Small plane crashes into Austin, TX office building

[JohnStOnge]

by that logic we should start killing defense attornies.

I didn't say we should start killing ANYBODY.

[youngterrier]

by that logic we should start killing defense attornies.

I didn't say we should start killing ANYBODY.

But you rationalized it and defended it which ultimately means you support it

[89Hen]

As for the whole AGS thing, there's one poster in particular

Seems like you took a long road to call out one poster.

[89Hen]

There is a paradox here because cops are necessary.

End game, you really paint yourself into a corner there. Certainly you don't suggest that cops be able to decide individually what is a crime and what isn't.

[danefan]

There is a paradox here because cops are necessary.

End game, you really paint yourself into a corner there. Certainly you don't suggest that cops be able to decide individually what is a crime and what isn't.

Of course he does. That's his whole beef with the IRS agents and anyone else in a position of authority or with duties of enforcement.

They are supposed to be judge and jury right there in the field or conference room and they themselves are supposed to represent the morality and social norms of the entire nation...........themselves.

There's no other way to logically explain JSO's positions.

[houndawg]

by that logic we should start killing defense attornies.

I didn't say we should start killing ANYBODY.

But you're going after the wrong ones, John. Even cops that are thugs are merely tools. Same with Stack; he should have flown to DC and paid a visit to Congress if he had a beef with pulling his weight.

[Ibanez]

There is a paradox here because cops are necessary.

End game, you really paint yourself into a corner there. Certainly you don't suggest that cops be able to decide individually what is a crime and what isn't.

It's not illegal when the President does it.

[89Hen]

End game, you really paint yourself into a corner there. Certainly you don't suggest that cops be able to decide individually what is a crime and what isn't.

It's not illegal when the President does it.

But it makes for good hyperbole.

[BDKJMU]

What kind of person does it take to be willing to arrest somebody for smoking a joint in their own home? Not the kind I have a lot of respect for.

No one gets arrested for simply smoking a joint in their own home.

[BDKJMU]

A little late to the party. But what's the verdict on this. Is Stack a terrorist or a hero?

I vote terrorist.

Terrorist

Back to the topic at hand from the JSo-YT back and forth. Interesting article here out the NBC affiliate out of Austin. You have R Congressman Mike McCaul calling it terrorism, but the Austin police chief and a UT prof being more circumspect:

Was Joe Stack a terrorist?
UT experts urge caution using the word

"....."I think when you fly an airplane into a federal building to kill people, it depends on how you define terrorism, but it sounds like it to me," said McCaul....

"I think motivation is what we have to look at," said thepolice chief. "The bottom line: Terrorism and criminal misconduct, street criminals commit terror every day in our streets and our neighborhoods."...

...""I think that there were components of terrorism in it," said Pedahzur, "but overall it couldn't qualify as an act of terrorism."

...According to University of Texas suicide terrorism expert Ami Pedahzur, Joseph Stack's attack did incorporate violence, reflect a political motive, single out a symbolic target and use a copycat method, flying a plane into a building, all characteristics of a terrorist act. But, says Pedahzur, because Stack appears to have been motivated by anger and revenge, rather than a desire to spread panic and fear among the civilian population, his act falls short of terrorism.

The similarities include Stack's use of violence, a motive that could be interpreted as political, the selection of a highly symbolic target like a building housing a federal tax collection office and a copycat methodology, in this case, flying a plane into a building. On the other hand, Pedahzur says it appears Stack was motivated by anger and a thirst for revenge, rather than an effort to sow panic and fear in the civilian population of the target area. Not that people were not terrorized by what happened at the Echelon complex, he is quick to add, but that does not appear to be the pilot's primary objective.

People, of course, are free to accept that analysis or reject it. The professor, however, wonders why we even bother....."
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/was- ... -terrorist

[Skjellyfetti]

What kind of person does it take to be willing to arrest somebody for smoking a joint in their own home? Not the kind I have a lot of respect for.

No one gets arrested for simply smoking a joint in their own home.

Yeah, they do.

-- The Polk County Sheriff's Office says two teachers have been arrested for possession of pot in their home.

According to deputies, all three admitted to smoking marijuana socially at Goldsmith's home. They were taken to the county jail at Bartow on charges of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and maintaining a dwelling for drug use. ( )

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=98842

Granted, you have to be pretty stupid or have someone really hate you to get busted for smoking a little pot on your couch.

[danefan]

I tend to follow this definition of terrorism: "a desire to spread panic and fear among the civilian population" but I agree - why doens't it even matter?

[BDKJMU]

No one gets arrested for simply smoking a joint in their own home.

Yeah, they do.

-- The Polk County Sheriff's Office says two teachers have been arrested for possession of pot in their home.

According to deputies, all three admitted to smoking marijuana socially at Goldsmith's home. They were taken to the county jail at Bartow on charges of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and maintaining a dwelling for drug use. ( )

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=98842

Granted, you have to be pretty stupid or have someone really hate you to get busted for smoking a little pot on your couch.

How much time did you spend scouring the internet for that year old article?

There was three of them with "one large bong, five glass pipes, one cannabis grinder and marijuana. Jail records indicate the marijuana was less than 20 grams."

Show me where ONE person smoking in his own home with has ever gotten arrested for smoking ONE joint with no other drugs or drug paraphernalia present.

[CID1990]

No one gets arrested for simply smoking a joint in their own home.

Yeah, they do.

-- The Polk County Sheriff's Office says two teachers have been arrested for possession of pot in their home.

According to deputies, all three admitted to smoking marijuana socially at Goldsmith's home. They were taken to the county jail at Bartow on charges of possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia, and maintaining a dwelling for drug use. ( )

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=98842

Granted, you have to be pretty stupid or have someone really hate you to get busted for smoking a little pot on your couch.

Seriously, of course people have been arrested for simple possession inside their homes. But I can tell you this- it is almost always in areas where there just isn't a heck of a lot going on, and it is VERY rare.

In the bigger cities where the cops are actually busy, the ratio of pot we dump in the gutter to the ratio of pot we seize and charge people for is like 50-1. I've had more kids on the East Side in Charleston dump their nickel in the storm drain than I can count. At the end of the day, the arrest just isn't worth the paperwork when there won't even be a trial or a penalty. This is one reason that a lot cops have always thought that we should decriminalize the stuff. Many cops think all of it should be legal; the whole smash... pot, coke, heroin, crystal meth, you name it. It just isn't worth chasing.

When I went to Iraq I had an opportunity to talk with other cops from all over the country, and the stories are all the same. Unless you have an amount that suggest selling or trafficking, there's usually not going to be an arrest unless there are some other aggravating circumstances. There's just too much other stuff going on to justify peeking in people's windows, and unless your window is right next to the sidewalk or street, you're not going to get a conviction if you have to walk into someone's yard or driveway to detect the weed.

[BlueHen86]

Here's an article about the guy who was killed:

http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Vernon-H ... n%20Hunter

[JohnStOnge]

End game, you really paint yourself into a corner there. Certainly you don't suggest that cops be able to decide individually what is a crime and what isn't.

I don't see myself in a corner at all. I think that, in just about any job, one encouters things that he or she doesn't agree with. You either have to do such things as they arise, find a way to avoid doing them without losing your job, or resign. But there are certain jobs that, going in, are known to require certain things. A person who is a cop doesn't get to decide what's against the law and what's not against the law. But a person can decide not to become a cop because being a cop is going to require that he or she enforce laws that represent oppression. Or they could decide they're really not be in a job that's going to require that they push other people around.

The paradox is that if that if everybody made that decision the society couldn't function. There are many laws that are necessary. We need laws and enforcers to curtail things that really are attacks of individuals upon others. Home burglaries, Rapes. Murders. So on. But that doesn't change the fact that taking that job says something about someone. Of course I'm sure those of you who disagree with me think it says something positive. But there is no inconsistency or conflict between recognizing that a job is necessary yet having concerns about the personality type likely to take that job.

[JohnStOnge]

Here's a link to comment on the number of arrests for simple possession of marijuana from our friends at NORML:

http://blog.norml.org/2008/09/15/872721 ... from-2006/

Of course NORML is an advocacy group. But here is a link to the report from which they got their numbers:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html

You can verify NORML's numbers by first clicking on the link to Table 29 and noting that there were an estimated 1,841,182 arrests for drug related offenses in 2007. After that hit the "back" button on your browser, scroll to the table at the bottom left of the page, and note that 42.1 percent of drug abuse violation arrests were for possession of marijuana.

Does anybody doubt that if we wanted to put ourselves through the trouble we could find plenty of instances among those 775,138 arrests for simple possession of marijuana in which we'd find situations basically similar to somebody smoking a joint in their own home in terms of level of intrusion upon Liberty?

[kalm]

Here's a link to comment on the number of arrests for simple possession of marijuana from our friends at NORML:

http://blog.norml.org/2008/09/15/872721 ... from-2006/

Of course NORML is an advocacy group. But here is a link to the report from which they got their numbers:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html

You can verify NORML's numbers by first clicking on the link to Table 29 and noting that there were an estimated 1,841,182 arrests for drug related offenses in 2007. After that hit the "back" button on your browser, scroll to the table at the bottom left of the page, and note that 42.1 percent of drug abuse violation arrests were for possession of marijuana.

Does anybody doubt that if we wanted to put ourselves through the trouble we could find plenty of instances among those 775,138 arrests for simple possession of marijuana in which we'd find situations basically similar to somebody smoking a joint in their own home in terms of level of intrusion upon Liberty?

Also consider the fact that many drug related arrests are low hanging fruit compared with, say certain white collar crime which is more difficult to prosecute.

[CID1990]

Here's a link to comment on the number of arrests for simple possession of marijuana from our friends at NORML:

http://blog.norml.org/2008/09/15/872721 ... from-2006/

Of course NORML is an advocacy group. But here is a link to the report from which they got their numbers:

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/arrests/index.html

You can verify NORML's numbers by first clicking on the link to Table 29 and noting that there were an estimated 1,841,182 arrests for drug related offenses in 2007. After that hit the "back" button on your browser, scroll to the table at the bottom left of the page, and note that 42.1 percent of drug abuse violation arrests were for possession of marijuana.

Does anybody doubt that if we wanted to put ourselves through the trouble we could find plenty of instances among those 775,138 arrests for simple possession of marijuana in which we'd find situations basically similar to somebody smoking a joint in their own home in terms of level of intrusion upon Liberty?

Simple possession statute are different in every state. Plus, simple possession does not mean that someone was arrested for smoking pot in their living room. In fact, it almost never means that.

As for people being cops and not getting to decide what is legal and what isn't- there is still officer discretion. A violation does not dictate an arrest, and an arrest does not dictate a detention.

But you already knew that from CSI Miami, right?

[JohnStOnge]

As for people being cops and not getting to decide what is legal and what isn't- there is still officer discretion. A violation does not dictate an arrest, and an arrest does not dictate a detention.

But you already knew that from CSI Miami, right?

I have never watched CSI Miami, nor do I watch any "cop" shows. I don't know the specific rules governing police behavior on arrests. I assume that, as a practical matter, there are plenty of times when they could arrest somebody but don't. Just like if they stopped everybody who was speeding they're be citing millions of people every day. But that doesn't change the fact that if they take the job they know they may be in a position to have to arrest somebody for something like prostitution or possession of marijuana.