Ryan Frederick Trial Day Six

Here are John Wilburn’s notes from Day Six

One of the nicest things about having John’s notes is that those who want the details can read them there and I can just provide a bit of analysis.

Regarding Wright’s testimony about the warrant, if he is telling the truth, then Det. Robert’s warrant would be valid, but his methods would still be a Clintonesque evasion of the Fourth Amendment. Legally permissible, but still deeply wrong.

More likely, it will come down to a choice between an experienced detective being incredibly gullible, or being careful not to ask questions for which he did not want the answer. However, it will be very difficult for Broccoletti to prove the latter, so the warrant will probably stand, a victory for which our police should hang their heads in shame.

Even if we take Wrights testimony as true, there is serious doubt whether what he describes would constitute a commercial grow operation. If we accept the characterization of Det. Meinhart of the operation as sophisticated and the yield per plant as 1 pound of smoking material, 10 plants sounds like a lot. However, our own experts (see the comments to Day 5 Correction) tell a different story, and they seem to me to have had real world experience. By their measure, Frederick’s operation would barely support his own use. Perhaps Broccoletti will bring forth an expert of his own.

Regarding the jailhouse snitch testimony. Read it and make your own determination. If you believe it, you also have to believe that after certainly having been warned by his attorney not to say anything to other prisoners, Frederick decided to pour his heart out to complete strangers he spoke to through a glass door on two or three occasions.

Why would he do that? Does anyone think he likes living in jail so much that he would do the one thing most likely to assure he would spend the rest of his life there?

Also ask the question of yourself, if these same people had heard Frederick steadfastly deny any guilt, would we ever have heard of them? Will they also bring forth witnesses to Frederick’s denial’s? Will they admit the video of his interview on the night of his arrest, which is certainly no more ‘hearsay’ than these accounts?

Considering the Prosecution began its case with lies, and has consistently worked to prevent factual information from being presented to the jury, they have no credibility with me.

For example, the prosecution does not want the jury to see the inside of the house, or the view of the outside through the broken door. What purpose does it serve top prevent the jury from seeing for themselves what Frederick actually could see from his point of view, if the goal is to arrive at the truth?

I have been able to get this afternoon off (Wednesday) to attend, but it seems likely that this will be the time of the now useless Jury View. If that is the case, I will rely again on John Wilburn’s excellent reports.

Advertisements

40 Responses to Ryan Frederick Trial Day Six

  1. Kt says:

    I have been going over the notes from today, 1/27/09. Steven Wright had a lot to say but in the end said that only after his attorney intervened did he tell CPD the truth. He admitted lying repeatedly to the police and said he was hoping to be paid for the misleading information he provided. He admitted to setting up this farce for $500.00.

    I think he should be charged with reckless manslaughter! “defined as a wanton disregard for the known dangers of a particular situation”

  2. Lima Charlie says:

    Despite impeachment of their credibility and tough cross examination by Brocoletti, todays witnesses came across believeable and damaging to the defense. Wright well established that RF was entrenched in the sale of marijuana. Skeeter and Malone both testified about RF bragging to them about the crime and that he knew the police were outside before firing. They knew things about the case that have not been in the media and could only be told by RF who is referred to as “Cowboy” around the cell block.

  3. ktc2 says:

    LC,

    Lol. Yeah, the jailhouse snitches couldn’t possibly have gotten all that info from the dirty cops / prosecutors trying to cover their asses. What a tool.

  4. ktc2 says:

    Wright et al will never tell the truth so long as their freedom and their very lives are dependent on the goodwill of the CPD officers and prosecutors in this case. They will say exactly what they’ve been rehearsed to say. The only way we could ever get the real story from them would be a situation like with the Atlanta debacle where one of them managed to run to the feds for protection so they could tell the truth safely. And much like Atlanta I expect were that to happen we’d see the same result where the corruption is so widespread and ingrained that whole departments would have to be let go.

  5. Vick2020 says:

    So the informant admits to being in possession of plants. When will he be charged?

  6. ktc2 says:

    Vick2020,

    As long as he keeps repeating the right lies he won’t be.

  7. juris imprudent says:

    Hey LC, if you find those low-lifes to be so believable, maybe you’d like to give them jobs. They’re probably real handy around the house, maybe babysitting or cleaning your silver? You trust them with another man’s life, surely you can trust them with your family and property.

  8. This Is The Best The Prosecution Has?…

    Steven Wright testified yesterday in the Ryan Frederick trial. The commenters at the Virginian Pilot, and over at Tidewater Liberty who support the cops’ version of events are jumping up and down, wetting themselves. They believe this is the slam dunk…

  9. wtf says:

    Lima Charlie,surely your just being sarcastic to get everyones attention right?Where is this “credibility” you reference?This rat would turn in his Grandmother for $50.00.It was probably her credit cards he stole or used.Skeeter and Malone sound like a couple of misunderstood boy scouts too.Although not a smart move,true or not,that skinny kid will probably say anything to appear “tough” in jail as I suspect you would.

  10. TPB says:

    Greetings Friends:

    My Thoughts.

    The Jail House Snitch’s came into contact with the Prosecuters somehow, No Stretch.

    The Narc’s ask a inmate during a visit to the jail to keep an ear open in RF’s direction, ask him about his charges, ask him if he knew the police were outside his house, etc. No Stretch.

    If RF adds to the story or not, all the snitch has to do is report back to the narc with what the narc wanted to hear or something similar. Presto you now have a Jail House Snitch Confession to the Crime at hand the the narc’s wanted. No Stretch.

    These snitches, example Wright: would steal and lie from and to everyone he was envolved with; RF his friend, Roberts and Shivers his Narc Contacts, even laugh and sing in celabration afterward. No Stretch.

    What kind of Fool would place any trust in any of these scum? The Snitches, The Lying Prosecuter, etc?????? My Questions.

    Thanks for the chance to post Dr. Tabor.
    Thanks for the Reporting Mr. Wilburn.

    Thanks to all for listening / reading.

    Stay Gold,
    TBP

  11. Emland says:

    Wright appeared to be a credible witness according to many of the comments over at pilotonline. I don’t see how they come to that conclusion. He has to be one of the most inept informants I’ve ever come across.

    He’s told by police to confirm the “growing operation” is still there. By his own testimony he has a relationship with RF and sees him twice a month or so. Wouldn’t it be simple for him to stop by and simply have a look around? No. He decides to burglarize RF instead. By his own account takes half of what he says was there (was a hydroponic tent submitted into evidence?) but waits until he removes the evidence to take a photo? Huh?

    What happened to the other plants? Did Scotty beam them away? If RF thought the law was on to him, why wouldn’t he get rid of everything incriminating including his personal stash?

    The most incredible thing reported yesterday has to be the jailhouse confession. You are arrested on CAPITAL murder charges and you are going to blab stuff to someone you have never met? Come on.

  12. ktc2 says:

    Jailhouse snitches or “jumping on the bus” as it’s referred to in prison is a scam. Always has been and always will be. In jail you can find someone to say anything you want in return for a lessened sentence. Now just “accidentally” mention a few details and you got your railroading all sewed up. Everyone who has done any research knows this. Unfortunately your average juror has never even thought about it which is why the lies still work.

  13. Praying for RF says:

    Well…I have been following this story from day one, there have many numerous times I have wanted to comment but did not, and I just can’t keep my thoughts to myself any longer.

    It seems to me that I read somewhere that the police going to the garage where held up because of a gate. My question is, is 25 SECONDS enough time to wake up realize not only is some one beating down your front door but there is also someone in your garage. See who it is grab your gun and shoot? It just doesn’t seem possible to me, granted I could be wrong maybe RF moves faster than I do when he is woke up.

    I think it is a crying shame that this has happened and we now how young children with out a father a wife with out her sole mate and man setting in jail over a small amount of pot.

    Also, I would like to just say that I have smoked alittle pot in my life and I am much more dangerous after a bad day art work or few shots of whiskey than I am after smoking a J. I no longer smoke because I now have three impressionable teenagers but I will tell you that when my husband comes home a grump I wish I had a small stash to hand him. He is more dangerous with out it than with it. HA!

    I have no faith in our Justice system but I do have faith in the lord and I am sure that something will happen or come out that will prove RF honestly felt his life to be in danger.

    I would also like to thank the good doc for keeping us posted on the daily happenings at the Chesapeake Court House! I wish you luck finding parking at that place…that is another soap box I will reframe from starting on!

  14. ktc2 says:

    Here today is a prime example of why we will remain divided.

    Rather than actually make and real attempt to get to the heart of the matter of what caused this tragedy, and prevent it from happening in the future our LE people instead buy jailhouse snitches with reduced sentences and lean on their other snitches to repeat whatever is needed to make their actions legal. Nothing any of their snitches could say would make their actions moral but they don’t care about that.

    It’s pointed out that if successful it’s a “victory they should be ashamed of”. I assure you they are not. Had they any shame could they have brought in these paid snitches (and they will be paid with reduced sentences or by other means)? Had they any shame could they put people on the stand knowing full well they are going to lie? These prosecutors have no shame and no conscience.

    How can there be reasoned discourse when they are not seeking justice but blood? Their own immoral and illegal actions (excusing the BS from their paid liars) coupled with reckless policy have lead to the death of Det. Shivers but they have no desire to address that. Their only goal is vengence against another for the result of their own actions.

    I’ve heard it said that the cops will review their internal policies etc. but just can’t say so because it might effect the outcome of the trial. Well excuse me but uh . . . if the truth can effect the outcome of the trial shouldn’t it?! Apparently not to them. It’s more important that they have their pound of flesh.

    All these calls for unity and reason are great, and I agree 100%, but you can’t have reasoned discourse without both sides. So long as one side is determined to lie, conceal and obfuscate there can be no reasoned discourse.

  15. Zargon says:

    I will mention I greatly appreciate the trial reports. There’s nothing quite like seeing a lynching in slow motion to get people to understand that we have a problem.

    I do like how both jailhouse informants (so far) have done this before. They know how it works. Of course there’s no written contract, but if anybody would like to place bets on those two getting reduced sentences from the federal prosecutor – for showing “good citizenship” or some such nonsense – in the case of a conviction, I know which side of that bet I’ll take. I’ll even take 10:1 odds.

    One of them was even brought here for another case, and since he wasn’t needed for that, quickly shifts gears and hears stuff from RF. An ever-vigilant model citizen, I see. The part about how he started talking immediately was nice too. In that case, I expect the prosecution should have a line of inmates three miles long if RF will confess to anybody without a moment’s hesitation.

    The disappearing pot trees is a nice trick too. Either RF knew the police were going to raid, in which case he dumped the remaining 5 trees and kept the rest of the pot-related stuff…. for some reason… or Scotty beamed that shit up.

    Unfortunately, I have a high regard for the prosecution’s ability to screen out folks with functional brains from sitting on the jury. It’s to the point where they can strike you for cause (and they can strike as many as they want to like this) if you show the slightest distrust for police, prosecutors, or the government itself, if you’ve had an unpleasant experience with any of the above, or if you show knowledge of what a jury is supposed to do, aside from blindly obey the judge. Only non-thinking government approved zombies allowed.

    This is our world. A world where select individuals get the power of life and death over everybody else. Vehemently imploring those individuals to behave themselves is a nice sentiment, but utterly ineffective.

  16. Price says:

    Dr. Tabor,

    After reading either your notes or someone who posted them on this site I have a question. After hearing the testimony of the people from the jail, was any of their statements confirmed? I was curious about the nickname of for the gun and the hollow point bullets. I would be surprised if Fredrick takes the stand. Just asking.

  17. CEH says:

    Just some thoughts:

    First, I agree with many posters law enforcement has to find alternative methods, using forced entry only as a last resort, to conduct search warrants for non-violent offenses. However, that being said, they also cannot be hamstrung from taking steps to ensure their own safety, especially when they have information the target of their investigation may be armed, as in this case. Was 25 seconds reasonable? I don’t think so. Is thinking you are compromised immediately upon seeing movement reasonable? I don’t think so (defeats the purpose of having someone come to the door when you knock). Is using solely the uncorroborated word of a criminal informant (even if the information turns out to probably be accurate) reasonable? Again, not illegal, but I don’t think it is. So, I hope the CPD learns from this and adjusts accordingly. Was their entry unlawful? It does not appear that way. In hindsight, could it have been done in a different manner that would have avoided the tragedy of that night? I think so.

    Second, many times the credibility of the detectives and officers has been called into question when it serves the point of view of RF’s defenders. For instance, neighbors insist there were only 2 officers serving the warrant, therefore the other members of the entry team are lying. But, Winkelspecht was there and conducted the immediate interview that is so beneficial to the defense. Is he lying? Also, Landfair and his team’s statements also could be beneficial to the defense. Are they also lying? Why, only when the statements of the officers seem detrimental to RF, are they lying and RF defenders would rather believe the neighbors, but when officers’ statements help the defense, those were the only honest cops there?

    About the CI, Wright, I don’t believe he has been convicted of his crimes yet so is he also not innocent until proven guilty? His character flaws are obvious. Many portray his former friend Frederick as the victim in all this. I submit he could have easily found himself in the same position as Wright had his activity came to light in a less tragic way. But I don’t know him. I know testimony indicates he was an active pot user (in and of itself not the crime of the century – but it is still illegal), threatened to kill Wright and liked to brag in jail. I know he has defenders. But, just maybe he is not the nice guy they make him out to be. Again, I don’t know him, so I may be wrong.

    I don’t know how the prosecution will correct their misinformation in the opening statement, which certainly does not look good. I do believe it came out in court that the Judge did not want the jury inside the house because RF no longer lives there and the decor has changed. So, even though the prosecution objected to the defense’s desire to go in, the judge made the decision not to. The prosecution appears to be going above and beyond to win this case, using objections and strategy some find to be, well objectionable. Would it be objectionable if they were trying the same strategy to convict a person charged with murdering any of the family members of anyone on this blog? They believe the evidence shows Frederick killed a police officer in a criminal manner and they are doing what they can to convict him of that.

    I don’t know what played out in court today and I look forward to the synopsis.

  18. bigmike says:

    Why would anyone believe a word coming out of these guys mouths. They seem to be the weasel type of criminals, the little slim buckets that would say anything they thought anyone that could help them wanted to hear, rather that person is a cop or a pusher. I recall the CPD making several conflicting statements shortly after this incident. That would lead me to not believe much of what the CPD has to say. The prosecutor seems to be more a carnival act than a lawyer. He seems to be trying the smoke and mirrors thing.

  19. supercat says:

    CEH: The Constitution explicitly declares that “unreasonable” searches and seizures are illegitimate. Thus, if the police actions were unreasonable, they were also unlawful.

    Further, the police parked their marked vehicles out of sight tried to obscure the fact that there were police outside Mr. Frederick’s house. Why does such behavior not completely undermine the notion that Mr. Frederick knew they were cops?

  20. Zargon says:

    Everybody likes to talk about what’s lawful and nobody likes to talk about what’s right. Was their entry lawful? Sure, they had a warrant. That makes it lawful, basically by definition. That judge who imprisoned a guy for 90 days for not standing fast enough at his hearing (over a couch on a porch, for which he got 3) also had the law on his side. That SWAT guy who killed a dude during a gambling raid because he mistook the coke the guy was holding for a gun was deemed lawful too. Does that make those examples right?

    So Wright is innocent until proven guilty. Fair enough. Too bad the prosecutor decided to deny RF that same courtesy when he overcharged him with capital murder (a strict subset of 1st degree – premeditated murder) for the purpose of having him imprisoned for a year without bail before the trial. That’s our illustrious prosecutor, also judge/jury/executioner.

    If it were my family, I’d not want a second man effectively dead due to a string of lies, bought informants, and intentional obfuscation of evidence. On the other hand, I’d also wonder what my relative was doing breaking into the house of an otherwise peaceful man at 3am. For the purpose of robbing and kidnapping the occupant. Because he had some stuff other people don’t approve of.

  21. CEH says:

    Supercat,

    Well, unfortunately, case law from the Supreme Court supports 25 seconds (might even be less if I remember correctly) as reasonable. I just agree with many of you that it is not. Next, sneaking up on the house may be a legitimate tactic in some cases…it is what happens at the front door that matters. If the knock and announce went as planned and if police saw human movement, but no move toward the door to answer, how long are they supposed to wait? Do they stay on the front porch and possibly in a vulnerable position (remember, the CI told them RF had a gun)? What they did, as far as I can tell, was not unlawful, I just agree it could have been done differently, and that is only in hindsight.

  22. CEH says:

    Zargon,

    I’m not convinced like you about a “string of lies…etc. etc.” And, what is the 3 a.m. reference about? This took place around 8:30. RF got home about half an hour earlier. There is no evidence he was sleeping (blaring t.v. and all). Otherwise peaceful man? Again, you are painting a picture in the light most favorable to Frederick. Lack of a criminal history does not mean one is not a criminal. I don’t want to beat a dead horse about the drug activity and gun, for protection – maybe of his hobby, in the house. You either think obeying our laws, even ones you don’t agree with, is important or not. Frederick did not obey the law. He is not innocent in this matter. Capital murder, I don’t know if they were able to convince the jury of that. Only Frederick knows for sure what he knew and saw and why he did what he did. It’ll be interesting to see if he takes the stand and what he says.

  23. Vick2020 says:

    Wright’s trial for credit card theft and fraud starts this week. Some of you may want to be a character witness since the guy is so reliable.

  24. Vick2020 says:

    Supercat. They didn’t want RF to know they were cops. Their actions clearly say so. They parked the unmarked van out front so if RF did look out the window, he wouldn’t know it was the cops. Why else use an unmarked van. Didn’t an officer give the code that the raid was compromised when they thought they were cops but when they thought he looked out the window it was an issue. What was the issue if they wanted RF to know who they were?

    Anyone worth their salt in watching trials knows the defendant ALWAYS looks guilty when the prosecution makes their case.

  25. ktc2 says:

    CEH,

    There can be no moral obligation to obey an immoral law.

  26. RRR says:

    This is a long read, but I bring you a portion of it. The link is at the end.

    Guilty Before Proven Innocent
    How police harassment, jailhouse snitches, and a runaway war on drugs imprisoned an innocent family


    The Shady World of Informants

    The use of dubious informants is standard practice in drug policing. Narcotics officers routinely recruit drug addicts, rival dealers, and arrestees already facing their own drug charges to make controlled buys from suspected drug dealers or to point out places where drugs might be found. The system is fraught with problems, including a lack of oversight, little accountability, and twisted incentives that encourage shortcuts and corruption.

    But even within the already tawdry informant system, jailhouse informants occupy a particularly pernicious niche. Mandatory minimum sentences contribute to the corruption of jailhouse informant testimony. Under federal law, the only way someone serving a mandatory minimum prison sentence can get out early is to provide information or testimony that is of “substantial assistance” to prosecutors. What constitutes “substantial assistance” is solely up to the judgment of prosecutors. Make the prosecutor happy, and you go home early. Tell him something that may well be true but doesn’t quite go far enough to win him an indictment or conviction, and you risk giving up a golden opportunity to cut your time. Critics say it’s a system that suborns outright lying.

    “Some of these people would fry their own mother to get out of a 25-year drug sentence,” says Judge Melancon. “You’re going against human nature. And you’ve put in a system that lets human nature run amok, that lets information be passed from inmate to inmate, for pay or otherwise. This is something we need to take very, very seriously.”

    The problem isn’t new. In 1990 jailhouse informant Leslie Vernon White, an admitted perjurer, showed a 60 Minutes reporter how, even while in prison, he was able to obtain confidential information about pending prosecutions, then fabricate an incriminating story about a suspect and offer it up to prosecutors in exchange for a reduction in his sentence. Despite doubts about his credibility dating back to the late 1970s, prosecutors continued to put White on the stand until the late 1980s. After much publicity, he was finally indicted for perjury in 1992. White had given a similar interview to Time in 1988, prompting the Los Angeles district attorney to conduct a review that turned
    up more than 100 cases potentially tainted by informant testimony. The defense bar later came up with more than 200 more.

    In a 2005 report on 111 death row exonerations between 1973 and 2004, the Northwestern University School of Law’s Center on Wrongful Convictions found that 51 involved false testimony from jailhouse informants looking to cut their time. But such studies are rare, in part because of a lack of information.

    “We just don’t know,” says Alexandra Natapoff, a professor at the Loyola School of Law in Los Angeles and a leading expert on the use of informants. “The problem is that we don’t require the government to keep track of how informants are used. Where there have been thorough reviews by journalists—in Chicago, for example—we’ve seen common and persistent abuses. It’s bad enough at the federal level. But we really have no idea at all what goes on at the state and local level.”

    Judge Melancon says informant abuse at the federal level was made even worse by amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Broadly speaking, a convicted felon has one year from the date of his sentencing to remember everything he can—to tell the government everything he knows about other criminal activity in exchange for a reduction in his sentence. But amendments passed in 1991, 2002, and 2004 added several exceptions to that rule.

    The most problematic of these allows a prisoner to get time off in exchange for information he relays to prosecutors well after the one-year cutoff, if prosecutors believe the prisoner wasn’t aware that the information would have been valuable to them before. Critics say the exception is too vague and too easily manipulated. Prison inmates can now spend the entirety of their sentences monitoring the news and rumor mills for drug prosecutions involving people or places with which they’re even vaguely familiar, then write to prosecutors to offer up information with just enough knowledge of a given town or suspect to appear believable.

    “It’s wide open now,” Melancon says. “Everybody in the federal prisons knows what’s going on outside. You’ve got these people with extremely long drug sentences who hear about a drug case in a town they’re familiar with. Now they realize they can tell the government things that happened years ago—true or not—and get time off their sentences.”

    Judge James Gray, a drug war critic who sits on the Superior Court of Orange County, California, and also has served as an assistant U.S. attorney, says courts need to give more scrutiny to snitch testimony, and prosecutors need to verify it. “This is a game,” Gray says. “You have lots of people sitting in prison who will do virtually anything to get out. They’ll sell you out in a minute to get out of there. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. And every guy that guy gives up is going to get his own mandatory minimum sentence. And he then becomes another source of potentially bad information for prosecutors. You can quickly rack up a lot of convictions. But it shouldn’t be surprising if, in the process, you create some cottage industries.”

    http://www.reason.com/news/show/125449.html

  27. Blah Blah Blah says:

    I’m sittin on the toilet, the Ipod is up and going. The dogs yappin a bit. My woman is cooking up some chow. ( I can tell she’s banging pots and pans, or she’s just pretending) I was not expecting any company, but someones knocking at the door. Who could it be, I just got home and its around 8. I am gonna do something crazy here……………y’all did not hear me, I yelled who is it. They did not answer, no worries the lady friend will get it while I hold the toilet down. I am not growing the green stuff. My guns in the bedroom. I can hear her askin who it is, and now I can hear them say who it is. Whew, I get to relax a little longer, no need to run get my gun and advance to my front door and shoot. Ladies and Gents that weeds got y’all paranoid, I report my break ins too. Sleep tight.

  28. Jones says:

    Good points Zargon & Tabor your analysis is way off!!

    Criminals don’t have criminal records at first. How many serial killers had no criminal histories until they were found out.
    Also Tabor’s analysis of ten plants is completely off. Anyone investing that much money into lights and generators is selling weed. It would be much cheaper and less legally risky to just buy weed if all he wanted to do was smoke. As someone who has dogs and grew up with a pot-head twin brother. You don’t go to sleep with a pile of weed on a magazine sitting on the couch. It would be knocked over or eaten by the dogs in about two minutes. He was packing a bong when that incident went down!

  29. Jones says:

    Ooops I meant “Good points CEH” Zargons points are horrible. My bad

  30. CEH says:

    ktc2,

    Which laws are immoral? Morality has nothing to do with smoking marijuana. For most, it is a want and not a need (the medical use of marijuana being the exception). There is no moral issue with it being prohibited, unless you think your wants are what matters most. That being said, alcohol is a want and it is legal. One day, marijuana will be legal as well, it is only a matter of time. Why don’t those with such a high moral fiber just give it up until that time, that way the police can concentrate on more serious issues and won’t have to consider the dangers of trying to enforce a law that many choose to break?

  31. Vick2020 says:

    Wright claims he broke into a garage and stole plants from what was intended to be police evidence maybe, maybe not at the request of the police. Wright claims he went there at the request of the CPD to make sure the evidence would still be there. Wright claims to have stole half the plants. So Wright wasn’t even honest to the cops, why would anyone be so quick to think Wright is honest at trial?

  32. claude says:

    ” Why don’t those with such a high moral fiber just give it up until that time,”

    Because some of us believe that we have a moral obligation to break unjust laws. In the case you made, you cant serious expect the laws to change if people simply didnt use grass any longer? The government would merely brag about their successful drug laws if that were the case and nothing would change. I find your logic regarding this to be rather silly.

  33. ktc2 says:

    CEH,

    As I stated because there can be no moral obligation to obey an immoral law.

    Were the german citizens under nazi rule morally obligated to turn in any jewish people they knew to be executed because it’s the law? Should they have?

    The law is not the ultimate authority by which a moral person lives their life.

  34. CEH says:

    Wow, comparing life and death in Nazi Germany with the desire to get high. Again, morals have nothing, in my opinion, to do with marijuana being illegal. Morals involve the choices we make.

    Claude, of course my “argument”, more of a statement, is silly and unrealistic. The fact remains however the substance is currently illegal, the police will continue to arrest those that use, possess, manufacture, and distribute it. So, by your reasoning, you are obligated to get high because the government says you can’t. You are choosing a course of action (if you indeed smoke, but certainly others choose to) that continues to support a trade that has disasterous consequences for many members of our society, both citizens and LEOs. How moral is that?

  35. ktc2 says:

    The “disastrous consequences” to our society you speak of are the direct result of the immoral laws prohibiting those substances.

    “Prohibition was introduced as a fraud; it has been nursed as a fraud. It is wrapped in the livery of Heaven, but it comes to serve the devil. It comes to regulate by law our appetites and our daily lives. It comes to tear down liberty and build up fanaticism, hypocrisy, and intolerance. It comes to confiscate by legislative decree the property of many of our fellow citizens. It comes to send spies, detectives, and informers into our homes; to have us arrested and carried before courts and condemned to fines and imprisonments. It comes to dissipate the sunlight of happiness, peace, and prosperity in which we are now living and to fill our land with alienations, estrangements, and bitterness. It comes to bring us evil– only evil– and that continually. Let us rise in our might as one and overwhelm it with such indignation that we shall never hear of it again as long as grass grows and water runs.” – Roger Q. Mills (TX) –

  36. ktc2 says:

    Yeah, I know he was talking about alcohol but it is the same thing, only marijuana prohibition is even dumber because alcohol is far more addictive and harmful.

  37. supercat says:

    Well, unfortunately, case law from the Supreme Court supports 25 seconds (might even be less if I remember correctly) as reasonable.

    What gives them the authority to make final decisions regarding matters of fact? Issues of “reasonableness” are, under common law, matters for a jury to determine. To be sure, a judge may decide that a particular search or seizure was sufficiently patently unreasonable that it shouldn’t even be shown to a jury (since no sensible jury would find it ‘reasonable’) but if the government actually wants to abide by the Constitution (yeah right) it cannot have judges making factual findings against defendants.

    Of course, if the government were to actually abide by the Constitution, it would have a much harder time scoring convictions in some cases. Perhaps, though, that’s a sign that it’s bringing a lot of cases it really shouldn’t be.

  38. price says:

    I have no knowledge on how to grow banana plants, but I have a few maples trees in my yard. After reading Dr. Tabor’s notes or whom ever provided them I found myself thinking about the hydroponics (sp). How many people have seen maple trees or banana plants growing in hydroponics system?
    Did RF say he was growing banna plants and red maples trees? Then in court his lawyer conceeds to admit he was growing marijuana,(forget the personal use part) so does this make RF a liar too, like the people from the jail or the detective who obtained the warrant. Please clarify, sitting on the fence.

  39. claude says:

    “The fact remains however the substance is currently illegal, the police will continue to arrest those that use, possess, manufacture, and distribute it.”

    And the fact remains they will continue to get shot for doing so.

    “So, by your reasoning, you are obligated to get high because the government says you can’t. You are choosing a course of action (if you indeed smoke, but certainly others choose to) that continues to support a trade that has disasterous consequences for many members of our society, both citizens and LEOs. How moral is that?”

    No, by my reasoning, pot laws wont change if people simply stopped using it and waited for them to. As far as “disasterous consequences”, the government chose their destiny. See, it isnt the trade that causes any of it. Its the illegal nature of it that causes these consequences you speak of, and that is on the government.

  40. supercat says:

    And the fact remains they will continue to get shot for doing so.

    IMHO, a good question to ask those who favor the police in these cases would be, “Should burglars with dime-store badges be able to rob people with impunity?” It is entirely possible for police to conduct themselves that dime-store burglars would not; if they fail to do so but instead act like dime-store burglars, why should they not be regarded as such?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: