it depends on the "bait". If there is a rash of car thefts in a neighborhood, putting a few bait cars out is not a bad thing.

    I see your point. Leaving a wallet out on the street in hopes someone takes it is wrong. The reason is that leaving it there gets people who might not otherwise of thought of stealing to think about stealing it. Parking a car on the street, unless you leave it running with the door open, doesn't do that. I have to walk up and see if it is unlocked to try to steal it. Why am I doing that if I wasn't trying to steal it in the first place? Any person who isn't thinking of stealing a car will walk right by it. Only a thief will stop to see if its locked. I don't have a problem with that.

  • ||

    Fwiw, in some stings they do leave it running. According to case law, that's still not entrapment.

    I get a fair %age of REAL (so to speak) auto thefts involving running cars (although rarely with doors open). These are the "I just ran into starbux and left my car running" auto thefts. These are real crimes. If we are going to charge the criminal for doing such crimes, then there should be no problem in setting up a sting with a similar fact pattern *(running engine) because that's how actual auto thefts happen.

    Every year, during cold snaps we get people warm up their cars in the driveway. We have had cadres of auto thieves in minivans for fucks sake, troll neighborhoods looking for cars with the ingition running and then they steal them. Again, this is how actual crime happens. it's not precrime.

  • John||

    I could see someone leaving their car running in their driveway to warm up during the winter. To get to the car, I have to trespass. The people at Starbucks? I wonder if someone who does that doesn't want their car stolen in hopes of getting an insurance check.

  • sarcasmic||

    I worked with a waitress who always left her keys in her crappy Corolla hoping it would get stolen. It never did.

  • fried wylie||

    in hopes of getting an insurance check.

    Starbucks IS pretty pricey.

  • Zeb||

    “Locked doors keep honest people honest?”

    I find that old saying to be utter bullshit. Honest people don't steal just because they can get away with it. That's the exact opposite of being an honest person.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    The story discusses in detail the case of William Alexander, a low-level crack dealer and beauty-school dropout

    Beauty school dropout....go back to high school.....

  • ||

    Ah yes, the typical reasonoid meme. It's always a hapless low level criminal caught up in a vicious sting by law enforcement meanies.

    Analogy holds. If you steal a car because it happens to have the keys in the ignition, it aint entrapment. It means you are a fucking thief. Whether you are caught via sting or in the case of many crime reports I take, where the innocent victim LEaVES THE FUCKING KEYS IN THE IGNITION, you are a thief.

    Most people support proactive stings, because most people have common sense and recognize that there is no right to steal a car merely because some nimrod left the keys in the ignition. There is no "right" to commit a gun, weapons, etc. crime because law enforcement set up a sting. And if you are hapless, so fucking what? A metric assload of thieves are hapless as fuck. I caught one the other day for possession of a stolen motor vehicle and assault witha deadly weapon and let me tell you, it didn't take epic police work. It took a criminal who was hapless as fuck and easy to catch. I'll still take it.

  • anon||

    Jesus christ, I can't even count the amount of logical fallacies in your argument here. Fine product of government education here folks.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    "I'm not really IN FAVOR of gassing these Jews, but as long as this is the system we have in place, I'm in favor of getting it done as efficiently as possible."

  • ||

    It's called rule of law, dumb godwin references aside. BATFE is concentrating on VIOLENT crimes, which should be against the law. That there are some ancillary drug crimes attached is tangential to the point

  • Andrew S.||

    I note the "It's called rule of law" part... you're not exactly disagreeing with his point. You're just deflecting it.

    By the way, a Godwin is not a Godwin when it's a legitimate analogy.

  • WTF||

    From the article it sounds more like BATFE is creating violent crimes, by inducing people to commit them in such a way that some prosecutors refuse to allow them because they are concerned about entrapment.

  • Wind Rider||

    Nice protection/cover action by the drug warriors to make sure that the actual large operators they're facilitating with zero tolerance prohibition don't have to worry about the small fry dreamers from being too much of a pain in the ass. . .way to go, DC.

  • RightNut||

    "Are we supposed to wait for him to commit a (obscenity) murder before we start to target him as a bad guy?" said Charlie Smith, the head of ATF's Special Operations

    YES YOU DUMB FUCK. Its innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.

  • ||

    We frequently use stings to catch people for attempt murder, conspiracy, etc. and those are not pre crimes or a violation of innocent until proven guilty.

    Bogus analogy

  • RightNut||

    Assuming someone is guilty then enticing them into a non-existent crime doesn't make you at least a little uncomfortable Dunphy?

  • Brandon||

    Nothing makes Dunphy uncomfortable. Discomfort with your actions requires some amount of reflection.

  • RightNut||

    Confronted with phone records showing he'd been making repeated phone calls to Johnson over more than four months, the informant admitted that his story was "apparently not" true. Johnson said he went through with the robbery plan only because Bugarin said he needed the money to keep from being evicted. A jury last year acquitted him of all but one charge; the remaining count is on appeal.

    That doesn't strike you as ATF agents coaxing otherwise law abiding people into committing crimes?

  • RightNut||

    The more drugs the agents say are likely to be in the stash house, the longer the targets' sentence is likely to be. Conspiring to distribute 5 kilograms of cocaine usually carries a mandatory 10-year sentence — or 20 years if the target has already been convicted of a drug crime.

    Totally fine, nothing to see here. Right Dunphy?

  • Loki||

    Solving real crimes is hard work. Plus, real hardened criminals tend to actually be dangerous. Some of our noble protectors, talismans of all that is good an virtuous, might get hurt going after real criminals. And they've got families to go home to, afterall.

    Entraping morons who aren't actually that dangerous, OTOH, is both easier and a lot safer.

  • ||

    considering that there are several deaths involved the idea that they aren't "that dangerous" is specious.

    furthermore, the issue is catching criminals. A crime committed via bait is JUST as much a real crime, as some guy who left his keys in the ignition, but is easier to catch. We catch an auto thief, we prevent future crimes and put a bad guy away. That's a good thing.

    Doing things safely is also not a bad thing. Bait cars have kill switches elininating possibility of pursuit. Cops, innocents, and suspects are often wounded or killed in pursuits. Eliminating that risk is a GOOD thing. This is just typical reasonoid logic and distaste for proactive intelligent police work that catches bad guys. I get it. Fortunately, the public wants us out there being proactive and we will continue to do so

  • sarcasmic||

    Is a bait car more likely to catch someone who wakes up in the morning with the intent to steal a car, or a dumb kid who has yet to develop good judgement.

    The lack of a question mark indicates that that was a rhetorical statement.

  • anon||

    Exactly the point I made above; however, I suspect Dunphy just wants to feel respected for his tiny dick.

  • Brandon||

    considering that there are several deaths involved the idea that they aren't "that dangerous" is specious.

    Considering 100% of the deaths are "perps," the idea that they are dangerous is an abject lie.

  • Duke||

    You know who else manufactured crimes to solve?

  • fried wylie||

    Inspector Gadget?

  • Rrabbit||

    Herr Hüttler.

  • Brandon||

    Dunphy, apparently.

  • gaoxiaen||

    Congress?

  • The Late P Brooks||

    If the FBI ran an elaborate sting to entice cops into taking bribes and offering to provide security for drug shipments (a far-fetched hypothetical, to be sure), you'd be fine with that, right Fosdick?
    Because no "good" cops could ever be induced to engage in illegal acts which they would otherwise not consider. And we all know how eager the Guild is to hold their membership to the highest moral and ethical standards, and to weed any weak-willed malefactors.

  • John||

    I wouldn't. That is basically what the did to Congress Critters in ABSCAM. Part of being an official is resisting taking a bribe. Fuck em.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    That doesn't strike you as ATF agents coaxing otherwise law abiding people into committing crimes?

    NO ONE IS INNOCENT!

  • np||

    The bait car analogy is stupid. The agents did not simply set up a fake drug stash and did nothing else. Instead, they enticed and facilitated other people to rob the place, even it's just with information but for the purposes of committing a crime. So why shouldn't the BATFE themselves also be charged as co-conspirators?

  • John||

    Yes. When getting the person to commit the crime requires the LEO to commit a crime himself, then it is bullshit.

  • anon||

    The real story here is who the fuck signs up to rob a drug stash with someone they barely know? These guys are locking up morons, not "hardened criminals."

  • anon||

    For what it's worth, I'm ok with idiots being locked up, but still, I don't wanna spend money on it...

  • SIV||

    I'd prefer they be shot dead as soon as they enter the bait stash house armed.

  • sgs||

    Yes, but you're an imbecile.

  • SIV||

    And you're an apologist for armed robbers and murderers. "Oh I'm sure they had childhood trauma and just need rehabilitation"

  • Agammamon||

    WTF?! Why is the *ATF* involved in policing drug crime? That's the very first fucking problem right there.

  • gaoxiaen||

    If you're going into a guarded stash house and think you're going to succeed, you're at least borderline retarded or suicidal. Anyone with any street smarts would say "You're fucking crazy".

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement