Cops Caught Misbehaving During Pot Dispensary Raid Sue Police Dept. To Prevent Recording From Being Used Against Them

from the the-kind-of-stupid-only-the-amoral-and-entitled-can-deploy dept

The cops who were caught on camera insulting an amputee, disabling security cameras, playing darts and sampling THC-laced edibles during a raid on a pot dispensary are suing to prevent Santa Ana Police Department investigators from using the recording against them. (via Reason)

Here's one of the two videos the officers are seeking to suppress.


There is an almost incomprehensible amount of audacity and stupidity in the officers' lawsuit.

First off, through their lawyer (provided by co-plaintiff Santa Ana Police Officers Association), the officers claim the recording they previously weren't aware of was "heavily edited" by the owners of the raided dispensary and "misrepresents" what actually happened that day.
[Attorney Corey W.] Glave said Pappas has altered the video in a way to make the police look bad.

“The attorney representing the drug dispensary intentionally has misrepresented what happened,” Glave said.
This is just the beginning of the stupidity. Of course the edited video only shows the raiding officers' misbehavior. No one has any interest in regular, orderly police work. But the tape does not make the officers "look bad." The OFFICERS make the officers look bad. They're the ones that ate pot-laced edibles and offered to kick an amputee "right in the fucking nub."

To put it in another context, the officers' claim of misrepresentation by videotape is roughly equivalent to telling your boss when he's firing you for showing up for work drunk that he's "misrepresenting" the situation by "editing" down your work history to the day you showed up drunk for work. What about all the days you showed up sober?

This argument is asinine. This claim that anyone other than the officers themselves made the officers look bad is the sort of blame-shifting usually seen only in small children and lousy employees.

It gets worse. So much worse.
The suit also claims the video shouldn’t be used as evidence because, among other things, the police didn’t know they were on camera.

“All police personnel present had a reasonable expectation that their conversations were no longer being recorded and the undercover officers, feeling that they were safe to do so, removed their masks,” says the suit.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.

Police officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy -- at least not while performing their public duties in a business open to the public. The only "expectation of privacy" here is an illusion created by the officers themselves, who thought they had completely disabled the store's security cameras. There's nothing "reasonable" about this "expectation of privacy." Sure, the officers "reasonably" thought they were capable of disabling a surveillance system. But an expectation of privacy doesn't spring into existence simply because the officers failed to do so.

The lawsuit follows this stupidity up with more stupidity.
The dispensary also did not obtain consent of any officer to record them, the suit says.
The dispensary doesn't "obtain consent" from its customers, but it has every right to utilize security cameras. No business anywhere has to obtain the permission of the public before recording them in publicly-accessible areas. This includes cops, even though these cops seem to believe otherwise.

The officers are trying to bend part of California's recording law to fit their situation. But they can't do that because it doesn't apply to them.
All parties to any confidential communication must give permission to be recorded, according to California’s eavesdropping law. Cal. Penal Code § 632. The statute, however, specifically excludes from its application any conversations made in public places, government proceedings, or in circumstances where the participants of the conversation could reasonably expect to be overheard or recorded.
Again, just because the officers believed they had disabled all of the store's cameras doesn't give a publicly-accessible business filled with public servants a reasonable expectation of privacy. The officers were aware their activities would be recorded. That's why they disabled the cameras. So, any expectation of privacy they mistakenly thought they might have had when the raid began would have dissipated the moment they saw the cameras.

And finally, here's the most ridiculous assertion in this sea of stupidity, even though it is (in one way) entirely correct.
“Without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer,” the suit says.
True. If there had been no recording, the officers very likely WOULD HAVE GOTTEN AWAY WITH IT.

If these officers are unhappy with the recording's "portrayal" of their actions and displeased they're now being investigated by the department, all they had to do to avoid this was behave like professionals and not do the things they did during the raid. It's as simple as that. Everything else is the horrendously misguided whining of a bunch of entitled brats masquerading as officers of the law.

I cannot wait for a judge to get his or her hands on this filing. I am looking forward to the swift benchslap that is sure to follow. I sincerely hope the judge throws this case out before the defendants even have to file a response. Failing that, a motion to dismiss stating nothing more than "this is bullshit" should be all that's needed to end this debacle.

Filed Under: immunity, police, pot raid


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 3:41pm

    Right to be Oblivious

    So now we understand that the police not only think they are above the law, but that they feel they have an imperial right to not get caught abusing the law they stand above.

    Are they showing a weakness here by trying to use laws they do not respect to protect their own fragile asses?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    That One Other Not So Random Guy, 6 Aug 2015 @ 3:52pm

    [jaw open] Wow... just unfuking believable. And they wonder why PPL hate them.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 6:58pm

      Re:

      well obviously we should be on our knees licking their boots otherwise we are criminals just waiting to be beaten to death or shot for such disrespect towards our blue shirted jackboots

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 3:53pm

    F*** it!

    “All police personnel present had a reasonable expectation that their conversations were no longer being recorded and the undercover officers, feeling that they were safe to do so, removed their masks,” says the suit.

    That sounds to me like:
    Hey guys we aren't recorded so let's do what ever the f*** we want! You there, kick that retard in the balls, and why haven't you over there punched that idiot yet? Punch him! What was that? No, we are safe because we can't expect to be recored here so do whatever the f*** you want but do not and I repeat DO NOT touch that loaded bong! That one is mine! Ok, now let's play some freaking darts!... Are you sick? Not on the cripple, the dartboard! Take some edibles before you speak again!

    Well my imagination might have gotten the better of me on this one.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Cristy, 6 Aug 2015 @ 8:39pm

      Re: F*** it!

      That was fucking great!!! I love your imagination! 😆😂

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 9:07pm

      Re: F*** it! Happens all the time

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 10:46pm

      Re: F*** it!

      The first question the Judge should be askign is:

      "So, if you weren't being recorded, you would have raped the owner?"

      Because that's what the suit implies - that had there been no recording, the officers woudl have broken the laws to their severest extent.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 1:38pm

        Re: Re: F*** it!

        They are implying that if they don't expect to get caught they will break any laws they please whenever they please. and when they do get caught they should get away with it and any evidence should be thrown away because they weren't expecting to get caught and had they known they were going to get caught they wouldn't have done it. Which I suspect can be said about many criminals when they commit a crime, they don't expect to get caught and many probably wouldn't have done it had they known they were going to get caught. So, under that logic, lets throw away any evidence that may convict a criminal and lets acquit all criminals from all wrongdoings they have been caught for. At least this will solve our prison overpopulation problem.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:00pm

    Cutting the security feed was a good Idea (for crooked dirty cops only) There's nothing worse than a dirty cop toss these assholes in the nearest prison.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:03pm

      Re:

      You are funny, cops and prison in the same sentence. As if any cop would go to prison for something like that or anything. They are the good guys after all!

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:01pm

    ROFLMAO!

    Officer too stoned to get of a chair without help!
    Video at 1:00 to 1:06.

    Imaginary voice:
    "I ram that thing into floor otherwise I might fall"

    Serious question, how stoned where those guys when they raided that store? I have been on quite some highs and I never damaged my floor like that to get off a chair!
    #toohightocop

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Uriel-238 (profile), 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:04pm

    Who we are in the Dark.

    The implication of this lawsuit is that these officers believe their conduct was in proper order. It is not that they did wrong, but the camera made them look bad.

    We can expect them to continue to conduct themselves accordingly.

    We can expect similar conduct from any organizion that condones or defends such conduct, including their precinct, their union and their council.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Whoever, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:04pm

    Sauce for the goose?

    What if ordinary criminals objected to recordings of their wrongdoing. Oh, wait, some just did!

    Because, yeah, that's what these people were, ordinary criminals.

    Perhaps they think that they should rob a bank and then object to any videos of them in the act? How would that be any different?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:11pm

      Re: Sauce for the goose?

      Perhaps they think that they should rob a bank and then object to any videos of them in the act? How would that be any different?
      Two things:
      1. I'd love to see how it plays out if cops rob a bank. Just for the statistical value of it.
      2. Do you really think they would be charged if they can make believe that a terrorist org. was responsible for it? Because as you know "TERRRRRORRRR" is worth more than the bank card. For a figure of how much it is worth look at some arms manufactures compared to federal reserve debt spending figure.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 1:56pm

      Re: Sauce for the goose?

      All criminals not expecting to get caught should be freed. Only those that were expecting to get caught should remain in jail and/or face punishment.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That One Guy (profile), 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:08pm

    [Attorney Corey W.] Glave said Pappas has altered the video in a way to make the police look bad.

    “The attorney representing the drug dispensary intentionally has misrepresented what happened,” Glave said.


    That's a good point actually. If only there was a complete video recording, from multiple cameras, to show what happened...

    ... oh, right, they destroyed every camera and/or recording device they saw, intentionally making sure that there wouldn't be multiple recordings of what happened, with the intent that there wouldn't be any recordings of what happened.

    They're just put out that they missed a camera and it shows them acting like corrupt thugs and idiots, since apparently if only all the other cameras had been left alone the recordings from them would have shown paragons of professionalism.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:12pm

    Obstruction of Justice

    And that's the least charge these thugs in uniform should be facing.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:25pm

      Re: Obstruction of Justice

      Honestly, meh! These officers just did what their supervisor told them to do. They are pawns in a chess game. Unless of course they went crazy which means that their boss says that drugs are Ok! But if I am not mistaken under federal law that drug is still illegal which would mean that either their superior ignores fed law or that she or he trapped them.
      Fell free to correct me if I am wrong.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Mr. Mackey, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:38pm

        Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice

        Drugs are bad... MKAY.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 7:03pm

        Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice

        Just following orders has never worked for anyone that is stupid enough to use that defense.

        That phrase brings up a very specific period in history when one hears it

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        JMT (profile), 6 Aug 2015 @ 8:49pm

        Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice

        "These officers just did what their supervisor told them to do. They are pawns in a chess game."

        You're wrong. They may or may not have had approval or encouragement from supervisors, but they did want they did because they wanted to and thought they could get away with it. No decent human being would follow orders to do what they did. They're thugs with no respect for the laws they've been entrusted to uphold. This incident reflects terribly on the processes for vetting police candidates and monitoring ongoing behavior.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        David, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:59am

        Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice

        "I was just doing my job". Sorry to Godwin myself, but that excuse hasn't worked before, and shouldn't work here.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:03am

        Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice

        "These officers just did what their supervisor told them to do."

        Really? Their supervisors told them to use the drugs they found? Seems doubtful.

        Even if everything they did was what their supervisors told them to do, though, that excuses nothing at all. The officers are still corrupt and criminal. The only thing "I was ordered to do it" means is that your boss is corrupt and criminal as well.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      afn29129 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 8:59am

      Re: Obstruction of Justice

      Eating of what they should of been tagging and bagging would be destruction of evidence.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        sigalrm (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:12am

        Re: Re: Obstruction of Justice

        They weren't "eating of what they should have been tagging".

        They were "utilizing a new, highly effective field test" to confirm the presence of schedule 1 drugs in the Pot Shop.

        The test results are in...and they're apparently quite positive...

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:17pm

    apparently zero tolerance only works one way

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    sorrykb (profile), 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:18pm

    To put it in another context, the officers' claim of misrepresentation by videotape is roughly equivalent to telling your boss when he's firing you for showing up for work drunk that he's "misrepresenting" the situation by "editing" down your work history to the day you showed up drunk for work. What about all the days you showed up sober?

    Not to abuse the analogy, but I'm guessing there aren't too many days where these cops showed up sober.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:20pm

    Watch as the corruption of the police force shows how it has infected the courts. As the judge comes up with some bullshit argument and allows this dumb lawsuit to succeed.

    Hey lets all use the excuse. All those other days I killed the people I was just fine! It was only the heavily edited recording that showed I killed that person. I swear they never got my consent to film me. So, it is totally illegal. Throw it out ok judge?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 4:29pm

    Your honor, we are cops and our collective recollection of the events are entirely different from that of the video. Did I mention we are cops? As cops, our word is more accurate than that of a video, being the cops that we are of course.

    Also, it would be a shame if we cops were convicted of something and later be required to ensure your safety for some reason, as cops do, which we are.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 7:08pm

      Re:

      that defence can work as courts have ruled that when video evidence directly contradicts an officers statements the video is deemed as wrong simply because the cop is always right

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Ambrellite, 6 Aug 2015 @ 5:06pm

    The only way this can get dumber is if they claimed they acted in self-defense.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 6 Aug 2015 @ 5:39pm

    Sort of like

    the defendant in a battery suit asking to suppress a medical report since it fails to mention more than 200 bones the defendant didn't break.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 6:18pm

    Oh yes that would not be misused at all...

    You say that I raped and murdered that woman? But there is more than 3 billion women out there without my DNA and without that DNA evidence you would have nothing, so you gotta throw that out!
    It is totally valid reasoning... Remember, they are the good guys who protect and serve...
    (Gah just threw up a little when I wrote the last line)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 6 Aug 2015 @ 6:56pm

    its an 80% chance any judge will agree with the police simply because they are police and suffer stress under their job and thus should not be held accountable for when they act like criminals instead of police.

    That whole "I agree with the police simply because they are police and thus can do no wrong" idiotic thinking that most courts seem to have

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    TheMan (profile), 6 Aug 2015 @ 9:59pm

    Fuck them.. thez should use it agains them. They think they'r gods!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 6 Aug 2015 @ 10:10pm

    In a nut shell:

    This evidence makes me look bad. Since it conflicts with the verdict you are to come up with, it must be stricken.

    Now here is a single video recording against the word of several police officers.

    Does not look good for the recording.

    The only saving grace is that
    a) the police officers are the plaintiffs, so the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant
    b) the defendant is the police department

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 6 Aug 2015 @ 10:16pm

    At least the police officers are good sports

    It certainly looks like they have been sharing their spoils liberally with their lawyers.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Kaemaril (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 12:02am

    Let's see that work in a court of law for 'ordinary' criminals. Maybe something like burglary ...

    Lawyer : This is an outrageous abuse of civil rights, your Honor. My client is accused of breaking into the home of a local millionaire, but the only so-called 'evidence' the Police Department has is a video recording, from inside the property, of my client. That is tainted evidence, and must be excluded. My client was in a private property, and clearly had an expectation of privacy.

    Judge : Not his own private property, however?

    Lawyer : Doesn't matter, your Honor. Still not in public, so he clearly had an expectation of privacy!

    Judge : How so? There were clear signs at each entrance to the property warning that, for security purposes, there were CCTV cameras recording.

    Lawyer : Well, yes, granted - but earlier during the day, my client's accomplice had snuck in under the pretext of being an air-conditioning maintenance man, and had disabled all the cameras he could see. Therefore, my client CLEARLY in his own mind had an expectation of privacy as he was not expecting to be recorded.

    Judge : But it would seem a hidden camera was missed?

    Lawyer : Exactly, your Honor! A SPY camera SPYING on my client, who very clearly in his own mind had an expectation of privacy when he took his mask off. Ergo, being on private property and with his reasonable expectation of privacy fully intact, this evidence must obviously be suppressed.

    Judge : Wow. Just ... wow. That's certainly a very novel argument.

    Lawyer : Thank you, your Honor.

    Judge : Not novel in a good way, counsellor.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Bob, 7 Aug 2015 @ 12:32am

    And now it's Viral. when will they learn.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 1:35am

    "And I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for those damn kids (and their video cameras"...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 1:57am

    The really sad part about all of this, is after all of the effort & cash wasted in these lawsuits...and "Justice" is served by removing these unfit people from the job...
    An arbitrator will put them back on the job with back pay.

    Shake your head all you want, but time & time again we see those unfit for the job, forced back onto the public who thought that the rules were for everyone and that the bad apples were out of the barrel now. Why bother taking the bad apples out, when the system keeps shoving them back in with a bonus for their misdeeds? Why be shocked when good apples don't bother to report the bad apples or do anything, because they know it is pointless and they will face repercussions from those we've made untouchable and unaccountable.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 2:07am

      Back on the job with back pay.

      Maybe then it's up to the press to keep the public aware of where they go. Make sure their past follows them.

      Letting them work as law enforcement officers again pretty much lets them behave as they did here as law enforcement officers again.

      Since the state refuses to hold them accountable, it's up to us to do so.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:31am

        Re: Back on the job with back pay.

        The state may also want to reconsider making ridiculous deals with the police unions that make such things possible.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:35am

          Re: Re: Back on the job with back pay.

          I have an occupational license whose regulations provide that if I am convicted of even a civil tort - let alone anything criminal - I can lose my license and not be eligible for a new license for one year.

          So why do such regulations NOT exist for law enforcement? Be convicted of anything wrong results in loss of credential for one year.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 11:57am

            Why are police officers still eligible for reinstatement right after serious infractions of duty

            I think it's because I AM THE LAWR!.

            They're the guys with the guns and they think that they can do what they want.

            Of course it reflects on the entire justice system. As more corruption is revealed then the only reason we are obedient to justice is because of the gunpoint and not because we have respect for law or justice.

            At that point, they're the few bank robbers in a vast and spread out facility, where anyone not carefully watched is desperate even obligated to cause mischief.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 3:18pm

            Re: Re: Re: Back on the job with back pay.

            Because, as others have pointed out, cops are held to a lower standard than the rest of us?

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 5:18pm

              Law Enforcement Agents are not held to any standard at all.

              There is no standard of conduct to which peace officers are actually held, rather they sustain an illusion of a standard. Officers are required to look professional.

              This is why this new epidemic of privately owned video recorders is considered such a severe problem within the thin blue line, and why they tried so hard to criminalize unauthorized recording of police activity.

              Responses by precincts and the DoJ to breaches of this masquerade have been efforts to cover up, to suppress and to control damage. Very little is done in order to discipline those caught.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 10:45am

      Re:

      at the rate things are going these criminals will be dead within a decade as people will start fighting back if they assume they will be abused and possibly murdered by criminals with badges anyway. They might as well take them down with them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 7 Aug 2015 @ 12:00pm

        I recommend guillotines

        They leave a nice visceral image that lasts more than a generation and reminds us all that we don't want to have to do this again.

        Maybe we'll be more cautious next time.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 3:03am

    LET all states bring in a law all recording in a public place are legal, all photo or video recording of cops is legal .
    Grow up america ,
    pot is a used by millions of people .
    NO one has an expectation of privacy in a public place .
    make it legal to sell to anyone over 18 with id from a shop that pays tax.
    it would reduce crime and take money from the dealers .
    All cops should carry body cameras too .

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    dr evil, 7 Aug 2015 @ 3:53am

    What was the reason given to disable and remove cameras? Even if not to hide their subsequent acts, why? Doesnt bad cops require involvement of FBI?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Loki, 7 Aug 2015 @ 6:50am

    So public servants, in the service of public duties, have expectations of privacy, even in public settings, yet private citizens, thanks to things like cell phone data, no longer have any expectations to privacy even in private locations.

    And this is what they call freedom these days.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2015 @ 9:16am

    Policemen are criminals.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    David, 8 Aug 2015 @ 10:21pm

    Actually:

    “Without the illegal recordings, there would have been no internal investigation of any officer,” the suit says.

    That's actually the most important statement in the suit. It states quite definitely that the whole team and probably the department as well is rotten to the core and will routinely and summarily commit perjury in order to cover for each other's crimes. So if you fire the whole team without pension, you will not hit a single innocent person.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    guest, 8 Aug 2015 @ 11:08pm

    The government we deserve

    I just see a gang of armed robbers who belong in prison. But if you voted for any public official who passed a budget which funds this activity, you are an accessory to the crime.

    Drug prohibition does not prevent drug abuse -- it only attracts career criminals to the business of law enforcement. The fools who elected this criminal government are just too stupid to realize that they are also going to be robbed in one way or another, because that is what criminals do.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.