...by posting videos on Youtube but neglecting to give them to the defense attorneys. Whoops.

About 2000lbs of weed. Both suspects have been released.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/3251447/

7/22/2008 10:29:15 PM

marijuwanna is baaaaaad, mkaaaaaaay?

7/22/2008 10:43:17 PM

Big dummy!

7/22/2008 10:44:42 PM

^ ahaha, gg


>.<

7/22/2008 10:47:46 PM

^^ 10/10.

7/22/2008 10:56:18 PM

7/27/2008 12:39:40 AM

Sanford county yokels singlehandedly screw up a joint investigation by Federal agents and the State Bureau of Investigation.

and the local Sanford cop who videotaped the scene, but didnt submit the video as evidence instead favoring uploading it to YouTube... he's "no longer with" the Sanford police dept., but they're not releasing his name

apparently so he can go get a job with some other LEO.

and the smugglers get of with probation.

NC Hillbillies +1 ... gg








[Edited on July 27, 2008 at 12:02 PM. Reason : ]

7/27/2008 11:54:32 AM

Maybe this is a stupid question given that the rest of the responses in this thread make it seem like it should be obvious.

but why does the fact that said footage was on youtube invalidate the rest of the evidence? I'd think that the video footage may not be admissible in court, but given the longevity of the investigation, i'm sure there's a mountain of other evidence...

7/27/2008 1:39:05 PM

I don't really see the big deal either, but apparently it's enough for the defense to work with that the DA didn't feel like wasting his time.

But on the other hand, the police release videos of ATM robberies to the news all the time. Maybe there are plenty of other screwups that we aren't hearing about, and they just had this guy take the fall.

7/27/2008 1:43:59 PM

posting an unauthorized video of the crime scene to the interwebs? and you can't see why such a blatant example of "prejudicing the jury" isn't cause for an automatic dismissal?

you obviously need to watch more Law & Order.

its so basic, I'm almost thinking the cop purposely did this to botch the prosecution. i'll bet he's involved in the smuggling ring somehow and is getting paid off. I mean, its either that, or he's just dumber than a box of hammers.





[Edited on July 28, 2008 at 8:00 PM. Reason : ]

7/28/2008 7:54:04 PM

hey, a box of hammers might come in handy if you are ever attacked by a bunch of nails that are sticking half-way out of the board, and shit

7/29/2008 12:06:23 AM

Wait, was it the fact that they broadcasted the evidence, or that they had the evidence but didn't provide the defense with it during discovery?

7/29/2008 1:01:28 AM

Quote :

"its so basic, I'm almost thinking the cop purposely did this to botch the prosecution. i'll bet he's involved in the smuggling ring somehow and is getting paid off."

Or maybe he has qualms about being involved in an operation which has the objective of locking people up for years in government rape rooms over the growth and/or sale of mildly psychoactive plants.

I mean seriously, I don't use marijuana, but anyone who is willing to invade someone's property, assault them, kidnap them and hold them prisoner for years under miserable fucking conditions because they do, or because they are involved in its cultivation or distribution is a fucking psychopath. The real criminals are the "drug warriors."

If this guy did this to deliberately fuck with the investigation, bravo, whatever his motivation was.

7/29/2008 12:43:28 PM

^ nice post.

7/29/2008 12:46:01 PM

^, ^^ yeah, yeah, yeah

y'all go on and glorify drug runners as some sort of modern-day Robin Hood, all quaint and altruistic.

and go and lionize corrupt cops who profit by protecting criminal activity, as some sort of human rights, civil disobediance issue.

it's you people making and cheering retarded statements like that is the main reason why people involved in trying to make meaningful reforms to our draconian drug laws are never going to be successful.

i mean, you sound like brainless idiots. no credible politicians are going to stand beside you to enact meaningful legislative reforms. (Jim McDermott doesn't count).

7/29/2008 3:03:01 PM

Quote :

"was it the fact that they broadcasted the evidence, or that "

the local Sanford P.D. hucklebucks' unauthorized video didn't show anything that certainly the Feds and the SBI weren't already properly documenting anyhow.

the main problem was that they publicly broadcasted it.

The fact that they weren't part of the investigating task force, shouldn't have been collecting evidence in the first place, and definitely violated regulations by not submitting it as evidence wouldn't have even been noticed had they not been stupid enough to upload it to YouTube. s

ince they did, the charge of "prejudicing the jury" can also be combined with generally interfering with an investigation. Any shitty defense attorney would be all over that. Hell, even Chuck "Wolfpack2K" Jones would have scored a win.









[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 3:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2008 3:07:27 PM

I just am not a big advocate of harsh punishments for non-violent crimes. And really, I post 2 words and I sound like a brainless idiot?! Wow man, work out that angst.

7/29/2008 3:09:19 PM

this is not an issue of harsh punishment -- its an issue of local police department fucking up evidence and allowing accused criminals to get off scot free on technicalities

Look, im all for the responsible reform of marijuana laws. But i said you sound like a brainless idiot, for cheering on this brainlessly idiotic post:

Quote :

"[the police] lock people up for years in government rape rooms over the growth and/or sale of mildly psychoactive plants. [police] invade someone's property, assault them, kidnap them and hold them prisoner for years [police are] fucking psychopaths. The real criminals are the [police]. [this cop] fucked with the investigation ... bravo"

i mean, did you even read it?






[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 3:27 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2008 3:15:48 PM

rather than sidetrack the thread...

Quote :

"locking people up for years in government rape rooms over the growth and/or sale of mildly psychoactive plants. I mean seriously, I don't use marijuana, but anyone who is willing to invade someone's property, assault them, kidnap them and hold them prisoner for years under miserable fucking conditions because they do, or because they are involved in its cultivation or distribution"

This what i agree with. obviously there are many other issues at hand, this guy was distributing on a large scale, for profit, to users who probably don't know their limits. I don't think this should be legal (sale). But the war on drugs is far from successful and instances like this just shine light on the subject, tax dollars wasted, court system foul ups etc.

7/29/2008 3:23:43 PM

Look, joe_schmoe, just 'cause I disagree with you vociferously on the issue of police legitimacy doesn't make me a brainless idiot.

Let's look at the facts.

Police brutally uphold a vicious and destructive system. They are the thuggish enforcers of a political regime based on certain perverse logical and moral fallacies. Among these are the idea that a person can delegate to a "representative" the "right" to do things which they themselves never had the authority to do, such as handing out harsh punishments for choosing the wrong leisure activities, the idea that one person has the right to vote away the rights of his neighbors, the idea any crime is legitimate so long as the perpetrators outnumber the victims, etc...

Police emphatically, do not protect us, and courts have repeatedlly ruled that they have no duty to. Individuals and businesses that want protect hire private security to provide it because police simply wont.

The only reason we even need as much protection as we do is because of destructive government policies and the police that do violence to uphold them.

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=527965&page=2

Quote :

"Most of the crime that you and I need protection from is the result of generations of bad government policy. Government systematically punishes, through progressive taxation, those people who engage in honest, productive enterprise. Meanwhile, broken families, laziness, short-sightedness, irresponsibility, indulgence and a sense of entitlement are all subsidized by a vast system of government handouts. It is the permanent, dependent underclass thus created, that threatens the safety and property of productive citizens, not other productive citizens."

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=528022

Quote :

"criminals tend to have very high rates of time preference, they are very present-oriented. The prospect of facing an armed victim, being an immediate threat, is a potent deterrent to crime. In comparison, the remote statistical chance of being arrested at some indeterminate point in the future and the even less likely chance of being convicted and sent to prison even farther in the future, is going to have a vanishingly small deterrent value on the target population. Thus, disarming citizens and ramping up police efforts against crime is only going to accelerate the downward spiral"

Even when police do step in to act directly against private criminals they only end up making things worse. If someone rips me off, and by some fluke the cops actually manage to arrest someone, and actually manage to make a case against him without violating enough evidentiary standards to get the case thrown out, and actually get a conviction, then what happen? The government comes and adds insult to injury by robbing me again to keep this asshole in a holding pen with other criminals (and innocent political prisoners) and then releasing him with a record that prevents him from getting gainful employment. Gee I don't see any way this can turn out badly, do you?

Finally, police, in their ongoing war against freedom, steal more private property than all other criminals combined.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture

Quote :

"In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third party claimant. Once the government establishes probable cause that the property is subject to forfeiture, the owner must prove on a "preponderance of the evidence" that it is not. The owner need not be judged guilty of any crime."

Some of the seized assets belong to actual criminals, but much of the loot plundered in this manner is simply rank abuse, as would be expected any time you give criminals like the police carte blanch to trample property rights and enrich themselves in the way that assets forfeiture laws do.

http://southsidejournal.stltoday.com/articles/2008/07/28/news/doc488e40add3efc427691121.txt

Quote :

"The Police Board disclosed July 18 that officers and Mokwa’s daughter had been allowed to “test drive” cars for weeks and months at a time."

You say that I glamorize black marketeers. Look, I fully realize that a lot of these traffickers are every bit as brutal, unprincipled and destructive as the police, but once again, this wouldn't be an issue if the police weren't out creating a black market by doing violence to enforce laws that never should have been passed, and that no sane person should pay any heed.

In short, there is not a single good thing that can be said about the institution of professional, government police forces or the degenerate, lowlife, jackbooted scum who constitute their rank and file.

The rise in America, over the last 150 years, of ubiquitous law enforcement has been an unmitigated disaster. We are now vastly less safe and less free than we were when we primarily took responsibility for our own protection, instead of empowering irresponsible and arbitrary enforcers to "watch over" us and trample us down for "our own protection".

[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 4:45 PM. Reason : ']

7/29/2008 4:38:02 PM

Quote :

"Look, joe_schmoe, just 'cause I disagree with you vociferously on the issue of police legitimacy doesn't make me a brainless idiot."

come on man, you've been around long enough to know that EVERYONE who disagrees with me does so at their own peril.




(by the way, i never actually called you a brainless idiot. and you cant show anywhere that i did )




[Edited on July 29, 2008 at 5:59 PM. Reason : ]

7/29/2008 5:57:57 PM

^^ i just read over that. do you identify yourself as some type of anarcho-syndicalist? just curious.

7/29/2008 6:39:44 PM

Anarcho-capitalist libertarian actually.

Although my specific criticism of law enforcement should apply for limited-government minarchist types as well.

The fact is that Americans have been statists a lot longer than they've been willing to put up with the kind of intrusive police harassment that we have to deal with today. 200 years ago there was a government, but aside from maybe the county sheriff, not a whole lot of law enforcement.

7/29/2008 10:06:29 PM