"War on drugs" poster, edited 1/9

Status
Not open for further replies.
Another winner Oleg! I like the latest version the best.

I respect most people in Law Enforcement. As far as my personal experience with no-knocks the closest I can get is my mothers best friend - mid-seventies with one leg amputated.

She is visiting her sister and brother-in-law. BIL in eighties, bad heart, WWII vet, sister too sick (permanent condition) to walk upstairs. Middle of the night the door comes crashing in, surrounded by armed LEO. They live at xxx West anywhere st and apparntly the warrant was for xxx East anywhere st. Since these are obviously hard core drug dealers they keep them at gunpoint for over an hour before admitting they might have the wrong house. At least they didn't use flash bang grenades.

That's the kind of stuff that makes me really like this poster.
 
Sad but true.....

fjolnirsson said:
How is one better than the other? If a federal officer breaks into my home, he deserves to be shot, same as any other goblin. Make no mistake, without a proper warrant for my residence, it is a crime, no matter what the misguided citizens are told.


Honest citizens don't break into private residences, government employed citizens or not. However, should you try to combat a well trained entry team, tell Jesus I said hello personally would ya....

Like Reagan said, "the government is the problem."

jeepmor
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No knock....what do you expect?

Fed168 said:
Thanks Oleg, as an officer, I am offended by that poster. Not too cool about advocating shooting at the police.

But it's okay for them to come in unannounced? Is my inference of your statment correct?

I don't think Oleg's advocating the shooting of police, he's advocating that the authorities ID themselves before entry. Something at the very core of our individual rights as American citizens. If they do not ID themselves, they take their chances just like typical thugs. You enter like a thug, you're responded to like a thug. I understand the police need the element of surprise on some of these drug perps, however, you don't ID yourself as a LEO WITH a warrant, your chances of confrontation go way up. Entering a private residence unannounced, without a warrant, and with an entry team is reminiscient of the Nazi Germans in WWII, not Free Americans who sacrificed life and limb to insure this wouldn't happen.

Which is obviously why most authorities come in overpowering numbers, well armed, and well armored. Some policies are just too far to the right in my opinion. I don't mean to disrespect the Lawmen, but we are discussig a violation of constitutional rights here, not advocating that we confront the law enforcement with arms.

I interpret Oleg's message that this womans rights are being violated and she is allowed to handle it appropriately. If she lacks the proper information, how is she to know who is coming into her home?

jeepmor
 
Very on-point for this thread, look here: http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060110/NEWS06/601100466&SearchID=73232240791574

Court Debates Search Case

By Gina Holland
Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- Detroit police did not bother knocking on Booker Hudson's door when they arrived with a warrant to search for drugs.

They found crack cocaine, but the Supreme Court debated Monday whether the drugs can be used as evidence because officers were wrong not to knock and give Hudson time to come to the door.
The case is being closely watched by law enforcement groups -- and justices seemed so divided that the outcome may turn on the replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. The Senate confirmation hearing for Bush nominee Samuel Alito began on Monday.
Justices could use the case to make it easier for officers to execute search warrants. Or they could tightly enforce previous rulings that say police armed with warrants generally must knock and announce themselves or run afoul of the Constitution's Fourth Amendment ban on unreasonable searches.
The state of Michigan, which is backed by the Bush administration, argued that even though officers made a mistake by rushing into Hudson's home, the blunder should not require a judge to bar that evidence.

O'Connor seemed ready to rule against police.

"Is there no policy protecting the home owner a little bit?" O'Connor asked David Salmons, a Bush administration lawyer.

She said that the Detroit officer testified that he routinely went into houses without knocking and giving the homeowner time to come to the door. She predicted that policy would be adopted by "every police officer in America" if the court said there was no penalty.

--Herself
 
Looking at the last version of the poster, I will still opine that it is ineffectual for the proposed message, even if well intended.

1. The issue is a civil rights issue and not an RKBA issue but the poster still doesn't focus on that.

2. The facial expression is inappropriate as mentioned by others and that negates the content.

3. There is still the clear implication that the said woman will fight it out with an entry team. Given she is standing there with what looks like a light gauge double barreled shotgun, she is going to be vaporized and the gun is going to be ineffective against vests. Fighting an entry team is a difficult thing and this poster has an implied threat against the police and some indication of implied success. That detracts from the core of the message.

If you want such a poster - focus on the issue which is the harm that such an entry would do an innocent.

Have said woman, lying shot with the gun next to her and say something like she thought it was a burglar but it was a no knock raid that went to the wrong address.

Focus on the civil rights issue and the aftermath - not a mistaken gun fantasy of suspect efficacy.

Don't want to offend but that's the way I see this one. A wrong focus. Debating the issue of raids and warrants detracts from evaluating the poster.

Sorry to be a downer again.
 
GEM,

Which is why I took photos just for this topic late last night. Hope to make the new poster by the weekend.

Next topic to cover: roadblocks and "safety/sobriety/drug/contraband/etc." checkpoints.
 
Zundfolge said:
STAGE 2 wins the award for the biggest non-sequitur posted in these forums in a LONG time. :scrutiny:

How so. Show me a heroin addict and I'll show you someone who cannot observe the traditional rules of gun safety. I'd venture to say the same applies to other narcotics as well including pot.
 
My observation of numerous narcotics users (most of them legal, even) shows that thair functionality isn't impaired. I could not be spending time around them if I felt they were unsafe. My experience is limited to people useing opiates, hemp. That's not even the main topic of my poster though.
 
STAGE 2 said:
How so. Show me a heroin addict and I'll show you someone who cannot observe the traditional rules of gun safety. I'd venture to say the same applies to other narcotics as well including pot.

The ability to be safe with a gun has little or nothing to do with being a criminal with a gun. You make enough mistakes and a talented amatuer can kill you from close in. Whether said talented amatuer is on a chemical high/low/whatever is mostly irrelevent.
 
Oleg Volk said:
My observation of numerous narcotics users (most of them legal, even) shows that thair functionality isn't impaired. I could not be spending time around them if I felt they were unsafe. My experience is limited to people useing opiates, hemp. That's not even the main topic of my poster though.


I know that the poster really wasn't addressing the drug issue, however I just find it find it completely disingenuous when people raise hell about someone taking a picture of a pistol with a round in the chamber or their finger on the trigger of an unloaded pistol and then in the next sentence either say nothing about drugs or write a long statement about how its completely irrelevant.

I'm sure everyone here already has their own preconcieved notions about narcotics and thats fine. However I don't know of anyone who ever became successful in shooting or in life who was an addict.
 
You are probably right. I do, however, observe a many more users of addictive substances (alcohol, narcotics, web forums :) ) than actual addicts. Most people have no trouble functioning even if they like to alter their minds or moods on occasion.
 
Oleg is correct. There is a fundamental difference between occasional use of an external chemical substance and addiction to that same substance. Compare the person who enjoys a snifter of scotch and a cigar (both narcotics in YOUR vernacular), to the fifth a day of Mad Dog 20/20 rummy living in a box down by the river. The latter is an addict, the former is not.

And I'll tell you straight up, you're conversing with one of those "addicts" right now, and I'm rather successful at my chosen tasks in life. My addiction happens to be to caffeine, but it is STILL an addiction.

Threaten my supply of beans, and bad things will happen to you. :D
 
Sindawe said:
My addiction happens to be to caffeine, but it is STILL an addiction.

Threaten my supply of beans, and bad things will happen to you. :D


(As I put down Juan Valdez and slowly back away) I know that most anything can be a "narcotic" but I think its clear that when I use that word I'm referring to the "typical" illegal drugs such as crack, heroin, pot, opium, etc.
 
In the original sense of the word, pot, coffee and tobacco aren't "narcotics," and I suspect cocaine and speed aren't either. The root word means "sleepy," doesn't it? So that would mean opiates and downers.

I don't use drugs and illegal herbs recreationally, and hardly drink intoxicating beverages. Fought my way off cigarettes five years ago and refuse to give up coffee and tea. But to the extent anyone uses such things without doing harm to others, I don't care. I frown on it, but I'm not going to lose sleep over it. Humans have been playing with their own minds since the dawn of time.

While drugs and guns are a very bad mix, at least one of the times I have had a gun pointed at me, the bad guy was either on a drug, or a riding an adrenaline high so strong it had the same effect. Bad guys, it turns out, are not especially concerned about gun safety! (Who'd've thought?)

Bad guys who do home invasions may or may not be high. It makes very little difference to their victims. It might help the bad guys -- "hashish" and "assassin" come from the same root word -- or not.

A problem with drugs is that it is not at all clear why some are thought "bad" and others "good" (it turns out many of Carrie Nation's Temperance crusaders were fond of laudnum -- an opiate -- and cocaine-based patent medicines, both legal at the time). Addiction is generally bad in and of itself, but it looks to me like that's a medical problem. The social effects of uncontrollable addiction are clearly bad for others as well as for the addict, and often a matter for the criminal justice system. But recreational use under controlled cirumstances? We find that okay for alcohol, have even fewer laws and customs restricting tobacco use, and nearly none for coffee and tea; it's not clear why those are "better" than marijuana, amphtimines or barbituates. They're not illegal because they're bad, they are bad because they are illegal.
Unfortunately, such drugs are also at least as appealing to some people as coffee, cigarettes and alcohol are to others.

It is that situation that gives us no-knock raids and gang wars over drugs: there's a huge market out there, all of it doing business in cash and offering amazing profits for high risks. The payoff is so big that it always attracts new producers and suppliers no matter how many are caught and shut down, which in turn brings in ever more intense enforcement. The DEA and local police are trying to do the best job they can against impossible odds. But it's unwinnable.
The story of Hercules and the Hydra comes to mind: for every head he would cut off, two more would spring up in its place.

The wave of alcohol-related crime was only ended by ending Prohibition. Oddly, there was not a huge increase in the number of alcoholics once the bars were open. Nor was drunk driving any less a crime after alcohol was legally available than when it was not.

--Herself
 
Humans have been playing with their own minds since the dawn of time.
Interesting wrinkle on this (at least to me). Many many years ago in Jr. High I did sample C. sativa and knew the shoals hidden in those flowers, so I know what the effects are like. About 18 months ago I discovered I could mimic those effects when I dream, and have been able to incorporate that in my lucid dreaming. :D I suppose I may be producing endogenous cannabinoids when this occurs, or just similar patterns of neural activity. Either way, the sensations are the same when in REM sleep as what I experienced in Jr. High. Think I could be subject to legal sanction for crimminal intent in manipulating my own neurochemistry simply by shear force of will?

I've not been able to duplicate THAT phenomena while awake.

Yet.
In the original sense of the word, pot, coffee and tobacco aren't "narcotics," and I suspect cocaine and speed aren't either. The root word means "sleepy," doesn't it? So that would mean opiates and downers.
True, and that is what I was alluding to when speaking of STAGE 2's vernacular. Calling all currently illicit drugs "Narcotics" is as sloppy as calling as semi-automatic military pattern rifle an "Assalt Rifle"

Want to help save lives of decent Peace Officers and end the unwarranted use of "No-Knock" warrant service and at the same time cripple the crimminal gangs who make $$$ moving/selling drugs? Bring the traffic BACK into the sphere of the honest business man. Like the guy who runs the liqour stores or the tobbaconist. Impose harsh penalties for those who sell to minors and hold accountable those who injure others while under the influence.
 
Herself said:
In the original sense of the word, pot, coffee and tobacco aren't "narcotics," and I suspect cocaine and speed aren't either. The root word means "sleepy," doesn't it? So that would mean opiates and downers.

That, IIRC, is true about the root word of "narcotic". I don't really know which effect pot has though, and I've heard which ever way you are, pot will make you the opposite. But whoever it was I heard that from may have been wrong. I agree about "narcotics" being opiates and downers though because if somebody smokes opium they generally get sleepy. Anybody here ever read "The Quiet American"?

I don't use drugs and illegal herbs recreationally, and hardly drink intoxicating beverages. Fought my way off cigarettes five years ago and refuse to give up coffee and tea.

Me neither and I'm not inclined to want to be around people who do for a variety of reasons. A friend of mine quit smoking after he had a heart attack a couple of years ago... he said it's different when the doctor asks you whether you'd rather have a cigarette or your life.

Tea and coffee... don't give 'em any ideas. I drink both and sometimes I like to spike my coffee with 7 year old Jim Beam. The politicos better not start messin' with my favorite drinks to have with my Mexican food and cheeseburgers and whatever else I choose to eat. What's next? They start telling us what we can and can't eat? Thinking of that, I'd like to have seen 'em tell my Grandpa and his brother and some of their friends about what they can and can't cook because they were liable to be BBQing anything and my great uncle even made his own white corn hominy complete with soaking/washing in Red Devil brand lye. Don't give 'em any ideas or they'll legislate us out of everything while they're at it.

While drugs and guns are a very bad mix, at least one of the times I have had a gun pointed at me, the bad guy was either on a drug, or a riding an adrenaline high so strong it had the same effect. Bad guys, it turns out, are not especially concerned about gun safety! (Who'd've thought?)

That's what I was getting at in an earlier post. An amatuer criminal can be generally very un-gun-savvy and still kill you with one. I made a comment about a "talented amatuer", but in reality, they don't really have to be all that talented either.

Bad guys who do home invasions may or may not be high. It makes very little difference to their victims. It might help the bad guys -- "hashish" and "assassin" come from the same root word -- or not.

Yeah, it again, does come from the same root word, IIRC. I'm reminded of the Moro Juramentados in the Phillipine Insurrection... they were really doped up and they kept coming despite being shot to dollrags with US .30-40 Krag rifles (after the .38LC revolvers failed to stop/neutralize). Those original doped up assassins got in close and went berzerk with a knife too, IIRC reading, much like I recall reading about the Moros and their Kris knives- they'd take a man's arm off as clean as if a surgeon had amputated it, but a lot faster.

A problem with drugs is that it is not at all clear why some are thought "bad" and others "good" (it turns out many of Carrie Nation's Temperance crusaders were fond of laudnum -- an opiate -- and cocaine-based patent medicines, both legal at the time).

This shows the hypocrisy of the Temperance movement. This also probably explains why Carrie Nation herself was so berzerk while busting up saloons. She probably got away with it because nobody knew how to handle her.

We find that okay for alcohol, have even fewer laws and customs restricting tobacco use, and nearly none for coffee and tea; it's not clear why those are "better" than marijuana, amphtimines or barbituates. They're not illegal because they're bad, they are bad because they are illegal.

Again, don't give 'em any ideas about messing with my coffee and my sweet tea. I live in the South. You don't mess with a Southerner's sweet tea.

The story of Hercules and the Hydra comes to mind: for ever head he would cut off, two more would spring up in its place.

The law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head again.

The wave of alcohol-related crime was only ended by ending Prohibition. Oddly, there was not a huge increase in the number of alcoholics once the bars were open. Nor was drunk driving any less a crime after alcohol was legally available than when it was not.

The alcohol-related crime wave that existed during Prohibition shifted to the WoD because BATF had to have a reason to exist. In order to exist, they needed a new "public enemy #1". But the real reason pot is illegal is the cotton farmers decided to knock out the competition from the hemp farmers.
 
CAPTAIN MIKE said:
Wait .. Don't shoot ...It might be the Pool Guy or an Appliance Man making an unannounced delivery. :rolleyes:

Your pool guy kicks in your door and carries a firearm? Where do you live, Lebanon? :rolleyes:
 
NineseveN said:
Your pool guy kicks in your door and carries a firearm? Where do you live, Lebanon? :rolleyes:
No, his company is just that serious about clean pools!

--H
 
outofbattery said:
So on one hand you make posters showing LEO's armed with belt fed weapons and in all sorts of ninja poses and then you show the need to be armed against them.Play both sides against the middle,perfect:cool:

Giving his customers what they want to see. It's like when G. Gordon Liddy was giving advice on how to shoot federal agents. But, when he got arrested, he went quietly.
 
There is a lot of misunderstanding on this thread, and I don't understand why it isn't more thoroughly clarified. Maybe I have it wrong, but here is my take.

Oleg is NOT advocating shooting a no-knock warrant team. The point of the poster is that civilians are endangered by home-invaders pretending to be no-knock warrant entry teams, thus, several bad things could happen.

1. The real police shoot and kill the homeowner when she points a rifle at them.
2. Home-invaders shoot and kill the homeowner when she hesitates because she is unsure whether they are really police.
3. Homeowner shoots a policeman thinking he is a home-invader.

Again, Oleg is NOT saying that the police should be shot at for serving a no-knock warrant. The point is that both the homeowner and the police are put at risk by the use of no-knock warrants.
 
middy said:
There is a lot of misunderstanding on this thread, and I don't understand why it isn't more thoroughly clarified. Maybe I have it wrong, but here is my take.

Oleg is NOT advocating shooting a no-knock warrant team. The point of the poster is that civilians are endangered by home-invaders pretending to be no-knock warrant entry teams, thus, several bad things could happen.

1. The real police shoot and kill the homeowner when she points a rifle at them.
2. Home-invaders shoot and kill the homeowner when she hesitates because she is unsure whether they are really police.
3. Homeowner shoots a policeman thinking he is a home-invader.

Again, Oleg is NOT saying that the police should be shot at for serving a no-knock warrant. The point is that both the homeowner and the police are put at risk by the use of no-knock warrants.


Well, some of us thought that to be obvious. :D
 
I have read part of this, gone back to the original poster,
and the poster is NOT about killing cops:

We had an incident (I can dig it out of the newspaper
archives if I have time) where bad guys did a raid disguised as
bounty hunters: simulated badges, ninja suits and all.

But this is something that could be taken out of context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top