According to this SFGate article by Henry Lee [are my notes]:
An Antioch man at home with his young son disarmed an 18-year-old man who kicked in his front door and shot him dead with his own gun, the second time in three months that a resident [not the police] in the city has fought back with deadly results, police said Tuesday.
The latest incident happened about 8:20 p.m. Monday, when a resident on the 4800 block of Wexler Peak Way heard his doorbell ring, said acting police Lt. Diane Aguinaga.
The resident, who was home with his 7-year-old son, did not answer the doorbell right away and then peered out a window, only to see his front door being kicked in “pretty aggressively,” Aguinaga said.
“He just jumps the guy and realizes the guy has a gun,” Aguinaga said. “He somehow (got) it away from him” and shot the intruder three times in the torso, then called police, she said.
The intruder died at the scene, and his semiautomatic handgun was recovered. He was identified as 18-year-old Jeremiah Stovall of Antioch, who police say had a criminal history that included weapons violations.
The resident and his son were not hurt. Their names were not released. Police said the man would not be arrested.
Read entire story here.
This, and the other Better than a Cop stories, bring up valid points. When you need the police, they (most likely) will be minutes (if you’re lucky) away. If you find yourself face to face with a criminal who intends to do harm to you (or your loved ones), it will be up to you do defend yourself. Just as this homeowner did. It’s also ironic how similar this intruder’s actions were to those of SWAT teams conducting drug raids.
Why is it ok to shoot the intruder after your TV but not the “intruders” after your pot?
Or is it ok at all to defend yourself/property? On top of failing to protect you, sometimes the police charge those who protect themselves with a crime – seriously. This was the case for Dennis Fleming of Farmington, NH – as reported by Joshua Miller for FoxNews.com (puke):
A New Hampshire man who fired his handgun into the ground to scare an alleged burglar he caught crawling out of a neighbor’s window is now facing a felony charge — and the same potential prison sentence as the man he stopped.
Dennis Fleming, 61, of Farmington, was arrested for reckless conduct after the Saturday incident at his 19th century farmhouse. The single grandfather had returned home to find that his home had been burglarized and spotted Joseph Hebert, 27, climbing out of a window at a neighbor’s home. Fleming said he yelled “Freeze!” before firing his gun into the ground, then held Hebert at gunpoint until police arrived.
“I didn’t think I could handle this guy physically, so I fired into the ground,” Fleming told FoxNews.com. “He stopped. He knew I was serious. I was angry … and I was worried that this guy was going to come after me.”
No one was injured in the incident, but when the police arrived, they made two arrests. Hebert was charged with two counts of burglary and drug possession. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted. Fleming, meanwhile, is scheduled to be arraigned March 20 on a charge of reckless conduct, which could potentially land him a sentence similar to the one Hebert faces.
“I didn’t know it was illegal [to fire into the ground], but I had to make that guy realize I was serious,” Fleming said. “I’ve got a clean record. I really don’t want to be convicted.”
Read more here.
Pretty messed up huh? Yet another example of laws conflicting with reality. Anyone with half a brain would agree people are allowed (and should) protect their life and property, including using deadly force if needed. Since Dennis decided to give the intruder, a thief, a second chance the police are charging him with a crime. Yet, had Dennis been a responding officer to a homeowners call and caught this guy coming out of a home there would have been no warning shot. The officer would have shot him and been praised for it.
Welcome to the police state, where protecting your property without using deadly force is a crime. Do you see the problem here?
Update: Charges against Dennis were dropped, though the DA said firing a “warning shot” around or near other people or homes can result in police involvement or a charge. Read more here.
Let’s be fair now. First, well done to both of the parties involved in these incidents. You have an absolute right to defend yourself, especially in your home. But moving past that point. Are you really trying to criticize the police for not being there? In doing that, you are screaming foran increase in the “police state”. Are you calling for an massive increase in taxes to pay for that?
@t –agreed. If you paid more in taxes you could have more police. The national average is 1 officer per 1000 people.
Adam – defending yourself (a life) and defending property (an object) are two separate things. There are few states where a property owner can use lethal force in defending property. Using the Castle Doctrine, you defend yourself/family, not your parked car. One should review the laws in their states, as it does vary from state to state.
“NMSA 1978 provides that a homicide is justifiable when committed in the necessary defense of property. Although this statute has been a part of New Mexico law since 1907, the New Mexico appellate courts have never given the statute a broad interpretation. The New Mexico courts have consistently held, not always referring to the statute, that one cannot defend his property, other than his habitation, from a mere trespass to the extent of killing the aggressor.”
…But, if you review the Kansas City study from the 70′s, more police may not mean reduced crime.
Funny how both of the above failed to say a word about the man being charged for firing into the ground. It’s called “turning a blind eye”. Thanks for demonstrating, once again, how well you both do it…
Buy a front page of the local news, post the story and jury nullification information in the case of Dennis Fleming, end this crock of crap where a DA to fluff up the figures in his tough on crime file fills it with innocent people. I’ll bet a front page costs less than a lawyer over the course of months as these trials go.
Notjoeking : Again I must address your reading and/or comprehension skills. Where did in say he should have been charged? I’m also not saying that he shouldn’t have been. Tough to say from this distance. I heard it was into the ground. Also heard that there where lots of other people around. YOU would go wild-ass crazy if a police officer had done that. Under a different, recent post someone (might have been you) critized the cops for needing more than one cop to take someone into custody. If he did in fact endanger someone else through his actions, is the charge not appropriate? I don’t have any birch hand knowledge of this incident. Just news reports. If he didn’t do anything wrong, let the courts/jury work through that.
t-
Review your own writing and spelling skills before you start mentioning other’s reading and comprehension skills. At least 5 spelling, grammer, and syntax errors in such a short paragraph, did you not even finish 6th grade?
But you’re a cop on the job, right?
I am shocked! Shocked! I tell you! That you are of the opinion that the man MUST have done something wrong/dangerous for the police to have arrested him and that even if he hadn’t, “Guilty until proven Innocent” is perfectly acceptable in your mind, no matter how much it takes to prove the innocence, or what he loses in the process…
Reading comprehension? Try again Kettle. I said: “failed to say a word ABOUT [it]“. But thanks for coming back to prove me RIGHT that you will gladly turn a blind eye when someone is arrested without the LEOs giving a good reason WHY. Cause WHY NOT seems to work for both you and them.
And no, I wasn’t the one in the other thread to call LEOs pussies for calling for backup…
Touch screen technology, what can I say. But way to avoid the point.
Again, I ask the same questions. Did I say he should be charged? No. But (and again none of us have reviewed any evidence) since he was charged, the court/jury will look at it. That why that process is there. So that in the cool light of day everyone’s actions can be looked at. That why it is so reckless of some around this site that promote active resistance/fighting with the police. Let’s look at Pete and Ademo for instance. The ‘chalking” thing was silliness. But they chose that route to try and make their point. OK. So the police arrest them. Again, OK. Now they decide to resist (passive resistance is still resistance). OK. The police overcome that resistance. NOW it goes to court. We (the police) aren’t Judge Dredd. We deal with what is presented to us, on the street. As I have urged many, many times. When a free will choice is made, and that choice is to go outside the law, don’t complain when you get caught. Don’t resist, just go and argue it out in court.
But as for this instance, WE don’t know. The use of a firearm in any situation is extremely serious. Without additional information, WE shouldn’t be judging. I urge restraint and patience. You seem to just want street justice. Which seems safer to everyone?
Once again, the fact that you said NOTHING at all about him being arrested and NOW are defending the cops for arresting him with the justification that he will get his day in court IS a problem. The fact that he was charged with the extremely vague “reckless conduct” IS a problem. The fact that the police department didn’t inform everyone possible including the news reporter, what EXACTLY he did wrong and why he was arrested and taken to jail IS a problem.
He may or may not have done something wrong but NO ONE can make the argument that he was an IMMEDIATE danger to ANY ONE and needed to be arrested at the scene and taken to jail until he could prove his innocence. THIS IS WRONG and it IS a problem. Betcha 1 TRILLION dollars that if this man was an off-duty cop, or a well connected man, the entire incident would have been taken care of without hauling his ass to jail and forcing him to wait in prison until he “got a chance” to prove he had done nothing wrong…
FARMINGTON, N.H.—A prosecutor has dropped a criminal charge against a New Hampshire man who helped catch a suspected burglar by firing his gun into the ground.
Strafford County Attorney Tom Velardi said Thursday facts discovered since the incident have led him to believe the reckless conduct charge would be unjust.
Notjoeking: Dude you are really dense. But as you see, a little patience, a little review in the cool light of day, it all works out.
But thanks for playing.
You just don’t get it… the ENDS NEVER justify the MEANS. That’s why it matters SO much WHAT you DO and WHY. Releasing him later makes the mistake just go away? That’s some fucked up morality you two preach but it’s exactly what I would have expected from you two. Now come back again when you realize that GUILTY until proven INNOCENT is not the same as INNOCENT until proven GUILTY and that arrests should happen AFTER guilt has been established.
Until then you are just proving US all right that cops violate our rights without care or consequence, that we live in a police state, and that there are so many obscure and undefined “laws” that any cop could arrest anyone at almost any given time whether it’s “right” or not…
Clear enough for you or should I use smaller words and shorter sentences next time?
Why is it ok to shoot the intruder after your TV but not the “intruders” after your pot?
Because pot is illegal. And the intruder has no legal right to be there. A search warrant gives the police legal standing to be there.
PSOSGT,
In the 1850s, Blacks were ruled not to be actual human beings, and it was illegal to help them escape the “justice” of trying to be free. We look back on Chief Justice Robert Taney as one of the greatest villains of legal history for that decision. And nobody today would proudly admit that an ancestor turned in a fleeing slave.
Today, heavily armed SWAT teams regularly kick in doors, sometimes to the wrong house, shoot people and pets and take an enormous shit all over the constitution, in the name of illegal plant possession. Entire jurisdiction make their budgets seizing the property of those in possession of marijuana through draconian “forfeiture laws”.
Marijuana is incredibly benign, no worse than alcohol. I choose not to use either, but cannot for the life of me figure out why a death sentence, via SWAT team, is regularly meted out for possession of the plant equivalent of a six pack, something that most cops have in the fridge.
When it all finally shakes out, when we figure out it is stupid as hell to put all of this time and energy into tamping down illegal plant possession because the alcohol industry doesn’t like competition, I predict all of you righteous drug warriors will quickly find yourself in the same position someone arguing that Taney’s ruling was “the law” and unjust to ignore or resist: shunned by all decent human beings.
I just started early. You righteous drug warriors, and by extension all you in the thin blue line, are guilty and should be shunned by all decent human beings.
Cue apologist with the worn out “I don’t make the law, I just enforce it” excuse.
Dredd Scott is the law of the land, nigger. Get in the wagon, your master is anxious to see you.
Does that make sense? And if you think the comparison is harsh, is loss of freedom to the cotton fields better or worse than loss of freedom to jail?
Feel free to argue policy and other such nonsense, cops. We await your insightful replies.
And just to give you fair warning, the terms “Malum prohibitum” and “Malum in se” are likely to be used when you go all cop-ey over the badness of drugs. But feel free to pontificate, since your entire cop pyramid of oppression depends on people not knowing the crucial difference between the two. And how you seek to deprive them of their freedom over the former, not the latter, in most cases, because it is safer for you.
To everyone unfamiliar with the site Police One:
http://www.policeone.com/police-products/less-lethal/TASER/articles/5103923-Video-Cop-fires-TASER-at-fleeing-Fla-woman/
This is an example of their comments section, what cops say when they think nobody is looking. I especially like the term “slut” being used for the victim. Classy.
Go to their site regularly. Read the comments. Read the endless “good shoot” comments and their use of the term POS (piece of shit) for non cops.
You will be enlightened. I cannot wait or their spin on the Culpeper shooting.
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/789519/sick%3A_young%2C_undercover_cops_flirted_with_students_to_trick_them_into_selling_pot/
From the front lines of the drug war. Slinging your ass for the police state.
The difference between that cop and a whore? A whore has better morals.
@lakewood. I’m for legalizing it. And we can all sit around and circle jerk over the “bad cop” stories about them hitting the wrong house. And the once in a great while when they shoot someone. But everyone seems to simply skip over everything else that’s involved with the drug trade. You might like to sit at home, smoke a bowl and enjoy robot chicken. Meanwhile gangs are shooting people, and making plenty of victims out of innocent people, just to score some more loot and make a profit. Everyone wants to talk about the police doing a search warrant at the wrong house, and ignore the story about the 16 year old who was sht and killed over an ounce of weed.
@PSOSGT, so are you honestly trying to make the claim that all these related criminal activities would continue to the same degree AFTER “legalizing it”? If so I’d recommend a good course in the history of the prohibition era as well as a re-examination of the use and crime rates of countries that have already “legalized it”. The facts don’t support your assertion.
I use no mind altering substances. I am anti alcohol, but think prohibition is stupid.
Can’t paint me as a hippie hophead.
And what did you think of the 25 year old police woman who seduced the 18 year old into buying pot.
Fucking jackbooted cunt only scratches the surface. Read the story and weep for a group that finds that acceptable.
If you do, I no longer have the strength to hate you. Pity is all I have left, for you are truly lost.
May this woman never conceive and remain childless all of her days. Her spawn should never walk the earth, for they might be as wholly evil as she is.
If an ounce of weed was worth the same as an ounce of lawn clippings, as both are that easy to grow, where would the need to kill come from. Pot grows wild, in any climate where you can have a lawn. You cant kill pot plants.
If it were legal to grow for your own use, there would be ZERO pot related violence. Your stupid war on drugs killed the 16 year old. Period.
You don’t see carrot turf wars, or begonia turf wars. Because cops do not give the economic incentive for profit by their violence to those plants. Your fault, team blue.
Where is team blue?
I think the story of the cop tart slinging her ass for the police sate has them addled.
I mean, she in an unwritten contract offered her pussy for pot. And naive young man accepts said contract. Is their any lower form of vermin than this woman?
No, you hope crime drops if marijuana is legalied. Its all speculation.
Cars are legal, good thing no one has ever been killed for their car. Shoes are legal, good thing no one has been killed for their shoes..There was a near riot for the new Nikes.
And until you can convince your legislators to decriminalize it, thw media to promote it, and voters to agree with you, you are just spinning your wheels. Give it another decade.
Typically there are 25,000 civil suits files annually against the police during a given year, factor in the 14 million arrests and that equals 0.0017% of an arrest leading to a civil law suit.
Car vs ounce of dried plant you can grow on your own, if legalized.
That is weapons grade stupid.
As a logical analogy, what happened to bootlegging after repeal of prohibition?
Again, just boundless levels of stupid. Do you think your crates of whiskey were worth nearly as much after prohibition ended? So why risk death over something you could get anywhere?
I looked up one site linked from here about police misconduct. It cited 6000+ cases of misconduct in 2009 and of that, 1500+ cases of excessive force linked to 6600+ cops. The numbers are interesting. Based on those numbers; is 0.002% of all the cops in the nation have been subject to a misconduct charge of any time. Even if there are x10 the number of allegations, your still at only at 0.02%. And yes, at x100 the number, still at 0.23%
Why break into a home to steal property instead of getting a job and earning it? Guess that’s why they still have burglaries…
Just hope it is not your wife or mother murdered in a parking lot. Play the odds.
The property has value. Nobody breaks into your house to steal the spice rack.
Are you really this stupid?
You are now to be known as Enriched Stupidity. Soon to be Weapons Grade Stupidity.
So you will ensure that no one will have their home broken into and have their stash/grow stolen? Comical.
A hopeless believer that legal weed is the only answer.
(I know you will reply 4 times so I will check back tomorrow)
E/S,
You would risk your life over someone’s stash, when it will cost as much as a 6 pack, or grow it in the back yard.
You are stupid raised to the power of cop.
Notjoe: I self-debated if I should continue to respond to you as you have surely achieved maximum density. But one more time. Try to keep up this time.
First, did you read my first comment. It’s easy to find, it’s at the very top. I say good job to both examples shown. In my second post, I answer your erroneous charge that I said that he should have been charged. I explained that I couldn’t judge what had occurred from distance, without having more info. You of course failed to understand.
So I thought about how to try and get you to underestnad. I really think that you mainly have zero undstanding about what the police function is. But…. Se real years ago I was working in a rather poor and drug infested part of town. An older man was standing on his front porch with his small dog. A thug was walking his buddies Rottweiler down the side walk on the other side of the busy street (lots of cars and people). The thug let’s the Rottweiler go, and it promptly runs across the street and it starts going ape shit while standing in the guys very small front yard. The old guy reaches inside his front door, returns with a 12gauge shotgun and blasts the Rottweiler. Now, I realize this isn’t the exact same thing as the situations above. But, is there any problem? The old guy clearly had the opportunity to just step inside his house and close the door behind him. He chose to come back with the gun, and shoot at the dog (and at a very busy street with lots of cars and people). Now I a tually like the fact that the thug’s dog got killed. He used to terrorize the neighborhood. But I couldn’t ignore the danger that he placed everyone else in. He got charged (by citation, not arrested). Now in court (remember, that’s where I said it should be worked out, not out in the street) he walked in and wanted to plead guilty. The judge wouldn’t let him because any punishment (fines in this case) was to much. She dismissed the case. I see it as a total win for everyone. The bullies dog terrorized no more. I did exactly what I was supposed to do. The judge dismissed it.
Now I know that this isn’t exactly the same as the stories above. But it still illustrates (or should) how situations like that work. In the case you don’t want to listen about, I, and you, neither one know exactly what happened. We aren’t there. We don’t know the relationships between all of those present.
Again, where I urge patience, you go off like a hothead wanting street justice. That’s a problem.
Hopefully, you get it now.
@commonsense: Why should I have to pay thousands to have more Gestapo around the corner when for $500.00 or less I can have a .45 in my hand??I have never seen a cop stop a burglary, murder, rape, or assault. Doesn’t matter how many you are, you cannot be where you are needed and if you are, you arrest and taze the victim anyway. Easier and far less expensive to deal with crime first hand than to have a doughnut munching Gestapo agent show up pissed cause he didn’t get to finish his coffee.
Notjoe: I self-debated if I should even try with you an more as you have reached maximum density. But one more try.
Did you read my first comment (it’s very easy to find, as it is the first one on the page). I say that I think both did a good job. You apparently choose to ignore that. Then on to my second comment, you again clearly miss that I’m not saying he should have been charged. I explained that I (really we) don’t know exactly what happened, because it’s hard to see it from distance and without first hand information. You apparently can’t grasp that.
So I thought back to a situation that maybe might explain it to you.
Several years ago I was working in a rough, poor, drug infested part of a fairly large city. An old man is standing on his small front porch with his small dog. On the other side of the very busy street (lots of cars and people) a thug was walking his buddies Rottweiler. The thug let’s the Rottweiler loose and it runs straight across the street at the old man. The Rottweiler starts going apes hit in the old mans very small front yard (right at the sidewalk). The old man goes into his house and returns with a 12gauge shotgun, and shots at the Rottweiler (and the very busy street). He kills the Rottweiler.
Now I get there a and find the dog, shot at the side of the street. Did the old man do anything wrong? Personally I’m glad the dog is dead. It had been used to terrorize that neighborhood.
But the old man had stepped into house. If he closes the door, the danger isn’t there anymore. He takes the gun back outside, and shoots it towards a very busy street (lots of people and cars). Now just because I think he did his community a huge favor, doesn’t mean that I can turn a “blind eye” to the danger that he placed everyone else in. I charged him (via citation, not arrest). In this instance, when he got to court he wanted to pled guilty. The judge wouldn’t let him because any punishment (in this case it would have been fines) was to much. She dismissed the case. Everybody won. The neighborhood is no longer terrorized by the thug and the Rottweiler. I did my due diligence as I am required to do. The judge exercised excellent judgement in dismissing the case.
What you for whatever reason are missing or just don’t want to see is that I didn’t say he should be arrested. I don’t have enough information. That’s why I urge patience. You urge street justice. In this case, in the cool light of morning, this case was dismissed. The system worked as it should. If the d.a. didn’t think that there was enough evidence to go forward, he should dismiss the charge (which it looks like he did). The police weren’t wrong. They did their part. The courts did their part.
One more time, I consistently urge patience. You seem to rush to judgement. I’m the cop out on the street. You demand of me that I not do exactly what you want to do. Your inconsistency is showing again.
“Pretty messed up huh? Yet another example of laws conflicting with reality. Anyone with half a brain would agree people are allowed (and should) protect their life and property, including using deadly force if needed”
Here’s the deal. 1st story, the home owner is the victim and someone is breaking into HIS house. So his life is in danger cause the intruder has a gun. That is different that someone breaking into my neighbor’s house. my life isn’t in dangered. You not allowed to use deadly force to protect property.(NOTE: laws vary from state to state). 2nd story, nothing there that states the “witness” to the next door neighbors robbery was in danger.
I honestly don’t see how ya’llcan compare then as say that they are the same.
@Wolf, if you pay taxes, how much?
I would like to specifically the dollar amount you pay for public safety in your city/county.
Thank god legalization will solve everything..
“A South Carolina mother has been charged with murdering her 6-week-old daughter after traces of morphine were discovered in the mother’s breast milk. The six month investigation concluded that Stephanie Greene had been abusing painkillers prior to her daughter’s death, according to police.”
“Nevertheless, a given dose of cocaine or crack is far more dangerous than a drink of alcohol. Alcohol has an addiction rate of 10 percent, whereas cocaine has an addiction rate as high as 75 percent” – lets legalize everything!!
“And when cocaine is combined with marijuana, it can be deadly. According to a study in Pharmacology, Biochemistry and Behavior, an increase in heart rate due to cocaine was markedly enhanced if preceded by smoking marijuana. The dual use creates greater risk of overdose and more severe cardiovascular effects from the cocaine. An article in Schizophrenia Research found that up to 60 percent of schizophrenic patients used non-prescription psychoactive drugs…A 1995 study in The New England Journal of Medicine suggests that illicit drugs such as marijuana and cocaine can interfere with male sperm production. A study in Cancer found that the children of women who smoke marijuana are 11 times more likely to contract leukemia.
Mothers who smoke marijuana also contribute to low birth weight and developmental problems for their children and increase the risk of abnormalities similar to those caused by fetal alcohol syndrome by as much as 500 percent.”
“California decriminalized marijuana in 1976, and, within the first six months, arrests for driving under the influence of drugs rose 46 percent for adults and 71.4 percent for juveniles. Decriminalizing marijuana in Alaska and Oregon in the 1970s resulted in the doubling of use. Patrick Murphy, a court-appointed lawyer for 31,000 abused and neglected children in Chicago, says that more than 80 percent of the cases of physical and sexual abuse of children now involve drugs. There is no evidence that legalizing drugs will reduce these crimes, and there is evidence that suggests it would worsen the problem. Legalization would decrease drug distribution crime because most of those activities would become lawful. But would legalization necessarily reduce other drug-related crime like robbery, rape, and assault? Presumably legalization would reduce the cost of drugs and thus addicts might commit fewer crimes to pay for their habits. But less expensive drugs might also feed their habit better, and more drugs means more side effects like paranoia, irritability and violence. Suggestions that crime can somehow be eliminated by redefining it are spurious. Free drugs or legalizing bad drugs would not make criminal addicts into productive citizens. Dr. Mitchell S. Rosenthal, expert on drugs and adolescents and president of Phoenix House, a resident treatment center in New York, said, “If you give somebody free drugs you don’t turn him into a responsible employee, husband, or father.” The Justice Department reports that most inmates (77.4 percent male and 83.6 percent female) have a drug history and the majority were under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time of their current offense. And a surprisingly large number of convicted felons admit their crime motive was to get money for drugs. For example, 12 percent of all violent offenses and 24.4 percent of all property offenses were drug-money motivated.”
“Tolerant drug policies in Switzerland have resulted in an influx of drug users. In 1987, the Swiss Government permitted drug use and sales in a part of Zurich called Platzspitz, or “Needle Park.” By 1992, over 20,000 drug users congregated in the park, and the surrounding areas were overrun with crime. The park has been shut down and the experiment has been terminated…”
“In Ireland, the number of children treated for mental disorders caused by smoking cannabis has quadrupled since the government downgraded the legal status of the drug, according to an article in the Sunday Times (September 18, 2005). Addaction, an Irish drug charity, told the Times that “three months after police stopped arresting anyone found in possession of small amounts of the drug, the overall number of users treated for such conditions rose 42%.”
Does the fact that your sources for how necessary the drug war is are the same ones profiting from it give you pause?
And everything was legal until the early 20th century. But then scare mongering (sex crazed negroes on cocaine want white women), much like today, led to making the perfectly legal illegal.
Legalize everything tomorrow and I will have no interest, but drug warriors like “t” will be working at Jack in the Box. It’s all about money and job security, nothing more. If it were about anything else alcohol and tobacco would be illegal.
Its all speculation and hope on your part…
American Journal of Nursing: (July 1936) Mariahuana – By Victor Lewitus
There is a plant which at present offers promise of adding its weight to our already overburdened narcotic problem. It is technically known as Cannabis indica, but is more commonly recognized as Indian hemp, hashish or mariahuana. It is also variously known, according to its manner of preparation, as bhang (the infusion), charas (the extracted resin), ganjah (as a tobacco), and majum (as a confection). The term mariahuana originates from the Mexican or South American Language in which the term connotes any substance which produces an intoxication, and the term hashish or hasheesh is partly represented in our own word “assassin.” The terms thus point to some of its deleterious properties.
Although originally indigenous to India, Asia Minor, and Northern Africa, the drug has reached our shores where it grows in the wild state as Cannabis sativa. Recently it gained a place for itself in the newspaper columns because the New York police department discovered a lot in Brooklyn covered with the stuff. It was found on investigation that this “crop” was supplying the “needs” of a large number of soldiers on Governor’s Island who came easily into the habit of purchasing the stuff in order that they might make “reefers” for themselves. The officers noticed that their troops went “loco” and could not report for duty, and this lead the police to investigate, with the results referred to.
The plant consists of an herb which reaches several feet above a man’s shoulders, bearing compound finger-like leaves which are conspicuously toothed, and flowers at the upper terminal ends in clusters. It contains an active resin which is optimum during the flowering stage–abundant in the female plant.
At one time it was cultivated in many parts of the world and in our own country for its fiber from which rope, twine, and cloth was made and for this purpose it is still utilized in some localities. It has also been employed for its oil (from the seeds) which is quick drying as in linseed oil. The seeds themselves are widely used in bird foods of various types. Furthermore, the resinous principle has marked analgesic properties and for this reason it is used as a part of the formula of corn collodions since it readily allays pain.
In the narcotic world, however, it is known as the “murderous” narcotic–a well-deserved caption for it is known that in the Orient bands of men under its influence have run amuck and perpetrated the most heinous crimes. The drug is used similarly to opium–often smoked, or chewed in the form of a sweetmeat. It produces hallucinations in which the mind is freed from all restraint. The imaginary experiences and sensations are intensely realistic and the victim of this narcosis finds delight in this, as if they were actual experiences. The reaction later reverses itself, and there is an imaginary suffering which finds expression in violent acts which often lead to a strong impulse to do great harm. It is during this stage that the desire to kill is greatest, and large groups of men have been known to engage in mortal combat under its influence. In large dosage, Cannabis may cause paralysis of the extremities, difficult breathing, and a feeling of impending death accompanied by that of uncontrollable terror.
Fortunately, unlike most other narcotics, the drug is not known to cause a permanent addiction, for by abstinence the victim can be cured. Continual use, however, is known to produce a violent type of insanity which has brought to it the name “loco weed.” The subject will suddenly turn with murderous violence upon whomever is nearest to him. He will run amuck with knife, axe, gun, or anything else that is close at hand, and will kill or maim without any reason. After the sudden outburst wears away, the memory is left blank and the victims of these narcotic effects returns to normal.
The federal laws do not include hashish in their regulations but many of the progressive states have embodied in their statutes, measures to prevent its cultivation, sales, and distribution promiscuously. Even thought it is not truly a “habit former” the danger of its widespread use, because of ease of cultivation, must not be overlooked. There have been some rumors as to its use by school children, which cannot be denied since it is easy to believe that these adolescents will “try anything once.” Strict control such as that provided in the Harrison Narcotic Act is the remedy in this instance.
Further history, Eniched Stupidity
An editorial in the Illinois Medical Journal for June 1926, after eleven years of federal law enforcement, concluded:
The Harrison Narcotic law should never have been placed upon the Statute books of the United States. It is to be granted that the well-meaning blunderers who put it there had in mind only the idea of making it impossible for addicts to secure their supply of “dope” and to prevent unprincipled people from making fortunes, and fattening upon the infirmities of their fellow men.
As is the case with most prohibitive laws, however, this one fell far short of the mark. So far, in fact, that instead of stopping the traffic, those who deal in dope now make double their money from the poor unfortunates upon whom they prey. . . .
The doctor who needs narcotics used in reason to cure and allay human misery finds himself in a pit of trouble. The lawbreaker is in clover. . . . It is costing the United States more to support bootleggers of both narcotics and alcoholics than there is good coming from the farcical laws now on the statute books.
As to the Harrison Narcotic law, it is as with prohibition [of alcohol] legislation. People are beginning to ask, “Who did that, anyway?”
By 1936, twenty-two years after passage of the Harrison Act, an outstanding police authority had reached the same conclusion. He was August Vollmer, former chief of police in Berkeley, California, former professor of police administration at the Universities of Chicago and California, author of a leading textbook on police science, and past president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. Chief Vollmer wrote:
Stringent laws, spectacular police drives, vigorous prosecution, and imprisonment of addicts and peddlers have proved not only useless and enormously expensive as means of correcting this evil, but they are also unjustifiably and unbelievably cruel in their application to the unfortunate drug victims. Repression has driven this vice underground and produced the narcotic smugglers and supply agents, who have grown wealthy out of this evil practice and who, by devious methods, have stimulated traffic in drugs. Finally, and not the least of the evils associated with repression, the helpless addict has been forced to resort to crime in order to get money for the drug which is absolutely indispensable for his comfortable existence….
Drug addiction, like prostitution and like liquor, is not a police problem; it never has been and never can be solved by policemen. It is first and last a medical problem, and if there is a solution it will be discovered not by policemen, but by scientific and competently trained medical experts whose sole objective will be the reduction and possible eradication of this devastating appetite. There should be intelligent treatment of the incurables in outpatient clinics, hospitalization of those not too far gone to respond to therapeutic measures, and application of the prophylactic principles which medicine applies to all scourges of mankind.
I can only hope every drug warrior is afflicted with a terribly painful cancer and finds doctors unwilling to risk their license over their case. Here’s some Tylenol, shut the fuck up, jackboot.
Combined alcohol and tobacco deaths, according to the CDC, are around 500,000 per year. How is it that this does not have the attention of every drug warrior. There are 14 world trade center attacks worth of deaths every year for these 2 drugs alone.
If you want to save lives, why aren’t we banning these obviously hideously dangerous substances, along with demon weed and other much less dangerous drugs. Deaths from marijuana are usually restricted to being black or Hispanic when drug cops are around. If we are really in the business of saving lives shattered by drugs, aren’t there 2 that should really have our attention? Namely alcohol and tobacco? And isn’t alcohol the most common “gateway drug”.
Lakewood: Can you at least try to stay on topic? If you want to preach you “special brand of crazy” all the time, stop, write a nice long article to post as the “World according to Flake wood” (cause with that label, we’ll all know to just bypass it). If not salty on topic.
I stand amazed how it always, even from a self proclaimed non-doper, how it always comes back to dope love. It is truly incredible.
Not talking to you, shithead. Rebutting the reliably dumb as fuck “common sense”, aka Weapons Grade Stupid.
Go roust some homeless people or shoot a dog or something. Nobody asked for your “wisdom”.
Are you embarrassed about your part in the drug war, big bad copper? Rousting hopheads hurt your sense of being an invincible warrior? It should. Making your bones beating druggies is repulsive.
I will remind you of your complicity every time you comment, drug warrior.
If t. is complicit, then so are you Lakewood by paying taxes…that is if you have a home and pay property taxes. Well, I bet your parents do anyway.
Just think of the fear the must course through Lakewood’s brain when he sees a cop. Then next is the contempt, but the fear of arrest must keep his body in check. So so angry.
Spears and shields – what an dipshit.
Impossible to refute.
But if I need to use something you can understand, substitute your favorite Pokemon characters for the Hoplites. Or pixar characters. Woody vs Buzz Lightyear. I’m sure you can figure it out.
And I rent. I got out of the housing market just before the collapse. Sold the house before PCS. Will not buy another one till retirement.
– just think, when the Constitution was written, you wouldn’t even be allowed to vote.
Your correct, “Impossible to refute.” – you are a dipshit.
As opposed to now, where every informed vote is nullified with a vote from a mindless borderline retarded democrat.
Yep, its hopeless for you Lakewood, you’ll never be able to smoke a bowl legally, well, unless you get cancer…good luck with that.
Smoking anything is unhealthy. Carbon Monoxide has a much greater affinity for hemoglobin than oxygen. Smokers are perpetually oxygen starved because of the levels of carboxyhemoglobin in their blood. No thank you. But you can feel free if you must smoke. I am no authoritarian.
Ditto for drinking. Alcohol is the number 2, after smoking, cause of stomach, esophageal and bladder cancer. So feel free to poison yourself, I will abstain, but I am no authoritarian Prohibitionist.
whatever you need to tell yourself Lakewood, you are still in the minority. When you can rally your side, maybe, but even then, I doubt it.
Lack of Common Sense
I don’t need to rally anyone to a position for my benefit. I use no substances. It is physiologically unsound.