PDA

View Full Version : Man kills 2 of 3 men beating stepson into brain damage. NAACP calls him "murderer"


viras
11-16-2007, 8:59 AM
Link to Story: Click HERE (http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,311894,00.html)

Robbery Suspect Charged With Murder After Alleged Accomplices Killed by Homeowner

Thursday , November 15, 2007

LAKEPORT, Calif. —

Three young black men break into a white man's home in rural Northern California. The homeowner shoots two of them to death — but it's the surviving black man who is charged with murder.

In a case that has brought cries of racism from civil rights groups, Renato Hughes Jr., 22, was charged by prosecutors in this overwhelmingly white county under a rarely invoked legal doctrine that could make him responsible for the bloodshed.

"It was pandemonium" inside the house that night, District Attorney Jon Hopkins said. Hughes was responsible for "setting the whole thing in motion by his actions and the actions of his accomplices."

Prosecutors said homeowner Shannon Edmonds opened fire Dec. 7 after three young men rampaged through the Clearlake house demanding marijuana and brutally beat his stepson. Rashad Williams, 21, and Christian Foster, 22, were shot in the back. Hughes fled.

Hughes was charged with first-degree murder under California's Provocative Act doctrine, versions of which have been on the books in many states for generations but are rarely used.

The Provocative Act doctrine does not require prosecutors to prove the accused intended to kill. Instead, "they have to show that it was reasonably foreseeable that the criminal enterprise could trigger a fatal response from the homeowner," said Brian Getz, a San Francisco defense attorney unconnected to the case.

The NAACP complained that prosecutors came down too hard on Hughes, who also faces robbery, burglary and assault charges. Prosecutors are not seeking the death penalty.

The Rev. Amos Brown, head of the San Francisco chapter of the NAACP and pastor at Hughes' church, said the case demonstrates the legal system is racist in remote Lake County, aspiring wine country 100 miles north of San Francisco. The sparsely populated county of 13,000 people is 91 percent white and 2 percent black.

Brown and other NAACP officials are asking why the homeowner is walking free. Tests showed Edmonds had marijuana and prescription medication in his system the night of the shooting. Edmonds had a prescription for both the pot and the medication to treat depression.

"This man had no business killing these boys," Brown said. "They were shot in the back. They had fled."

On Thursday, a judge granted a defense motion for a change of venue. The defense had argued that he would not be able to get a fair trial because of extensive local media coverage and the unlikelihood that Hughes could get a jury of his peers in the county. A new location for the trial will be selected Dec. 14.

The district attorney said that race played no part in the charges against Hughes and that the homeowner was spared prosecution because of evidence he was defending himself and his family, who were asleep when the assailants barged in at 4 a.m.

Edmonds' stepson, Dale Lafferty, suffered brain damage from the baseball bat beating he took during the melee. The 19-year-old lives in a rehabilitation center and can no longer feed himself.

"I didn't do anything wrong. All I did was defend my family and my children's lives," said Edmonds, 33. "I'm sad the kids are dead, I didn't mean to kill them."

He added: "Race has nothing to do with it other than this was a gang of black people who thought they were going to beat up this white family."

California's Provocative Act doctrine has primarily been used to charge people whose actions led to shooting deaths.

However, in one notable case in Southern California in 1999, a man who robbed a family at gunpoint in their home was convicted of murder because a police officer pursuing him in a car chase slammed into another driver in an intersection, killing her.

Hughes' mother, San Francisco schoolteacher Judy Hughes, said she believes the group didn't intend to rob the family, just buy marijuana. She called the case against her son a "legal lynching."

"Only God knows what happened in that house," she said. "But this I know: My son did not murder his childhood friends."

What do you think? Discuss...

Here's what I think happened: The 3 black dudes went over to the white dude's house to steal some weed after finding out from the White Dude's son (who was savagely beaten) that his dad is in possession of presciption pot. I don't think Race has anything to do with this. I too would have opened fire on ANY 3 trespassers with baseball bats who were savagely beating up my son, regardless if they were 3 black dudes, 3 Asian dudes, 3 Iraquis, 3 white guys, 3 ninjas, 3 zombies, or 3 pirates. Trespassers with baseball bats are dangerous - end of story.

hitman13
11-16-2007, 9:16 AM
http://www.blogforfreedom.com/images/2007/04/28/racecard.jpg

thats what i think

hitman13
11-16-2007, 9:17 AM
oh yeah, i also think the homeowner needs to learn how to shoot faster.

ETD1010
11-16-2007, 9:22 AM
Wow. I didn't know we had that law. I think it's a great way to make someone think twice before they plan a home robbery. . . not that it'd do any good, but it's there..

DRM6000
11-16-2007, 9:22 AM
too bad he missed one

Lon Moer
11-16-2007, 10:05 AM
Hughes' mother, San Francisco schoolteacher Judy Hughes, said she believes the group didn't intend to rob the family, just buy marijuana. She called the case against her son a "legal lynching."
'ma baby dinit do nuthin! ' :rolleyes:

WolfMansDad
11-16-2007, 10:29 AM
Murder, no. Negligent homicide/manslaughter, perhaps.

This is an interesting law. Think of a different situation where the three kids are out riding dirt bikes. One says to the other two, "Let's try jumping this gorge." The gorge is clearly too wide to jump and filled with sharp rocks at the bottom. If the other two try the jump and die, is the one who suggested it - or egged the other two on - responsible for their deaths?

Similarly, think about the kid who suggests to his friends, "Hey, let's go rob so-and-so's house while he's home. He's short tempered and has a gun." Is he guilty for the deaths of his friends? I would say he is, at least in part, but not full-blown murder. Not unless there was evidence that he suckered them into it just to get them killed.

Race has nothing to do with it at all, imho.

The SoCal Gunner
11-16-2007, 10:41 AM
Maybe, just maybe they were shot in the back because they decided to stop beating the son, probably to death, and run once they saw the gun. The homeowner only has a split second to make the decision of trying to save his step son's life.

SO those guy only intended to buy marijuana with a baseball bat to the stepson's head? I'm sorry but there must be something in the kool aid.

I'm sorry for the family.

I'm okay with charging the guy with murder. That's what they would have done to the stepson had the homeowner not made his decision.

hitman13
11-16-2007, 10:44 AM
Think of a different situation where the three kids are out riding dirt bikes. One says to the other two, "Let's try jumping this gorge." The gorge is clearly too wide to jump and filled with sharp rocks at the bottom. If the other two try the jump and die, is the one who suggested it - or egged the other two on - responsible for their deaths?

inteesteing. i say f the one who suggests it and eggs them on is maybe lets say 16 or 17 and the other kids who die are lets say 12 or 13 then maybe...


interesting law is right.




owner still needs to shoot faster

Gator Monroe
11-16-2007, 10:52 AM
Over the Hill in the "Real Wine Country" or even tho outer reaches of the Bay Area the Homeowner would be Charged with a Hate Crime and the Wounded perp would win a huge civil suit !

Fjold
11-16-2007, 11:21 AM
That's a common charge here in Bakersfield.

We just had the same thing happen less than two weeks ago. Two guys broke into a house, the homeowner shot one to death and the last I heard the accomplice is being charged with his partner's murder.

rivviepop
11-16-2007, 11:41 AM
Well, if mom says murder is too high a crime, why not get him for the brain damage? Make her boy spend every day for the rest of his life spoon feeding the beaten son and being his caretaker under strict video supervision to negate wrongdoing. Ruin his f'ing life - jail won't do sh*t, make him spend the rest of his life looking into the face of his ill conceived plan and the life he ruined.

Rogerbutthead
11-16-2007, 11:59 AM
The Felony Murder Rule is old law and in my mind still a good law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony_murder

Another California case result - 2003
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/29/60II/main538407.shtml

Baseball bats at 4 AM in the morning, I hope that this jury doesn't have a moron (or more than one) on it. :)

duenor
11-16-2007, 1:00 PM
This story has made me so damn mad that I want to skip the build party and go protest at Clearlake this weekend.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/02/07/BAGR2H41LB1.DTL

Basically, three black guys, 21-22 years old, bust into an unemployed mechanic's house at 4am. While one beats the guy's 17yro stepson with a baseball bat so badly that he is badly brain damaged today, the other two try to beat the mechanic into submission so he will give them his medical marijuana (yes, he has a prescription).

somehow the man breaks free, gets his 9mm handgun. two of the three get shot in the back, one 5 and one 3 times. they manage to get out of the house; one dies right outside, another dies across the street, and the third flees.

The NAACP is calling the mechanic a murderer. And, this is how the defense is characterizing the mechanic:
""The ruthless, ill-motivated pursuit and killing of Mr. Williams and Mr. Foster by an individual engaged in illegal drug sales while under the influence of mood-altering drugs"

Here's the text of the story.

(02-07) 04:00 PST Clearlake, Lake County -- The green and beige home on 11th Street is empty now. It's been that way since early December, when it stopped being a dwelling and turned into a crime scene.

However, two signs still hang from a big tree in the yard: "Private Property Keep Out" and "This house guarded by a shotgun three nights per week. You guess which three."

They were put up months before the carnage of Dec. 7, and they remain intact -- mute witnesses to what started out as an alleged home invasion and ended up with two men dead. A preliminary hearing on the killings is expected to conclude today.

Whatever the outcome, one thing is already clear: The potential death penalty case is ravaging several families.

"My life has been ruined by this whole situation, and I can barely provide food for my family," testified Shannon Edmonds, 31, who admitted to gunning down two of the men who broke into his house but hasn't been charged.

"It's very unreal," said Judy Hughes, whose son, Renato Hughes Jr. -- in an unusual invocation of a complex "vicarious murder" legal theory -- is being accused of slaying his boyhood chums, Rashad Williams and Christian Foster.

"It's like a bad, bad dream," said Hughes, a San Francisco schoolteacher. "I can't see my child going down for this."

"If there's a living nightmare, this is it," said Deborah Besley, grandmother of Dale Lafferty, 17, who was badly beaten with a baseball bat during the melee.

"There are questions I need to have answered. I can't bring closure to my son's death when they have incarcerated my son's best friend," said Sheila Burton, the mother of Williams, who gained national acclaim as a 15-year-old after he ran in the Bay to Breakers to raise $40,000 for Lance Kirklin -- wounded during the 1999 bloodbath at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colo.

Williams, facing a three-year prison sentence for unarmed bank robberies in Danville and Lafayette last year, had been staying with his grandparents in Clearlake since April. On Dec. 7, just after midnight, Hughes and Foster arrived for a visit.

The preliminary hearing to determine whether Hughes will go on trial began Jan. 11 and will enter its sixth day today. Testimony has been contradictory and confusing.

According to prosecutor Jon Hopkins, the chief deputy district attorney in Lake County, at some point after 4 a.m., Hughes, Williams and Foster broke into the home where Edmonds was living with his young daughter, fiancee Lori Tyler, her son Dale Lafferty, and an unrelated teen, 16-year-old Justin Sutch. Hopkins maintains the three wanted to steal the medical marijuana used by the unemployed Edmonds, a former tractor mechanic, to combat depression. Police later seized at least 5 pounds from the house.

A free-for-all erupted, according to police, in which one intruder wrestled with Edmonds, one hit Tyler, and another bashed Lafferty with a bat. Edmonds grabbed his 9mm semiautomatic Browning and shot Williams twice in the back and Foster five times. It hasn't been established whether the shooting began indoors or outside.

When police got there, Williams was lying in the middle of 11th Street, dead, and Foster was dying in bushes 20 yards away.

The Lake County district attorney hasn't determined whether Edmonds has any criminal liability, but it has charged Mission High graduate Hughes, a 21-year-old clerk at a Trader Joe's in San Francisco, with two counts of first-degree murder and one count each of attempted murder, robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and residential burglary.

Hopkins is relying on a controversial legal theory called the provocative act murder doctrine, which originated in 1965 and has been used mainly to convict gang members in Southern California -- drive-by shootings are a classic application. The doctrine says that someone who provokes another person to kill can be charged with murder.

"It creates an unusual situation in which the defendant who did not actually kill anyone can receive the death penalty," defense attorney Angela Carter said.

Her husband, co-defense attorney Stephen Carter, said that it's unclear whether Edmonds' place was invaded, whether a robbery occurred, or whether the three were merely hoping to buy marijuana -- and that no evidence indicates Hughes was even in the house.

He also pointed to racially tinged tensions between Edmonds' family and two black teenage neighbors who had issued threats, which were reported to the police, shortly before the events of Dec. 7. And he noted that Edmonds had smoked marijuana as well as taking Lexapro, an anti-depressant, and Neurontin, a drug to control seizures, Dec. 6.

"When you shoot someone who is fleeing, it's not self-defense," Stephen Carter said. "It's an execution."

In court papers, he argued that the provocative act theory shouldn't be invoked.

"The ruthless, ill-motivated pursuit and killing of Mr. Williams and Mr. Foster by an individual engaged in illegal drug sales while under the influence of mood-altering drugs cannot be said to be a proximate, foreseeable and/or natural consequence of any acts allegedly engaged in by Mr. Hughes," Carter wrote.

As the intermittent court proceedings drag on, the families of those involved are struggling with grief, rage and fear -- and crisscrossing Northern California. Their lives often intersect in Clearlake.

Brisbane resident Burton and Judy Hughes, who is her longtime friend, have attended all five days of the hearing, a round trip of at least four hours. Lafferty's grandfather, Frank Kester -- the father of Lori Tyler -- is always there, too. His drive from Shasta County takes several hours each way, and sometimes he sleeps in his vehicle.

Howard Foster and his wife came one day from San Francisco. They locked their fingers together in the courtroom as they heard how their son, Christian -- a 22-year-old student at Notre Dame de Namur University in Belmont -- had died across the street from Edmonds' now-vacant house.

Last week, observers from the Lake County chapter of the NAACP showed up. And Burton said she sometimes wonders whether she'll "have to pull Johnnie Cochran from his grave" to get justice in a city that is 76 percent white and 5 percent black.

Conservative Web sites, meanwhile, draw people who applaud what Edmonds did. One posting on freerepublic.com said, "Two out of three ain't bad."

Even though the case has acquired racial overtones, Besley insists that her grandson, who had scuffled with the two black teenagers in his neighborhood, is not biased.

"I'm married to a black man," said Besley, mother of Gary Lafferty, Dale's father.

She visited her grandson recently in the rehabilitation center at Santa Clara Valley Medical Center in San Jose, 3 1/2 hours from her home in the Mendocino County town of Willits.

"He's not eating, he's not talking, and he's in a restless, agitated state right now," said Besley, a home health and hospice nurse.

Lafferty's prognosis is murky. Blows from the bat caused his brain to swell, and he was in an induced coma for weeks as doctors removed part of his skull and frontal lobe. The 6-foot-4 junior at Lower Lake High School has lost 25 pounds and is fed through a tube in his stomach.

"Dale was a sweetheart," Besley said. "He was a little bit of a thrill-seeker. He loved being out on the water on a boat, being a daredevil pulled by a tube. And he loved riding motorcycles."

Like Rashad Williams, she said, Lafferty had big feet and was on his school's track team.

"On Dec. 27, I kept saying I was waiting for my hug from Dale for my birthday," Besley recalled. "The therapist picked up his arm and put it around my neck. ... It's heartbreaking. You live through the sadness, the numbness, the grieving. You live through the not knowing and constantly wondering. We want Dale back the way Dale was."

E-mail Patricia Yollin at pyollin@sfchronicle.com.

Pics are of:
* the stepson, now brain damaged
* the stepfather
* one of the guys killed
* the last guy who fled

Maddog5150
11-16-2007, 1:08 PM
What do you expect from a group of people who cry wolf and call Al Sharpton every time something doesnt go their way? Im not being racist either, I cant stand hispanic organizations that pull the same crap (im hispanic)
Its sad when someone cannot buck up and take responsibilities for the repercussions of their actions. Its sad and pathetic when said organization makes the criminals into saints and victims and turn the heros into villains.

pnkssbtz
11-16-2007, 1:10 PM
Damn so sick =(.

Poor family.

N6ATF
11-16-2007, 1:12 PM
Yeah, your accomplices getting killed fits as Felony Murder, from what I learned in a CA-specific textbook.

California's Provocative Act may be rarely used and not textbook-worthy, but felony murder is used often enough to be put in textbooks, IMO.

Bizcuits
11-16-2007, 1:22 PM
My head hurts after reading that, and I'm mildly confused. All I know is a badguy who beat someone got smoked and the person who saved them is being punished?

They make it sound as if he did an American History X shootout. :rolleyes:

Hunter
11-16-2007, 1:24 PM
Not to take anything away from this, but this article is from Feb 2006.

See this thread for the recent info.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=75482

TurboFall
11-16-2007, 1:26 PM
Charging him with the murder of his accomplices is just silly--I mean he obviously didn't know the homeowner is going to shoot his homies :rolleyes:

What should he be tried for? Attempted murder of the homeowner's stepson: a baseball bat to the head should be more than enough to imply more than just a "beating".

duenor
11-16-2007, 1:45 PM
the article is from feb 06. its the original article. but new developments came out today - namely, the court location got moved to a more ethinically diverse neighborhood.

duenor
11-16-2007, 1:48 PM
I think what they are trying to do is to REALLY put this guy away.
we all know that if all they charge him with is the bat beating he will be out in like, what... 3 years?

FreedomIsNotFree
11-16-2007, 1:56 PM
Please tell me you got the pictures mixed up.....

xrMike
11-16-2007, 2:15 PM
Please tell me you got the pictures mixed up.....:D I'm not the only one then...

Hunter
11-16-2007, 2:17 PM
the article is from feb 06. its the original article. but new developments came out today - namely, the court location got moved to a more ethinically diverse neighborhood.

Yes,
That is why I posted the link to other thread that had already been started on this subject this morning, prior to your post. It has the more recent (ie today's) news in it.

Here it is again.
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=75482

Fjold
11-16-2007, 2:30 PM
Hopkins maintains the three wanted to steal the medical marijuana used by the unemployed Edmonds, a former tractor mechanic, to combat depression. Police later seized at least 5 pounds from the house.


Five pounds of weed to treat depression?

DedEye
11-16-2007, 2:40 PM
Well, if mom says murder is too high a crime, why not get him for the brain damage? Make her boy spend every day for the rest of his life spoon feeding the beaten son and being his caretaker under strict video supervision to negate wrongdoing. Ruin his f'ing life - jail won't do sh*t, make him spend the rest of his life looking into the face of his ill conceived plan and the life he ruined.

I love it! Brilliant punishment that would have a somewhat positive result, of sorts.

I agree with the others who think murder is too high a charge and am not 100% convinced that race wasn't in some way a factor in the decision to charge him with murder. Even if it was, he deserves to be charged with attempted murder at least, and race shouldn't factor into the trial.

DedEye
11-16-2007, 2:52 PM
Hopkins maintains the three wanted to steal the medical marijuana used by the unemployed Edmonds, a former tractor mechanic, to combat depression. Police later seized at least 5 pounds from the house.


Five pounds of weed to treat depression?

Stock up, like you would on ammo ;).

shark92651
11-16-2007, 3:02 PM
Unfortunately I think he is screwed. I'm all for shooting in self-defense but I think the fact that both of the victims ended up dead outside the house is not going to go well for him - perhaps if he can prove the shooting took place while they were still inside the house he may have a shot. It doesn't look good though.

paradox
11-16-2007, 3:17 PM
Hopkins maintains the three wanted to steal the medical marijuana used by the unemployed Edmonds, a former tractor mechanic, to combat depression. Police later seized at least 5 pounds from the house.


Five pounds of weed to treat depression?



Medical use of cannabis often requires a far greater amount than recreational use. Medical patients usually need a constant level of cannabinoids in their bloodstream to treat their disease’s symptoms. Recreational users want occasional spikes so as to get better “****ed up”.

Now, let’s look at the 5lb figure:
* He’s growing his own outdoors, so he’ll likely only have one harvest a year
* 5lb per year = 1.5 oz / week = .21 oz / day
* If he’s rolling an average sized cigarette (~0.05oz) and only administering it using the pulmonary method sans vaporizer, that is only around four joints a day.

Five pounds is a perfectly reasonable amount to have.

Knight
11-16-2007, 3:19 PM
Five pounds of weed to treat depression?

I'm actually for the legalization of marijuana, but frankly "medical marijuana" is a joke. It's a "legal" way to grow and sell massive amounts of product. It's no big deal for some of these larger medical marijuana grows to take in well over $1 million a month.

I'm not going to go no too much of a rant here, as I know it's a bit off-topic. But understand that I was raised in the Emerald Triangle; my city council licenses commercial marijuana grows, and my DA refuses to charge any marijuana grow-related cases.

dwtt
11-16-2007, 3:24 PM
I have a feeling the three scumbags, who happen to be black, are products of San Francisco's housing projects. Regular people would see them as the criminals they are, but the socialist government of San Francisco would see the three as "victims" of something or other. Look at the slant the SF Comical put on the story.

CavTrooper
11-16-2007, 3:33 PM
Ok, so a guy with a whole lotta drugs in his possesion shot 3 guys in the back?

I can see the "defense" part of his argument but this guy is toast, as well as he should be. If youre gonna own and use a gun for defense, you better know not to shoot people in the back and you better not be a drug user.

robairto
11-16-2007, 4:00 PM
No doubt he was dealing dope under prop 215 and the deal went bad or there were other issues that manifested themselves. That's one issue. The racism issue is another. My own experience in life dictates that there are as many racists of color that there are of non color. I've seen it lived it and been confronted with it. My own take is color doesn't scare me nor do the folks that use it against others. The truth almost always wins and will in the end. There is more bias than bigotry(sp?) in the world. Latin,Asian,urban,rural whatever have biases just like I do. The bias of some folks is wrongly defined as racism. Racism is the belief of one race being superior to another based on race. The Asian gal I worked with was very hot!!! That's my own personal bias. The fact that she was an A student is because she was smart and worked hard for it. No racism there just fact. 3 brothers involved in a drug deal gone bad is a fact. Big deal, the world is a better place without losers no matter what their skin color.

odysseus
11-16-2007, 4:19 PM
Unfortunately I think he is screwed. I'm all for shooting in self-defense but I think the fact that both of the victims ended up dead outside the house is not going to go well for him - perhaps if he can prove the shooting took place while they were still inside the house he may have a shot. It doesn't look good though.

I won't second guess this case, nor am I read up on it. However I think any jury might see things a little differently being that he witnessed his son get bashed in the brain right in front of him. I think a good lawyering might be able to explain the situation and the person's mindset.

This is an interesting case, in that we are talking about medical marijuana. However as to the focus of the crime at hand, it doesn't make as much difference to me than if it were gold and gems they came in for.

DedEye
11-16-2007, 4:30 PM
Everyone needs to read the link to the newer story on this topic where it's explained that the home owner wasn't brought up on charges :rolleyes:.

Trader Jack
11-16-2007, 4:37 PM
'ma baby dinit do nuthin! ' :rolleyes:

Ya mama Who is ma babys father. Hell I don't know.

eckerph
11-16-2007, 5:40 PM
Everyone needs to read the link to the newer story on this topic where it's explained that the home owner wasn't brought up on charges :rolleyes:.

:kest:

tman
11-16-2007, 5:47 PM
If it's true that they broke in to steal marijuana, then it's yet another example of a crime that could have been prevented had marijuana been legal.

paradox
11-16-2007, 5:56 PM
This is an interesting case, in that we are talking about medical marijuana. However as to the focus of the crime at hand, it doesn't make as much difference to me than if it were gold and gems they came in for.


Exactly. I don't care if the punks were coming for the dudeís MJ, pharmaceutical anti-depressants, chocolate, or wifeís underpants.

If you break into someoneís house and start beating heads with a bat, you deserve to get shot. If you survive and you buddies donít, you should be charged with their murder.

duenor
11-16-2007, 6:16 PM
There doesn't seem to be a desire to charge the guy with murder. It is SHAMEFUL however that you have to be able to prove that you got f***ed (stepson now is brain damaged) in order to not have to worry about getting charged with murder.

This is basically like saying, "Girls, let the guy stick his **** in you first.. then you can shoot him for raping you, because if you shoot him first you just killed a good boy who made a bad decision."

I'm not worried about the homeowner.. what I find OUTRAGEOUS is that the NAACP is "surprised that he is still walking free" and that they can say things like "he had no reason to shoot those boys in the back".

Like hell he had no reason. I challenge any decent father in this world who would willingly allow the guys who just beat out the brains of his son (stepson or no) walk away simply because as they dropped the bat they said, "my bad, we're leaving now".

FreedomIsNotFree
11-16-2007, 6:38 PM
I'm actually for the legalization of marijuana, but frankly "medical marijuana" is a joke. It's a "legal" way to grow and sell massive amounts of product. It's no big deal for some of these larger medical marijuana grows to take in well over $1 million a month.

I'm not going to go no too much of a rant here, as I know it's a bit off-topic. But understand that I was raised in the Emerald Triangle; my city council licenses commercial marijuana grows, and my DA refuses to charge any marijuana grow-related cases.

I agree that there are people that take advantage of Medical Marijuana for their own personal gain, but I think you are using a bit of a broad brush to say its a joke.

To my point, even the Federal Government recognizes the medicinal properties of cannabis....in fact, they provide pre-rolled joints to a number of people...also, marinol, a synthetic form of THC, is approved by the FDA.

We dont know enough about the victim, in this situation, to say that he was growing for profit.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-16-2007, 6:40 PM
Ok, so a guy with a whole lotta drugs in his possesion shot 3 guys in the back?

I can see the "defense" part of his argument but this guy is toast, as well as he should be. If youre gonna own and use a gun for defense, you better know not to shoot people in the back and you better not be a drug user.


Hmmm...would you say the same thing if, lets say, the victim was using vicodin? The fact that he was a "drug" user is irrelevant. He and his family were victims of armed robbery, and worse, and he had every right to defend their lives with lethal force.

duenor
11-16-2007, 6:41 PM
The guy has doctor's notes, a prescription, and it is 100% legal in the state of CA. It -may- not be legal Federally, but the Fed doesn't even want to enforce the constitution's 2A in CA.

So five pounds is a lot? What about 5,000 rounds of ammunition? That sure sounds like a lot to me too. Or 50,000? How about 50,000 rounds and 100 rifles? Good lord, that man is an arms dealer! That's basically the same mentality when one says that 5 lbs of pot makes a man a drug dealer.

artherd
11-16-2007, 7:36 PM
Hopkins maintains the three wanted to steal the medical marijuana used by the unemployed Edmonds, a former tractor mechanic, to combat depression. Police later seized at least 5 pounds from the house.

Uh, he's been prescribed five pounds of THC for depression?!

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/28/depressionAndMarijuanaDoesSmokingPotPutYouAtAHighe rRiskForDepressionOrDoesTheLinkWorkThe

Stockton
11-16-2007, 8:50 PM
Funny and rightous!

5968
11-16-2007, 9:19 PM
Murder, no. Negligent homicide/manslaughter, perhaps. The law states he can be charged with murder, why not get a criminal off the streets so that he doesn't end up in our house.:rolleyes:

This is an interesting law. Think of a different situation where the three kids are out riding dirt bikes. One says to the other two, "Let's try jumping this gorge." The gorge is clearly too wide to jump and filled with sharp rocks at the bottom. If the other two try the jump and die, is the one who suggested it - or egged the other two on - responsible for their deaths? Kids being stupid, but I don't believe it is against the law.

Similarly, think about the kid who suggests to his friends, "Hey, let's go rob so-and-so's house while he's home. He's short tempered and has a gun." Is he guilty for the deaths of his friends? I would say he is, at least in part, but not full-blown murder. Not unless there was evidence that he suckered them into it just to get them killed.Co-conspirators in a CRIME.

Race has nothing to do with it at all, imho. Agree with you that race had nothing to do with it.

fairfaxjim
11-16-2007, 9:52 PM
Uh, he's been prescribed five pounds of THC for depression?!

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2004/10/28/depressionAndMarijuanaDoesSmokingPotPutYouAtAHighe rRiskForDepressionOrDoesTheLinkWorkThe

I'd probably be depressed too if I toked 5 lbs. of weed!

FreedomIsNotFree
11-16-2007, 9:56 PM
I find this amazing really. Here we are, gun owners, that are demonized for taking part in a perfectly legal activity. Ad hominem attacks, the twisting of the truth...etc..etc..are used on us on a daily basis.

The Medical Marijuana user is no different. If recommended by a doctor, it is perfectly legal for him to have marijuana. Short of any evidence that he was selling it or committing some other crime, what gives people here the right to pass judgement on him?

Dont throw rocks if you live in a glass house.

CavTrooper
11-16-2007, 10:20 PM
the "legal in CA" argument is a joke. Drugs are drugs, legal or not. If the guy had 500 pills of vicodon, hed still be a drug user and probably a dealer. I think its almost like the (eventual) issuance of drivers licences to illegal immigrants by some rouge state gov, just because one state does it, doesnt make it lawful.
Plus, the guy shot the bad guys in the back! Shooting someone in the back isnt self defense, its murder. Too bad it doesnt seem this guy is going to suffer the concequences.
I guess drug dealing and murder are A-OK!

308fan
11-16-2007, 10:32 PM
The sad thing about this is that the guys son has permanent brain damage and will need to be cared for the rest of his life. The press didn't make that known. He was a normal guy before.

paul0660
11-16-2007, 10:35 PM
When I buy pot I always show up at 4 am with a baseball bat..........doesn't everyone?

The weirdest thing about this story is that.......Lake County has a NAACP chapter?

metalhead357
11-16-2007, 11:00 PM
Wont go for the death penalty?

God I love this fluzzie state sometimes; too many wusses scared to push the button or throw the switch. If the fool couldn't foresee a possible reprecussion (like death) resulting from thier own crime-- then WHY should we as tax payers have to house this looser for the next 70 years?

It is ONE of the few times I think China has got a better plan...and it involves charging the family of the criminal for the cleanup AND the bullet afterwards.....

God help me...I need outta this nutty state.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-16-2007, 11:28 PM
the "legal in CA" argument is a joke. Drugs are drugs, legal or not. If the guy had 500 pills of vicodon, hed still be a drug user and probably a dealer. I think its almost like the (eventual) issuance of drivers licences to illegal immigrants by some rouge state gov, just because one state does it, doesnt make it lawful.
Plus, the guy shot the bad guys in the back! Shooting someone in the back isnt self defense, its murder. Too bad it doesnt seem this guy is going to suffer the concequences.
I guess drug dealing and murder are A-OK!

No, its not a joke...its the law. Whether you like it or not.

Please point me to any evidence that the victims were engaging in dealing/trafficking, as you claim.

Not sure how you relate this to illegal immigrants receiving licenses. The Government didn't decide to approve of medical marijuana, the people did, with a majority vote.

Have you read the police report? For some reason, you are quite familiar with all of the details in this case. The fact that the intruders were shot in the back, by itself, does not prove murder. If an intruder was beating your relative over the head with a baseball bat would you insist he turn around before you pulled the trigger?

Remember tha the DA, who has access to ALL of the available evidence and information, chose to NOT prosecute.

Knight
11-16-2007, 11:34 PM
I agree that there are people that take advantage of Medical Marijuana for their own personal gain, but I think you are using a bit of a broad brush to say its a joke.

I don't think we are disagreeing on this issue. I'm not saying that marijuana doesn't have medicinal uses. I'm saying that the idea that the "medical marijuana" laws are a joke, because obviously people are getting 215 who don't need it, and are then using it as a shield to sell without fear of local law enforcement getting in the way.

Again, I think we should just get rid of this whole mess and legalize it. I personally don't smoke, but if someone wants to smoke themselves retarded, it's fine by me. It is America, after all . . .

Prc329
11-17-2007, 12:15 AM
NAACP lost its way a long time ago.

Giovani X
11-17-2007, 1:10 AM
The home owner shot two felling felons that were leaving the scene of...lets call it what it was an attempted murder, the situation ceased to be a robbery the second they took the bat to the kids head. This could clearly be construed as an attempt to end the life of the victim through the use of blunt traumatic injuries to the brain. So we can all agree that deadly force was being used against the victim during the commission of the intended crime of robbery. So by the letter of the law the home owner responded to the situation with deadly force in the defense of life. That is the only justified reason to shoot in the first place. What is going on here is a bunch B.S. This is the typical situation. Scum-bag kid gets in trouble and or killed and Mom and Dad cry all over the news about ..."My baby ain't never hurt nobody." These kids were criminals and should be treated as such. Hell the third party who is still living should be brought up on the charges of attempted murder , or even conspiracy to commit murder. The NAACP is just looking for more face time on the news. Had these nuckleheads not been minorities, I doubt this would even be a case...open...shut. House gets entered by burglars. Buglers attempt to kill son. Father responds and stops them by whatever means available to him. I say good shoot. And truth be known the families of the deceased deserve nothing in the way of a civil suit. There sons were plagues on society and have been rendered harmless now. To bad this Guy is going to be victimized for something any one of the parties involved would have done in the same situation. Good luck, I hope they lock the third part up in the pokey for as long as they can. If they do I will personally send his bunk mate a voucher for a lifetime supply of KY jelly.

SC_00_05
11-17-2007, 3:53 AM
the "legal in CA" argument is a joke. Drugs are drugs, legal or not. If the guy had 500 pills of vicodon, hed still be a drug user and probably a dealer. I think its almost like the (eventual) issuance of drivers licences to illegal immigrants by some rouge state gov, just because one state does it, doesnt make it lawful.
Plus, the guy shot the bad guys in the back! Shooting someone in the back isnt self defense, its murder. Too bad it doesnt seem this guy is going to suffer the concequences.
I guess drug dealing and murder are A-OK!
I think you forgot the little sarcasm smiley after that ridiculous post.

A little truth I like to live by... anytime you find yourself agreeing with the NAACP, you know you're in the wrong.

Kestryll
11-17-2007, 10:17 AM
Dupe threads merged.

viras
11-17-2007, 12:11 PM
Hopkins maintains the three wanted to steal the medical marijuana used by the unemployed Edmonds, a former tractor mechanic, to combat depression. Police later seized at least 5 pounds from the house.


Five pounds of weed to treat depression?

Maybe he was REALLY depressed? :rolleyes:

camillus522
11-17-2007, 5:08 PM
My first thought and i still wonder is there is no official mention of where the shots were fired from and where the individuals were when they were shot at. The article mentions in the back, but i can think of several scenarios where shooting an intruder in my home in the back would not be from him fleeing.

1. perp or perps beating down on my son with a bat, could very well have his back to the door as i enter the room, I WILL still take the shot after making sure i get a good angle to miss my son.

2. perp gets past me in whatever part of the house i happen to be in but he is still headed towards rooms that are occupied by my family/friends

the list goes on...

and i think under any of these that a natural response after getting shot and finding oneself still functioning is to flee, and therefore succumbing to the wounds a distance away.

zinfull
11-17-2007, 7:19 PM
If my memory is correct he shot one inside the house and chased the second outside and then shot him. He was afraid the person was going for another weapon. I have no mercy for the thugs. They screwed up the kid's life for some pot. When they hit him with the bat the owner had more than enough reason to shoot all of them. The DA is not filing charges againist the owner, the defense really came unglued over that ruling.

Jerry

Pvt. Cowboy
11-18-2007, 1:01 AM
I've read elsewhere that this pothead's house was a dispensary for 'medicinal marijuana'. I don't know if it's true or not, but I suspect that's how the invasion robbers found out about him.

I recall a party I went to and got into a debate with a liberal where she claimed that if drugs were legalized, they could be sold at the grocery store and it would be the end of drug-related street crime that afflicts our poor urban neighborhoods.

I replied that the same day that street drugs are sold at the supermarket, the criminals will help themselves to the merchandise at the point of a gun. Then, I think, I called her a stupid liberal ****.

Fast forward to 2007 when 'medicinal marijuana' dispensaries operate openly and are the result of violent altercations like this one. Not to mention the problem that my old hometown of SF is having where the police claim that the nearby corners around the medicinal marijuana dispensaries are the new sales areas for narcotics of all kinds in addition to the weed legally bought from the dispensaries and illegally sold on the street. I mean hey, after they get their hydroponicus maximus at the dispensary, at least some of them are going to want some Ecstasy, LSD, or balloon of heroin too. The urban criminal street cartel are just there to facilitate that. Location, location, location... Right?

I'm also aware of a problem in several CA counties where liberal pony-tailed doctors are prescribing marijuana to anyone capable of stumbling through the door claiming any stupid reason for needing their sticky green buds -- even school kids diagnosed with ADHD.

Just remember that you live in the state where they'll permit a prescription for marijuana to fight your affliction of late night snack cravings, but slap your *** with a felony for having an 11-round magazine.

sunborder
11-18-2007, 2:19 AM
Disclaimer: Haven't read anything past the initial post.

If a gang of thugs is beating my kid with a baseball bat, I'm not going to wait for them to turn around before I shoot. I'm not a cop there to arrest anybody. My only job is to see that myself and my loved ones make it through the night. As for the mother's statement that her kid didn't murder anyone....she's right. He only beat someone to within an inch of his life, with permanent brain damage. Pretty obvious why the kid was involved in theis crap. Can we all say "enabling parents"? Good. I knew you could. Let's say it one more time, just to be sure.

ETA: Just for clarification, there is a difference between shooting someone running away, and shooting someone in the back who is STILL IN THE PROCESS OF THREATENING SOMEONE. There is absolutely no legal requirement that you warn someone to stop before you shoot. Particularly if you stumble upon an attack in progress. The mother assumes that the kid was fleeing. The article as posted does not state which it was. I tend to think the guys got shot in the process of the beating, not after the fact.

socalguns
11-18-2007, 4:18 AM
walk backwards, cause no-one wants to go to jail for shooting a robber/murderer in the back :rolleyes:

zinfull
11-18-2007, 5:24 PM
The kid on trial is the "get away driver" He feld the area but came back and got busted. They went as a group and end as a group.

Jerry

cartman
11-18-2007, 6:34 PM
I've read elsewhere that this pothead's house was a dispensary for 'medicinal marijuana'. I don't know if it's true or not, but I suspect that's how the invasion robbers found out about him.

I recall a party I went to and got into a debate with a liberal where she claimed that if drugs were legalized, they could be sold at the grocery store and it would be the end of drug-related street crime that afflicts our poor urban neighborhoods.

I replied that the same day that street drugs are sold at the supermarket, the criminals will help themselves to the merchandise at the point of a gun. Then, I think, I called her a stupid liberal ****.

Fast forward to 2007 when 'medicinal marijuana' dispensaries operate openly and are the result of violent altercations like this one. Not to mention the problem that my old hometown of SF is having where the police claim that the nearby corners around the medicinal marijuana dispensaries are the new sales areas for narcotics of all kinds in addition to the weed legally bought from the dispensaries and illegally sold on the street. I mean hey, after they get their hydroponicus maximus at the dispensary, at least some of them are going to want some Ecstasy, LSD, or balloon of heroin too. The urban criminal street cartel are just there to facilitate that. Location, location, location... Right?

I'm also aware of a problem in several CA counties where liberal pony-tailed doctors are prescribing marijuana to anyone capable of stumbling through the door claiming any stupid reason for needing their sticky green buds -- even school kids diagnosed with ADHD.

Just remember that you live in the state where they'll permit a prescription for marijuana to fight your affliction of late night snack cravings, but slap your *** with a felony for having an 11-round magazine.

I have to disagree with you on this. If drugs were legalized to the point that they could be bought legally at a store or pharmacy street drug trafficking would end. What goes on in cali is not that. There is still a black market for pot and other drugs. And I'm pretty sure you need to be 18 to get a recommendation, not a school kid. My main point is robbing drugs at gun point would be pointless if you'd have a hard time reselling them because people would rather go to a store setting then deal with the kind of people that would be into robbing others. Drugs have been around a long time and only regulated here for about 120 years, and life went on before just fine.

Hoop
11-18-2007, 7:07 PM
I replied that the same day that street drugs are sold at the supermarket, the criminals will help themselves to the merchandise at the point of a gun. Then, I think, I called her a stupid liberal ****.


Um, you're pretty dumb if you really believe that.

You ever see smokers blowing away cashiers for a pack? I think not, unless the price goes up by a factor of 10x.

metalhead357
11-18-2007, 7:37 PM
You ever see smokers blowing away cashiers for a pack? I think not, unless the price goes up by a factor of 10x.

I think you're spot on for weed...maybe even X; but if you've ever been around enough meth heads, heroine junkies, or coke-sters.....THEY might very well prove his point beyond comparison............

38aht
11-18-2007, 7:59 PM
I love the part where Williams was staying in clearlake with his grandparents because he was awaiting sentancing on 3 counts of bank robbery. what a nice guy.

DedEye
11-18-2007, 11:20 PM
Here's an article with more info on this:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5306638.html



If this guy was not in danger, and left his home to shoot these criminals as punishment, revenge, whatever, then it is murder. Our system does not allow revenge killing, no matter how much we may sympathize. "I'm not going to let them get away with it" sounds like he's looking for revenge, not acting in self-defense. Charges haven't been filed (according to the article) but this guy could be in a lot of trouble for this, if they decide to charge him.

Wrong thread. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=75484)

N6ATF
11-19-2007, 12:09 AM
To address a couple of posts before:

1. You don't even have to be a human being to be recommended medical marijuana as it stands now. The MM docs aren't even following state law.

2. I've seen plenty of videos of armed robbers taking cigarettes after stabbing/beating/shooting people within inches of their lives, if not fatally. Are they smokers, or are cigarettes as good or better than cash?

CCWFacts
11-19-2007, 12:10 AM
Wrong thread. (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=75484)

Yes, I deleted my post. Wrong thread.

JohnJW
11-19-2007, 12:45 AM
I recall a party I went to and got into a debate with a liberal where she claimed that if drugs were legalized, they could be sold at the grocery store and it would be the end of drug-related street crime that afflicts our poor urban neighborhoods.

I replied that the same day that street drugs are sold at the supermarket, the criminals will help themselves to the merchandise at the point of a gun. Then, I think, I called her a stupid liberal ****.


The same can be said of alcohol, tobacco and firearms. An addiction is an addiction, whether it's to drugs, alcohol, food, or guns. I fully support decriminalizing and regulating drug use. At least they'll be controlled through tax and not street thugs. It's a free society, people are free do whatever dumb thing they want as long if they don't cause harm to others or expect others to bail them out.

JohnJW
11-19-2007, 12:50 AM
http://www.blogforfreedom.com/images/2007/04/28/racecard.jpg

thats what i think

Why don't you add in

more likely to be pulled over by the police
more likely to be abused by the police
higher mortality rate
higher poverty rate

I think you're also using the race card. That's what I think.

Waingro
11-19-2007, 1:10 AM
Why don't you add in

more likely to be pulled over by the police
more likely to be abused by the police
higher mortality rate
higher poverty rate

I think you're also using the race card. That's what I think.

You do have a point - but whites do not have any organizations to back them in their trials and tribulations. Unless you want the KKK to fund your legal team and give press releases on your behalf.

DedEye
11-19-2007, 1:27 AM
You do have a point - but whites do not have any organizations to back them in their trials and tribulations. Unless you want the KKK to fund your legal team and give press releases on your behalf.

Then again, we don't really need any organizations to back us up, the deck is already stacked in our favor as it is.

paradox
11-19-2007, 7:25 AM
To address a couple of posts before:

1. You don't even have to be a human being to be recommended medical marijuana as it stands now. The MM docs aren't even following state law.


You are so wrong it isn't funny. California MMJ specialists are held to a higher standard by the CA medical board than any other practitioner. Do xanax slinging psychs have to deal with constant, absurd, undercover stings?

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner10292007.html

Glock22Fan
11-19-2007, 8:53 AM
You are so wrong it isn't funny. California MMJ specialists are held to a higher standard by the CA medical board than any other practitioner. Do xanax slinging psychs have to deal with constant, absurd, undercover stings?

http://www.counterpunch.org/gardner10292007.html

What's a California MMJ specialist? I know someone who should be on medical M.J., but hasn't a clue how to go about getting it. That person's doctors have told said that it is the only thing that might help, but then add that it is illegal under Fed law, so they can't prescribe it. Does such a person have to consult yet another medical specialist?

Seems as if Socal is in a different world than S.F. where medical cards appear to be readily available.

Hoop
11-19-2007, 9:10 AM
I think you're spot on for weed...maybe even X; but if you've ever been around enough meth heads, heroine junkies, or coke-sters.....THEY might very well prove his point beyond comparison............

People don't steal stuff if it has no value. Drugs have value because they have high demand and are illegal, thereby making supply low. It's just economics, and it's a ludicrous to think it would go on if you removed the monetary factor from it.

Either way I'm still laughing over the NAACP calling the guy a murderer.

Hoop
11-19-2007, 9:12 AM
What's a California MMJ specialist? I know someone who should be on medical M.J., but hasn't a clue how to go about getting it. That person's doctors have told said that it is the only thing that might help, but then add that it is illegal under Fed law, so they can't prescribe it. Does such a person have to consult yet another medical specialist?

Seems as if Socal is in a different world than S.F. where medical cards appear to be readily available.

Try NORML.org, I'm sure they have a list of doctors who proscribe it.

yellowfin
11-19-2007, 11:09 AM
There's little the AACP does that suprises me anymore. What does suprise me is that the people they supposedly represent haven't revolted against them for consistently asserting that only the lowest people they confined characterize their constituency. They seem to have a policy of "No Thug Left Behind."

Glock22Fan
11-19-2007, 11:12 AM
Try NORML.org, I'm sure they have a list of doctors who proscribe it.

Thanks. This page is relevant:

http://norml.org/index.cfm?Group_ID=3391#California

Sleepy1988
11-19-2007, 1:12 PM
Then again, we don't really need any organizations to back us up, the deck is already stacked in our favor as it is.

That's BS, 90% of violent interracial crime between blacks and whites is perpetrated by blacks against whites yet the majority of people charged with hate crimes are white.

MaceWindu
11-19-2007, 1:22 PM
That's BS, 90% of violent interracial crime between blacks and whites is perpetrated by blacks against whites yet the majority of people charged with hate crimes are white.

You base this on what study? Facts? You have read every crime report and established this?


Mace

DIG
11-19-2007, 1:38 PM
Well, if mom says murder is too high a crime, why not get him for the brain damage? Make her boy spend every day for the rest of his life spoon feeding the beaten son and being his caretaker under strict video supervision to negate wrongdoing. Ruin his f'ing life - jail won't do sh*t, make him spend the rest of his life looking into the face of his ill conceived plan and the life he ruined.

Now that sounds like a great idea (in theory). A good way to help pay for his wrong doing.
...unfortunately it would never become a reality. That thug deserves a few good whacks in the head with the bat as well. He ruined peoples lives by his actions. Eye for an eye.:mad:

DedEye
11-19-2007, 2:08 PM
That's BS, 90% of violent interracial crime between blacks and whites is perpetrated by blacks against whites yet the majority of people charged with hate crimes are white.

Please, enlighten me with your vast and well referenced knowledge on the subject, I always like to learn new things.

While you're at it, please point out which of those cases are racially motivated so I have a better understanding of the use of hate crime laws.

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 3:03 PM
People don't steal stuff if it has no value. Drugs have value because they have high demand and are illegal, thereby making supply low. It's just economics, and it's a ludicrous to think it would go on if you removed the monetary factor from it..

So what are you saying? GIVE drugs to everyone who asks?:cool: Cigs aint in short supply and completely legal....and still there is a black market on them....both to avoid sales tax and some would argue a black market for those under the legal age to smoke. Besides...as already noted- Criminals DO steal cigs precisely because they have some percieved value. I dont think taking "the money outta it" or the "illegal-ness" out of it is going to slow sown some junkie who wants to get high

StukaJr
11-19-2007, 4:01 PM
There were some articles focusing on "discrimination" point of the story, that conveniently forgot the 19 year old kid getting bludgeoned with a baseball bat - I'm sure the story got picked up as a simple case of burglary and carried into civil rights fervor as such...

If I found a member of my family or friend getting beaten with a baseball bat - I'd shoot first and worry about litigations later...

pnkssbtz
11-19-2007, 4:11 PM
So what are you saying? GIVE drugs to everyone who asks?:cool: Slippery Slope fallacy.

Cigs aint in short supply and completely legal....and still there is a black market on them....both to avoid sales tax and some would argue a black market for those under the legal age to smoke. ]But there IS a black market for cigs because of the incredible "tax" placed upon them in certain states (Tennessee for instance?)

Ergo when demand is high and product is artificially restricted, price goes up.

When price is of sufficient value to warrant high-risk endeavors (crime) then black markets spring up.

Take away the artificial restriction, and the price goes down.

Besides...as already noted- Criminals DO steal cigs precisely because they have some percieved value. I dont think taking "the money outta it" or the "illegal-ness" out of it is going to slow sown some junkie who wants to get highCriminals steal cigs because they are:

1.) Completely broke, I.E. not the ones to perpetrate series of repeated robberies for cigarrettes alone

2.) Black market acquisitions.

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 5:53 PM
Slippery Slope fallacy..
No doubts- and dont think for a sec I believe it.

]But there IS a black market for cigs because of the incredible "tax" placed upon them in certain states (Tennessee for instance?)

Ergo when demand is high and product is artificially restricted, price goes up.

When price is of sufficient value to warrant high-risk endeavors (crime) then black markets spring up... But not always as its already been noted, Gas is stolen everyday, bansk are robbed every day, food is stolen every day.....

Take away the artificial restriction, and the price goes down.. But this ISN't Tenn- we are talking about Cali- and Cig thefts DO occur.

Criminals steal cigs because they are:

1.) Completely broke, I.E. not the ones to perpetrate series of repeated robberies for cigarrettes alone

2.) Black market acquisitions.
EXACTLY my point. And those two points are not going to get lost in the translation into legalizing any of the illegal drugs now.
So medical M is legal for some & it still gets stolen
So Cigs are legal for most and it still gets stolen
A lot of things are already LEGAL and NOT taxed and still get stolen...

So............. so ya' wanna DEcriminalize it so that it wont get stolen? Yep THAT makes 100% NONsense to me.

Add to this the INdirect crime; so a junkie doesn't raid a MM house. He just goes down the street for a smash & grab on a car stero and sells it...then takes the money over to the OTHER dealer and presents the cash.... still crime is occuring.

So legalize it....I bet the only statistic going down will be the "possession" raps we see now. Car stereo's will still get nabbed, houses will still get broken into, tricks will still turn a trade, shipments will still get ransacked and/or diverted..or "misappropriated"..or "lost in transit".

Amsterdam STILL has crime...just not the possession charges we see here. Argueing for it to be legal to reduce crime is ludicrious; it hasn't worked there and it sure as heck aint gonna work here.........

Pvt. Cowboy
11-19-2007, 6:45 PM
Cigs aint in short supply and completely legal....and still there is a black market on them....both to avoid sales tax and some would argue a black market for those under the legal age to smoke. Besides...as already noted- Criminals DO steal cigs precisely because they have some percieved value. I dont think taking "the money outta it" or the "illegal-ness" out of it is going to slow sown some junkie who wants to get high

Heheh. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

When people who are in favor of legalizing drugs to the point of them being available in supermarkets call ME dumb for saying that it would do just the opposite of their ignorant pollyanna-ish fantastical thinking, I am content to just stay quiet and let them make an extraordinary *** of themselves.

Pretty easy to tell who the California dopers with firearms are too.

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 6:47 PM
Pretty easy to tell who the California dopers with firearms are too.

HA! I knowst whatcha mean;)

Sleepy1988
11-19-2007, 7:05 PM
Please, enlighten me with your vast and well referenced knowledge on the subject, I always like to learn new things.

While you're at it, please point out which of those cases are racially motivated so I have a better understanding of the use of hate crime laws.


http://www.racismeantiblanc.bizland.com/005/06-02.htm

The FBI uniform crime report is my source.

I'm not saying that all the crimes are racially motivated and should be prosecuted as hate crimes, but the glaring discrepancy between whites and blacks charged with hate crimes vs crime committed by whites against blacks proves that the system isn't stacked against blacks.

SC_00_05
11-19-2007, 7:24 PM
Heheh. Thanks for pointing out the obvious.

When people who are in favor of legalizing drugs to the point of them being available in supermarkets call ME dumb for saying that it would do just the opposite of their ignorant pollyanna-ish fantastical thinking, I am content to just stay quiet and let them make an extraordinary *** of themselves.

Pretty easy to tell who the California dopers with firearms are too.
Some people are actually in favor of freedom, real freedom, even the freedom to hurt yourself if you so choose. I don't think the government should have any say in what I do or don't do in my own damn house as long as I'm not infringing on somebody else's rights. Apparently you have no problem with the government telling you what's best for you and enforcing this through violent force. How would you feel about the government banning all things that are "bad" for you. Sugar, red meat, and **gasp** alcohol. Everyone ought to have read 1984 by now.

As for whether it'd be good for society, that point is moot. Freedom is more important than perceived or temporary safety.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-19-2007, 7:31 PM
HA! I knowst whatcha mean;)

Also, you're right about the liberal drug laws in Amsterdam: They're tightening them up and never applied them to hard drugs. There are probably half the coffeeshops in operation now than there were just two years ago. The average Dutch person is sick to death of 'softdrugs', drugtourists, their worldwide image, coffeeshops, and totally alien reggae ropehead culture infesting their towns. The coffeeshop movement has been falling apart for some time now. They look at it as a relic of the old hippie movement of the early 70s that needs to die. Sound familiar?

What Amsterdam does have a problem with is random street crime and organized crime on the part of Serbian and other former Yugoslav gangsters running the hard drug trade. My wife's father lives in a small town in Holland near the German border and they just closed down their last coffeeshop in the village. They got tired of blown pupil glassy-eyed Germans driving their hoopties over the border to buy hash and buds and driving home after eating space cakes. No better idea than to leave Holland with a head full of smoke cutting your reaction time onto a highway where the average speed in the fast lane is 120mph. Forget all about taking the train home, because the German polizei routinely search likely drugheads on the trains. There ain't no US Constitution over there, and civil liberties against being stopped and searched are quite different than here.

Naturally, the only way in and out of Holland by air is through Schipol airport, so I've toured Amsterdam several times. They have a lot of problems that most European cities do: A high unemployment rate amongst idle foreign immigrants from some of the most loathsome parts of the third world: Greasy Egyptians, Yemenis, Moroccans, Africans, Indonesians, and Eastern Europeans. The natural course for them is to get involved in drugs and crime. The day we arrived in Amsterdam on our last trip, a Serbian mob boss and his two Dutch hottie girlfriends got whacked in a sushi bar in broad daylight by two hitmen with shotguns. The day we left was when Holland was hosting the Euro Cup and the train stations were filled with screaming football hooligans from all over Europe walking in packs of a hundred or more looking for other large groups to rumble with. The Germans looked like the SA Youth trying to start WWIII. Everyone was smoking weed openly, so much for the sedative properties of that stuff.

Also, Amsterdam is a city about the size of downtown San Francisco at most. Probably not even that. That small patch of real estate combined with a large population would make the average tourist to Amsterdam think they've walked into some chaotic Muslim/Serbo-Croatian/Russian Mob/Jamaican Rastafarian crime hole fuelled by dope of all kinds. The local government is continually warning tourists visiting Amsterdam about violence, pickpockets, desperate druggies, robberies, scams, and illegal immigrants.

Sorry that Amsterdam in real life isn't as portrayed in that old Cheech & Chong movie from the '70s, to all those who had hoped that it was some delicious skunkbud garden of Eden. In any event, pro-dope people don't mention Amsterdam as a model of their bright idea thanks to the fact that the reality of the situation being easy to find out.

SC_00_05
11-19-2007, 7:33 PM
Then again, we don't really need any organizations to back us up, the deck is already stacked in our favor as it is.

Please let me know when my benefits kick in and thanks for letting me know about this huge advantage I apparently have.:rolleyes:

Pvt. Cowboy
11-19-2007, 7:35 PM
Some people are actually in favor of freedom, real freedom, even the freedom to hurt yourself if you so choose. I don't think the government should have any say in what I do or don't do in my own damn house as long as I'm not infringing on somebody else's rights. Apparently you have no problem with the government telling you what's best for you and enforcing this through violent force.

Oh look. I'm being lectured to by a Californian about real freedom.

Now if I could get some free legal advice from a prisoner in the California penal system, this thread would be complete.

pnkssbtz
11-19-2007, 7:35 PM
No doubts- and dont think for a sec I believe it.???

But not always as its already been noted, Gas is stolen everyday, bansk are robbed every day, food is stolen every day.....

But this ISN't Tenn- we are talking about Cali- and Cig thefts DO occur.


EXACTLY my point. And those two points are not going to get lost in the translation into legalizing any of the illegal drugs now.
So medical M is legal for some & it still gets stolen
So Cigs are legal for most and it still gets stolen
A lot of things are already LEGAL and NOT taxed and still get stolen...

Again a straw man fallacy.

Medicinal marijuana is legal in very very few instances. For the most part, it is still universally illegal EXCEPT if you have a license and/or have a prescription. For the general populace it is not accessible by legal means.

Ergo, your representation of it being "legal" yet still people steal for it is a misrepresentation of the facts of availability. Moreover the people who do attempt to steal from "legal" distributors/possessor are those who are not legally permitted to possess and consume medicinal marijuana.

Your argument makes the assumption that legal consumers of medicinal marijuana are the ones obtaining it via crime which is false.



Now cigarettes are taxed rather heavily even in CA, but not as much as tennessee or new york. Because of the cost vs. demand, certain entrepreneurial individuals have devised methods of acquiring cigarettes with negligent to low investment costs (i.e. theft). Because the DEMAND is so high, you can make less profit per item, sell at a high volume, and end up making much more profit in the end. Which coincides with the consumption rate of the commodity.

As I said previously,
When price is of sufficient value to warrant high-risk endeavors (crime) then black markets spring up.


So............. so ya' wanna DEcriminalize it so that it wont get stolen? Yep THAT makes 100% NONsense to me.You fail to support your argument of why it is 'NONsense'. If you can't explain why it doesn't make sense then your argument is merely opinion. You disagree with the premise therefor you are disingenuously disregarding it as "nonsensical" i.e. without intelligible meaning.

If my argument is as "nonsensical" as you say, explain to me prohibition, the black market that sprung up around it, and its subsequent demise at the end of the artificial restriction?

Explain to me the 1770's when our forefathers were "illegally" acquiring firearms against the law, the conflict, and the subsequent "demise" (for the time being) of the firearms restrictions ending (at the time) the black market for firearms?


Add to this the INdirect crime; so a junkie doesn't raid a MM house. He just goes down the street for a smash & grab on a car stero and sells it...then takes the money over to the OTHER dealer and presents the cash.... still crime is occuring.

So penalize the law abiding citizens for the crimes of criminals. Is that the logic you are supporting? Where oh where have I heard that before?


So legalize it....I bet the only statistic going down will be the "possession" raps we see now. Car stereo's will still get nabbed, houses will still get broken into, tricks will still turn a trade, shipments will still get ransacked and/or diverted..or "misappropriated"..or "lost in transit".Now a different kind of straw man. You are linking one criminal act to another and using cum hoc ergo propter hoc to invalidate one argument via drawing a cause/effect correlation from another.

Criminals will be criminals regardless of the reason for it. If marijuana as cheap as it is to grow the amount of theft for the purchase of marijuana would decrease, which is not to say people wouldn't steal for other things, such as cocaine, meth, pcp, heroin, etc.

But to lay the blame of all theft at the fault of marijuana consumption is an incredibly disingenuous argument.


Amsterdam STILL has crime...just not the possession charges we see here. Argueing for it to be legal to reduce crime is ludicrious; it hasn't worked there and it sure as heck aint gonna work here.........Jeeze, another straw man...





Pretty easy to tell who the California dopers with firearms are too.
HA! I knowst whatcha mean
Ad hominen is not your friend.

Any such argument along this line of reasoning is flawed. Just because someone disagrees with your position, characterizing them as "pot heads" is incredibly intellectually dishonest and puerile.

SC_00_05
11-19-2007, 7:37 PM
Oh look. I'm being lectured to by a Californian about real freedom.

Now if I could get some free legal advice from a prisoner in the California penal system, this thread would be complete.
Umm, are you not from California?

Pvt. Cowboy
11-19-2007, 7:41 PM
Umm, are you not from California?

Yes, 'from' being the operative word.

I split some time ago.

rivviepop
11-19-2007, 7:50 PM
Any such argument along this line of reasoning is flawed. Just because someone disagrees with your position, characterizing them as "pot heads" is incredibly intellectually dishonest and puerile.

I really do enjoy a guy who knows how to properly debate, thanks. :) Good post followups.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-19-2007, 7:56 PM
Ad hominen is not your friend.

Any such argument along this line of reasoning is flawed. Just because someone disagrees with your position, characterizing them as "pot heads" is incredibly intellectually dishonest and puerile.

No apologies here; I don't agree that anyone has been victimized. Some people have ideas so rotten that they deserve to be told so. I have been debating long enough to know that anyone taking the radically unpopular viewpoint in regards to the promoting the common sale of drugs at the corner Qwiky-Mart has some personal reason for wanting it. I've also been around long enough to know that a 'big-L' Libertarian is basically a conservative that likes to smoke reefer or at least has a bong in the attic. Some enough reefer and you can probably convince yourself that crime would drop if we sold PCP at the local supermarket.

pnkssbtz
11-19-2007, 8:06 PM
No apologies here; I don't agree that anyone has been victimized. Some people have ideas so rotten that they deserve to be told so. I have been debating long enough to know that anyone taking the radically unpopular viewpoint in regards to the promoting the common sale of drugs at the corner Qwiky-Mart has some personal reason for wanting it.Then you are wrong.

I have not ever used marijuana. Period.


Am I then one of those people who would hang out "at the corner Qwiky-Mart" in order to "score" some pot?

No I am not such an individual.


Your comment "Pretty easy to tell who the California dopers with firearms are too" was an attempt to discredit a person making an argument by way of personal accusations that would cause one at first glance to find said person's argument questionable, not on the soundness of their argument but by calling into question their moral character.


That is the very definition of Ad Hominen.


And since I am not of the characterization insinuated, any such attempts to cast me in that role is false dishonest and petty. So yes, you are "victimizing" people by perpetrating the fallacy of ad hominen.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-19-2007, 8:21 PM
Then you are wrong.

I have not ever used marijuana. Period.


Am I then one of those people who would hang out "at the corner Qwiky-Mart" in order to "score" some pot?

No I am not such an individual.

That is the very definition of Ad Hominen.



An Ad Hominem attack would be where an insult is unjustified in the logical course of debate, such as:

"Well of course you're in favor of spending taxpayer dollars to extend BART all the way to Sacramento! That's because you're a filthy child molester!

It's not an Ad Hominem attack to say:

"Well of course you're in favor of lowering the age of consent to 11 years old! That's because you're a filthy child molester!"

See, the second example is perfectly on point. The fact that someone may be offended by it is really neither here nor there.

I'm sure you've seen the 'Logical Fallacies' site. It's been around for years.

You might want to check in to the correct spelling of 'Ad Hominem'. You've misspelled it across several posts.

pnkssbtz
11-19-2007, 8:27 PM
An Ad Hominem attack would be where an insult is unjustified in the logical course of debate, such as:

"Well of course you're in favor of spending taxpayer dollars to extend BART all the way to Sacramento! That's because you're a filthy child molester!

It's not an Ad Hominem attack to say:

"Well of course you're in favor of lowering the age of consent to 11 years old! That's because you're a filthy child molester!"

See, the second example is perfectly on point. The fact that someone may be offended by it is really neither here nor there.

They are both ad hominem. In both cases the argument is discredited because of accusations against the PERSON instead of the argument.


I'm sure you've seen the 'Logical Fallacies' site. It's been around for years.

You might want to check in to the correct spelling of 'Ad Hominem'. You've misspelled it across several posts.I'm sorry if making a spelling mistake discredits my argument in your opinion.

But it doesn't. Nice try again?

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 8:32 PM
]???[/SIZE]

Again a straw man fallacy.

Medicinal marijuana is legal in very very few instances. For the most part, it is still universally illegal EXCEPT if you have a license and/or have a prescription. For the general populace it is not accessible by legal means.

Ergo, your representation of it being "legal" yet still people steal for it is a misrepresentation of the facts of availability. Moreover the people who do attempt to steal from "legal" distributors/possessor are those who are not legally permitted to possess and consume medicinal marijuana.

Your argument makes the assumption that legal consumers of medicinal marijuana are the ones obtaining it via crime which is false.



Now cigarettes are taxed rather heavily even in CA, but not as much as tennessee or new york. Because of the cost vs. demand, certain entrepreneurial individuals have devised methods of acquiring cigarettes with negligent to low investment costs (i.e. theft). Because the DEMAND is so high, you can make less profit per item, sell at a high volume, and end up making much more profit in the end. Which coincides with the consumption rate of the commodity.

As I said previously,

You fail to support your argument of why it is 'NONsense'. If you can't explain why it doesn't make sense then your argument is merely opinion. You disagree with the premise therefor you are disingenuously disregarding it as "nonsensical" i.e. without intelligible meaning.

If my argument is as "nonsensical" as you say, explain to me prohibition, the black market that sprung up around it, and its subsequent demise at the end of the artificial restriction?

Explain to me the 1770's when our forefathers were "illegally" acquiring firearms against the law, the conflict, and the subsequent "demise" (for the time being) of the firearms restrictions ending (at the time) the black market for firearms?

So penalize the law abiding citizens for the crimes of criminals. Is that the logic you are supporting? Where oh where have I heard that before?

Now a different kind of straw man. You are linking one criminal act to another and using cum hoc ergo propter hoc to invalidate one argument via drawing a cause/effect correlation from another.

Criminals will be criminals regardless of the reason for it. If marijuana as cheap as it is to grow the amount of theft for the purchase of marijuana would decrease, which is not to say people wouldn't steal for other things, such as cocaine, meth, pcp, heroin, etc.

But to lay the blame of all theft at the fault of marijuana consumption is an incredibly disingenuous argument.

Jeeze, another straw man...

Ad hominen is not your friend.

Any such argument along this line of reasoning is flawed. Just because someone disagrees with your position, characterizing them as "pot heads" is incredibly intellectually dishonest and puerile.

Straw man argument then if you must; I dont see it that way. And your arguments to the "legality" of medical M has yet to be truly tested in the federal courts: last time I checked- States rights LOST out about 1865 and have been dying the slow death since then.

As for it being nonsense; we have only OTHER EXAMPLES to use in a concrete fashion. ALL is mere supposition until/unless its tested. But it HAS been tested in other places (like Amsterdam) and surprise..it aint working. I see it much like claiming since gun control worked in Canada, UK, and Australia it'll work here too...when we know that it doesn't.

As simple as I care to type it and drag on this subject; Black markets do operate in a vaccum and sometimes outside of that vaccum. There was NO illegal moonshine making until moonshine making was MADE illegal. Alcohol was prohibited for a bit and thus led to a black market....one that HAS NEVER GONE AWAY as some just choose to not follow the legalities of regulations & taxation. So to ASSUME that making MM legal for all will make the black market of it go away is some large jumps in logic and defies what's already been done in other areas outside of the drug arena.

So you might not like my straw man argument about crime and drugs being correlated to each other....but face facts; How many incarcerated peeps are there for DRUGS? and how many have something on thier rap sheet that also could arguably be said was done to further or because of that activity? Whether grand theft auto, Smash & grab...at some point there is a crossover for the druggie that the high is more important to themselves...to the law...to the ones they love, etc. So SPARE ME the arguments about how Pot doesn't have its violence connceted with it...its there if you care to look. Removing the illegal-ness of it is not going to make the supplies and the runners disapear. It will create a secondary flow of the crap that <some> want and the rest of us look to as simply crap.

It MIGHT come as a shock to you that I actually support the legalization of ALL drugs; bring it out in the open...but NOT for the stated arguments above(and ones that I wont go into here).....you're claims to the immortal straw man arguments do nothing to tilt the hands of logic to support YOUR argument that legalizing MM will decrease crime..... so touche' when you're right you're right...but when you've left things UNproven-- well, they're UNproven:p

But as to the Pot head issue. Dont know if you've ever "lost" anyone to drugs; I have...more than a few. So logic aside for just a moment, this IS a very personal.....grudge AND vendetta for me....even though I share some true vein of "True Freedom" cries for absolute freedom. So I already know I'm fully jaded and fanatical about my beliefs in said forum(s) about drugs; but nothing here has made the argument that they should be legalized short of it decreasing crime....which it will NOT. So whether by inference or analogy or straight up direct assualt on the presumptions & assumptions made....Pot IS illegal at the federal level, Pot is "Semi" legal at the state level...introducing anything into THAT legal argument on the grounds that it will decrease crime is a fallacy in itself...as legalizing it in Cali is still a NON starter as it pertains to FED law. The very fact that it is NOT being reported to the Federal level doesn't mean crime is going down...it means the cops have stopped busting people for it...but that is another issue entirely.

But again, as said.... I AM fanactical at least to some degree ;(Fanatical) one who cant change his mind and wont change the subject;)

"nuff said on this?:confused: I think we're way off course...if anyone wants to start another thread on the MM issue...I'll go post there & we can return THIS thread back to the OP;)

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 8:35 PM
They are both ad hominem. In both cases the argument is discredited because of accusations against the PERSON instead of the argument.


I'm sorry if making a spelling mistake discredits my argument in your opinion.

But it doesn't. Nice try again?

He makes a valid point insomuch as you do to; Neither one is valid as it discredits...but then again, off the discrediting of the INDIVIDUAL...nothing has been done to discredit THE ARGUMENT.

SC_00_05
11-19-2007, 8:39 PM
An Ad Hominem attack would be where an insult is unjustified in the logical course of debate, such as:

"Well of course you're in favor of spending taxpayer dollars to extend BART all the way to Sacramento! That's because you're a filthy child molester!

It's not an Ad Hominem attack to say:

"Well of course you're in favor of lowering the age of consent to 11 years old! That's because you're a filthy child molester!"

See, the second example is perfectly on point. The fact that someone may be offended by it is really neither here nor there.

I'm sure you've seen the 'Logical Fallacies' site. It's been around for years.

You might want to check in to the correct spelling of 'Ad Hominem'. You've misspelled it across several posts.
Well of course you support the "war on drugs", you're a totalitarian fascist!

I somehow doubt you're actually a fascist, but according to your logic, this fits just fine.


By the way, if you left CA a long time ago, why exactly are you on this site?Not trying to say you should leave, just wondering why you'd still be on here.

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 8:43 PM
By the way, if you left CA a long time ago, why exactly are you on this site?Not trying to say you should leave, just wondering why you'd still be on here.

'Cause he knows We're the BEST and he knows where the do-gooders and haters of evil are;)

pnkssbtz
11-19-2007, 8:53 PM
Straw man argument then if you must; I dont see it that way. And your arguments to the "legality" of medical M has yet to be truly tested in the federal courts: last time I checked- States rights LOST out about 1865 and have been dying the slow death since then.I make no claims as to the questionable legality of this "medicinal" marijuana. I was merely pointing out that it is NOT widely legalized carte blanche to the public. Therefor using it as an example of how legalization will not effect crime was a straw man, in that scope.

As for it being nonsense; we have only OTHER EXAMPLES to use in a concrete fashion. ALL is mere supposition until/unless its tested. But it HAS been tested in other places (like Amsterdam) and surprise..it aint working. I see it much like claiming since gun control worked in Canada, UK, and Australia it'll work here too...when we know that it doesn't. I don't deny that unrestricted access to mentally altering chemicals is a bad idea. And Amsterdam is a prime example of this.

The irony of this is that I was only pointing out the use of "cigarettes" in your example of proof of concept failure was disingenuous.

As simple as I care to type it and drag on this subject; Black markets do operate in a vaccum and sometimes outside of that vaccum. There was NO illegal moonshine making until moonshine making was MADE illegal. Alcohol was prohibited for a bit and thus led to a black market....one that HAS NEVER GONE AWAY as some just choose to not follow the legalities of regulations & taxation. So to ASSUME that making MM legal for all will make the black market of it go away is some large jumps in logic and defies what's already been done in other areas outside of the drug arena.To clarify, are you saying that there was no such thing as moonshine until laws were passed against it, or did you mean to say that moonshine was not produced in the scale until laws were passed against it, or moonshine was not illegal till it was illegal?

As to the black market that exists around alcohol, again I will reiterate:


When price is of sufficient value to warrant high-risk endeavors (crime) then black markets spring up.

Which alcohols are traded on the black market? What is their dollar value? What is the consumption rate of the commodity? etc.


So you might not like my straw man argument about crime and drugs being correlated to each other....but face facts; How many incarcerated peeps are there for DRUGS? and how many have something on thier rap sheet that also could arguably be said was done to further or because of that activity? Whether grand theft auto, Smash & grab...at some point there is a crossover for the druggie that the high is more important to themselves...to the law...to the ones they love, etc. So SPARE ME the arguments about how Pot doesn't have its violence connceted with it...its there if you care to look. Removing the illegal-ness of it is not going to make the supplies and the runners disapear. It will create a secondary flow of the crap that <some> want and the rest of us look to as simply crap.Again this is all a straw man. I was questioning the association of ALL CRIMINAL THEFT at the fault of CONSUMPTION OF MARIJUANA.

THAT is a straw man, that all criminal theft is because of marijuana.

So............. so ya' wanna DEcriminalize it so that it wont get stolen? Yep THAT makes 100% NONsense to me.

Add to this the INdirect crime; so a junkie doesn't raid a MM house. He just goes down the street for a smash & grab on a car stero and sells it...then takes the money over to the OTHER dealer and presents the cash.... still crime is occuring.

So legalize it....I bet the only statistic going down will be the "possession" raps we see now. Car stereo's will still get nabbed, houses will still get broken into, tricks will still turn a trade, shipments will still get ransacked and/or diverted..or "misappropriated"..or "lost in transit".



It MIGHT come as a shock to you that I actually support the legalization of ALL drugs; bring it out in the open...but NOT for the stated arguments above(and ones that I wont go into here).....you're claims to the immortal straw man arguments do nothing to tilt the hands of logic to support YOUR argument that legalizing MM will decrease crime..... so touche' when you're right you're right...but when you've left things UNproven-- well, they're UNproven:pProhibition? War of Independence? Are they not examples of black markets that sprung up around prohibition of something, and the subsequent legalization reduced those "black markets" to but shadows of what they once where?


But as to the Pot head issue. Dont know if you've ever "lost" anyone to drugs; I have...more than a few. So logic aside for just a moment, this IS a very personal.....grudge AND vendetta for me....even though I share some true vein of "True Freedom" cries for absolute freedom. So I already know I'm fully jaded and fanatical about my beliefs in said forum(s) about drugs; but nothing here has made the argument that they should be legalized short of it decreasing crime....which it will NOT. So whether by inference or analogy or straight up direct assualt on the presumptions & assumptions made....Pot IS illegal at the federal level, Pot is "Semi" legal at the state level...introducing anything into THAT legal argument on the grounds that it will decrease crime is a fallacy in itself...as legalizing it in Cali is still a NON starter as it pertains to FED law. The very fact that it is NOT being reported to the Federal level doesn't mean crime is going down...it means the cops have stopped busting people for it...but that is another issue entirely.So is it legal or not? If its not, then how can we point to crimes against MM places as showing proof against legalization? Is it or isn't it? Argue one or the other.

I am not arguing for blanket legalization. I've had a LOT of family deaths caused by illegal alien drunk drivers with wrap sheets longer than my TP rolls I use.



But again, as said.... I AM fanactical at least to some degree ;(Fanatical) one who cant change his mind and wont change the subject;)

"nuff said on this?:confused: I think we're way off course...if anyone wants to start another thread on the MM issue...I'll go post there & we can return THIS thread back to the OP;)I don't understand this last bit. If the intent was to not continue this further, why make a big post, continuing it further?

Pvt. Cowboy
11-19-2007, 8:54 PM
Well of course you support the "war on drugs", you're a totalitarian fascist!

I somehow doubt you're actually a fascist, but according to your logic, this fits just fine.

Well of course someone who is in favor of narcotics being sold at the supermarket would think I'm a totalitarian fascist.

I think this works just fine. Don't see me calling for a five-yard penalty flag for getting my feelings hurt, right?

Pvt. Cowboy
11-19-2007, 8:58 PM
By the way, if you left CA a long time ago, why exactly are you on this site?Not trying to say you should leave, just wondering why you'd still be on here.

I come here to feel good about my state's gun laws.

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 11:04 PM
I don't understand this last bit. If the intent was to not continue this further, why make a big post, continuing it further?

The intent is to continue if you wish...but along another thread/post...as this one and this argument isn't excatly in line with the OP.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-20-2007, 12:34 AM
Amsterdam is a bad example of drug legalization. Considering that even marijuana is techinically illegal, although tolerated to a degree.

In my opinion, Amsterdam's problems have more to do with illogical social policy than personal drug use.

N6ATF
11-20-2007, 12:39 AM
I want to put the huffing poop quote here, but there's already another inhalant in play distracting from the OP. Damn.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-20-2007, 1:33 AM
Amsterdam is a bad example of drug legalization.

In my opinion, Amsterdam's problems have more to do with illogical social policy than personal drug use.

I'm wondering where the good example of drug legalization is.

In my opinion, every time I've been to Amsterdam I reflect on exactly how much it's like California in social policy. Only there they're not afraid to announce that they're Socialists.

Even the VVD party over there that's supposed to be the 'conservative' wing is really only trying to conserve the old-style socialism. I've heard CA Republicans talk like that for years: "Illegal immigrants are placing a great and undue burden on California's public services (that we never wanted established in the first place but didn't do anything to stop all those years ago)... "

maxicon
11-20-2007, 12:16 PM
I'm wondering where the good example of drug legalization is.

How about alcohol? It's an addictive drug, which went from being legal to being illegal back to being legal again in this country, and we have a large body of data around this.

When illegal, certain crimes increased dramatically - criminal manufacture, smuggling, and related crimes, as well as illegal use by otherwise law-abiding citizens. It also gave rise to some of the largest organized crime rings this country has every known which continue to plague our country long after alcohol was made legal (partly by turning to other illegal drugs).

When legal, there are still crimes of a different nature committed - mostly having to do with abuse and alcohol-influenced behavior. The societal and financial costs of legal alcohol abuse are quite large, resulting in many deaths and injuries, and huge amounts of property damage every year.

While people do hang around the Quicky Marts attempting to score alcohol illegally, it's rare (but not unknown) to see people mugged and homes burglarized for money to buy alcohol. There are also a number of deaths from alcohol poisoning every year, both by legal and illegal users.

The fact that it's legal means that many people can use it regularly (some people use it every single day!), and even maintain productive jobs and lifestyles, since it's reasonably affordable and the purity and quality are well controlled. It's legal to ruin your life completely with alcohol (this happens all the time) as long as you don't physically hurt someone else and can pay your bills. We essentially let adults make their own decisions about how to use this dangerous drug.

Legalizing it didn't stop all alcohol-related crime, and it would be silly to think it would. It simply changed the nature of it, and shifted the costs from one part of society to another.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-20-2007, 2:15 PM
How about alcohol? It's an addictive drug, which went from being legal to being illegal back to being legal again in this country, and we have a large body of data around this.

When illegal, certain crimes increased dramatically - criminal manufacture, smuggling, and related crimes, as well as illegal use by otherwise law-abiding citizens. It also gave rise to some of the largest organized crime rings this country has every known which continue to plague our country long after alcohol was made legal (partly by turning to other illegal drugs).

I think that the person I talked to at that party long ago made this point and I said something along the lines of "... Then they repealed Prohibition and no-one ever robbed a liquor store again. The End."

xdimitrix
11-20-2007, 5:36 PM
I think that the person I talked to at that party long ago made this point and I said something along the lines of "... Then they repealed Prohibition and no-one ever robbed a liquor store again. The End."

You win the title of being "the dumbest person who doesn't realize they are dumb."

maxicon
11-20-2007, 6:29 PM
I think that the person I talked to at that party long ago made this point and I said something along the lines of "... Then they repealed Prohibition and no-one ever robbed a liquor store again. The End."

Of course, during Prohibition, there were no liquor stores to rob. In any case, robbing liquor stores isn't about alcohol, any more than robbing 7-11s is about Slurpees. It's people robbing places open at night that have money.

So, back to the point, how does this compare against legalizing marijuana? Which is the lesser of evils - the criminalization of otherwise law-abiding citizens and the support of large networks of organized criminals, grower gangs, etc, or the increased tax revenues and increased use of a drug that is arguably much less dangerous than alcohol but will still have some negative effects on people who choose to use it?

Think of the improvement in California tax revenues and crime reduction - you could reduce the workload on the legal system, make the state a ton of money, get some non-violent offenders out of jail, and get casual users out of the sphere of influence of drug dealers and criminals.

pnkssbtz
11-20-2007, 6:48 PM
I think that the person I talked to at that party long ago made this point and I said something along the lines of "... Then they repealed Prohibition and no-one ever robbed a liquor store again. The End."

So... let me get this straight....

Because some guy said something to you long ago, and this some guy made a false statement, then anything related to the topic, of which that some guy made a false statement towards is also false...

Because some guy once, said something wrong, and that one guy was the be-all-end-all of the entire topic, the ultimate authority, and he had the final say in the matter...


Is that what you are saying?

Because if so you are being incredibly obtuse and obstinate, clearly for the sole purpose of complicating a debate of an issue which you have stated only your own opinion against, and not supported it with any credible reasoning or case examples.

In effect you are plugging your ears and going "lalalalalalala" any time someone trys to engage a point you were trying to make.

That is incredibly puerile behavior.

rivviepop
11-20-2007, 7:06 PM
Think of the improvement in California tax revenues and crime reduction - you could reduce the workload on the legal system, make the state a ton of money, get some non-violent offenders out of jail, and get casual users out of the sphere of influence of drug dealers and criminals.

I like to try and ask the question the other way around - by prosecuting otherwise law abiding citizens for a personal amount of substance (I think it's under an ounce right now?) possession, what do we, as a people, *gain*? Is there anyone seriously believing that "a bunch of potheads" are causing a lot of trouble? Are there even any statistics - other than the movie Reefer Madness heh - that show keeping marijuana illegal is benefiting society?

I'd rather have 30% of the nation get high lose their keys and get the munchies more than I'd like to see them drunk beating their wives and driving. Personal opinion of course.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-20-2007, 7:31 PM
So... let me get this straight....

Because some guy said something to you long ago, and this some guy made a false statement, then anything related to the topic, of which that some guy made a false statement towards is also false...

Because some guy once, said something wrong, and that one guy was the be-all-end-all of the entire topic, the ultimate authority, and he had the final say in the matter...

Is that what you are saying?.

I began participation in this thread by saying that some girl at a party I once went to insisted that legalizing narcotics to the point of them being sold at the supermarket would effectively end the crime associated with illicit street pharmacology as we know it.

I responded by saying that if it were to come to that, it wouldn't take five minutes before the typical urban animal jammed a gun in a supermarket checkout counterperson's face and made off with the dope.

Then some Calguns posters came in here and called me dumb, bestowed upon me an award for dumbness, and spoke out in favor of legalizing narcotics to be sold at supermarkets.

Personally, I contend that if you're in favor of abolishing controls over narcotics to the point of them being sold to the public without any oversight whatsoever as the purest Libertarian daydreamers would have it done, you're completely out of your goddamned mind just like most soft-boiled 'Big-L' Libertarians.

Now, if you're against the abuses and excesses of the so-called 'Drug War' -- The violent and mistaken 'No-Knock' police raids, loss of civil liberties associated with administering the drug war, and major and minor annoyances caused by the War on Drugs -- we can talk about that rationally. On many points, I will sympathetically agree that changes are to be made.

However, anyone who insists that cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine ought to rightly be sold in colorful consumer packaging at any local retailer in the interests of reducing crime and restoring liberty needs to have their sanity guidance balancer recalibrated.

pnkssbtz
11-20-2007, 7:45 PM
However, anyone who insists that cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine ought to rightly be sold in colorful consumer packaging at any local retailer in the interests of reducing crime and restoring liberty needs to have their sanity guidance balancer recalibrated.Thats funny, because I was talking about marijuana.


When was I talking about legalizing cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?

Drawing conclusions from non-social stimuli maybe?




And I agree with you on cocaine, heroin and amphetamines. However marijuana is not in the same class as those three. And my arguments were involving marijuana only.


The problems with the above three narcotics is the violent dangerous disposition that takes over people who consume them. I.E. the effects of a user are such that they WILL pose a grave danger to the safety of society.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-20-2007, 8:21 PM
Thats funny, because I was talking about marijuana.

When was I talking about legalizing cocaine, heroin and methamphetamines?

That's even funnier, because I wasn't only talking about marijuana in my original post #65 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=839930&postcount=65) in this thread and post #94 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=842288&postcount=94) that you decided to encapsulate in your offhand response to me in your post #106 (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showpost.php?p=842543&postcount=106).

If you'd spend more time reading the course and flow in this debate than wondering if the rest of us were impressed by your continued use of the word 'puerile', you'd probably have understood that several pages ago.

Gosh, I'm glad we're finally in agreement on the folly of allowing narcotics to be freely available to the general public and sold in supermarkets, ostensibly to end criminal drug trafficking. Now you can focus your efforts on your fellow posters who still believe otherwise and who were just moments ago patting you on the back for your well-reasoned (yet, as now understood, woefully misdirected) retorts to my original posts.

FreedomIsNotFree
11-20-2007, 10:28 PM
Sometimes friends agree to disagree.

N6ATF
11-21-2007, 12:28 AM
Put your damn rulers down!

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 12:33 AM
Sometimes friends agree to disagree.


Exactly...and friends dont let friends drive toyota.....

So anyway...back to the original OP

What do you think? Discuss...

Here's what I think happened: The 3 black dudes went over to the white dude's house to steal some weed after finding out from the White Dude's son (who was savagely beaten) that his dad is in possession of presciption pot. I don't think Race has anything to do with this. I too would have opened fire on ANY 3 trespassers with baseball bats who were savagely beating up my son, regardless if they were 3 black dudes, 3 Asian dudes, 3 Iraquis, 3 white guys, 3 ninjas, 3 zombies, or 3 pirates. Trespassers with baseball bats are dangerous - end of story.

ANY UPDATES anyone's heard/seen?

pnkssbtz
11-21-2007, 2:23 AM
Pvt. Cowboy,

You just really can't handle yourself in a civil polite manner. You continue to make childish quips and antagonistic comments.

I give up. Drink your koolaid, be a complete inconsiderate, antagonistic a** when you try and make your points. Do whatever. You are the "big man".


Albeit an incredibly puerile one.


But hey, you are only young once, but you can be immature forever.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-21-2007, 8:17 AM
Well OK. You win too.

Er, what did we win?

Fjold
11-21-2007, 2:18 PM
I've never seen a person on heroin get violent. I have however seen people get violent trying to support their drug habit. (Marijuana, tobacco and alcohol included)

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 2:52 PM
I've never seen a person on heroin get violent.


Me neither...but in getting TO the stuff or getting something they can sell- I have. Seen one try to slice a doc with a knife the cop missed in the frisk, Doc had just given him Narcanin (Sp?) the stuff that inhibits the high....oh what joy to have to take a screaming banshie to the floor AND get pepper spayed along with the tool from the cop that brought him in:rolleyes:. Or how about the one that began throwing bed pans and assorted at us? he got the bonus plan of needing a couple stitches in his head when we took him to the floor and he managed to smack pretty hard when hitting((NO, it wasn't intentional...)). Or how about the guy that we stopped from breaking into a car in the parking lot & came at us with a crowbar but quickly realized we were all bigger than he & more numerous than he coulda handled. Yep...them heroin junkies sure aint violent:sleeping:

Smokeybehr
11-21-2007, 3:14 PM
Me neither...but in getting TO the stuff or getting something they can sell- I have. Seen one try to slice a doc with a knife the cop missed in the frisk, Doc had just given him Narcanin (Sp?) the stuff that inhibits the high....oh what joy to have to take a screaming banshie to the floor AND get pepper spayed along with the tool from the cop that brought him in:rolleyes:. Or how about the one that began throwing bed pans and assorted at us? he got the bonus plan of needing a couple stitches in his head when we took him to the floor and he managed to smack pretty hard when hitting((NO, it wasn't intentional...)). Or how about the guy that we stopped from breaking into a car in the parking lot & came at us with a crowbar but quickly realized we were all bigger than he & more numerous than he coulda handled. Yep...them heroin junkies sure aint violent:sleeping:

Someone screwed up on the Narcan (naloxone) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxone) dosage. Around here, they give a bolus based on weight and estimated dose of opiate, and then titrate to bring them back to consciousness, but not enough to make them agitated. They usually 4-point them, as well, in case the bolus was a little too much.

We call a shot of Narcan and D50 the "Westside Cocktail" as a lot of IV drug abusers are found on the west side of town.

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 4:02 PM
Someone screwed up on the Narcan (naloxone) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naloxone) dosage.

We call a shot of Narcan and D50 the "Westside Cocktail" as a lot of IV drug abusers are found on the west side of town.

Ah thank you....been 7 years since that work & the lil' nuances of the drugs given by the docs is slowly surcumbing to the forgetfulness of age:o

Do you guys call the Drunk's IV bags the banna bags? I always got a giggle outta that one whenever some clown would look up and say something like "Bananna? I Like Banna" and then proceed to not quite get why they wern't tasting bananna:D

And another one lost to memory-lapse; We had a "Dr. Pepper" for the anti psychotics...but for the life of me cant remember the combo of meds; 2 parts anti-psychotic(Haldol IIRC), 3 parts anti-barf, 1 part summin else (or some ratio like that)...that one ring any bells?