Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]
Onlinestzacrack
Stranger
 User Gallery

Registered: 05/07/05
Posts: 3,869
Loc: United States
Last seen: 1 minute, 15 seconds
Re: Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: dark3st]
    #19095453 - 11/06/13 01:40 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

dark3st said:
Quote:

Magick said:
Cops are necessary. Nobody likes the idea of being charged or arrested for anything, but without somebody to enforce the law, there would be absolute chaos, in a very violent and gruesome way.

The police shouldn't harass and arrest people for simple drug possession (especially for drugs like marijuana), but that isn't a problem with our police - it's a problem with our policy!

That being said, many cops make it their goal to stomp out nonviolent drug offenders, over more important and pressing issues - whatever the reason. That's not right. An officer should definitely be looking to reduce violence and crime that hurts one another. It's like ignoring a murder call to catch a speeder - which I'm sure many cops would do.

However, this officer did step out of line by threatening arrest for posting a political opinion.





That's such bullshit.  People have been shown to self govern themselves in absence of a referee. Its not like all a sudden morals and good will automatically disappear if cops just vanished.




i lean towards your way of looking at it.  but say drugs were legal, and thus there is less of a police presence in the neighborhoods where illegal drug trafficking runs rampant.

without the drug dealing and such that goes along with it, where would these people get money to eat?

i have bought drugs from blacks under 15 years old PLENTY of times.  dealing drugs is what our government wanted when they built public housing and such for them. they have kept the black man down since he was "freed".


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 9 hours, 10 minutes
Re: Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: JB76]
    #19097901 - 11/06/13 09:43 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

CidneyIndole said:
What law says the cops can't make illegal threats against citizens, while on duty, and/or falsely investigate them, and harass them in retaliation for exercising their first amendment right? Is that really what you're asking me?





Yes, that is precisely my question.

I am not aware of any law that makes what the cops said illegal.  Since you seem to think what they said was illegal, I wonder what law you had in mind that would cover their actions?



Quote:

Well, if the first amendment means a wet squat other than just ink on paper, than the first amendment does, for one.




I have read the first amendment and it does not say that the cops can't threaten to arrest you for drugs.




Quote:

However, I just took quite a lot of time to explain my position and reasoning. How about you tell me which law says they can do that?




Laws don't give us rights - We can do whatever we want unless there is a law against it.

Quote:

(And don't say the first amendment-- we already addressed that.)




I would argue that the first amendment gives the cops the right to say whatever they want.  It does not let the cops do whatever they want, but I believe that it protects their speech.  Even very unpopular speech, as is the subject of this conversation.




Quote:

Sure, the cops can just make any threats they want, against anyone.




I wish there was a law against this.....However I do not believe that there is.

If the cop wrote "if you smoke dope I will come and break your legs", that would be illegal.   

But what he basically said is "if you smoke dope I will come and arrest you". 


If there is any law that this violates, I would like to know about it.  Because I would use it against the cops every chance I get.

Unfortunately that law does not seem to  exist....


Quote:

Why don't you look it up? Better yet-- shoot an email off the the ACLU and see what they have to say about it.





I have looked it up and I could not find any law that the post violated.


Quote:

Do you actually read the shit you write sometimes, Alan, or bother thinking about it at all? Because honestly, it really does not seem that way, sometimes.




I was hoping that what they wrote was illegal, but it does not appear that we can find any law against it....so.....Perhaps their conduct was lawful?


Quote:

JB76 said:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

The legal machinery of the state cannot be used to inhibit lawful political speech.

This is pretty basic, and not at all a gray area.





That is totally true.  If they had showed up at his door and arrested him for saying what he did, then the first amendment would absolutely protect him.  But that is not what happened here.

What happened here was two people were talking shit over the internet.  I don't see how any laws were broken.

Maybe there is some kind of law that restricts the speech of police???  But probably not.



Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJB76
Stranger
Registered: 10/14/13
Posts: 55
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #19098542 - 11/07/13 12:21 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

The guy on Facebook did not claim to have ever smoked pot. He said that police resources were being poorly utilized, and he predicted that pot would be legal soon.

"maybe (police) should arrest the people shooting people in 5 points instead of worrying about a stoner that’s not bothering anyone. It’ll be legal here one day anyway.”

This is squarely within the realm of political speech. When a citizen criticizes a public official, that official is not allowed to respond with, "Criticize me again and I'll sic my detectives on you." That's a gross abuse of power.

The chief isn't going to get a visit from the Justice Department over one stupid comment that he clearly regrets. But if he made a habit of threatening to use his official powers to investigate people based on their political beliefs, he would rightly be sued by the attorney general and probably forced to sign a consent decree.

When a police chief speaks about department policy, especially with regard to investigation and arrest, it's not just "speech." It's action. And the law regulates that action.

It's really pretty amazing that you don't get this, if you truly don't.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: Alan Rockefeller] * 2
    #19099003 - 11/07/13 04:42 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alan Rockefeller said:
The way I see it, both parties in this dispute were exercising their right to free speech.



Really?  That's how you see it?

The chief of police, using the department as a screen name, said "we will work on finding you" in response to what was undoubtedly political speech.  He wasn't speaking as an individual.  He specifically stated what the department would be doing.  He was acting as a government spokesperson threatening to "find" anyone who expressed an opinion he disagreed with.

I doubt it's enough to sue over, but I'd take that poster as a client pro bono and issue a serious warning to the PD about further action.


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Subject too long, wtf. [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #19099027 - 11/07/13 04:58 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Alan Rockefeller said:
I am not aware of any law that makes what the cops said illegal.  Since you seem to think what they said was illegal, I wonder what law you had in mind that would cover their actions?




"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress"
42 U.S.C. §1983


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleCidneyIndole
www.shroomery.OG
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/16/05
Posts: 4,761
Loc: Love's Secret Domain
Re: Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: Alan Rockefeller]
    #19100003 - 11/07/13 11:30 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Quote:

Alan Rockefeller said:
The way I see it, both parties in this dispute were exercising their right to free speech.



Really?  That's how you see it?

The chief of police, using the department as a screen name, said "we will work on finding you" in response to what was undoubtedly political speech.  He wasn't speaking as an individual.  He specifically stated what the department would be doing.  He was acting as a government spokesperson threatening to "find" anyone who expressed an opinion he disagreed with.

I doubt it's enough to sue over, but I'd take that poster as a client pro bono and issue a serious warning to the PD about further action.







Thank you for interjecting your opinion. I was starting to get a bit perturbed over Alan's seeming lack of understanding. Perhaps he'll accept your professional opinion. That being said, I'm going to try one more time to clarify my reasoning and address some of the points raised.




@Alan



1- Perhaps the first amendment doesn't say "cops can't threaten people."  However, the first amendment doesn't explicitly mention a lot of things that are absolutely protected, or prohibited.


2- Threatening speech is NOT protected.  Again, threats are not protected free speech.


3-  In exercising his speech (free and legal or not) this cop was not only threatening a citizen, but was threatening him in response to / retaliation for exercising his (the citizen's) protected right to free political speech.  Because the cop's speech was threat and punishment for someone simply exercising their rights, this could be interpreted as suppression of the right to speech of a citizen.


Those rights are meaningless unless they are upheld. And if citizens can be threatened with legal action by government officials for exercising their right to free speech, then they are not truly "free" to speak, because there are punishing consequences for that speech. Therefore, not only was this cop not exercising free speech, himself, he was attempting to trample the right to free speech of a citizen, for expressing an opinion he didn't like. Do you imagine suppression of free speech by government officials is somehow legal?





4-


Quote:

Alan Rockefeller said:
If the cop wrote "if you smoke dope I will come and break your legs", that would be illegal.   

But what he basically said is "if you smoke dope I will come and arrest you". 







My intent here is not to offend you, but honestly if you think what you said above is true, you very seriously need to brush up on your reading comprehension skills. What you wrote above is not even almost an accurate paraphrasing of what this cop said. "If you smoke dope..." when did he say that? It was very clear the cop basically assumed he was a "dope smoker" because of his opinion. As though only dope-smokers could have an opinion on drug laws. And at no point did he make the threatened investigation contingent on legitimately discovered and suspected illegal activity. He didn't say "maybe we'll investigate you, if you break the law."  He made clear and positive statements.


A more accurate rendering might be:  "I will assume [unfairly] that you are are involved in illegal drugs because of your comment [which was merely expressing a protected political opinion]. We will be sure to investigate you [illegally] now that you've expressed your political opinion."


The parts in the brackets are, of course, my commentary. Was the cop smart enough to recognize those bracketed sections as true, he wouldn't have written this in the first place, or would have deleted it sooner, as I pointed out. Oh, and funny... I notice that you didn't address my question as to why the cop quickly went back and deleted what he said, if he was 100% in the right, to say what he did. That fact alone should have told you I'm right. But I digress....




Going back to your point here, if the cop had instead said something like this:


Quote:

I want all dope dealers and dope smokers put on notice:  Regardless of what some states are doing, or political attitues in other places, Marijuana is still illegal here, we are still investigating cases, and if you are committing drug crimes, we will arrest you!






.... now if he'd said something like that, I would be agreeing with you. A comment like that would be fully protected. And if you can't see the difference between the two, I'm almost not sure what to say to you, other than you seriously need to work on your comprehension.


That puts it in the hypothetical, and doesn't address it at one person. It also specifically states "if you are involved in drug crimes."  Which really, is only stating the obvious truth. Of course the police are looking for, and will bust people involved in drug crimes. While that may suck, it's perfectly legal, and perfectly legal to say.


What is NOT perfectly legal to say, is "We will investigate you, specific citizen, for drug crimes, simply because you posted a political opinion about drug laws."




I'm still waiting for your opinion as to why you think the cop went back and quickly deleted his "perfectly legal" message.



:facepalm:


--------------------
------------------------
I am me. We are You.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineAlan RockefellerM
Mycologist
Male User Gallery
Registered: 03/10/07
Posts: 48,276
Last seen: 9 hours, 10 minutes
Re: Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: CidneyIndole]
    #19100024 - 11/07/13 11:34 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

CidneyIndole said:
I'm still waiting for your opinion as to why you think the cop went back and quickly deleted his "perfectly legal" message.






I guess it wasn't so legal.

Thanks to the both of you!


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleEnlilMDiscord
OTD God-King
 User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 08/16/03
Posts: 65,505
Loc: Uncanny Valley
Re: Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: Alan Rockefeller] * 3
    #19100083 - 11/07/13 11:44 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

The fact is, Alan, that the cop's statement wasn't a crime.  It was a violation of the guy's civil rights, which is a civil claim...but without damages, that's moot.

If the cop had been talking as a citizen, he'd have been within his first amendment rights.  He wasn't.  He was speaking as a spokesperson for the PD.  This is particularly true when he said "WE will work on finding you."

The most troublesome part of the whole thing is that the original statement was a criticism of the cops, and the response was basically, "fuck you, and thanks for giving us an excuse to fuck with you.  We'll find you."


--------------------
Censoring opposing views since 2014.

Ask an Attorney

Fuck the Amish


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineJB76
Stranger
Registered: 10/14/13
Posts: 55
Last seen: 9 years, 5 months
Re: Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: Alan Rockefeller] * 1
    #19100217 - 11/07/13 12:19 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Kudos to Alan for seeing the light.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineMagick
Thinker
 User Gallery

Registered: 01/25/09
Posts: 846
Last seen: 5 years, 9 months
Re: Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: JB76]
    #19103360 - 11/07/13 10:50 PM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

without the drug dealing and such that goes along with it, where would these people get money to eat?




Jobs.

Don't try and tell me people need to sell drugs to survive. There's plenty of ways to make money, and plenty of people who will help you on your way.

I've said it before and I'll repeat it now, I think drugs should be free. But then again, I also think food and such commodities necessary to live should be free. And entertainment. And knowledge. Money is absolutely worthless when everyone shares these things.

Unfortunately that's my brain running into utopia again. But people don't need to sell drugs to earn enough to live.


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineNetDiver
Wandering Mindfuck


Registered: 08/24/09
Posts: 6,024
Loc: Everywhere and Nowhere
Last seen: 1 year, 6 months
Re: Pro-pot comment earns Facebook user a personalized arrest threat from South Carolina police chief [Re: Enlil]
    #19105241 - 11/08/13 11:48 AM (10 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

Enlil said:
Really?  That's how you see it?

The chief of police, using the department as a screen name, said "we will work on finding you" in response to what was undoubtedly political speech.  He wasn't speaking as an individual.  He specifically stated what the department would be doing.  He was acting as a government spokesperson threatening to "find" anyone who expressed an opinion he disagreed with.

I doubt it's enough to sue over, but I'd take that poster as a client pro bono and issue a serious warning to the PD about further action.



Agreed; the FB poster didn't directly state that he used marijuana, he said he was in favor of legalizing it, to which the chief of police responded with a direct threat of harassment ("we will work on finding you"). No one's political views should earn them police surveillance. That's pretty much the definition of a first amendment violation.


--------------------


Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: < Back | 1 | 2 | 3  [ show all ]

Shop: Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Buy Bali Kratom Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Toronto police pull plug on pro-pot rally Le_Canard 1,199 1 08/23/04 08:10 PM
by chodamunky
* Pot laws DO NOT apply to medical users!!! DazedSol 1,880 1 12/26/03 11:49 PM
by DailyPot
* GOING TO POT: High times motamanM 2,685 2 05/05/03 12:44 AM
by thestringphish
* (Canada) Liberals Plan Pot Law Reforms trendalM 3,852 5 04/25/03 03:28 AM
by GratefulDread
* Pot Possession in Ontario Illegal Again Therapy 2,619 4 10/08/03 05:45 PM
by Raadt
* Bill to protect medicinal pot users falls short in House motamanM 4,156 4 08/17/03 08:21 PM
by Demiurge
* Update on Canadian Pot Saga WildCardsRevenge 3,750 8 02/06/03 08:23 PM
by Mitchnast
* Dutch Ban on Smoking Hits Pot Businesses Lana 4,079 8 06/18/03 05:06 AM
by cybrbeast

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: motaman, veggie, Alan Rockefeller, Mostly_Harmless
7,282 topic views. 0 members, 8 guests and 2 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.029 seconds spending 0.008 seconds on 14 queries.