Going back to that horrible 1969 moment frozen in time, Leslie Van Houten and the other members of the Manson Drug Cult spent their time at the Spahn Ranch where Manson was plying his disciples with marijuana and other drugs in the effort to control their minds while preaching his crazy philosophy of “Helter Skelter” (after a Beatles song) in his insane hope that he could create a race war after which he would be proclaimed the leader of America. He relied heavily on marijuana and other illegal drugs to breakdown the inborn barriers and inhibitions of his followers to cheerfully kill innocent human beings on his behalf to fulfill his insane goal.
This is terrible. If the shooter were white we'd have riots for sure and we may have anyway. I don't know what to think. The guy disobeyed a whole series of direct orders after a gun was found. Not only did he force his way out of the car, but then advanced on the retreating officer. Kinda hard to assume the officer was wrong to shoot. Looks like an excuse for rioting though.
What do you want to bet the victim was on drugs? People say Cannabis doesn't kill, but it does.
GIThruster wrote:This is terrible. If the shooter were white we'd have riots for sure and we may have anyway. I don't know what to think. The guy disobeyed a whole series of direct orders after a gun was found. Not only did he force his way out of the car, but then advanced on the retreating officer. Kinda hard to assume the officer was wrong to shoot. Looks like an excuse for rioting though.
Just watched the video...can't tell if the passenger was "reaching" or not but did hear the cop repeatedly tell him not to move after he (the officer) allegedly saw the gun. He did disobey by "moving" when he emerged from the vehicle, but I could see his hands which were visible & looked empty. Not sure if being unarmed at that point (his hands looked empty) but clearly not complying with the cop's instructions not to move, by leaving the vehicle and advancing on the officer constitutes justifiable use of deadly force by said officer under the law.
GIThruster wrote:This is terrible. If the shooter were white we'd have riots for sure and we may have anyway. I don't know what to think. The guy disobeyed a whole series of direct orders after a gun was found. Not only did he force his way out of the car, but then advanced on the retreating officer. Kinda hard to assume the officer was wrong to shoot. Looks like an excuse for rioting though.
Just watched the video...can't tell if the passenger was "reaching" or not but did hear the cop repeatedly tell him not to move after he (the officer) allegedly saw the gun. He did disobey by "moving" when he emerged from the vehicle, but I could see his hands which were visible & looked empty. Not sure if being unarmed at that point (his hands looked empty) but clearly not complying with the cop's instructions not to move, by leaving the vehicle and advancing on the officer constitutes justifiable use of deadly force by said officer under the law.
It has audio. The officer repeatedly told him not to move or he will "F***ing kill him." He didn't say this once, he said it many times. "Don't you move or I will kill you."
After the officer pointed a gun at me and told me not to move or he would kill me, I think I would do what he says. It is unfortunate, but I understand why the officer did what he did, though I thought it was a bit of an overreaction. The presence of a gun in a stopped car should not promote such a high degree of extreme paranoia.
I do *NOT* understand why the man refused to, but I suspect he was either drunk or high. I guess we'll find out down the road.
This one was a tragedy.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote:After the officer pointed a gun at me and told me not to move or he would kill me, I think I would do what he says.
As would I or any other sane/sober man. But that doesn't answer whether said use of deadly force under the circumstances was legal; after all from GIT link:
Days, still yelling, reaches into the car and appears to remove a gun.
Days was the name of the officer who shot him. So he had then the gun in his possession at the time he shot him.
However from the same link there is also this:
Reid, 36, spent about 13 years in prison for shooting at three state troopers when he was a teenager.And Days knew who he was; Days was among the arresting officers last year when Reid was charged with several crimes, including drug possession and obstruction
This might arguably tend to support the officer's likely claim that he shot out of fear for his life even if he Reid was ostensibly unarmed hands raised at the exact moment of the shots fired.
williatw wrote:
Days was the name of the officer who shot him. So he had then the gun in his possession at the time he shot him.
However from the same link there is also this:
Reid, 36, spent about 13 years in prison for shooting at three state troopers when he was a teenager.And Days knew who he was; Days was among the arresting officers last year when Reid was charged with several crimes, including drug possession and obstruction
This might arguably tend to support the officer's likely claim that he shot out of fear for his life even if he Reid was ostensibly unarmed hands raised at the exact moment of the shots fired.
I did not know this. If the officer knew him from previous contact, and had prior knowledge that this man had shot at state troopers, It makes his paranoia a lot easier to understand.
Yes, the encounter makes more sense now. Still a shame that someone had to get shot.
But a thought just occurs to me. I suspect one day they will have robot "Partners" that can walk up to the windows and confront people they stop while the human officer remains back in the safety of his patrol car.
That is both reassuring and chilling at the same time.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Diogenes wrote:It has audio. The officer repeatedly told him not to move or he will "F***ing kill him." He didn't say this once, he said it many times. "Don't you move or I will kill you."
It captures both sides of the dispute. The guy was arguing about getting out of the car and the officer was telling him not to. He not only got out but advanced on the officer. It's a righteous shooting but if the cop were white, there would be a riot for sure.
And certainly, the guy who got shot must have been using drugs. What else could explain this kind of behavior?
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Not quite what they had in mind when they softened up the laws.
That's what these pro-drug IDIOTS never seem to grasp. You make it legal, and companies are going to attempt to increase potency and addictiveness. They are going to try to increase market share.
Just look at the British East India company in China. That's how this stuff works in practice.
‘What all the wise men promised has not happened, and what all the damned fools said would happen has come to pass.’
— Lord Melbourne —
Here is an example of one of those innocent Victims that Pro-Drug people say don't exist.
We put dope in their bottles and watched them have fun
According to information gathered by police after interviewing the three suspects, they were all “shooting dope” in the Normandy Drive home Friday night into Saturday. When Arnold went to check on Owen and his 6-year-old brother on Saturday, Owen was dead.
In addition to the admissions police were able to get out of Barnes and the teen, Barnes also mentioned to police how they would put “dope in [the children’s] bottles and watch them have fun.”
Diogenes wrote:Here is an example of one of those innocent Victims that Pro-Drug people say don't exist.
And an example of the criminals Pro-Drug people say aren't criminals, since of course it is Prohibition that is responsible for the death of the child, and the parents subsequent attempt to hide their crime by burning their own child's body. It's not a crime! and these folks would have done this anyway, even if they weren't druggies. Of course they would!
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
Diogenes wrote:That's what these pro-drug IDIOTS never seem to grasp. You make it legal, and companies are going to attempt to increase potency and addictiveness. They are going to try to increase market share.
From the posted link:
“In [April] 2012, we won a trial court decision allowing medical cannabis patients in British Columbia to possess concentrates,” he said. Tousaw noted that this ruling was appealed and the case is scheduled to enter the Supreme Court of Canada on March 20. But for the time being, Tousaw said, medical-marijuana licence holders are permitted to possess cannabis extracts.
He compared the risks of overconsumption to doing the same with alcohol. “Who would be crazy enough to take an entire 40-pounder of Everclear or overproof rum and guzzle the whole thing?” Briere asked.
Yeah lets bring back prohibition...or maybe those Canadians could pass regulations on concentration/availability that licensed providers unlike illegal ones have to follow; if they choose not to than the responsibility is theirs.
Gonzalez said that with higher THC concentrations there are valid concerns about addiction, though it remains unclear to what extent such risks differ from those of traditional marijuana consumption. “Approximately one out of 10 people that start using cannabis develops a habitual use of cannabis,” he said. “If we study dabbing, I suspect that number would be slightly higher.”
Gonzalez suggested the industry would benefit from a transition out of the legal grey area in which it presently resides in B.C.
“This, like any form of cannabis, should be regulated,” he said. “There should be standards and protocols and all of this in place.”
Agreed regulate it...don't see anyone calling for lets bring back prohibition.
williatw wrote:“Who would be crazy enough to take an entire 40-pounder of Everclear or overproof rum and guzzle the whole thing?” Briere asked.
This is obviously a fallacious comparison because the two are completely unalike in how they act. And in fact, if people could drown the equivalent of a 40-pounder of Everclear, we can be assured they would. Now that Cannabis has been so refined, and the oil is readily available, and e-cigs or vaping is so popular, we can rest assured that people will indeed be taking MASSIVE doses and the consequences will certainly follow.
"Courage is not just a virtue, but the form of every virtue at the testing point." C. S. Lewis
GIThruster wrote: Now that Cannabis has been so refined, and the oil is readily available, and e-cigs or vaping is so popular, we can rest assured that people will indeed be taking MASSIVE doses and the consequences will certainly follow.
Legal Cannabis is subject to regulations on the concentration (refinement) available to the public. Legal providers have an enormous incentive to follow the law. Illegal Cannabis is not subject to any regulation; illegal dope pushers don't care about following laws/regs; how could they and be illegal providers? Prohibition won't/didn't prevent people from partaking of these "MASSIVE doses" of Cannabis any more than it prevented/prevents people from taking massive doses of Crack Cocaine (or powder Cocaine).
In the video (30 seconds is all you need) he cures his skin cancer with cannabis oil. 94% THC wouldn't surprise me. But it does make Prohibitionists crazy. Excellent. And best yet? They don't even have to use it to get the effect. A VERY powerful drug. Heh.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
