# Stuff and Things > Guns and Self Defense >  Undercover cops: right or wrong?

## Guest

I think undercover activities are immoral.  Befriending people, making them like...even love you only to set them up for a drug bust is immoral.

What say ye about this:

http://truth-out.org/news/item/16714...ds-kid-for-pot

Californians Doug and Catherine Snodgrass are suing their sons high  school for allowing undercover police officers to set up the 17-year-old  special-needs student for a drug arrest.


 In a video segment on ABC News,  they say they were "thrilled" when their son -- who has Asperger's and  other disabilities and struggled to make friends -- appeared to have  instantly made a friend named Daniel.


 He suddenly had this friend who was texting him around the clock,  Doug Snodgrass told ABC News. His son had just recently enrolled at  Chaparral High School.


 "Daniel," however, was an undercover cop with the Riverside County Sheriff's Department who "hounded"  the teenager to sell him his prescription medication. When he refused,  the undercover cop gave him $20 to buy him weed, and he complied -- not  realizing the guy he wanted to befriend wanted him behind bars.


 In December, the unnamed senior was arrested along with 21 other students  from three schools, all charged with crimes related to the two  officers' undercover drug operation at two public schools in Temecula,  California (Chaparral and Temecula Valley High School). This March,  Judge Marian H. Tully ruled  that Temecula Valley Unified School District could not expel the  student, and had in fact failed to provide him with proper services.


 Within three days of the officers requests, [the] student  burned himself due to his anxiety, Tully said. Ultimately, the  student was persuaded to buy marijuana for someone he thought was a  friend who desperately needed this drug and brought it to school for  him. 


 In January, a juvenile court judge decided that extenuating  circumstances applied to the student's case, and ruled that he serve  informal probation and 20 hours of community service, which would  translate into no finding of guilt.

...

Stephen Downing, a retired Deputy Chief of Police in the LAPD, said the  behavior of the police in this case points to troubling trends in  policy. "It is evidence of just how far we have gone, and how callous we  have become, in treating our children with the care and dignity they  should be entitled.

----------


## The XL

It's immoral.

And these fuckers keep wasting taxpayer money and depraving liberty over fucking pot.

----------

countryboy (06-04-2013)

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Stephen Downing, a retired Deputy Chief of Police in the LAPD, said the  behavior of the police in this case points to troubling trends in  policy. "It is evidence of just how far we have gone, and how callous we  have become, in treating our children with the care and dignity they  should be entitled.”


It's immoral to impede people for buying, selling, possessing, and/or ingesting a substance, period. Any activity intended to impede people from those activities is conspiracy to commit a crime. It is this sort of callousness one can expect from an organization tasked with harming innocent people.

----------

The XL (06-04-2013)

----------


## Matt

I have absolutely no problem with undercover cops. Do the crime, pay the time, and don't whine about it later.

----------


## The XL

> I have absolutely no problem with undercover cops. Do the crime, pay the time, and don't whine about it later.


Spoken like a true statist.

You do realize they're used mostly in drug and prostitution busts, yes?  Both consensual acts, neither is actually a crime against anyone.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-04-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> I have absolutely no problem with undercover cops. Do the crime, pay the time, and don't whine about it later.


No shit? An undercover cop, ON THE CLOCK, busting a special needs student over 20 bucks worth of weed is perfectly alright with you? Ummm.....okay.

In other words, wasting taxpayer dollars is just fucking great. Got it.

----------

Gemini (06-05-2013),The XL (06-05-2013)

----------


## Matt

> Spoken like a true statist.


Yeah...because you know me. /not. 

You can start by knowing I'm not a statist. Thanks.

----------


## Matt

> No shit? An undercover cop, ON THE CLOCK, busting a special needs student over 20 bucks worth of weed is perfectly alright with you? Ummm.....okay.
> 
> In other words, wasting taxpayer dollars is just fucking great. Got it.


Yeah. Don't do the fucking crime. Special needs...I don't know anything about that...but one incidence doesn't reflect the entire career.

----------


## countryboy

> Yeah. Don't do the fucking crime. Special needs...I don't know anything about that...but one incidence doesn't reflect the entire career.


Yes, you're right of course. Dime  bag dealing retards must be stopped. This is one of the worst problems facing Western civilization.

Yeah, one incident like this is all I need to know how much of a scumbag this "cop" is.  :Wink:

----------



----------


## Matt

> Yes, you're right of course. Dime  bag dealing retards must be stopped. This is one of the worst problems facing Western civilization.
> 
> Yeah, one incident like this is all I need to know how much of a scumbag this "cop" is.


Would you apply the same logic to immigration? Illegal immigrants in all reality is a topic just as insignificant. Yet we all, including me, want us to just enforce our current laws.

Same thing - enforce the current laws. Easy as pie.

----------


## St James

can we say entrapment?

----------

Gemini (06-05-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> Would you apply the same logic to immigration? Illegal immigrants in all reality is a topic just as insignificant. Yet we all, including me, want us to just enforce our current laws.
> 
> Same thing - enforce the current laws. Easy as pie.


Yep, right again , busting dime bag dealing retards, and securing the border are EXACTLY the same thing.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> You can start by knowing I'm not a statist. Thanks.


If it talks like a statist....

----------

The XL (06-05-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I have absolutely no problem with undercover cops. Do the crime, pay the time, and don't whine about it later.


The drug war is immoral.  It says that our bodies and our choices of what to do with it are not ours and belong to the state.

----------

countryboy (06-05-2013),The XL (06-05-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Yeah...because you know me. /not. 
> 
> You can start by knowing I'm not a statist. Thanks.


Sure you are.  You think that it is perfectly okay for police to lure people into crimes only to punish them for it.  That is a lot of state activity that you support.

----------

St James (06-05-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Yeah...because you know me. /not. 
> 
> You can start by knowing I'm not a statist. Thanks.


You advocating for the imprisonment of non-violent people.  You're a statist.

----------


## Canadianeye

So...the 21 other arrests that ensued brought heroin, LSD, ecstasy, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines and illegal prescription drugs out of the kids hands and into the police hands.

I feel bad for the special needs kid, but I feel better that this shit is out of these and other kids hands. Hopefully, with so many of them now yacking, maybe some distributors and small scale dealers will get pinched.

----------


## Guest

> So...the 21 other arrests that ensued brought heroin, LSD, ecstasy, marijuana, cocaine, methamphetamines and illegal prescription drugs out of the kids hands and into the police hands.
> 
> I feel bad for the special needs kid, but I feel better that this shit is out of these and other kids hands. Hopefully, with so many of them now yacking, maybe some distributors and small scale dealers will get pinched.


The the ends justifies the means, in other words?  Hmmm, how progressive.

----------


## Gemini

> It's immoral to impede people for buying, selling, possessing, and/or ingesting a substance, period. Any activity intended to impede people from those activities is conspiracy to commit a crime. It is this sort of callousness one can expect from an organization tasked with harming innocent people.


To go further along with this train of thought I'll offer this nugget-

If you are in the business (let's face it, law enforcement is a business for profit) of upholding and enforcing "Truth, Justice, and the American way of life".  _Than you shouldn't be lying, doing unjust and unlawful acts, and behaving unamerican-like_.

The fact that they are able to entrap this kid and skate from it is something that irks me greatly.  The fact that our law enforcement can lie to us without penalty irks me.  If you want to enforce the law than you should obey it.

This slithering in the shadows nonsense so that someday we might achieve something as idiotic as this-




Yes...yes indeed.  The 'greater good'.  The end of all reasonable arguments.  Who doesn't want good for everybody?  So what if we have to disregard a few moral safeguards and scruples so that we can live in a perfect world?

No, no, and hell no.  The world is messy.  Freedom is messy.  Undercover cops are a low form of life so naive and brainwashed to believe that they are actually contributing to this mythical 'greater good' by committing crimes in the malevolent hopes that they will catch someone in a bigger error then themselves.

Hypocrites, the lot of them, the practitioners themselves along with those who support and train them while justifying their use of them.  Agents of Justice and Law should be plain for all to see, to be easily recognized.  Not skulking about in darkness doing petty evil.

If we the citizen put on a police uniform we will get arrested - when in truth they are just "undercover citizens".  *A badge should not be a title of nobility esteeming one above the law*, but in America is certainly is.

----------

BleedingHeadKen (06-05-2013)

----------


## Guest

@Gemini

that is a favorite movie of mine.   :Big Grin:

----------


## Canadianeye

> The the ends justifies the means, in other words?  Hmmm, how progressive.


Nope. I said I feel bad for the kid. That isn't the progressive way. I actually do feel back for the kid, not like say Dems/Libs/Progs who generationally keep minorities enslaved for party gain and "pretend" caring.

This is genuine. I am shedding a tear atm for his community service sentence.

----------


## Gemini

> @Gemini
> 
> that is a favorite movie of mine.


I nearly died laughing when I first watched it.

----------


## Gemini

> Nope. I said I feel bad for the kid. That isn't the progressive way. I actually do feel back for the kid, not like say Dems/Libs/Progs who generationally keep minorities enslaved for party gain and "pretend" caring.
> 
> This is genuine. I am shedding a tear atm for his community service sentence.


The worthless POS undercover cop should be sentenced as well.  But preferably for some sort of felony.  Pretty sure entrapment is a crime with a sentence attached to it.

The fact that they have this kid doing community service is slap in the face to him and his family.  The "Just Us" system has struck again, I'm just waiting for the Justice system to start working again.

----------


## Canadianeye

> The worthless POS undercover cop should be sentenced as well.  But preferably for some sort of felony.  Pretty sure entrapment is a crime with a sentence attached to it.
> 
> The fact that they have this kid doing community service is slap in the face to him and his family.  The "Just Us" system has struck again, I'm just waiting for the Justice system to start working again.


I was reading there was a similar undercover operation not long ago in CA. Same cop(s) maybe, because of a youthful appearance? Shouldn't your rage be towards the PD hierarchy that uses the officers in their pursuits?

Not being familiar with CA undercover operations, but I would think (hope) the undercover cop doesn't set his own case load or generate entirely what operations are going to take place.

----------


## Guest

I believe our means will justify our ends.  If something is a righteous pursuit, it will always feel that way.  This feels ugly and the best thing that people can say is that it produces results.

At what cost?

You befriend someone to lure them into a destructive lifestyle or to put them in a position of getting them killed all so that you can get a finite number of drugs off the street, only to have that vacuum filled shortly thereafter.

It's just not worth it.

Catch someone straight up.  Don't play with their emotions in order to do your job.  That's horrible.

----------


## Canadianeye

> I believe our means will justify our ends.  If something is a righteous pursuit, it will always feel that way.  This feels ugly and the best thing that people can say is that it produces results.
> 
> At what cost?
> 
> You befriend someone to lure them into a destructive lifestyle or to put them in a position of getting them killed all so that you can get a finite number of drugs off the street, only to have that vacuum filled shortly thereafter.
> 
> It's just not worth it.
> 
> Catch someone straight up.  *Don't play with their emotions in order to do your job.*  That's horrible.


Your opening and closing statements must be very droll.  :Smiley20:

----------


## Gemini

> I was reading there was a similar undercover operation not long ago in CA. Same cop(s) maybe, because of a youthful appearance? Shouldn't your rage be towards the PD hierarchy that uses the officers in their pursuits?
> 
> Not being familiar with CA undercover operations, but I would think (hope) the undercover cop doesn't set his own case load or generate entirely what operations are going to take place.


My rage?  Well, there are few things that actually illicit rage from me.  This isn't one of them, and really, a keyboard would not suffice to convey something like rage.

But indeed, the PD hierarchy needs to be humble fiercely.  But the idea of undercover officers?  Never have they actually brought more peace and security that I can think of.  They are using the wrong tool to do that.

If people want more peace and security they need to cling to a moral code that will encourage it, and shame those who don't, while rewarding those who do.  Breaking the law is no excuse.  Let's face it, cops are 'special' - they shouldn't be.  Cops get to break the laws and skate, whereas us wee citizens get hammered for it.

The double standard is glaringly obvious.  This 'ends justifies the means' business is something I simply cannot accept.

----------



----------


## Guest

> Your opening and closing statements must be very droll.


No, it's not my usual flavor, but I'm exhausted and posting here because it keeps the engines running for @Trinnity.

----------


## Canadianeye

> My rage?  Well, there are few things that actually illicit rage from me.  This isn't one of them, and really, a keyboard would not suffice to convey something like rage.
> 
> But indeed, the PD hierarchy needs to be humble fiercely.  But the idea of undercover officers?  Never have they actually brought more peace and security that I can think of.  They are using the wrong tool to do that.
> 
> If people want more peace and security they need to cling to a moral code that will encourage it, and shame those who don't, while rewarding those who do.  Breaking the law is no excuse.  Let's face it, cops are 'special' - they shouldn't be.  Cops get to break the laws and skate, whereas us wee citizens get hammered for it.
> 
> The double standard is glaringly obvious.  This 'ends justifies the means' business is something I simply cannot accept.


Having dealt myself with HAs, I personally appreciate the undercover work that LEOs employ against them...unless we are talking strictly about minor drug infractions that involves undercover work, that also has in the mix a special needs kid.

Did the other school undercover operation..._without_ the special needs kid garner an equal by proportion national news coverage of the arrests and/or undercover cop angle?

----------


## Gemini

> Having dealt myself with HAs, I personally appreciate the undercover work that LEOs employ against them...unless we are talking strictly about minor drug infractions that involves undercover work, that also has in the mix a special needs kid.


Terminal disagreement.  The paradox is not something I can embrace.  It contradicts cosmic truths concerning Justice and Law.  You are not innocent when doing evil, even if your intent is to prevent or ensnare greater evil - _you're still doing evil_.




> Did the other school undercover operation..._without_ the special needs kid garner an equal by proportion national news coverage of the arrests and/or undercover cop angle?


Nope, emotional pleas to the simple minded often garner lots of attention in the press.

----------


## Trinnity

I voted not sure....but that was before I read the OP. You know it depends on the situation. Busting the guy that's getting his pot free by selling some to friends at a markup? NO. Infiltrating a drug Cartel? Sure. Pretending to be a customer to catch shoplifters at Wal*Mart, absolutely. I hate thieving.

----------

Micketto (06-05-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

@Gemini

So your contention is that undercover work, at any degree or level of anything (beyond even LEOs if I'm reading you correctly), is evil.

If I am not reading you correctly, my apologies.

----------


## The XL

> I voted not sure....but that was before I read the OP. You know it depends on the situation. Busting the guy that's getting his pot free by selling some to friends at a markup? NO. Infiltrating a drug Cartel? Sure. Pretending to be a customer to catch shoplifters at Wal*Mart, absolutely. I hate thieving.


That's the problem, though.  Once you give cops that power, their is no discretion.

----------

Gemini (06-05-2013)

----------


## Micketto

> Spoken like a true statist.
> 
> You do realize they're used mostly in drug and prostitution busts, yes?  Both consensual acts, neither is actually a crime against anyone.


Absolutely wrong.  
These days they are mostly used in busting predators, pedophiles and kidnappings with the goal of child trafficking for sex.
I work for a charity that deals with this... and happen to know the reality.

I have absolutely no problem with it.

These undercover agents save a lot of children from the harm of perverted adults.

Why in the world would people want them gone ?!

----------


## Gemini

> @Gemini
> 
> So your contention is that undercover work, at any degree or level of anything (beyond even LEOs if I'm reading you correctly), is evil.


No.  Only when you represent the law of the land and are busy breaking the very laws you have sworn to uphold.  Vigilantes have more right to do undercover work than law enforcement - they are not endowed nor expected to enforce the very laws they are breaking.

If walmart or sears wants plain clothes security that is all well and good, but their authority extends only the store and its property.




> If I am not reading you correctly, my apologies.


No need, we're all adults.

----------


## Micketto

> No shit? An undercover cop, ON THE CLOCK, busting a special needs student over 20 bucks worth of weed is perfectly alright with you? Ummm.....okay.
> 
> In other words, wasting taxpayer dollars is just fucking great. Got it.


That wasn't the question that was asked.

The question asked was: _How do you feel about undercover cops?_

Why so angry ?

----------


## Guest

> Absolutely wrong.  
> These days they are mostly used in busting predators, pedophiles and kidnappings with the goal of child trafficking for sex.


They are used for this, yes, but not mostly for this.  I do know something about this myself considering my occupation.

----------


## The XL

> Absolutely wrong.  
> These days they are mostly used in busting predators, pedophiles and kidnappings with the goal of child trafficking for sex.
> I work for a charity that deals with this... and happen to know the reality.
> 
> I have absolutely no problem with it.
> 
> These undercover agents save a lot of children from the harm of perverted adults.
> 
> Why in the world would people want them gone ?!


And in this instance, it was used to set up a challenged 17 year old regarding weed.  That's why I want it gone, their is absolutely no discretion.  

Even with your pedophile example, how many are really busting pedophiles vs busting dudes going after near adult teens?  What's the statistical breakdown between those two?

----------


## Micketto

> That's the problem, though.  Once you give cops that power, their is no discretion.


True... don't give cops the power to arrest... next thing you know, murders will end up in prison or something.

----------


## Micketto

> They are used for this, yes, but not mostly for this.  I do know something about this myself considering my occupation.


Whatever occupation you have is apparently not very involved in the trafficking scene. Almost all the busts we make come from info based on undercover investigating.  
Can't even believe some of you want that taken away.

As for this extreme single case people are ranting about.... drug cops aren't undercover looking for guys selling dime bags.....they are undercover looking for major suppliers.

----------


## Guest

> True... don't give cops the power to arrest... next thing you know, murders will end up in prison or something.


So that whole torches and pitchforks thing is against your grain, huh?

----------


## Guest

> Whatever occupation you have is apparently not very involved in the trafficking scene. Almost all the busts we make come from info based on undercover investigating.  
> Can't even believe some of you want that taken away.
> 
> As for this extreme single case people are ranting about.... drug cops aren't undercover looking for guys selling dime bags.....they are undercover looking for major suppliers.


Um, you said you worked a nonprofit that deals with child porn, pedophilia, etc as your basis for saying that most undercover work was done for that reason.

It was I who said that the undercover work was mostly for drug crimes.

----------


## The XL

> True... don't give cops the power to arrest... next thing you know, murders will end up in prison or something.


You don't see the difference between arresting for murder and arresting someone for a non violent drug "crime?"

What useless agency wastes taxpayer money and attacks someones liberty over pot?

----------


## Gemini

@Micketto




> Absolutely wrong.  
> These days they are mostly used in busting predators, pedophiles and kidnappings with the goal of child trafficking for sex.
> I work for a charity that deals with this... and happen to know the reality.
> 
> I have absolutely no problem with it.
> 
> These undercover agents save a lot of children from the harm of perverted adults.
> 
> Why in the world would people want them gone ?!


You're not seeing the bigger picture.  Like you and most others, I am okay to throw away sex offenders.  But using what tools?  And what are the limits of these tools?

What you're not seeing is that many of these busts are encouraging deviant behavior in order to catch it.  The show "catch a predator" is a prime example.  They lure these people in.  Don't get me wrong, these are people I'd rather not have around.

But they charge them for a crime they have _not yet committed_.  Sure there is a host of other crimes they could charge them with - oh wait a second, the facts are they actually haven't done anything wrong yet.  They use actors of legal age to manufacture 'crime'.  Since these actors are of legal age no crime has been committed.

Disturbing?  Yes, most definitely.  But here we are, locking people up who technically innocent.  And if the law is anything,_ it is technical_.

I'm the last guy who wants to defend sex offenders - trust me on that.  I have no love for them.  BUT, we're using unlawful methods to do this form of 'pre-crime'.  It is jacked to its core.

_Want to solve this problem_?  Be less vicious towards vigilantes who solve this problem who are not bound to uphold the law, not forced to be a hypocrite.  Use jury nullification more often when it needs to be.  Betraying your station as one who upholds and enforces the law, is not an option.

Work with citizens, not against them.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> That's the problem, though.  Once you give cops that power, their is no discretion.


More importantly though, is no accountability.  No follow through for discipline for botched efforts.  Like I said, they skate from their mistake.  Like friggin' magic.

----------

The XL (06-05-2013)

----------


## The XL

> More importantly though, is no accountability.  No follow through for discipline for botched efforts.  Like I said, they skate from their mistake.  Like friggin' magic.


Right, neither discretion nor accountability.  A dangerous mix.  

Must be nice to be a cop, a politician, or a banker.

----------

Gemini (06-05-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Whatever occupation you have is apparently not very involved in the trafficking scene. Almost all the busts we make come from info based on undercover investigating.  
> Can't even believe some of you want that taken away.
> 
> As for this extreme single case people are ranting about.... drug cops aren't undercover looking for guys selling dime bags.....they are undercover looking for major suppliers.


Clearly, a teen with asperger's syndrome is the crime boss.  Gold star for the officer who rode the short bus to work.

/sarcasm

----------

The XL (06-05-2013)

----------


## Micketto

> You don't see the difference between arresting for murder and arresting someone for a non violent drug "crime?


Of course I see the difference.
That had nothing to do with what I responded to though.

Someone mentioned undercover cops being used to stop drug cartels and your response was:
_"That's the problem, though.  Once you give cops that power, their is no discretion"._ 

So I gave a different analogy.  Cops given the power to arrest people, say drunk drivers, have no discretion and will arrest others too.

The point is... the whole idea of assuming _all_ cops will have no discretion is ludicrous... what happened in the OP isn't normal procedure.   They should, and for the most part have accountability.
But because of this story... there is an outcry in this thread, saying there shouldn't be undercover cops at all.

Makes no sense whatsoever.

----------


## Micketto

> @Micketto
> 
> 
> 
> You're not seeing the bigger picture.  Like you and most others, I am okay to throw away sex offenders.  But using what tools?  And what are the limits of these tools?
> 
> What you're not seeing is that many of these busts are encouraging deviant behavior in order to catch it.  The show "catch a predator" is a prime example.  They lure these people in.  Don't get me wrong, these are people I'd rather not have around.
> 
> But they charge them for a crime they have _not yet committed_.  Sure there is a host of other crimes they could charge them with - oh wait a second, the facts are they actually haven't done anything wrong yet.  They use actors of legal age to manufacture 'crime'.  Since these actors are of legal age no crime has been committed.
> ...


I happen to agree with about everything you just said.

My comments have mostly been about the question posted... not the content of an attached story.
Had the original question been related to the story and not just a general "Cops... good or bad?" type of question... it would have made more sense.

I may have misunderstood your comments.  Seems we agree on things.

I just think the whole idea of getting rid of UC Cops, is quite an overreaction, and ridiculously irrational, from those here that want them gone.

----------


## Gemini

> Of course I see the difference.
> That had nothing to do with what I responded to though.
> 
> Someone mentioned undercover cops being used to stop drug cartels and your response was:
> _"That's the problem, though.  Once you give cops that power, their is no discretion"._ 
> 
> So I gave a different analogy.  Cops given the power to arrest people, say drunk drivers, have no discretion and will arrest others too.
> 
> The point is... the whole idea of assuming cops will have no discretion is ludicrous... what happened in the OP isn't normal procedure.  
> ...


Makes plenty of sense when you see the paradox.  If you want the desired results, let citizens do this, and use jury nullification to ease their future burdens. 

Contrary to popular belief, cops aren't the only ones who can stop crime.  Often times they merely fill out the reports after the fact.  Citizens have more assets, and more freedom to do a better job then law enforcement.

Ever wonder why cops get stonewalled?  This is one of the reasons.

----------


## Guest

> Someone mentioned undercover cops being used to stop drug cartels and your response was:
> _"That's the problem, though.  Once you give cops that power, their is no discretion"._ 
> 
> So I gave a different analogy.  Cops given the power to arrest people, say drunk drivers, have no discretion and will arrest others too.


Arresting is different than entrapment, deceit, etc.  Or do you not see the difference?

----------


## Gemini

> I happen to agree with about everything you just said.
> 
> My comments have mostly been about the question posted... not the content of an attached story.
> Had the original question been related to the story and not just a general "Cops... good or bad?" type of question... it would have made more sense.
> 
> I may have misunderstood your comments.  Seems we agree on things.
> 
> *I just think the whole idea of getting rid of UC Cops, is quite an overreaction, and ridiculously irrational, from those here that want them gone.*


Well, color me ridiculously irrational then.  The only solution is to get rid of them, they cause more harm than good.  It is just not a harm that most are willing to admit to.

It conditions people to think that it is okay for government agents to lie to them under certain circumstances.

The lie, it was the first sin that occurred on the earth - the serpent lied to Eve after all, and now it is merely the most abundant.

And it has government sanction by the _same government_ charged with upholding "truth, justice, and the American way" as they say.  It is a snake eating its own tale.

----------


## Micketto

> Well, color me ridiculously irrational then.  The only solution is to get rid of them, they cause more harm than good.


Ridiculously irrational it is.




> It conditions people to think that it is okay for government agents to lie to them under certain circumstances.


Like when you're committing a crime ?
I know if I was trying to sell a million dollars worth of coke, or lure a child to meet me at a park, the last thing I would stand for is someone lying to me.

No offense to any of you but I have _no_ problem with the cops lying to Marion Berry, and catching the mayor smoking crack.
Or the Donnie Brasco types who lied their way into the mob and caught gangsters and murderers.
Or the very numerous times the cops lied to a woman, saying they were hitmen for hire... and ultimately saving the lives of many husbands.
Or the even more numerous times the cops have lied to predators on the internet, saving hundreds and hundreds of children from harm.

To say this incident of taking advantage of some special needs child , as wrong as it was, outweighs all the lives that are saved.... is ludicrous.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> I voted not sure....but that was before I read the OP. You know it depends on the situation. Busting the guy that's getting his pot free by selling some to friends at a markup? NO. Infiltrating a drug Cartel? Sure. Pretending to be a customer to catch shoplifters at Wal*Mart, absolutely. I hate thieving.


There's wouldn't be drug cartels without drug prohibition, and, even so, the buying and selling of justly acquired property is not a crime, even if the government prohibits what is being bought or sold. Walmart should handle it's own security, and undercover might be a workable idea for them.

I am willing to accept that undercover operations to catch those engaged in the buying and selling of stolen property might be a good idea.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> No offense to any of you but I have _no_ problem with the cops lying to Marion Berry, and catching the mayor smoking crack.


Who was Marion Berry harming by smoking crack? It was a moral failure, but not a crime other than by statute. 




> Or the Donnie Brasco types who lied their way into the mob and caught gangsters and murderers.
> Or the very numerous times the cops lied to a woman, saying they were hitmen for hire... and ultimately saving the lives of many husbands.
> Or the even more numerous times the cops have lied to predators on the internet, saving hundreds and hundreds of children from harm.


In these cases there are victims (though alcohol prohibition led to the rise of the mafia.)




> To say this incident of taking advantage of some special needs child , as wrong as it was, outweighs all the lives that are saved.... is ludicrous.


If you know the weight of these things, then you can tell us how many lives are saved by the war on drugs, versus how many lives are lost or wrecked by the justice system.

----------


## Gemini

> Ridiculously irrational it is.


Whatever floats your goat man.




> Like when you're committing a crime?


Well I suspect our definition of what is a crime is somewhat different.  I believe that a crime has an identifiable victim.  Crimes against 'society'?  Blarg.  Arbitrary garbage at best.




> No offense to any of you but I have _no_ problem with the cops lying to Marion Berry, and catching the mayor smoking crack.
> Or the Donnie Brasco types who lied their way into the mob and caught gangsters and murderers.


Don't worry about offending me, I of all people could give a damn less.  But continuing onward...

Using methods _identical to organized crime_, so really, who is the good guy in this scenario?




> Or the very numerous times the cops lied to a woman, saying they were hitmen for hire... and ultimately saving the lives of many husbands.
> Or the even more numerous times the cops have lied to predators on the internet, saving hundreds and hundreds of children from harm.


In these instances, nobody was harmed.  Actors were talked dirty to, and foolish women were duped, _but nobody was harmed_.  Police lie, and others go to jail.  How are you not seeing this?

*They are charged for crimes they never even committed*.  How people swallow this crap is beyond me.

But if you lie to the police?  Game over man, game over.  The rest of us are second rate citizens compare to the holy servants of the ivory tower.

Intent and suspicion are not guilt.  The moment they are, well, we are lost.




> To say this incident of taking advantage of some special needs child , as wrong as it was, outweighs all the lives that are saved.... is ludicrous.


Marijuana has yet to kill anybody last I checked, and its harm is negligible if at all..  The fact that they went after highschool kids is ludicrous.  They should have gone after bigger fish.  The weapon they are using as despicable as it is - is misguided at best.  It is like using a tactical nuke to swat a fly.  The guy's cover is likely blown, and for what?  Some piddly little teenagers going after weed?  Idiotic use of finite resources.  For such a resource that shouldn't exist in the first place.

----------


## Micketto

> Who was Marion Berry harming by smoking crack? It was a moral failure, but not a crime other than by statute.


Harming by smoking?  None.
"Ruining" as some of you say by putting away drug dealers and users, while standing vocally against drugs?  Plenty.
A lot of people in prison for drugs were glad to see this video.

He is but one example.




> In these cases there are victims (though alcohol prohibition led to the rise of the mafia.)


Of course there are... which is why I'm asking why people are saying there should be no undercover cops.

They are very necessary.






> If you know the weight of these things, then you can tell us how many lives are saved by the war on drugs, versus how many lives are lost or wrecked by the justice system.


Hard call.  People seem to forget that a lack of drug availability does save some people from living lives feeding their addictive personalities.
A lot?  you can't know how many.
As far as "wrecked" by the judicial system.... zzzzz..... no matter what your view on drugs is.... you can blame the judges for the choices people make to use illegal substances.

Laws exist.... they must be upheld.

Work on changing the laws and stop blaming those who uphold them.

----------


## Micketto

> Don't worry about offending me, I of all people could give a damn less.  But continuing onward...


I don't worry about anything.... being new here I just don't know yet who gets upset easily, or overreacts, or has a clique that will jump all over people for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person, lol.
(should see this other forum I recently found).





> Using methods _identical to organized crime_, so really, who is the good guy in this scenario?


The ones catching the thieves and murderers.





> Marijuana has yet to kill anybody last I checked, and its harm is negligible if at all..


Minimal, probably... but it's all covered under "DUI" and that is why you haven't heard.





> The fact that they went after highschool kids is ludicrous.  They should have gone after bigger fish.


Things I have already agreed with in this thread.





> For such a resource that shouldn't exist in the first place.


Undercover cops ?

Bull.

----------


## Gemini

> I don't worry about anything.... being new here I just don't know yet who gets upset easily, or overreacts, or has a clique that will jump all over people for saying the wrong thing to the wrong person, lol.
> (should see this other forum I recently found).


Oh the cliques exist everywhere, this forum is no different.  The mods just don't get uber sensitive and retarded is all, which is why I am here - great mod staff and good folks in general.




> The ones catching the thieves and murderers.


The same ones doing illegal things and telling lies?  Those guys?  They are the good guys?  As far as I am concerned they are both breaking the law, but one has the blessing of the peasantry to lock up and kill the other one.  Wierd.




> Minimal, probably... but it's all covered under "DUI" and that is why you haven't heard.


There is an easy solution to solving DUI's - and it isn't what we are doing.  Norway I heard had a great solution - impound and crush the car and sell it for metal weight.  Tough to drive drunk without a car to drive.  Not your car?  Well then, whoever loaned it out to you had best be more careful who the lend it out to eh?  Stolen?  Yes, I believe there should be a caveat for that.




> Undercover cops ?
> 
> Bull.


Meh.  Whatever, I've declared my stance on the matter pretty clearly.  I could go on the warpath on this indefinitely, but to what avail?

Terminal disagreement I suppose.

----------


## Micketto

> The same ones doing illegal things and telling lies?  Those guys?  They are the good guys?


I find it odd that people have a problem with cops lying to the mob, to get inside and find thieves and murderers.... or lying in a Craigslist ad about being a gun for hire.... or lying to some creep on the internet who has approached them and asked to meet... based solely on a pic of an underage child.






> There is an easy solution to solving DUI's - and it isn't what we are doing.  Norway I heard had a great solution - impound and crush the car and sell it for metal weight.  Tough to drive drunk without a car to drive.  Not your car?  Well then, whoever loaned it out to you had best be more careful who the lend it out to eh?  Stolen?  Yes, I believe there should be a caveat for that.


Well, while that may work, it's not the law.  The law is to put them away for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Again... attack the law, not the ones upholding it.






> Terminal disagreement I suppose.


Respectfully... yes.

----------


## BleedingHeadKen

> Harming by smoking?  None.
> "Ruining" as some of you say by putting away drug dealers and users, while standing vocally against drugs?  Plenty.
> A lot of people in prison for drugs were glad to see this video.


So, then, using taxpayer dollars to persecute a lying hypocrite politician is justified by the happiness of seeing him caught? Private investigators could have done the job. Marion Berry committed no crime when he smoked crack. 
Name a politician that isn't a lying hypocrite and I'll show you a man (or woman) who has never held office.




> Hard call.  People seem to forget that a lack of drug availability does save some people from living lives feeding their addictive personalities.


Does it? A person can live a long and productive life while feeding an addiction, if what they are using isn't laced with poison and costing them an arm and a leg and putting them in the position of being thrown in a cage.

Prior to drug prohibition, there wasn't much outcry over drug use and yet they were freely available. 




> A lot?  you can't know how many.


I wouldn't try to guess. I  think prohibition is immoral, and every action taken by the state, including undercover police work, in pursuit of the war on drugs is immoral. A lot of needless deaths have occurred because. Hundreds of thousands of lives have been ruined because of it. Our civil liberties have suffered major attacks because of it. People live in fear of gangs because of it. The list goes on. If ending that immoral situation means a few more people get addicted, then that is the problem of the addicts. The rest of us don't have to suffer for it.




> As far as "wrecked" by the judicial system.... zzzzz..... no matter what your view on drugs is.... you can blame the judges for the choices people make to use illegal substances.


People have the right to choose what to put in their bodies. Just because there is a law against it doesn't make what the justice system do right. I suppose you would also have blamed the slaves who escaped from their masters for being shot. After all, you can't blame their pursuers and the justice system for the choices slaves made to escape their situation.




> Laws exist.... they must be upheld.


Why must they be upheld if they are immoral? What makes law legitimate?




> Work on changing the laws and stop blaming those who uphold them.


Those who uphold immorality should be blamed. Without their complicity, the system would not be able to persecute the innocent.

----------


## Gemini

> I find it odd that people have a problem with cops lying to the mob, to get inside and find thieves and murderers.... or lying in a Craigslist ad about being a gun for hire.... or lying to some creep on the internet who has approached them and asked to meet... based solely on a pic of an underage child.


I'll try one last time to convey this.

Doing evil for the 'greater good' or lying to get truth is like fornicating for chastity - it is a cosmic paradox.  The conflict cannot be more black and white.




> Well, while that may work, it's not the law.  The law is to put them away for driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol.
> 
> Again... attack the law, not the ones upholding it.


Sad thing is that some cops confuse their will with the law, and don't abide by the very laws they enforce on others.

----------


## Micketto

> I'll try one last time to convey this.
> 
> Doing evil for the 'greater good' or lying to get truth is like fornicating for chastity - it is a cosmic paradox.  The conflict cannot be more black and white.
> 
> 
> 
> Sad thing is that some cops confuse their will with the law, and don't abide by the very laws they enforce on others.



I guess I just don't see some undercover cop asking: _"Hey, did you shoot the guy or did your buddy shoot the guy?... I wont tell anyone"_ as some cosmic paradox.

If the guy shot someone... he should be in jail.   I don't care how they "tricked" him to achieve it.

You must really hate those fake city cop "awards" where they send out a letter to hundreds of people delinquent on parking tickets, only to make them pay when they arrive to get their non-existent prizes.

Or when Chris Hansen greets these perverted pedophiles that have stopped by some "13 year old" girl's house after getting to know her online.

I will never hate it myself.  I love it.


I don't tend to feel sorry for the poor, fooled criminals.

----------


## Gemini

> I guess I just don't see some undercover cop asking: _"Hey, did you shoot the guy or did your buddy shoot the guy?... I wont tell anyone"_ as some cosmic paradox.
> 
> If the guy shot someone... he should be in jail.   I don't care how they "tricked" him to achieve it.


As mentioned before, terminal disagreement.




> You must really hate those fake city cop "awards" where they send out a letter to hundreds of people delinquent on parking tickets, only to make them pay when they arrive to get their non-existent prizes.
> 
> Or when Chris Hansen greets these perverted pedophiles that have stopped by some "13 year old" girl's house after getting to know her online.
> 
> I will never hate it myself.  I love it.
> 
> I don't tend to feel sorry for the poor, fooled criminals.


The above listed are not criminals, they have done no crime because there is no victim.  Now my apathy for their behavior is unlimited, but my scorn for the methods they use to convict them is equally unlimited.

Some people have zero tolerance for guile and double standards, I am one of them.  Others, like you, seem to be more flexible in their moral codes, so long as the ends justify the means...

----------

