| Pages:
1
2 |
Brain&Force
Hazard to Lanthanides
Posts: 1302
Registered: 13-11-2013
Location: UW-Madison
Member Is Offline
Mood: Incommensurately modulated
|
|
Don't buy hydroponic equipment!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/12/dea-marijuana-garde...
The police seem to be raiding on 4/20. Ironic, right?
At the end of the day, simulating atoms doesn't beat working with the real things...
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
Hahahaha, she got raided for growing marijuana, she was found to possess marijuana, and she wants the charges thrown out because she didn't think her
buying hydroponics fertilizer should have been suspicious enough to place her under scrutiny?
"Your honor, I know there was a body found in my basement yesterday, but I think the murder charge should be thrown out. After all, they got the
warrant after I bought a set of scalpels and a set of scalpels is surely not suspicious enough to warrant scrutiny."
Yes, I think searches should absolutely require reasonable suspicion. But in this case I suspect there was more to the warrant than purchasing
fertilizer - something more like "habitually stoned woman suddenly starts acquiring everything necessary for growing marijuana."
|
|
|
hissingnoise
International Hazard
Posts: 3940
Registered: 26-12-2002
Member Is Offline
Mood: Pulverulescent!
|
|
| Quote: | | "Your honor, I know there was a body found in my basement yesterday, but I think the murder charge should be thrown out. After all, they got the
warrant after I bought a set of scalpels and a set of scalpels is surely not suspicious enough to warrant scrutiny." |
Yeah, smoking a bit of herb is a heinous fucking crime . . . WTF!
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
I recognize the analogy, but I don't think it's valid. Pot is on the level of alcohol in terms of danger, and you don't see that getting prohibited...
not anymore, anyway.
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
...I'm not saying pot is some frightening danger. I'm around and exposed to things that are probably worse every day at work. I'm saying the legal
argument in this case is idiotic. The analogy is perfectly valid.
EDIT: To make things clear, I'm saying "OMG I wasn't suspicious therefore you shouldn't have discovered my criminal activity, therefore I shouldn't be
charged for it" is pretty laughable across the board, not that...possessing marijuana equates to killing someone or whatever you two got out of it.
[Edited on 4-12-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]
[Edited on 4-12-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
Fair enough. Wouldn't this apply to chemists as well? Although, I would doubt one of us would attempt to use that argument...
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
Of course it would. The thing is, most amateur chemists don't actually do anything that provokes reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. And most
amateur chemists aren't engaging in illegal activity, I hope. And those who are, even if that activity's actually harmless, yeah, they'd be SOL trying
to use that argument. And I'd be quite on your side saying they shouldn't be in trouble, and that someone distilling ethanol for drinking or
experimentation shouldn't be in trouble, and that someone growing a little marijuana for personal use shouldn't be in trouble either.
I absolutely believe that searches should have reasonable cause behind them. And I even believe in throwing out a case where criminal activity was
discovered after an unreasonable search, to protect the integrity of the legal system. I'm just pointing out that this doesn't look like it was a
ridiculous search. I'm sure she did a lot more to provoke suspicion than her lawyer was letting on (heck, she sounds suspicious to me just from the
article trying to defend her). If your only defense is "well you shouldn't have caught me," it's not a terribly good thing for your case.
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
I get the idea this was DEA SOD at work, covering up the real warrantless surveillance that led to the raid. They have lied to prosecutors and
obfuscated sources of information even to federal judges. Buying fertilizer? Yeah, right. That logic would mean, by extension, that buying any
chemistry glassware, or a balance, set you up for surveillance... and that lack of evidence must mean you are hiding a meth lab.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE...
http://www.sciencemadness.org/talk/viewthread.php?tid=8445&a...
Now, was the drug-possessing would-be MDMA cook a complete moron for using drug terms as his email handle while buying equipment? I would say
absolutely... but to say that buying a triple beam balance off of Ebay is suspicious enough to warrant scrutiny? That seems extreme. The payoff
arrest wasn't even impressive. How many members here have done the same?
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
You know all those stories, about how dangerous it is to supply chemicals to individuals, and what a big threat to society we have from chemistry
nerds who are undoubtedly making explosives and hard drugs and good lord knows what in their basements? Bullshit, right? Well, the same goes for the
news stories on the opposite end of the spectrum. The media isn't in this to tell truth, they're in this for clicks and to stir up emotion. Profit.
There is no profit in presenting a balanced story.
Let's break it down and see what they're not saying.
The company she bought from was Midwest Hydroganics. They are one of the largest hydroponics retailers, if not the largest in Illinois. This
is the company the DEA was surveilling. Out of this (not even this retailer, just "this type of surveillance," which extends to who knows how many
places) they got a total of eleven cases charged. That tells me right there, despite what the news implies, "buying fertilizer" was not their
criteria for getting warrants. I suspect "buying a balance" was not the reason for the warrant on the eBay guy, either. These things are not causes
for legal action, they are triggers which say "hey, maybe take a closer look at this guy instead of picking people completely at random."
What could have been their criteria? Who knows. Does this particular woman have a history which would increase suspicion? Interesting they don't
emphasize that her background is clean. Was she high when she walked out of the store with hydroponics fertilizer? Again, who can say? Did someone tip
the DEA off about the marijuana in her trash? Maybe. Was there marijuana found in her trash? Definitely. Did she have a high power bill compared to
others in the area? Yep. These are not things you need a warrant to find out, and they are suspicious in conjunction with everything else - probably
in conjunction with things we're not being told.
This is the DEA. They do not want to bust someone for possession of less than an ounce. Do you think they're at the bar slapping each other on the
back for the big score? No. They're at the bar slapping each other on the back because of the marijuana and MDMA dealer they actually caught
surveilling Midwest Hydroganics. They were genuinely looking for growers, and I suspect they did indeed have very good reason for suspecting this
woman. Of course, they're not going to just let someone off because they were committing a different crime than they were looking for. Apparently she
wasn't growing marijuana. Good for her. That means she won't get charged for growing marijuana. But "well, you all thought I was growing marijuana
when actually I was only smoking it, can I just go now I feel so violated" isn't likely to play out well in court from what I'm seeing.
(Yes the DEA has done some very shady things, and probably is doing, and probably will do. The same goes for most if not all government agencies. Even
the IRS has been involved in things like this, which makes my eyes roll - aren't they supposed to be glorified accountants? But on the other hand, the
argument that they falsified a paper trail, grasping at zero evidence to pin down someone with less than an ounce of marijuana when they had an actual
drug dealer...no. Nope. That's not plausible either. Not even a little.)
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu  | | That tells me right there, despite what the news implies, "buying fertilizer" was not their criteria for getting warrants. I suspect "buying a
balance" was not the reason for the warrant on the eBay guy, either. |
That is exactly the problem with some of these programs; the question becomes where did the surveillance/warrant/etc. come from? When I say how many
forum members here buy balances off of Ebay, I mean to juxtapose that with the question of how many members have been raided by the DEA for
clandestine amphetamine laboratory operation? I'd think we're all in agreement the answer is few.
Obviously these agencies are known to share intelligence of dubious Constitutional acquisition, then lie about their sources to our own government.
Given this, I doubt the fault in suspicious news stories is as much with the media and more with the lack of transparency, and presence of
disinformation from the intelligence analyst groups.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis | | Given this, I doubt the fault in suspicious news stories is as much with the media and more with the lack of transparency, and presence of
disinformation from the intelligence analyst groups. |
I suspect it's about equal. I don't have much faith in the media given how fast they jump on a controversial story, then push the controversy as hard
as they can. More clicks means more ad revenue, more emotional slant means more people keep coming back, both of them together pushes the story to the
front of search engine results, causing the cycle to self-perpetuate...I see both sides of every story always heavily implying things which aren't
necessarily true.
I have little faith in the government either, though, so it's a tossup. I'm not actually worried about being busted for anything myself (I'm even
zoned in a section of town that allows commercial/industrial activity which is magnificent), but I can see how others would be more concerned. And
stories of the occasional person who's genuinely clean but winds up dealing with harassment and property destruction are worrisome. As are the rampant
chemophobia, the lack of education, and the way some people get busted on technicalities rather than because they were actually engaging in harmful
activity. I just don't see stories like this falling into the same category.
I bought a milligram scale off eBay within the last few months, I'm also in possession of a few grams of benzaldehyde, and the frightening spectre of
anthranilic acid esters has been known to lurk in my storage cabinet. My most recent chemical order was copious amounts of assorted vegetable oils.
Come at me DEA. 
|
|
|
Texium
Administrator
Posts: 4544
Registered: 11-1-2014
Location: Salt Lake City
Member Is Offline
Mood: PhD candidate!
|
|
Haha, the assorted vegetable oils are by far the most suspicious part of all that.
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2160
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
One interesting aspect of this case is that the DEA did not know
what she purchased and in fact she was not growing pot but did
in fact have some in her possession. Personally I don't smoke pot
but I do grow hydroponic tomatoes. I am sure many people
actually do given the hydroponics store I frequent has a tomato
section. I would be very upset if the DEA showed up at 3AM and
raided me because something in the shared dumpster contained
something resembling marijuana (Ie. green plant material). The
actual original story has more information and after lab analysis
the 'pot' they found in the trash turned out not to be pot. The
plants in question were actually hibiscus.
Etaoin Shrdlu is way off base assuming she should be raided
for purchasing an unknown item and growing hibiscus.
The tactics the police used to obtain a search warrant are
ridiculous. 50% of people have higher than average electric
bills. Does that mean they should raid all of those people?
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
Oh, no. Reliable source? I'm not going to buy they went for this particular individual over hundreds of others based solely on the fact that something
unknown was purchased from a gardening store. Just because they didn't know what she was carrying the moment she exited the building doesn't mean they
didn't go into the store and ask. And it certainly doesn't mean there was no other evidence involved.
From the Huffington Post story, "Another officer conducted a field test on a green plant stem, which allegedly tested positive for marijuana." She had
marijuana in the house. That means it's quite possible there was residue of it on anything they recovered, I see zero reason to disbelieve it. Whether
or not the plant material was cannabis itself is a bit irrelevant.
I'd be way off base if I actually believed she should be raided over making an unknown purchase and growing hibiscus. As I have repeatedly mentioned,
there is a lot more to the story than this. Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears, erect straw men, and assert these were somehow the sole
cause for suspicion, though. (Hint, the DEA does not raid people if they only have cause to think they're growing hibiscus. They get nothing out of
it. This bears repeating: Midwest Hydroganics is a massive store. A lot more than eleven people would have been taken down from that surveillance if
"unknown purchases" was the sole criterion for getting a warrant.)
EDIT: You know what, I went looking for more info. They were spot on the mark and she got damn lucky. "The agents and police also reportedly found and seized a "plant portion" from Kirking's patio, three glass pipes and a bag, three scales, two
books on how to grow marijuana, a computer, and a zip drive."
[Edited on 4-13-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu | (Hint, the DEA does not raid people if they only have cause to think they're growing hibiscus. They get nothing out of it. This bears repeating:
Midwest Hydroganics is a massive store. A lot more than eleven people would have been taken down from that surveillance if "unknown purchases" was the
sole criterion for getting a warrant.)
|
I disagree. The woman may or may not have midemeanor possession of marijuana, but the DEA was not only agency involved. Check out these cases where
task forces, who often have DEA and county law enforcement (I know employees of each type who have served in various joint task forces), raided over
hibiscus:
Harris County Organized Crime and Narcotics Task Force
http://www.chron.com/news/bizarre/article/Police-mistake-lan...
"John Kohler, an indoor gardening advocate who runs GrowingYourGreens.com, had his home invaded by police because he grew vegetables in his bathroom.
A Kansas family who grew a garden in their basement suffered a no-knock raid under nearly the same pretexts as Mrs. Kirkling."
From a report on the same story.
http://www.policestateusa.com/2014/angela-kirking/
Now I am not trying to paint law enforcement as categorically wrong, or claim the amateur chemist has any need for inherent fear, but I also remember
the case of Wayne Chiang, who was an FFL firearms dealer and collector who was raided by the FBI after the VA tech shooting.
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2007/04/i_want_to_clea...
http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=699...
I can corroborate this because I met him, saw pictures, etc. He can't discuss it because the FBI offered to pay damages. His lawyer told him that
this is very, very rare, and he can't discuss it because it was part of the out of court settlement.
http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A08/79252-6%20-%20Pet'r%20answer%20to%20amicus%20bri%20-%20WA%20state%20assn%20of%20municipal%20atty.pdf
In the above link, Leo Brutsche was raided for methamphetamine, and the new stare decesis from Washington state is that police do not have to pay
damages for the raid despite not having any evidence of methamphetamine manufacture or possession to provide the court.
http://www.cbs46.com/story/25228145/woman-said-fbi-has-not-o...
In the above, the FBI accidentally raided an Atlanta woman's home in a reported hostage situation. No damages paid. I don't have anything against
the FBI, but just being a federal agency doesn't mean you don't make mistakes. Another example... firing on an unarmed teen with an FBI SWAT team in
the heat of a raid, not conducting arrests, and not announcing the reason for the warrant. Sounds like a mistake to me:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/17/fbi-fires-shots-rai...
Another example with the D.C. Police below:
http://www.theagitator.com/2010/01/26/d-c-police-raid-wrong-...
All in all, if you work in a field where your lab has a DEA schedule II license, it's probably in your best interest not to get raided since you may
suddenly find yourself in a conundrum if you were to fight for payment of damages of a raid.
Read the comments on this one: http://makezine.com/2008/08/11/home-science-under-attack/
Those few of us with some kind of financial investment in the science, much less equipment, should take heed there. Pending patents could be
jeopardized.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
I absolutely agree. I simply don't agree that this particular case looks like a mistake. I can't fathom that out of all the people they must have
watched buy things from Midwest Hydroganics over the years, they happened to run across a drug dealer of fair size and a marijuana smoker planning to
set up a grow operation by sheer luck. If it was pure luck, warrants based only on the fact that someone made purchases, then even assuming
the other eleven people were clean (they weren't), you're asking me to believe that 18% of the visitors to that store are looking to grow marijuana.
(Wouldn't that be cause for some suspicion of everyone who walked through the doors?)
This is like someone giving me a thousand random assorted chemicals, then after I consistently produce fluorescent products insist that I must have no
idea what I'm doing, it was all an accident, there's no way I knew what the reagents were to begin with...it's just horribly implausible.
Government agencies do screw up, and assume innocent people are doing illegal things because of unfortunate juxtapositions that innocent people might
not even realize look compromising. And that's terrible, especially when some small-town court won't let the case go because they're afraid to look
stupid. If they would be more open to backing down and compensating for any damage, that would do a lot to alleviate the worry home chemists have. But
in this case, someone habitually smoking marijuana, clearly setting up to grow it though they hadn't started yet, by sheer dumb luck gets busted only
for possession, then argues that the case should be thrown out of court because they weren't suspicious enough? Lady, there's a reason they went after
you.
The agency was the DEA in this case; I'm not talking about other cases, I'm talking about the attempted paranoia-stoking over what appears to be a
legitimate bust in this case. (Not from you, from reporters.) I don't really have ann idea of the success/failure rate in other cases, and the smaller
you go the more likely they are to want to bust you for less than ann ounce of marijuana. My point is that the DEA doesn't. They thought she was a
bigger fish than the was, and looking at what they found both before and after I greatly suspect they had their reasons. Keep in mind what we're
hearing here is this woman's lawyer's slant on the case. The DEA isn't going to release all their evidence to the public. I'm not even certain that's
legal.
EDIT: I absolutely love how that Police State USA link moderates "books on growing marijuana" into "some books." I can see they're not biased at all.
[Edited on 4-13-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]
|
|
|
Fantasma4500
International Hazard
Posts: 1681
Registered: 12-12-2012
Location: Dysrope (aka europe)
Member Is Offline
Mood: dangerously practical
|
|
so many have died from the devils lettuce, when will people stop?! their dead bodies even keeps on stabbing themselves with weed's! when will the news
ever report on this dangerous problem!
|
|
|
elementcollector1
International Hazard
Posts: 2684
Registered: 28-12-2011
Location: The Known Universe
Member Is Offline
Mood: Molten
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat | | so many have died from the devils lettuce, when will people stop?! their dead bodies even keeps on stabbing themselves with weed's! when will the news
ever report on this dangerous problem! |
...I seriously can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, so congratulations, you have me flummoxed for today.
Elements Collected:52/87
Latest Acquired: Cl
Next in Line: Nd
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2160
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu | Oh, no. Reliable source? I'm not going to buy they went for this particular individual over hundreds of others based solely on the fact that something
unknown was purchased from a gardening store. Just because they didn't know what she was carrying the moment she exited the building doesn't mean they
didn't go into the store and ask. And it certainly doesn't mean there was no other evidence involved.
From the Huffington Post story, "Another officer conducted a field test on a green plant stem, which allegedly tested positive for marijuana." She had
marijuana in the house. That means it's quite possible there was residue of it on anything they recovered, I see zero reason to disbelieve it. Whether
or not the plant material was cannabis itself is a bit irrelevant.
I'd be way off base if I actually believed she should be raided over making an unknown purchase and growing hibiscus. As I have repeatedly mentioned,
there is a lot more to the story than this. Feel free to stick your fingers in your ears, erect straw men, and assert these were somehow the sole
cause for suspicion, though. (Hint, the DEA does not raid people if they only have cause to think they're growing hibiscus. They get nothing out of
it. This bears repeating: Midwest Hydroganics is a massive store. A lot more than eleven people would have been taken down from that surveillance if
"unknown purchases" was the sole criterion for getting a warrant.)
EDIT: You know what, I went looking for more info. They were spot on the mark and she got damn lucky. "The agents and police also reportedly found and seized a "plant portion" from Kirking's patio, three glass pipes and a bag, three scales, two
books on how to grow marijuana, a computer, and a zip drive."
[Edited on 4-13-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu] |
There is little argument that the woman bought organic
liquid fertilizer. That in and of itself does not justify a raid.
Nor is it disputed that marijuana (not plants) was found
during the raid. Given that 30% of americans live in a
household where someone uses marijuana that isn't suprising.
As for the hibiscus testing positive under the D-L field test see:
http://www.cacj.org/documents/sf_crime_lab/studies__misc_mat...
It is one of many plants that get mistaken for pot by uninformed
idiots. There are at least 80 other plants that are KNOWN to
test positive under the D-L test. With the number which could
test positive measuring in the thousands.
The woman could have been growing pot but the police arrested
her on pot possession and paraphenalia. The books by the way
are legal to own. First amendment and all of that.
If members here were raided the way this lady was, we would
all most likely be charged with manufacturing a slew of drugs
and explosives. Rather we have ever done so or not.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | There is little argument that the woman bought organic
liquid fertilizer. That in and of itself does not justify a raid. |
No joke. It's just one of many things which would have contributed to reasonable suspicion.
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | Nor is it disputed that marijuana (not plants) was found
during the raid. Given that 30% of americans live in a
household where someone uses marijuana that isn't suprising. |
Possession of marijuana, another of many things which would have contributed to reasonable suspicion if they'd been aware of it beforehand (perhaps by
watching her walk out of the garden shop stoned).
I didn't catch where they listed what type of test was used to confirm. I thought it was a laboratory test, not a field test? Regardless, this is
another thing which would have contributed to reasonable suspicion. On top of everything else, they have no reason to assume a positive test is bogus.
I have no reason to assume it was bogus since she did have marijuana in the house. Why do you assume it was bogus?
As I said, she's damn lucky she hadn't started yet.
Of course. Which is why she's not getting arrested over them. Those books are something I point out as an indication she was acting suspiciously, not
something she's "guilty" of. She was pretty clearly intending to grow marijuana, and pretty lucky they ran into her while she was only possessing it.
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | If members here were raided the way this lady was, we would
all most likely be charged with manufacturing a slew of drugs
and explosives. Rather we have ever done so or not. |
She's not being charged with intent to manufacture. She's being charged with possession that was discovered after all her actions leading up to
manufacture caused the DEA to peg her as suspicious. If she hadn't had marijuana around she would have been legally fine. If you don't have anything
illegal in your lab you should be fine too.
To sum things up: Woman smokes marijuana. Woman decides to grow marijuana. Woman starts collecting resources to grow marijuana. DEA says "whoa, that
looks just like someone collecting resources to grow marijuana." DEA busts woman and finds only leaves and paraphernalia, no living plants. Woman
complains that she wasn't acting suspicious enough.
Suuuuuuuure she wasn't.
Like I said, the odds are unbelievably against this actually being the random raid that she and her lawyer assert it was. Astronomically, even.
...or maybe it was random and 18%+ of people buying from Midwest Hydroganics are looking to grow pot. I'll settle for that statistic if you insist but
it also means just walking in there is pretty reasonable grounds for suspicion.
[Edited on 4-13-2014 by Etaoin Shrdlu]
|
|
|
macckone
International Hazard
Posts: 2160
Registered: 1-3-2013
Location: Over a mile high
Member Is Offline
Mood: Electrical
|
|
30% of the households in america have someone who smokes pot.
You are more likely to find pot by raiding random houses than the
18% alleged based on the hydroponics shop. Out of hundreds of
customers they made 18 arrests. How many people were raided
and nothing was found? It would seem that frequenting a
hydroponics shop actually makes you less likely to have weed.
The D-L field test is the standard field test for marijuana.
To be truthful there is no evidence they even tested the
garbage for marijuana at all. It certainly isn't in the story.
This is police overreach pure and simple.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by macckone | 30% of the households in america have someone who smokes pot.
You are more likely to find pot by raiding random houses than the
18% alleged based on the hydroponics shop. |
Yes, but I'm not talking about finding pot. I'm talking about finding people growing or setting up to grow pot. She was setting up to grow pot and
this is what made her suspicious. Can you even deny this? She doesn't now get to argue she did none of the suspicious things because they didn't
find living plants.
You're right, it was a field test reading back. But are you kidding me asking for evidence that they tested other than their records? Are you kidding
me saying they should assume their confirmatory test is bogus? Why do you think it was bogus when she did have marijuana in the house? If I'm
carrying cocaine but also perfume that tests positive for cocaine because of methyl benzoate, I don't get to say "But officer I'm certain the dog gave
a false positive because of my perfume, please throw the case out."
How about evidence the raids were random. Because these are pretty decent results for "random." You really think there are enough people setting up to
grow pot that "random" raids will consistently get them?
|
|
|
Chemosynthesis
International Hazard
Posts: 1071
Registered: 26-9-2013
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu |
I absolutely agree. I simply don't agree that this particular case looks like a mistake. I can't fathom that out of all the people they must have
watched buy things from Midwest Hydroganics over the years, they happened to run across a drug dealer of fair size and a marijuana smoker planning to
set up a grow operation by sheer luck. |
We're of the same opinion there, at least in part. Regardless of whether the woman was committing a marijuana crime, I don't see how simply
surveilling the store was sufficient for the resources spent on a raid. Usually accidents seem to happen from informants trying to get compensated in
some way, however I've often seen these attributed to such. The lack of attribution here, and the ability for the police to raid and either have a
lack of charges, or very minor charges, is what concerns me from a hobby chemistry standpoint. So many chemicals are listed of watched, that even if
one stays below thresholds, you may end up appearing very suspicious by virtue of home chemistry, which is certainly not a popular hobby
(unfortunately, in my opinion).
Almost all of it pertinent to the warrant/case has to be released during discovery in courts for a fair trial where the accused can face their
accusor. I can understand holding back until court, but the fact that the DEA has begun lying to their peers in the DOJ and courts (prosecutors,
judges, etc.) is what is so disturbing.
| Quote: Originally posted by Etaoin Shrdlu |
EDIT: I absolutely love how that Police State USA link moderates "books on growing marijuana" into "some books." I can see they're not biased at all.
|
Me too! I have a friend who's bitter from combat service, and basically exists on that and worse, and to his eyes, the government can do no right,
even by accident.
|
|
|
hyfalcon
International Hazard
Posts: 1003
Registered: 29-3-2012
Member Is Offline
Mood: No Mood
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by elementcollector1 | | Quote: Originally posted by Antiswat | | so many have died from the devils lettuce, when will people stop?! their dead bodies even keeps on stabbing themselves with weed's! when will the news
ever report on this dangerous problem! |
...I seriously can't tell if this is sarcastic or not, so congratulations, you have me flummoxed for today. |
You're not old enough to remember the old "reefer madness" movies they used to do.
|
|
|
Etaoin Shrdlu
National Hazard
Posts: 724
Registered: 25-12-2013
Location: Wisconsin
Member Is Offline
Mood: Insufferable
|
|
| Quote: Originally posted by Chemosynthesis |
Almost all of it pertinent to the warrant/case has to be released during discovery in courts for a fair trial where the accused can face their
accusor. I can understand holding back until court, but the fact that the DEA has begun lying to their peers in the DOJ and courts (prosecutors,
judges, etc.) is what is so disturbing. |
The problem with releasing evidence to the public before the trial is that it casts the suspect in a bad light before the courts even get a chance to
decide whether that evidence was obtained correctly and what it actually means as far as guilt/innocence. So you tend to get a lot more of the defense
lawyers' side until a case is actually closed. (I think. I'm not a lawyer and never will be.)
I find the fact that government agencies lie even to each other disturbing as well. It's often too difficult to understand what's going on as it is.
|
|
|
| Pages:
1
2 |
![[*]](images/xpblue/default_icon.gif){kind=icon}
