“Cocaine, amphetamines, methamphetamine, and heroin have all been legal and regulated. And they were made illegal because of public safety issues. So legalizing a drug doesn't make it safe, or diminish the criminal justice issues surrounding drug use.”
HotelDrama on Oct 29, 2013 at 23:54:26
“A cursory look at Prohibition and our current War on Drugs shows exactly the same thing. Prohibiting a substance does not make it go away, but does make the usage of it more dangerous along with increasing official corruption and violent organized crime. When drugs are legalized, they aren't going to be cut with rat poison. When they are made illegal, we know things like that happen.
And BTW, most of the drugs you mention are still legal and regulated. Cocaine, amphetamines and methamphetamine are prescription drugs that can be legally had with a doctors prescription, or use by a doctor. How many stories do you hear about the organized crime dealing with the legal cocaine trade? Or the legal opium trade? How many stories do you hear about legal opium or cocaine being cut with horrible agents?
Prohibition doesn't work. We need to try a new approach.”
“So if someone shouts at you twice to drop a gun (and you are carrying a gun), you wouldn't turn around? Honestly, I can see how the kid would have turned around because he might not have thought the deputy was talking to him.
But from the deputy's perspective, when someone who is carrying an assault rifle fails to drop it as instructed and instead turns around, that is a real lethal threat.”
mothergrace on Oct 29, 2013 at 23:02:34
“Then the deputy must take that very basic human reaction into account and act accordingly.
Somehow, some way, this could have been avoided and unless the kid raised the gun in preparation to shoot, I cannot see how this is justified.”
EmanuelWazar on Oct 29, 2013 at 12:14:21
“Real life is not a game of "tag"
Cops shout to try to COMMUNICATE ie; the purpose is for information to be transmitted to someone.
Cops dont shout of people to have an excuse to escape liability.
Shouting at someone, twice, from complete surprise, is HORRIBLE communication and the only reasonable expectation is for someone to NOT understand what is being shouted at them.”
“Well, that simply isn't true. Bath salts were legal and people still took them. They are now illegal, and yes, people still use them. But law enforcement at least has an avenue in which to go after those that sell these dangerous drugs and get those drugs off the street.”
HotelDrama on Oct 30, 2013 at 00:01:04
“How many success stories do we have? What drugs have the police actually gotten off the streets? Considering that we have more and more drugs hitting the streets, can't we safely state and the police have been an abject failure and reducing drug supply? Considering that this is true, why are we still advocating for a system that we know fails? Just so we can throw money away and destroy countless lives?”
Nick humphreys on Oct 28, 2013 at 23:10:42
“The drug commonly called bath salts (it isnt actually bath salts but a lab made drug will a chemical composition close to the drug it is intended to mimic) is fairly new. If the other drugs currently prohibited were not prohibited there would be zero need or market for these new designer drugs. That is fact. Why would anybody go through the effort of making these analogs if the real thing was legal? If you think law enforcement is keeping drugs off the street you need to get your prescription fixed. They can't keep drugs out of prison, let alone the prison state.”
AdamWest1313 on Oct 28, 2013 at 23:09:44
“You did nothing to counter Nick's argument. His argument was that if the other drugs were legal, people would not resort to drugs like bath salts that skirt around the law but end up being particularly harmful.”
“I agree with you that this forum has been filed with horrible comments. But your comment throwing race into a situation where you have ZERO evidence to back it up is just as bad. This deputy contacted a person who he believed had an assault rifle (it's a replica of an AK-47), called for the person to drop the gun, and when the person failed to drop the and instead turned around with the barrel of the gun about to be pointed at the deputy, the deputy reasonably feared for his life. Yes, it took 10 seconds from the time of contact to the time of shots fired, but when the barrel of an assault weapon is about to be pointed at you, time is not on your side.”
EmanuelWazar on Oct 29, 2013 at 12:23:39
“So ANY child with a gun, even a real one, who turns around to face people shouting loudly at him from complete surprise behind his back = execution ?
Is this the standard?
I keep hearing this "didn't listen". Really? Someone from behind your back shouts at you TWICE! a loud order that doesn't make immediate sense. Are you going to turn around?
When did the expectation become that if you are not able to understand IMMEDIATELY an officers instructions from jet blue surprise = execution
It's not like there was a chase, or altercation, or ANY CONTEXT whatsoever.
Using immediate and lethal force outside of ANY CONTEXT on the premise that someone does not comply with instructions "the right way, and IMMEDIATELY" is very dangerous.”
“It seems like everyone here wants to label someone as "at fault." This is real life people, accidents happen and very often there is no one to blame. This is one of those cases. The deputy had every reason to believe he was facing a suspect armed with an assault rifle who was about to point it at him. The kid (who clearly knows he isn't a threat), heard something and turned around to investigate. He didn't realize he was going to point the barrel of his pellet gun at a cop. It's a tragedy, but searching for someone to blame and demonize is ridiculous.”
mothergrace on Oct 29, 2013 at 02:14:40
“"about to point it at him"
Should not the police have anticipated that he would turn to see who was shouting at him and reacted accordingly? Is this a game? Shout at someone from behind their back, knowing they will turn, and then when they do, shoot them?
“How quickly we forget recent history (or the authors' didn't do basic research). Bath salts were legal in the united states, heck, they are still technically legal in 9 states (pending legislation). So this concept that prohibition caused the problem of bath salts is ridiculous. Making bath salts illegal occurred AFTER local law enforcement and medical authorities found it was a problem.”
modurhead on Feb 9, 2014 at 00:30:11
“and the so called problem was overhyped by the media and the ban crazy cops. its in the article if you read it”
HotelDrama on Oct 29, 2013 at 10:15:31
“Many drugs are legal before they are illegal. Most of them are/were. But the reason many of these drugs are produced is because of prohibition. If many of the known illegal drugs were legal and regulated, there would be no need for people to create these other highly dangerous drugs because there would be very little demand.”
deleweye on Oct 29, 2013 at 00:38:15
“The drug use problem will never be solved by prohibition or really anything else. The best you will ever do is harm reduction.
The drug corruption problem can be ended any time we stop listening to vested interests like you "drug-fighting" cops.”
Nick humphreys on Oct 28, 2013 at 21:34:56
“Nobody would take bath salts and likely no one would have even felt the need to come up with a drug to skirt the laws if the was no prohibition.”
“I understand that, but these drugs are incredibly dangerous regardless of their legality. The legality of a drug will not change it's chemical nature. In fact, bath salts were legal until it recently became a problem.”
AdamWest1313 on Oct 28, 2013 at 20:10:28
“But the point is that these drugs would not exist without prohibition. If you legalize the base drug involved in these, then there is no need for them to be cut with the ingredients that lead to the ones mentioned in this article.”
“So is the point of this article to say that we should regulate and allow these drugs? Sorry, but I support the arrest and incarceration of those who sell and manufacture these drugs. Plus using dissociative hallucinogens is a major threat to public safety, anyone who thinks they should be allowed should be made to fight someone under the influence of bath salts or pcp.”
AdamWest1313 on Oct 28, 2013 at 18:51:19
“No, the article (if you read it) was arguing that we need to legalize and regulate the pure forms of these drugs to avoid the effects of the ingredients many of these are cut with. For example, they argue that "bath salts" should be regulated and legalized in an effort to avoid the negative side effects, such as extreme anger.”
Pizza Guy on Oct 28, 2013 at 13:14:10
“The main point is the war on drugs has failed and is leading to the development of even more dangerous compounds.
Lookat the facts:
-- the drugs coming into the U.S. today (heroin, cocaine, marijuana) are more pure than 20 years ago
-- the volume of drugs coming into the U.S. today has quadrupled compared to 20 years ago
-- the cost of the war on drugs has been hundreds of billions of dollars.
If you stepped back and looked at those facts you would have to conclude the war has completely failed.
The point is that perhaps the money should be spent differently, for example on drug treatment programs and combating poverty.”
nojust1 on Oct 28, 2013 at 12:59:10
“I think you're missing the point of the article. It's prohibition that's created this problem of "home made" drugs. The other point is that no matter if it's legal or not, it won't stop and addict.”
unoleian on Oct 28, 2013 at 12:56:48
“I believe the main thrust of the article was that many of these would never be options even considered by users if 'safer' options were to be decrim'ed, produced legitimately, and provided for their use. Main point being, almost no effort to stem drug use has been effective, and people choose to get high regardless of the law. The law being what it is makes people pursue even more dangerous, home-brew outlets for their highs and ultimately cost society more in the long run as a result than having access to cleaner, safer, purer drugs ultimately would. In a way, decriminalization efforts may seem like 'surrender' to a problem, and perhaps in a way it is, but given the costs in enforcement and public safety that arise as costs of the wars against drugs, might be a more pragmatic solution to a thus-far unsolvable problem. And yes, dissociative hallucinogens can be quite dangerous to users and their sanity, and by extension dangerous to those around them as well. I don't think anyone is advocating that everyone run out and buy some legal bath salts, but there is certainly the suggestion that offering cleaner alternatives may dissuade many from pursuing such substances in the first place.”
“Go to a shooting range and try it. From 10 yards, I can just about guarantee at least 1 of 5 rounds will end up on a target just by pointing and shooting without aiming. I'm a firearms instructor and tell my students all the time aiming at less than 15 yards is pointless when shooting for time.”
2center on Oct 29, 2013 at 03:58:57
“1 There is an big difference between clipping a target and putting a round in a vital location. Consider that the cop probably had his weapon out and aimed before he yelled for the kid to "drop the gun" and still only had 2 fatal hits out of 8, although 7 hits overall.
2 You still have to acquire the target (see it, recognize it, focus on it) before you can point at it.
I also have the suspicion that what you are calling pointing is aiming without using the sights, rather than just pointing the firearm in the general direction - from the hip or otherwise.”
turkeyhunter1960 on Oct 27, 2013 at 22:57:26
“Let's look at the deputies actions from a different angle.
As a firearms instructor, what is your opinion on the life expectancy of the two deputies had that been a real AK and the suspect was in fact wanting to do them harm and had a moderate amount of training with the firearm. Let's make it a semi auto 7.62x39.
Let's assume that the suspect knows they are deputies and he is aware of them from the moment the deputies stopped their cruiser 30' behind him.”
“"As the figure turns around, he doesn't give this person time to acquire him as a target"
From a distance of 30 feet you do not need any time to acquire a target. Just turn around and fire from the hip. If the muzzle is pointed in the general direction, odds are you are going to get some rounds on target. And that is what the deputy was reasonably fearing.”
2center on Oct 27, 2013 at 16:23:16
“"If the muzzle is pointed in the general direction, odds are you are going to get some rounds on target."
I disagree. The likelihood is that you (the average person) will NOT hit what you are pointing at, but hit something / someone else downrange.
Secondly, it takes time to process a scene and recognize / acquire a target. Granted, the flashing lights will attract your attention, but there is still a lag time involved.
That said, my purpose in the post was to contrast the two probable participant viewpoints here - not assign blame. I meant it when I said that police field work was low-intensity combat - quiet, quiet, quiet, 2 minutes of terror/reactions, quiet, quiet, quiet. And during the quiet times being ready for the 2 minutes to occur.”
“The odds of hitting someone in the leg is incredibly small when you are under a high stress scenario. And the shock of hitting someone in the leg won't cause someone to drop their gun, they can still get rounds off.”
turkeyhunter1960 on Oct 27, 2013 at 16:52:02
“Really, this deputy managed to hit 7 out of 8 times including limbs 3 times.
Right hip twice
Right side or chest (from the side, not the front)
Notice not one of the bullets hit the child from the front.”
“"Sure, because he would have been correct. It's being wrong that has to have consequences."
To me that makes no sense. The gun looked exactly like an AK-47, to criticize the deputy for information he could only have known after the shooting is silly.
Also there is no need to aim a rifle when you are shooting from 30 feet. With an AK-47, you just point it in the general direction and pull the trigger. You are bound to hit your target at a distance of 10 yards.”
Mitchell Horton on Oct 27, 2013 at 20:23:57
“It makes perfect sense. He decided to fire without being positive it was actually a weapon; without being positive it was being wielded aggressively; without determining whether a crime was actually being committed. If he had been right, there's no mistake made, and not punishment is required.
Being WRONG requires consequences.
My point is that it's his OBLIGATION to have found out before the shooting.”
“I am a firearms instructor and I'm not sure where you get the ridiculous notion that an AK-47 is safer at 30 feet away than 200 feet away. And why do you have the idea that cops are supposed to put their lives on the line and take a bullet?
The question is if this was an AK-47, would you support what this deputy did?”
Mitchell Horton on Oct 27, 2013 at 14:32:24
“Sure, because he would have been correct. It's being wrong that has to have consequences. He assumed it was a rifle, and acted appropriately based on that assumption. If the assumption is correct, then he acted appropriately across the board.
My point is that they need to be more careful in their assumptions when those assumptions lead to dead children, and that assumptions and decisions (because it wasn't an accident at all- he decided to shoot, he decided to assume it was a gun, he didn't accidentally fire, he was wrong, but with good intentions.)
But good intentions don't save lives, consequences do.
And it's safer at 200 feet than at 30 because you can't adjust the aim on a rifle at 30 ft before someone can close.”
“The dispatcher created the incident from deputies calling in that they were contacting a suspicious person.”
AZLibDem on Oct 27, 2013 at 13:14:38
“I understand that; however, since we are talking about a short time, and it takes time to actually make the entries, I think that taking those timestamps as a record of what happened at the scene is unreasonable.”
“Bullets can ricochet. And the idea of using a lethal weapon in a non-lethal manner is bad policy. Departments have gone away from using lethal weapons in non-lethal fashions because there were even more accidental shootings. They should only be used when your life is in immediate danger. Having the barrel of an assault weapon about to be pointed at you qualifies as immediate life-threatening danger.”
Jack Straw on Oct 28, 2013 at 09:37:16
“Boy you sure put a Fox News style spin on things. There was no assault rifle, ergo there was no assault rifle barrel being pointed at anyone. ”
“We live in a democratic republic, so citizens have a say in how departments are run through their electing politicians who appoint department leadership. That's about it, I don't see how we can let citizens micromanage everything the department does and second-guess every decision.
This wasn't a Daisy BB gun. It was an exact replica of an AK-47. How can you expect an officer to immediately tell the difference, especially when the gun is about to be pointed at you?”
Rosie2 on Oct 27, 2013 at 14:50:14
“Wonder why toy guns or pellet guns are allowed to be made to look like the real thing? I would think that when shot so close the child would have had to have dropped the gun after the first shot...but shot seven times and knowing it was a kid?”
onemadashell on Oct 27, 2013 at 14:49:08
“no i expect them to be smart enough to know that when you are behind someone yelling at them that they are going to turn around and face you. the boy had NO idea WHO was YELLING at him.”
“There are also real guns everywhere. How can you reasonably ask someone when faced with the potential of death to take a chance that a gun that looks exactly like an assault rifle might be a fake? Cops are human too, with families and kids. They have a right to go home at the end of the day safely. They definitely cannot predict the future any better than you or I. Cops have been shot with assault rifles in similar, rapidly-evolving situations.
Your attitude that every decision must have a consequence, whether right or wrong is rather odd. This was a mistake (no argument on that one), but it was an accident. And given everything the deputy knew at the time, I don't see how the outcome would have changed.”
“There is nothing wrong with supporting changing the law, but you can't punish the deputy for acting within the confines of the the law.
I agree this shooting was a mistake. That doesn't mean the deputy was wrong. He believed an AK-47 was about to be pointed at him. An Ak-47 is a lethal threat, especially when it is 20-30 feet away. In this day and age with school shootings, I'm not sure why his age and time of day had bearing on stopping him.”
Mitchell Horton on Oct 27, 2013 at 12:39:41
“He was wrong. He made a conscious decision to kill that kid instead of take even the slightest chance that he might be hurt, and he was wrong.
And you certainly CAN punish him for acting within the confines of the law. The Legal System can't.
But the police can have policies that if you kill innocent civilians, you're not back out on the street with your gun in a month. At the very least, you clearly make bad decisions in the head of the moment like that, and we need to take you out of those situations.
And an AK is less dangerous at 30 feet than at 200, just in case you don't actually understand how a rifle works.
His age and time of day have bearing because HE WAS AN INNOCENT CHILD.
You can make all the excuses you want, but I don't believe that a cop should be allowed to shoot anyone who could be posing a threat.
Maybe if there was a civilian in danger, like if the kid had been pretending to hoot another kid or some random person, then yes, drop him, don't let another civilian be at risk.
But cops are supposed to take those risks for us. Ideally, they would talk down every criminal, and would only have to kill the ones determined to die. But at least an EFFORT of talking them down has to be required. Not a "DROP THE GUN -BLAM BLAM BLAM-”
“Very few things annoy me more than people with ZERO knowledge of law enforcement telling cops how there jobs should be done and criticizing them when the don't do the job like it's done in Hollywood. If your concept of a better idea is a warning shot, waiting for someone to fire first, using binoculars, hitting the person in the arms or legs, or being able to tell minute differences between a real assault weapon and one designed as a look-alike, then no one should care what you have to say because you do not know what you are talking about. I don't give doctors, firefighters, pilots, teachers, etc. ridiculous ideas on how they can do their job, and neither should and people do the same with cops.”
onemadashell on Oct 27, 2013 at 14:47:11
“funny cuz most of the cops dont know the laws either.”
artcave on Oct 27, 2013 at 12:33:04
“So you're suggesting average citizens should have no say in how the police department is run.
Here's the way it works. People decide what they want and need. Then the police can say what they are capable of doing. Then the people agree or not.
But your suggestion that cops should be allowed to shoot and kill everyone with any Daisy BB gun.