4 ms·

I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. Yes, many times they are, but that's no gua

by k3n 13y ago

I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. Yes, many times they are, but that's no guarantee. I do agree a lot about no-knock raids, though I'm not sure what alternatives there are. It seems you're trying to say that they really no functional purpose, which I'd disagree with; every single person I know that has dealt with drugs would flush them in an instant if the police showed up and politely knocked. I've personally witnessed it. Point being, that you've helped to reiterate, is that there is not a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs; rather, it's symptomatic of larger issues in law enforcement.

glenra 13y ago
>I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. I think it's more presumptive to think that they are dangerous, absent strong evidence to think so. > I'm not sure what alternatives there are. One alternative is to regard a man's home as his castle. Police have no business breaking in merely because they suspect somebody possesses the wrong plant material. If drugs get flushed, so be it - there is no moral imperative that says the cops have to be able to make their case at all, much less based on what they find doing a search. The alternative is patience. Stake the place out. Come bother the homeowner when they are arriving or leaving or checking the mail. Reserve "no-knock" for hostage situations, kidnappings, and apprehending people who are actually known to be dangerous - it should be a very last resort, not a first resort. The vast majority of no-knock raids serve no purpose except to help the police feel good about themselves. > Point being [...] that there is not a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs; rather, it's symptomatic of larger issues in law enforcement. Why not both? Let's conclude there is a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs and there are larger issues in law enforcement.

by k3n 13y ago

glenra 13y ago

>I think it's very presumptive to think that because someone is "just" growing marijuana, that they aren't dangerous. I think it's more presumptive to think that they are dangerous, absent strong evidence to think so. > I'm not sure what alternatives there are. One alternative is to regard a man's home as his castle. Police have no business breaking in merely because they suspect somebody possesses the wrong plant material. If drugs get flushed, so be it - there is no moral imperative that says the cops have to be able to make their case at all, much less based on what they find doing a search. The alternative is patience. Stake the place out. Come bother the homeowner when they are arriving or leaving or checking the mail. Reserve "no-knock" for hostage situations, kidnappings, and apprehending people who are actually known to be dangerous - it should be a very last resort, not a first resort. The vast majority of no-knock raids serve no purpose except to help the police feel good about themselves. > Point being [...] that there is not a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs; rather, it's symptomatic of larger issues in law enforcement. Why not both? Let's conclude there is a problem of officers wantonly shooting dogs and there are larger issues in law enforcement.