digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at hr95.org

FBI Murders Scott to Seize His Land. No Marijuana Found.

hr95.org — Age 62 at the time of his death at his home in Malibu, CA. on October 2, 1992.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Stevanoski, on 03/03/2008, -84/+25Hey did you do a lot of posts back when Clinton used the FBI and ATFB to kill private citizens?
    • aliengoods, on 03/03/2008, -8/+31Just for the record, Clinton wasn't president-elect until Nov. 92, and didn't take office until the following January in 03. This happened under Bush 1.
      • Stevanoski, on 03/03/2008, -44/+10Ahhhhhnnnnt, wrong again, under Reno, thank you for playing, please try again tomorrow.
        • mrsteveman1, on 03/03/2008, -1/+19I must be missing something, Clinton took office on january 20th, 1993, well after the date listed above.

          Or are you just a ***** with no sense?
          • nospinhere, on 03/03/2008, -12/+6Doesn't matter any way, this story is all spin.
          • LoneRanger85, on 03/03/2008, -11/+9You have the Internet. Why don't you use it? The Waco siege started on Feb. 28,1993. It ended on April 19.
            76 people including 21 children and two pregnant women were slaughtered. No one was ever punished.
          • nospinhere, on 03/03/2008, -12/+8That's because the person who brought them to their death, died with them.
          • Abomonog, on 03/03/2008, -6/+9No. It was because the raid was nothing more than a bad publicity stunt. Janet Reno brought those people to their deaths. No one else.
          • nospinhere, on 03/03/2008, -9/+5No, raid or no raid those people shouldn't have died. They died because their leader torched the place once the raid started.
          • cygnus2112, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1For having a nickname like "nospinhere", you sure do like to spin a lot of fables.
      • cygnus2112, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Reno

        "Reno supervised the following Department of Justice actions:

        * The month-long standoff and ensuing deaths of more than 80 men, women, and children--the Branch Davidians--in Waco, Texas. This was the deadliest government action taken against American citizens on U.S. soil since the Civil War."
    • swrostmore, on 03/03/2008, -13/+46We get it, Clinton did it. It was all him, everything was Clinton's fault. Moonbats.
      • forgottenhope, on 03/03/2008, -7/+4As far as moonbats, the clintons are the cocain smuggling ring as they were in arkansas and if you deny that you are a ***** idiot who thinks there is a difference between republican and democrat. both sides are fixed, wake the ***** up.
        • cornswalled, on 03/03/2008, -1/+7Dude, that's the CIA, and they've been doing that since the late 70's. Even Ronnie smiled and turned a blind eye to it.
    • iLemon, on 03/03/2008, -5/+24Waco, TX
    • shig, on 03/03/2008, -2/+13Digg wasn't around till three years into Bush II's Presidency. I would suspect if it was around that it would have been full of people decrying the Waco and Ruby Ridge massacres, calling Clinton out on foreign policies, his economic and social security policies, his erosion of domestic liberties via executive orders, protesting his WTO and NAFTA policies, declaring the OKC bombing an inside job, etc, etc.

      They certainly would have been right back then, too. The 'patriot movement' would have been 10x what is today if people were this connected 10-15 years ago.
      • jferrari, on 03/03/2008, -2/+7Yeah, people forget what Clinton did.. he managed to hide all his mistakes with a blow job. Unfortunately I think it will take a lot more for Bush.. perhaps if he releases a gay sex video with Cheney no one will ever remember Iraq.
        • jj101, on 03/03/2008, -3/+6To be fair I think he'd rather that didn't get quite so well publicised. The republicans were responsible for instigating that media circus - you cant then claim Clinton used it to hide his mistakes. It makes no sense.
        • userperson, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1Think again. I believe it will unfortunately just take time and revision.
          War presidents always "have to make tough choices, which are unpopular". Never mind they usually have something to do with the mess, and just take advantage of it to acquire more power. History likes war presidents who 'do stuff'. If the trend of presenting history continues as it has he will be a 'great figure'.
        • wakananda, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Both sides are working together. It's "political theater." "Good cop/bad cop." Petty scandals and wedge issues are the fake scenery in the drama of America's destruction - and replacement with a "global plantation," a facist empire.
      • userperson, on 03/03/2008, -2/+1Huh? Which Digg are you on?
        Here there are only two sides, Left & Right. Unless you love war, evil big business, racism, bigotry, and just all around evil you're on the Left./SARCASM
        Democratic presidents would never do these sorts of things, they actually want to legalize it, but lack the power to do so./continued
        or perhaps YOU were being sarcastic?
    • gcauthon, on 03/03/2008, -0/+5A homicide occurred while Clinton was president?! I'm so disillusioned right now. Oh, wait... 1992? George H. W. Bush was president at the time.
    • faskippy, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1Who the ***** cares? Geez, that had to be the first ***** comment... You friggin moron. It's ALL of government. K?
    • absurdist, on 03/04/2008, -0/+2I am SO sick of stupid assed comments like this one, the allegations of murder, coke smuggling, shady land deals, etc... that are STILL being brought up by you ***** to try to smear the Clintons. While I'm no Clinton fan ( I think he was, however, one of the better moderate Republican (yeah, you heard it right - in NO way was he some flaming liberal) presidents in recent history), I seem to remember a congressional investigation fueled by a rabidly anti-Clinton Republican Congress and led by a zealot named Kenneth Starr, funded to the tune of some SEVENTY MILLION ***** DOLLARS. And what did it find?

      A semen-stained blue dress. And a lie about a blow job. Trust me, if there had been anything else hiding under all the rocks they'd turned over, it would have come out. Now, how about we apply those same standards to the current resident of the White House?
      • wakananda, on 03/06/2008, -1/+1Please cool down and activate the neocortex instead of the reptillian brain stem: both "sides" are implicated in the covert drug trade. It's integral to our economy. Google "from the wilderness." The whole purpose of the Lewinsky scandal was to distract from any rational, mature scrutiny of Clinton's service: Waco. Mena. The OK bombing. Why, for instance were the four agent deaths at Waco -the men who were *sent up on the roof*- ALL former Clinton body guards? What are the odds of that? Just cool down and think. Find a thread like that and pull, and if your mind is not addled and tangential from the political circus, the whole thing unravels pretty quickly. Soon you'll be asking yourself why a private group of international financiers is allowed to expand and contract our money supply...
        • absurdist, on 03/07/2008, -0/+1I think you know exactly what you can do with your condescension and your tinfoil hattery. I have no doubt whatsoever that, given the political atmosphere in Washington 1992-2000, had there been the slightest possibility of Clinton being involved in the slightest in what you imply, Kenny Starr and the boys in control of Congress would have been all over it like white on rice. Richard Mellon Scaife was pumping way too much money into the Clinton hate machine... which, apparently, has infected your own thinkng. Put it this way, I lived in L.A. during the Reagan/Bush era, when our government, by their own admission, was flooding the streets with crack to fund their own illegal wars. I know exactly what Compton, East L.A., etc... were like. I personally saw the women on the street corners who were more than willing to rent you their children for sex so they could get money for crack. Under Clinton, I saw ALL of that get cleaned up. Why would that be the case if he had a vested interest in profiting from it? Remember, his friendship with the Bush crime family didn't start until he was out of the presidency, by all accounts.

          BTW, I agree with you completely about the Federal Reserve.
  • cattleprod, on 03/03/2008, -19/+33Federal Seizure Law & Policy are the problem. There should be incentive for law enforcement to come after you based on what you own.
    • cattleprod, on 03/03/2008, -1/+138Oops! I left out one important thing. There should not be incentive for law enforcement to come after you based on what you own.
      • DRINKxREDxBULL, on 03/03/2008, -5/+26But that would make our entire tax code null......
        • orxor, on 03/03/2008, -2/+21And if that was the case consider it an extra benefit.
        • Speed, on 03/03/2008, -2/+2It's still around despite being unconstitutional, so I think it could survive a policy change.
    • Picaroon, on 03/03/2008, -0/+45I think, aside from the marijuana debate, the biggest problem here was their method of entry. Why not just show up and knock politely with badges out? I see no problem with that, if they have a lawful warrant. But there's no reason to bust in like maniacs to this guy's house. A polite knock, "good day sir, we have a warrant to search the premises, may we come in?" would have worked just fine.
      • fyngyrz, on 03/03/2008, -8/+46No, there is a reason. What is it? The agents enforcing federal drug decrees (they are not legitimate laws, because they cannot be derived from constitutional authority) *are* maniacs, pursuing a war against consensual and personal choices by the citizens, in order to support the imposition of unrealistic and immoral positions taken by constitutionally unauthorized government personnel. Sadly, all levels of police have lost all credibility by acting as the immoral lackeys of unauthorized use of federal power.

        If someone pounds on your door, don't rush to open it. Negotiate via telephone if you can, and make sure there are witnesses to your willingness to surrender peacefully. Cops smashing on doors, implementing illegal policies, are about as rational as rabid skunks, as history clearly shows us. Let them in, and you too may become a victim of this unauthorized war against the citizens.

        The so-called "drug war" is unauthorized -- constitutionally speaking -- no authority is given to the federal government to police citizens -- and consequently, it is illegal. It is immoral, because it is a very rare citizen indeed who has ceded to the government the choice of what they ingest. I know I have never signed any such document, or sworn any such oath, in my life.

        The very worst mistake you can make is to assume that the federal government has your interests in mind, either specifically or in general. They are in the midst of committing a huge unauthorized power grab, and if you become a person of interest, you'd better have some contingency planning done.

        So the biggest problem here is the war on drugs itself. But as long as Americans cede unauthorized power to the government, this travesty will continue.
        • SC4RP, on 03/03/2008, -5/+12Ron Paul wants to end the federal "war on drugs"
        • aidave, on 03/03/2008, -3/+2Well said.
        • cawpin, on 03/03/2008, -18/+5fyngyrz - You must be a ***** idiot. Yes, laws are unauthorized because you don't like them. Grow up.
        • jj101, on 03/03/2008, -2/+15@cawpin - You must be a ***** idiot if you can't counter his point better than that. Yes comments are idiotic because you don't like them. Grow up.
      • DivisibleByZero, on 03/03/2008, -9/+3Well, the times that they're serving search warrants for actual drug dealers... Knocking on the door and announcing that you're the police has about the same reception as wearing a KKK robe in Harlem. So in those cases, the no-knock warrant with an itchy trigger finger is a lot safer for the police.

        Now, I think it should be considered part of the occupational risk of being a police officer. A cop dying in the line of duty sucks, but isn't as bad as an innocent citizen getting killed in the confusion.
        • solistus, on 03/03/2008, -3/+16Most drug dealers are not violent and do not even own a gun. The vast majority of people who grow and distribute cannabis have never committed a violent crime; even among those who are caught, which you would assume to be biased toward more dangerous dealers, only a tiny minority are convicted of any non-drug related felonies.
          • DivisibleByZero, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1Admittedly, I'm thinknig of like crazy Columbian drug plantations, the kind of stuff you see in action movies. It probably happens relatively infrequently, but we could also statistically argue that cops don't usually raid innocent peoples' houses, and even less frequently do they kill those innocent people. Does that make it OK when it does happen? Of course not. So we can see why the cops would want to take protective measures even though they're unlikely to get shot.

            Stats or not, some cops HAVE gotten shot on those raids, and that's why they do the no-knock warrants. I'll reiterate that I don't agree with the things, but I'm just posting their rationale. Picaroon ASKED why they don't just show up with their badges out, so I answered him.
          • solistus, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Police officers don't deal with Colombian drug plantations. They deal with domestic crime.

            I understand that you don't necessarily endorse the arguments you are explaining, but as long as they're out there I feel it is necessary to explain why they are so wrong. Police should act on credible information and maintain the spirit of 'innocent until proven guilty;' you don't bust down doors and risk killing innocents on the off chance that the random people behind the door you've been sent to batter down *might* be violent types. No-knock warrants should be granted in cases with known or probable risk of armed and dangerous suspects. Instead, they are handed down blindly for all drug warrants. Also, I'd disagree strongly on the claim that cops don't raid innocents' houses frequently. The standards for evidence for drug crimes is unconstitutionally low. It's even worse if you consider no warrant searches (e.g., traffic stops); presumption of innocence is no longer the de facto law of the land. If you read the American Bar Association's annual report on the state of the legal system, it's pretty much just a tirade against drug policy and a desperate plea for reform. The toxic combination of forfeiture laws, erosion of the presumption of innocence and right to privacy and the draconian tactics of drug officers lead to far too many tragedies like the one from this story, not to mention the highest rate of incarceration on the planet (including countries like North Korea where all dissidents are jailed).
          • wakananda, on 03/06/2008, -0/+1Cops - or anyone else battering down a person's door - should *expect* to be shot. "No-knock warrants" are not just unconstitutional, they are an affront to the dignity of humankind. Participation in them, and in the related piracy of "civil asset forfeiture" should be considered tantamount to participation in gang rape, and dealt with accordingly.
      • wastelander, on 03/03/2008, -4/+1I blame Hollywood.
      • Abomonog, on 03/03/2008, -3/+11Except that method would not have produced the desired result. One dead homeowner. The reason these raids are conducted in the manner they are is that they want you to panic and pull a gun while thinking you are being robbed. They don't want you going to trial. Most house raids are thrown out of court as illegal if they go to trial. They want you going to a funeral home so they can take your property without a fight. There are so many safer methods of making arrests that raiding a house is sheer stupidity. Unless you want its occupants dead in a manner that a judge would believe.
      • userperson, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3Quibble:
        Why ask "may we?" with a warrant, when it doesn't really mean anything?
        People try to use the language of choice with force, it bothers me.

        Busting in shows what they are though, just a bunch of thugs. They just happen to have costumes (uniforms) and props (badges).
    • DangerCollie, on 03/03/2008, -5/+34What's the point of a SWAT raid on a pot farm? It's not like they're going to be able to flush pounds of pot down the toilet. Even if this happened 16 years ago it's just as wrong today. We've got 1 in every 100 people in jail, I think that's enough. We really have to think about whether this behavior is really buying us anything.
      • DivisibleByZero, on 03/03/2008, -16/+5"What's the point of a SWAT raid on a pot farm?"

        The real drug dealers aren't afraid to shoot cops.
        • solistus, on 03/03/2008, -3/+18You're an idiot. Most pot dealers are not cop killers. That is one of the most ignorant and ill-informed things I have read in a long time.
          • MalenfantX, on 03/03/2008, -11/+4You seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Way to call someone you agree with an idiot.
          • jj101, on 03/03/2008, -1/+7@MelenfantX - we must be reading different threads...
          • DivisibleByZero, on 03/03/2008, -2/+2It's great how the only way to argue something on the Internet is to take a wildly opposite viewpoint, totally ignore the other party's rationale for doing what they did. Then bury anybody who dares to try and answer a question about the oppositions motives, even though that person does in fact agree with you.

            I think the no-knock warrants are stupid, but I'm not going to pretend the cops are doing it just to terrorize innocent citizens. They're doing it becasue they're scared of getting shot. Even if it's a minority of people that shoot back, the cops don't want to be a that unlucky schmuck any more than you do, so they go ahead and take unreasonable measures to protect themselves.

            They shouldn't though. They should always knock. Even if the guy happens to shoot one of them, that's part of the hazard of the job. Keeping cops safe at the cost of civillians' freedom and safety is jsut wrong.
          • solistus, on 03/05/2008, -0/+1Your response here is not stupid. Your previous comment was. None of that nuance you just demonstrated was present in "The real drug dealers aren't afraid to shoot cops." In fact, you admitted that the vast majority are not violent. I'm sorry if my post seemed a little harsh, but when you post things that are either thoughtless or just very poorly articulated, you bring it upon yourself. There's a big difference between explaining someone's incorrect actions for something as well as why they are incorrect (as your second post did) and simply repeating what that party's justification for that incorrect action (as your first post did). At any rate, it's pretty clear you don't actually believe what you first wrote, so this conversation is pretty much settled. I rescind my statement that you are an idiot, but I still think your original post was ignorant and ill-informed as it is written (if perhaps not as it was intended to be read).
        • Solis, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Well, I sure hope they kill a whole ***** load of cops.
    • ccastellanos, on 03/03/2008, -1/+18Wow, so many white people unjustly killed, you'd think they were black people.
    • principle, on 03/09/2008, -0/+1If evidence or testimony obtained in exchange for a plea-bargain were inadmissible in court, then there would be no such problems. Furthermore, the agents of law enforcement must be held responsible to their oath to uphold the law, and any infractions especially when it involves a conspiracy to obtain false evidence or testimony.
  • ssn697, on 03/03/2008, -31/+315 left...
  • Ganja420, on 03/03/2008, -8/+141you think this is what the founding fathers would have wanted?
    • tastypaste, on 03/03/2008, -3/+56Hell no, many of them grew hemp. In today's world the FBI would have shot George Washington for that.
      • aliengoods, on 03/03/2008, -2/+74In today's world Washington would have been a terrorist, not a patriot.
        • TheG2, on 03/03/2008, -0/+23Technically, in the eyes of England, he was a terrorist.
          One mans terrorist is another mans patriot.
        • Ishiguro, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3Washington would have supported it. Take a look at the Whiskey Rebellion.
      • NikoKun, on 03/03/2008, -5/+27Not only just grew, there's actually evidence that they KNEW you could smoke the buds from the hemp plant!
        Supposedly, there's a journal entry from one of the founding fathers, out there, that talks about separating/killing the male hemp plant, so that the female would produce better, smokable buds.

        Not really sure if that's true, but if it is... Wow, we've really lost our way as a country... So many secrets in history...
        • shig, on 03/03/2008, -2/+6"began to separate the male from the female (hemp) plants," George Washington diary entry August 7, 1765

          That's not a fake or exaggerated quote. It is genuine. Thomas Jefferson did the same thing,... come to think of it most hemp farmers did.
        • NikoKun, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1Exactly, and if they were just growing hemp, for it's fiber, this separation would serve no purpose.
          The only reason for doing so, is to make the buds more potent, for smoking.

          I'm sure that, in the 1930s, if they had called it Hemp, instead of "Marijuana", a fake name, it never would have been outlawed.
        • Federaleeches, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0stop- you might confuse the children with the truth that george washington was a pothead and owned slaves and lamented that his pot fields got seeds in them because he was too long in washington before getting back to them to tend the field.
          they might start to wonder why fascist neocunts continually murder citizens that resemble our first president and throw people that resemble our founding fathers into prison as enemy combatants.
          they might realize the time for revolution has come yet again.
      • brycelb, on 03/03/2008, -21/+8They also had SLAVES. What's your point, that we should run around with a 1776 mind set.
        • aukxsona, on 03/03/2008, -11/+1What will robots be? Or rather what are they? I don't think much has change accept now we try to keep all citizens down.
        • TheG2, on 03/03/2008, -9/+1Oh good, an argument about robots comparing them to black slaves...let me count the ways your statement is incorrect.
        • d03boy, on 03/03/2008, -3/+14By the time Washington became of age he realized slavery was wrong but couldn't defend his ideas because he thought it would tear the union apart.
        • MacEnvy, on 03/03/2008, -1/+8@TheG2
          If robots are developed to the point of sentience, "slavery" of said robots will be a valid issue.
        • momsshizzle, on 03/03/2008, -4/+1Uh yea. What's wrong with owning slaves? Be white and proud!
        • JDove6, on 03/03/2008, -2/+1If you have debt, which most Americans do, you are a slave to your debtors.
    • ZxEfR, on 03/03/2008, -3/+47The founding fathers would be considered terrorists by our "modern" government.
      • Federaleeches, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0goddamn right. And that being said we know where the real terrorists are- in the oval office.
        a patriot is a terrorist by their ruling stick.
        america is the same country as old england under king george.
    • MrDash001, on 03/03/2008, -25/+10Hate to burst your bubble, but the founding fathers really didn't have the interest of the citizens. Let's examine the facts: 55 delegates were all white and rich. Most of them were Dr.'s or lawyers. Everything they did was to make sure they didn't loose any of there own assets. Unless you had a common man in the delegation, they really do not represent the common folk.
      • bjornski, on 03/03/2008, -0/+14"Landholders ought to have a share in the government
        to support these invaluable interests and check the other many.
        They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority
        of the opulent against the majority."
        James Madison
        Source: Max Farrand, ed., The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787,
        3rd ed., vol. I., p. 422
      • TheG2, on 03/03/2008, -2/+6Yes bjornsky, land owners were typically rich white people back then.
      • bigsteve, on 03/03/2008, -8/+3You forgot "slave owners." They were those, too.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 03/03/2008, -2/+11"Everything they did was to make sure they didn't loose any of there own assets. "

        What ignorant horse *****. If the revolution had failed, all of their assets would have been forfeit to the Crown, and they would have been hanged as traitors.
      • Abomonog, on 03/03/2008, -1/+5Hate to burst your bubble but our founding fathers had nothing but the common man in mind when they created our country. Look at our constitution. Almost none of it benefits the rich. But it gives the poor a hell of a lot of power that they would not otherwise have.
    • noseeme, on 03/03/2008, -10/+15Well Mr. Ganja420, why don't you ask Ron Paul, since he is the master of knowing what the founding fathers thought. If he was only born 20 years earlier, he could have asked them himself!
      • bigsteve, on 03/03/2008, -6/+4I love nicknames that so subtly broadcast the agenda of the poster. Especially the real classy ones, that contain sometimes multiple pot references.

        (Go Dragons! Class of 05 myself)
    • StarlessKnight, on 03/03/2008, -1/+20"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered." Thomas Jefferson
      • iofthestorm, on 03/03/2008, -10/+6And for every Jefferson quote you bring up, there's probably a Hamilton quote to the opposite effect. The Founding Fathers didn't agree on everything, you know, and to lump them all together like people seem to do so readily really messes up history.
        • shig, on 03/03/2008, -1/+5Hamilton was a traitor. Benedict Arnold was the portrait of a great American,... until he wasn't.
        • StarlessKnight, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1No, they didn't agree on everything. Take slavery, for instance... some wanted it abolished in the Constitution, some did not. The Founding Fathers were just as Human as you or I, they just happened to live in what stands as a cornerstone in the history of the United States of America.
    • NSResponder, on 03/03/2008, -3/+4Well, since they overthrew their king to put a stop to this kind of *****, I would guess "no".

      -jcr
    • roho76, on 03/03/2008, -0/+2I think when talk about the "Founding Fathers" comes up it's turns people away. I think we need to start promoting the Constitution in a "Common Sense set of laws to live by" and teach that nobody should infringe on these rights, ever. I think that is why so many are willing to let the Constitution be destroyed, because they don't understand it in the context in which it is presented to them. Nobody has anything in common with Jefferson or Washington so when we say "The Founding Fathers" they say "It's an old document that has no relevance in modern America" when in all actuality it holds more true now than it ever has.
      • ZxEfR, on 03/05/2008, -0/+2You have hit the nail of truth so hard that you shattered the 4x4 of ignorance into oblivion! :O)
  • TomK88, on 03/03/2008, -5/+164The whole warrant system is ridiculous. All the cops had to say is that based on their aerial surveillance they thought marijuana was being grown. Shouldn't they be required to have some evidence, like photographs or something? What's stopping them from just making something up to get a warrant?

    Also, nothing should be allowed to be seized unless it is proven that it is a proceed of crime. I hate how the government will ask how we acquired an asset and if we don't have a good answer they can take it. Completely ridiculous.
    • NikoKun, on 03/03/2008, -6/+36Yeah, exactly... They should be required to PROVE that!
      But then again, seizure laws are quite a violation of property rights... =/
      These policies were never intended to help fight crime... It was just another excuse, to allow government/law enforcement to steal from the people.

      And in this case, there is significant proof, that they (theFBI) were doing All they could, to find SOME reason to steal this guy's property... I'm glad they didn't get away with it!
      • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -4/+11"But then again, seizure laws are quite a violation of property rights"

        Not true at all. Property rights are conferred by the government. Unless you're prepared to camp out on your lawn 24/7 with a loaded shotgun, it's only because of government enforcement of your property rights that street people don't steal your *****. And what the government giveth, the government taketh away.

        People love that the constitution recognizes property rights. They tend to get a little hot and bothered when you remind them that the 4th amendment only prohibits "unreasonable" seizures. But it's a fact: if it's "reasonable," the constitution allows it.
        • logandurand, on 03/03/2008, -1/+8These aren't reasonable in the slightest, as citizens are required to prove that their assets aren't related to drugs - the government doesn't actually need to prove anything.
        • Ishiguro, on 03/03/2008, -0/+9No rights are conferred by the government. Property rights are human rights. All rights described in the Constitution are limits on the Government, not conferred rights to people.
          • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -2/+5In the US, property rights are conferred by the constitution.
      • cawpin, on 03/03/2008, -6/+3"Yeah, exactly... They should be required to PROVE that!"

        So, they have to prove it before filing charges? Are you high right now?
    • Dumbledorito, on 03/03/2008, -3/+34These days, law enforcement is based on a principle that suspects are guilty until proven innocent; otherwise, they woudln't be suspects.

      And it's not just about drugs anymore.
      • macweirdo42, on 03/03/2008, -3/+14These days? Let's not kid ourselves - this has always been the case among law enforcement. The only thing that's changed is that, thanks to the Internet, you actually hear about the kind of ***** that goes on, on a regular basis.
        • RpgActioN, on 03/03/2008, -5/+4Regular basis? This happened in '92. No, all the Internet is good for is getting the same old stories over and over, sensationalized more and more each time. The FBI didn't kill this guy to get his land - *****, they didn't even GET his land. The title is so misleading and overzealous, it's ***** ridiculous.

          Buried as inaccurate.
      • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -6/+3Over the last 50 years criminal defendants have been accorded greater protections against government perecution than they enjoyed at any other time in our nation's history. What do you think criminal courts thought of the 5th Amendment before Miranda v. Arizona? What of the 4th before Terry v. Ohio?
        • RpgActioN, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3The courts arguably cared since the inception of the Bill of Rights, just never had an unruly enough executive body before those cases that it needed to impose itself.
          • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -1/+3No, the courts just didn't care until Earl Warren came on the scene. Prior to that time it was considered perfectly acceptable for the cops to beat a confession out of someone or stop and frisk someone because he happened to be black, etc. In fact, most criminal courts STILL don't care, it's just that the Supreme Court has tied their hands.
      • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -3/+2Re: the above - Should be Mapp v Ohio, not Terry.
    • DivisibleByZero, on 03/03/2008, -8/+2Seems to me that if they can prove that ANY portion of your income came from drug sales, they could claim that any arbitrary part of your assets were purchased with that drug money (maybe capped off if we can prove the exact amount of money they made from the drugs).

      Look at it this way: the government gives a guy $20 worth of food stamps to feed himself and his kids. He goes to the grocery store, buys $20 worth of groceries, then $40 worth of beer. Now, in my opinion, the government gave the guy $20 in beer money. If not for the food stamps, he would (should) have only bought $20 of beer, paid for the food with his own money.
      • aidave, on 03/03/2008, -2/+4Learn logic.
        • DivisibleByZero, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1Learn to provide supporting arguments instead of blanket statements. What part of my logic is flawed?
    • MortalynFlux, on 03/03/2008, -1/+8A better question would be, if the drugs were on his property, why were they busting into the house? In Texas, at least, you do not need a warrant where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This includes fields you own which are far away from your residence. They could have secured evidence first, then arrested him during the day in a peaceful manner. There was no evidence that he was a flight risk, especially with all that land he owned. Sounds like his murder was planned.
      • dcshiderly, on 03/03/2008, -0/+4You rarely see the use of "no-knock" warrants in Texas as the citizens are often well-armed. At best, the citizen dies and a wrongful death lawsuit ensues. At worst, several police officers die along with the citizen. It's simply too expensive a mistake to make, when Texas state law makes wrongful arrest tantamount to assault, defensible by deadly force if necessary per Section 9.
    • webs05, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1You watch too much TV. Evidence is required to get a warrant.
      • Tenetri, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, except the exact opposite of what you just said there.
      • ShnowDoggie, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1Where was the evidence in this case then?
  • NikoKun, on 03/03/2008, -7/+114The seizure laws are an abomination to justice, as they currently are... It is simply theft, -government ok'ed theft.
    If Marijuana was legalized, it would be a HUGE hit to the police forces which use seizure laws, to fund their game... -_-
    • ZxEfR, on 03/03/2008, -2/+20Don't steal.....the government doesn't like competition.
    • Ishiguro, on 03/03/2008, -1/+3Don't forget about Government ok'ed theft called taxes.
  • LadyKofNYC, on 03/03/2008, -43/+5MURDERER, by Buju Banton
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooFnixBwBSo

    Murderer! Blood is on your shoulders
    Kill I today you cannot kill I tomorrow
    Murder! Your insides must be hollow
    How does it feel to take the life of another?

    Yes, you can hide from man but not your conscience
    You eat the bread of sorrow Drink the wine of violence
    Allowed yourself to be conquered by the serpent
    Why did you disobey the first commandment?

    Walk through the valley I fear no pestilence
    God is my witness and He is my evidence
    Lift up my eyes from whence cometh help
    You will never escape this, your judgment.

    Murderer! Blood is on your shoulders
    Kill I today you cannot kill I tomorrow
    Murder! Your insides must be hollow
    How does it feel to take the life?

    I tell you, all men are created equal
    But behind the trigger its a different sequel
    Some are murdering people just to collect medals
    Stop committing dirty acts for the high officials.

    You could wash your hands until you cant wash no more
    Its like an epidemic and you won't find a cure
    Upper class you could be rich, middle class whether you are poor
    Only the righteous won't feel insecure
    Have you ever thought about your skill getting bored

    Murderer! Blood is on your shoulders
    Kill I today you cannot kill I tomorrow
    Murder! Your insides must be hollow
    How does it feel to take the life?

    ........
    • spawnfree, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1How does it feel to take the life?
      sociopaths do not feel remorse. so; nothing. they just laugh about it.
  • brainboy77, on 03/03/2008, -30/+2he's a multi-millionaire , yet they sue for $5 mil. something seems fishy...
    • TomK88, on 03/03/2008, -0/+21What is fishy about that? Would you not be pissed off if one of your family members was gunned down by police illegally?
    • ZxEfR, on 03/03/2008, -0/+18I would like some more info here please. What exactly is fishy? I believe they should have gotten 50 million myself.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 03/03/2008, -0/+4I believe some rogue police officers should have been hanged in public.
    • obliviousfool, on 03/03/2008, -0/+7What would be the exact price tag you'd put on the life of your father or your spouse? I'm asking out of curiosity.
  • carterbaldwin, on 03/03/2008, -15/+80What's really murder is the site design.
    • noseeme, on 03/03/2008, -2/+7This site was made 3 years before CSS was used.
      • macweirdo42, on 03/03/2008, -11/+7I am sick of you freakin' web nerds and your freakin' CSS. Frickin' lazy bums - look, I appreciate that it makes nice layouts easy to design, but it's not like that site couldn't have been decently formatted before the days of CSS.
        • hillkiwi, on 03/03/2008, -1/+6So doing it the right way (using CSS) makes them lazy bums?
        • iofthestorm, on 03/03/2008, -1/+6While I disagree with your rant about web nerds and CSS, it is true that almost anything you can do with CSS you could do without it, it'd just be more painful.
        • bigsteve, on 03/03/2008, -0/+5Yea, you can do things normally done with CSS without it...and it would be standards in-compliant, inconsistent across not only different web browsers but different versions of said web browsers not to mention color depths and screen resolutions or god-forbid devices that aren't desktop computers, inflexible to custom CSS sheets loaded for those with disabilities, etc etc etc etc etc... Yea, we're -lazy-. Gotcha.
      • nyrol2, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1more like 2 years after he died.
    • hughv, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1You're right about the design. Very distracting and makes it illegible in places.
      This has nothing to do with CSS. It's just a matter of ignoring (Or not knowing) basic design principles.
    • rentmitchum, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3....and fur.
  • Qtip42, on 03/03/2008, -8/+18If you're a multi-millionaire, you should have a bulletproof/ram-proof front door...
    • ZxEfR, on 03/03/2008, -0/+4Well.....I know I would! And all kinds of other security equipment too......
    • sponeil, on 03/03/2008, -12/+1You also shouldn't run around waving a gun over your head during a raid. Man, what a dumbass.
    • Bodieslikesheep, on 03/03/2008, -0/+2Because building even taller walls, buying bigger locks, and sealing yourself off from the rest of the world will give you complete security, right? No, there is no such thing. Welcome to the illusion that closing yourself off will protect you. The irony is that he was murdered by the the scum ***** whose tax dollars funded their lives.
      • ZxEfR, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1It has zero to do with "closing yourself off"......get a clue!
  • zappa717, on 03/03/2008, -4/+44"They want to take our property, security and herbal medicine from us, even though we have not caused harm to anyone." - It's just nuts.
  • cathl, on 03/03/2008, -3/+59There are a ton of arbitrary laws on the books, and as a result almost everyone's a criminal. It all seems like our system is designed to punish anyone who poses a significant problem to our government.
    • ZxEfR, on 03/03/2008, -1/+12Truth
    • satanswetnipple, on 03/03/2008, -2/+6This happens in all countries, and I doubt it is deliberate. it is just a side benefit of the negligence of lawmakers. Every new generation of lawmakers want to write laws, but never review and give up laws. I have been hoping that one day, lawmakers will be given a set number of laws allowable, and a set number of regulations allowable. Doubleups and piggybacks not allowed. This would force lawmakers to review old, dead and irrelevant law before even contemplating a new law.
    • emmeron, on 03/03/2008, -1/+4You think that's arbitrary? That's control.
    • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -3/+2The vast majority of the "stupid" criminal laws are never enforced. Ever. When they are, that's usually the reason they end up getting struck down as unconstitutional. See Texas' sodomy laws, etc.
    • burbj, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3Mother should I trust the government?
  • ZxEfR, on 03/03/2008, -1/+16I don't know how some people can sleep at night. I know that some of the guys responsible for this and other evils are truly evil and they sleep great....but for sure there are some that aren't evil.....how can they have that as a job? No way I could have that job.
    • Ribbed4U, on 03/03/2008, -0/+4Well just be thankfully that there are people who aren't evil working in that field. Otherwise, we'd really be *****.
      • PhilLesh69, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3You just haven't figured out,yet, that you are really *****.
    • shig, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3They don't sleep at night. The goods ones should speak out and you should support them.
  • NightVortez, on 03/03/2008, -2/+30So much for a right to property.

    Did the agents at least get fired?
    • Vash265, on 03/03/2008, -6/+4Agents? What agents? Oh, you mean the LA County Sheriff's department, who were relying on information given by the FBI aerial surveillance that there was a possibility he was growing pot on his land! A. Read the article in the future, or if you did, read it more carefully. And B. STOP SUBMITTING FALSE OR SENSATIONALIZED HEADLINES
    • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -1/+7You don't have an inexorable right to your property. Go back and read the constitution. Under the 4th Amendment, government seizures need only be "reasonable." That's a pretty low bar.
      • dcshiderly, on 03/03/2008, -0/+0"no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation..." Probable cause is a higher bar than "reasonable," IIRC.
        • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1Probable cause is the standard for WARRANTS, not searches and seizures. Reasonableness is the standard for searches and seizures. Warrants were held to a higher standard in the past because they were considered to make searches and seizures easier (which, if you think about it, they do).
          • dcshiderly, on 03/05/2008, -0/+0Dumbass, a warrant is required for searches and seizures. Can you read? At all?
    • userperson, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1They change that to "the pursuit of happiness" in the final draft. So go out and pursue some happiness. Meanwhile don't forget to earn money so you can pay the rent (property taxes) on the land you 'own', unless they want it, then they take, either by eminent domain, or this way if they can.
  • mjpanzer, on 03/03/2008, -19/+1already reddit
  • gettempapa, on 03/03/2008, -27/+8No one would be digging this story if it had to do with anything other than marijuana.
    • NikoKun, on 03/03/2008, -4/+18Aren't crooked cop stories really popular on Digg? lol
      This has little to do with Marijuana... And more to do with crooked seizure laws.
    • NikoKun, on 03/03/2008, -3/+17But then again, if Marijuana was legal, we wouldn't have such messed up, overused seizure laws... Because then law enforcement couldn't use Marijuana as an excuse to raid people.
    • jawnboy, on 03/03/2008, -1/+10I guess you didn't read the article, it had nothing to do with marijuana.
      • gettempapa, on 03/03/2008, -4/+5You're right I did not. I just read the article and I feel like an ass. Sorry. I am just used to seeing dozens of pointless articles about marijuana every day.
  • GinsuGuy585, on 03/03/2008, -2/+38Agents were put on administrative leave for two months with pay, then given the national medal for homeland security.
  • nsanidy, on 03/03/2008, -8/+53***** prohibition. Enough is enough.
    • mntbikeracer1, on 03/03/2008, -3/+8I don't think this has anything to do with that. They wanted the land so they came up with an excuse to scare/kill him and get the land.
      • Acewrap, on 03/03/2008, -1/+5The government used prohibition as a tool to steal.
    • MasterThief117, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2I hate people like you. You say "Enough is enough" and do jack ***** about it. People like you are all talk. Comment candy it what you said is. You say things diggers want to hear just to get dugg. At least I take initiative and write to my congressmen. I have done so twice a year, for the past 2 years. Sure you think "oh, that is only four times," but I will keep on doing it. And with others doing the same, that adds up. Even if it does not change anything, I know that I at least tried.
  • noseeme, on 03/03/2008, -21/+3He died before he could even be remembered on a site that uses CSS... Poor guy.
    Why the ***** did he run for his gun when the FBI barged in?
    • Elderon, on 03/03/2008, -1/+19what do you mean why? what would you do if you heard someone trying to knock your down open? would you just sit there or would you try and defend yourself? I'd of done the exact same thing. Hesitating to grab a weapon when someone is breaking into your house could be fatal. This shows why no knock warrants are bad. Whatever happend to come out with your hands up lol.
      • noseeme, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1A warrant that doesn't require any knocking on the door still requires them to scream "FBI" when they run in.
    • jawnboy, on 03/03/2008, -2/+14Apparently you have no problem living your life on your knees, but many people will try to protect themselves and their families when their home is being invaded. When they identified themselves he tried to put the gun down, but they shot him.
    • shig, on 03/03/2008, -0/+5To defend his wife. If you heard your wife screaming "DON'T KILL ME!!!" Would you ***** run away?
  • Insuperabilis, on 03/03/2008, -10/+2He looks like Eric Bana.
  • smurfz, on 03/03/2008, -8/+90WHY SHOULD SOMEONE BE KILLED FOR MARIJUANA IN THE FIRST PLACE?!
    • israelanderson, on 03/03/2008, -1/+7because it's hard to tax...
    • SniperGX1, on 03/03/2008, -1/+16It wasn't the marijuana, as it turns out, he, too, uses all caps...
    • SlimFastForYou, on 03/03/2008, -13/+2BECAUSE MARIJUANA KILLS DUH LOL
    • gettempapa, on 03/03/2008, -0/+5Because he had a gun and they had terrible judgment.
    • mahdaeng, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1I agree. I am against marijuana use (except for medicinal purposes), but no one deserves to die over it.
  • Nudar, on 03/03/2008, -1/+13So was the federal government able to obtain the land or does the wife still own it?
    • ZxEfR, on 03/03/2008, -2/+11Evil did not get the land....the land is still in the family. Unless they have sold it since.
      • jawnboy, on 03/03/2008, -0/+5If it is up to the wife or the children (if any) I wouldn't be surprised if that parcel of land is in the family for a long, long time.
  • RyeBrye, on 03/03/2008, -4/+9This website looks like it was designed in 1992.
    • hartley, on 03/03/2008, -2/+2Tiled backgrounds ftw.
    • Zizhou, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2Given the name of the site, "Human Rights 95," it's probably closer to 1995 era web design...
  • paraforce, on 03/03/2008, -20/+63As optimistic as I am about Obama, I know he's not going to end ***** like this.

    Digg me down if you must, but Ron Paul is the only candidate who actually seems to care about stuff like this.
    • TomK88, on 03/03/2008, -40/+12***** off with your Paulbot spamming. Paul is not a viable candidate anymore, get over it.
      • paraforce, on 03/03/2008, -5/+23It's not about electability, it's about principle.
      • d03boy, on 03/03/2008, -4/+16electibility is a mirage
      • Samurai77, on 03/03/2008, -1/+16With that attitude no wonder you still have the queen on your money!
        • rspeed, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1Not to mention, you know, being their monarch.
      • faskippy, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1No, ***** you, very much.
    • Dawnrazor, on 03/03/2008, -17/+4Yeah, he'll just let the states kill people for ***** like this
      • thecoolestguy, on 03/03/2008, -1/+10California, where this guy was shot, has been trying to decriminalize it for a while. In this case, it was the FBI that killed the guy, and if there was no federal war on drugs, he wouldn't have been shot.
      • shig, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2Yeah.
    • IHaveCrayons, on 03/03/2008, -2/+2This happened in 1992.
    • diskit, on 03/03/2008, -2/+1Wow, this is what, the 24th post and Ron Paul is just now being mentioned?
      This must be some sort of record for you guys.

      I'm going to go look at the comments on the Super Mario Bros in first person video and see how long it takes for someone to mention Ron Paul.
    • userperson, on 03/03/2008, -2/+1Regrettably Ron Paul won't end stuff like this either, at best he would've suspended for a few years.
  • speel, on 03/03/2008, -5/+18America is based on ***** you think you have rights? nope, you have privileges and the govt is big daddy and they can take them away when ever they please.
  • israelanderson, on 03/03/2008, -12/+37Don't worry, all the pro-fascists her will be quick to remind us that we're friken nuts if we think American is turning into a police state.

    Ron Paul 2012 - Now we've ALL had enough...
    • gettempapa, on 03/03/2008, -3/+7Really? Already moved on to 2012?
      • NSResponder, on 03/03/2008, -4/+3Unless the dollar crashes between now and the election (which is entirely possible, BTW), Obama's going to win it.

        -jcr
    • Hangly, on 03/03/2008, -4/+4Poor Dr. Paul will be in his 80's by then.
      • israelanderson, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2Ah, no, he'd be 76.

        And for someone else, that might be a problem, but as a medical doctor, Ron Paul has looked after himself and is incredibly healthy and fit for a 72 year old.
    • MalenfantX, on 03/03/2008, -3/+4Zombie Ron Paul 2012. It's brain-eating time!
    • shig, on 03/03/2008, -2/+4You mean..

      Re-Elect Ron Paul 2012
    • rkef, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1Ron Paul is not V.
    • userperson, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1That's assuming he'll still be alive/healthy.
    • Sinnic, on 03/04/2008, -0/+1The movement that Paul's candidacy started will not have its day for still awhile yet...but it will reach fruition, in some form or another.
  • oep4, on 03/03/2008, -13/+4digg this ***** UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • theferno, on 03/03/2008, -1/+11killing is not the answer, except in the case of government land settlement issues obviously
  • andrewguy, on 03/03/2008, -0/+11http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_P._Scott_(Mali ...
    • TheG2, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2Thanks, its good to see someone going out and grabbing some sources, even if its wiki.
  • JBmtk, on 03/03/2008, -2/+7There is no longer the "investigation" in FBI.
  • pandawho1212, on 03/03/2008, -3/+9stop the genocide on drugs
    • thecoolestguy, on 03/03/2008, -2/+3genocide against drug users. It's morally equivalent to committing genocide against homosexuals.
    • mahdaeng, on 03/03/2008, -0/+2You do know what "genocide" means, right?
  • Redemption289, on 03/03/2008, -4/+9Thats terrible that something like that would happen, and does happen (all the time). That being said, there are a few things that I don't think add up.

    First of all, LA Sheriff isn't the FBI... its a state agency. Secondly, if the federal government wanted the land SO bad, I don't think it would kill a man for it. They would just eminent domain.
    • siszam, on 03/03/2008, -5/+6Eminent domain wouldn't instill fear and make people think twice before standing up to the government.
    • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -3/+5Eminent domain seizures require the government to compensate the property owner with an amount equivalent to fair market value of the seized property. If DEA agents were going to use eminent domain to seize pot growers' property, the entire subprime crisis could be avoided as homeowners who couldn't make their mortgage payments could simply grow some pot, phone up the DEA and tell them about it, and then collect a windfall after their property was seized and they were given a fat payout as compensation.
  • Ubermann, on 03/03/2008, -1/+19And that was BEFORE 9/11.... its only going to get worse.
    • TnTBass, on 03/03/2008, -0/+2Correction:
      "Its been getting steadily worse ever since!"
  • hartley, on 03/03/2008, -4/+11Heard about all of this when it happened. Heard all of it again when the family won the settlement.
    Why is this being brought up again?
    Everyone knows you don't own your property. You might own it, but if you don't bribe the government through the form of property taxes, they can, and will, take your property through force.
  • theghoul, on 03/03/2008, -3/+25The government kills an innocent man for his property and no one goes to jail for it.

    Unreal.
    • fyngyrz, on 03/03/2008, -1/+3Real.
    • petrodollar, on 03/03/2008, -2/+4What's unreal is your belief that they had to kill him to seize his assets. In reality, asset seizures are commonplace and require nothing more than a federal marshall showing up with a warrant.
  • hillkiwi, on 03/03/2008, -5/+1What's with the background on that site - I'm tempted to email them one that tiles properly is bigger than 400 x 400.
  • siszam, on 03/03/2008, -4/+22This happens every now and then like clockwork. You should all read about Waco Massacre and Ruby Ridge where people are killed for exercising their freedom of religion. Reno killed at least 21 children at Waco and BTF agents kill Randy Weavers wife and child. The government likes to kill innocents while telling you their are druggies or wack jobs. It instills fear and make everyone go along a little while longer.
    • ShadowMerchant, on 03/03/2008, -3/+6The person at Waco who made the decision to pump CS gas into an enclosed space containing children is a mass murderer. Of that, there is no question. They were suffocated just as surely as if it had been Zyklon B.
      • Hangly, on 03/03/2008, -3/+3What about the guys who ran over civilians with tanks?
    • Ribbed4U, on 03/03/2008, -4/+7Yes, Waco was handled very poorly, but come on guys...

      "On February 28, 1993, the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) attempted to execute a search warrant at the Branch Davidian ranch at Mount Carmel, a property located nine miles (14 km) east-northeast of Waco, Texas. An exchange of gunfire resulted in the deaths of four agents and six Davidians."

      AFTER this, the siege took place. Doesn't excuse the killing of innocents at all, but it wasn't just the Feds who handled the situation poorly. If you shoot and kill Federal agents, you're damn right they are going to come after you.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waco_massacre
      • Bodieslikesheep, on 03/03/2008, -4/+3Children were killed. Children didn't shoot the agents.
        No child should be murdered. Velcom to Amerika!
        • Ribbed4U, on 03/03/2008, -1/+4I'm not arguing that point. But I'm just saying it's not as if the adults of the compound didn't bring this on themselves. You can't place the entire blame for this incident on the Feds.
  • cidman2001, on 03/03/2008, -3/+8Yup...horrible page design, but compelling content. This ***** just shouldn't be happening. They don't treat any other non-violent criminals this way. Imagine the outcry if this was happening to people who simply claimed a few extra deductions on their income tax forms?
    "Well, that's just wrong. Everyone does it." That would be the rallying cry. Why shouldn't it apply here? Yes, it's illegal...but armed interventions and property forfeiture...Plllllleeeease!
  • mummbleswers, on 03/03/2008, -14/+6You know, most anti-marijuana advocates are right - it is a gateway drug. You start off as a normal person smoking a little weed to relax, maybe have a good time, and then the cops bust you and you go do some time where your forced to be violent and learn what being a criminal is all about. And if it ain't that, you get to buy weed illigally, and meet scum bag dealers who aren't always legit, or even worse rob you. So all these people saying it doesn't lead to anything are full of *****! "Dope was never a problem for me until I got busted."
    • d03boy, on 03/03/2008, -2/+5Cite your sources or STFU. I have personal testimony that says otherwise.
    • adooga, on 03/03/2008, -3/+6Nothing you've described is a direct effect of smoking pot, except the first bit about relaxing and having a good time.
      Everything else you've described is a direct effect of prohibition.
    • zaffir, on 03/03/2008, -3/+1Correlation does not imply causation.
    • thecoolestguy, on 03/03/2008, -2/+5You guys missed the point of his post.
    • shig, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2All problems related to it being illegal, but you forgot to mention that over 60% of jails are filled with non-violent drug offenders. The majority of which are users.
      • shig, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2Oops. I forgot to mention that number is just the ones serving prison sentences in State and private institutions, and does not include Federal prisons or the over 4 million non-violent drug offenders arrested each year that don't receive jail terms. The number is growing, people.

        Anti-drug advocates are drug manufacturers.
  • slippiefist, on 03/03/2008, -1/+4This is the real tragedy:

    http://www.hr95.org/aaron.c.htm

    • Pyroteq, on 03/03/2008, -2/+3That's ***** pathetic.
    • mahdaeng, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1FTA: [[In the summer before his final year at Southern University, Clarence was approached by a childhood friend from Mobile who asked Clarence if he knew of anyone who could supply him with cocaine. Clarence knew of people who dealt drugs in Louisiana and helped his old friend by arranging a meeting with a drug dealer from Baton Rouge. Distrustful of each other, the two parties insisted Clarence be present during their meeting. Clarence foolishly agreed.]]

      Sounds like a crime to me. A crime that deserves that many years in prison? Certainly not. A crime that deserves some amount of punishment? Definitely.
  • boxybrzown, on 03/03/2008, -12/+10PROTIP: When the cops kick your door in, don't charge into the room waving a revolver over your head.
    I don't care if it's your right to bear arms or if the cops are raiding you illegally without cause. You deal with that ***** later.
    • bigsteve, on 03/03/2008, -2/+14He didn't necessarily know it was the cops when he loaded the gun and started running toward the noise. If I heard a commotion, loud screaming from unfamiliar male voices, my wife begging not to be killed, I'd come running armed, too. The dispute is what happened next. He was ordered to drop the weapon, according to the story he was in the process of doing so, and then was killed.

      I have no idea who this man is or anything about him, but my common sense dictates that since there was nothing legally wrong with anything on his property, I'm going to put my bet on the story being accurate, and a jumpy trigger finger on one of the officers being to blame for the man's death. The family, after all, won a $5mil wrongful death judgment. Really a shame.
      • TheG2, on 03/03/2008, -8/+3He walked out of the room with a gun to his own head...that should tell you something right htere.
        • bigsteve, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3No he didn't. Read it again. "Over his head", not "to his head."
    • emmeron, on 03/03/2008, -2/+15Wrong.
      If a cop is barging into my home unlawfully, he's just a criminal, no matter what the badge claims.
      • ShadowMerchant, on 03/03/2008, -2/+5Hear Hear. That's what we have jury nullification for.

        When you sit on a jury, you have the power to judge the law and not just the facts. The judge and prosecutor will tell you differently, but that's because they are goddam liars. Do not vote to convict when the law is unjust. Hold out forever, and hang the jury.

      • shig, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3Tennessee Law TCA 39-11-611 sub-section E under Self-Defense;

        (e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:
        (1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and
        (2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.
  • theskyisblue, on 03/03/2008, -4/+1that's the america we all stand up for
  • Archer007, on 03/03/2008, -3/+9Regardless of the issue of ANY drugs, the government should have been sued for all of these deaths.
    • ggacid, on 03/03/2008, -0/+6Did you read the article? The family received a $5M wrongful death settlement.
  • dhughes, on 03/03/2008, -9/+3 This was posted of Reddit recently too, someone's trolling.
    • InsaneMachine, on 03/03/2008, -0/+2OMG! It was on slashdot too! Tripple troll??! /sarcasm
  • vboranoff, on 03/03/2008, -2/+9There's no such person as America or FBI or police. They cannot do anything. This is people who did all above.

    They all must personally be exposed. Why don't set a wiki to collect details, who personally were those savages who shot the innocent man? They excuse themselves that they were only following orders, but Nazi also only followed orders and we don't consider them innocent.

    If those people (not organizations, but _people_, personally, with names photos and phone numbers) never get publicly exposed, they will keep doing what they do with the same savageness, because there's no downside for them in all the killings, rape and intimidation. And when they return home they will be honored by family and neighbors as protectors of the order, and in their church they will only hear praise.
    • ShadowMerchant, on 03/03/2008, -2/+3We can start with Lon Horiuchi, who blew an unarmed woman's head off at Ruby Ridge, in front of her family, while she cradled her baby in her arms. He or one of his pals also shot a 14-year-old boy in the back and killed him.

      This was a trained sniper. There is absolutely no way he didn't know what he was doing. This was back before the 1994 elections when Janet Reno and Bill Clinton thought they had a mandate for gun control, and wanted to deliver a demonstrative message to gun owners. Boy, did they miscalculate.
  • bingobongony, on 03/03/2008, -12/+5Yeah...there is NO bias in this article, or web site. None at all. I like this one "Ronald C. Loop, Jr.
    Age 25 at time of death on March 11, 1988 in Brick Township, NJ. Suspected of marijuana dealing, Loop had just picked up a Federal Express package that contained 10 pounds of marijuana...."

    SUSPECTED? Looks like their suspcions were right. Oh wait...I am sure those 10 ponds were for himself.
    • Lyianis, on 03/03/2008, -2/+4That was killed for picking up a package that contained a non-lethal substance, who did not resist, nor had any chance to.
      You don't kill people for that. If its illegal you detain and arrest.
  • mazafakka, on 03/03/2008, -8/+2I like how the title is "FBI Murders Scott to Seize His Land. No Marijuana Found" however, after checking all sources I can find on teh intarwebs, I see no mention of the FBI being involved. Just a LA County Task Force that included the DEA. If the submitter can't even keep his/her agencies straight, perhaps all the facts are running together?
    • blackopsfreak06, on 03/03/2008, -4/+2Did you find it at all interesting that the Navy SEALS were allegedly used in a raid? I don't think that's ever been done, and I'm pretty sure that only the National Guard can be deployed on American soil, so...facts here are kinda fuzzy.
  • Joe_rigby, on 03/03/2008, -1/+12Put the men who killed and the heads of the agency responsible on death row. The coroner's report said "homicide", so there should be a criminal hearing.
    • Federaleeches, on 03/08/2008, -0/+0Im sure the guy that shot him smokes weed.
  • boxxa, on 03/03/2008, -11/+5I do not agree with 90% of that site at all. They try to build pity over people who were killed over the war on drugs and almost every story involved the person who was shot somehow had a weapon on them.

    If they were innocent, they wouldnt rush at any armed police or soldier with a gun.
    • emezeske, on 03/03/2008, -0/+9 Did you not read the first entry on the page? A clearly innocent guy rushed at armed police. Clearly innocent. He thought his wife's life was on the line, and acted to protect her and himself. Do you honestly think he would have rushed out with a gun if he knew that the intruders were armed policemen? Very, very few people would ever knowingly draw a firearm on the police. It happens, but not in your typical drug raid. Think about it -- if the police knock at the door and identify themselves, and you have only enough substance for personal use (like most entries on the site) -- pulling a gun just doesn't make sense. Run, hide the drugs, surrender, bribe the cops -- all these options are more attractive than entering a firefight with trained officers. You just ain't gonna win.
      • jgtg32a, on 03/03/2008, -1/+1"trained officers" Granted these were swat but
        Which one of the blue collar guys had the joke about cops shooting at a car 30 times and missed every shot, and some kid fires 8 shots and hits 10 people. We should just give the cops a roll of quarters and send them to the arcade, something like that.
        • ramunenke, on 03/03/2008, -0/+1would you actaully take those odds though? Maybe you could out shoot one but if GTA has taught us anything, shooting a cop brings more cops that are less likely to negotiate
    • Acewrap, on 03/03/2008, -3/+4You're a good little boot licker.
    • shotgunefx, on 03/03/2008, -1/+2I see what you are saying, and obviously, that site has an agenda, but there's more than a couple in there , when looking at more impartial sources, still stand as either tragedy or abhorrent. (maybe telling I only fact-checked a few)

      Reading the DA's report on Donald Scott, they should never have been there on that evidence. Even if the self defense shooting was justified in the context, they should never have been there.

      Rev. Accelyne Williams was certainly a tragic mistake. He didn't do anything wrong. No one contends otherwise. Certainly not the officers, two of which, I've met.

    • smotpoker1, on 03/03/2008, -4/+3your dumber than a box of rocks
    • shig, on 03/03/2008, -0/+3I'll rush armed police with a weapon if I feel self-defense is necessary for myself or a third-party. Tennessee Law TCA 39-11-611 sub-section E under Self-Defense;

      (e) The threat or use of force against another is not justified to resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless:
      (1) The law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt; and
      (2) The person reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

      The law defines force as anything up to and including deadly force. What else would I do? Call the police?
      • Wetzilla, on 03/03/2008, -0/+2Thats great that that is the law in Tennessee. Too bad this happened in California, and Tennessee law has no impact on what happened there.
  • Tyrghast, on 03/03/2008, -7/+1terrible yes but THIS WAS ON DIGG LESS THAN A MONTH AGO! WHAT THE ***** PEOPLE?
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.