Police v. Dogs - good start

[SkyHog]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ot-dog-20110819_1_family-dog-damages-officers

A federal jury awarded $333,000 to a Chicago family Thursday after Chicago police officers raided its South Side home with guns drawn and shot its dog in a search that found no criminal activity in the apartment

....
The jury awarded Thomas Russell $175,000, Darren Russell $85,000 and their parents $35,000 each. The jury also awarded the family $2,000 in punitive damages, levied against Antonsen for shooting the dog, and $1,000, against the police supervisor who made the decision to arrest Thomas Russell.

Man, I sure hope this is a precedent setting case. The officer was given $2000 in punitive fines, and the supervisor was given $1000 for allowing this to happen.

In a perfect world, the officer would have been on the hook for the entire $333,000.

 

[steingar]

In a perfect world, the officer wou...sh we're spending on our stupid War on Drugs.

 

[jesse]

Those damages are chicken feed compared to the cash we're spending on our stupid War on Drugs.

As one that's had way too much exposure to people addicted to meth (never touched it myself) I can't help but support every dollar that is spent fighting that evil ****. You don't see it so much in the big cities, it's the small mid western blue-collar towns that are REALLY struggling. At least it seems to be getting better, and not worse.

As far as the war on some 'other drugs' I agree. It's a bit of a waste.

 

[Jay Honeck]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/...ot-dog-20110819_1_family-dog-damages-officers



Man, I sure hope this is a precedent setting case. The officer was given $2000 in punitive fines, and the supervisor was given $1000 for allowing this to happen.

In a perfect world, the officer would have been on the hook for the entire $333,000.

I wouldn't count on it.

Disclaimer: I don't know the details of this "dog" case, and may (or may not) agree with the verdict. However, in a broader sense, my recent experiences (and this now encompasses being a business owner in two different states) with the police indicate that they are flirting with the line between being our "thin blue line", looking out for the citizen's best interest, to being "the boyz in blue" -- looking out solely for themselves.

It's a somewhat scary state of affairs. Given the fact that the police have virtually unlimited power (this lawsuit notwithstanding), the notion that these folks have crossed over to the dark side is...dangerous.

Right now, it's mostly an attitudinal things that could probably be fixed with proper leadership. If, however, the police corruption spilling in from Mexico continues to spread North, this could get really, really ugly.

 

[Skylane81E]

Gotta disagree there. Cop is a tough job. Life threatening decisions made at split second pace. I would expect them to screw up from time to time.

Yep, City needs to stand by the people it decided were good enough to wear the badge.

If he shows a pattern of poor decisions or makes a REALLY bad one (ie. bad shoot of a person) then the officer should be replaced.

 

[raider]

As a cop, here's my take - got bad info about illegal activity at the specific location (happens all the time in Iraq because the tattlers get paid). Cop had to shoot dog because it was a threat with capability. Not how the story goes but it sounds pretty swayed to the family like using the dog's name etc. We would videotape cell extractions so no one could claim abuse.

 

[steingar]

As one that's had way too much exposure to people addicted to meth (never touched it myself) I can't help but support every dollar that is spent fighting that evil ****. You don't see it so much in the big cities, it's the small mid western blue-collar towns that are REALLY struggling. At least it seems to be getting better, and not worse.

As far as the war on some 'other drugs' I agree. It's a bit of a waste.

Ever seen a cocaine addict? Seen my fair share. My own brother was made stupid by weed.

However, the fact that in the middle of the War on Drugs, with tens of billions of dollars spent on interdiction and enforcement, you've

had way too much expose to people addicted to meth

means that despite all the efforts at eradication, the drug trade goes on. As far as I know, if you really want weed, meth, coke, or even heroin you can get it in many if not most parts of the country.

Drugs are wired into our nervous system, that's why most are older than civilization. Maybe take all that interdiction money, and all the cash you get from taxation of the stuff, and put some into treatment. Or don't, and let them rot. I just think its really stupid to do the same failing thing year after year and expect it to suddenly work. I think its even dumber to do the same thing year after year and expect to fail.

Moreover, we've militarized our law enforcement, reduced our freedom, and destabilized several neighbor countries would our idiotic war. I don't like drugs either, but this is way too high a price to pay to keep them out of the hands of those who want them.

 

[ScottM]

Yep, City needs to stand by the people it decided were good enough to wear the badge.

.

I disagree. The city needs to stand by the people that gave them the authority to act on their behalf and protect.

Just about every police department's motto is to 'Serve and Protect'. But we see the militarization of the modern police has really resulted in that motto only applying to the police itself. Far too often we see the police acting in such a way that anyone who is not a cop is criminal until proven otherwise.

 

[wsuffa]

Ever seen a cocaine addict? Seen my fair share. My own brother was made stupid by weed.

However, the fact that in the middle of the War on Drugs, with tens of billions of dollars spent on interdiction and enforcement, you've means that despite all the efforts at eradication, the drug trade goes on. As far as I know, if you really want weed, meth, coke, or even heroin you can get it in many if not most parts of the country.

Drugs are wired into our nervous system, that's why most are older than civilization. Maybe take all that interdiction money, and all the cash you get from taxation of the stuff, and put some into treatment. Or don't, and let them rot. I just think its really stupid to do the same failing thing year after year and expect it to suddenly work. I think its even dumber to do the same thing year after year and expect to fail.

I think you mean win.

We've not learned from past attempts to ban "vice". Prostitution. Gambling. Alcohol (heck, we even banned it in the Constitution to no avail).

The key difference between now and then is:

we've militarized our law enforcement, reduced our freedom, and destabilized several neighbor countries would our idiotic war. I don't like drugs either, but this is way too high a price to pay to keep them out of the hands of those who want them.

What's going to happen when we try to ban candy, french fries, or hot dogs (with ketchup)????

 

[Skylane81E]

As a cop, here's my take - got bad info about illegal activity at the specific location (happens all the time in Iraq because the tattlers get paid). Cop had to shoot dog because it was a threat with capability. Not how the story goes but it sounds pretty swayed to the family like using the dog's name etc. We would videotape cell extractions so no one could claim abuse.

It was a bad shoot no matter how you look at it and we've been having all to many of these happen recently.

No matter how credible the info I'd like to see some accountability for search warrants. It's too easy for law enforcement to simply say "whoopsy" after raiding an innocent's home. And as much as these raids endanger both the occupants of the home and the officers they need to be minimized as much as possible.

Now I'm not a cop but I am about to marry one:wink2:

 

[Skylane81E]

I disagree. The city needs to stand by the people that gave them the authority to act on their behalf and protect.

Just about every police department's motto is to 'Serve and Protect'. But we see the militarization of the modern police has really resulted in that motto only applying to the police itself. Far too often we see the police acting in such a way that anyone who is not a cop is criminal until proven otherwise.

The police are held more accountable for their actions than ever before. Who was more likely to beat the tar out of you in an alley, the cop of today dressed in the "millitary" gear or the cop of yesterday with his dark sunglasses and button up shirt?

My money's on the man with no eyes being the less trustworthy.

 

[ScottM]

The police are held more accountable for their actions than ever before. Who was more likely to beat the tar out of you in an alley, the cop of today dressed in the "millitary" gear or the cop of yesterday with his dark sunglasses and button up shirt?

My money's on the man with no eyes being the less trustworthy.

Are you really arguing that we should be happy that the cops of today are less loose cannons that what they were a few years ago?

That cops feel they are above the law and able to make their own laws is a problem. Your original statement is that the people charged with the oversight of the cops should be to 'stand by' them is not the right answer. I say that because you even admit that thanks to being protected they are still running around wild.

The police are the law keepers, they need to be held to a standard worthy of that position, not allowed to be protected for stepping over the line.

 

[Skylane81E]

Spend some time with the rank and file, not the ones who make the news and you'll know what I mean

 

[ScottM]

Spend some time with the rank and file, not the ones who make the news and you'll know what I mean

I have, a lot.

You are still avoiding responding to the purpose of government is to protect cops. It is not. Your refusal to respond tells me that you know that was not a correct premise when you wrote it.

 

[Skylane81E]

It should protect the cops, within reason. Same as any employer should stand up for it's employees. If you note I stated that if the officer shows a pattern of bad decisions or makes a really bad one that they should be terminated.

 

[alaskaflyer]

It should protect the cops, within reason. Same as any employer should stand up for it's employees. If you note I stated that if the officer shows a pattern of bad decisions or makes a really bad one that they should be terminated.

You're new around here. See, around here, there is no reason to shoot a dog, ever, seeing as they are man's best friend and all that, and though most posters are happy to pile as many angels on the head of a pin as existentially possible while arguing the finer points of the FAA regulatory scheme most could care less about why the law is the way it is about this particular subject.

No this isn't precedent setting. The damages against the individuals very well may be vacated on appeal. If there is a mistake the homeowner should be made whole just as in other areas of the law, by the employer. it has always been this way. What precedent is there to be set?

 

[wsuffa]

It should protect the cops, within reason. Same as any employer should stand up for it's employees. If you note I stated that if the officer shows a pattern of bad decisions or makes a really bad one that they should be terminated.

"Scope of employement". Meaning that *if* the officer followed the laws, rules, and policies implemented by his/her employer, the employer should protect them. There's plenty of precedent for that, from the Feds on down.

If they don't follow policy, they should be accountable. Such as "cop demands free donuts and coffee for good service" or "TSA screener uses badge to pull over a car & threaten driver that cut him off". Those would be outside employer policy (and possibly illegal), and the public employee should be held to account.

Where it gets dicey is situations that gave rise to the Nuremburg Defense. "I was just following orders", when the individual cop knew or should have known that the action specified by the policy was illegal or unconstitutional.

 

[PilotAlan]

It was a bad shoot no matter how you look at it

I disagree.
I know nothing about this case, but I ask you to look at this like a pilot.

Like aviation, outcomes in law enforcement are uncertain.
A cop can do everything right, and have a bad outcome. He can also do everything wrong, and have a good outcome.
In the same fashion, a pilot can be faced with circumstances where he does everything right, and the outcome is bad.

One of the hardest things in LE is getting people (including command officers) to separate actions from outcomes. IF the cop was there legitimately and then got attacked by the dog, he had no choice but to shoot it.

I've been there, where I went to a house on an assault in progress and the owner sicced the dog on me. I had no choice.
The owner tried to claim that I shot his dog for no reason. But in that case, I *saw and heard* the owner sic the dog on me, so I charged him with assaulting an officer and cruelty to animals.

and we've been having all to many of these happen recently.

The fact that there have been cops doing the wrong thing doesn't mean *this* was a bad shoot.
It's the same broad brush as a couple stoopid pilots do stooping things, and then we're all reckless idiots.

 

[alaskaflyer]

Yep. I believe I asked in the last thread about this subject (or maybe the one before that, or come to think of it, maybe it was the one before that) how many times must one be bitten before the dog is...well, let us say, forfeit? One? Two? A little nibble or a big chomp? Shouldn't these dogs at the very least be required to state their intentions before rushing in? Is it my fault I don't speak the language?

Dogs are chattel. Goodness love 'em, but they are.

 

[Skylane81E]

I disagree.
I know nothing about this case, but I ask you to look at this like a pilot.

Doesn't matter how you look at it, case closed, courts ruled, bad shoot.


Now in the end this is a unlawful seisier (sp) case so to find the officer liable for the full judgment is beyond excessive.

There is a very fine line when it comes to police accountibility.

Example:
Cincinnati 2001 Cincinnati police shoot an unarmed man to death. Riots, law suits and criminal charges follow.

not long after a Cincinnati police officer DOES NOT shoot a suspect in the act of drawing a weapon. I can't help but think that there as an element of fear there.

I don't know were to draw the line but to throw the LEO to the wolves with every error isn't the place.

 

[Skylane81E]

If they don't follow policy, they should be accountable.

Agreed, but in proportion to the error.

 

[jesse]

Ever seen a cocaine addict? Seen my fair share. My own brother was made stupid by weed.

However, the fact that in the middle of the War on Drugs, with tens of billions of dollars spent on interdiction and enforcement, you've means that despite all the efforts at eradication, the drug trade goes on. As far as I know, if you really want weed, meth, coke, or even heroin you can get it in many if not most parts of the country.

The problem with meth, and the reason it hit the midwest so damn hard, is that it is pretty easy to make. All of the key ingredients could easily be obtained (a little more difficult now, but not really). Making it was relatively cheap. The amount of work all the drug tasks force put into this problem really has paid off. It's not nearly as bad as it was five years ago but it's still a major problem.

Meth didn't need to be snuck over the border. All you needed was a few key ingredients (lithium, anhydrous, and pseudoephedrine) and you were in business. It literally destroyed small Midwestern towns that had some expendable income until the police figured out a way to fight it. I'm sorry, but not battling meth, would have been a really bad idea.

Most of the people in larger cities I've talked to have had no exposure to it. The small (population sub 5000) cities in Minnesota that I lived in, was a different story.

 

[steingar]

The problem with meth, and the reason it hit the midwest so damn hard, is that it is pretty easy to make. All of the key ingredients could easily be obtained (a little more difficult now, but not really). Making it was relatively cheap. The amount of work all the drug tasks force put into this problem really has paid off. It's not nearly as bad as it was five years ago but it's still a major problem.

Meth didn't need to be snuck over the border. All you needed was a few key ingredients (lithium, anhydrous, and pseudoephedrine) and you were in business. It literally destroyed small Midwestern towns that had some expendable income until the police figured out a way to fight it. I'm sorry, but not battling meth, would have been a really bad idea.

Pseudoephedrine was the key, and yes, making it more difficult (another freedom lost!) to obtain has slowed domestic production, but accelerated foreign production. Folks like the stuff and will get it. The only way to stop them is convince them they shouldn't. Law enforcement has proven itself utterly ineffective at either interdiction or treatment. Why we continue to employ and fund ineffective people to do an impossible task is truly beyond me. Perhaps we're all stupid. We gladly trade the most precious thing imaginable, liberty, for the illusion of security. I can imagine few things more foolish.

 

[dmccormack]

Pseudoephedrine was the key, and yes, making it more difficult (another freedom lost!) to obtain has slowed domestic production, but accelerated foreign production. Folks like the stuff and will get it. The only way to stop them is convince them they shouldn't. Law enforcement has proven itself utterly ineffective at either interdiction or treatment. Why we continue to employ and fund ineffective people to do an impossible task is truly beyond me. Perhaps we're all stupid. We gladly trade the most precious thing imaginable, liberty, for the illusion of security. I can imagine few things more foolish.

This is a value-loaded statement with contradictory evidence for and against.

 

[Jay Honeck]

Yep. I believe I asked in the last thread about this subject (or maybe the one before that, or come to think of it, maybe it was the one before that) how many times must one be bitten before the dog is...well, let us say, forfeit? One? Two? A little nibble or a big chomp? Shouldn't these dogs at the very least be required to state their intentions before rushing in? Is it my fault I don't speak the language?

Dogs are chattel. Goodness love 'em, but they are.

Well, yes, BUT -- according to the story, the kids offered to lock the dog up before they let them in to search. The cops said "No" -- and then were apparently surprised when the dog ran toward them?

My dog would run toward you, too -- and then squat and pee when you bent down to pet her. (Yes, she's that dumb.)

This whole thing is so incredibly dumb. I understand the cops have a tough job, and I understand that these two young men were probably not model citizens. That said, there has to be SOME common sense on display.

 

[Jay Honeck]

This is a value-loaded statement with contradictory evidence for and against.

The bottom line is that stupid people will always inject, ingest, or smoke stuff that will impair them. It seems to be a basic human desire, over-ruled and controlled by most, but not by all.

At some point we need to acknowledge this fact, since spending hundreds of billions of dollars on criminalizing drugs has done nothing except create wildly wealthy organized crime lords, while diverting our attention away from stuff we can actually fix.

 

[jesse]

Pseudoephedrine was the key, and yes, making it more difficult (another freedom lost!) to obtain has slowed domestic production, but accelerated foreign production. Folks like the stuff and will get it. The only way to stop them is convince them they shouldn't. Law enforcement has proven itself utterly ineffective at either interdiction or treatment. Why we continue to employ and fund ineffective people to do an impossible task is truly beyond me. Perhaps we're all stupid. We gladly trade the most precious thing imaginable, liberty, for the illusion of security. I can imagine few things more foolish.

What would you do different?

I'm sorry but there has been lots of progress. My step dad spent the better part of his career on a drug task force fighting the meth problem. When I was in middle school he was working 7 days a week and doing about 5 raids per week. He just retired, but before that, it was down to about one every two weeks. Even with him battling it, the majority of my siblings still fell into the trap that is meth. It sure messed a lot of lives up.

They've made progress. Yes it's a little more difficult to buy pseudoephedrine now but you can still get as much as any person should need without much hassle.

 

[rottydaddy]

Well, yes, BUT -- according to the story, the kids offered to lock the dog up before they let them in to search. The cops said "No" -- and then were apparently surprised when the dog ran toward them?

It boggles the mind. OK, let's say they didn't want to allow the suspect(s) time to destroy evidence or prepare weapons... sounds reasonable. But as long as they were waiting to be let in, rather than breaking down the door immediately, that wouldn't matter, dog or no dog. As soon as they announce who they are and why they are there, the suspects can very quickly hide or flush things and prepare an ambush. Another five seconds to lock Rover in a bathroom wouldn't have mattered much, IMHO. And in this scenario, to search that last room, the kids could be sent in to leash or grab the dog and remove it, keeping it away from the officers.

I wonder if there would be any benefit from PDs with canine units having their dog handlers do a little dog awareness training with their colleagues? I think a police dog handler would have a few effective responses to a charging dog that didn't involve shooting. Dogs are a whole lot easier to figure out than the average human, especially a desperate, angry or drug-addled human. They are also less dangerous as a rule, even the "killer" breeds. They don't lie, they can't hide weapons anywhere, and their possible reasons for attacking are very few and very simple.
And while it's true that a dog wagging its tail may still try to bite you, that's not the only part of the body language that matters.

 

[denverpilot]

The irony of the War on Drugs has always been that alcohol, nicotine, and caffeine are legal and the "others" aren't.

Around here, the "Medical Marijuana" stuff has now taken hold also, and all the late-night TV ads are for head shops. "Come buy your detox products and glass." Great. Cheech & Chong TV.

A sure sign people need something to do during a recession, I guess.

Or more likely that there's a percentage who'll always fall prey to chemical substances.

I'm not sure the assertion that it's always "stupid people" is accurate either... plenty of smart/well educated folks have ruined their lives with substances they wanted to injest.

I believe I read somewhere recently that the majority of incarcerated people in the U.S. are in on at least one drug charge, and we incarcerate more people per capita than any other developed Nation.

I can also see the opposite problem... let 'em all out and let 'em have their drugs? That won't work either.

Addiction is insidious stuff. How to handle it in a Nation with weak social norms and few shared values, is a tough problem.

 

[steingar]

What would you do different?

I would initiate social tolerance, and defund most law enforcement interdiction efforts. I would defund and/or abolish the DEA and inform DHS that its primary duty was no longer interdiction of controlled substances. I would take the money saved and apply it to treatment centers to allow those who wish to do so to shake their addictions.

I'm sorry but there has been lots of progress. My step dad spent the better part of his career on a drug task force fighting the meth problem. When I was in middle school he was working 7 days a week and doing about 5 raids per week. He just retired, but before that, it was down to about one every two weeks. Even with him battling it, the majority of my siblings still fell into the trap that is meth. It sure messed a lot of lives up.

They've made progress. Yes it's a little more difficult to buy pseudoephedrine now but you can still get as much as any person should need without much hassle.

There are fewer meth labs in the US due to the difficulties in getting pseudoephedrine. That's it. There is still plenty of domestic consumption do to foreign production, which stepped up when domestic production slowed down.

In the meantime we drift toward a police state in every aspect of our society. The discussion of ending the War on Drugs isn't even happening, and budgets for interdiction increase every year. How anyone can defend such lunacy is beyond me.

 

[SkyHog]

You're new around here. See, around here, there is no reason to shoot a dog, ever, seeing as they are man's best friend and all that, and though most posters are happy to pile as many angels on the head of a pin as existentially possible while arguing the finer points of the FAA regulatory scheme most could care less about why the law is the way it is about this particular subject.

No this isn't precedent setting. The damages against the individuals very well may be vacated on appeal. If there is a mistake the homeowner should be made whole just as in other areas of the law, by the employer. it has always been this way. What precedent is there to be set?

Pick one (or all):

1. Police will give occupants the opportunity to secure their dogs when they are erroneously (or otherwise) executing a warrant to enter their home
2. Police won't shoot dogs unless the dog is attacking them (note: waggy tail is not attacking).
3. Police will mind their own business and stay out of our homes unless invited. If I have broken no law, why am I obligated to comply with an officer who has made a mistake, as the risk of my family, my belongings, or my pride?

I get that police have a tough job, and I feel bad for them, sometimes. But they've chosen to do that as a job. We've chosen to trust them. When they violate that trust by negligently taking a life (animal or human), we should be able to make them personally liable.

Afterall, its not the government that is dumb enough to not be able to tell the difference between:

And

 

[bluee]

Pick one (or all):

1. Police will give occupants the opportunity to secure their dogs when they are erroneously (or otherwise) executing a warrant to enter their home
2. Police won't shoot dogs unless the dog is attacking them (note: waggy tail is not attacking).
3. Police will mind their own business and stay out of our homes unless invited. If I have broken no law, why am I obligated to comply with an officer who has made a mistake, as the risk of my family, my belongings, or my pride?

I get that police have a tough job, and I feel bad for them, sometimes. But they've chosen to do that as a job. We've chosen to trust them. When they violate that trust by negligently taking a life (animal or human), we should be able to make them personally liable.

Afterall, its not the government that is dumb enough to not be able to tell the difference between:

And

I resent that implied breed stereotyping.

 

[alaskaflyer]

I've been bitten twice and been attacked more times than that. Of those two bites, only one dog exhibited behavior like #2 in your post. Of the others which were after me but didn't get a chance to take away some of my skin with them, only about 2/3, roughly, gave a clear indicator that they were after my ass in time to do anything about it.

Granted much of this was nothing to do with work.

 

[Jay Honeck]

I'm not sure the assertion that it's always "stupid people" is accurate either... plenty of smart/well educated folks have ruined their lives with substances they wanted to injest.

They may be smart in other areas of their lives, but their actions WRT drugs prove that they are just as stupid as your average Walmart butt-cracker.

I'm always amazed that someone can pick up a syringe full of unidentified crap, look at it, and say "Wow, that looks like something I should inject into my body!"

I mean, really -- how stupid does someone have to be before we simply write them off and call them "stupid"?

 

[steingar]

They may be smart in other areas of their lives, but their actions WRT drugs prove that they are just as stupid as your average Walmart butt-cracker.

I'm always amazed that someone can pick up a syringe full of unidentified crap, look at it, and say "Wow, that looks like something I should inject into my body!"

I mean, really -- how stupid does someone have to be before we simply write them off and call them "stupid"?

While I have little sympathy for intravenous drug users, but some very bright people got bitten hard by the cocaine epidemic of the eighties. They weren't dumb, but some were egotistical (oh I'll never get hooked), and others were genetically susceptible to addiction (some folks are). I had a roomie addicted to cocaine. He lost a good job in the Navy, and lost another while I lived in the same house. He really was a bright guy, but he couldn't really see the damage his drug habit was causing.

He did have amazing women, though. His favorite pickup line: do you do coke. Not even near worth it, I doubt he's even still alive. That stuff doesn't let go easily.

 

[Jay Honeck]

While I have little sympathy for intravenous drug users, but some very bright people got bitten hard by the cocaine epidemic of the eighties. They weren't dumb, but some were egotistical (oh I'll never get hooked), and others were genetically susceptible to addiction (some folks are). I had a roomie addicted to cocaine. He lost a good job in the Navy, and lost another while I lived in the same house. He really was a bright guy, but he couldn't really see the damage his drug habit was causing.

He did have amazing women, though. His favorite pickup line: do you do coke. Not even near worth it, I doubt he's even still alive. That stuff doesn't let go easily.

My sister went down that path. Probably the smartest in the family, and she had it all in the '80s: The career, the kids, the husband, the house in California.

She lost it all. Blew it up her nose. Between coke and booze, she's been penniless and messed up ever since, and is in hospice right now. (No more liver.)

In my family, we call her "stupid". Doesn't matter how smart you are -- stupid is as stupid does.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Pick one (or all):

1. Police will give occupants the opportunity to secure their dogs when they are erroneously (or otherwise) executing a warrant to enter their home

This wouldn't workable for a variety of reasons, and escalates the danger for *everyone* involved, including the dog. If I'm serving a warrant, I'm going to be pretty worried about what's really in the drawer where you say dog's leash is.

2. Police won't shoot dogs unless the dog is attacking them (note: waggy tail is not attacking).

I've been bitten by dogs that, to all appearances, are friendly. It's really hard to have blanket rules, because: 1) they're really tough to remember in stressful situations; and 2) no two situations are alike, and there has to be discretion on the ground.

The key is to select people whose judgment you trust. And, as we all know, that's not something that can be regulated into existence.

3. Police will mind their own business and stay out of our homes unless invited. If I have broken no law, why am I obligated to comply with an officer who has made a mistake, as the risk of my family, my belongings, or my pride?
....

If there's a warrant to search your house, then someone has been convinced that there's a valid reason to do it. Under those circumstances, society says you have to comply, and will use force against you if necessary.

If nothing is found, that doesn't mean that the warrant is invalid. At the same time, if something is found, that doesn't make the warrant valid. We don't, can't, and shouldn't, judge the validity of a warrant from hindsight.

As far as mistakes - the wrong address typed on the warrant, for instance - they happen. Everybody makes mistakes; we've all missed stop signs, we've all thought the car was green when it was actually blue. It's a part of living among other humans. Fortunately, these occurrences, though pretty well-publicized, are incredibly rare.

That doesn't mean we should tolerate them, though. We have to do our best to minimize them - and when they're not really "mistakes," come down on them like a sack of bricks.

 

[denverpilot]

They may be smart in other areas of their lives, but their actions WRT drugs prove that they are just as stupid as your average Walmart butt-cracker.

I'm always amazed that someone can pick up a syringe full of unidentified crap, look at it, and say "Wow, that looks like something I should inject into my body!"

I mean, really -- how stupid does someone have to be before we simply write them off and call them "stupid"?

That particular behavior is dumb, yes.

There are however, drug addicts who go to great lengths to use "clean" illegal drugs. Oxycontin abusers come to mind, for example.

This is just as illegal as the home-cooked stuff.

Circumstances and history seem to play heavily too. People with support systems in their lives are both typically able to recover and also have reasons to.

I know an Air Force pilot who didn't follow instructions for stepping down off massive pain killers after injuries suffered in an ejection.

Only by the grace of the fact that his wife was a Psychiatrist did anyone notice he was suffering DTs by trying to be a "tough guy", but by then he was afraid to STOP taking the drugs. He was mentally hooked.

He eventually recovered and went on to be an IP at the USAFA.

I also have another friend who pops non-prescription stuff by the pound. He thinks pills fix everything. If and when he manages to have it together enough to get prescription drugs he's even happier. Reason doesn't work. I tried. He'd give up the rent money for an over-the-counter fix for whatever new ailment he has daily, even if today it's just a multi-vitamin du jour. Often it's a pain-killer for pains mostly caused by carrying too much weight.

The rich... They just pickle themselves with alcohol.

Insideous stuff.

I wonder if "they" are working on finding genetic predispositions to addictive behavior and whether or not if certain "they"'s would use that for good or to hook people on something evil.

I'm no saint, I've been addicted to caffeine and nicotine for a long time. No particular affinity for alcohol, but I will drink alcohol socially.

So, I don't throw any stones from this particular glass house.

 

[tdager]

Where it gets dicey is situations that gave rise to the Nuremburg Defense. "I was just following orders", when the individual cop knew or should have known that the action specified by the policy was illegal or unconstitutional.

How can a cop, or even a citizen, truly know that any more today? It takes a law firm with clerks and law libraries to know what the "law" is nowadays. We thousands of new laws passed each year, not too mention case law, that I truly believe that "ignorance of the law" is, or should be, a defense allowed today.

 

[steingar]

I wonder if "they" are working on finding genetic predispositions to addictive behavior and whether or not if certain "they"'s would use that for good or to hook people on something evil.

Found already, at least in mice. I haven't kept up with the genetic studies in humans, but if they haven't found the alleles responsible they, will. There is a whole institute of the NIH that specializes in this stuff.

Of course, then you get into really sticky territory. Addictive tendencies are part of your personality. Without them, you aren't you.

I must disagree strongly with Jay. Smart people can have horribly self-destructive tendencies. After seeing (the utterly dreadful) Conan movie, I was reminded that Robert E. Howard, one of the best pulp writers of his day, committed suicide at 37. He was depressed, not stupid.