Drug War

Busted Over $80 Worth of Pot, College Student Turns Informant, Then Turns Up Dead

This is the way everybody does it, says the local police chief.

|

Facebook

Last week North Dakota's Bureau of Criminal Investigation (BCI) released a report that finds no wrongdoing in the way an anti-drug task force handled a young confidential informant who turned up dead last June. Andrew Sadek, a 20-year-old student at North Dakota State College of Science in Wahpeton, agreed to work as an informant for the Southeast Multi-County Agency Drug Task Force (SEMCA) after he was arrested for selling pot on campus in 2013. His death calls to mind similar cases in which young drug offenders facing draconian penalties were forced into dangerous undercover work, including Rachel Hoffman, a Florida college student who was murdered in 2008 after agreeing to arrange the purchase of MDMA, cocaine, and a gun for $10,000.

Sadek himself was entrapped by a C.I. who bought marijuana from him on two occasions. Although the total value of the sales was just $80, Sadek faced up to 20 years in prison because the sales occurred in a "school zone." He agreed to do to others what had been done to him, buying marijuana at SEMCA's direction from two dealers at his school on three occasions from November 2013 to January 2014. Each time Sadek bought an eighth of an ounce for $60. According to the BCI report, he had to buy from two more dealers "to fulfill his obligation in resolving the charges he had been facing." But at that point Sadek stopped communicating with his handler at SEMCA, which therefore charged him with two felonies and a misdemeanor on May 9.

That was a week after Sadek was reported missing. On June 27 his body was found in the Red River near Breckenridge, Minnesota, with a gunshot wound to the head. His mother, Tammy Sadek, requested the investigation that led to the BCI report, which was the work of a review board appointed by Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem. "SEMCA conducts themselves appropriately," Wahpeton Police Chief Scott Thorsteinson told the Grand Forks Herald after the report was released. "I was gratified to see an independent review indicate exactly that." Thorsteinson conceded that police informants work in "a dangerous subculture" but said cops usually "bend over backwards to protect their C.I."

In an interview with KVLY, the NBC station in Fargo, Thorsteinson said Sadek's death is no cause for reflection on the methods used by drug warriors in North Dakota. "These types of investigations are conducted the same way pretty much everywhere where people breathe in and out," he said. "They never did anything wrong that needed to be changed." Thorsteinson, who acknowledged that Sadek's mother "had to go through a difficult ordeal," explained that busting drug offenders is a thankless but necessary job. "Law enforcement…we're generally not popular," he told KVLY. "The sheep dog is not loved by the flock, and they're hated by the wolf, but we do it anyway." In Thorsteinson's view, the citizens he serves are sheep, while harmless pot dealers like Sadek are wolves.

"He was murdered," Tammy Sadek told KFGO, a radio station in Fargo, "and this [report] actually reinforces that in our minds. We know that, and we know they're not even looking at anything….Did somebody he was trying to get for them do it? Or somebody he already got?" However Andrew died, Sadek warned, others are at risk. "SEMCA is alive and well on campus," she warned. "They're still using kids….They're not protecting these kids."

[Thanks to Dave Arneson for the tip.]

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

209 responses to “Busted Over $80 Worth of Pot, College Student Turns Informant, Then Turns Up Dead

  1. “… Sadek’s death is no cause for reflection on the methods used by drug warriors in North Dakota.”

    If you’re never wrong you don’t need to learn anything about your policies and procedures.

    1. Who cares about that there “reflection” stuff? We need to keep building a hard, solid criminal justice rock of a system that protects the interests of good, wealthy citizens against the unwanted scum who make life uncomfortable for them. There will be a setback here or there of course, like what happened to our stop and frisk program in New York, but generally speaking the goal justifies the means. And that don’t only go for informants. So that there Aaron Swartz kid didn’t like the deal we offered him? Who cares? We got a little negative feedback on that one for a while and then things got back to business as usual. And so what if we didn’t get everything we asked for from them there court judges about that fellow who messed with one of our academic friends at NYU? Who really cares? See how we handled that one at:

      http://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

      1. “the goal justifies the means”

        Brilliant.

        1. Come on down to my office and I’ll be happy to recruit you for our training program, because we got to use all the means we can find to strike a real blow to them there drugs, and men walking around with hoodies, and Internet folks sending around tweets in the name of our mayors, and emails in the name of our professors, and them there young misguided boys stealing important musac songs and science articles and passing them around like it was their property… We’re building a strong nation here, based on the principle of law and order. I call it an ordered liberty. That’s the America we need for our future, and it rankles me to read these here articles where people ask for more liberty and less order.

  2. “cops usually “bend over backwards to protect their C.I.””

    With friends like these…

    Who will be the last to die for the mistake of pot prohibition?

    1. It seems reasonable to expect that many law enforcers would hold the public’s turncoats in the same low regard they have for turncoats within their own ranks.

  3. Had a friend that got popped for drugs because of an informant, knew exactly who it was. Was offered a deal so the cops could move up the foodchain, took the eight months because if he did the deal he knew what would happen.

    1. One former client, busted for heroin position, did two buys for the cops. He claimed that after the second buy, he didn’t hear any more from the cops despite trying to contact them; the cops claim they hadn’t heard from him. So he was charged, and despite already doing two buys, the prosecutor still threw the book at him.

      I always counseled clients away from these types of deals. Dangerous work, and if you deviate at all, they’ll just say you didn’t comply with the agreement. It was doubly bad in the jurisdiction where I worked, because for the vast majority of felonies, guilty pleas would just result in probation anyway.

      1. How do you handle that as a criminal defense attorney? Do you actually work out a contract with the prosecutor’s office?

  4. Hope and change, motherfuckers.

    1. Would be interesting to know how many who voted for “Hope and Change” now feel they’d have more hope if things were left unchanged.

      1. They are now hoping against hope for change.

  5. Look, do we support personal responsibility or not? The cops can’t be responsible for this kid’s (he’s under 25) death because they didn’t pull the trigger. Only the murderer is responsible. Besides, the guy should have known what happens when you get into the drug trade, especially if you turn snitch. That “just $80” worth of MJ probably ruined someone else’s life, anyway, so this thug just got what he deserved: An eye for an eye.

    1. The agents extorted a man into committing further crimes (“crimes”) under the aegis of a criminal investigation, and their deputized informant winds up dead.

      Of course they share a part of the responsibility.

      1. Do I need to change my name to “sarcasmictoo” before you people won’t take me seriously?

        I had hoped the blatant logical inconsistency in the previous post would clearly indicate my snark. I guess you’ve been desensitized by Tony and Shrike. Apologies. I’ll add a /tard tag from now on…

        1. Yeah, I mistook the name as some other guy. Sorry.

          1. Is “some other guy” a noted cop-lover around here? I shall have to file an official vendetta form with the squirrels…

              1. Against the Four-Claw Leap there is no defense.

            1. It is Kanly and the ancient forms must be observed.

              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpW84ecRGKM

        2. “I had hoped the blatant logical inconsistency in the previous post would clearly indicate my snark.”

          No, people really do think that way

          1. Yeah, I thought someone just cut and pasted from a Breitbart post.

        3. Well, I caught the sarc toward the end of the post.
          But you did it too well nonetheless; I have actually seen that same sentiment said seriously many times.
          I am amazed that I live in the same society with people who actually think that way.

    2. I wouldn’t go nearly as far as that but there is no way in hell I would ever snitch.

      1. Thus faileth my attempt that snark trolling…

        1. I think people thought you were serious because they misread the part where you suggest that he ruined the lives of the people he sold pot to as ruining the lives of the people he snitched on.

          1. That’s exactly how I interpreted it.

          2. Ah, my mistake. No, I really can’t say I blame him for turning snitch. It would be tough to weigh the pros and cons in such a position. I can’t imagine being in a position where I have to choose between a risk of going to prison for 20 years and a risk of ending up with an extra hole in my head…

        2. yea I definitely need to reread things before I type.

    3. This is too close to what Tulpa or a dozen other authority fetishists around here would say to be easily identified as sarcasm.

    4. Either way, it
      To bullshit to threaten some moron with 20 years for 80 bucks worth of fucking pot. He’s no prize, but the cops are fucking scum. Maybe they should get killed ‘in the line of duty’ because ‘that’s what happens’.

    5. So, you’re a piece of trash that thinks a twenty year old deserves death and being used by government officials for a couple hundred bucks of marijuana. Really? How stupid are you?

  6. These people are scum. Degenerates. Sociopaths. They place no value on human lives other than their own.

    1. This. This kid meant nothing to them. He was just a piece in their game. Sociopaths is putting it lightly.

      1. And it’s not enough that the cops can go around fucking up people’s lives for no reason. They get to coerce perfectly innocent people into helping them fuck up people’s lives for no reason so that they can face the danger and the cops don’t have to.

      2. Depraved indifference is a job requirement.

        1. It’s an avoidable consequence of working for a tax supported monopoly institution. Anti-social behavior is not selected against.

          1. I don’t necessarily agree. If criminal law was limited to acts of force and/or fraud that affected the life, liberty, or property of another person, then it would be respectable. Not only that but the people who currently seek out to enforce the law would find other work, since such law wouldn’t give them arbitrary power over anyone they don’t like. Actual human beings might seek out law enforcement, instead of the animals who currently seek out the job.

            1. You are never going to get rid of all of the evils of government, but making laws respectable would make things a hell of a lot better.

              1. You are never going to get rid of all of the evils of government

                Yep. There will always be a gang of men who use organized violence as a license to steal. It’s unavoidable.

                1. You are never going to get rid of all of the evils of government

                  Not when the cornerstone of the institution is expropriation of private property.

            2. If criminal law was limited to acts of force and/or fraud that affected the life, liberty, or property of another person, then it would be respectable.

              And a law imposed by a statute, interpreted by the same institution and enforced by the same institution will not tend to produce the sort of respectable ideal you’re looking for.

              Not only that but the people who currently seek out to enforce the law would find other work, since such law wouldn’t give them arbitrary power over anyone they don’t like.

              Well I guess all we’ll need is a law where the cops will require themselves to behave ethically.

              Actual human beings might seek out law enforcement, instead of the animals who currently seek out the job.

              I have no doubt the quality would improve over what we have now, but such reforms would generate only diminishing returns. In the end it’s still a monopoly producer, monopoly interpreter and monopoly enforcer of law and there are systemic problems that you can’t avoid with a monopoly; primarily that over time quality will decrease while cost will increase.

    2. Hey man, they got home safely, at the end of the day that’s all that matters.

    3. Harsh, but I agree. The cops are assholes.

  7. What a load of soulless fucks we have accumulated in positions of power. It makes me ill.

  8. “SEMCA conducts themselves appropriately,” Wahpeton Police Chief Scott Thorsteinson told the Grand Forks Herald after the report was released. “I was gratified to see an independent review indicate exactly that.”

    I’m sure you were, you piece of shit.

    No officers were found to have done anything wrong, all is well. Good operation. smooches

  9. “These types of investigations are conducted the same way pretty much everywhere where people breathe in and out,” he said. “They never did anything wrong that needed to be changed.”

    Well, that’s gratifying. I’m heartened knowing Americans tolerate you amoral gits pretty much everywhere, and that this wasn’t an isolated case.

  10. Sadek himself was entrapped by a C.I. who bought marijuana from him on two occasions. Although the total value of the sales was just $80, Sadek faced up to 20 years in prison because the sales occurred in a “school zone.”

    what the fuck?

    1. Someone, somewhere, possessed of only the best intentions, helped draft and pass a law that would target the shady trenchcoated dealers hiding in unlit stairwells and dealing to na?ve students.

      That person never suspected his law would end up hassling fairly generic kids who want to make a little money under the table. Who could have foreseen this tragedy, I ask you?

      1. How much you wanna bet the term prosecutorial discretion was bandied around when passing that law.

        1. We’ve been losing this war for sixty years now. Isn’t it about time we gave our men on the ground the tools it takes to win it?

          1. Isn’t it about time we gave our men on the ground the tools it takes to win it?

            We have given them these tools, the pussies just aren’t using them! Come one now, we have the records of every cell phone call made in the last ten years, plus the location of both parties. We have the records of every credit/debit card purchase and deposit made in the last decade. We have traffic cams that can further collaborate each party’s location.
            The cops just aren’t trying hard enough!
            Damn straight we need better cops! Good cops would have had the entire population in jail by now!

          2. Yes I do.
            But it depends on which men you are talking about.
            With the right tools, maybe we wouldn’t lose this war at all.

        2. I bet it wasn’t. A lot of people have it in their minds that drug dealers are necessarily horrible sociopaths.

      2. “But if it saves one child’s life….”

        …in excess of the children in kills.

    2. Well, you see, selling a more or less harmless product to consenting adults who seek it out is a much worse crime than simply possessing the same amount of product for yourself. Because [mumble, mumble].

  11. “busting drug offenders is a thankless but necessary job”

    His mother should be thanking them for taking another goddamn druggie off the street.

    1. Every single word of that sentence is a lie.

      1. Well, I mean, he did have a mother.

        (other than that though…)

        1. The quoted sentence. Sorry.

  12. It’s not as is anything of value was lost. He was a drug dealer! He already had thrown his life away. Better dead than stoned. That’s what I always say.

    1. Better dead than stoned.

      He was selling drugs! That’s so much worse than being stoned. He was practically killing other people on a daily basis!

      1. I know! Let’s face it. The decision to do or sell drugs is a corruption of our national ethic that is so vile that it rots the druggie to the core. The police gave him a chance to do a little good in this world and he goes and gets himself shot. Maybe he will be more useful in death as a warning to others than in life.

        Ok. Now I just feel dirty.

        1. I can almost see the cops sticking his head on a pike outside the station. Give it another decade…

      2. Unless your comment is sarcasm please tell me what is wrong with selling a viable product to a willing customer? Does the violence of the state ever stop people from wanting to catch a buzz? Why don’t you think pharmaceutical drug dealers are not on the streets killing each other? If this man was dealing in marijuana then he is in the medical profession regardless of what the government propagandists and their sheeple think or have thought for the last 100yrs.

      3. Selling drugs! As Bill O’Reilly says, “It’s a crime of violence!”

        1. Haven’t you heard? The terrorists use tha drugs for their operating capital! Marijuana brought down the Twin Towers!

          1. I read a comment on one of the right wing derp sites today where a guy was arguing against marijuana legalization. In it, he explained why marijuana and other illegal drugs are worse than alcohol: “I don’t see people shooting each other over alcohol like they do over all these illegal drugs.”

            When the obvious Prohibition Era example was brought up, he replied, “Yeah, but they aren’t shooting each other over alcohol NOW. I’m talking about NOW.”

            These are their brains not on drugs.

            1. LOL. Sometimes it’s not even worth the effort, right? I had a similar argument with one of brothers years ago, I hope he’s matured since then. But when I brought prohibition up, he argued that alcohol wasn’t a drug, because it was legal!
              So, no, sanity does not run in families, lol!

              1. I had a heated argument with a supposed libertarian high official, who was for the illegalization of cigarettes, and promoted 2nd hand smoke indoor regulations.
                He too seemed to think that cigarettes were somehow not a drug, but something else, both because they were legal and because he thought they were harmful.

  13. “SEMCA is alive and well on campus,” she warned.

    I wonder what would happen if some student(s) started putting up “CAUTION- NARCS WORKING ZONE” posters all over campus.

    1. all over campus

      I hope you meant in the ‘free speech zones’ only. Or else what type of radical extremist are you?

  14. “The sheep dog is not loved by the flock, and they’re hated by the wolf, but we do it anyway.”

    “And if that sheep dog has to throw the wolves a sheep every once in a while, well, small price to pay for that sheep dog to go home to his family.”

    1. Besides, all the other sheep will get fleeced and then turned into mutton in due time anyway.

    2. And if that sheepdog has to maul a sheep every now and then just for giggles, well, so be it. Some sheep look exactly like wolves when you’re a sheepdog.

      1. Sheep are known for their furtive moves.

        1. I also heard that they are bleating heart liberals.

          1. Oh, ewe!

    3. This.

      Also, since when is there a contentious relationship between sheep and sheep dogs? I get the sense that the good officer doesn’t understand analogies.

      1. The good officer has given himself over entirely to doublethink. He loves Big Brother, because he is Big Brother.

      2. He should’ve used an analogy involving pigs. Or pig feces, as that would’ve been even more accurate.

        1. Some animals are more equal than others…

    4. “The sheep dog is not loved by the flock, and they’re hated by the wolf, but we do it anyway.”

      But, you see, a man will kill a sheep, a wolf, and a bad dog…

  15. If I was Tammy Sadek, I’d be making a list of home addresses…

    1. To send thank you cards for their attempts to put her son on the straightened arrow?

      1. straightened arrow? Is that like towing the lion?

        1. Off with her safely?

          (“Officer Safety” with a lisp)

        2. It’s like elven safety.

  16. “We know that [he was murdered], and we know they’re not even looking at anything….Did somebody he was trying to get for them do it? Or somebody he already got?”

    Where’s the profit in investigating silly things like murders? Especially murdered drug dealers. Cops have better things to do.

    1. This is one o’ them “misdemeanor homicides”. They’ll give it just as much attention as they do littering, would be my guess.

      Because it sounds like they’re stupid to realize that investigating this murder will probably get them into a real, no-shitting cartel with serious weight, felonies everywhere, etc. What would be a narc’s frikkin’ dream. If the narc wasn’t too stupid to realize it, anyway.

      1. You kidding? Of course they realize this. But investigating a real no-shitting cartel could compromise officer safety. It’s much safer to bust the dealers on the bottom of the chain.

        1. It’s much safer to bust the dealers on the bottom of the chain.

          It looks like that’s exactly what they were doing. Look at the snitches they use, and what they used them for: all low-level stuff, users selling to users, really. No attempt to go up the chain.

          Just jukin’ some stats, ruinin’ some lives, and goin’ home safe. The life of a cop.

      2. They’ll give it just as much attention as they do littering, would be my guess.

        Littering comes with a fine. That’s revenue. Murder? Meh. All murder investigations do is cost money that could have been used for an office party or retreat.

        1. This. A guy ticketed for littering will, most likely, just bend over and pay the fine (not that I think littering is a good thing to do). While a murdering drug kingpin is actually, you know, dangerous.

      3. There’s another possibility here, too. They already know who did it, but just don’t care. They’re not going to bust the guy for capping one of their dime-a-piece informants. They’re going to wait until they can catch him in the middle of a big deal with lots of stuff to confiscate. They want to make sure they have big piles of weapons, cash and dope to pose beside in their photos.

        1. Omelettes, eggs…

        2. Or it was another of their informants.

          1. ^THIS^

            One of their other informants got off the chain and they know that if it came out they’d be in for a real shit storm.

            1. It would be like the cops to have informants buying from other informants without any party knowing the whole story…

          2. Probably.

    2. Damn right. Like arresting parents who let their kids play outside.

      And anyway, this dirty drug pusher was on the playground selling dope to our children.

      Exactly what we warned would happen when states start legalizing dope. It’s a good thing that our fine officers are still able to protect the children in some states.

      1. The term pusher is funny to me. Drugs sell themselves, no need to be pushy.

        1. Bah! Pushers know why they push. The pusher goes to the playground and says ‘hey kid, smoke some of this, it’ll make you feel really good, come on’. So then naive little Tommy takes that first drag and BAM! He’s hooked for life! And it’s on to the harder stuff in no time. This is how the pusher makes money by sending your kids to hell.

          1. I’m your Pusherman!

  17. I think we may safely assume the kid was in possession of marijuana while in his mother’s home at some time. We may further assume he spoke (by phone, or in person) to his drug associates while in her home.

    Tammy had better watch her mouth, or she’ll wind up living in her car.

    1. The same car she used to drive his drug-dealing ass to school and back?

    2. Or not living at all.

    3. Why haven’t they searched that home for dope yet? There could be dope in that house and some unsuspecting child might eat it and probably freak out on a bad trip and jump off the house trying to fly or something.

      I think a no knock raid is in order here.

      1. It’s her fault for allowing this shady drug dealer to live under her roof! Flashbang her toddler already!

    4. Living in her car? I bet we can find phone records that show he called her while she was driving to the grocery store at some point. Thus, the car was clearly involved with the actions of a drug dealer. It’s time she forfeit the vehicle for the children.

      1. Is it a nice car? Because 5-O don’t want no ol’ beaters. Pic that includes the rims, please.

  18. I certainly don’t recommend that anyone do so. But I think it should be said: killing a police officer who is trying to arrest you for any drug “crime” is a perfectly morally justified act of self defense.

    Also: Stop Snitchin’! (Unless it’s about an actual crime with a victim.) I’m sympathetic with people like this kid, facing a stupid amount of prison time. But it’s still an unethical thing to do.

    1. Whenever a police officer is killed in the line of duty, my default reaction is that they deserved it.

      1. Especially if they’re undercover.

      2. The sad thing is, it never seems to be the ones who deserve it who are killed in the line of duty. A couple of weeks ago, a deputy around here was run over while assisting with traffic after a car accident in bad weather. He had been a cop for 9 years, had no complaints filed against him, never drew his weapon on duty. And now the standard-issue scumbags like Scott Thorsteinson will stand on his corpse and claim to be heroes who risk their lives everyday and are thus beyond questioning by mere sheep. It sucks.

        1. I suppose I should have said “murdered” instead of “killed.”

        2. Also, I hate the phrase “in harms way.” As in “we sent our troops into”.
          The word is “danger.”
          “We sent our troops into danger.” WTF is wrong with the word “danger”?
          The next time some smug fuck says “into harm’s way”, I swear I will throw a beer bottle at his head.

      3. Can we be done with this “line of duty” crap? It sounds way too heroic. At work. They were killed at work.

        1. “Victims of workplace violence” is actually probably giving them too much credit, too.

          1. It’s unnecessary. People die at work all the time. Truckers, farmers, loggers etc are all especially prone. None of those people feel the need to obsessively tell everybody how dangerous their job is, however.

            1. Further, “police officer” is not even in the top ten most dangerous jobs in America. Why don’t roofers get to shoot people with immunity so that they can go home safely?

              1. Where do I sign up? Some of my clients really piss me off.

                1. Well, I think we need to unionize. How about “The Government Sanctioned Roofing Union”? Motto “To serve and protect (against ruined drywall)”?
                  Remember, be safe out there: if a fix-and-flip home owner is giving you shit, they are probably about to pull out a gun and kill you; therefore you must kill them first!
                  Also, we will need to co-op the code inspectors.
                  Also, remember “if a roof leaks, a child might die, so we do this for the childrenz!

              2. Because they don’t need to. They just drop a bundle of shingles on their heads.

    2. But it’s still an unethical thing to do.

      I don’t think it’s necessarily unethical. You’re under duress. Your life essentially hangs in the balance.

      Honest question: What is the “official” libertarian stance on doing things under duress? If someone threatens your life and tells you to save yourself by robbing a bank, are you guilty of the robbery?

      1. Had a similar discussion recently. I personally think that you’re still liable for your actions, regardless of the circumstances, because you can *always* say “No.”

        That said, I think the person initiating the coercive actions should suffer 5x whatever the penalty of the captured/convicted robber.

        1. I’m not sure I’d consider a choice between robbing a bank and watching someone murder my family a choice.

          1. I don’t have kids, so that doesn’t leap to mind. But that is another good example. Most people seem to value their children’s’ lives over their own, let alone some stranger or a bank.

          2. I’m not sure I’d consider a choice between robbing a bank and watching someone murder my family a choice.

            And I probably wouldn’t either. I’d still happily serve the rest of my life in prison for robbing that bank and saving my family; I had a choice, and I chose according to my values.

            1. @anon

              Maybe that’s the way to handle it. If coercion is used, then the coercer is certainly guilty of the ultimate crime (robbery or whatever). The coerced is guilty of nothing, having already chosen whichever punishment seemed least onerous given his values.

        2. The situation that comes to mind for me is one where someone literally has a gun to your head and will immediately kill you if you don’t do what they say. As long as they aren’t asking you to murder someone else (and even then, I could think of special cases where I might be more forgiving), I have a hard time holding the person under duress responsible for their actions in.

      2. That’s a good question. I haven’t thought about it too much. I think there needs to be some balance with the consequences of what you are forced to do under duress. I’m sure a lot more people would forgive you for robbing the bank under duress than for murdering someone.

        I suppose that without drug laws there might occasionally be need to use CIs in investigations. But getting rid of the bad laws would solve most of the problem.

        1. True, even if you were arrested for the robbery, no jury would convict you if the truth came out. Then again, I could also see a judge instructing the defense that evidence of the coercion is inadmissible…

          1. Wasn’t there a case recently where the jurors were like “If the prosecution didn’t hide evidence from us I would have voted the guy innocent”? Is there any recourse in that situation? I mean if judges can basically shape the outcome any way they want, what’s the point of the whole system.

      3. My take?

        Ethics applies mostly when you aren’t being coerced.

        When you are being coerced, the only unethical thing is violating a duty to someone else that you have voluntarily undertaken and pledged your life to discharge.

        So, somebody sticks a gun to my head and says “rob a bank”, I don’t think its unethical for me to do so.

        Tell me to shoot my kids, and its a different story.

        1. 20 years is a lot. So I suppose it is close to holding a gun to his head. That’s his life gone, pretty much. But I think you have to take some consideration of the people you are victimizing if you become an informant.

          The real lesson is that laws criminalizing drugs and other behavior that doesn’t victimize anyone always make bad things happen.

          1. 20 years is a lot. So I suppose it is close to holding a gun to his head.

            Not to worry. It involves guns being pointed at you or the threat thereof, I have no doubt.

        2. Ethics applies mostly when you aren’t being coerced.

          I disagree. If somebody coerces me to commit murder, it is still wrong for me to kill someone. Setting somebody else up to take the rap because you sold pot is also wrong.
          But, I do agree that the majority of the blame goes to the party applying the coercion. And yes, I might take the deal, too, to avoid a possible 20 years in a rape cage. But that doesn’t absolve me of the guilt of my actions. You always have a choice. Like I said, though, I would probably turn, at least if I was a kid. As an older person, I know that the chances of me actually doing twenty years is the cops’ attempt to coerce me, and I would laugh in their face, and maybe get 6 months in county (I hope).
          But that’s part of the beauty of this setup: scaring kids to naive to know that the cops are full of shit.

          1. Oh, I meant to add that the exception is keeping your word. If somebody coerces me to make a promise under threat, then I fell no obligation to keep that promise.

      4. Who cares? If it’s not going to change someone’s decision, you can withhold or pile on all the moral opprobrium you want.

      5. Part A: I personally think all responsibility in said scenario lies with the one who uses coercion or force to get the person to rob a bank.

        I look at it this way. If somebody is just going about their business, they’re innocent, they’ve done nothing wrong.

        Suddenly they get thrust into a position where they must choose between one punishment and another. Who am I to tell them they should sacrifice themselves? And by doing so, I would feel I was no better as if I had actively participated in the act.

        The larger the stakes, the less guilty a person should be for committing an act under duress. I’d even go so far to say that said duress automatically absolves somebody of the punishment. Maybe somebody threatens another with taking their nickle if they don’t shoot somebody, and while it may seem stupid to do something with such low stakes (albeit subjective ones), punishing the coercer entirely in the stead of the coerced seems the most just and more likely to deter more coercion than punishing the coerced. It’s a sort of shared or transferred risk the coercer gives. Coercion should act as a multiplier for the punishment the person would face if they did the crime by choice. And said multiplier and punishment should go to the coercer, not the coerced.

        1. Part B: A society which condones making somebody choose between the frying pan and a fire is one which I condemn. It isn’t justice to make somebody choose between death and life in prison if they haven’t done anything wrong.

          And if a person is killed during an act under duress, then add another murder charge with multiplier to the coercer.

      6. In criminal law, duress can make a crime excusable. Up to a point, anyway. It’s been a long time, but I believe the general rule was something like, “a lesser crime is excusable if it is done in order to prevent a more serious crime.” Murder, therefore, was excluded, but most other things (under threat of murder) were excusable.

        But it’s been 20 years since I learned that stuff or had to use it, so take it with a grain of salt.

      7. “If someone threatens your life and tells you to save yourself by robbing a bank, are you guilty of the robbery?”

        No. Not to me.

        Libertarianism is not a suicide pact. If your version of Libertarianism requires self immolation, you’re doing it wrong.

  19. Procedures, etc, etc.

  20. I bet the cops in Wahpeton are fucking psyched!

    Finally they have a real crime – murder – to investigate.

    For years they have been struggling to get into the big leagues, but unfortunately the sheep won’t get with the program. For god’s sake they have to bust people for pot because the rubes don’t have the decency to get into heroin or crack.

    Now with a real murder, maybe the sheriff will let these Barney Fife’s actually load their gun and do some real police work.

    1. But investigating a murder sounds hard and maybe even dangerous… so they’ll need a lot of extra funding and a judge to double rubber stamp all no-knock warrants.

      1. Yeah it might be a bit dangerous, but then they will be able to break out that shiny new SWAT team in Fargo to help. Those fucks must be extra bored.

        I grew up nearby Wahpeton (even considered it a pretty big city) and can’t believe that the locals are putting up with this shit. Of course, most of them are old time conservatives who probably do believe that druggies deserve whatever they get.

      2. Yeah, there was a review two weeks ago in Sat.Sun WSJ of a new book that claims cops in NYC, by going after minor “busted window” crimes are wasting resources when they should be concentrating on investigating and solving the hideous black on black murders in big cities. Author claims that solving these murders will do one hell of lot more in making communities safe than all the risk and stops and parking tickets ever will.

    2. The murder victim was a drug dealer. What is there to investigate? It’s not like the victim was a human being. Just a drug dealer. Nothing to see here, move along.

      1. Remember the beginning of Naked Gun 2 1/2 where Leslei Nielsen is being honored for killing his 1,000th drug dealer? He explains that the las two dealers where two random guys that he backed over in his car. The audience gasps, but then he explains that it turns out they were drift dealers, so it was ok. Then the crowd applaudes.

        This is probably kind of like that.

  21. This reminds me of the Boston Bombing. Turns out one of the bombers apparently murdered a couple drug dealers. The cops did absolutely nothing to investigate the murders because, well, they were drug dealers. Had they done their job then perhaps the Bombing may have been prevented.

    1. No way! Seriously? I want a link!

  22. “The sheep dog is not loved by the flock, and they’re hated by the wolf, but we do it anyway.”

    This shit again.

    1. He has to dehumanize the critics. They’re just sheep, they don’t know all the good he is doing for them. Incidentally, you know who else dehumanized his critics and thought he was doing humanity a service?

      1. The Great Vaccinator, President Obama?

      2. Matt Damon?

    2. Literally calling people sheep. Nice.

      1. Right? And the cops are the sheepdogs! It just makes me want to hurl.

      2. Implicitly calling them mutton.

  23. busting drug offenders is a thankless but necessary job

    The necessity being what exactly?

    1. TO SAVE THE CHILDREN! DUHHH!!!!

    2. Filling state coffers and keeping the prison guard union employed.

    3. “It’s a thankless, and completely pointless job, but somebody has to do it.

      1. It’s not pointless if you’re a Keynesian.

    4. Maybe he thinks he’s the Kwisatz Haderach, and that’s necessity enough?

    5. You know who else thought their heinous policies were just them doing a thankless but necessary job?

      1. Voldermort?

      2. Dog walkers?
        Preschool teachers?
        Oh no, wait, I know, GOP Establishment Fund-Raisers!!!!!!eleventy-one!!!!

  24. “The sheep dog is not loved by the flock, and they’re hated by the wolf, but we do it anyway”

    because our master feeds us.

    1. Is the CI a wolf in sheep’s clothing or a sheep in wolf’s clothing? Or perhaps a lamb thrown the the wolves.

  25. Many of us were lucky to (grow up) in a much kinder world. When cops
    stopped you for pot, they gave you a long lecture threatening to tell
    your parents and so you willingly obliged by letting them confiscate your stash. What is amazing to me is that we’ve had three presidents now that have admitted to smoking pot and whatever your political preferences are, we can all still agree it’s a good gig for a former pothead who was lucky enough not to end up in jail. (I didn’t include
    Carter, he lives in a natural mellow state).

    1. I had an idea for a new episode of ‘Quantum Leap’ where Sam leaps back to the early 80’s. Al tells him he has to get college student Barack Obama arrested for dealing coke. If he fails, Obama will cause WW3 in about 35 years.

      1. You had to go back further for that.
        Weapons of any mass cause destruction was the theme.

  26. I suppose a slow painful death meted out to all authorities even tangentially involved in this case is too much to ask.

  27. That documentary House Of Cards dealt with a similar scenario.

  28. Thanks prohibitionists. I pray you get cancer.

  29. Another glorious victory for the state. Hail Hydra!

    1. Two points!

  30. Colorado, Washington, Oregon.. They figured it out. The Devil’s Herb must be legalized. That is the only solution.

    1. Yes, and I will be moving back to my beautiful Colorado in less than two weeks now, I can’t wait. Meanwhile, I am living in Oklahoma, where an overwhelmingly Republican, pro-States-Rights government is suing Colorado in Federal court, in order to force CO to make pot illegal again, because OK is seeing an increase in pot being moved across the border from CO.
      The hypocrisy: it runs deep.

      1. And OK will probably win the case. Because something something Commerce Clause, mumble mumble FYTW.

  31. I for one am a well armed sheep.

  32. Ridding our streets of the evils of marijuana one kid’s death at a time. When will people wake up and decide it needs to be legalized across the board? But then cops will have to go after real criminals and that just too dangerous.

  33. Cops aren’t just unpopular, they’re hated. I hate them. This kind of b.s. makes me abhor them. They’re extortionists, bullies and nothing but a gang of thugs. It’s time to end their monopoly on “serving and protecting”.

    1. I know its a day late, but motherfucking THIS!!!!

    2. My sister is rather pollyannaish. The only time I ever heard her swear was about cops.

      “I fucking hate cops!”

      Excuse me?

      “I fucking hate them!”

      Keep in mind she is a Dr. Laura, people should get what they deserve type. It’s not that she’s soft on criminals, it’s that she’s no softer on them when they wear a badge.

  34. Government absolves itself of any responsibility for its own actions. In other news water is wet.

  35. So, if everyone (and by everyone, I mean roughly 80% of the population) seems to agree that whoever initiates a coercive act is primarily responsible for any subsequent actions committed under duress (such as threatening with a gun, or in this kid’s case jail time), why aren’t all cops in jail yet?

    1. Cops aren’t subject to the same rules that civilians are.

      1. Cops aren’t subject to the same rules that civilians are.
        FIFY

  36. Sad but true

  37. This police chief is a typical, clueless, morally bankrupt, pile of garbage. He cares nothing about the loss of this man’s life, over a tiny amount of pot. It is no wonder why so many people despise police.

  38. The most dangerous drug of all is power.

    1. Oooh. That’s a good one.

  39. “The sheep dog is not loved by the flock, and they’re hated by the wolf, but we do it anyway.” In Thorsteinson’s view, the citizens he serves are sheep…

    “Psst… dude, your mask is slipping.”

    May this shitheel rot in hell.

  40. Forcing a person to work under threat of being reported for prosecution is known as human trafficking, a serious crime.

  41. Another dangerous criminal off the streets. I feel safer already. (not)

  42. Attorney General: “Ah, this is a good one. We have a series of drug transactions that involved a homicide. So we can get everyone involved in on the transactions for conspiracy, possession with intent to deliver, and felony murder. Who else was involved in this horrible set of crimes? Who set up these deals that resulted in the death of a young man? Oh wait… Nevermind. Just file it in the ‘Shit Happens” box.”

  43. “…explained that busting drug offenders is a thankless but necessary job.”

    Slow down there, fella. Did you ever stop and ask yourself WHY its so thankless? It might be because nobody thinks you should be doing it. Just a thought.

  44. Good Information Wasteful spending.
    Jobsdhamaka

  45. Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
    This is wha- I do…… ?????? http://www.jobs700.com

  46. I wonder if there is any personal remorse among those agents? How can they live with themselves?

  47. Ah yes, the evil police using young people to do their dirty work for them. Threatening their future with decades of prison time if they don’t risk their lives by wearing a wire during a drug buy.
    Those marijuana dealers must be stopped!
    We must stop them!!!
    Use deadly force if necessary because selling a naturally-growing plant is dangerous and against the law.
    Am I dreaming?
    Have I made this all up?
    Is my entire life some twisted, lucid dream?

  48. He was an informant. Who cares?

  49. Pot laws are ignorant.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.