You hear about them on the news, but what about the one's you hear about from word of mouth or from being pulled over personally.
I have to say Georgia has some bad attitude cops. I once rented a car that had Dade County, FL plates and a Charlton County, GA Sheriff Deputy ( a border county too) pulled me over for supposed weaving which I was not Needless to say I even passed the breath test as I had no alcohol even on me, but his concern was drug trafficking and being Miami was in Dade County at the time in 1999, he assumed I was a runner. Then another instance was in Peach County off of I-75 when I was on the frontage road parked and the heavy accented Deputy who was in his late 50's being suspicious of a Florida tag car on his highway even stating he disliked out of state drivers decided to do a random license check on me. When he found nothing to arrest me for, he seemed like he was extremely disappointed. Then this past weekend I had a run in with a GA Patrol who cited me for using the camera for taking road pics in which I did not as when I saw him I put the camera down, but he still pulled me over and noticed that previous photos on the same camera had other area road pics so he tried to tell himself that they were taken all while he was behind me in that stage of trying to nail me.
I seem to always have luck in GA, and most people I chat with seem to have bad things to say about GA cops as well.
What states have you heard where the local or state fuzz always harrass people?
Ohio if you have a Michigan plate. I can't defend Michigan's officers at all though, you have some good and bad in every department. There are three departments in Saginaw County that I can say are among the worst. Honestly though the Michigan State Police don't seem to be too bad depending on what branch you get.
The former New Rome, Ohio. Need I say more?
I can't say every cop is bad, but I'm disappointed at the political pressure around here to keep real crimes from being prosecuted - just to protect people in high places around here.
I've been punished far worse just for complaining about these crimes.
Do they use a radar gun? If so, they are tied for dead last, and are as far from serious law enforcement as the guy who runs the astro-glider at the local amusement park is from an astronaut.
I lived in GA from ages 14 to 22, which means that I've spent the most time interacting with cops in GA. IME, Georgia has the best and worst. Kind to me when I was young and in minor traffic accidents and scared/upset, but complete dicks when they were on power trips (I remember one who got mad at me because he was trying to pull over a speeder and I happened to pull in front of the cop before he could, and the cop decided the speeder and I must be co-conspirators. Hoo boy. That night was the night I learned the value of using the left lane only for passing).
Quote from: SP Cook on May 02, 2018, 09:15:47 AM
Do they use a radar gun? If so, they are tied for dead last, and are as far from serious law enforcement as the guy who runs the astro-glider at the local amusement park is from an astronaut.
Tied for dead last? Even if they use a radar gun they are several variables:
- Whether the speed limit is what it should be or if it's too low
- How many speed traps there are and how often they are active
- Whether the radar guns are correctly calibrated or not
- If locals are exempt from getting tickets
- Arbitrary town lines that include areas that are only meant for writing tickets
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 09:38:44 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 02, 2018, 09:15:47 AM
Do they use a radar gun? If so, they are tied for dead last, and are as far from serious law enforcement as the guy who runs the astro-glider at the local amusement park is from an astronaut.
Tied for dead last? Even if they use a radar gun they are several variables:
- Whether the speed limit is what it should be or if it's too low
- How many speed traps there are and how often they are active
- Whether the radar guns are correctly calibrated or not
- If locals are exempt from getting tickets
- Arbitrary town lines that include areas that are only meant for writing tickets
Whether the ticket was written a sufficient distance from a drop in the speed limit for you to actually slow to that speed, whether they're targeting out-of-town drivers because they think they'll pay the fine rather than coming back to contest it in court...
Johnson, Arkansas police used to sit on the 71 Freeway (now I-49) , hide behind the rock outcroppings, and nail speeders. They made lots of money for local coffers until the state police told the city they had no jurisdiction beyond local streets.
Waverly, VA.
Quote from: 1 on May 02, 2018, 09:38:44 AM
Quote from: SP Cook on May 02, 2018, 09:15:47 AM
Do they use a radar gun? If so, they are tied for dead last, and are as far from serious law enforcement as the guy who runs the astro-glider at the local amusement park is from an astronaut.
Tied for dead last? Even if they use a radar gun they are several variables:
- Whether the speed limit is what it should be or if it's too low
- How many speed traps there are and how often they are active
- Whether the radar guns are correctly calibrated or not
- If locals are exempt from getting tickets
- Arbitrary town lines that include areas that are only meant for writing tickets
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes. Instead of sitting out on a road somewhere writing tickets to people who are driving faster than some arbitrary speed limit, they should be doing saturation patrols of areas where shootings, assaults, robberies, drug dealing, etc., are occurring.
I don't think you can lump all LEOs within one jurisdiction as being good or bad, as they are individuals with their own personalities, attitudes, etc.
Now if you want to change the thread to "states or communities with the worst laws," we start with the People's Republic of Virginia, at least where traffic enforcement is concerned.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
"states or communities with the worst laws"
That's an even faster path to a locked thread than "states or communities with the worst LEOs."
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 02, 2018, 12:04:54 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
"states or communities with the worst laws"
That's an even faster path to a locked thread than "states or communities with the worst LEOs."
He's just trying to find an excuse to say "People's Republic of Virginia" since he was totally ignored the last time he said it.
Ferguson, MO.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on May 02, 2018, 02:17:52 PM
Quote from: Rothman on May 02, 2018, 11:09:57 AM
Waverly, VA.
Also, Hopewell.
Yeah, Hopewell more so than Waverly. Waverly is bad, but Hopewell is worse.
Quote from: NE2 on May 02, 2018, 02:36:41 PM
Ferguson, MO.
There's probably one that's even worse, we just haven't heard about it yet.
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 02, 2018, 02:48:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 02, 2018, 02:36:41 PM
Ferguson, MO.
There's probably one that's even worse, we just haven't heard about it yet.
Chicago has a bad reputation (Burge, Van Dyke, Daley using them during the 1968 DNC, et.al.), but I've never come across a bad one myself there.
Quote from: Brandon on May 02, 2018, 02:58:59 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on May 02, 2018, 02:48:50 PM
Quote from: NE2 on May 02, 2018, 02:36:41 PM
Ferguson, MO.
There's probably one that's even worse, we just haven't heard about it yet.
Chicago has a bad reputation (Burge, Van Dyke, Daley using them during the 1968 DNC, et.al.), but I've never come across a bad one myself there.
Lest I end up getting this thread locked myself, I'll just say that I've never come across a
bad cop anywhere, but that my personal experiences aren't relevant to the big picture, and leave it at that.
Quote from: NE2 on May 02, 2018, 02:36:41 PM
Ferguson, MO.
Maricopa County, AZ had an issue with its Lead Sheriff due to questionable practices in its county detention centers.
Los Angeles County and Los Angeles City had issues about its law enforcement and that's national news though.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes.
You mean like cannabis smoking?
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes.
You mean like cannabis smoking?
Your signature is missing your opinion on the Know-Nothings and the Bull Moose Party.
You don't get to be a certified DPS trooper in the state of Texas without passing Asshole 101.
Quote from: Road Hog on June 21, 2018, 11:02:58 AM
You don't get to be a certified DPS trooper in the state of Texas without passing Asshole 101.
I don't think you get to hold any paid position in Texas without passing Asshole 101.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes.
You mean like cannabis smoking?
I think the argument could be made that weed possession is more of a revenue-generating activity than anything else, especially in states where it has been decriminalized. It's still an offense for which a fine must be paid.
The City of Detroit had an average response time 58 minutes a couple years ago. The department essentially underfunded and overwhelmed by a crime ridden city that has become a quasi-ghost town. There is a really terrible history with abusive practices especially in the late 1960s which were a large contributor to the 1968 riot.
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
I think ever since Mike Duggan took over as mayor things have improved in Detroit. Even if they cut the response time in half it's still pretty unacceptable to me too. I would think the average is around 10 minutes maybe and I guess it all depends I've called the police in Saginaw Township and they've arrived in 2 minutes, about 10 years ago a telephone pole caught fire in the middle of the night about two houses away from me, they got there within 2 minutes. Remember it this way, it was a three team race for the pennant in 1967 and the Tigers had two doubleheaders against the Angels on the second to last day and last day of the season and split both doubleheaders, had they won the two games they lost they would have won the pennant. The Red Sox won the pennant beating the Twins on the last two days of the season who finished with the same record the Tigers did and the White Sox were in the race too I guess so you could say a fourth team was in the race, then Detroit had the riots that same year and the next year it was on. Sadly Detroit has never fully recovered from the 1967 riots.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 21, 2018, 09:26:28 AM
Your signature is missing your opinion on the Know-Nothings and the Bull Moose Party.
I'm waiting for the Aaroads Gestapo to throw the book at me. If they do, then they're even more authoritarian than I thought.
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes.
You mean like cannabis smoking?
I think the argument could be made that weed possession is more of a revenue-generating activity than anything else, especially in states where it has been decriminalized. It's still an offense for which a fine must be paid.
But it shouldn't be, and it eventually won't be. It will be legal nationwide in a few years. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Unless Trump declares himself to be a dictator and puts that elf Jeff Sessions in charge of the DEA.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
That is why I own a gun. If somebody were to break into my apartment while I was home, I wouldn't even be able to call the cops right away, and when I finally did (if I weren't killed before I had the chance to) it would take 15-30 minutes before they arrived. I'd rather show them the weapon and strongly encourage that they leave, or if they had a weapon I'd just shoot them in the leg. Homey don't play around.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:47:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
That is why I own a gun. If somebody were to break into my apartment while I was home, I wouldn't even be able to call the cops right away, and when I finally did (if I weren't killed before I had the chance to) it would take 15-30 minutes before they arrived. I'd rather show them the weapon and strongly encourage that they leave, or if they had a weapon I'd just shoot them in the leg. Homey don't play around.
I would think that if you didn't show a gun at all, they would take whatever they were trying to steal and then leave. Your stuff is gone, but you survived.
Quote from: 1 on June 21, 2018, 12:50:41 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:47:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn’t the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you’re right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
That is why I own a gun. If somebody were to break into my apartment while I was home, I wouldn't even be able to call the cops right away, and when I finally did (if I weren't killed before I had the chance to) it would take 15-30 minutes before they arrived. I'd rather show them the weapon and strongly encourage that they leave, or if they had a weapon I'd just shoot them in the leg. Homey don't play around.
I would think that if you didn't show a gun at all, they would take whatever they were trying to steal and then leave. Your stuff is gone, but you survived.
Yeah, because that's worked out so well in the millions of crimes where the criminal attached the victim and took their wallet, phone, and other possessions.
But if I showed them that I had a gun, they would be more likely to leave and not steal anything from me.
Something that I don't understand is those signs that say "This home is PROUDLY gun-free!" Do they want to be robbed? They are asking for criminals to break into their house and do whatever they want to. You would have to be a special kind of idiot to have such a sign in front of your house.
Quote from: 1 on June 21, 2018, 12:50:41 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:47:01 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
That is why I own a gun. If somebody were to break into my apartment while I was home, I wouldn't even be able to call the cops right away, and when I finally did (if I weren't killed before I had the chance to) it would take 15-30 minutes before they arrived. I'd rather show them the weapon and strongly encourage that they leave, or if they had a weapon I'd just shoot them in the leg. Homey don't play around.
I would think that if you didn't show a gun at all, they would take whatever they were trying to steal and then leave. Your stuff is gone, but you survived.
I guess that depends, if you're okay with being a victim then you're right. For good, bad or indifferent a lot of people aren't and they end up fighting back. I think for a lot of people it means more to then to actively resist than become a passive victim. As silly as that might sound it would leave a bad taste in my mouth not to actively resist something like being burglarized gun or not.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
But if I showed them that I had a gun, they would be more likely to leave and not steal anything from me.
Something that I don't understand is those signs that say "This home is PROUDLY gun-free!" Do they want to be robbed? They are asking for criminals to break into their house and do whatever they want to. You would have to be a special kind of idiot to have such a sign in front of your house.
Yes, but they would also be more likely to use a gun themselves if they had one. That's what I was getting at with the post above.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
As of last year, it's down to 14.5 minutes and decreasing.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes.
You mean like cannabis smoking?
I think the argument could be made that weed possession is more of a revenue-generating activity than anything else, especially in states where it has been decriminalized. It's still an offense for which a fine must be paid.
But it shouldn't be, and it eventually won't be. It will be legal nationwide in a few years. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Unless Trump declares himself to be a dictator and puts that elf Jeff Sessions in charge of the DEA.
Which probably won't happen.
Sorry for the quasi-political sounding link, mods.
Trump says he is likely to support ending blanket federal ban on marijuana (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-marijuana-20180608-story.html) courtesy of the LA Times.
There's more if you just search for it. He's also apparently at odds with Sessions.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
But if I showed them that I had a gun, they would be more likely to leave and not steal anything from me.
Something that I don't understand is those signs that say "This home is PROUDLY gun-free!" Do they want to be robbed? They are asking for criminals to break into their house and do whatever they want to. You would have to be a special kind of idiot to have such a sign in front of your house.
Yes, but they would also be more likely to use a gun themselves if they had one. That's what I was getting at with the post above.
Yes. Most of the home burglaries are pathetic druggies looking for stuff they can easily sell to buy a fix. Most of them don't carry guns, but a few do, and if I go pointing a gun at them I might find them shooting at me. Whatever of my crap they might grab is not worth anybody getting killed over.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:59:27 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:55:02 PM
But if I showed them that I had a gun, they would be more likely to leave and not steal anything from me.
Something that I don't understand is those signs that say "This home is PROUDLY gun-free!" Do they want to be robbed? They are asking for criminals to break into their house and do whatever they want to. You would have to be a special kind of idiot to have such a sign in front of your house.
Yes, but they would also be more likely to use a gun themselves if they had one. That's what I was getting at with the post above.
If somebody kicks down my door and they have a gun in their hands and I have my gun in my hands, I would shoot them. Since they had a gun, my life would be in danger and since my apartment only has one exit, I wouldn't be able to escape so if I shot them it would legally be self-defense. If there were ever a situation where it was a question of whether it was self-defense or not, I would err on the side of caution and not shoot them. But if they had a gun I would assume that they planned on killing me and I would waste them. I hope I never have to do it but if I had to I wouldn't feel any guilt or remorse.
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 01:05:52 PM
Yes. Most of the home burglaries are pathetic druggies looking for stuff they can easily sell to buy a fix. Most of them don't carry guns, but a few do, and if I go pointing a gun at them I might find them shooting at me. Whatever of my crap they might grab is not worth anybody getting killed over.
If you have your gun pointed at them and they begin to move to point theirs at you, you can shoot them before they get it pointed at you. Milliseconds count in that sort of situation.
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:40:07 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
I think ever since Mike Duggan took over as mayor things have improved in Detroit. Even if they cut the response time in half it's still pretty unacceptable to me too. I would think the average is around 10 minutes maybe and I guess it all depends I've called the police in Saginaw Township and they've arrived in 2 minutes, about 10 years ago a telephone pole caught fire in the middle of the night about two houses away from me, they got there within 2 minutes. Remember it this way, it was a three team race for the pennant in 1967 and the Tigers had two doubleheaders against the Angels on the second to last day and last day of the season and split both doubleheaders, had they won the two games they lost they would have won the pennant. The Red Sox won the pennant beating the Twins on the last two days of the season who finished with the same record the Tigers did and the White Sox were in the race too I guess so you could say a fourth team was in the race, then Detroit had the riots that same year and the next year it was on. Sadly Detroit has never fully recovered from the 1967 riots.
I'd honestly would like to see some new figures that are up to date. Really the city going bankrupt was probably the best thing that could have happened to it. Personally I don't think the state was strict enough with the oversight, it was a opportunity to fix a lot more of wrongs that have persisted for decades in how the city was managed.
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 01:05:52 PM
Yes. Most of the home burglaries are pathetic druggies looking for stuff they can easily sell to buy a fix. Most of them don't carry guns, but a few do, and if I go pointing a gun at them I might find them shooting at me. Whatever of my crap they might grab is not worth anybody getting killed over.
If you have your gun pointed at them and they begin to move to point theirs at you, you can shoot them before they get it pointed at you. Milliseconds count in that sort of situation.
There are many ways that scenario can play out! If they're breaking in and armed, they probably have their gun in their hand or in their belt already. Since I don't carry a gun on my belt when I'm at home, it's much more likely they'll see me before I can get my gun out and ready to point at them, they would be scared that I would be shooting them, and shoot me first.
Even if I shot them first, I am not comfortable taking someone's life away who would just have taken a couple of hundred $ worth of stuff.
Going for a gun escalates the situation.
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AMNow if you want to change the thread to "states or communities with the worst laws," we start with the People's Republic of Virginia, at least where traffic enforcement is concerned.
Agreed.
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 01:17:37 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 01:10:02 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 01:05:52 PM
Yes. Most of the home burglaries are pathetic druggies looking for stuff they can easily sell to buy a fix. Most of them don't carry guns, but a few do, and if I go pointing a gun at them I might find them shooting at me. Whatever of my crap they might grab is not worth anybody getting killed over.
If you have your gun pointed at them and they begin to move to point theirs at you, you can shoot them before they get it pointed at you. Milliseconds count in that sort of situation.
There are many ways that scenario can play out! If they're breaking in and armed, they probably have their gun in their hand or in their belt already. Since I don't carry a gun on my belt when I'm at home, it's much more likely they'll see me before I can get my gun out and ready to point at them, they would be scared that I would be shooting them, and shoot me first.
Even if I shot them first, I am not comfortable taking someone's life away who would just have taken a couple of hundred $ worth of stuff.
Going for a gun escalates the situation.
Even if you don't have a gun, wouldn't they shoot you if they see you? They don't any witnesses to call the cops with a description to go after them when they're done, after all.
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 01:04:51 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes.
You mean like cannabis smoking?
I think the argument could be made that weed possession is more of a revenue-generating activity than anything else, especially in states where it has been decriminalized. It's still an offense for which a fine must be paid.
But it shouldn't be, and it eventually won't be. It will be legal nationwide in a few years. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Unless Trump declares himself to be a dictator and puts that elf Jeff Sessions in charge of the DEA.
Which probably won't happen.
Sorry for the quasi-political sounding link, mods.
Trump says he is likely to support ending blanket federal ban on marijuana (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-marijuana-20180608-story.html) courtesy of the LA Times.
There's more if you just search for it. He's also apparently at odds with Sessions.
First he'd have to have a Republican Congress introduce legislation to end the ban. The odds of that are close to zero. And yes, there's also the small matter of his AG believing "good people don't smoke marijuana."
Barring a Libertarian takeover of the federal government, I think the best we'll ever get is a handful of states/jurisdictions where it's legal and a DEA/DOJ that choose not to enforce the federal ban in states/jurisdictions where it's legal.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 21, 2018, 03:28:11 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 01:04:51 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes.
You mean like cannabis smoking?
I think the argument could be made that weed possession is more of a revenue-generating activity than anything else, especially in states where it has been decriminalized. It's still an offense for which a fine must be paid.
But it shouldn't be, and it eventually won't be. It will be legal nationwide in a few years. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Unless Trump declares himself to be a dictator and puts that elf Jeff Sessions in charge of the DEA.
Which probably won't happen.
Sorry for the quasi-political sounding link, mods.
Trump says he is likely to support ending blanket federal ban on marijuana (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-marijuana-20180608-story.html) courtesy of the LA Times.
There's more if you just search for it. He's also apparently at odds with Sessions.
First he'd have to have a Republican Congress introduce legislation to end the ban. The odds of that are close to zero. And yes, there's also the small matter of his AG believing "good people don't smoke marijuana."
Barring a Libertarian takeover of the federal government, I think the best we'll ever get is a handful of states/jurisdictions where it's legal and a DEA/DOJ that choose not to enforce the federal ban in states/jurisdictions where it's legal.
But what happens if there's some sort of "unless you, at the state level, outlaw XYZ, we will withhold X percent of federal money from you?" That's how states were pressured into passing any number of laws, including 0.08 BAC, primary seat belt laws, and a few others.
Does anyone know if open-container laws are a part of this? Kentucky banned open containers in vehicles a few years ago, which ended the time-honored tradition of a designated driver hauling around a bunch of his friends who were drinking while they cruised town.
I still don't understand how New Hampshire does without the federal money they forfeit by not having a seat belt law.
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 21, 2018, 03:28:11 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 01:04:51 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes.
You mean like cannabis smoking?
I think the argument could be made that weed possession is more of a revenue-generating activity than anything else, especially in states where it has been decriminalized. It's still an offense for which a fine must be paid.
But it shouldn't be, and it eventually won't be. It will be legal nationwide in a few years. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Unless Trump declares himself to be a dictator and puts that elf Jeff Sessions in charge of the DEA.
Which probably won't happen.
Sorry for the quasi-political sounding link, mods.
Trump says he is likely to support ending blanket federal ban on marijuana (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-marijuana-20180608-story.html) courtesy of the LA Times.
There's more if you just search for it. He's also apparently at odds with Sessions.
First he'd have to have a Republican Congress introduce legislation to end the ban. The odds of that are close to zero. And yes, there's also the small matter of his AG believing "good people don't smoke marijuana."
Barring a Libertarian takeover of the federal government, I think the best we'll ever get is a handful of states/jurisdictions where it's legal and a DEA/DOJ that choose not to enforce the federal ban in states/jurisdictions where it's legal.
Sessions won't be AG forever. And despite his words, they don't seem to be eager to followup with punishments for states that eliminated their state laws against pot for adults. It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal in every state, and now there's a bunch where it's legal. Removing marijuana from Schedule 1 would allow medical marijuana to be handled like prescription medicine instead of either black market or recreational pot stores in legal states. It would also allow real medical research to be done, to either confirm or deny its medical effectiveness.
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 04:01:00 PM
Sessions won't be AG forever.
This is true. However, I'm not optimistic that an AG candidate who was explicitly in favor of ending the federal ban on marijuana would make it thru a Senate confirmation, regardless of which party controlled it.
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 04:01:00 PMAnd despite his words, they don't seem to be eager to followup with punishments for states that eliminated their state laws against pot for adults.
Trump and Gardner have some sort of verbal agreement on that, but given the former's record as President, I don't think it's worth the paper it's written on.
I'm fully in favor of ending the federal ban. Beyond the absurdity of the ban on its face, I think it's galling the way enforcement of the law varies widely based on who you are (I still remember when Washingtonian Magazine had the gall to run an adoring story about a perky white girl who sold weed and edibles to the city's power brokers, all while Washingtonians of color were rotting in jail for doing the same goddamn thing). I just don't see either party having an incentive to end it, given how politically damaging it is to look "soft on crime."
Quote from: kkt on June 21, 2018, 04:01:00 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on June 21, 2018, 03:28:11 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 01:04:51 PM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 12:44:55 PM
Quote from: hbelkins on June 21, 2018, 11:57:56 AM
Quote from: bugo on June 21, 2018, 05:47:56 AM
Quote from: hbelkins on May 02, 2018, 11:21:58 AM
His point, with which I concur, is that law enforcement agencies spend more time pursuing activities that generate revenue than they do fighting real, harmful, damaging-to-society crimes.
You mean like cannabis smoking?
I think the argument could be made that weed possession is more of a revenue-generating activity than anything else, especially in states where it has been decriminalized. It's still an offense for which a fine must be paid.
But it shouldn't be, and it eventually won't be. It will be legal nationwide in a few years. It's not a question of "if", it's a question of "when". Unless Trump declares himself to be a dictator and puts that elf Jeff Sessions in charge of the DEA.
Which probably won't happen.
Sorry for the quasi-political sounding link, mods.
Trump says he is likely to support ending blanket federal ban on marijuana (http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-trump-marijuana-20180608-story.html) courtesy of the LA Times.
There's more if you just search for it. He's also apparently at odds with Sessions.
First he'd have to have a Republican Congress introduce legislation to end the ban. The odds of that are close to zero. And yes, there's also the small matter of his AG believing "good people don't smoke marijuana."
Barring a Libertarian takeover of the federal government, I think the best we'll ever get is a handful of states/jurisdictions where it's legal and a DEA/DOJ that choose not to enforce the federal ban in states/jurisdictions where it's legal.
Sessions won't be AG forever. And despite his words, they don't seem to be eager to followup with punishments for states that eliminated their state laws against pot for adults. It wasn't that long ago that it was illegal in every state, and now there's a bunch where it's legal. Removing marijuana from Schedule 1 would allow medical marijuana to be handled like prescription medicine instead of either black market or recreational pot stores in legal states. It would also allow real medical research to be done, to either confirm or deny its medical effectiveness.
I'd be more inclined to seen marijuana bumped to a realistic Schedule Three, especially if somehow tobacco could be lumped into the banned Federal Narcotics list as a Schedule One. Both habits are gross (at least to me, (I'm saying that after grossing up in a smoke ridden Michigan), but like you said there is some merit to the medical benefits of marijuana. Tobacco doesn't really seem to have any viable medical benefits aside from tax dollar revenue.
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
As of last year, it's down to 14.5 minutes and decreasing.
That figure for the City of Detroit or is it the national average?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 07:38:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
As of last year, it's down to 14.5 minutes and decreasing.
That figure for the City of Detroit or is it the national average?
The City of Detroit.
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 07:55:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 07:38:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
As of last year, it's down to 14.5 minutes and decreasing.
That figure for the City of Detroit or is it the national average?
The City of Detroit.
No kidding, that's a hell of a drop in such a short time span.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 09:05:09 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 07:55:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 07:38:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn’t the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you’re right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
As of last year, it's down to 14.5 minutes and decreasing.
That figure for the City of Detroit or is it the national average?
The City of Detroit.
No kidding, that's a hell of a drop in such a short time span.
Want to say that Michigan was the only US state to loose population between 2000 and 2010, IIRC.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on June 22, 2018, 04:09:52 AM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 09:05:09 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 07:55:24 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 07:38:41 PM
Quote from: Brandon on June 21, 2018, 12:59:56 PM
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on June 21, 2018, 12:22:35 PM
Quote from: Flint1979 on June 21, 2018, 12:13:43 PM
I'm pretty sure Detroit's response times have improved. The riots were in July 1967.
I want to say that 58 minute window was circa 2010-2012 if I recall correctly. I would imagine it has improved since the city went bankrupt but even half that time unacceptable for emergency response. Isn't the national average typically around 10-13 minutes for response time. And you're right I was more or thinking of the 68 World Series for whatever reason.
As of last year, it's down to 14.5 minutes and decreasing.
That figure for the City of Detroit or is it the national average?
The City of Detroit.
No kidding, that's a hell of a drop in such a short time span.
Want to say that Michigan was the only US state to loose population between 2000 and 2010, IIRC.
I believe that's true. Not exactly surprising considering that was the decade when the Domestic Auto Industry bottomed. The Detroit Metro Area is still a largely one-egg-in the basket with the automotive center. Oddly this is the second time the state has seen an area with a massive population decline after the mining industry bottomed out in the Keweenaw Peninsula.