Got pulled over this morning with handgun in vehicle

[TMF]

I don't think anyone here is advocating criminals... not one bit. We're talking about balance. If police didn't have to abide by the rules and were "let off the leash" there would most likely be a dramatic drop in crime, but at what cost? As was mentioned by a previous post, it doesn't have to be one way or the other. Just because I believe that the 4th Amendment should be adhered to more strictly than it is doesn't mean I'm advocating criminal activity or somehow am a bleeding heart. To say that is to use the same argument the gun-grabbers use: "If you don't support gun control than you support gun crime."

[mikegideon]

We have to either get our economy fixed and get people back to work or we need to build more prisons. Since fixing the economy rest on the shoulders of the American people; I would suggest we start building more prisons.

As our economy gets worse you are going to see more and more of your friends and family become victims of violent crimes. The Police try to do what they can; but they are reactive not proactive.

We are moving towards having more people in public service and medical than we have working in jobs that pay the bills. That can't work.

THIS is exactly why I have allowed myself to become so heavily armed. You can invade my house, but you're gonna have to work for it

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Wow, a lot to answer. If i feel obvious drugs I act but if its something like a couple pills, dime bag, etc i wait to add that charge to any others but otherwise I wont charge for only drugs from a Frisk search.

Thanks for the explanation, Patton. If you find time to answer about the other two scenarios it would be interesting to know, but if not, no big deal.

Yet you think you are going to find a bunch of good ole boys that are living at the foot of cross, have as much legal training as a criminal defense attorney, are experts on the Constitution and the case laws that go with it, will work for what a cop makes, and know that they are going to be fired and go to jail if they make a mistake? Good luck with that.

Hi DaveTN

Ridiculous abuses shouldn't be tolerated, but if they start arresting people for mistakes on the job then they would never let me out.

As I am much older now than I was during that Memphis stop(profiling a young'n I think), and dont expect that to ever happen again, I think it is important to know where you stand. And when your rights have been violated, intentional or not.

Hi jport

Am not arguing that the profiling of youngsters is good and proper, but on the other hand it seems hardly a new development.

The rare days I was able to stay awake in cultural anthropology class, got the impression that most cultures have various ritual hazing and rites of passage for youngsters becoming adults. Given a common trait among numerous otherwise disparate cultures, then it may not be unreasonable to wonder if it is hardware rather than software?

If the hassling of almost-adult humans is hardware then perhaps it is unlikely to change?

So maybe that is part of it. Dunno. When young I experienced a few stops which seemed more related to "checking me out" than any traffic infraction, but if that is part of our culture's ritual hazing of youngsters then it could be lots worse. Perhaps the worst side-effect might be giving youngsters more reason to have a bad attitude, given that it is easy enough for younguns to develop a bad attitude for no reason at all.

For instance it doesn't sound near as unpleasant as young apache men having to hang by hooks in the hot sun until blessed with a vision. I would try to have a wondrous vision as quick as the old farts would believe me and get it over with.

A bud was a navy man in the vietnam era. If his tales are to be believed, the shipboard ritual ordeals at the time, of young sailors making their first crossing of the equator or 180th meridian, made the occasional gratuitous traffic stop seem quite pleasant by comparison.

[TMF]

A bud was a navy man in the vietnam era. If his tales are to be believed, the shipboard ritual ordeals at the time, of young sailors making their first crossing of the equator or 180th meridian, made the occasional gratuitous traffic stop seem quite pleasant by comparison.

I'd have to say the line would have to be drawn at a police officer making a young man into an ugly woman....eeeeesshh. And the Navy wonders how they become the butt of so many gay jokes... pun intended.

[Guest pfries]

THIS is exactly why I have allowed myself to become so heavily armed. You can invade my house, but you're gonna have to work for it

All right, but I am bringing at least 1000 rounds of ammo kidnapping you and we are going to the range ... why does it all have to be so difficult!

[DaveTN]

I don't think anyone here is advocating criminals... not one bit. We're talking about balance. If police didn't have to abide by the rules and were "let off the leash" there would most likely be a dramatic drop in crime, but at what cost? As was mentioned by a previous post, it doesn't have to be one way or the other. Just because I believe that the 4th Amendment should be adhered to more strictly than it is doesn't mean I'm advocating criminal activity or somehow am a bleeding heart. To say that is to use the same argument the gun-grabbers use: "If you don't support gun control than you support gun crime."

It’s just interpretation. You seem to be appalled that the same rules that would allow a Police Officer to secure a weapon during traffic stop and check it for stolen when stopping a gang banger, also apply to you. The prison tats aren’t always on the forehead and sometimes it’s hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

The legal interpreters of the Constitution that were set-up by our founding fathers are either okay with it or their not. As I said before if you think your rights have been violated you have recourse. Is the cop going to lose his job or even be reprimanded because he ran the numbers off your gun? No, because he is going to be able to explain why he did it (if he is even called in). Maybe someday the courts will say that isn’t allowed, maybe someday court will be held on the street prior to the search, I don’t know, but for now they do what they have to do.

I support our Police Officers and too many of them die needlessly every year. Our founding fathers didn’t create any law or amendment to the Constitution that means a Police Officer must put his life at risk. If a gun is involved they have the right to secure it for their protection and the protection of others around them; I don’t care if the gun is in the hands of the pope.

[TMF]

The prison tats aren’t always on the forehead and sometimes it’s hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys.

That sounds like an occupational hazard one accepts when becoming a LEO. I empathize, I really do, but I don't think that means every person gets treated as a criminal; it should mean that LEOs are cautious and maintain situational awareness. That doesn't mean that the 4th Amendment is just a suggestion.

I support our Police Officers and too many of them die needlessly every year. Our founding fathers didn’t create any law or amendment to the Constitution that means a Police Officer must put his life at risk. If a gun is involved they have the right to secure it for their protection and the protection of others around them; I don’t care if the gun is in the hands of the pope.

I support LEOs too. My father has been one for 30 years not counting his years as a MP. I don't have a problem surrendering my weapon for an LEO to run the numbers if he asks nicely. I have nothing to hide. But that isn't really the point here. The point is that taking personal property for the purpose of a theft investigation should require PC; it just doesn't pass the sniff test. Just because I'm okay with it doesn't mean that everyone is, and that is their right not to be. If an officer wants to disarm me because he feels threatened somehow, well okay. I'm not a threatening person or present much of a combative personality to LE, but if it makes him more comfortable then fine. I don't know what his perception of me is at all. Maybe he's been shot at before and is a little skiddish... hell, in that case I'd want him to disarm me so he doesn't get nervous on me.

[JayC]

Dave,

I'm all for arresting, and locking up criminals who are hurting others... I'm not some naive college student who thinks that we can create a utopia... There are bad evil people in the world who will commit horrible acts on good law abiding citizens... Good people will needlessly die in a free state.... but that is true in a police state, so I'd choose to have more freedom and be just as safe as I am today.

Why are we using police officers for traffic enforcement? We have technology today that can do the job a lot better and a lot cheaper... oh yeah and it's safer for officers as well... That would free police officers up to focus on real criminals... DUI/DWI, DV, rape, murder, robbery, assault... Those things will keep happening, and are true crimes which we as a society need to punish.

So, what drug dealers? If you legalize drugs... then you take away the criminal element from them... They can be sold over the counter and 20% of what they cost today... in pure safe form... again when was the last time you saw 1 liquor store owner do a drive by on another liquor store? Will there be some crime associated with the buying and selling of drugs... sure, we still see some crime associated with liquor... people still make moonshine and sell it because the taxes are too high (and I've heard it tastes great)... lower the taxes until the 'sin' tax is less than the cost of going around the sin tax, and most of that goes away as well... but even if you don't, that criminal activity is much easier to deal with than what we have today.

80% less cost for the product means that even if you average junkie is doing twice as many drugs... you're still going to see 50% fewer property crime for them to support their habit... So they're killing fewer home owners, because they have to steal less to stay gorked out of their minds all the time. You'll continue to have a small part of the junkie community over dosing and killing themselves... that % might go up a little from today... sad, but much less costly on society than 50% of our jails being filled with addicts.

Sure, DUI rates will increase slightly... junkies are already killing people on the roads today... again in a free society bad things happen to good people... But, by taking away traffic enforcement, and getting rid of drug task forces... you'll have enough officers to be out and about looking for DUI's... If you see a crime (DUI) being committed, then there is nothing wrong with arresting somebody... you don't need a search warrant for that. But, long term technology is going to do away with DUI's 100%... it's 20-30 years away but it's a short term problem... the number of extra law abiding citizens who die between now and then would be a rounding error in traffic related deaths which will go away.

I'm all for locking up criminals who physical hurt or steal from another person... I'm all for very long prison terms for both... Maybe if our jails weren't so crowded we could keep more of these evil men off the street longer.

You wouldn’t be King for more than a day; the criminals you are trying to protect would drag you to into the street, kill you and eat you; you have no protection. The people that were left to witness that would probably do away with the whole King idea after seeing what happened to you. They might think a Democracy or maybe even a Republic might be a better way to go.

Maybe in their new set of “Rules†they will make all searches require a warrant? Maybe they could do away with traffic stops altogether. Maybe they have cops be dispatched from a “Police House†just like firemen are only when they are needed.

Oh but wait….. You are going to have a problem. You are going to have deal with the families of the dead victims. The families of the kids that were killed by the drug dealers and users you protect, or the families of the dead victims of the drunk drivers that your “Technology†didn’t work on. And because you want to completely tie the hands of the Police, or not have cops at all, there will be a lot of those people speaking out…. And running for office.

Maybe when they want justice you can throw out some old Thomas Jefferson quotes taken out of context and that will help.

[Patton]

jayC, I deal with more prescription drug abuse than meth and weed put together. In many cases the person has been prescribed them and even the person selling them has as well. It's just one person has to have more. I'm wondering how you view that one.

[hkgonra]

jayC, I deal with more prescription drug abuse than meth and weed put together. In many cases the person has been prescribed them and even the person selling them has as well. It's just one person has to have more. I'm wondering how you view that one.

Every cop I have talked to about that subject says the vast majority of those problems are on medicaid, see my earlier post about the gov creating problems.

[Guest A10thunderbolt]

I have never had a LEO do anything that helped me and I have had many things stolen. So now I help my self useing my HCP and Expensive Cameras for my home. Why do they need to invade my Privacy? they dont seem to help with what they were appointed to do in the first place. They show up 2 days after my car was broken into, about 3 Hours after my car was stolen. If I catch someone breaking into my car tommorow all I can do is stand and watch. We need some Improvement somewere, What we are doing is not working. My car was never recoverd By the way.

By the way I respect all officers, I just wish the system was setup differently, and it is a fine line between security and Freedom. I have no security so why not take freedom?

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Hi Patton

Possibly antibiotics are most deserving of tight government control, compared to the various mind-altering drugs or the many non-psychotropic powerful medicines that will kill you in a heartbeat if used improperly?

One might reason that if enough people could buy powerful antibiotics and misuse them in the many ways, then that is not a "victimless crime". If enough idiots over-use or mis-use antibiotics then they will help breed enough antibiotic-resistant strains that the antibiotics will quit working for ALL of us. Not just the idiots who mis-use them.

Well, antibiotics will eventually become ineffective anyway, but enough idiots taking them the wrong way for the wrong purposes, will breed superbugs even faster than otherwise.

Regarding psychotropic drugs or the other medically-useful but potentially dangerous drugs (which probably includes most truly effective medicines)-- It depends on how far you think the gov should go to protect people from themselves.

For instance if a person is idiotic enough to go buy a powerful blood thinner and self-prescribe it having no clue how to use it or even why, and the person keels over dead-- That is Darwin helping weed out people who are either really dumb or at least seriously deficient in judgement.

Is it really the job of the gov to ride herd on dumb people to keep them from offing themselves? Maybe it is, or maybe it isn't. Perhaps the majority of people at least since the early 20th century just assume that it is the gov's job to protect dumb people from offing themselves. That was the initial impetus for creating agencies like the FDA.

People really in need of pain meds but use them differently than prescribed-- Most likely they would be smarter to follow the doc's recommendations. If a pain patient hurts himself by not following directions then it is about the same as the guy who hurts himself mis-using a blood thinner when he ought to know better.

"Recreational" abusers of psychotropic drugs (including alcohol, coffee, tobacco)-- And then there are the ones who are moderate in consumption and in a clinical sense could not be diagnosed as abusers. A guy who occasionally drinks a beer is not an alcoholic. A guy who occasionally smokes a cigar is not at great statistical health risk. Similarly, a guy who might snort a rail of coke once or twice a year is not a cocaine abuser.

I'm not saying that any of those substances are good or recommended, but people are gonna do what they are gonna do. The majority will handle it kinda-sorta responsibly and a certain percentage will eventually kill themselves with it.

When I was working in substance abuse counseling-- Maybe I made the wrong conclusion, but I came to the conclusion that there is no form of treatment significantly more effective than no treatment at all.

Curing the poor addicts is a noble thought and I suppose it is worth spending some money trying to "cure" addicts even though it is almost certainly wasted money down the crapper.

Just let addicts off themselves from over-abuse if they can't snap out of it in time. I'm not being cruel or heartless. It is sad to see misery and suffering. The choices are just so limited--

Either lock em up for life because they like the wine or the coke too much. Or play a cat-and-mouse game trying to keep em away from the stuff, eventually financing huge black market organizations of hardened criminals shooting up the neighborhood with machine guns. Or just leave the addicts alone and let em buy what they can afford.

A third of the addicts will eventually get better of their own accord. A third will stay about the same. And the other third will get worse and eventually die. It would be great to wave a magic wand and cure them all, but there just ain't nothin you can do for people. They got to do it themselves.

If an addict is stealing, put him in jail for theft. If an addict is violent, put him in jail for the violence. But if the addict is just being an addict but not breaking other laws, just leave him the hell alone.

But it will never happen. Too many people think it is somehow possible to save people from themselves. I don't think it is possible. Maybe I'm wrong.

[JayC]

jayC, I deal with more prescription drug abuse than meth and weed put together. In many cases the person has been prescribed them and even the person selling them has as well. It's just one person has to have more. I'm wondering how you view that one.

I view the prescription drug laws generally as corporate welfare for Doctors and Hospitals... How silly is it, that an IV bag of salt water can land you in jail for the same amount of time as oxy? The reason... to force people to go see a Doctor pay that Doctor money even if a layperson knows what is wrong and what they need. Government sponsored corporate welfare...

I'd do away with most if not all of the prescription drug laws... pain pills are an obvious concern... they serve a good medical purpose but are highly addictive... but I think the vast majority of adults know that, and take great care to try and avoid becoming addicted to them. Over the counter purchasing of pain pills probably would slight increase the addiction rate, by how much I don't know... I suspect the costs to society would be offset by the lower cost of their habit and reduced crime around their habit.

Obviously as you said, the vast majority of people you're busting for prescription drugs have some valid prescription from a Doctor already... and they are just taking more than the Doctor thinks they should. Why make it criminal? Let them go and pick up a larger supply from the store, and take them.

There are some drugs I might support prescriptions for... I don't have enough knowledge to make an informed opinion... for example drugs related to fighting cancer may need to be restricted because of the environmental risks to third parties, but I seriously doubt there would be much of a black market in those types of drugs for addicts and recreational users.

[TMF]

Since we're taking it in that direction, most countries I've been to you can purchase just about any prescription med over the counter. So what? People abuse them either way the same way they huff just about anything that comes in an aerosol can, but I shouldn't need a note from a painter to buy spraypaint. Why are we tying police up with this or using it as a justification for searches? The "for the children" plea is BS. It doesn't sound any better when the libs use it.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

I worked in it during the Nixon era. They would hold big continuing education conventions at universities, where gov and private agencies would send their workers to get edumacated. Hundreds of folks would sit for days listening to lectures by various expert specialists. I suppose they are still doing that nowadays.

There was the epidemiological model-- Considering drug abuse as passed from person to person like a contagious disease. If you quarantine the people with the "disease" then they can't "infect" other people and the "disease" can't spread.

There are certainly merits to the model, except that you are talking about "quarantining" i.e. jailing or institutionalizing, millions of people merely for having a lifestyle that you don't like. Because they are near-impossible to cure (unless they happen to cure themselves), if you get realistic about it then yer basically talking about indefinite confinement to do any good. We'd have Soviet Gulags beat by a mile!

There were three basic groups of folks living off the private and public grants-- Education, Law Enforcement, and Treatment.

Because the funds will always be considered inadequate regardless of the amount-- The Education folks would agitate for a bigger slice of the pie to teach kids not to use drugs/alcohol. Law Enforcement wanted a bigger slice of the pie in order to better "quarantine" the problem. And the Treatment folks wanted a bigger slice of the pie so they could cure people so they wouldn't have to be "quarantined".

The official strategy was "all of the above". Educate kids and adults and employers. Legally harrass users hoping to make em uncomfortable enough to quit. Put as many dealers in jail as you can, for as many years as possible. And try to cure them who can be cured.

Education efforts make sense, though it was discovered that some of the well-intended education efforts tended to make kids more interested in drugs, rather than scaring them away. Effective education programs would almost have to be beneficial. It is better not to use drugs/alcohol than to use them, and some kids are smart enough to take advice. Then there are many others ornery enough to have to find out for themselves.

It is difficult to identify the most effective education programs. For one thing, such things are innately difficult to evaluate. For another, many educators have their pet programs and do not care to be rigorously evaluated because they "know it works" and don't want to be proved wrong and possibly lose funding.

Law Enforcement has been working long and hard to harrass users and jail dealers, playing a whack-a-mole game.

And MAYBE treatment is good for something. Medical detox programs at least do something useful. Treatment folks are dedicated hard working folks just like the other groups. They genuinely believe they are helping people.

Treatment is also difficult to evaluate. Last time I looked, it still tended to be-- 1/3 get better, 1/3 stay the same, and 1/3 get worse, regardless what you do. Including nothing at all. Treatment programs tend to avoid spending much money on evaluation research because it draws funds away from the treatment budget. Also, if the evaluation shows minimal benefit then they might lose funding. Some treatment folks are convinced that what they do "really works" and don't see the need for much evaluation because they "already know" that it works.

Many people will receive counseling and honestly believe they benefitted. They may believe themselves to have better self-insight. Or better problem-solving skills. Or other subjective benefits. However in many cases the behavior stays the same after counseling, even though the clients truly believe themselves to have been "helped".

Sometimes the most cooperative clients are weak frail personalities who do fabulous in treatment, "teacher's pets"-- Might be so weak that they are stoned again within hours of release even though they really really did honestly intend to do right.

Sometimes the most annoying self-centered jerks, who have no self-insight and get kicked out of the program after breaking every rule in the book-- They might spontaneously straighten up because those folks are just too mean to die.

====

So I dunno. Forty years later the gov still seems to be following a three-pronged approach to contain the epidemic. Maybe things would be even worse without all those billions spent?

It really doesn't look to me like the plan is working. At all. On the other hand, the plan has worked AT LEAST as good as the War On Poverty!