I have always wondered how the Police in the US are above the law, they are always breaking the speed limit, the other day one overtook the car in front of me in an area you are not supposed to overtake in. I can understand them doing the above if they had their lights on and were obviously heading to the scene of a crime. but I always see them doing whatever they want on the roads. Breaking laws that are there for the safety of the rest of us.
In the UK they can be arrested by the same law the common folk have to hold to, if they don't have their lights on. Also in England the Police are trained to be relational first not confrontational. A friend of mine went to the UK to do some training and mentioned how nice the cops are there compared to them in the US, that here it seems they are trained to be confrontational instead of trying to calm down situations. Not that the UK Police are perfect but seems like the US could learn a little from them.
Was anybody else expecting more? Im not defending the cop he should get fucked for that but all he did was stand on him for like half a second, I was just expecting it to be worse I guess.
At first I thought maybe the undercover cop was doing it to protect his identity, it doesn't make sense to destroy the camera there and not destroy the one in the office also if they were trying to hide anything else.
Any of this is just random speculation though, the snippets of the video shown have no context. The only thing for certain is the lawyers statement that they knew they were operating without a license since the city made getting the license tough. So their lawyer just told the world on TV that they're guilty...
Really? You can justify pretty much anything with your obvious flawed logic. It's far from needed here.
But, police men generally do a good job. And the people who say that the media is to blame for this, no they aren't. People like stuff like this, they do not like reports about a normal policeman (who does his job good).
The amendment needed to prohibit alcohol set a precedent. If you know anything of law, it's pretty clear that the current war on drugs is unlawful simply based on that.
Bet you also think the police should be able to search your home because you have nothing to hide
I think what people are missing is that the punishment for operating without a permit is a $100 fine, not being arrested.
It set a precedent should they ever make an amendment to prohibit other drugs, but in theory not legality.... and precedents are not used in amendments, amendments are absolutes. Precedents are established by court rulings, where if the supreme court decides something all lower courts must follow it. You're confusing a number of legal terms.
Last edited by Reg; 2012-07-07 at 11:33 PM.
Yep because they want to find the best bullies around. Be sure to weed out anyone that was not your neighborhood bully as a skid.
---------- Post added 2012-07-08 at 01:11 AM ----------
Sorry check your facts, we voted Medical Pot legal here in California. That dispensary was operating legally except for the city business license. It was guilt of the same level of crime as jay walking.
There's plenty incidents of innocent people being brutalized/killed by cops. On a personal basis it might be a rare thing. I don't think crooked cops have the most solid moral compass about who they hurt.
---------- Post added 2012-07-07 at 06:30 PM ----------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathryn_Johnston_shooting
Probably shouldn't use absolutes.
It even states in the video you linked they were running the shop without permits, that is why the local police came in and arrested them and busted it up. What they were doing is the same as some guy selling drugs out of his house or car.
For those of you that want a link to more of the video without some of the new stations editing here you go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AG942y1Cq64
---------- Post added 2012-07-07 at 06:37 PM ----------
Federal laws trump local laws so it doesn't really matter. This is why things like that are reversed so often. It doesn't matter since that isn't the issue here, this place was running without the permits needed to run which is why the city police were the ones that came in and arrested the ppl there. So they were breaking the law, as a result the shop was wrecked the ppl in it were tossed in jail.
"Privilege is invisible to those who have it."
What does this have to do with anything?
That's not how it works. The federal government only has power over what is specifically granted in the constitution. I'm not even American, but I've read your constitution and seem to know more about your laws than most Americans. I am asking you, what article allows the war on drugs?Which amendment disallows the war on drugs?
I'm surprised you've not brought it up, likely because you haven't even heard of it, but the argument used to justify the war on drugs is based on the commerce clause. When the constitution was drafted however, the word "regulate" had a much different meaning, it meant to make regular. The purpose of the commerce clause was to make sure there exists free trade between the states. As it is defined today, the clause invalidates the entire US constitution. It becomes a worthless document, because everything can be said to effect interstate commerce. That one clause would make everything else in the constitution entirely meaningless. Why would the founders have drafted a constitution at all if they thought the federal government should be allowed to do anything it wanted anyway? They at least respected the constitution enough in the 20s to ammend it to make alcohol illegal. Nixon didn't even bother.
Last edited by mmoc128328808c; 2012-07-08 at 09:38 AM.