Lindy: "No Knock Raid" - a Song About the Drug War's Deadliest Tactic

Note: This video contains graphic images of violence and mature language. Viewer discretion is advised. 

"No Knock Raid," written and performed by Toronto-based musician Lindy, is a searing indictment of one of the most aggressive, ubiquitous, and mistaken tactics in the War on Drugs.

Consider only the most recent raid to cause a national outrage: On May 5, 2011, 26-year-old Jose Guerena, who survived two tours in the Iraq War, was shot and killed during a raid on his house by a Pima County, Arizona SWAT team that fired dozens of bullets through his front door. Guerena, married and a father of two, had just finished a 12-hour shift at a local mine. Law enforcement sources claim he was involved in narco-trafficking but have yet to produce any evidence supporting that claim. Officers involved in the death have been cleared of wrongdoing.

Guerena's death is not an isolated incident. As USA Today reports, an astonishing 70,000 to 80,000 militarized police raids take place on a annual basis in America, many of them on mistaken suspects and many of them ending with injury or death for police and citizens alike.

As Reason Contributing Editor Radley Balko and others have documented, the militarization of standard police practice is a direct consequence of the modern-day War on Drugs, started 40 years ago by President Richard Nixon - and perpetuated by every administration since. (For a comprehensive report on the failure of the drug war to achieve any of its stated goals, read "Ending the Drug War: A Dream Deferred," by Law Enforcement Against Prohibition.)

"No Knock Raid" written and performed by Lindy.

Produced and directed by Hawk Jensen.

Performance footage directed by Victor Tavares and Zachary Koski.

Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions of our videos. And subscribe to our YouTube channel to get automatic notification when new material goes live.

Comments

[}]

Isn't that "former Reason Contributing Editor ..."?

🙁

[Colonel_Angus]

I hope nothing will stop him from still contributing stuff.

[Matt C]

IMO, this is his (indirectly) greatest contribution to Reason. Ever.

[Joe M]

RAGE!

[Flex Nasty B.I.G.]

One of the best reason.tv videos yet. I suspect this will get a lot of views. Bravo.

[Tim]

I'd like to see the Naked Gun seen where the Swat team accidentally riddles a house.

[Mister DNA]

If Motorhead covered this song, it could effectively end the War On Drugs.

[Joe R.]

Needs to be a bigger current rock band. Foo Fighters would work. I can hear Dave Grohl singing this.

Or maybe an Ozzy Osbourne duet with Lita Ford. That's what the kids are listening to these days, right?

[wylie]

Unfortunately, It's probably gonna have to be J-Beeb to have any effect.

[Mister DNA]

Maybe the cast of Glee will do a rousing performance of the song.

[Jim]

Not to be a nit-picker, but FOO FIGHTERS SUCK. Fucking SFW radio-rock, ready-made to be included in teenage-angst movies. And that's not just my opinion; it's a science-verified fact, just like AGW.

The sad part is, Dave Grohl is a supremely talented guy. I just really hate the music they put out.

[TrickyVic]

Not much of a Foo Fighters fan myself.

Them Crooked Vultures rock!

[cynical]

The nice thing is that there are about thirty or forty different groups he belongs to, so you're covered.

[ChicagoSucks]

I could definitely see this as a metal song. I think Motorhead might be a bit too fringy though. Something more mainstream like Metalica might be more effective.

[Sy]

"mainstream" and "metallica" belong in the same sentence... in 1995.

[mad libertarian guy]

Meshuggah or bust.

[edcoast]

I just barfed my lunch back up.

[wylie]

That's what the cup is for, noob.

[blogimi Dei]

giggling. to. self.

[Tim]

"Jose Guerena, who survived two tours in the Iraq War, was shot and killed "

Shot at dozens of times, hit 22 times. Thank you for your service, Marine. Not even the President gets more than a twenty one gun salute.

[Mainer]

The Guerena killing is something I don't think I'll ever forget. The reality of the metaphorical boot stepping on a human face.

[Tank]

The lyrics aren't exactly subtle or clever. Then again, neither are no-knock raids, so maybe that's by design.

Either way, heart-wrenching.

[Joe R.]

Yeah, but the bit about the DEA disappearing you to Guantanamo Bay was a bit stretched. There's enough actual nasty shit done by the DEA and the WOD without making exaggerations like that.

[cynical]

Agreed. The chorus is catchy, some of the lyrics are either a little forced or (with the KGB bit) overstating the case. The pigs might bust a cap in yo ass in the dead of night, but there won't be any mystery as to your whereabouts or fate.

[Dave T.]

Best line: "they take orders from the Czar".

[Res Publica Americana]

He said "like Guantanamo Bay", probably meaning you'll rot in jail for the victimless crime unjustly, as severely as if it were indefinite detention, or something along those lines.

[wylie]

subtle and clever would just lead to twisting of the meaning.

[jcalton]

They knocked in the Guerena raid.
Just sayin'.

[jcalton]

Not to be crass, I hope guilty people hang for that. But a no-knock raid didn't kill Jose Guerena and prohibiting them wouldn't have saved his life. That's a standard Team Blue/Red knee-jerk "let's treat a symptom and not a cause by banning something" reaction.

Putting emphasis on "no-knock" distracts from what's really going on here. If somehow SCOTUS ruled tomorrow that no-knock raids were unconstitutional, but the rest was fine and dandy, would I even care? SWAT can kill me and my animals just fine whether or not I open the door for them first.

The problem isn't no-knock, it's the War on Drugs, SWAT, seizures, the blue wall, 4th Amendment, the militarization of our police, and the rise of the police state generally.

[Name Nomad]

The goal of the video is to make people aware of the problem and change their minds -- or emotions as the case may be. Once people change their minds, then the government policy may change. Of course, the real fallacy is in assuming that we have representational government.

[dunphy]

note also i have yet to see the evidence the shooting of guerana wasn't justified. the article arguably implies there was something wrong with the guerana shooting, but if he did have a rifle and pointed it towards the officers- they did the right thing. regardless of the status of the safety.

as you correctly point out, it also was not a no-knock raid anyway.

[Sy]

"note also i have yet to see the evidence the shooting of guerana wasn't justified."

So you've seen video footage of him pointing his rifle at the police?

[dunphy]

no, but that's irrelevant to what i said. try reading it again. i said i haven't seen any evidence the shooting was NOT justified. i did not say i saw evidence it was justified (well, apart from the aforementioned ruling). those are two different things.

saying i haven't seen any evidence that you didn't eat Wheaties for breakfast is not the same thing as saying i have seen evidence that...

get it?

[Sy]

"i said i haven't seen any evidence the shooting was NOT justified. i did not say i saw evidence it was justified (well, apart from the aforementioned ruling)"

UH HER DEERRRRRPP.

No. You're the one asking reason to 'prove a negative'. I would have imagined that in the use of deadly force against ANYONE, you would need to assume that the aggressor had some good fucking reason to use that force.

And for that, you have no evidence.

[dunphy]

again, i never said the shooting was justified. i have no burden to prove a claim i never made

what i said is that i have seen no evidence it was UNjustified.

i can name countless force incidents i have determined were unjustified. that's not a tough burden to prove e.g. schene, birk et al

in THIS case, i have never said the shooting was or was not justified.

i said i have seen no evidence it was justified, thus i remain agnostic

what i have also said is that for all the bigots who assume it was unjustified - show me the evidence

they haven't

[Sy]

I would imagine in a scenario where a police force used deadly force to take down a man who was supposedly firing an automatic rifle (which they had to back track on), they would have to have a reason to have invaded his personal property in the first place.

But, then again, this is an area where you are going to hold your political views, and I am going to hold mine. And in my view, if you had no reason to enter his property in the first place, (which they really didn't, as it turns out), they were UNjustified in responding to the victim, who was himself defending said property, with deadly force.

The burden of proof, IMO, should always fall on the aggressor.

[dunphy]

the reason they had to "invade" his property was vetted by both a prosecutor AND a judge.

here's a hint. a warrant is an order from a judge

so, if you have a beef with why they were there and why they served the warrant, that's tangential and a criticism you have of the judge primarily, since he was the one who ruled the police had sufficient cause to get a warrant

however, those were not the issues discussed

the issue was - whether or not the force was justified.

[Sy]

"the reason they had to "invade" his property was vetted by both a prosecutor AND a judge."

Which, amazingly was sealed, so no one even know what it says outside of the PD or the court.

"here's a hint. a warrant is an order from a judge"

Here's a hint, they got it wrong, didn't they?

"so, if you have a beef with why they were there and why they served the warrant, that's tangential and a criticism you have of the judge primarily, since he was the one who ruled the police had sufficient cause to get a warrant"

It's a criticism I have of the intelligence and competence of police departments, considering there was no 'paraphernalia' or any drugs found at the residence.

"the issue was - whether or not the force was justified."

And I'm saying it was UNjustified, since there was no proof that Jose Guerena was not convicted of any crime.

What YOU keep falling back to is "I'm NOT saying it's UNjustified"

Yet you say that "but if he did have a rifle and pointed it towards the officers- they did the right thing"

Once again, another "well we all have to sit and wait for the facts to come out on this one before passing judgement"

You only have two possible choices here, justifiable and unjustifiable. If you're saying you think what the officers did was not UNjustified, then by definition you're saying that they WERE justified in acting.

[Sy]

*since there was no proof that Jose Guerena committed any crime*

[dunphy]

again, when you address your inaccuracies and lies/misrepresentations about what i said - get back to

[Sy]

"again, when you address your inaccuracies and lies/misrepresentations about what i said - get back to"

You've given me no reason so far to believe any statement I've made in regards to your positions are inaccurate. In fact, you keep reinforcing them. Good luck with that. When you stop pretending that courts have an obligation to treat police differently from other people, get back to me.

[Jacob]

I haven't seen any evidence that there is NOT an invisible grizzly bear outside of my house, but i think i will go check the mail anyway...

[Sy]

"note also i have yet to see the evidence the shooting of guerana wasn't justified."

So you've seen video footage of him pointing his rifle at the police?

[Nick Griffin]

I agree, the war is the larger problem. But as SCOTUS has held, knock notice is a constitutional requirement. It is intended to prevent a violent response to people entering a home by informing them that the entry is lawful. Cops don't like it for many reasons. So many exceptions to the rule exist that there may as well not be a rule. Lindy and the video are a powerful work of art that conveys the reality of the paramilitary state at work. This is the tacticts of the KGB. Govt uber alles. The safety of those cops who claim to protect us ismore important than our safety.

[Saro]

If you don't give people a chance to put on a pair of pants and climb out of bed before you smash their front door off its hinges, whats the difference? Are they trying to make sure that all the police officers outside know that the police have arrived (because the homeowner certainly doesn't)?

Knocking and then breaking in 3 seconds later counts as a no-knock, in my book.

[Cyto]

^^this^^

Unfortunately, the courts say you and I are full of shit.

"knock-knock... Police! (2, 3) {Kick door down}" counts as knock and announce. Probably not by design, but the 5 to 30 second window is the perfect amount of time to get you up and moving toward the door so you can be mistaken as "moving toward the officer in a threatening manner" as the door opens.

[wylie]

^^THIS^^

[wylie]

Unfortunately, the courts say you and I are full of shit.

Hmmmm. I thi....no. Well, you see...no. Yeah, I got no response. Somtimes life is just that flabbergasting.

[wylie]

Knocking and then breaking in 3 seconds later counts as a no-knock, in my book.

I'm intrigued by your ideas and would like a subscription to your book...wait...uh, lemme rethink that.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Yeah, just like Officer Ian Birk warned half-deaf John Williams to "put the [three-inch] knife down" and then shot him repeatedly in the back after giving him no time to react.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=related

Apparently the knife was found closed, to boot.

[hazeeran]

Holy hell ...

[Res Publica Americana]

That's a capital murder. Execution, without delay, and without appeal. Fucking murderer.

[hazeeran]

It's a job I'd rather not have, but FOUR SECONDS???????????!!!

[blogimi Dei]

Walking while NATIVE.
This was done to this man in his ancestral homeland. All you motherfukers!
Sorry, I am an Alaskan Native with over 11 years active duty (Navy). This execution FUCKING PISSES ME OFF.
Listen to the disrespect from the begininng of the 'interface'.

FUCK I HATE PIGS.

WHERE IS DUMMPHY!

I NEED TO TELL HIM TO GO TO HELL.

Never mind Duphny, I will stop screaming at you man.

I apologize....

But this SHIT has to stop.
It makes me feel VIOLENT!

[Sy]

"It makes me feel VIOLENT!"

That's what cops want. To them, that's justification enough that they need to step up their tactics, which they will use to generate a report to submit to elected officials, which will be used as proof that more funding is needed for that shiney brand new SWAT training facility and APC, which will be used to quell said violence.

Basically, we're all fucked unless it's a passive, non-violent call for reform.. which I don't see happening or even working.

[Brendan Perez]

That's the only in the beginning.
The police may ramp up their aggression in the short term, but it can't last if the people simply maintain the level of intensity.
The police departments will start to run out of personnel in short time if they choose to continue abusing the people and maintaining/accelerating the aggression towards them.

Peace does not mean one side does whatever it wants and the other simply takes it without resistance. Peace is a two street and requires efforts and compromise on both sides.

If the police really want peace, then they may need to make compromises to their strategies to maintain peace. They have a duty not escalate things to the point of revolt the same way we do. If a revolt occurs, the police/government bear (at a minimum) as much blame as the people doing the revolting.

Another way to look at this is, we've been peaceful this whole and look where it's gotten us. You say it would be worse, that the police would be more aggressive if people took to the streets against them?
Well, it looks like they constantly enhance the aggression when faced with no resistance. Perhaps resistance will push them back. Passivity certainly hasn't worked.

Perhaps we should apply the "if it saves a single life" doctrine here...

[Brendan Perez]

*we've been peaceful this whole time and look where it's gotten us.

[Brendan Perez]

I hadn't seen the second video where it took 10-12 brave warriors all moving in a tight group to approach the guy lying motionless with multiple bullets in his back.

Wow, that's what I think of when I think bravery and placing one's life on the line.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

One of my formative libertarian experiences was Columbine and noticing how the police typically dealt with "active shooter" scenarios:

1.) nutjob(s) start killing people
2.) police cordon off area and wait
3.) killspree continues until the suicide of nutjobs
4.) more police waiting because "officer safety" trumps all else
5.) police finally drag thumbs out of their heavily armed and body-armored asses to cart away those who haven't yet been murdered or bled to death

[dunphy]

columbine was a disgusting example of institutionalized police cowardice in (un)action

those officers should have resigned in shame

[Sy]

Those officers should have stood some sort of trial.

Another classic example of military standards being way the fuck higher than in donut squads.
Fail to shoot your weapon when commanded? Automatic non-judicial punishment.
Fail to shoot your weapon and other people die because of you? Long time in the brig for you, sonny.

[dunphy]

if you believe in rule of law (which i realize many reasonoids don't), there is nothing they could stand trial for. being a cowardly fuckstick (and note that they responded AS PER training, which training - instituted by cop-o-crat fucksticks) is not criminally actionable.

they did nothing ILLEGAL. and responded in accordance with their (wrong) training

the problem was that they were fucking cowards and they should have had the integrity to say "training is wrong. kids are being shot. we go in"

as far as i am concerned, they should have resigned in shame

when innocents are being slaughtered in that situation - you go in. period

that's our job

[Amakudari]

They shouldn't have stood trial. They committed no crime.

But they absolutely should have lost their jobs. If there's not a clause in a police contract that mandates aiding the public -- especially unarmed children -- in a mass shooting, that in itself is an injustice.

[dunphy]

i agree. but unfortunately, there was no such clause and furthermore, their TRAINIGN (which imo they should have ignored) told them to do what they did. this was prior to ASAP

imo, they should not have needed ASAP since any rational human being should go - "innocent kids are being slaughtered. it is my FUCKING JOB to save them. i will do it."

fuck them. i fucking HATE cowards, or at least i hate cowards when they are cops, because cops have a duty NOT to be cowards

[Sy]

"if you believe in rule of law (which i realize many reasonoids don't), there is nothing they could stand trial for."

Interestingly enough, I do.. and so does Colorado:
13-21-108. Persons rendering emergency assistance exempt from liability. (1) Any person licensed as a physician and surgeon under the laws of the state of Colorado, or anv other person, who in good faith renders emergency care or emergency assistance to a person not presently his patient without compensation at the place of an emergency or accident, including a health care institution as defined in section 13-64-202 (3), shall not be liable for any civil damages for acts or omissions made in good faith as a result of the rendering of such emergency care or emergency assistance during the emergency, unless the acts or omissions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. This section shall not apply to any person who renders such emergency care or emergency assistance to a patient he is otherwise obligated to cover.

"that's our job"

The SCOTUS has disagreed with you on that several times, unfortunately.

[dunphy]

actually, the scotus doesn't disagree with me.

the scotus determined there was no LEGAL duty to act thusly in many circumstances

i agree

however, i believe there is a moral duty and certainly imo an agency should be able to fire an officer for refusing to act in certain circ's

the scotus merely ruled that such inaction was not something they could be criminally charged with, or sued for (unless certain special relationshops are established- like the subject is in custody)

for example, in my state i have NO legal duty to render medical aid. period

but imo i often have a moral duty, and i have done so.

i've gotten soaked with blood trying to stop a gunshot wound from resulting in terminal blood loss

i've done CPR (several times)

etc.

but i was not legally obligated to do so. nor could i be fired or disciplined for not doing so

[Sy]

"but imo i often have a moral duty, and i have done so"

And I'm definitely glad that you do. I wish more people thought and acted like this.

I'm well aware that this applies to medical circumstances, but the point I'm trying to make is that since children were dying and bleeding, and that the police knew about children bleeding and dying and refusing to act, that they did in fact act negligently.
No one would ever try to argue this in court, but in a situation where a couple armed kids are on a violent rampage and dozens of armed men are standing outside just waiting and letting the other children slowly die, they absolutely should be put to trial. Otherwise, that 'protect and serve' bullshit can be shoved up their ass on shrapnel.

[dunphy]

i agree in the laymans' sense and moral sense they were negligent. it was also HOW THEY WERE TRAINED {"wait for SWAT")

imo, it was morally wrong and cowardly

they should have resigned imo

[Sy]

Agreed. The worst thing I ever saw was the juxtaposing of the school security camera footage with the 911 call made by one of the kids, with the dispatch urging the officers to move while she was clearly left with the duty to listen as the kids were slowly picked off.

[dunphy]

ofc. birk's shooting WAS unjustified. as the SPD determined relatively quickly

comparing it to the guerana shooting is silly, since that shooting has not been determined to be unjustified and i have yet to see any evidence it in fact was

[Sy]

"since that shooting has not been determined to be unjustified and i have yet to see any evidence it in fact was"

Marine murdered in his own home, who was acting in self-defense. Regardless of 'the badge', and the counter-testimony to the fact that there were no sirens or warnings, they murdered a man defending his family.

But, then again, I'm told that no matter what I'm always supposed to assume the police would never do anything unjustifiable, and that it's up to the victim suspect's corpse to prove that the raid wasn't justified.

[Sy]

and then in lieu of regenerating, re-animating post-apocalyptic virus allowing the corpse to speak, 'the police' get to speak for him, and they promise they'll give him a fair shake. They'll stick their hands into his lifeless skull, yanking his jaw up and down like a fucking sockpuppet and ventrilo them some fuckin' self-incriminating evidence out of him it.

[dunphy]

having an "untouchables" flashback?

[Sy]

I need to watch that movie again. It's been a long time.

[dunphy]

you are begging the question/ typical prejudice. what evidence do you have he was MURDERED in his home?

you're not supposed to ASSUME anything. what you are doing IS assuming something. you are assuming he was murdered w/o evidence.

contrast with a case like birk's or schene's both of which were OBVIOUSLY unjustified, and in the case of schene, clearly criminal imo. and i had that opinion because the evidence pointed me that way

evidence. you don't care about it. i do

[Sy]

"what evidence do you have he was MURDERED in his home"

His dead body, filled with bullet casings easily traceable to serialized, department-issued weapons. You?

[Sy]

So. If you get a call for a dead body in a domicile. And you just happen to find 70 bullet casings surrounding a bloodied corpse, you just take a note of it and then go home?

[dunphy]

no, i investigate it. it is certainly a homicide. whether sufficient PC can be developed to prosecute for a crime is another issue entirely. whether sufficient evidence beyond a reasonable doubt can be proved (and thus a charge of murder is carried through to conviction) is another question

there is zero doubt the killing of guerana was a homicide

the question was - is it justified.

unlike you, i am not a bigot. i require evidence before i assume the cops are guilty of a crime. i have seen no evidence to conclude they committed murder

i have seen substantial # of incidents where i concluded cops committed a crime (schene, etc.) .

this is not one of them

but again, i require evidence.

[dunphy]

that's not evidence of murder. it's evidence of homicide. murder is (in layman's terms) an unlawful killing involving malice aforethought, etc.

you demonstrated evidence of homicide.

[Sy]

The difference between you and me is that you default to the position of the innocence of other police officers when they act in an official capacity. I default to the position of the 'suspect' is innocent and warranted no execution before a trial could take place when the 'suspect' was merely defending his life during an unreasonable search and seizure, especially when no mortal threat was present to any police officer during the entire encounter.

And even if there was some danger present for the police officers, the police fired first. An 'accidental discharge' if I'm not mistaken.

[dunphy]

that's a lie

i never said the officers were innocent. lie after lie from you

i said i saw no evidence the shooting was unjustified

i said (ad nauseum) i had no belief EITHER WAY whether it was or wasn't unjustified.

when you get done misrepresenting my opinion - get back to me

[Sy]

When you get done sucking at the teet of the authoritarian cow, get back to me.

[Sy]

Your position seems to be "there is no evidence ANYBODY" did anything wrong.
But you completely ignore the fact that the police were acting within an official capacity, which was to serve some joke-ass warrant. In order to do that, they have to suspect some crime is being committed. If a crime is being committed, then I'd imagine it would be their job to find the person committing said crime. So, they were there to find a criminal, which they didn't. They found a suspect, which they 'killed' since murder is too nasty sounding to you.

Dunphy, this IS NOT a "something didn't happen" instance. This is a "something definitely did happen", and that "something" happened to be that "police" killed the "suspect (maybe?)"
Are you saying that police didn't kill somebody, therefore there is no reason to find justification for action on anybody's part, or are you saying that because the police are allowed to kill in this place, there's no reason to believe what they did was UNjustifiable?

And since you conveniently forget, Jose Guerena was not post-humously charged with committing any crime, so they were fucking wrong about ANY crime being committed. They killed a man. They might have killed a man defending his own home. But EITHER.FUCKING.WAY. They killed him.

[dunphy]

prosecutors don't posthumously charge people with crimes when they are killed (for example) in self defense

i have been involved in two investigations in the last 10 yrs where citizens (not cops) shot people in self defense.

in NEITHER case was the person shot and killed charged with ANY crime

not only are you lying about my position, but you are staggeringly ignorant about legal procedure

[dunphy]

here's an example of one case I am very familiar with.

hint: sanderson was not charged posthomously with ANYTHING (nor is that procedure
hint: the citizen was found justified in the defensive shoot. no charges filed. no arrest made.

case closed

Tuesday, May 2, 2000

By RUTH SCHUBERT
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

On Sunday, his father cleaned out the empty dormitory room. Friends gathered in the University of Washington's Lander Hall to share memories and cry. And those closest to the lanky freshman from Bellingham are grappling with how a rowdy Saturday night on University Way Northeast ended in horror as James Sanderson was shot and killed.

Police say Sanderson, 19, assaulted two people and was "acting very strangely" in the minutes before he jumped on a car and was shot by the driver.

But, with the reality of Sanderson's death sinking in, his friends say he was sometimes "goofy," but never violent.

And they do not understand why the driver was carrying a gun and why he had to shoot to kill.

"(Sanderson) always had a huge smile; you couldn't frown around him," UW freshman Claire Holley, one of Sanderson's best friends, said yesterday.

According to Seattle police, Sanderson assaulted a couple of people, then jumped on a car at Northeast 50th Street and University Way Northeast just before 11 p.m. Saturday.

Police say Sanderson reached into the car and grabbed at the driver, then the driver fired a shot.

The driver, a 22-year-old Seattle man, was licensed to have a gun, police said, and was released after officers interviewed him.

Police have not yet forwarded the case to the King County Prosecutor's Office, which will decide whether to file charges.

The strange, out-of-control portrait painted by the police report is completely at odds with the description of a happy-go-lucky guy given by Sanderson's friends and dorm mates.

Holley said Sanderson was a bright student who rarely had to study. He came from a close-knit, extended family in Bellingham and looked forward to having children one day.

Sanderson tutored schoolchildren in chemistry, and Holley remembers him coming back one day and saying, gleefully, "I get paid $20 an hour to be around little kids."

Holley said Sanderson met his girlfriend during freshman orientation last year and was completely taken with her at first sight. The couple recently spent spring break in San Francisco together.

In Lander Hall, students on Sanderson's floor met Sunday night with UW counselors. Regine Biscoe, also a freshman, said everyone started laughing when one of the counselors asked what color hair Sanderson had.

Turns out it was light brown up until a month ago, when he dyed it what Biscoe described as "highlighter yellow."

"College is really stressful and everything," Biscoe said. "But he was always able to make you smile."

For many, though, the reality hasn't completely sunk in.

"It's kind of like everyone on this floor is kind of his family," said freshman Jeff Shelton, who lives on the same floor.

"He's a fun-loving guy, and I just don't see him being violent. . . . None of it should have happened."

P-I reporter Ruth Schubert can be reached at 206-448-8130 or [e-mail]

[dunphy]

Witnesses deny slain youth was aggressive
'He was tripping . . . just flying high . . .'

Wednesday, May 3, 2000

By RUTH SCHUBERT
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

Two witnesses to the shooting death of a University of Washington freshman say he was not acting aggressively in the minutes before the shooting.

James Sanderson, a 19-year-old from Bellingham, was shot through the neck Saturday night by the driver of a white Honda onto which Sanderson jumped.

Police say that Sanderson "assaulted" several people on the night he was killed and that he opened the Honda's door and "grabbed" at the driver.

But two witnesses interviewed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer characterized Sanderson's behavior as more like someone who was flying high on drugs, hugging strangers and bouncing over the hood of the Honda driver's car.

"I would be sorry if the world and the public believed that this guy was attacking people and that the driver shot him out of self-defense," said a 37-year-old man who witnessed the shooting at University Avenue Northeast and Northeast 50th Street just before 11 p.m. Saturday. "That's entirely incorrect."

The two witnesses filed statements with the police on the night of the shooting; one spoke to police again yesterday. They agreed to be interviewed by the P-I only if their names were not published.

Police have determined that Sanderson was experimenting with LSD on the night of the shooting, said Sgt. Cynthia Tallman, although toxicology reports will not be available for a matter of weeks.

Sanderson's behavior was consistent with someone who was using drugs, according to the two witnesses. They were walking toward their car when they spotted Sanderson running around in the street, yelling and hugging strangers, including a couple walking behind them.

"He was just elated and thought that he was king of the world, and he was not about to hurt anybody was my take," the 37-year-old male witness said. "He was tripping on something . . . he was just flying high."

Another witness, a 31-year-old woman, said there was something a little scary about the way Sanderson was behaving, but she wasn't afraid of being assaulted by the 6-foot-4-inch basketball enthusiast.

The witnesses saw Sanderson walk across the hood of a white Honda that was stopped at a light at the intersection, but they say that it was the driver who opened the car door. Sanderson only turned back after the door was open. "He just continued his celebration by walking up and over this car, and he would have kept going but the car door opened up," the male witness said.

Within a couple seconds, the 22-year-old Honda driver fired.

The two witnesses said they did not see what happened in the seconds between when Sanderson walked behind the open car door and the shot was fired. Police say that Sanderson grabbed at the driver, strongly supporting a case of self defense.

The driver had a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and police released him after interviewing him. No charges against the driver are expected, officer Pam McCammon said yesterday.

Police are releasing few details of the case, which is being investigated.

John Junker, a professor of criminal law at the UW, said that under state law what's important is whether the person who used deadly force reasonably believed that he or she was in danger of death or great bodily injury. "It's not really an assessment of the badness of the defendent," Junker said, "but of (whether) it was reasonable to make the assessment that under these circumstances it was necessary to use the kind of threat you used in order to protect yourself."

But legal definitions weren't very compelling to those who watched as Sanderson died in the street.

"He could have driven away," the woman witness said of the shooter.

The two witnesses were left with the impression that Sanderson was killed simply for making a mistake.

"Should this guy have been shot for walking on a car? That's really the sentence that sums it all up," the male witness said

[Sy]

My god, you're fucking obtuse if you think that courts are going to look at a case of self-defense of a citizen against another citizen vs. a case of self-defense vs. a police department. You may think that, but don't for a fucking second pretend that others are going to go along with it.

[dunphy]

Sy, try to have some fucking intellectual integrity

you have made false claims about my position, i point them out and you evade like a cowardly fuckstick

i have shown where you were wrong and you should simply man up and fucking admit "i misrepresented your position"

again, i DO NOT KNOW whether the guerana shooting

was
1) a crime
2) justified.

as for (2), there is at least more evidence that it was justified than before, since the review ruled thusly.

[Sy]

"as for (2), there is at least more evidence that it was justified than before, since the review ruled thusly."

"Sy, try to have some fucking intellectual integrity"
Try to keep the name-calling to a minimum.
"you have made false claims about my position, i point them out and you evade like a cowardly fuckstick"

How did I make a false claim? What am I evading, you sad sack of self-important shit?

"i have shown where you were wrong and you should simply man up and fucking admit "i misrepresented your position"

You've shown me where I'm wrong about.. what, exactly? You not having the ability to claim something did or did not happen while magically claiming that something did happen but one side was NOT unjustified in said happening, or that your position consists of something else?

Let's try this, Officer Fuckhead:

Please spell it out for me, a simpleton, again please? Pretty please?

I honestly don't want to misinterpret your position on this, but I want you to stop pretending that you're neutral on this when you're so clearly not.

[Sudden]

I get pissed everytime a Canadian lectures the US about its practices.

I get even more pissed when the Canadian is right to do so.

[Federal Dog]

Surprising they have time to lecture. It's hard to preach when you're rioting and burning cars due to hockey-loss rage.

[Sudden]

Meanwhile, the rest of the world can envy Boston. Boston is, IIRC, the only city to boast a championship in all four major sports over the past decade. Including three super bowls and two WS titles.

[Libertymike]

In addition, Boston is the only city to boast a championship in all three major sports and the backwater, niche sport of hockey in the last seven years.

However, the Boston sports fan tends to be parochial and provincial. Boston fans tend not to care too much about other sports if it does not involve the Red Sox, the Celtics, the Patriots or the Bruins. I am an expert on this subject, believe me.

One illustration of the foregoing: tv ratings for games not including the hometown laundry. Year after year, the ratings in the Boston market for games not involving the local teams are always lower than ALL of the other non-interested markets. Thus, say Dallas is playing Green Bay in mid October on FOX' 4:15 PM EST late game. The Boston ratings would be lower than the Phoenix, New ORleans, new York, Philadelphia, Buffalo, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver, St. Louis, Cleveland, Cincinnatti, Twin Cities, Indianapolis and Kansas City markets.

Try calling a Boston sports talk show today to discuss the on-going NFL labor talks or the United States Open golf championship or Derek Jeter's pursuit of 3,000 hits or Rick Carlisle's brilliant coaching job.

[Joe R.]

Almost a requisite link in a conversation like this:

http://www.onionsportsnetwork......tion,2382/

[Lowdog]

Dude, Canadians in Montreal rioted when the Canadians (the hockey team) won back in '93, so it doesn't seem to matter whether they win or lose.

[Otto]

Good thing American fans never act like that.

It was much less damaging, but then again, cops shoot to kill here in the US.

[Libertymike]

Why should you get upset by a canucklehead lecturing the very embodiment of totalitarian statism?

[Sudden]

Hence the second line where I said I am even more pissed when he is right to do so... Jeez, gotta have a sense of humour with our pale bretheren to the north.

[Libertymike]

Understood.

The fans showed more of a willingness to engage than did the vancouver players. Notwithstanding the Beantown demonization of the Canuck players, the Western Conference champs appeared to just turn the other cheek after a Bruin would initiate force.

The better, more skilled team lost to a bunch of bullies.

[Mensan]

The better, more skilled team lost to a bunch of bullies.

Well, that is how they won the Eastern Conference in the first place. Why change a winning formula? Why try to play good hockey when you can just play dirty and commit blatant fouls (that are somehow invisible to the refs) instead?

[Sy]

^^^^^^^ THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Shmenge]

The Philadelphia Flyers aka The Broad Street Bullies were the originators of this. May they rot in hell.

[wylie]

our pale bretheren to the north.

Huh? Oh, you must leave the house occasionally, nevermind.

[Res Publica Americana]

I swear to God, if I knew of a way to stand up effectively against armored paramilitary personnel, I'd shoot every single one of those fucking animals as they entered my house.

Then I'd load up my car with ammunition and explosives, and massacre the United States Capitol, the office of every enforcement-enabled federal agency, and the White House.

If only, God, if only this were somehow possible to do. Every fucking one of them deserves to hang for what they've done to the Republic.

[Barry D]

Hanging is a relatively humane form of execution. Something more creative might be appropriate.

[Res Publica Americana]

Is there a way back? Is there truly any hope left for any of us? There are millions of people in this country, and from that huge pool will be the future legislators and judges and presidents and governments throughout this country, and somewhere, at some time, there will always be tyrants and murderers and thieves, and whatever progress liberty and justice make, there will always be people willing to vote themselves into slavery, and there will always be people willing to stick them squarely into it.

It makes me sick to my fucking stomach.

[Libertymike]

Ditto. People around here may get sick of me pointing this out but... liberty and justice can not be advanced where the king is the sole arbiter of the law.

[wylie]

Dude, that's like so 1225.

[Libertymike]

It was a very good year.......

[wylie]

It was a very good year.......

I doubt we'll see its likes again in our lifetimes (I'm almost 30, for reference).

[TrickyVic]

Who is this king you speak of?

[Jim]

Here's a hint: he just lost a championship to MY MAVS!!!

I was at the parade this morning, and we all got "LeBron Championship Rings", in imitation of that stunt the minor league baseball team pulled.

[Libertymike]

Jim-

I'm happy for you and for Coach Carlisle, Dirk, the three Js, Tyson Chandler, Kiron Butler, Peja et al. I have been a fan of Dirk's for years-I remember how he and Nash overcame a 15 point defecit to start the 4th quarter against the Jazz, at Salt Lake City, on May 3, 2001, to steal game 5 and the series in that operning round of the Western Conference playoffs. It was, imo, one of the very best games of all time.

However, the Lebron schatenfraude party ain't doing it for me. Yeah, measured against those who have played the largest in a championship series / title game, Lebron's effort comes up puny. But, I just don't get the hate.

Furthermore, its not as if he didn't come up huge in crunch time in the 2 prior series against the Bulls and the Celtics.

Hey, he went to play on a team with one of his very best friends, for less money and with the stated purpose of putting himself in the best position to bring home the hardware. Is that so horrible?

[Jim]

Furthermore, its not as if he didn't come up huge in crunch time in the 2 prior series against the Bulls and the Celtics.

Irrelevant. What matters is what one does in the Finals/Superbowl/World Series, etc. If a player has a supreme performance in many games leading up to the championship, then vanishes when he's needed most, wilts under the pressure, what has he actually accomplished? Pro leagues are "what have you done for me lately.

Hey, he went to play on a team with one of his very best friends, for less money and with the stated purpose of putting himself in the best position to bring home the hardware. Is that so horrible?

If you're a very, very good player, but not one of the greatest, then no (and assuming you don't host a crass hour-long special specifically designed to take a suprise dump on your city and your fans).

However, if you're a self-styled "king", and supposed to be in conversations about being the best in the game (and are being compared to Jordan), then you're a coward and a bitch to basically admit that you can't handle the pressure of building a team around you (like Dirk did for 13 long years), and instead want to go ride another guys' nuts to a championship (D-Wade). Wade would be up there with Jordan if he was blessed with LeBron's physical gifts...and yet he was clearly the better player and leader in the Finals.

LeBron refuses to develop a post-game or a mid-range jumper, even though it's been painfully obvious for years that those weapons would complete his arsenal. A truly great player would focus on developing his game, and relentlessly improving himself, instead of just being content with where he's at. His comments about the peasants having to go back to their miserable lives only cemeted what a jackass he is, and I love every minute of his failure.

[gao xia en]

Why don't you armchair athletes post on ESPN or something? Who gives a fuck about some primadonnas pulling down monster wages playing kids' games?

[cynical]

My only hope is that the sleeping honey badger that is the American public can be roused from its current state of not giving a shit to, well, the other sort of not giving a shit.

[reason readin female]

I love me some honey badger. He is so badass!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7wHMg5Yjg

[The Mossy Spaniard]

I am fervently looking forward to the day when I don't have to bitch about this kind of thing anymore.

[Cyto]

While you are at it, ask for a puppy.

Wait, cancel the puppy. Make that a pony. They don't shoot ponies, do they?

[wylie]

Depends. Has said-pony incurred any sort of injury recently? Infected hoof maybe, a bad mane-cut. Then, yes. For Teh Mercy.

[The Mossy Spaniard]

Not that I know of, but I suppose it's just a matter of time.

[The Mossy Spaniard]

Not that I know of, but I suppose it's just a matter of time.

[wylie]

I made it through 3mins.

This will be removed from every part of the internet by tomorrow morning.

"YOU SHOT MY FUCKING DOG"

...yeah.

[Brandt Hardin]

The War on Drugs failed $1 Trillion ago! This money could have been used for outreach programs to clean up the bad end of drug abuse by providing free HIV testing, free rehab, and clean needles. Harmless drugs like marijuana could be legalized to help boost our damaged economy. Cannabis can provide hemp for countless natural recourses and the tax revenue from sales alone would pull every state in our country out of the red! Vote Teapot, PASS IT, and legalize it. Voice you opinion with the movement and read more on my artist's blog at http://dregstudiosart.blogspot.....-2011.html

[Mensan]

Five officers involved in the shooting of a U.S. Marine who was killed when he was gunned down in his home near Tucson, Arizona have been cleared of any wrongdoing.

What's with this passive voice bullshit? How about:

"Five officers who shot and killed a U.S. Marine in his home near Tucson, Arizona have been cleared of any wrongdoing."

[wylie]

What's with this cleared-of-any-wrong-doing bullshit?

[dunphy]

it's called due process. i realize that anti-cop bigots prefer prejudice and instant condemnation for cops.

contrast with the birk shooting, which was quickly ruled unjustified.

[Sy]

It's a court-ruling that allows dunphy to claim that police are allowed to murder people with a wide margin of error, so he can pull the bigotry card any time someone calls out the police for murdering citizens.

[dunphy]

again, Sy you demonstrate ASTOUNDING ignorance

it was NOT a "court-ruling". it was a prosecutor's office determination. it's what they do in EVERY shooting case forwarded to them- whether civilian or police shooting.

that's about the 4th error i have caught you in

will you admit it?

i'll stand by

[Sy]

No sense of humor, huh? I guess I should expect as much by now.

[Mensan]

Actually, better yet:

"Five officers who shot a U.S. Marine in his home near Tucson, Arizona, and then withheld emergency medical care for an hour and 14 minutes while he slowly bleed to death have gotten away with murder."

A little wordy, but much more accurate.

[Cyto]

At least they didn't work in something about "5 weapons discharged during the incident, resultant injuries would prove fatal to the decedent".

[Saro]

"Struck with 22 small pieces of metal that emanated from the direction of the SWAT team, ballistics show."

[blogimi Dei]

What is a euphemism for Euphemism?

[Sy]

pretty words

[gao xia en]

+1 funeral

[dunphy]

well, except for the unsupported "got away with murder" part

[H man]

For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states

If it's in the Declaration of Independence as a reason to revolt, you might want to rethink your policies.

[EscapedWestOfTheBigMuddy]

This.

[Mensan]

bleed should be bled

[Res Publica Americana]

I know you guys like to take a lighthearted approach to most things at one point or another in the discussion, but I honestly can't bring myself to do that. I tried, and I typed, but I just can't. I've reached the point where I'm literally on the verge of bursting out in rage and yelling at the fucking wall until I go blue in the face.

I truly can't wrap my mind around this, can't ACCEPT, that THIS is what MY country, THE United States, has come to. It just hasn't hit me yet, and when it does, it'll knock out all of my fucking teeth.

[hazeeran]

You're not alone. I figure there has to be some pain in enlightenment.

[Otto]

I know what you mean. I'm currently applying for jobs in Canada. I can't take this shit anymore.

[dunphy]

ah, the statist paradise of canada. you should love it there

[Sy]

Ah.. the country where police don't murder its own citizens over marijuana.

[dunphy]

canada has a much lower crime rate than us (violent crime) and about 1/10 our population. i'm not aware one way or the other whether canadian cops are more or less likely to engage in excessive force, to include murder than US cops, when population and violent crime incidents (generally speaking, the more violent fucksticks cops have to deal with, the more likely they will have to use force) are accounted for

if you have knowledge thereof i'd love to see it. i remain agnostic on issues i don't have sufficient data on\

[Sy]

well just by a quick google comparison, I don't see anywhere near as much in the way of arrests for drug possession or warrants executed for drugs as here in the U.S. Outside of that, I've got nothing to offer you.

[TrickyVic]

Threadjack,

SF truly is the ultimate nanny town.

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news.....23649.html

[Somalian Road Corporation]

I clicked on that expecting some environmental rationale but instead:

The recommendation to the San Francisco Board of Supervisors is part of the commission's ongoing efforts to discourage "impulse buys" of animals.

Protecting citizens from impulse purchases... now there's a legitimate function of government that could not possibly be abused in any way.

[Amakudari]

As someone who lived there, I can tell you the South Park episode about SF was 100% accurate.

[Brent]

God, this is heartbreaking. Thank you for the article and posting the video. Reposting now.

[35N4P2BYY]

Yeah I get the song, but, like many protest songs this on crudely bludgeons one over the head with the theme.

On different note, have some experience in room clearing and such, where the hell was these asshole's rear security.

Rule number one of Close Quarters Battle: The only secure room is the one you are in.

So, not only are these agencies committing gross violation of personal liberties, they are using fucked up tactics to do so. Fail of the highest order

[Mensan]

Hold up a minute ... are you saying that reaching over someone's shoulder to blindly empty your magazine into an open doorway is a poor tactic?

[Res Publica Americana]

Sarcasm aside, that's honestly a capital case. One or two of them deserve execution, and the rest should be up on it for life. Maybe that'll teach the pigs a lesson.

[Trivial Ends]

Libertarians think that illuminating a few misadventures of the police force is worthy enough to count as reason to end the war on drugs.

What you need is police accountability, not an end to anti-drug laws.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Once you have accepted the moral principle that the state may violently intervene to protect a person against themselves regardless of what that person thinks, you're going to have a lot of problems that absolutely no amount of "accountability" will solve.

[Trivial Ends]

*smirks*

Once you've accepted the moral principle that the state may not intervene to protect its citizens at all, then accountability ceases to have any value whatsoever.

On the societal level, drug control policies are necessary to keep the population's mental stability in order. You're casually ignoring the reality that drug abuse causes a mass-dissemenation of work-related, family-related, and crime-related side-affects.

Your logic intends to project the image that the DEA's sole purpose is to be violent against peaceful hippies who use drugs.

The majority of the so-called violence committed in the name of drug control happens on the international drug trade, where it is actually war... the violence would be a lot worse against citizens if the U.S military didn't intervene to stop drug cartels.

The U.S policy is to merely control the demand so that international drug trafficing has less of a market to leech off.

[35N4P2BYY]

But these negative effects are and will continue to happen regardless of if the substances in question are or are not legal. There are many legal activities that have the same net effect, e.g. gambling and alcoholism. Should these activities be banned as well?

This is the same logic that gets us into banned trans-fats. By your estimation any given individual is unable to do what is in their best interest they must have "Those who know best" decide what they should and should not do. Of course "Those Who Know Best" usually don't and are the same sort of creature that they are making decisions for and therefore equally unreliable.

[Amakudari]

On the societal level, drug control policies are necessary to keep the population's mental stability in order. You're casually ignoring the reality that drug abuse causes a mass-dissemenation of work-related, family-related, and crime-related side-affects.

I assume you want to ban alcohol, too, right?

the violence would be a lot worse against citizens if the U.S military didn't intervene

Okay, I'm done here. Obviously a troll.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Once you've accepted the moral principle that the state may not intervene to protect its citizens at all, then accountability ceases to have any value whatsoever.

I never advocated such a principle, and neither does anyone that I'm aware of. (Those who are opposed to state intervention in all circumstances are opposed to any state at all.) I believe that the state should only intervene in the case of force or fraud. When somebody buys weed from Longhair McHippie and smokes it, who is the perpetrator and who is the victim?

On the societal level, drug control policies are necessary to keep the population's mental stability in order.

That's one hell of an unsupported assertion. Why should it be believed any more than the anti-alcohol crusaders who made identical claims in the past? Or those who believe that apostasy or miscegenation are deleterious to society and should be banned?

You're casually ignoring the reality that drug abuse causes a mass-dissemenation of work-related, family-related, and crime-related side-affects.

It is possible to use drugs without "abusing" them, and accepting arguendo those negative effects, are said effects actually worse than negative ones that are caused by prohibition?

Your logic intends to project the image that the DEA's sole purpose is to be violent against peaceful hippies who use drugs.

The majority of the so-called violence committed in the name of drug control happens on the international drug trade, where it is actually war... the violence would be a lot worse against citizens if the U.S military didn't intervene to stop drug cartels.

When was the last time Bayer and GlaxoSmithKline had a bloody turf war? Seen the Pfizer logo on something that looks like this (http://www.businessinsider.com/check-out-the-newest-weapons-innovation-from-mexicos-drug-cartels-2011-5) recently?

When you remove the ability for people to address their grievances through the police and courts, the rule of the gun prevails.

The U.S policy is to merely control the demand so that international drug trafficing has less of a market to leech off.

"Control the demand", heh. And the New Soviet Man won't feel greed or envy either.

As for "leeching", people voluntarily hand over money despite the risk of imprisonment because they value the product. Even in countries with the death penalty for drug-related crimes, drugs are still available. The money involved is so staggering that there will always be those willing to step up.

[Res Publica Americana]

"""""""As for "leeching", people voluntarily hand over money despite the risk of imprisonment because they value the product. Even in countries with the death penalty for drug-related crimes, drugs are still available. The money involved is so staggering that there will always be those willing to step up."""""""

And that's a statistical certainty, by the way, so it's not going to change, before Trivial Ends wades deeper into his "WELL WE CAN JUST ENTER IRL CHEAT CODE AND MAKE IT STOP" bullshit.

[ChicagoSucks]

*smirks*

This gave it away.

[Otto]

...the violence would be a lot worse against citizens if the U.S military didn't intervene to stop drug cartels.

Here is a picture of seven men murdered in a turf war for drug sales. The year was 1929, the drug was alcohol. According to your logic, we now have many more people murdered in turf wars for alcohol. Here in Florida, ABC liquors must be killing dozens of employees of Walgreens liquors. And they're so powerful, they must be able to keep all these murders out of the news.

[rogue biologist]

"On the societal level, drug control policies are necessary to keep the population's mental stability in order."

Bullshit. Humans evolved to USE drugs. Sometimes you need to get the fuck out of this batshit crazy world to be productive at all. I, personally, don't use drugs, but I'm also batshit insane myself.

http://swilhite.weebly.com/hum.....drugs.html

[35N4P2BYY]

No, what is needed is a return to a place where personal freedom AND responsibility are valued over the desire to control what an individual chooses to do.... Prohibition has not, is not, and will not work.

Sending in SWAT for some pothead's stash doesn't seem like a productive use of resources, which regardless of the budget, are finite. Police should maybe spend more time on crimes where one person is actually violating the rights of another. Instead of policing what individuals are doing of their own free will and whom the only victim, if you want to call it that, is... themselves. Maybe these police resources could be diverted to protect those that are legitimately threatened by crimes where an individual is actually violating the rights of another, e.g. assault, theft, murder.

[Trivial Ends]

So your mentality is to just give up because the intended results weren't to your liking? You can't stop murder and rape completely, but then again you want police to control that? Why bother? If you can't put an end to murder and rape, it should be legal.. right?

[Amakudari]

I know I'm nitpicking, but I believe the difference is that murderers kill people and rapists violently assault someone sexually.

No, we can't root them out. But the cost of limiting them is minimal. The cost of pursuing every last dimebag on the street is catastrophic, hence the US's 1 million nonviolent prisoners and the estimated $80 billion cost of the War on Drugs (what, $600 per household?).

Again, just nitpicking.

[35N4P2BYY]

No, I am making a distinction between the legitimate use of government power, to prevent, pursue and punish offenders who actually violate the rights of another, the right to have a piece of property, the right to continue to draw breath, the right to not be attacked and raped. These instances are where government involvement is appropriate.

When an individual engages in the consensual act of buying or imbibing any substance they are not violating anyone's rights.

Now if an individual goes on a killing spree after snorting 15 lines of coke then yeah, there is a violation of rights. But I would argue that those that get high and commit crimes are, one probably already doing so, and two, are predisposed towards criminal activities to begin with.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Murder and rape have a victim and a perpetrator. Consensual crimes turn the entire concept on its head because the supposed victim and perp are one and the same.

[Trivial Ends]

So I should be able to inject my blood full of heroin, report to work, and expect to be treated like a normal functioning person until I break a rule?

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Such is the difference between use and abuse.

"Dr. William Stewart Halsted is widely recognized as 'the father of modern surgery' and was one of the four founders of Johns Hopkins Medical Center. Dr. Halsted died at the age of 70, having revolutionized surgery (the sterile operating room was one of his many contributions). He enjoyed a thirty-two-year marriage, good health, and the admiration of his peers. However, Sir William Osler's 'Secret History' of the medical center, made public in 1969, revealed that Dr. Halsted had been addicted to morphine until the end of his life. Dr. Osler, another of the founders of Johns Hopkins, wrote,

He had never been able to reduce the amount to less than three grains [180 milligrams] daily; on this he could do his work comfortably, and maintain his excellent physical vigor.

A daily injection of morphine is certainly not recommended operating room procedure, but the history of Dr. Halsted is hardly the stereotype of narcotic addiction that we have come to believe." --Peter McWilliams, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do

[Trivial Ends]

That is some what deviant to my point. There are thousands of people in the world that drink alcohol every day... even have to drink to "steady themselves out" (which is the same thing as preventing withdrawal symptoms with small doses).

What I'm asking is if there should be any regulation on the books concerning alcohol and drugs? If I'm a supervisor, and I notice that someone is stumbling into work, drunk, ready to get on a forklift to handle top-dollar merchandise, should I just ignore it and discipline him after he's already fucked up?

There has to be laws concerning drug abuse because of these potential hazards in society. There has to be a way to recognize threats and assess risk and damage before it happens. Without laws concerning drugs, there is no means to prevent moral hazard.

To quote my favorite movie, Clueless, "It is one thing to spark up a dubie at a party and quite another to be fried all day".

If you drink a beer and smoke a joint on a friday night at a party with friends, chances are you're harmless.. but there are cases when alcohol and drugs lead to violence, and the regulations help protect the victims. Back in the 70's, you could get drunk, drive your car and kill someone and get off the hook because you were just drunk.

What you're arguing is that we let everyone become victims first, and society isn't going to go for that. After all, in a soverign nation, it's what the people want afterall, isn't it?

I agree with President Obama that the "war on drugs" should be redefined. Drug control policies make better sense, and is much less sensationalized.

The government should not be breaking into people's homes and killing their dogs, I agree.. but to sit idle while drug abuse proliferates and destroys society is quote absent-minded.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

What I'm asking is if there should be any regulation on the books concerning alcohol and drugs? If I'm a supervisor, and I notice that someone is stumbling into work, drunk, ready to get on a forklift to handle top-dollar merchandise, should I just ignore it and discipline him after he's already fucked up?

You're conflating government and private spheres. If it's your company, you should be able to discipline or fire him for any rationale you so desire, whether it's drug use or you not liking his haircut.

What you're arguing is that we let everyone become victims first, and society isn't going to go for that.

"Society" is an abstraction. If there are actual victims with damages then that's another story entirely.

I ask again, what if "society" thinks that allowing mixed-race marriages, apostasy or blasphemy have negative effects? Would it then be right to outlaw such acts?

After all, in a soverign nation, it's what the people want afterall, isn't it?

No. That is the entire purpose of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, to limit and define the powers of government to protect against the whims of majorities. (The relative success of this leaves something to be desired, but not for lack of trying on the parts of some.)

[Trivial Ends]

Um, of course ... Life doesn't cease to be life just because it isn't privately owned.

Again, single-villian mentality.

the government isn't allowed to make those calls but an employer can because you HAVE to work or starve to death? Very compassionate.

[dunphy]

it is 100% correct that opioid users, and even addicts can function well - and safely- as productive members of society

[Somalian Road Corporation]

Also, if the difference between somebody using drugs and somebody who is not is imperceptible, that sounds to me like the drugs are not the problem.

[dunphy]

correct. people who are addicted to opioids function quite well as long as they get proper maintenance dosage. the science on this is not in the least controversial. i hate to use the term "settled science"... but it is

[Amakudari]

So I should be able to inject my blood full of heroin, report to work, and expect to be treated like a normal functioning person until I break a rule?

If you remain normal and functioning, then yes. Duh.

The employer should have the right to fire you for any offense agreed upon in your work contract (including the lack of a reason), but the state should not be involved in what is a private, mutual contract.

[Trivial Ends]

So you don't mind a ruler as long as it's the owner of a company and not a politician.

Very defiant, and confusing...

First tantrum, "Fuck authority!!"
Second tantrum, "I defend my Boss's Right to make me suck his cock if I want to keep my job!!!

[Amakudari]

I enter into a mutually agreed-upon contract with an employer. I have never been fired but have left my employer before, and our relationship was terminated in line with that agreement. Were pay to deviate from the contract, or my services should fail to meet those we agreed upon, recompense would be in order. These are fairly basic concepts. Also, notice the word "agree."

I do not consent to my money being used to fund five wars. I do not consent to having the highest incarceration rate in the world. I do not consent to the generational wealth transfer that is SS/Medicare/Medicaid. But I have no choice but to fund these or face jail and seizure of my assets for as long as I refuse to cooperate. It is not about some hippie-anarchist "fucking authority," it's about consent.

But I see, again, that this distinction is lost.

[Trivial Ends]

Again, you don't mind being ruled as long as it is by an employer's hand and not the government's?

It's very easy to be on the employers side when there are hundreds of government regulations keeping him in check to make sure he doesn't fuck you in yer manpleaser and forget you ever existed.

*thumps up!*

[Amakudari]

Again, you don't mind being ruled as long as it is by an employer's hand and not the government's?

How am I being ruled when I choose where I would work, get paid to do so, and can leave of my own free will? What do you not understand about the word "consent"?

And the biggest thing keeping my employer in check has always been the knowledge that a) we have a signed contract, and b) I can get a job right across the street.

[Trivial Ends]

Yes, you're enjoying the luxuries that years of labor organizing that influenced law has provided for you. It's one thing to say, "the owner has a right to do what he pleases with his company" when you're on this side of the line. Try saying it when business was completely freewheeling.

[Amakudari]

BS. They are free to offer me $10 an hour, no health insurance, no spot for a car, and minimal vacation. They are free to fire me without cause. There is no ceiling on the number of hours I may work. Yet they offer generous health insurance, transportation subsidies, an effective wage several times the minimum, good vacation, promotions, and acceptable work hours. Although salaried I have never heard anyone say, "Well, we don't want to let you do ___ but state law requires us to."

The law doesn't mandate any of these benefits. So why do they do it? Do you have anything more than an unfalsifiable belief that decades-ago labor movements caused it?

[gao xia en]

Productive for who? Many people benefit from the current situation, just not freedom-loving and constitution-abiding ones, only WOD profiteers.

[gao xia en]

Don't hold your breath.

[Amakudari]

What you need is police accountability

LOL

[Trivial Ends]

Realistically, both ends need to culminate the bullshit. I'm a liberal, and I have a lot of friends who are progressive democrats. They anxiously wait for big business or corporations to do something "evil" so they can pounce on it to push their own agenda. The fact that BP had an oil spill doesn't mean Nike and the Gap need to be controlled by the government.

Same deal Libertarians... Let the merit of your own ideas speak for itself rather than using shock propaganda to validate your anti-state ax-grinding.

[Res Publica Americana]

Only acts that infringe upon the equal rights of others can in any way be considered crimes and punished in any manner whatsoever, period. No discussion, no question. Deal with it.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."

Prove to me, right now, that termination of the hellishly abominable war on drugs would result in societal "mental instability".

"""""""On the societal level, drug control policies are necessary to keep the population's mental stability in order."""""""

"Necessary to keep the population's mental stability in order?" What the fuck are people, sheep for you to mold and dictate? And what the fuck does mental stability mean -- whatever Senator Cheesedick McTyrant thinks it is? Give me a break. We've had decades of your bullshit flowing in turbulent rivers unto civilization, and so far it's managed to skull-fuck every moral and practical and technical facet of society it's touched.

[Trivial Ends]

Human beings function in societies, it's a part of evolution. Your actions affect others whether you do them to yourself or not.

By your logic, nobody should have to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle, and the motorcycle company wouldn't even need to make the machine safe "as long as somebody agreed to buy it".

Yet I share the burdan, not only socially, but financially if that person is demolished in an accident.

Where do you draw the line?

The reality is that we are individuals within a collective group. I know the word "collective" sets libertarian blood to boil, but blame evolution, not me.

In order to have a functioning society, the individual members must function at productive levels. The "war on drugs" might be just what you need to prove the state sucks, but a complete free-wheeling, anarchistic take on drug abuse is stupid and blind when a good portion of our society has had their lives fucked over by drug abuse.

Instead of this single-villian anti-government mentality, why not agree that some things need to be regulated within reason?

Then positive discourse can happen.

[Amakudari]

when a good portion of our society has had their lives fucked over by drug abuse.

Including at least a million nonviolent offenders we've incarcerated and 35,000 dead Mexicans.

WHY CAN'T YOU LIBERTARIANS SEE WHAT DRUGS DO TO PEOPLE?!

[Trivial Ends]

Yeah... on one notion we complain about having the world's second highest incarceration rate.. yet on the other, boast about how crime stats are decreasing. ..we're safer, so let's let everybody out of jail.

It's okay to admit that some drug users and sellers are violent yokels that wind up in jail. Do a judiciary case search and see how many "drug charges" are accompanied with 1st degree assault, theft, and possession of unregistered handgun.

It's like I try to tell some of the hardcore P.C leftists in my circle of friends that want to paint little halos on every criminal who is black.. "Some of them are just criminals, dude"

[Amakudari]

Geez, race-baiting much?

The sentence for first-time offenders of possessing 5 grams of crack cocaine is over 4 years. You really want to tell me that's not an unfair, racially motivated law? Or how about that blacks make up 13% of drug users, yet 74% of those sent to prison?

But fuck it. I'm providing cites and you're providing nothing other than some crazy, racialist hybrid of socialism and police state absolutism.

[Trivial Ends]

just dispelling the myth that all drug users and sellers are just peaceful beatnicks who want to harm no one... Just like the myth that p.c leftists (and apparently libertarians too) harbor that asserts all minorities are not actually guilty of crime, but rather victims of racist enterprises established to oppress them.

It may seem anecdotal to you, but please, by all means... Say that all drug users are peaceful hippies, and that all minorities are perfect angels. .. try it until you can do it with a straight face.

[juris imprudent]

why not agree that some things need to be regulated within reason?

I agree - anyone selling adulterated recreational substances should be prosecuted.

[Leroy]

Ok, I'm pretty sure you're a troll, and I don't comment much, but I'll bite.

"By your logic, nobody should have to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle"

Nope. Ride at your own risk. If you want to risk your life its none of my business.

"and the motorcycle company wouldn't even need to make the machine safe "as long as somebody agreed to buy it"

That depends. If the motorcycle company advertises the product as something that it isn't, or lies about the performance or safety of the product that would be considered fraud. However if the buyer was fully aware of the safety defects, then buy away.

"Yet I share the burdan, not only socially, but financially if that person is demolished in an accident."

Socially? Tough shit. People have a right to self determination. Financially? That is why we shouldn't have any socialized medicine. People should be held responsible for their own actions.

"In order to have a functioning society, the individual members must function at productive levels."

Make the slaves work for you eh?

"but a complete free-wheeling, anarchistic take on drug abuse is stupid and blind when a good portion of our society has had their lives fucked over by drug abuse."

The vast majority of whom were fucked over by a permanent record for a non-violent offense that followed them for the rest of their lives.

[Trivial Ends]

An employer has the right to do anything to you based on a contract you agree on, but isn't allowed to know about your past or your tendencies toward crime and drugs?

[Leroy]

The employer is entitled to any knowledge agreed upon in the contract, including but not limited to a background check and drug screening.

[Trivial Ends]

What's the point of a background check if the state isn't permitted to document charges on that record?

[Trivial Ends]

So who pays the guys that have to clean up your dead body off the road because you took so many risks? You're dead.. you have no family, no assets... Who controls who repays the debt anyway?

[Leroy]

Well I imagine the roadcrew who gets paid to maintain the roads will have to clean it up. I am not an anarchist, and have no problems with a public road system. Any debt would be paid from the person's assets through the courts. If the person has no assets, then the creditors are out of luck, and shouldn't have lent to someone without the ability to repay their debts.

[Trivial Ends]

Nevertheless, you're admitting that someone other than the person who took the risk has to bare the consequences of that action.

[Amakudari]

Wait, you're not implying someone might default to his creditors, are you? Because that's just crazy. Clearly, libertopia depends on that never occurring.

[LC]

You mean "eliminate" the bullshit? "Culminate" means to increase to it's highest point.

It seems as though the English language is not the only thing you fail to understand. From your post above, you show that you are unable to distinguish between a violent crime committed against another citizen, and a private citizen imbibing a substance which has arbitrarily determined to be harmful.

You better call 911, fuckstick. I'm drinking a beer and eating chocolate as I write this. Douchebag wanker troll.

[Trivial Ends]

You do realize that alcohol is one of the most heavily regulated and taxed commodities, don't you? More and more regulations are needed every year to stop rampant alcohol abuse.

Unfortunately, there are no weekend warriors on heroin, which, by your own logic, would be a completely acceptable addiction.

[Amakudari]

You do realize that alcohol is one of the most heavily regulated and taxed commodities, don't you? More and more regulations are needed every year to stop rampant alcohol abuse.

The trend for alcohol has been deregulation. Stores now have longer opening hours, fewer restrictions on when they can sell (e.g. Blue Laws), and microbreweries are now free to operate in a way they weren't a few decades ago. The drinking rate is at a 25-year high. And compared to Prohibition, it's much more available.

[Trivial Ends]

So you want to make heroin more available?

Funny, I thought Four Loko was just removed for causing "black outs". .. yet the regulations are loosening? Maryland just went to .06 for DUI in 2008. Zero-Tolerance in city-limits.

[Amakudari]

No, I want to make marijuana legal to prove that its effect on bullshittery like "societal mental stability" is minimal. No prison sentence should ever exist for possession -- much less 10 years for 50g of crack -- but I believe an incremental approach will win. We don't need to argue about where libertarianism in the nth degree is because what we have is already so far gone that even a moderate stance constitutes a radical departure from the status quo.

Anecdotes aside, drinking's up, crime's down. Four Loko didn't even exist until recently and lower BAC levels have always had everything to do with revenue. Or you could take a country like Japan, where alcohol can be purchased from a vending machine, yet crime is almost non-existent.

[Trivial Ends]

So the Japanese are superior people and we should be just like them. Stay in your own arena, champ.

[Amakudari]

Ah, ad hominem is all that's left.

The point is that alcohol hasn't caused crime, social breakdown, or anything else through its availability. There is little accomplished by increasing restrictions and the effect of a total ban is extremely undesirable.

And, uh, I'm pretty sure Japan is my arena.

[Trivial Ends]

Not to mention, the drunkards and drug addicts are our responsibility in the end. Good citizens like me have to bare the costs of the choices that drug addicts make that they consider "only hurting themselves".

Same with smokers, even if their ETS doesn't affect other people, they are still killing themselves, and it has to be paid for out of everyone's allowance.

If libertarians are all about personal choice and productivity, responsibility, etc... why would they encourage citizens to imbue their senses with psychoactive drugs?

It's like saying, "Drive safe and make it to work and be productive", then saying, "Take down the speed limit signs, it's up to you if you want to drive anyway that you choose, as long as you don't hurt someone". But then they crash into a tree and bring in the insurance companies, the state that has to fix damages to public property (aka tax payers), and the family that lost their loved one. Medical costs, funeral costs...

We're all in this together, there has to be regulations.

[Amakudari]

Same with smokers, even if their ETS doesn't affect other people, they are still killing themselves, and it has to be paid for out of everyone's allowance.

Smokers (and the obese!) are cheaper because they die younger and don't incur the costs of elder care.

But then they crash into a tree and bring in the insurance companies, the state that has to fix damages to public property (aka tax payers), and the family that lost their loved one. Medical costs, funeral costs...

The property damage should be paid for by the person who damaged it. Speed limits have little effect on motorists' speed.

Your argument, in abridged form: IF WE BAN IT, IT STOPS.

[Trivial Ends]

"Smokers (and the obese!) are cheaper because they die younger and don't incur the costs of elder care."

yeah, I read that on the CATO rebuttal to the smoking bans. Desperate logic. There's no guarantee that smokers will die younger, but there is documented proof that smoking causes a lot of ailments and diseases that are costly. Why do you think the private insurers lobbied congress to get anti-smoking legislation?

The property damage should be paid for by the person who damaged it. Speed limits have little effect on motorists' speed.

So we should tap into the bank accounts of the deceased to pay off the property they destroyed? That's a much better line of reasoning than protecting society from harm.

From what I gather, you're insisting that insubordination to reasonably set traffic guidelines is enough reason for you to support abolition of speed limits?

What about red lights? against those too?

[Amakudari]

yeah, I read that on the CATO rebuttal to the smoking bans. Desperate logic. There's no guarantee that smokers will die younger, but there is documented proof that smoking causes a lot of ailments and diseases that are costly.

I really can't tell if you're trolling or just stupid, but I take it from your site that you're just stupid. The average life expectancy for a smoker is 14 years less than a non-smoker. Maybe a few folks will live to 100 on Marlboro and bacon, but for the other millions it won't be true.

Why do you think the private insurers lobbied congress to get anti-smoking legislation?

Because smokers do cost more on an annual basis but die earlier? By my count they're allowed to cost around 20% more per annum (78/64 - 1).

So we should tap into the bank accounts of the deceased to pay off the property they destroyed? That's a much better line of reasoning than protecting society from harm.

If only I had your feel-good intentions.

From what I gather, you're insisting that insubordination to reasonably set traffic guidelines is enough reason for you to support abolition of speed limits?

No. It's that they're not reasonably set, have not been shown to do much other than increase violations without an effect on speed or accidents, and that people will generally travel at a safe speed regardless of the speed limit. Most drivers ticketed were not a danger to others. The noble intention of preventing accidents has, for the most part, morphed into a revenue-raising device for local police departments.

I am not an anarchist, and accept the necessity of speed limits, but as is the incentives are misaligned, focusing on minor transgressions instead of legitimately dangerous drivers. You seem to be mistaking the impact with speed limits as is and underestimating the desire of all drivers to get where they're going without an accident, and further that the state must by necessity be involved in every accident. Last time I was in an accident the police dispatch had to be paid for by the person who caused it, and private insurance covered all damage. There's no reason this should be unacceptable.

What about red lights? against those too?

Ooh, you got me there. I also don't believe in school zones or lane markers.

But whatever. You're trying to say that the government just has to pay for every damage caused by every individual, and therefore we have to have regulation. It's a silly argument when, for the most part, people are capable of paying for their own damage to the property of others.

[Trivial Ends]

You're not an anarchist? What's the point then? What role should the state have other than compulsory obedience to its laws? I thought anarcho-capitalism was your angle, but I guess not... So what's the point of the state's existence?

You're running around in circles with this, man.. You're saying that regulations are necessary but that some of them are just revenue-creators, and then saying that people don't need regulations and government shouldn't make regulations...but you understand the need for regulations.

Which is it? Try to stay focused.

Do you have a working theory on what the legitimate role of government should be? You have to have some kind of criteria for the argument you're making because it isn't making sense... you're just saying that you like some laws and don't like others... a moral relativism of politics?

I'm confused by you.

[Amakudari]

So what's the point of the state's existence?

To protect individuals from aggression, theft and fraud. The necessary components of that system are police, a court system and a national defense, none of which need be large.

You're saying that regulations are necessary

Whether public or private, all roads will have rules. By driving, you consent to obey those rules. Correct.

but that some of them are just revenue-creators

But we only have one real option -- public roads -- and often those rules have less to do with public safety and more with revenue, correct. By some estimates traffic fine profits reach $7 billion per year.

and then saying that people don't need regulations and government shouldn't make regulations.

And therefore some of those rules are irrelevant. (I never dismissed having any rules.)

But Christ you're pedantic. Are you finished?

[Trivial Ends]

Your criteria for law enforcement is questionable and glib, at best. Please reconsider your own theory and at least pave in the gaping holes of your logic.

Yes, I'm finished with you.

[Amakudari]

Ah, nothing left but ad hominem. I see.

[juris imprudent]

shock propaganda

Being outraged about an innocent man killed in his own house - that is shock propaganda?

I believe you are indeed a liberal - and a troll. Nice combo.

[Trivial Ends]

Not questioning somebody being outraged... questioning somebody using the tragedy to push their own political messages after the fact.

Police brutality needs to stop, not the police. Drug war raids gone bad need to stop, not drug policies.

What these political and ideological groups are doing is pointing to a tragedy and saying, "Ha! See! I told you! Now agree with me or be next!"

Easy to use emotion to get people riled up. So much for "reason and logic".

[Amakudari]

Drug war raids gone bad need to stop, not drug policies.

Drug war raids go bad because sometimes raids go bad, and raids are a part of our drug policies. How is this not obvious?

[Trivial Ends]

The cases of mistaken identity, and overkill (shooting children, the pets, innocent onlookers) is what I consider a drug raid going bad.

You need some raids to connect the criminals to the crime they're being charged with.

How do you enforce the law if there is no "violence" to back it up?

If someone owed you $5k, violated a free contract with you, and left you without any way to get the money back, then wouldn't you prefer the state uses a threat of violence to ensure that person follows the contract? Even by extension, prison and other means of state correction?

[Amakudari]

If someone owed you $5k, violated a free contract with you, and left you without any way to get the money back, then wouldn't you prefer the state uses a threat of violence to ensure that person follows the contract? Even by extension, prison and other means of state correction?

Yes. I fail to see how this compares to someone using drugs. You're free to work in a snide remark about my logic -- and do nothing to back it up, of course -- but you have yet to establish how murder, rape, assault or theft against another person in any way deserve the same response as someone buying pot, going home and smoking it.

As to whether you need raids -- by which we mean forceful entry -- you only need them when there is a reasonable suspicion of violent resistance. Yet most of our 50,000-80,000 raids serve low-level drug warrants. It's ridiculous and should be radically scaled back.

[Trivial Ends]

How is somebody owing a debt comprable to murder, rape, etc, etc? The point is that the "violence" of the state, whether we like it or not, is useful, practical, and beneficial.

If you want to go for the anarcho-capitalist approach to law, by all means, defend it with honor. But what you're proposing is this half-assed normative libertarian stance that backfires on itself... you're saying that the law should only function to stop aggression, theft, murder, fraud, assault... Why?

Why should the law's function be to stop these things and not other things?

Take property rights for instance: I have a bar, and I don't serve mexicans, but a mexican comes in and asks for a drink because he couldn't read the "No mexicans allowed" sign. He is trespassing on my private property. I break a bottle over his head and kick his teeth in... Who should be charged with initiating the force in this situation? Wouldn't, by libertarian logic, I be the victim merely defending his property?

What about children? If I have a 5 year old son, and I get drunk and beat him, even kill him.. isn't that my property? That should be protected by my right to own property...If it isn't, then it is property of somebody other than me...

Where do you draw the line?

I would respect an anarchist position more because it isn't cherry picking the useful parts of law and denouncing the rest of it as damnable heresy.

I, for one, think everything should be licensed, taxed, and regulated by the government.

[Amakudari]

you're saying that the law should only function to stop aggression, theft, murder, fraud, assault... Why?

They violate someone's person or property, and thus their self-ownership. Drugs don't. Again, you're saying that a crime with no real victim -- say, a homeless man found with 5 grams of crack -- should be subject to harsh punishment. Why?

He is trespassing on my private property. I break a bottle over his head and kick his teeth in... Who should be charged with initiating the force in this situation? Wouldn't, by libertarian logic, I be the victim merely defending his property?

This is so silly. Was that force necessary in defense of your property? Probably not. If you decide a guest is unwanted at a house party, I don't know any libertarians who say that means you can go grab the shotgun. You are entitled to tell him to leave, and if he refuses, firmly shove him out the door. Or do you really believe the non-aggression principle allows such asymmetric responses and is basically a license to kill at the slightest provocation?

What about children? If I have a 5 year old son, and I get drunk and beat him, even kill him.. isn't that my property?

Libertarianism means you can own people now? A parent or guardian is entitled to make some decisions on a child's behalf until he's capable of consent, but that does not make a child property.

And how can you say you would "respect" the anarcho-capitalist version? The above are an-cap scenarios! And everyone has to draw some line somewhere, anyway. Rand drew hers at the night watchman state, Rothbard had some weird hangups about fractional reserve banking.

I, for one, think everything should be licensed, taxed, and regulated by the government.

Churches should be licensed, taxed, and regulated? Speech? Citizens groups? Art? Websites? College curricula? I suppose such a viewpoint is comforting in its simplicity.

[Trivial Ends]

This is so silly. Was that force necessary in defense of your property?

Subjective interpretations. Is it YOUR property to make any call you want, or should it be regulated by the government?

Probably not. If you decide a guest is unwanted at a house party, I don't know any libertarians who say that means you can go grab the shotgun.

Why can't he decide his own means of ejecting the unwanted person? Who decides for him?

You are entitled to tell him to leave, and if he refuses, firmly shove him out the door.

Again, subjective. What is your definition of "firmly shove". Again, who decides what action should be taken?

Or do you really believe the non-aggression principle allows such asymmetric responses and is basically a license to kill at the slightest provocation?

To you it is "slight provocation", to me I am defending my sacred property rights. Who is wrong and why?

Churches should be licensed, taxed, and regulated? Speech? Citizens groups? Art? Websites? College curricula? I suppose such a viewpoint is comforting in its simplicity.

Yes, they all should be regulated (taxed and licensed when necessary).

[Amakudari]

Look, these are basically the laws we have today. As to who's in the right we usually apply a reasonable person standard to determine negligence. I see no conflict between these and the NAP. Either you know the answer and there's no point in responding or you don't know the answer and are just completely misreading libertarianism.

Yes, [churches, speech, citizens groups, art, websites, college curricula] should be regulated (taxed and licensed when necessary).

...

[Brendan Perez]

The point is that the "violence" of the state, whether we like it or not, is useful, practical, and beneficial.

There we have it. The reason so many liberals love the state and it's enforcers-those enforcers can be turned loose on others ie., mercenary by proxy.

I, for one, think everything should be licensed, taxed, and regulated by the government.

Let's start with your posts.

[dunphy]

this is an excellent point. reasonoids reflexive anti-cop bigotry, prejudice, broad brush condemnations and refusal to look at evidence in re cops is almost an exact analogy to the way many progressives view corporations (cue: south park reference).

they are really funhouse mirror versions of each other and proof positive that ideologues have the same type of myopia, regardless of where they sit on the political spectrum

[Amakudari]

Erm, didn't you comment previously that "50,000 sounds like a fucking assload" of raids?

So aside from the knee-jerk string-'em-up reactions to cops, are Reasonoids really wrong on the overuse of no-knock raids or the aggressive policing and high mandatory minimums of the WOD? Or is there some virtue behind the sizable increase in SWAT raids that we're missing?

Because what I see is the world's highest incarceration rate, highly aggressive tactics, and yet drugs like marijuana remain accessible to almost anyone.

[dunphy]

um, no

i have said a metric assload of times that

1) i agree that SWAT is overused
2) i agree that no-knock raids are overused
3) i believe the WOD is wrong

but those are tangential to the issues i addressed

[Amakudari]

Well, they're not tangential. Those three are the source of libertarian discontent. The handful of Japanese libertarians I've met here don't even think about the police because they avoid aggressive policing -- and if police wanted to look for trouble, they could find it easily in the red light districts. In contrast, the prejudice here (which is mostly ineffectual) has much to do with police involvement in executing and often politically supporting the War on Drugs (props to the NBPA for supporting Prop 19, but most didn't).

Also, FWIW, I can understand the leftist anger at corporations. It's their solutions that seem misguided. Things like the Trafigura dumping incident are real. I'm looking at a summer with rolling blackouts because TEPCO fucked up. (Of course, to be fair, they're a prime example of my namesake and have had plenty of government involvement.)

[Somalian Road Corporation]

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur--what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

If ... if ... We didn't love freedom enough. And even more--we had no awareness of the real situation. We spent ourselves in one unrestrained outburst in 1917, and then we hurried to submit. We submitted with pleasure! (Arthur Ransome describes a workers' meeting in Yaroslavl in 1921. Delegates were sent to the workers from the Central Committee in Moscow to confer on the substance of the argument about trade unions. The representative of the opposition, Y. Larin, explained to the workers that their trade union must be their defense against the administration, that they possessed rights which they had won and upon which no one else had any right to infringe. The workers, however, were completely indifferent, simply not comprehending whom they still needed to be defended against and why they still needed any rights. When the spokesman for the Party line rebuked them for their laziness and for getting out of hand, and demanded sacrifices from them?-overtime work without pay, reductions in food, military discipline in the factory administration?-this aroused great elation and applause.) We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward." --Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago

[Res Publica Americana]

My family's got first-hand experience with Soviet death squads. And now my country's headed down the path of unbridled tyranny, too. What a glorious lifetime this is going to be!

[Not Carl Sagan]

Why is that during the Jose Guerena raid one of the officers still decides to fire one last shot 3 seconds after the others stopped. Or the need to say "get on the ground" after killing Blair.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

"Me too!" shooting to relieve the blueballs of a dangerous idiot with a badge and gun. He didn't want to miss out on all the "fun", after all.

[BoscoH]

I hate to be a giant pussy, but could you put something about that dog getting shot in the warning, graphic violence thing? As like every time I see one of these, I could not have imagined before hand. Crap. Poor dog. Had to stop watching.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

I'd like to link this here to show how the War on Some Drugs results in police corruption:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOcacu2pJD0

What I found particularly amusing was the part starting at 4:29 detailing the forfeiture turf wars between police departments, where one officer literally threatens to kill another if he gets interfered with again.

[Amakudari]

So, basically, they care mostly about the money, which makes them no different than drug dealers. Except drug dealers aren't violating anyone's civil rights. Or telling you how much they're protecting you the whole time.

[Adonisus]

The Drug War is only going to end through two ways: ballots, or bullets.

[Trivial Ends]

Or perhaps society demonstrating that drug abuse doesn't negatively affect emergency rooms, work places, family life, education, and crime. ... which is impossible.

I get that pot is not that bad... you're better off being stupid and lazy and hungry because there's enough hand-out plans designed to keep you alive.

Claiming that heroin, meth, and crack are suitable, socially accepted, non-violent in nature, and has no negative affects is complete lunacy.. Why defend these drugs so much?

[Saro]

Of course drug use has negative effects. But with the drug war, now we have all the same negative effects, plus a shit-ton more violence, societal decay, and loss-of-rights as well.

You're asking someone to prove that house fires are not bad as your argument for why it's completely correct to pour gas on them. That's retarded.

[MysteryFish]

Gentlemen, I must say I'm rather excited.

Just this day I saw a post, following the savage assault on coherent thought that is a post by Orrin, saying that we needed a better class of troll.

And lo! It was done.

[Nick Griffin]

Lindy and the video are are a powerful work of art that depict the relationship of our govt to its citizens.

[Somalian Road Corporation]

I hate Reason's halfass threaded comment system so I'm going to respond to dunphy here:

I don't hate police qua police and am not an anarchist. If I were born a century earlier I would quite possibly have considered strapping on a tin star. Perhaps all the Westerns I watched growing up are to blame for that one. But if I do not morally agree with the laws that I am required to enforce, I will not take on the job of enforcing them.

The Guerena shooting has affected me deeply because I am generally interested in such things and because I am a resident of Arizona. I do not believe that SWAT teams should ever be used apart from hostage/bomb-type situations where a genuine personal threat exists, particularly no-knock warrants, and most definitely nothing like the recent Dept. of Education fiasco. If that means that drugs sometimes get flushed, I consider that a small price to pay for avoiding violent conflicts between police and other citizens.

And such violent conflicts will inevitably happen. Somebody roused out of a dead sleep may not hear the announcement--assuming there is one at all. I can barely hear the doorbell/knocking from my bedroom and if I'm woken up by muffled voices and the sound of my window or door being smashed in, I am for damned sure going to arm myself before going to find out what the hell is going on. I can hardly fault others for doing the same, especially if they have a wife and kids to worry about.

I've been woken up by a cop breaking my kitchen window and thankfully I was able to have a completely rational conversation with him to sort out the misunderstanding instead of a shootout. A "dynamic entry" could have very easily turned ugly.

[Res Publica Americana]

This Trivial guy can't be that stupid -- I'm assuming it's just one of you guys screwing around.

For what it's worth, I've held an intruder at gunpoint before. Guy was drunk out of his mind, in my kitchen-dining room corridor, and I had my Ruger pointed at him until the cops arrived.

They came in, and I'd told them on the phone what I look like, what I'm wearing, and told them I'm armed, so all I had to do when they arrived was unload the gun (magazine and chamber), and they arrested the dude. One of the cops promptly handed me back my ammunition, and they left. And that was that.

How many well-behaved cops like that are left? I personally know somebody who was pretty seriously roughed up and had his rifle stolen from him by cops when he called them about an intruder -- in California. Thank God for the Midwest.

[Mensan]

This Trivial guy can't be that stupid -- I'm assuming it's just one of you guys screwing around.

I was thinking the same thing. His arguments are so disjointed and rife with non sequiturs. He doesn't seem to grasp basic concepts of cause and effect, and prefers to view tertiary affects a primary, and in some cases causal. He has to be someone screwing around. If not, then I think we have a new contender taking a run at the stupidest troll title.

[Gil Kerlikowske]

Read the editorials on his site. It's the most profound collection of political stupid I've seen yet.

I have no idea why these people obsess with libertarianism or why they come here. But they do.

[Trivial Ends]

I have to say, now that I've seen the video, and my heart stings are tugged and emotion running high. END THE WAR ON DRUGS!

*smirks*

[BigT]

Cops should have the burden of proving, with objective evidence, that they are in danger during any home invasion in order to justify the use of force. Mini cams are too cheap to let a murdering pig go free for lack of them.

[Miami PD]

Stop pointing that cancer causing cell phone at me! Or I will be FORCED to discharge my weapon in self defense!

[Wasco]

After reading these links I'm pretty sure the shooting of Guerena was justified and legal:

http://azstarnet.com/news/loca.....9fd6b.html

http://www.kvoa.com/files/Scanned Document0582_000.pdf

[Wasco]

This was on too many in one post:

http://abcnews.go.com/US/arizo.....d=13842029

[????]

thank you

[air max]

is good

[???? ??????]

thank u

[RUNESCAPE GOLD]

no one said life is going to be perfect;build a bridge and get over it.