6 fraternities suspended in drug probe at San Diego State U.

That's why fraternities exist, right, Vic? You and I know that. Beer, chicks and drug sales.

I can't believe none of the other people in the houses put a stop to the practice. There must have been some serious fear on the part of the other members not to do anything about it. I would never have let something like this occur in my house. Too many futures are going to be ruined.

Beer, chicks and drug sales.

You mean beer, drugs and chick sales.

I think that only occurs at schools like Cal Poly SLO and Texas A&M. You know, places with agriculture departments.

There must have been some serious fear on the part of the other members not to do anything about it. I would never have let something like this occur in my house. Too many futures are going to be ruined.

One wonders about more general complicity... or coercion as you mention.

I knew a fellow that would get people high (acid, adam, morphine, meth, etc.) and take pictures which he collected into a scrapbook. Many of these people have gone on to "important" positions in society. This can prove useful, can it not? He also acted as a "driver" for an escort service which can be informative. And he had a closet full of various uniforms (disguises). One source of drugs for him were the housing Co-ops in Berkeley (an easy thing because they'd have group drug activities -- combined with political discussion, and such). One of these Co-ops was later shut down wholly. Never knew for sure which "larger organization" he was a part of, or if he was just building his own.

Ooops! LOL! I wonder if all those drugs they have on display for the article somehow affected me by osmosis! I meant to say, "I hope police behave more legally than the accused. They often commit worse crimes than the accused. They get away with it like celebrities and rich people too!"

C'mon, everyone knows if you really want to deal drugs and be a player you need to work for the CIA, the Senate.... I mean, why steal 10 lbs of coke from an evidence room when you can work with drug cartels directly and ship tons of it to the US under the auspice and security of the entire federal government?

Bartning,

Here's that link:

Hmm, Newsvine is ommiting links. It's the first post on thefreshscent dot com.

PopCrux, I think it's because you haven't commented much yet.

San Diego Drug Bust: Theta Chi Interview

IndependentVoter had the best comment at Kwuark's column:

"Will someone please tell me where I can get the list of laws that should not be enforced?"

It seems police don't want the ones enforced that don't suit them, cowardly violate the laws under the guise of "public safety" and don't even get charged. It's a bad as situation in many ways as the one in Argentina that led to the Mothers and Grandmothers of the Disappeared. Cops don't pursue violent crimes when they "know" the victim either. They don't get charged with crimes, and they're too cowardly to go after the violent criminals besides. Everyone's heard of the Code of Silence. It even works for speeding tickets.

nice broad generalizations Vincent. Too bad I know far more cops who actually go to work every day trying to do their job as well as they possibly can - risking their lives on a regular basis and having to be berated by bigots like you all the time.

Sure there are bad cops out there but the vast majority aren't. They are good people who truly want to "protect and serve." The good guys just don't get much publicity; I mean how exciting is it to hear about a cop who pulled someone from a burning car, or saved a man from drowning, or got shot. Well, for folks like you you'd probably like to see news about the last one.

Way too many people on the vine here spout off about cops all the time without having a clue.

finalcut:

Your comment has ad hominems and attacks me personally, and though it makes me feel bad, also violates the COH with this: Calvin recently suspended Eric Albert for less because he didn't use personal attack, only misspelled our country's name, probably in a derogatory fashion.

Both the nonprofit for families of U.S. killed in action (KIA) and died of wounds (DOW) where I volunteer and I have had incidents with the police where we've sued in the last eight years several times. I've posted quite a few of them. Again, in one of the incidents in 2005, San Jose and Sunnyvale place illegally entered, but during this crime where they got no punishment they not only put yours truly in handcuffs but held me at gunpoint in my own room, waking me up to do so. They also damaged the nonprofit's property. I wrote an article about them illegally entering again on Sunday, and the home-based nonprofit also filed suit regarding the 2005 raid, requiring action by its board of directors. See press releases about it. [1] [2] Would you consider the not-for-profit and others who voted for my articles about these incidents "bigots" besides. Besides an ad hominem, I think your comment twists things and is hypocritical at best.

Tonight, the American Legion invited officers from USAKIA and Our Veterans Club at SFSU to attend a ceremony honoring members of each of our armed forces, a police officer, a fireman, and a paramedic with California American Heroes Awards. USAKIA also honors KIA, DOW, military, and public-service personnel at its annual event every Labor Day Weekend in Moss Landing, and I know of at least one current or former police officer who has requested a KIA flag honoring his KIA relative from the nonprofit's former Free Flag Program. Your ridiculouis last comment leads me to take you off my Watchlist, finally finding out how to do it from the left-hand column (one must hit the minus key beside a author there). Moreover, if your comments contain ad hominems about me again or some like COH violation or personal attack, you can certainly "consider yourself ignored."

P.S. Charges did not get filed against those who "assaulted [me] with a deadly weapon" in 2006 either, and I'm also upset about that. That's another reason why I can say what I did from personal experience in #15.5. I wrote something about it including an article last December entitled, "Spiral of Complaint in Santa Clara County." It got votes too BTW.

Instead of threatening me. Report me if you must that's fine. But I can't idly sit by and "read" people willfully smear an entire segment of the population when the vast majority of them risk their lives every day to protect us. I will not sit quietly and let you lie about an entire group of people.

you are the one who made a comment with broad generalizations. Had you simply said there are "some" cops who are bad that is one thing - but your bad experience does not indict an entire profession (as your own second example of the awards ceremony clearly illustrates).

There are bad apples in every profession but we should not slander an entire collection simply based on the misdeeds of a few.

Ignore me if you will - I won't ignore you and I won't sit silently and let you smear an entire profession.

Finalcut,

risking their lives on a regular basis and having to be berated by bigots like you all the time.

Is this acceptable? I don't think so. I didn't attack you, but I reported it. It was over the top and you don't seemed concerned that is was.

I've been helped by cops and also locked up for their own personal reasons. I could go off on the profession just as well as anyone, but the "bad apple" defence is justified. Calling someone a bigot is not.

Alan are you Vincent? Because I was talking to Vincent whose entire comment (15.5) is inflammatory toward all the good cops in the world.

If his post is bigoted then I can honestly and correctly label the poster a bigot. Read post 15.5 again and tell me he isn't espousing a bigoted view of the police.

Being honest is not a violation of the COH and you can all report me for it all you want - I'm not apologetic becuase, quite frankly, I have no reason to be.

Had 15.5 been written to say the cops he has dealt with (as he later clarified) had problems or were corrupt or had broken the law then I never would have felt he had slandered an entire profession, but comment 15.5 mentions nothing about limiting the scope of his comment; he included all cops in one bad basket.

finalcut, he did lump all cops into one, he did express an opinion of disgust and disappointment, call it bigotry if you want. The point is, as I read the post, again and again, it's use of pronouns reflects just as I would have written it, using "you"s and "them"s as the ones that do actually do those things. I feel this way cause they (get it?) have done those things to me.

but you called the man a bigot, straight out.

Should we talk to each other that way? Third parties on this site get blasted all the time. More than I can mention call Bush, Cheney, Clinton etc names and such that are way over the top, but they are talking about some one. It's different than talking to someone, here, on NV, while trying to discuss things.

I could be wrong, I'm not an expert on the CoH, but I have the right to object, don't I?

finalcut:

People can vote, and people can comment. Who are you to tell them not?

Are you familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment? Police get emotions based on the situation. Just look at the pictures of the recent incident in Philadelphia where all of the city's law-enforcement personnel got involved, both examples show that in a given situation, all can behave badly, anyone.

Anyway, both comments #15.6 & 15.11 seem to single me out, and #15.6 uses psuedoreason, name calling. However, we even have groups on Newsvine regarding police abuse such as RightsVine and Police Brutality and Impropriety, and more fitting for this thread where we criticize whom they went after and how rather than see police abuse, Question Authority. I didn't start those groups, so calling me a "bigot" also appears inappropriate besides an ad hominem. A "bigot" is someone who is too opinionated whereas others have the opinion about police besides, but you're right, it's not all officers. San Francisco Police even have a good reputation, and my father has the same opinion I do about local law enforcement because he's experienced some of their abuses, including the most recent one last Sunday.

Again, people can vote, and people can comment as they choose. Moreover, I've explained my position and criticized your comments. We're all entitled to our opinions, but on the other hand, the COH does not allolw ad hominems. We live in a free society, and a higher power, below God if you so choose to believe in Him, exists than the police. One higher power is the Constitution. They have to realize that and cannot violate it with impunity as they too often have IMHO, and apparently others believe that besides.

Look I really have no desire to continue the discussion. I considered his comment, before his clarification bigoted. Allan, I totally "get it" - but that doesn't change my opinion of his comment when his comment hadn't been contexualized yet.

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Based on that definition - and his comment of lumping all cops together, it came across as bigoted. He struck me as having some hatred of all cops. His clarification comment (that followed much later) was suitable for me to basically drop this whole thing except, for some reason, Allan wants to continue it.

...They have to realize that and cannot violate it with impunity as they too often have IMHO, and apparently others believe that besides.

Most cops do realize that. And, as I conceded before, there are unfortunately bad cops just as there are in all walks of life. Just because some people "believe" all cops are bad doesn't not make it so. Popular opinion doesn't make an opinion correct or justified.

Finally, just because some other people are more bigoted than others doesn't make the less bigoted "not bigoted" - My comment was NOT an ad hominem attack. It was a factual assertion based on your comments. Why were was your comment picked Vincent? Because, in this thread, you made the most bigoted comment in post 15.5

If you don't see it as bigoted go ahead and replace "cops" with some group you actually like or that you are a part of in that comment and imagine I had typed the comment. Not only would the new comment be facetious but it would be bigoted. You may not like the term but it is what it is.

I'll continue to read both of your responses in the future but I will not continue to explain myself. I've been abundantly clear. If you think I have some how attacked you, libeled you, or otherwise mis-represented you based on your own comments then feel free to report me - I do not care if you do. However, so long as I am able if I see comments that slander the entire segment of any population based on the actions of a few then I will call that person out on it.

The Observer:

Have you seen www.dumblaws.com?

Yes, I looked there (I think that is where Vincent initially pointed for the WV Law later in this thread. @20.13) however I didn't see the actual text of the law.

It would be nice if they had the actual law # or whatever is used to legally identify the law as well as the synopsis of it.

finalcut:

Police also are not a "racial or ethnic group." Besides being a COH violation, your comment calling me a "bigot" also appears inappropriate in that you misuse it for a job classification rather. I would also call it inappropriate because of the reasons I state in #15.13. Even the Founding Fathers had apprehension of too many police powers; hence at least the First and Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the constitution, the Bill of Rights. In their time, "even the king shall not enter without a warrant" was law. Are they "bigots" too then? Let's keep it in context.

As I said, too bad I don't even have their rights. I have other local incidents I mention in this link here. And #15.3 also has a link to a recent incident in Philadelphia. I don't think I expect too much by wanting cops to behave legally and in accord with our constitution. Jeesh, I even have to swear an oath to defend it again against all enemies, foreign and domestic, for an upcoming election in June.

This thread involves a drug bust, and we have gotten off-topic a bit. If SDSU students have committed these crimes, then they deserve what they get. I see it all too often. However, even newspaper reports criticize the resources involved to make this bust as I mention in #15, and these appear non-violent crimes besides. Moreover, California has first-offender forgiveness clauses which probably apply to the accused here where they receive treatment rather than jail time for drug busts if it's a first offense, even second offense I believe, and I wonder if it's just, where law enforcement also followed the constitution. They also all to often seem to get away with not following it.

Vincent, clearly you don't understand what I'm saying - but I'll try one more time.

a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

The use of "racial or ethnic" group in parentheses is done to provide an example of groups that are typically the victims of bigotry. However, any group can be and, in this case, that group happens to be law enforcement officers.

By making a comment that summarilly indicts an entire group of people based on the actions of a few and have an intolerance toward all of them as your comment in 15.5 implied you were being bigoted.

When you later clarified and narrowed down your criticism to those cops who had wronged you (at least that is how I took the later examples you keep providing) I figured you didn't really mean to label all cops and I have suggested as much in comment 15.11 (and probably a couple others).

You are right, we did get off topic once you made the comment in 15.5

A master's in homeland security? I didn't even know there was such a thing.

Gives a whole new meaning to the term Dumbing down America.

Masters In Homeland Security Required

Course                                      Credits 

HS101 Introduction to abuse of power  3
HS102 Legislative Empowerment         3
HS103 Rex84 and You                         3
HS104 Everyone's a Terrorist  3
HS105 Wiretapping   3
HS106 Posing as Criminal in MySpace 3
HS107 The FBI and CIA, Our @!$%#es  3
HS108 State RIghts and Other Horse Manure 3

Electives (must have 3)

HS200 Selecting an Escort Service when in DC   3
HS201 Rat-****ing your neighbor   3
HS202 Impressive Polyester     3
HS203 Concealing Handgun - Increase manhood   3
HS204 TASER's Not Just for Sex Anymore   3
HS205 Name all Secret Prisons  3
HS205 Waterboarding, what you need from Home Depot 3
HS206 Dealing with local Police - the art of whores 3

Where are the propaganda and racketeering courses? SDSU needs to work on their program.

I guess they cover Para-military use in HS206?

The thought that went through my head when I read about this guy who was in school for Homeland Security is "I wonder how many just like him never got busted?"

@18.2: As usual, FEMA is the "red-headed stepchild" of the DHS. You totally forgot:

HS391  FEMA - Emergency Response & the Dao of Passive-Aggressive Genocide   3

10 bonus credits for anyone who can explain the etymology of the phrase "red-headed stepchild".
_{1 bonus credit for any of you high a*s punk bastard "college kids" that even knows what "etymology" means ;)}

^{(This is joke material only, playing along with common propaganda, not my opinion, nor fair & reasonable)}

Unfortunately, the lesson learned by kids all over this country is just to be more secretive, more shady, more like criminals.

They're criminals already if they're already breaking the law.

They're criminals already if they're already breaking the law.

Would you say that whatever the law is, no matter how unconstitutional or morally wrong it might be, it's a law and that's that? Because that sounds a lot like "I'm just following orders" to me. Was Jefferson, et. al. traitors? By English perception, sure; by American perception, they were patriots. Should we have remained under English rule and followed every law they sent over the pond to us here? Do you think that Government can be wrong, and that being a criminal can sometimes also be seen as being a patriot, a defender of justice, what-have-you? I think making everything so black-and-white is part of the problem; blind allegiance to anything is wrong.

These laws are constitutional.

If you disagree with the law, work to change the law, but in the meantime, no one has the right to break the law with impunity.

Tell that to the Civil Rights protesters in the 60s, I'm sure they would agree.

Yes, Rosa should have stayed in the back of the bus huh??

Can't break those laws w/out impunity can we???

/sarcasm

These laws are constitutional.

Rubbish.

If you're eating peyote buds in a religious ceremony, or maybe you're are a true Rasta, you might have a mild case to argue civil disobedience. But if you're a bunch of college punks (and 21 non-students) that helped some poor kid O.D. so you could make a crap load of money, you should think twice about that tact.

How dare you try to attach your frickin' self indulgent cause to that of Rosa Parks!

What are ya', high or something? ;)

Yes. Rosa Parks.
PERSONAL LIBERTY.
The bottom line is, if this is to be a free country, you can't tell me what to do in the privacy of my home.

you can't tell me what to do in the privacy of my home

Was this the issue at hand with Rosa Parks?

Have you really chosen a good analogy? There may be others that could make your point better.

Good comment, Arghawon!

The bottom line is, if this is to be a free country, you can't tell me what to do in the privacy of my home.

So as long as you abuse your children and beat your wife within the confines of your adobe, you should be free to do so?

No, but according to DumbLaws.com, in Huntington, West Virginia, "It is legal to beat your wife so long as it is done in public on Sunday, on the courthouse steps."

@Vincent Bartning : you're welcome to try and see how far you get.

For some reason I doubt you would get away with beating her on the steps (but you probably would in your home).

"Can you beat your wife with her consent, or beat yourself?" might be closer analogy, though I seem to have chosen an awkward wording. ;)

...or...

"Can you emit CFC's in the privacy of your home?" Some look to ancillary impact of behavior, not just the direct act, and link private acts to "public good". It should be noted that most drug laws are part of Health & Safety code.

But why is "privacy of home" introduced into the issue? If one has a right to use drugs, why introduce the notion of specific locations?

Do you have a right to determine what you wear on your own head? To use or not use a helmet when riding a motorcycle? It is an odd predicament when government imposes such specific behavioral regulation upon people. To see the key impetus for these awkward formalizations, one can inspect helmet laws.

finalcut:

In response your comment # 20.14 and those in 15, "For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." (H.L. Mencken)

It turns out that the law in Huntington, WV was repealed. I actually spoke with a lady who works at said courthouse during lunch today and she confirmed it for me. If I can find an actual article on the subject I'll be happy to return with the link.

I happen to live in Huntington WV so it was rather easy to talk to a lady at the courthouse (which is right across the street from my office).

well, so far I can't find a single site that actually cites the specific law that allowed wife-beating. They just all seem to quote the same text. There is probably an online-law-database that you need permission to access that would make this task much easier. It would be nice if just one of these sites would cite the specific law.

I guess to finalcut all those water fountains and restrooms that said "white only" didn't happen either. "It was the aliens."

P.S. finalcut put words into my mouth in 20.14. I was citing a reputable site to which I also linked. I used quotes even.