DEA hit 5 grow operations in Denver yesterday

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lowbeyond

wait you complain about an ad hominem, then in the next sentence you bust out an appeal to authority, namely - yourself!

---

No, you read that wrong- that was in response to cofi's remark, and referring to myself on the education matter- I have more education on matters of law enforcement than I did 6 months ago, I can't assume how much education cofi has on the subject- I was inferring my own level having increased.

I am surprised the feds don't legalize it and give it away free to try to mellow us out while they bend us over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trlcavscout

I am surprised the feds don't legalize it and give it away free to try to mellow us out while they bend us over.

---

Too much money to be made fighting it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ah Pook

Too much money to be made fighting it.

---

Got to be more than the money, lots of money to be made on the legal side as well (though not directly by the police forces). I think alot of it is about the control you get by having a drug war. Another excuse for warrants, another excuse to dig into the private lives of your citizens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by merl

Got to be more than the money, lots of money to be made on the legal side as well (though not directly by the police forces). I think alot of it is about the control you get by having a drug war. Another excuse for warrants, another excuse to dig into the private lives of your citizens.

---

I agree. I think it is more about restricting wealth than it is about digging into lives. Similar to death taxes that prevent property from being passed down among generations. What good is a population that owns land and has money? What need of the the government does a population like that have?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin13

I'm not 100% sure on that, but it would seem that kind of accusation is an attack on K-9 Officers' integrity and professionalism... which I would see more as rare- the vast majority of police are honest and have the integrity to not make up evidence. I wouldn't go nearly as far as to say "most" alerts by drug-sniffing K9s are planted based on cues by the handler. That's like saying "most vehicle searches are preformed on false pretenses by dishonest cops" which is simply not true. As far as evidence obtained by drug dogs- the SCOTUS ruled it's admissible in court- Florida V. Harris where "Justice Elena Kagan stated that the dog's certification and continued training are adequate indication of his reliability, and thus is sufficient to presume the dog's alert provides probable cause to search, using the "totality-of-the-circumstances" test per Illinois v. Gates." A decision made Feb 19, 2013.

---

I will say this Ronin, I have a personal belief that someone whose livelihood depends on a certain industry, whatever that industry is, really shouldn't be an outspoken supporter of a controversial topic that has to do with that industry. For example, I work in the oil and gas industry. My livelihood is made because people come by my products, and then use them for fracking 99/100. I really try and stay away from talking to people about fracking, because I feel like even though I have more knowledge than the average person on the subject, I'm getting paid enough to support my family because of fracking. Where does my knowledge of fracking come from? The industry professionals who I speak with on a daily basis. What is their livelihood as well?

If you are pulling a paycheck from some company/org that has some controversial element to it, it just comes across being a lobbyist if you are outspoken about it. Now does that mean that the industry knowledge that I have about fracking or the industry knowledge you have about law enforcement is incorrect? Not at all, but if you are in the industry I just dont think that you can be the voice or reason to soothe some people's worries or concerns.

Again, my own personal opinion, but in discussions like this I have found it to my advantage to sit on the sidelines until the end (or until someone asks for your opinion).

Everyone needs to shut the hell up and let the law enforcement expert speak....

Go ahead, Ronin, continue......

Sent from my teepee using smoke signals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colorado_Outback

Don't act like a douche, it also works really good. ;)

---

I refuse to match wits with the unarmed...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by def90

Police dogs only have success rate of about 20% in detecting anything anyway. Their success rate is extremely exagerated much like polygraph tests and in many locations not admisable in court. Most hits by police dogs are planted hits where the dog knows it is supposed to alert based on a cue by the handler.

sent from a soup can and some string..

---

I'm gonna have to throw the BS card down on this. And Ronin is right on with his post.

* Disclaimer: My experience as a narc do handler is strictly .Mil so I have only a little experience with civilians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPTactical

And I feel so warm and fuzzy about Kagans statement/ruling.
A dog can be taught to alert on something even though nothing is there with nothing more than a subtle gesture on its handlers part, such as a simple hand movement.

I don't see this "Industry" surviving with the polar opposites of state vs federal law.
And on the subject of Obutthole's DOJ statement regarding it, Riiight!
Everything this admenstruation says is contrare.
The performance of them proves it, regardless of the subject.

---

Very I love you to Death man but not all drug dog handlers are out to get everyone. You all need to realize that my dog could detect a roach if you had just smoked it. Some dogs just are that good.