Abortion

Another Isolated Incident

|

Two, actually. Both involve police intercepts of packages using the DHL delivery service on the campus at Duke University.

In the latest, police intercepted a package of marijuana bound for a fraternity house, then raided the place in full SWAT attire when one of the fraternity members signed for it. One of the residents describes the raid:

I am writing to share both my relief over the dropped charges against my housemate, senior Eric Halperin, as well as my continued anger at the blatant abuse of power by the Durham Police Department. On the morning of Feb. 27, our home off East Campus was raided by a team of State Bureau of Investigation agents and members of DPD. Without warning, our front door was knocked down and a handful of fully armed officers entered our home. Subsequently, we were ordered to the ground at the behest of assault rifles, dragged across the floor, hand-cuffed and forced to strip naked. In carrying out their search warrant, police officers destroyed hundreds of dollars of our personal property. Upon failing to find anything incriminating, my friend, Halperin, was falsely charged with drug trafficking without any investigation or evidence, except his signing for a DHL package not addressed to him.

It took a month, but police have now dropped all charges against Halperin. The earlier incident followed almost the same formula, except it took place in a dorm room. In that case too, the charges against the Duke student were dropped.

Even assuming it's appropriate to arrest a college student who signs for a package of marijuana addressed to someone else, why the SWAT tactics? Did the police department really think the fraternity was going to put up a fight? (Note: It was also the Durham police department that gave us this photo—discussion on that here.) Last month, there was a similar incident at LSU, in which a SWAT team raided a college student's home based on an anonymous tip that there might be some pot inside. They found nothing.

For some righteous outrage on the case, check out the "Liestoppers Board," a site set up by the parents of the wrongly accused Duke lacrosse team.

NEXT: In Search of the Perfect Human

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.

  1. …in which a SWAT team raided a college student’s home based on an anonymous tip

    When the fuck did an anonymous tip become enough cause to give a search warrant, much less a fucking SWAT raid?

    What’s to prevent police from calling in their own “anonymous” tips whenever they feel like…or to just say they got one regardless of whether or not they actually got one?

    Can I have my neighbors house raided by anonymously calling the cops and telling them I saw him cooking meth?

  2. The thing about these things is that they will just continue to do this stuff as long as we let them. Citizens have been “civilized” into impotence. The People knocking down doors, putting assault rifles into peoples’ faces, making citizens strip, etc. don’t seem to have the same problems.

  3. Ay, this article brings back not so fond memories… I was luckier… and let’s just leave it at that.

  4. That incident is strikingly similar to happened to my friend’s sister and brother-in-law several years ago. The notable differences are that she didn’t sign for the package, and they simply brought them downtown for interrogation rather than conducting SWAT-style raid. Still, the police were convinced that they were drug runners(neither of them had any criminal record, and the both owned local businesses), despite the fact that the address on the package wasn’t even theirs.

  5. What’s not to get? If you not a member of law enforcement, you’re a piece of garbage who asked for every beating you received.

    Sound about right?

  6. You read the local papers in every major city in the state, Raleigh, Durham, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Charlotte, etc, there are very serious reports of corruption and abuse coming from the Police Departments.

  7. Can I have my neighbors house raided by anonymously calling the cops and telling them I saw him cooking meth?

    Sadly, I think the answer is yes, especially given the “warning signs that there may be a meth lab in YOUR neighborhood” nonsense that I remember seeing on the evening news.

  8. What’s to prevent police from calling in their own “anonymous” tips whenever they feel like…or to just say they got one regardless of whether or not they actually got one?

    Their honesty, of course. Cops would never lie in sworn statements. Everybody knows that.

    REMEMBER KATHRYN JOHNSTON!

  9. rana | March 28, 2008, 4:30pm | #
    Ay, this article brings back not so fond memories… I was luckier… and let’s just leave it at that.

    In 1992 a State Trooper broke the arm of drunk guy he had in custody while the guy was handcuffed to the patrol crusier. The guy spat on the cop and according to the disciplinary hearing
    that was enough provocation to justify the trooper from receiving no discipline beyond a few months suspension with pay.

    This incident occurred within two hundred yards of my house. I had several run ins with the punk with the badge myself, and that is all he is, a punk. Now he has some serious rank to back up his attitude.

  10. Can I have my neighbors house raided by anonymously calling the cops and telling them I saw him cooking meth?

    I’m 99.99999275% certain that has been done in neighbor disputes.

  11. What’s to prevent police from calling in their own “anonymous” tips whenever they feel like…or to just say they got one regardless of whether or not they actually got one?

    Frankly, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if this didn’t happen. Furthermore in spite of having no evidence I find it sufficiently credible that I’m not even willing to give them any benefit of doubt. I’ve heard of too many documented cases of cops lying, even to the point of giving perjured testimony in trials, that I feel under no obligation.

    It really is time that judges started demanding more substantiation of these dubious claims of probable cause. Trouble is no county judge is gonna want to be the guy who’s soft on dopers come election time. He’d rather just fob the responsibility for excluding the evidence off onto the trial judge.

  12. Hey Jsub, what’s your address? Let’s make it 100%.

  13. …beyond a few months suspension with pay.

    I gotta ask, since when is a fucking vacation punishment?

  14. Keep in mind “anonymous tip” can mean anything from someone calling in a complaint without leaving their name, to ‘I told you to stay away from my daughter’.

  15. I gotta ask, since when is a fucking vacation punishment?

    No SWAT raids for you, buddy! Or beating up suspects, planting evidence, or whatever else it is cops do. Just paid time off.

  16. So you’re right, Epi. For these guys, it IS a punishment.

  17. Can I have my neighbors house raided by anonymously calling the cops and telling them I saw him cooking meth?

    Only one way to find out.

    [NOTE: If by chance you live in the Beverly neighborhood, please let me know your exact address before you place the anonymous call, so I can know whether I need to keep my dogs indoors until the inevitable SWAT raid.]

  18. There is a case going on right now in my area where four cops have been suspended with pay who are accused of sexual assault on a female officer. It took many weeks just for the local rag to get any information on the case. The public still doesn’t know the extent of what occurred, whether it was ass fondling or a full on gang rape that has been alleged. It is being investigated as a criminal matter, instead of a disciplinary one, so I’m inclined to assume the worse.

    If it were you or I, or even a fireman (as another recent incident in my county involving a fireman who has been suspended without pay for cocaine possession) accused of a crime there would be no veil of secrecy involved.

  19. Eisiarch:

    Don’t you watch Futurama? Paid suspension is the highest form of bureaucratic penalty! Even worse then demotion.

    Nephilium

  20. Yes sir, you are correct.

    You, I, and the fireman, are garbage that needs to be displayed to the public. A cop is a super-citizen with special rights that deserves privacy in these matters.

  21. Bureaucrat Conrad Nephilium, you are technically correct, the best kind of correct.

  22. Dammit, we have to read this outrageous crap week after week about misbehaving cops. When is some libertarian group going to
    start funding lawsuits and whatever it takes to end this shit in America? Where is our Rosa Parks and Freedom marchers? C’mon Reason Foundation. C’mon Libertarian Party.

  23. Hey Jsub, what’s your address? Let’s make it 100%.

    Manoogian Mansion, Detroit, Michigan.

  24. When did you get elected Mayor? Can I bribe you?

  25. There is a case going on right now in my area where four cops have been suspended with pay who are accused of sexual assault on a female officer.

    alan, you are encouraged to provide links. Pretty Please?

  26. Sure, Radley. Ruin ANOTHER Friday afternoon for me why don’t you. grumble.

    Guards! Bring me the forms I need to have Radley taken away!

  27. When did you get elected Mayor? Can I bribe you?

    Good catch. I’m uncorruptable so obviously I’m not mayor of Motown.

  28. Radley,
    Are you keeping count? How many times have you used this headline?

  29. Nephilium. Your name appears above your post. We know it’s you. There’s no need to type it again at the end of your post. Please don’t do that.

  30. I’m back, I’ll take a crack at that JsubD

  31. So… just thinking, any chance we could start shipping DHL packages to LEO’s, and calling in anonymous tips?

    Or just finding LEO’s who live outside of their jurisdiction, and calling in anonymous tips to their city of residence?

    Nephilium

  32. Nephilium, we are too moral to do set up a person, no matter how despicable, like that.

  33. Hey !!! In that picture, the SWATzi is standing next to someone’s child! We cannot determine if he is talking to the little tyke, but he does appear to be STARING. Someone MUST stop this monster BEFORE HE DOES IT AGAIN !!! Think of the innocents . . .

  34. Okay, Nephilium. You asked for it. I’m calling the SWAT team on you.

  35. Delete “do” from my previous. Thank you.

  36. Here is an editorial that mentions the current case, it puts the latest happening in the broader context of recent police corruption matters:

    http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080224/NRSTAFF/870845954/-1/NEWS

    Here is a story on the fireman that I used to contrast the cases.

    http://www.digtriad.com/news/local_state/article.aspx?storyid=100280

  37. We all act shocked and appalled when the offices that are sworn to protect and serve threaten and terrorize. it’s time to reset america guys. This is your patriot act and department of homeland security in action. go to http://www.resetamerica.com join the revolution

    Jingozian for President

  38. Why am I not surprised? All the usual suspects jumping on the cop-hating bandwagon.

  39. Hey Stan! How’s Juanita doing? Haven’t seen her in a while. Did the two of you just move underneath a different bridge and haven’t had the DSL re-connected yet?

  40. It wouldn’t be the weekend without a Radley “Isolated Incident” post to depress me.

  41. Hey Stan! Have you found the cure from that STD you caught that can only be transmitted from human to goat contact?

  42. JsubD,

    if you read that editorial, they do bullets of several questionable matters going on in our police force, plus others from around the state, this entry want catch your attention:

    a lieutenant and a sergeant being looked at for possible conflict of interest in operating a home for troubled youth;

    But, one of our weekly papers suspects human trafficking payed for through HUD grants. Whatever actually happened, it was very strange and fishy. Our former police chief lost his job signing off on an investigation of the officers mentioned in the bullet.

  43. I don’t buy it. This frat brother knew exactly what was going on. I’m sure this wasn’t the first “shipment” his room mate had received. The only thing he didn’t know is that this shipment was being delivered by cops.

    Are you too sensitive to be in your tighty-whities? Do you not like being around armed police officers? Then don’t traffic in narcotics. Of course, you “reasonoids” completely miss the point.

  44. alan | March 28, 2008, 5:49pm | #
    Hey Stan! Have you found the cure from that STD you caught that can only be transmitted from human to goat contact?

    Oh, you really got me there. Zing. I hope you can appreciate why I’m always so impressed by the superior intellects I encounter on this board.

  45. “””Radley,
    Are you keeping count? How many times have you used this headline?”””

    He’s going to write a book with all the stories. Unfortunately one book will sell for $5000 to cover printing costs, and will be bigger than your house.

  46. The weekly local paper came out today complete with the city police reports. Three of the reports filed read thusly: 1)An individual stopped for speeding…and upon making contact with the individual, a strong odor of marijuana was detected emitting from th vehicle. Two large bags of marijuana were recovered from the individuals right front pocket. 2)An individual was stopped for a traffic violation and when the officer approached the vehicle, he detected a strong odor of marijuana.

    My favorite is this one: An individual was stopped for a seatbelt violation and while patting the suspect down for officer’s safety, the person had a smoking pipe for smoking illegal drugs in his right front pocket.

    So I am assuming the whole “officer’s safety” patdown is going mainstream in the WOD

  47. re:stan and allan,

    the whole goat sex thing is gonna result in the nanny state comin down on you guys

  48. Stan, you would make a real Good German

  49. Stan would make a lousy German. He does, however, make a more than adequate Republican. Dick

  50. Le Soldat d’hiver

    Did you click on the link?

  51. ChicagoTom, you hit the nail on the head. Thanks for your post.

    Anonymous tip…pfff.

    Do you think they’d raid the Mayor’s house if I anonymously tipped the police that “drug activity” was going on there?

  52. I don’t buy it. This frat brother knew exactly what was going on. I’m sure this wasn’t the first “shipment” his room mate had received. The only thing he didn’t know is that this shipment was being delivered by cops.

    That must be why the dropped the charges for lack of evidence

  53. No need. My parents grew up in Holland DURING WW2, so I know a bit about “good Germans”.

  54. “The Winter Soldier | March 28, 2008, 6:21pm | #
    Stan would make a lousy German. He does, however, make a more than adequate Republican. Dick”

    Thank you? I read the “Good German” wikipedia article, and I don’t see the relevance. I’m not the one supporting the self-inflicted drug holocaust that legalization would bring on.

    Again, you guys fail to address the point I’m making. The cops show up with a box reeking of weed. The dumb frat boy signs for it, and is given a lesson is civil obedience. Next time, this stoner won’t be so willing to defy the law. Problem solved. I guess I should be upset that his widdle feewings were hurt.

  55. ChicagoTom
    “That must be why the dropped the charges for lack of evidence”

    Probably because the police were cowed by the ACLU and pro-drug extremists like you. I guess there’s no special interest group for people who want to get drugs off the streets.

  56. If instead of charging in like idiots, they actually investigated the case (allowed the package to be delivered but traced who shipped the package, got wiretap warrants, surveilled the place to find someone buying pot on the way out and plea them out for testimony, etc) they probably could have got some convictions. I guess the sliver lining is that at least sometimes War on Drugs idiocy is self-limiting.

  57. Thank you? I read the “Good German” wikipedia article, and I don’t see the relevance

    When this follows:

    The cops show up with a box reeking of weed. The dumb frat boy signs for it, and is given a lesson is civil obedience.

    and this

    Probably because the police were cowed by the ACLU and pro-drug extremists like you.

    I understand why you wouldn’t see the relevance.

    Stan, speaking as a Canadian, I say that you live in a great country.

    If you regard your liberties so lightly, you don’t deserve to.

  58. “I understand why you wouldn’t see the relevance.”

    I don’t see the relevance because I’m not the one who’s cheer-leading for meth heads and tokers. If you want herds of drug addicts stealing wallets and knocking over liquor stores to feed their “habit,” that’s fine. But don’t lecture me about “freedom.” If “freedom” doesn’t include the right to not be surrounded by these zombies, then I think we need to update your definition of freedom.

  59. “””Why am I not surprised? All the usual suspects jumping on the cop-hating bandwagon.”””

    The TSA are cops? No, it’s the TSA-hating bandwagon.

    Half-kidding aside. The TSA screener failed to follow their own rules, and made some up on the spot, something even a cop can’t do. If you can’t bash that, what can you bash?

  60. why all the complaints?

    I thought “frat boys” = ‘Troglodytes’, only worthy of contempt.

  61. “””Stan, speaking as a Canadian, I say that you live in a great country.

    If you regard your liberties so lightly, you don’t deserve to.”””

    Wow, foreiners get it, but many, if not most Americans don’t.

  62. Stan –

    So just sending the kid a sopoena makes no sense, while sending in a squad of assault rifle-wielding SWAT guys does?

    Common sense seems to have flown out the window here.

  63. Sorry. Foreigners.

  64. in other words (in case the previous went over Stans head)…

    why treat non-violent crime ‘prevention’ like the suspects are all armed, psychopathic killers?

  65. “The TSA are cops? No, it’s the TSA-hating bandwagon.”

    Well, we identified why Vic is so sympathetic to the drug heads. I don’t see a single reference to the TSA in either of the links, Radley’s summary, or anywhere else on this board for that matter. What on earth are you referring to?

  66. “””If you want herds of drug addicts stealing wallets and knocking over liquor stores to feed their “habit,” that’s fine.”””

    That was the 1930s attitude.

    I’d make a deal with you. Let freedom stand first, and if it gets that bad, we’ll reassess.

  67. Stan, who said, “…box reeking of weed.”

    Please quote a source or cite a reference, as we, the general public can’t know what the box smelled like. I personally know many people who receive packages and one can never smell anything.

    Further, “…then I think we need to update your definition of freedom.”

    And I answer you with a quote, provided you are caucasion: “You’re sense of freedom is as pale as your skin.”

  68. LOL. Here’s the link Stan.
    https://www.reason.com/blog/show/125752.html#comments

    But thanks for pointing out that I’ve confused my threads.

  69. “So just sending the kid a sopoena [sic] makes no sense, while sending in a squad of assault rifle-wielding SWAT guys does?”

    Yes. It’s called an arrest. It’s what we do to people who break the law. If you want a nice letter from the police telling you when and where to show up, come to court as a witness instead of a perp.

  70. “Please quote a source or cite a reference, as we, the general public can’t know what the box smelled like. I personally know many people who receive packages and one can never smell anything.”

    Well, aren’t you the expert. I, too, have received packages. I guess I should open up, “Stan’s House of Private Investigation.”

    P) Weed Stinks
    Q) The box had weed in it.
    R) The box stunk of weed.

    P ? Q -> R.

  71. Christ on a cracker, you people are fucking idiots. If you get a fucking package in the mail that reeks like weed, it’s probably not a good idea to open it. Talking sense with you people is like trying to use logic with Ron Paul supporters. Oh, wait…

  72. And stop trying to be oh-so-clever, people. You’re not funny. If I want unfunny I’ll visit “Urkobold”.

  73. Please allow me to clarify. I know people who receive large packages of marijuana (did anyone else think I meant packages from amazon.com?) and one simply cannot smell anything remotely incriminating without opening the package AND opening the (typically) vacuum sealed bag inside.

    So, Your formula only works as thus:
    P) Bag does not smell
    Q) the bag was in the box
    R) The box cannot smell

    For the rest of you:

    If,

    S) Stan
    T) Troll

    Then,

    S = T

  74. How do you know what marijuana smells like, or those vernacular terms for marijuana, Stan. Are you some kind of dope fiend, or something?

  75. Okay. The last two comments aren’t me. Obviously, since I wouldn’t post 2 additional comments to make the same point I made in my last two comments.

  76. So, Kool has all but admitted to receiving said packages. Anybody else want to admit their true interest in this case?

  77. Stan, I don’t know where you live nor do I want to, but if you open up the Yellow Pages, you can find treatment centers for those with like you who have drug problems. They are confidential, and know one has to know.

  78. Stan,

    Is it your position that SWAT raids should be used to arrest people for, say, traffic violations?

  79. Please, help me!!! I am a drugged out zombie. I’m sorry I took my abuse out on the rest of you, but if you could just spare me some sympathy . . Oh they showed me refeer madness in High School, but I just would not listen.

  80. “Is it your position that SWAT raids should be used to arrest people for, say, traffic violations?”

    Apples and oranges. We’re not talking about, “you were going a little fast there, son.” We’re talking about a couple of criminals entering bat country.

  81. it’s okay, Stan. We are here to help. The first step is to admit you have a problem, and you have clearly done that. The next step is to apologize to those who you have wronged, and that is where you need to take your recovery next.

  82. Kool has admitted on more than one occasion, he has smoked in the past.

    In fact, on more than one occasion he has admitted to smoking on more than one occasion.

    However, Kool lives in DC and needs not mail order marijuana, if he still smoked. So, by what logic has “Kool…all but admitted to receiving said packages?”

  83. Stan, I’m glad you’re still here. I’d appreciate honest answers.

    1) Do you actually believe the stupid shit you post?
    2) Is your education so lacking that you really don’t know that cops lie?
    3) I’ve forgotten, what is it like to be a virgin?

  84. The comments at 7:50 and 7:51 aren’t me. Are you idiots so fucking pathetic that you have to resort to spoofing because you can’t dispute any of my points?

    Fuck this lunatic site. Delete me, I don’t give a shit. I’m done posting here.

  85. I’m regressing, look what I said there, ‘We’re talking about a couple of criminals entering bat country.’ What the hell does that mean? It’s like I’m William Burroughs or something. I’m going out of my freaking mind!!!!

  86. Stan, calm down, recovery is one step forward, two steps back, but eventually you will get there. We are here to help you.

  87. Just a few more questions and we’ll be through Stanley.

    You ever been in a cockpit before?
    You ever seen a grown man naked?
    Stan, do you like movies about gladiators?

  88. “””Probably because the police were cowed by the ACLU and pro-drug extremists like you.”””

    And you say we are bashing the cops. Nothing like calling cops cowards in the face of the ACLU and the pro-drug crowd.

    If you have respect for law enforcement, why would you not accept the police’s reason for dropping the charges as rational, instead of thinking they are cowing?

  89. Fuck this lunatic site. Delete me, I don’t give a shit. I’m done posting here.

    Stan is Edward! I knew it! Is it too much to hope he’ll keep that promise?

    P) Weed Stinks
    Q) The box had weed in it.
    R) The box stunk of weed.

    P ? Q -> R.

    I suppose we should thank “Stan” for making his lack of logic and reasoning so stark in order to save everyone much wasted time arguing with him. Not only is what he is trying to imply up there not logically sound to the point that a marginally intelligent junior high student wouldn’t make such a stupid claim, but he misuses the symbol v (logical disjunction — OR) to further embarrass himself (assuming that is possible and from the tone of his posts in this thread I have my doubts).

  90. Trickyvic, it was the drugs talking, not stan. Remember when he sent that letter to Eminem? He was pretty messed up back then, and since then, he has only gotten worse.

  91. Stanley, this thread is about underage sex offenses. Shouldn’t you be posting there? I know your very interested in child molestation. I wonder why that is.

  92. Nothing wrong with my logical notation.

    http://www.jwrider.com/lib/logicnotation.htm

  93. Kool. I’m sorry that I didn’t read your autobiography, so I’m just not up on what crimes you’ve committed, and which ones you have yet to commit.

    You know what? This is pointless. I have last night’s American Idol taped. I’m gonna have to run, fellas.

  94. YES!! I got an apology!

  95. Well, since JsubTard asked so nicely:

    1) Do you actually believe the stupid shit you post?
    Serious as a heart attack.
    2) Is your education so lacking that you really don’t know that cops lie?
    Institutions like the police rely on our trust in order to maintain a semblance of order.
    3) I’ve forgotten, what is it like to be a virgin?
    I’m drawing a blank on that one. You’re just shooting blanks. If you catch my drift.

  96. Oh, and thank you to the fake Stan for bowing out. That was starting to get surreal. Glad to know he won’t be posting here anymore.

  97. Institutions like the police religion, rely on our trust in order to maintain a semblance of order.

    Institutions like the police rely on our trust intimidation and coercion in order to maintain a semblance of order.

  98. Are you paying attention? Are you paying attention to me yet?

    You know, I feel that you stupid humps should . . .

    Hey, look at me already, Jesus, what is wrong with you people.

    Any way you humps need to stop believing in all that fairy tale liberty crap . . .

    That got your attention didn’t it? Yeah, your mad, you are angry. I said something to piss you off!

    Look at me, dammit!

  99. that guy stan is not me

  100. Stan:

    1) Do you actually believe the stupid shit you post?
    Serious as a heart attack.

    So, non-violent (alleged) offenders having their lives ruined (or ended), is a proper use of government money and force? Do you see any parallels between prohibition and the war on drugs? If so, please explain why this will end differently. If not, please explain the differences.

    2) Is your education so lacking that you really don’t know that cops lie?
    Institutions like the police rely on our trust in order to maintain a semblance of order.

    Do you then understand why having cops lie in order to boost arrest records harms them? Why do you feel that faith in the police has been lost? Have you ever been a suspect in a criminal case? Have you ever been arrested?

    Nephilium… perhaps feeding a troll…

  101. for instance, I would never string three clauses together, like here.

    I use sharply worded simple phrases! And I’m never so supple as to be truly snarky (just a wee pissy is my style)like this guy, Stan.

    I feel for one you should ban Stan. He is a ripoff of me.

  102. Nothing wrong with my logical notation.

    I’m better with sylogisms. Are you saying that weed smells, and their was weed in the box, therefore the box smelled like weed? I think that’s what you’re saying but I’m not sure. I don’t want to assume.

  103. Reading stan’s posts, I am reminded of another America-hating drug war fan, and my ranting takedown (original spelling mistakes left intact):

    Last but not least, many of us (if not most) who support legalization do not actually smoke pot. For example, I have not only never smoked a joint, but have never smoked a cigarette, have perhaps one beer every two months, don’t hunt, don’t consume pornography, yet I think every one of those things should be legal. For me, it’s a matter of principle.

    I actually disapprove of intoxication, smoking, pornography, and hunting for sport (ratehr than to put food on the table). I’ll even voice my disapproval to freinds who do these things.

    But, I don’t feel a need to reach for a gun and threaten people any time I see people doing dumb things.

    I assume that you are in favor of the drug war. if so, I pity you; you and your kind have thrown away the freedom our ancestors fought so hard for. They attempted to set up a society where the king’s men could not kick in a door in the middle of the night, but had to allow him a chance to open the door and let them in, could not confiscate a man’s property without a trial, imprison him on false pretenses or even kill him at a whim. In their insane zeal for prohibition, the puritans behind the drug war have undone all of these protections, and I think destroyed the United States as a free country.

    Today, if I carry too much cash, it can be taken from me without a trial.

    Today, if I open the door during a raid, I could be shot. My dogs could be shot.

    Today, if armed men begin battering my door late at night, I can no longer assume that the law will allow me to protect my family or home. If I guess wrong, I can end up on Death Row like Corey May, or raped an murdered like that woman in Cincinatti who surrendered to what she thought were the police serving a drug warrant.

    And last, but not least, where do you think Al Queda, North Korea, FARC, Shining Path and all those other fucking murderers get their money which they use to buy weapons and murder your fellow citizens?

    From the black market you helped set up! Adolph Coors did not murder people in the night, Al Capone did. Thanks to you and your friends, all those aforementioned bastards have all the money they need to commit their atrocities. If you left people alone they wouldn’t have the money to buy weapons, the money to buy food for their fighters, the money needed to pay for thugs to loot and pillage.

    One day, you or your children will look at the ruins of what was once a free, propserous land, and wonder what happened. Some of you may be wise enough to understand how your hatred caused you to destroy your society, but I suspect most of you will not put 2 and 2 together and will come up with some crazy theory blaming outsiders or moral degenrates and the like. However, let me tell you, that you supporters of drug prohbition have done far more damage to this country than if half of the population had taken up smoking 6 joints a day.

  104. I know that this is an elementary, oft-repeated question in the libertarian community, but I simply can’t help myself . . .
    why do the drug warriors like Stan care so much about weed? Really, why? Are they, as one sage mind put it, afraid that somebody somewhere is having fun? Is it a psychosis of some kind that motivates them to mouth-frothing paranoia over people smoking a plant in the privacy of their homes? Does this sound about right? Please, somebody tell me why anyone gives one shit what I am doing in my home?

  105. Stan, I am going to assume that your posts are truly what you believe, not trolling for the sake of getting a rise out of a bunch of libertarians.

    Liberty is based on the assumption that people have rights. We libertarians are fond of Jefferson’s choice of modifier: “inalienable”. That means that rights are inherent and that people may not be deprived of those rights, except by due process.

    Liberty and rights are not limited to people I like. Or people you like. They apply to, and are for, all people: Americans, Canadians, Russians , Chinese, whites, blacks, Jews, Muslims (even Osama bin Laden), Presidents and bums on the street. A person does not lose his or her liberties and rights by being suspected of a crime – even if you and I and all people are morally certain that the person did the crime. Nor does a person lose his liberties and rights because he is a hypocrite or carries a moral stigma.

    The only way that a person may be deprived of his liberty and rights is through due process. That is why we have laws and, in particular, you Americans have your Constitution: To protect the liberties of individuals.

    It is a libertarian truism that, if one person is deprived of their rights, all people’s rights are in danger. When Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat, she was not just defending the rights of blacks, she was defending the rights of every person on the planet. Note that Rosa Parks was defying the law – but not the Constitution and the rights embodied therein.

    The police are not empowered to deprive a person of their rights. (Where in the U.S. Constitution does the word “police” even appear, let alone an enumeration of their powers?) They may, as representatives of civil authority, arrest a person and charge them with a crime. But, until that person is convicted of a crime, all his or her rights remain intact.

    In fact, the laws of the United States say that, if the police or any other agent of the government willfully violates a person’s rights, it is the police or the agent may be charged with a crime. I recognize that many caveats and exceptions have been put around this last, but the fact remains that it is illegal to deprive someone of their rights.

    Among the rights protected are the rights to due process, protection from unreasonable search and seizure, right to reasonable bail, and the presumption of innocence.

    Radley’s posts have presented many cases where these rights have been violated. You, perhaps, feel that these violations are acceptable “for the greater good”. We do not. We feel that just laws are the best protection of the good of all. We feel that bad laws – even for the most noble purpose – are a threat to every person, no matter how innocent.

    Libertarians are often characterized as “heartless capitalist who only care about their own well-being.” However well that might describe any of us, we do have in common a belief that liberty and rights are the most important possessions of any human being. We believe that they supersede any other consideration. The fact that rights make people better off in a material sense is not a consideration.

    Are we defending druggies and perverts? Yes, we are. Because they have rights. As do you. If you throw those rights away because you don’t like the fact that they defend people you don’t like, those rights will not be there when you need them.

  106. I should point out that the major official justification for outlawing marijuana when it was orignially outlawed in the 1930’s was,

    “Give one of them darkies a joint and he thinks he’s as good as a white man” Anslinger

    Wow, black men thinking that they are good as white men? What a civilization killing idea!

    Damn stan, thank good there are guys like you to defend civilization from uppity black men!

  107. Nothing wrong with my logical notation.

    Uh, yes there is…

    But the compound, p v q, has 2 components, each of which can be true or false. So there are 4 possible combinations of truth values. The disjunction of p with q will be true as a compound whenever p is true, or q is true, or both[.]

    Or perhaps you’d like to check here.

    Or here:

    Disjunctions with this symbol: “P v Q”

    But hey, at least you can take comfort in the fact that the notation was the most minor, though however glaring, of your errors.

  108. STAN IS UPSET THAT KYLE AND TIMMY (TIMMY!!!) GOT TO STAY UP PLAYING, “SPANK THE TOWELIE”, AND HE HAD TO GO TO BED.

  109. “Radley,
    Are you keeping count? How many times have you used this headline?”

    At least ten times. He should use the phrase, “Another Isolated Incident?”

  110. Maybe Stan’s doing the whole “reductio ad absurdum” thing. I hope so, because otherwise he’s just a troll, or ignorant.

  111. You ever been in a cockpit before?
    You ever seen a grown man naked?
    Stan, do you like movies about gladiators?

    This made me LOL. I love that movie.

  112. As for the photo: The only thing missing is a Waffen-SS patch on the uniform. Pure Nazi to the end.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waffen-SS

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.