View Full Version : A clean self-defense shoot...by a pot grower
Wow this story is stranger than fiction. At first I thought it would be one of those positive examples of a valid self-defense shooting. Two heavily armed guys break into a house, homeowner kills them both, saving himself and his 9 y.o. son.
Except for one thing: he has an illegal pot operation in his home. And except for one more thing: it happened the day that pot became "legal" in WA state. I suspect that won't help him in the end. Pot growers are still going to be regulated by the state to keep it "safe." :-)
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Police-2-intruders-shot-killed-at-marijuana-grow-house--182391481.html
Yeah protecting your kid and home ain't exactly the same as protecting your crack house so it's a good idea to not call the crack house home.
If it wasn't a grow house, he probably wouldn't have gotten hit in the first place. They were there for drugs and money from drugs.
Belmont31R
12-07-12, 14:53
Yeah protecting your kid and home ain't exactly the same as protecting your crack house so it's a good idea to not call the crack house home.
If it wasn't a grow house, he probably wouldn't have gotten hit in the first place. They were there for drugs and money from drugs.
So? People break into houses for all kinds of reasons...
So? People break into houses for all kinds of reasons...
Exactly. Looks like a decent pad, and relatively isolated. Which means there's loot to be had along with a lower chance of getting caught.
Say someone was having an illegal poker game in their domicile, does that mean they don't have a right to defend themselves?
I wonder how this is going to play out? Numerous things come to mind here. One of them being "endangering the welfare of a child" among other things.
Doc Safari
12-07-12, 15:33
Where are Cheech and Chong when you really need 'em?
:jester:
Yeah protecting your kid and home ain't exactly the same as protecting your crack house so it's a good idea to not call the crack house home.
If it wasn't a grow house, he probably wouldn't have gotten hit in the first place. They were there for drugs and money from drugs.
It doesn't state anywhere in the article that this was a "Crack House". He was growing pot. Not apples to apples...
So pot growers have no right to self defense?
What does it matter the object the criminals were going to steal was pot VS. car or other such object?
What if you were at home drunk and had to shoot an intruder- would you have no right to self defense because you were drunk and it is clearly against the law (In most jurisdictions) to handle a firearm as such?
What about prozac or valium? Had surgery and are on oxyconton? What if you take sleeping pills? NO RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE?
I'm not saying the guy isn't and idiot, he clearly is with a child in a grow house- that is dumb shit right there.
But how do "rights" magically go away in "certain circumstances" such as these?
My understanding is that a "Right" is just that A ****ING RIGHT. As in you cannot take it away, you cannot limit it, you cannot dole out permissionto utilize a "Right".
We have erroded our rights into permissions granted by our nanny-state. It is disgusting.
I still cannot get over LEO's enforcing Concealed carry laws. It is clearly in violation of 2A- regardless of what SCOTUS says or not. The right to bear arms is just that, the right to bear them. LEO's take the constitutional oath, and enforcing unconstitutional laws is in direct violation of that oath, of our founding fathers, and of our natural born rights. (Any LEO who would give me their perspective here- it would be greatly appreciated)
I'm sick of the "Groups" who get certain "rights" and other "Groups" cannot have certain "rights" because of ______ (Insert ignorant fuzzy feeling lolli-pop/butterfly BS here).
Just because someone grows a naturally occuring plant doesn't mean they should be stripped of natural born/constitutional rights.
How some of you (Not speaking to anyone in particular, I just have a bad tatse in my mouth form the other thread where the wheelchair ridden gentleman murdered someone and people were calling for limits on voting and concealed carry. ****ING BULLSHIT!) can justify the striupping of rights is well beyond my understanding.
"The world has moved on..."
Belmont31R
12-07-12, 15:53
Exactly. Looks like a decent pad, and relatively isolated. Which means there's loot to be had along with a lower chance of getting caught.
Say someone was having an illegal poker game in their domicile, does that mean they don't have a right to defend themselves?
Yep. People have been killed over a pair of Air Jordan's in the ghetto. Maybe we should ban shoes or self defense if wearing expensive shoes because you're just asking to get mugged and killed over a pair of shoes. :rolleyes:
Moose-Knuckle
12-07-12, 16:01
This one will be intersting to watch playout for sure.
So? People break into houses for all kinds of reasons...
Despite weed being legal, it sounds like this guy was WAY over the legal "ounce" limit and growing is still illegal. So basically he was protecting an illegal enterprise and self defense laws don't apply in the same way as with regular folks.
That is why FL "stand your ground" laws are predicated on the defender having not been engaged in any unlawful activity. Otherwise home invaders could use "stand your ground" laws for their defense.
And that is also why IF you are going to have an illegal grow house it is wise NOT to live in it with your family because you won't have the same legal grounds to protect yourself as you would if you maintained a separate residence.
Not to mention the entire "put your kid at undue risk by living in a drug house" thing.
It doesn't state anywhere in the article that this was a "Crack House". He was growing pot. Not apples to apples...
Feel free to substitute drug house.
Say someone was having an illegal poker game in their domicile, does that mean they don't have a right to defend themselves?
Possibly. Along the same lines as running a brothel. Not really the same threat as other criminal activity but it may eliminate or lessen your right to defend yourself or the property. This is primarily due to the distinct possibility it will be subject to a police raid.
Criminals simply are NOT equal to lawful home defenders.
I would totally smoke weed if it was legal here. On my days off.
Belmont31R
12-07-12, 16:54
Despite weed being legal, it sounds like this guy was WAY over the legal "ounce" limit and growing is still illegal. So basically he was protecting an illegal enterprise and self defense laws don't apply in the same way as with regular folks.
That is why FL "stand your ground" laws are predicated on the defender having not been engaged in any unlawful activity. Otherwise home invaders could use "stand your ground" laws for their defense.
And that is also why IF you are going to have an illegal grow house it is wise NOT to live in it with your family because you won't have the same legal grounds to protect yourself as you would if you maintained a separate residence.
Not to mention the entire "put your kid at undue risk by living in a drug house" thing.
Meh. Only has the stigma it does because it's been illegal for so long. What about an alcoholics house or cigarette smokers house?
My hope is one day pot growing doesn't mean you can't defend your famlily from thieves. Seems like blaming the rape victim for their choice of attire instead of the perp. Thieving is still thieving even if the thing they were there to steal is illegal.
Feel free to substitute drug house.
Isn't every house a "Drug House" by default?
Tylenol, Viagra, Ibuprofen, Naproxen Sodium, Valium, Prozac, Xanax, Propecia, Nuprin(liitle- yellow- different), vicoden, percoset, caffeine, alcohol, tobacco , et alii...
All are drugs. All of us have at least one or more of these in our homes. All can be good for you or bad for you depending upon specific use.
All of us live in "drug houses"; it is just "acceptable" "drugs" by societys definition (Society and our Gummint are way off base on a lot of what is accepted VS. what is not; very inconsistent).
I'm against taking away peoples rights when they are not doing anything wrong, and not hurting anyone.
To me- taking away someones rights is more damaging to the individual and society as a whole than the growing of the pot in the first place. IT is an effing plant that grows everywhere naturally- that has very few negtative effects (Other than the laws and punishment prescribed by society) compared to the list I gave above for Chrissake.
Isn't every house a "Drug House" by default?
Tylenol, Viagra, Ibuprofen, Naproxen Sodium, Valium, Prozac, Xanax, Propecia, Nuprin(liitle- yellow- different), vicoden, percoset, caffeine, alcohol, tobacco .
Whatever your position on pot the guy put his family in danger.
"Two heavily armed intruders..." are not looking for Tylenol. They were looking for the cash that goes with the drug trade.
Meh. Only has the stigma it does because it's been illegal for so long. What about an alcoholics house or cigarette smokers house?
My hope is one day pot growing doesn't mean you can't defend your famlily from thieves. Seems like blaming the rape victim for their choice of attire instead of the perp. Thieving is still thieving even if the thing they were there to steal is illegal.
The difference is currently it isn't ILLEGAL for a rape victim to dress like a disco whore, but it IS illegal to have a grow house. Personally I could almost "give a shit" about weed, I'm just noting what the laws are currently. I have similar views about brothels, I think they should be legal in zoned areas but shouldn't be in residential areas where they put a neighborhood at risk. And only a seriously ****ed up person would raise their children in either one of them.
Isn't every house a "Drug House" by default?
Tylenol, Viagra, Ibuprofen, Naproxen Sodium, Valium, Prozac, Xanax, Propecia, Nuprin(liitle- yellow- different), vicoden, percoset, caffeine, alcohol, tobacco , et alii...
All are drugs. All of us have at least one or more of these in our homes. All can be good for you or bad for you depending upon specific use.
All of us live in "drug houses"; it is just "acceptable" "drugs" by societys definition (Society and our Gummint are way off base on a lot of what is accepted VS. what is not; very inconsistent).
I'm against taking away peoples rights when they are not doing anything wrong, and not hurting anyone.
To me- taking away someones rights is more damaging to the individual and society as a whole than the growing of the pot in the first place. IT is an effing plant that grows everywhere naturally- that has very few negtative effects (Other than the laws and punishment prescribed by society) compared to the list I gave above for Chrissake.
The difference is of course "legal" vs. "illegal" drugs and the criminal element that is drawn to the latter. And I don't worry about the rights of people engaged in criminal activity, that is what defense lawyers are for. This is why I don't have 100 home built machine guns. If "I" can't play, **** people with grow houses. I also don't think the right to "grow and sell" narcotics is as specifically protected as the right to have arms "comparable to a standing military" so I'm not seeing a big "rights" issue either.
Again, I personally don't care. I think there should be the equivalent to Opium houses where people can go do whatever ****ing drug they want but they can't leave until they are sober. Also these places shouldn't be anywhere near residential areas.
I'm probably going to hurt some feelings here. I think some of you truly need to sit back and think before you type.
Comparing an illegal grow operation (regardless of what your feelings are about pot) to Tylenol or other approved drugs is sheer nonsense. It's like saying it's ok to have explosives in your basement because you disagree with the government and think it should be legal.
Again, doesn't matter what you think, it's illegal without the proper permits, licenses and storage.
The fact is that had he not been growing the pot in his home for distribution (and I'll bet if they dig into finances they will find more stuff) then the situation wouldn't have occurred. They knew what they were looking for and got unlucky. Had the situation been different and his son was killed in the cross fire I can only imagine a bunch of our members here would have been screaming for the dad to be carted off for putting him in danger.
I would also like to know who here thinks that it is ok to have an illegal grow operation in the same place you have your family. Please be honest.
Meh...
If it was a clean shoot, call it a clean shoot and be done with it. Prosecute him on the drugs and child endangerment and call it good. While I have little sympathy for the predicament father pot grower finds himself in, I have even less for two dead dirtbags who thought it was OK to commit an armed home invasion.
Could any of you honestly send the guy to prison for life over this?
Meh...
If it was a clean shoot, call it a clean shoot and be done with it. Prosecute him on the drugs and child endangerment and call it good. While I have little sympathy for the predicament father pot grower finds himself in, I have even less for two dead dirtbags who thought it was OK to commit an armed home invasion.
Could any of you honestly send the guy to prison for life over this?
Plenty of states have no problem doing just that.
10-20-Life laws come to mind.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10-20-Life
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/10-20-life.GIF
So if you are engaged in criminal activity, don't mix guns.
Again, this is why I don't have 100 unregistered machine guns even though I'd love to have 100 more machine guns.
I don't have an issue with the shoot per se, but the circumstances that brought us to the end.
Let's look at this in another perspective. If he had been dealing drugs on the street corner instead of his expensive mansion would we be looking at it the same way?
Growing marijuana in quantities and distributing it is a felony (IIRC) and violates federal laws and state laws. So was he committing a felony or not?
I am not a lawyer so I guess we'll have to let the legal eagles sort it out.
Meh...
If it was a clean shoot, call it a clean shoot and be done with it. Prosecute him on the drugs and child endangerment and call it good. While I have little sympathy for the predicament father pot grower finds himself in, I have even less for two dead dirtbags who thought it was OK to commit an armed home invasion.
Could any of you honestly send the guy to prison for life over this?
Wow, listen to the libertarian freedom lovers demonize someone who grew essentially harmless pot plants. Some people don't know which side they're on.
Has there been a quantity announced on the pot plants? I've seen four plants called a grow operation by the media, so until I see a quantity I'll sit on the sidelines on this one.
Wow, listen to the libertarian freedom lovers demonize someone who grew essentially harmless pot plants. Some people don't know which side they're on.
Honestly, I don't care.
If it were up to me I'd zone and legalize. I'm just explaining how the law addresses the issue and why. My sole objection is these activities being done in a residential area that invites criminal elements in proximity to ordinary people.
Honestly, I don't care.
If it were up to me I'd zone and legalize. I'm just explaining how the law addresses the issue and why. My sole objection is these activities being done in a residential area that invites criminal elements in proximity to ordinary people.
Pot being illegal is a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars annually in enforcement. Never has a case been brought before our court board where pot was the cause of any parent's dysfunction.
Heroin, oxycontin, cocaine and crack are the social destroyers.
Whatever your position on pot the guy put his family in danger.
"Two heavily armed intruders..." are not looking for Tylenol. They were looking for the cash that goes with the drug trade.
His kid being there may be his saving grace. It's a HUGE emotional appeal to a jury.
Pot being illegal is a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars annually in enforcement. Never has a case been brought before our court board where pot was the cause of any parent's dysfunction.
Heroin, oxycontin, cocaine and crack are the social destroyers.
Man, I thought I had made it pretty clear several times that I don't care.
If it were up to me I'd zone and legalize.
That said, I know plenty of people who have ****ed up their lives with pot. People can destroy their lives with spray paint if they are willing. I have, or had, a close friend who completely wrecked his entire life and future because he did so much weed. But I don't really blame the weed. I think cyanide should be perfectly legal if a person wants to check themselves out for that matter.
About the only "drug related" issue I have is not having to put up with the people who use them.
But if a person can do weed (or whatever) without ****ing with other people and go on with their lives then I would have zero problem with that.
Never has a case been brought before our court board where pot was the cause of any parent's dysfunction.
Here, let me help you...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/03/us-usa-baby-roof-idUSBRE85201S20120603
http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/eyewitness/121204_12309.shtml
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Police-Pot-smoking-babysitter-charged-with-child-neglect-114673469.html
I especially liked the first mom who drove off with the baby on the roof after smoking pot in a park - nice!
Wow, listen to the libertarian freedom lovers demonize someone who grew essentially harmless pot plants. Some people don't know which side they're on.
The person who died of the bullet might disagree.
;)
Dunno this is a sticky situation, but all thing considered...You (any one, for any reason) may not enter my private property unless I say so PERIOD. I don't care if your a cop (better have a warrent) or a criminal. My rights to my personal property is protected by the constitution of the United States of America. As far as being a shitty father dope growing hippie, well....
There is no chance in hell he faces charges for the shooting. The drugs could be a problem.
2 shitbags dead, good deal. A couple ambiguous statements about an illegal grow operation and heavily armed intruders from some news article doesn't define what truly took place. Since when do we start believing the media gets it right on all the facts and details?
His illegal attic grow could've been 2 plants for his own usage. It could've been more, I care less, but it certainly doesn't sound like a grow house where the entire place is nothing but a greenhouse.
Heavily armed could mean 2 dicks with a couple .38 revolvers coming from an anti-gun reporter or editor. But then again we all know about journalistic integrity when it comes to firearms...
And what dipshits made it legal to possess an ounce of a dried plant but didn't find it necessary for them to have a way to obtain it?
The person who died of the bullet might disagree.
;)
You mean the felonious armed home invaders? I'd say those plants were completely harmless to them until their reptilian brains thought it'd be a great idea to commit armed robbery. :rolleyes:
If it was a clean shoot, call it a clean shoot and be done with it. While I have little sympathy for the predicament father pot grower finds himself in, I have even less for two dead dirtbags who thought it was OK to commit an armed home invasion.
Could any of you honestly send the guy to prison for life over this?
Same place I'm coming from with the exception of prosecuting him for growing plants, I believe in freedom as our founding fathers did. And from the initial reports I read I wouldn't be handing down a guilty verdict for any crime related to giving those assholes a dirt nap.
I read the article, said they were killed in the garage. That being the case nobody had any reason to go into the house. How did they find out about the attic? Maybe the shooter should have remained silent?
Man, I thought I had made it pretty clear several times that I don't care.
That part was understood, I was addressing the comment about what you called "illegal activity", which as Irish stated could have been two plants. But even if it was more than that, the main point is growing such less than deadly plants shouldn't be illegal in the first place, especially to many here who believe in personal freedoms.
Here, let me help you...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/03/us-usa-baby-roof-idUSBRE85201S20120603
http://www.wchstv.com/newsroom/eyewitness/121204_12309.shtml
http://www.wcnc.com/news/local/Police-Pot-smoking-babysitter-charged-with-child-neglect-114673469.html
I especially liked the first mom who drove off with the baby on the roof after smoking pot in a park - nice!
Don't you have a medical background? If so, aren't you aware that pot is far less harmful to the body and mind that let's say cocaine or heroin?
Anyway this ain't a legalize it thread so we can drop it. I just don't think pot poses enough of a threat to society to be illegal and therefore this situation should never have happened because of it.
It doesn't matter what you think or how you feel about marijuana. We are not even close to being a libertarian society, and the recent election should have driven that point home. Moreover, there is nothing in the Constitution that prohibits states and municipalities from passing laws to restrict pot, tobacco, or even fescue grass if they want. That is the downside of living in a representative republic that is transforming itself into a nanny state - more laws are need to keep it from all falling apart (which we all know is futile).
In this case, I could not find any language in WA's castle doctrine that prevents the homeowner from using lethal force even though he may have been committing various felonies (depending on the size of his operation) in the domicile. Thus, he will probably escape a conviction for the shooting. However, it will likely be used as an aggravating factor by the DA, judge, and jury when dispositioning the other charges that he will face.
I read the article, said they were killed in the garage. That being the case nobody had any reason to go into the house. How did they find out about the attic? Maybe the shooter should have remained silent? Having a good friend go through a self defense shooting, I can guarantee they got a search warrant for the house to investigate the shooting. Of course, the owner could have been a dummy and consented or opened his mouth.
Magic_Salad0892
12-08-12, 13:47
But even if it was more than that, the main point is growing such less than deadly plants shouldn't be illegal in the first place, especially to many here who believe in personal freedoms.
But the robbery would have likely occured anyway.
Disclaimer: I believe in the legalization of marijuana. Just as I believe in the legalization of recreational opiates, or certain psychotropic drugs.
I think that growing marijuana in the house your child lives in is probably about as safe as keeping guns in the house in the sense that armed criminals would break into your house for either one.
If somebody breaks in with the intention of stealing guns is it reckless endangerment? Nope. I don't think so. Unless the guns are illegal, which changes things. (As is the case here.)
I do believe he should be charged with illegally growing marijuana.
(Also, fwiw, people very, very rarely get killed over pot. At least where I'm from.)
That part was understood, I was addressing the comment about what you called "illegal activity", which as Irish stated could have been two plants. But even if it was more than that, the main point is growing such less than deadly plants shouldn't be illegal in the first place, especially to many here who believe in personal freedoms.
I was just stating what the law says and recognizing it exists. Doesn't mean I agree with it anymore than I agree that machine guns need to be made before 1986 to be registered.
Also, fwiw, people very, very rarely get killed over pot. At least where I'm from.
I'm glad that you qualified that statement because 3 million people in Tiajuana and Juarez, as well as others across America might disagree. That's right, the cartels don't just deal in cocaine and heroin. In addition, you would be undermining one of the better reasons to legalize pot - to end the violent cartel's war.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10826089409047377
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-08-23/news/33347665_1_weapons-charges-marijuana-indictment
Their reign of terror just went up in smoke.
Federal authorities unsealed a 40-count indictment Tuesday against an alleged gang of murderous marijuana pushers that included two men from the Bronx, and raked in $25 million.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/drugs/mjtrafic.htm
Whatever your position on pot the guy put his family in danger.
"Two heavily armed intruders..." are not looking for Tylenol. They were looking for the cash that goes with the drug trade.
Which is why we need to end marijuana prohibition and the violence/criminal aspect that is directly an affect of its prohibition in the first place.
Not sure of the amounts/quantities as it has not been discussed. But i do agree he is an absolute idiot for having a child and grow op in the same house.
The difference is currently it isn't ILLEGAL for a rape victim to dress like a disco whore, but it IS illegal to have a grow house. Personally I could almost "give a shit" about weed, I'm just noting what the laws are currently. I have similar views about brothels, I think they should be legal in zoned areas but shouldn't be in residential areas where they put a neighborhood at risk. And only a seriously ****ed up person would raise their children in either one of them.
The difference is of course "legal" vs. "illegal" drugs and the criminal element that is drawn to the latter. And I don't worry about the rights of people engaged in criminal activity, that is what defense lawyers are for. This is why I don't have 100 home built machine guns. If "I" can't play, **** people with grow houses. I also don't think the right to "grow and sell" narcotics is as specifically protected as the right to have arms "comparable to a standing military" so I'm not seeing a big "rights" issue either.
Again, I personally don't care. I think there should be the equivalent to Opium houses where people can go do whatever ****ing drug they want but they can't leave until they are sober. Also these places shouldn't be anywhere near residential areas.
I meant his right to protect himself and his family- not a "right to grow".
I agree that the guy is a grade a moron for having a kid in a grow house and the "opium den approach" you stated.
I'm just getting to the fact that the prohibition of marijuana is the catalyst for the crime and violence surrounding marijuana and as such the laws cause much greater harm to society and individuals than marijuana poses. It is asinine.
One cannot be stripped of a natural born right (defense)- period. Otherwise it isn't a right to begin with.
I'm probably going to hurt some feelings here. I think some of you truly need to sit back and think before you type.
Comparing an illegal grow operation (regardless of what your feelings are about pot) to Tylenol or other approved drugs is sheer nonsense. It's like saying it's ok to have explosives in your basement because you disagree with the government and think it should be legal.
Again, doesn't matter what you think, it's illegal without the proper permits, licenses and storage.
The fact is that had he not been growing the pot in his home for distribution (and I'll bet if they dig into finances they will find more stuff) then the situation wouldn't have occurred. They knew what they were looking for and got unlucky. Had the situation been different and his son was killed in the cross fire I can only imagine a bunch of our members here would have been screaming for the dad to be carted off for putting him in danger.
I would also like to know who here thinks that it is ok to have an illegal grow operation in the same place you have your family. Please be honest.
Having a grow op and family in the same house is retarded- the guy is a moron. But I can't justify loss of his natural born rights- especially when we have no clue the extent of his "operation"; at this point it's all speculation...
100 people overdosed from tylenol last year in the USA; zero died from marijuana...
One could also posit that if marijuana wasn't illegal- then the criminal/violent element's associated with it would not be so pronounced as the laws make it black market and dangerous- not the marijuana or growing of plants.
Belmont31R
12-08-12, 19:42
Freedom isn't without consequence, which is why we are where were all legality wise.
People go OMG he had pot plants he was asking to get robbed, and thus it was dumb to raise a family there! He should be charged for child abuse!
Guys if you don't want the freedom to do something, or REALLY don't support freedom then quit trying to find angles to get someone in trouble. Not every kid is growing up in the same home, and having a few plants in the basement isn't going to affect most kids. Regardless of how you play it, like saying 'Im just saying what the law is' is lame. Like I said not every kid is going grow up in the perfect home. This desire to toss aside freedom for some perfect standard of child raising is why we are where we are at.
There's always going to be thieves. Being a thief is perhaps the 2nd oldest profession behind prostitution. Using that angle is also lame. If banning pot or restricting someones freedoms over it is 'just' then so is banning someone from wearing skimpy clothing or expensive shoes or a suit. It's sad people blame the victim because they chose to not live some vague generic life in order to not attract criminal activity. :rolleyes:
One cannot be stripped of a natural born right (defense)- period. Otherwise it isn't a right to begin with.
Does a mugger have a right to defense?
If the victim suddenly starts kicking the shit out of the mugger, does the mugger become the victim?
Engaging in criminal activity, quite frequently negates the right to defend yourself, especially if weapons are involved.
This is why you aren't allowed to defend a crack house with deadly force. And the kind of "illegal drugs" is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes a grow house isn't much different from a crack house. Both invite criminal elements and both put the residential areas where they are located at undue risk.
Personally I don't care of weed or crack was legalized so long as it was kept out of residential areas and users couldn't leave under the influence.
Freedom isn't without consequence, which is why we are where were all legality wise.
People go OMG he had pot plants he was asking to get robbed, and thus it was dumb to raise a family there! He should be charged for child abuse!
Guys if you don't want the freedom to do something, or REALLY don't support freedom then quit trying to find angles to get someone in trouble. Not every kid is growing up in the same home, and having a few plants in the basement isn't going to affect most kids. Regardless of how you play it, like saying 'Im just saying what the law is' is lame. Like I said not every kid is going grow up in the perfect home. This desire to toss aside freedom for some perfect standard of child raising is why we are where we are at.
There's always going to be thieves. Being a thief is perhaps the 2nd oldest profession behind prostitution. Using that angle is also lame. If banning pot or restricting someones freedoms over it is 'just' then so is banning someone from wearing skimpy clothing or expensive shoes or a suit. It's sad people blame the victim because they chose to not live some vague generic life in order to not attract criminal activity. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry. I must have misunderstood because I don't know what you are talking about.
First, nobody ever suggested that America was a place where you were going to have total freedom to do whatever you want so long as it does not impact others. That libertarian utopia has never existed in this country, or any other across recorded history.
Second, I don't know where you and a couple others get your opinions, but there is plenty of evidence that habitual users of marijuana do not fair as well as sober parents even when you control for other substances such as alcohol. So, I don't know how you come up with, "having a few plants in the basement isn't going to affect most kids." In other words, people say, "OMG he had plants in his house with kids" because they instinctively know that it is nearly impossible to be an attentive parent when stoned for even part of the day.
Next, nobody has mentioned a perfect standard of parenting. In fact, keeping unnecessary psychotropic drugs out of the house is the bare minimum standard of good parenting. It is so important that it circles back to my original point that the states reserve the right to enforce certain standards with the weight of criminal law. I'm sorry that some can't meet those standards, but it doesn't mean that the laws are without merit.
Finally, if you think that a drug free environment makes my house "vaguely generic," then I suggest that you come and deal with 250 lbs of dog, 50 lbs of kids, a Greek-American Princess wife, and more guns than you could imagine ;).
Magic_Salad0892
12-08-12, 22:02
I'm glad that you qualified that statement because 3 million people in Tiajuana and Juarez, as well as others across America might disagree. That's right, the cartels don't just deal in cocaine and heroin. In addition, you would be undermining one of the better reasons to legalize pot - to end the violent cartel's war.
http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/10826089409047377
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2012-08-23/news/33347665_1_weapons-charges-marijuana-indictment
Their reign of terror just went up in smoke.
Federal authorities unsealed a 40-count indictment Tuesday against an alleged gang of murderous marijuana pushers that included two men from the Bronx, and raked in $25 million.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/drugs/mjtrafic.htm
Thanks for the info. I didn't know that.
Thanks for the info. I didn't know that.
No problem. Personally, I'd survive if the states wanted to decriminalize pot for personal use. Not my preference, but I'd not move to Singapore over the issue.
My one hang-up is keeping yet another intoxicating substance out of the hands of parents responsible for children. I've already post one example of a pot head who drove off with her baby on the car roof after getting stoned. I know of another where a parent cannibalized their child after smoking pot laced with PCP. There are literally thousands of less egregious examples that I've personally seen over a career in various public safety nets.
On one hand, I'd love for the state to loosen up a little on this one aspect of personal liberty as Belmont describes. On the other hand, I see little evidence that our population as a whole has the responsibility to wield this liberty without reeking havoc on the rights of others - namely their children. I'm sad to say that my confidence is erroded more every day.
Magic_Salad0892
12-08-12, 22:35
No problem. Personally, I'd survive if the states wanted to decriminalize pot for personal use. Not my preference, but I'd not move to Singapore over the issue.
My one hang-up is keeping yet another intoxicating substance out of the hands of parents responsible for children. I've already post one example of a pot head who drove off with her baby on the car roof after getting stoned. I know of another where a parent cannibalized their child after smoking pot laced with PCP. There are literally thousands of less egregious examples that I've personally seen over a career in various public safety nets.
On one hand, I'd love for the state to loosen up a little on this one aspect of personal liberty as Belmont describes. On the other hand, I see little evidence that our population as a whole has the responsibility to wield this liberty without reeking havoc on the rights of others - namely their children. I'm sad to say that my confidence is erroded more every day.
In my opinion/experience alchohol makes people much more violent, or brings out violent tendancies than marijuana, or opiates do.
In my opinion/experience alchohol makes people much more violent, or brings out violent tendancies than marijuana, or opiates do.
In some people it does when consumed in excess. However, it is a very small proportion of the people to drink even daily that become violent or shitty parents. That is to say, I have a glass or two of wine on most nights and very rarely beat my wife or let the baby sleep in a pile of shit for hours. Unfortunately, people who smoke a joint daily, while not usually violent, are far less attentive parents than guys like me who have a glass of MD 20/20 or Boones Farm.
In my opinion/experience alchohol makes people much more violent, or brings out violent tendancies than marijuana, or opiates do.
That's not actually a counter argument to anything he wrote, you're just changing the topic.
Magic_Salad0892
12-08-12, 23:51
That's not actually a counter argument to anything he wrote, you're just changing the topic.
My point was that substances that are already legal are potentially more dangerous than certain illegal ones.
Hope I cleared that up, man.
Magic_Salad0892
12-08-12, 23:53
In some people it does when consumed in excess. However, it is a very small proportion of the people to drink even daily that become violent or shitty parents. That is to say, I have a glass or two of wine on most nights and very rarely beat my wife or let the baby sleep in a pile of shit for hours. Unfortunately, people who smoke a joint daily, while not usually violent, are far less attentive parents than guys like me who have a glass of MD 20/20 or Boones Farm.
We all gotta let off steam some time. :p
Jokin'.
In all seriousness, I can totally see where you're coming from. But while I think the topic of marijuana legalization is for another topic (or PM if you'd like), I don't believe that said shooter should be prosecuted for reckless endangerment, but I do believe that he should be charged for illegally growing marijuana.
Growing plants in the attic makes you neither a pothead nor a bad parent. It is also a big beautiful house full of nice things. Are we now endangering our childeren by having nice shit people would want to steal? If armed thieves break into your garage you should kill them. You should also have no obligation to let the police search your home after the fact. We have no idea if the crooks even knew he had a "grow operation".
Growing plants in the attic makes you neither a pothead nor a bad parent. It is also a big beautiful house full of nice things. Are we now endangering our childeren by having nice shit people would want to steal? If armed thieves break into your garage you should kill them. You should also have no obligation to let the police search your home after the fact. We have no idea if the crooks even knew he had a "grow operation".
Is that rifle resting on a bunch of marijuana leaves in your avatar?
;)
Is that rifle resting on a bunch of marijuana leaves in your avatar?
That is a good question, that I'm not required by law to answer.;)
Sensei your handful of links prove little to nothing while noting extremely rare circumstances. Also, some of your assessments are simply incorrect and have been proven so by your own medical counterparts. For a guy with an all knowing screen name, a medical background and using a fictional mass murderer as an avatar you seem a little disorganized. Let me try to help you.
The main problem we face today regarding drug induced dysfunction stems from your counterparts in medicine who are dispensing far too many highly addictive pills for little to no reason. These medications are absolutely and positively destroying families all across this nation. In addition, these pills are far more physically and mentally addictive than pot.
Next on the tier we have heroin, cocaine and meth. Again, extremely addictive and extremely destructive to the body and mind. No comparision to pot in that regard whatsoever. Yet somehow you are making this appear not to be the case in order to bolster your argument.
Lastly, you make the astonishing claim that alcohol drinkers tend to be more responsible than pot smokers. This is so far off base I wouldn't know where to begin and by now you should have the data to prove it. Neither are ideal perhaps, but one does not compare to the other beyond that. Abusing alcohol damages a number of vital organs, has profoundly incapacitating effects, tends to facilitate fits of anger or rage and very often leads to overall irresponsibility. Why you are making these two seem the same is honestly beyond me at this point, especially since to claim to be relating to first hand experiences. And remember, PCP may be sprayed on pot by some idiot, but is still not pot.
Are most drinkers responsible? Sure they are and heck I'm one of them. But you're trying to implicate that such a standard doesn't apply to pot smokers as well, this even though that substance has been medically proven to carry less overall risk while being used.
Oh and as far as the logic that just by havng a few of pot plants this person made themselves a crime target, as mentioned the same can be said of not only firearms but also jewelry, valuable electronics, cash, nice TVs or anything else of percieved value kept in one's home.
Sensei your handful of links prove little to nothing while noting extremely rare circumstances. Also, some of your assessments are simply incorrect and have been proven so by your own medical counterparts. For a guy with an all knowing screen name, a medical background and using a fictional mass murderer as an avatar you seem a little disorganized. Let me try to help you.
The main problem we face today regarding drug induced dysfunction stems from your counterparts in medicine who are dispensing far too many highly addictive pills for little to no reason. These medications are absolutely and positively destroying families all across this nation. In addition, these pills are far more physically and mentally addictive than pot.
Next on the tier we have heroin, cocaine and meth. Again, extremely addictive and extremely destructive to the body and mind. No comparision to pot in that regard whatsoever. Yet somehow you are making this appear not to be the case in order to bolster your argument.
Lastly, you make the astonishing claim that alcohol drinkers tend to be more responsible than pot smokers. This is so far off base I wouldn't know where to begin and by now you should have the data to prove it. Neither are ideal perhaps, but one does not compare to the other beyond that. Abusing alcohol damages a number of vital organs, has profoundly incapacitating effects, tends to facilitate fits of anger or rage and very often leads to overall irresponsibility. Why you are making these two seem the same is honestly beyond me at this point, especially since to claim to be relating to first hand experiences.
Are most drinkers responsible? Sure they are and heck I'm one of them. But you're trying to implicate that such a standard doesn't apply to pot smokers as well, this even though that substance has been medically proven to carry less overall risk while being used.
Oh and as far as the logic that just by havng a few of pot plants this person made themselves a crime target, as mentioned the same can be said of not only firearms but also jewelry, valuable electronics, cash, nice TVs or anything else of percieved value kept in one's home.
You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing has been "medically proven" about marijuana. That is because there are few if any randomized controlled clinical trials studying the effects of marijuana in the US. Thus, there is no proof that pot is any more or less likely to cause cancer, cure pain, fix glaucoma, or have any other positive or negative effects. Thus, you will notice that my language has been very specific with the term evidence.
What we do have is a few poorly powered cohort studies that can provide us with associations and some fair quality evidence on peoples behavior and marijuana. That evidence suggests that habitual users of marijuana suffer a range of adverse social consequences when compared to sober individuals. We can try and compare that to daily drinkers, but that evidence quickely weakens to the different dosing schedules, social habits, and cross-use associated with pot and alcohol. Moreover, there is no requirement that our laws be supported by medical proof to ban a substance, so the future of pot will likely be determined only by society's collective experience with the drug.
As for America's diversion problem, you will get no arguement from me on that point. However, overprescribers are no longer my counterparts. In fact, I spend a large part of my day hunting them.
My point was that substances that are already legal are potentially more dangerous than certain illegal ones.
Hope I cleared that up, man.
10-4. I actually missed that he made a claim regarding alcohol. :o
10-4. I actually missed that he made a claim regarding alcohol. :o
I made no attempt to compare marijuana to alcohol in my response to glocktogo. I did mention that some studies have tried to account for other co-intoxicants in their analysis of THC. This is necessary because a significant number of marijuana users also abuse other drugs like alcohol and cocaine. It was not intended to serve as a comparison of ETOH to THC which is what always happens in these legalize pot threads. :sad:
Unfortunately, people who smoke a joint daily, while not usually violent, are far less attentive parents than guys like me who have a glass of MD 20/20 or Boones Farm.
I call bullshit. Source? Your're stereotyping and generalizing without presenting any facts or evidence.
I know several "potheads" who are great parents, responsible gun owners and all make good money doing honest work in respected professions.
I call bullshit. Source? Your're stereotyping and generalizing without presenting any facts or evidence.
I know several "potheads" who are great parents, responsible gun owners and all make good money doing honest work in respected professions.
Agreed, as I know high profile attorneys, "government workers", successful businessmen and others who smoke pot without issue. Could be more specific, especially regarding the state funded workers, but I won't because they are damn good, hard working people. If I thought for a moment that they were dysfunctional as a result I'd have no reason to support them and in fact would privately expose them.
But I know no one, and I mean no one anywhere outside of Camden or Philly, who drinks 20/20.
(Just had to)
I call bullshit. Source? Your're stereotyping and generalizing without presenting any facts or evidence.
I know several "potheads" who are great parents, responsible gun owners and all make good money doing honest work in respected professions.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1461416/
Here are some interesting excerpts:
We then examined the relationship between tobacco use, marijuana use, the five T1–T3 personality attributes (achievement, rebelliousness, deviancy, ego integration, and depression), the four T3 personality scales (impulsivity, physical depression, anxiety, and interpersonal difficulty), and parental affection and rules. Tobacco use was not correlated with either affection or rules. However, marijuana use had a significant, negative association with affection (χ2=6.68, p<0.01),.
The results indicate that the positive effects of some protective personality/behavioral factors can be offset by the effects of parental tobacco and marijuana use, leading to less parental nurturing and inadequate structure for the child.
Parental marijuana use also has deleterious effects on rule-setting and for establishing an affectionate relationship, even if the parent is conventional (less rebellious, less deviancy).
Now, I'm going to STFU in this thread until you guys come up with something better than, "I know some great parents who are potheads."
Wow, listen to the libertarian freedom lovers demonize someone who grew essentially harmless pot plants. Some people don't know which side they're on.
No shit. The same type folks pop off about how guns are their God giving Right but not for someone who plead no contest and got probation to some criminal charge 20 years ago. And then they wonder why their freedoms slowly vanish. :suicide:
As far as the legal aspects-
The article called the pot growing illegal but did not clarify if the homeowner in question had a Washington state medical marijuana card. If the homeowner had a medical marijuana card, he is entitled by Washington state law to grow a maximum number of marijuana plants ( I believe the number is 15, but I could be wrong) for personal use, or to sell to a state approve medical marijuana distribution center.
While growing medical marijuana by the possessor of a state issued medical card is legal in the state of Washington, it is still illegal at the federal level. According to the Feds, the growers cannot possess or purchase firearms.
When I was in the state of Washington, there was a case written up in the papers about a carded grower/user that wanted to purchase a handgun for self defense. He was required by law to answer on the federal form that yes, he was an illegal (by federal, not state standards) user. He was denied the purchase.
Earlier, his house was broken into and if I recall the events correctly, this grower/user defended himself with a handgun. Because he was a grower/user, his firearms were confiscated because by federal law, he could not possess firearms. Because the grower/user still felt at risk due to his business, he wanted to purchase a handgun to replace the one that was taken away.
If this guy in Puyallup has a medical marijuana card, he is not illegally growing marijuana by state law, but is clearly violating federal statutes. He has the right to defend himself, but cannot legally possess firearms according to the feds. If he does not possess a medical marijuana card, not only can he not legally possess firearms, but could face additional criminal charges due to illegally possessing a firearm during the commission of a crime (growing and possession with intent to sell, a controlled substance).
Concerning the plants, it's likely that the state of Washington will, at most, give him a slap on wrist
Who advocated that position? In my opinion you should only lose the right to have firearms if you are convicted of something like rape, murder (that includes various lesser offenses), robbery, burglary, aggravated assault and crimes of that nature or crimes against persons.
Not white collar crimes or non-violent stuff.
If you disagree with the law then change it. Contact your legislature and tell them you think it's unfair that someone who plead guilty to "some criminal charge" (whatever that means?) shouldn't lose their right to own firearms.
Just remember the law of unintended consequences.
No shit. The same type folks pop off about how guns are their God giving Right but not for someone who plead no contest and got probation to some criminal charge 20 years ago. And then they wonder why their freedoms slowly vanish. :suicide:
my brother was telling me about some study that was done with people smoking dope and how it slows down certain social abilities ?
might be the one you know/mention ? about social consequences
not sure the word he used but slows down certain social growth where a 12 year old could start and continue into his 20s he would in some sense maintain certain 12 year old social functions/decisions in a sense until he quit which is often why a lot of pot heads do have kinda idiotic tendencies even when they are in their mid 20s as they dont have all the social abilities/functions of a normal 20 year old ?
he did say if they quit they can catch up to where they should be but wont be over night kinda thing !
was interesting to hear about
he is a prosecutor for the state and deals a lot with substance abuse stuff so knows quite a bit about it !
pretty much says the same things you do about no proven anything as a medical healing miracle cure !
but very proven to slow certain parts of the brain in the area of what I tried to say above and does slow things down reasoning response time etc.. and the social thing mentioned
You don't know what you are talking about. Nothing has been "medically proven" about marijuana. That is because there are few if any randomized controlled clinical trials studying the effects of marijuana in the US. Thus, there is no proof that pot is any more or less likely to cause cancer, cure pain, fix glaucoma, or have any other positive or negative effects. Thus, you will notice that my language has been very specific with the term evidence.
What we do have is a few poorly powered cohort studies that can provide us with associations and some fair quality evidence on peoples behavior and marijuana. That evidence suggests that habitual users of marijuana suffer a range of adverse social consequences when compared to sober individuals. We can try and compare that to daily drinkers, but that evidence quickely weakens to the different dosing schedules, social habits, and cross-use associated with pot and alcohol. Moreover, there is no requirement that our laws be supported by medical proof to ban a substance, so the future of pot will likely be determined only by society's collective experience with the drug.
As for America's diversion problem, you will get no arguement from me on that point. However, overprescribers are no longer my counterparts. In fact, I spend a large part of my day hunting them.
montanadave
12-10-12, 09:45
Not to get too far into the weeds, but the brain under goes what is essentially a "cognitive overhaul" during adolescence and early adulthood, when executive functions such as complex problem solving, attention, social inhibition, reasoning skills, prioritization of tasks, etc. are formalized and stabilized.
This process can be significantly disrupted by the introduction of drugs of abuse during this particularly vulnerable stage. Teens and college kids who are abusing pot or alcohol are placing themselves at risk.
I don't want to get into the "which is worse?" argument. I think it's more appropriate to examine the pattern of use. Most young people who abuse alcohol are prone to binge drinking, usually once or twice a week. However, those that abuse pot are prone to smoke more frequently, although to a lesser degree of impairment. And I'm making these generalizations based solely on my experience working in the substance-abuse treatment field and participation in the recovery community.
So which does more damage? Getting shit-faced every Friday and Saturday night or smoking a couple of bowls a day throughout the week? I don't know if there are any comparative studies out there which have examined the effects of these contrasting patterns of substance abuse but it would be interesting data.
Growing plants in the attic makes you neither a pothead nor a bad parent. It is also a big beautiful house full of nice things. Are we now endangering our childeren by having nice shit people would want to steal? If armed thieves break into your garage you should kill them. You should also have no obligation to let the police search your home after the fact. We have no idea if the crooks even knew he had a "grow operation".
Yes, absolutely having a grow operation in your attic makes you a bad parent and this is not a "clean" shoot by any means. "Possession" of a small amount of marijuana is legal, "Production" is a felony. Having a grow OP in the house with your family? Subjecting them to the fire danger? The mold danger from the plants? The high levels of chemicals, fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, additives, etc. that go with grow operations? Committing a felony in the home is a continuous fashion is endangerment. Judging by the size of this attic, it could sustain a 300 plant grow. This was a huge income earner, not a sustainment of personal needs grow, this was a commercial operation. CPS needs to take the kid(s) now, if they haven't already. I'm sure the grow has been dismantled and the DA is getting ready to charge this knucklehead.
Yes, absolutely having a grow operation in your attic makes you a bad parent and this is not a "clean" shoot by any means. "Possession" of a small amount of marijuana is legal, "Production" is a felony. Having a grow OP in the house with your family? Subjecting them to the fire danger? The mold danger from the plants? The high levels of chemicals, fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, additives, etc. that go with grow operations? Committing a felony in the home is a continuous fashion is endangerment. Judging by the size of this attic, it could sustain a 300 plant grow. This was a huge income earner, not a sustainment of personal needs grow, this was a commercial operation. CPS needs to take the kid(s) now, if they haven't already. I'm sure the grow has been dismantled and the DA is getting ready to charge this knucklehead.
Again,we have no idea how many plants he had. So we can't judge anything by the size of his attic. I wasn't exactly factoring in mold risks fire risk etc. so let me restate my point. If the plants were grown in a manner that the growing process itself didn't endanger his kid, then growing pot in your attic doesn't make you a bad parent. As for, "committing a felony in a continuous fashion" he could have been engaging in securities fraud for the same amount of time. Anytime someone is shot breaking into another persons home it's a "clean" shoot. Are we even sure yet they were there for the drugs? did they pull up in a U-Haul?
Does a mugger have a right to defense? Of course not- this is an "Aunt Sally" argument. The mugger is assualting someone (On the offense); how can you claim "defense" when you are assualting someone and they fight back (Defense). You cannot and it is in no way comparable to the situation in the OP. Weak ass argument. And How does this man growing a plant compare to someone who is physically assualting/robbing someone? One has a victim and the other is growing a freaking plant and with NO victim- Jeesh:rolleyes:
If the victim suddenly starts kicking the shit out of the mugger, does the mugger become the victim? Come on Styer-**** NO- another Aunt Sally. How could anyone argue defending ones life would be construed as assualt thus making it okay for the initial person who assualted someone now in defense of their life- it is a non-starter. The man growing pot never assualted anyone, he was defending himself and child against an assualt in fact. Again- JEESH:rolleyes:
Engaging in criminal activity, quite frequently negates the right to defend yourself, especially if weapons are involved. -I understand this si what the law states; but is it really justified and RIGHT? For instance- I were to borrow some cough syrup (Or give some of mine to my child or wife) from a neighbor or a family memebr because I couldn't get to the doctor to treat my cough/flu (Its the weekend and I am not paying $100 +script prices to get cough medicine to help treat me; but the store bought stuff just doesn't do shit for me- but theres my wifes bottle from her flu last week...)- I would then have no legal right to defend my life or the lives of my family because I was breaking the law (Taking unprescribed medicine/transfer of controlled substance without license)?
Not everything is black and white. And NO not everyone who is doing something illegal should lose their right to a defense; only assualts, rape, murder, etc- you know the violent ones that actually create victims; should lose those rights.
Quite frankly, most of us engage in criminal activity everyday in some shape or form- with so many laws and new ones cropping up in spades- it is hard for LEO's to even know all of the laws and that is there efffing job- let alone a civie...
When I was about 22 (I had several guns and open/concealed carried daily) I had a warrant in a county/city I didn't live in for not appearing for Jury Duty. Are you telling me that if someone tried to kill me during that time before I reconciled the courts mistake and I defended myself and shot/killed the person I should lose my right to defense and be tried as a murderer? I didn't reside in the city/county that I was called for Jury Duty and I got it taken care of real easy once I found out about the warrant- since I could prove my address was in another city/county- but technically my carrying of guns and potential defense against aggressors SHOULD/WOULD have been illegal- and you're okay with situtations like these? Because if "you are engaged in criminal activity..."?
This is why you aren't allowed to defend a crack house with deadly force. And the kind of "illegal drugs" is irrelevant. For all intents and purposes a grow house isn't much different from a crack house. Both invite criminal elements and both put the residential areas where they are located at undue risk. Both invite criminal elements to a greater exten due to the prohibition i nthe first place. -And this is EXACTLY why prohibition is more dangerous and damaging to society and individuals than the use of substances in the first place. If the Harm/criminal element is what we are trying to remove (Can never totally remove it) then do away with the laws that make it lucrative black market dealings- make sense? Look to our past dabble with alcohol prohibition for all the info/proof you need... And a grow house for Marijuana is much, MUCH different than a CRACK HOUSE in most instances.
Personally I don't care of weed or crack was legalized so long as it was kept out of residential areas and users couldn't leave under the influence.Agreed.
Serisouly, assualting someone is WAY WAY different than peacfully growing a plant. Comparing the two as the same and in justification of loss of the right to defend one self is quite frankly- silly.
Bad laws shouldn't be followed. I do what is right and just, not what is deemed "legal" by a corrupt controlling monster Govt.- a Gummint I might add that doesn't even follow the laws they enforce 1/2 the time.
Just think, if we didn't follow every law/regulation/code that are small oversteps of our constitutional rights/liberties- America wouldn't be in the shitty situation it is today. We have slowly let them steal our soverignty- like a frog in a slowly heating pot of water...
Complacency and small/continual intrusions on our rights without us fighting back is what got us where we are.
The guy had some plants; yep they're illegal- does it really justify a murder charge in lieu of self defense when he was clearly defending himself and his child. How does having a plant negate that fact he was defending his life and change things to murder? It is illogical and quite frankly frightening that so many of you here would be okay with this guy being charged for murder instead of self defense in this situation. It is appauling.
Loosing your natural right to defense because of a victimless crime is more of a crime than growing the marijuana in the first place. And is a helluva lot worse for society and individuals to have laws that are more damaging than what they are punishing in the first place.
Yes, absolutely having a grow operation in your attic makes you a bad parent and this is not a "clean" shoot by any means. "Possession" of a small amount of marijuana is legal, "Production" is a felony. Having a grow OP in the house with your family? Subjecting them to the fire danger? The mold danger from the plants? The high levels of chemicals, fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, additives, etc. that go with grow operations? Committing a felony in the home is a continuous fashion is endangerment. Judging by the size of this attic, it could sustain a 300 plant grow. This was a huge income earner, not a sustainment of personal needs grow, this was a commercial operation. CPS needs to take the kid(s) now, if they haven't already. I'm sure the grow has been dismantled and the DA is getting ready to charge this knucklehead.
Lots of speculation on your part here. He could have been growing (2) plants or 10,000 for all we know. To posit otherwise is silly at this point- but you already know that.
Having any plant in the houselhold would be just as dangerous then by your logic; wouldn't you say? They could cause mold, cause a fire, you have to keep chemicals, pesticides, fungicides and other harmful substances in your home (No one has any cleaning chemicals in the house these days do they- that would be dangerous to the kids!? Or any other dangerous equipment say like a gun, a spade, a knife, a hatchet or god forbid scissors in there homes right? That would be endangerment! CALL CPS! And they are going to make this argument in the future against guns- with the ACA)
This is a clean shoot, that happened to occur in a house where someone grows an illegal plant.
Do you really think this guy should have his kid taken from him and charged with murder? Serisously?
Lots of speculation on your part here. He could have been growing (2) plants or 10,000 for all we know. To posit otherwise is silly at this point- but you already know that.
I would caution against making an absolute statement with what we know, but it is not silly to suggest that what we do know points more towards the latter number. I would be very surprised to find out it's two plants.
Home invasions are not very random, it's a planned attack on a known target most of the time. The known target most likely being drugs or drug money.
I would caution against making an absolute statement with what we know, but it is not silly to suggest that what we do know points more towards the latter number. I would be very surprised to find out it's two plants.
Home invasions are not very random, it's a planned attack on a known target most of the time. The known target most likely being drugs or drug money.
I would agree he probably had a bunch of plants. What is silly is to think there would be any unusual amount of cash on hand. Also stolen crops don't fit in a backpack. This could very well have been a planned home invasion where the invaders had no idea what was in the attic.
Do you really think this guy should have his kid taken from him and charged with murder? Serisously?
Charged with murder - No, unless new incriminating details emerge.
Kids removed and various other felonies related to drugs and guns - Yes, if there's convincing evidence that he was selling marijuana for profit.
Yes, I'm serious.
Serisouly, assualting someone is WAY WAY different than peacfully growing a plant. Comparing the two as the same and in justification of loss of the right to defend one self is quite frankly- silly.
There are people who feel that way about Opium. And quite honestly, car thieves feel that way, not hurting anyone and you shouldn't be allowed to shoot them. Many muggers DO feel that way IF they think they aren't really hurting anyone.
Again, I "personally" could care less if it was made legal. But I also don't give a damn about a criminal. And that includes guys running a grow house. Because it isn't LEGAL they willingly put all of their neighbors at risk so screw them.
I won't get into my feelings about marijuana but I read the whole thread and I have to touch on a couple simple points.
In the next paragraph, I will define "innocent victim" as being someone who is not involved in any illegal activity.
In my experience, home invasions USUALLY do not happen to innocent victims. Victims of home invasions are involved in other illegal activity. The very few examples of home invasions involving innocent victims are, if the bad guys get the wrong house while trying to invade someone else(been there), if the victims are involved in a legitimate business that deals in a lot of cash transactions or an elderly type family that may not believe in keeping money in the bank.
Greed sometimes trumps common sense. In this particular incident, the greedy pot grower failed miserably in the common sense department. If the guy was rich enough to have such a nice secluded large home, maybe he should have bought some property and built a garage and grew his pot there instead of where his children live?
Marijuana and cocaine are the biggest motives for murder IN MY REGION. Turf wars (for a lack of a better term) for drug corners for selling marijuana and cocaine have caused many shootings in my area. Not murders over vast quantities of drugs like in Mexico or in the movies.
Having things that other people want will cause you to be in danger of being robbed or burglarized. We as a firearms community prepare for this by training. When you add to the mix an item that someone may not report stolen to the police, like illegal drugs, it makes it easier or more of a temptation for someone to want to come and take it.
Am I concerned that someone may break into my home and steal my firearms collection? A little.
If I make a poster and list all of the weapons I have in my home and put the poster in my front yard, will this increase the temptation of possible burglars? You are darn right!
Did this man have a right to protect himself and his child? YES
Did this man invite the harm to him and his family? Common sense says, absolutely.
Littlelebowski
12-10-12, 19:52
I think that the decision to take a child away from his parents and place him in the foster care system should be approached with much careful thought.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
I think that the decision to take a child away from his parents and place him in the foster care system should be approached with much careful thought.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Oh how absolutely correct you are. And the people that make those decisions (in my county) are absolute MORONS!
Oh how absolutely correct you are. And the people that make those decisions (in my county) are absolute LIBERALS!
Fixed it for you? :confused:
I think that the decision to take a child away from his parents and place him in the foster care system should be approached with much careful thought.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Yeah, that kid really could be better off in a grow house that armed home invaders hit on a regular basis. And no that is NOT sarcasm.
Fixed it for you? :confused:
Not to derail this thread but we recently had an incident where a guy came over to a residence in my jurisdiction to purchase a Glock 20 from the owner. There were several people at the house including a child (that did not live there). One of the adults attempted to disassemble the pistol and he failed to clear the weapon. He had an ND and the round went into the marble counter top. The shrapnel FROM THE COUNTER TOP not the bullet, struck the child (who was in another room) in the arm causing a small cut (not even stitches).
A few hours later, I receive a phone call from child services.
The conversation went like this....
CS: Hi, I am so and so from CS. I would like to have the names and ages of all of the children residing in the residence.
Me: This is an ongoing investigation and I can not disclose ANY information until approved by the Chief of Police.
CS: Well can I just have ages of children in the residence?
ME: This is an ongoing investigation and I can not disclose ANY information until approved by the Chief of Police.
CS: Well, we can't have anymore guns going off and hurting anymore kids in that home.
ME: Please contact the Chief of Police on Monday. Thanks You, have a good evening, bye.
No children actually lived in that house!!! Ever!
I think that the decision to take a child away from his parents and place him in the foster care system should be approached with much careful thought.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
Which is why I qualified my statement that the kids should by removed only if there's convincing evidence that he was selling marijuana for profit in the home.
I won't get into my feelings about marijuana but I read the whole thread and I have to touch on a couple simple points.
In the next paragraph, I will define "innocent victim" as being someone who is not involved in any illegal activity.
In my experience, home invasions USUALLY do not happen to innocent victims. Victims of home invasions are involved in other illegal activity. The very few examples of home invasions involving innocent victims are, if the bad guys get the wrong house while trying to invade someone else(been there), if the victims are involved in a legitimate business that deals in a lot of cash transactions or an elderly type family that may not believe in keeping money in the bank.
Greed sometimes trumps common sense. In this particular incident, the greedy pot grower failed miserably in the common sense department. If the guy was rich enough to have such a nice secluded large home, maybe he should have bought some property and built a garage and grew his pot there instead of where his children live?
Marijuana and cocaine are the biggest motives for murder IN MY REGION. Turf wars (for a lack of a better term) for drug corners for selling marijuana and cocaine have caused many shootings in my area. Not murders over vast quantities of drugs like in Mexico or in the movies.
Having things that other people want will cause you to be in danger of being robbed or burglarized. We as a firearms community prepare for this by training. When you add to the mix an item that someone may not report stolen to the police, like illegal drugs, it makes it easier or more of a temptation for someone to want to come and take it.
I think this is a great post in light of the recent Clemson tragedy. For those of you who did not know, a Clemson engineering student was killed in an home invasion robbery at an off-camus house last week. He was from a small town about 15 min outside of Charlotte, so this is a big deal this week in my hometown.
It seems that 3-4 masked men stormed the house with at least SEVEN occupants in search of the roommates stash of marijuana. In the process, they shot and killed this student, Steven Gregory Grich. Ironically, there were only a few grams of pot although the robbers thought there would be more.
Fortunately, they caught 3 of the guys and the 4th is on the run. The moral of the story is be very careful with who you associate yourself. If you have friends who dabble in drugs, there is a small chance that their behavior will affect you even if you don't touch the stuff. The risks only go up the closer you get to any drug culture.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/12/10/3717827/clemson-student-from-fort-mill.html
Littlelebowski
12-11-12, 06:57
Which is why I qualified my statement that the kids should by removed only if there's convincing evidence that he was selling marijuana for profit in the home.
I still think punishing the parents if they are indeed endangering the children makes more sense than punishing the parents AND the children by placing the children in the foster care system. I've never tried an illegal drug and don't plan to but I'm firmly convinced that the nuclear family is a child's best bet towards becoming a successful and productive member of society.
I still think punishing the parents if they are indeed endangering the children makes more sense than punishing the parents AND the children by placing the children in the foster care system. I've never tried an illegal drug and don't plan to but I'm firmly convinced that the nuclear family is a child's best bet towards becoming a successful and productive member of society.
Ah, now I see our miscommunication - I never said anything about foster care. Most children who are removed from a home do not enter foster care. They often live with another family member, and many times that is a parent because these kids often come from broken families. I suspect that this too is a broken family based on the details being released about the homeowner.
Either way, that kid is going somewhere if the homeowner is convicted of any felony charges.
Littlelebowski
12-11-12, 07:30
No worries, I was generalizing for the most part.
CoryCop25's story does worry me.....
Frederick Adamkiewicz and Roy Piercy, both 30, and both Iraq veterans of the Army and USMC are named as the decedents. Both have active and open Facebook pages for your perusal.
Littlelebowski
12-11-12, 08:01
Frederick Adamkiewicz and Roy Piercy, both 30, and both Iraq veterans of the Army and USMC are named as the decedents. Both have active and open Facebook pages for your perusal.
Looks like at least one fatherless child because of this stupid shit. ****.
Looks like at least one fatherless child because of this stupid shit. ****.
Check out their Facebook pages. Both list each other as "Friends". One was studying to be a diver, both had large, extended families. I wouldn't be surprised if members here knew them.
Littlelebowski
12-11-12, 08:11
Check out their Facebook pages. Both list each other as "Friends". One was studying to be a diver, both had large, extended families. I wouldn't be surprised if members here knew them.
I did, saw the pictures of the little girl, and got depressed for her. I hate people.
I hate people.
Unfortunately the more news one reads the easier this becomes. It gets to the point where you have to be either clueless or foolishly complacent not to be affected.
Check out their Facebook pages. Both list each other as "Friends". One was studying to be a diver, both had large, extended families. I wouldn't be surprised if members here knew them.
Very interesting and they sure don't fit the preconceived notions that I had about their socioeconomic backgrounds. I wonder if either had previous violent criminal records. They were also both armed with handguns and I wonder if those were purchased legally.
The very few examples of home invasions involving innocent victims are, if the bad guys get the wrong house while trying to invade someone else(been there), if the victims are involved in a legitimate business that deals in a lot of cash transactions or an elderly type family that may not believe in keeping money in the bank.
It's really quite simple. An illegal business is pretty much a cash business. Putting money from a illegal business into the bank is a good way to get caught, so there is often cash there. The reason home invasions are almost always drug related is because the risk is too high for a DVD player and a handful of cheap jewelry.
It's really quite simple. An illegal business is pretty much a cash business. Putting money from a illegal business into the bank is a good way to get caught, so there is often cash there. The reason home invasions are almost always drug related is because the risk is too high for a DVD player and a handful of cheap jewelry.
How about a tatto shop or a bar that closes way after the banks close for a deposit? Not ALL cash businesses are illegal. Yes, an overnight deposit is the safe way to do it but it doesn't always happen.
Oh how absolutely correct you are. And the people that make those decisions (in my county) are absolute MORONS!
One day I may start a thread related to both my experiences reviewing child placement cases as a member of the court and the actions I took against inept, unaccountable DYFS (NJ child placement service) caseworkers and their equally inept supervisors. Since it's still ongoing and I have to consider how much to ethically or legally say it can wait for a better time, but you'll surely be familiar with the how the system regularly fails children and the parents who should have them back Cory.
One day I may start a thread related to both my experiences reviewing child placement cases as a member of the court and the actions I took against inept, unaccountable DYFS (NJ child placement service) caseworkers and their equally inept supervisors. Since it's still ongoing and I have to consider how much to ethically or legally say it can wait for a better time, but you'll surely be familiar with the how the system regularly fails children and the parents who should have them back Cory.
I may be too biased against Child Services due to the fact that I see the ridiculous reasons some children are taken away and the fact that it took over six years of court battles and finally a prison sentence for my daughter's mother until I got custody of my daughters.
I may be too biased against Child Services due to the fact that I see the ridiculous reasons some children are taken away and the fact that it took over six years of court battles and finally a prison sentence for my daughter's mother until I got custody of my daughters.
Been there and done that buddy. Her second DWI did a lot to both help me obtain custody as well as expose her for what she was.
Heck I have several reasons as to why I now serve the court as the youngest such board member and I can assure you that at times they're not quite sure how to deal with me. All for the better, as silent compliance is for those worried about their pensions or too timid to speak the truth. Me being the meager sworn volunteer, I don't have that concern...
Littlelebowski
12-12-12, 12:28
I may be too biased against Child Services due to the fact that I see the ridiculous reasons some children are taken away and the fact that it took over six years of court battles and finally a prison sentence for my daughter's mother until I got custody of my daughters.
Respect.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.