Marijuana.com

deluxe

damn straight!

 

Niteshift

Is that because you can't answer it deluxe?

I'd love to see you prove that you're not really a DEA agent here trying to gather info. Or a defense attorney drumming up business. Until you do prove it, how can you be trusted completely?

deluxe

i don't care if people trust me or not, because its not my job to enforce the law.

on the other hand, if people trust you, and you betray their trust because it's your job to enforce the law, who benefits?

Niteshift

"i don't care if people trust me or not, because its not my job to enforce the law. "

Gee, even if I weren't a cop, I'd want people to trust me. Nor would I want people to trust me only because I'm a cop. I'd prefer to be trusted because I'm an honest person.

"on the other hand, if people trust you, and you betray their trust because it's your job to enforce the law, who benefits?"

Depending on the circumstances, in many cases, most of society does.

If I gain someones trust in order to get information about a child molestors activities, then arrest him, thus preventing more children from being molested, wouldn't you say that my gaining his trust is a good thing?

The problem is that you are basing your entire opinion and entire post on a narrowly focused issue. Life is not a single issue event.

Greenman

Before this degrades into further idiocy, I would like to bring up a couple of points. Everyone here uses marijuana.com at their own risk, this is something everyone has agreed to when they signed up for the service, including the cops. If you are not atleast aware of the possibility that Law Enforcement in general is looking at this, then you are living in a fantasy land.

The cops have as much right to post here as everyone else. They do not recieve any special perks or hinderences due to their profession on these boards. Their comments are open to debate with the general population, which does include people in the legal profession. If they post something incorrect or misleading, they can be taken to task for it like everyone else. But I will not allow people to flame any member, cop or not, in the guise of trying to prove that the other person is wrong and you are right. As a matter of Fact, the reason why we have "LEO" and "L.E.O. in good standing" is to make the users aware that they are responding or posting to police, and to USE YOUR HEAD when posting.

While I do have distrust for NS and Slate, simply because they are the "enemy" as you would have it, I have to respect the fact that they had enough balls to let us know they were cops to begin with. I would like to believe that this shows something about their charecter, because identifying themselves does them no good if there were here to "gather information".

I would rather know where my "enemies" are than to have them mixed in and hidden in the crowd. If you have particular factual issues as to why any advice given by the LEOs on this board is bogus, please speak up and let us know. But we will not tolerate people flaming others simply because of their profession. This is unprofessional, counterproductive, and does tremendous damage to the movement as a whole. It is not the cops that are calling all us potheads dumb, or making all these other gross stereotypical associations, its us. How do you think that looks to all the other cops that read these boards and don't post? How does that image help the next smoker who gets pulled over? How can we change peoples minds if we are busy insulting them?

Please, keep this civil.

Peace.

__________________
Some will never open their eyes. Some will have them opened for them. Some will see light, some won't be able to stand the brightness and will turn away. -Robin Prosser's Diary Day 23 -- Please read our Posting Guidelines for questions on our policies.

 

Slightly Stoopid

Something else i am worried about with the LEO's in that they are constantly saying everything we once beleive is true, is really false.

I trust these LEO's to some extent, but who knows. maybe they are trying to scare us by *maybe* exagerating the power of the law.

I think it would be nice to get an atourney in here who dosn't have a side! Another thing, last time i checked Slate didn't have LEO under his name, he was just "member". You may want to make sure he has LEO under his name. Also you may think about not having LEO, but instead "Law Enforcement Officer", so EVERYONE knows that he is in fact a cop. Cause the first week i didn't know he was even a cop!

__________________
Slightly Stoopid
"Before you knock it, try it first. You will learn that it is a blessing and not a curse"
-Ben Harper

Niteshift

"Something else i am worried about with the LEO's in that they are constantly saying everything we once beleive is true, is really false. "

Frequently, I provide case law references to allow you to look for yourself. I have also provided specific statute numbers to support my answers. Slate has done the same.

On the flip side, I've asked members to provide back-up to something they believed is true and they found out there was none. For example, a member once stated that the police in her state could just stop you to see your insurance card. I asked her to look up the statute for me. She found there is no statute stating that.

I've said this before: Part of the reason I started posting here is because I saw some really dismal advice being given. Legal advice was being given based on urban legends, jailhouse stories and from TV shows. Even more insidious, is the advice that is correct in your state, but not in mine. That's why you here my say, so many times, things like "in general", "in my state", "check with your local PD on that".

"I trust these LEO's to some extent, but who knows. maybe they are trying to scare us by *maybe* exagerating the power of the law. "

I think if you really read my answers, I've demonstrated the limitations of the law on more than a few occassions.

"Another thing, last time i checked Slate didn't have LEO under his name, he was just "member". You may want to make sure he has LEO under his name."

He has for a couple of weeks.

"Also you may think about not having LEO, but instead "Law Enforcement Officer", so EVERYONE knows that he is in fact a cop. Cause the first week i didn't know he was even a cop!"

And nominated me as a moderator.........don't forget that

I'm hoping my avatar will help people get the picture faster.

Randøm_

Let's see, do I trust cops ... no! Do I trust Joe Q. Public ... no! Let me rephrase this ... I'll trust anyne with info that cannot be held against me, and I'll trust no one with my truly fragile secrets except for my lady. I trust my pets with everything .. they can't rat on or blackmail me. Respect ... I'll reciprocate the respect given to me, while trying to maintain a sense of common respect for even strangers.

Sure, cops have lied to me (but I knew they were lying and I'd like to say that no person, whether cop, crook, or other, can psyche me out). This all breaks down into simple components. 1) when facing arrest, the cops are your enemy, period. whenever sympathy is expressed by them (aside from letting ya go ) you should automatically have your spidey senses tingling (alarms ring in your head). What it all comes down to is what do they have to gain and what do you have to lose.

Honestly, Niteshift knows more about me than anyone else here (with one exception, possibly, with a member I exchange e-mail with). Why does he know more? Because I told him more. I have nothing to lose considering that those who are empowered to strip away my freedom have to deal with my MJ advocacy face to face (judges, probation department). I am not going to sell out or hold my ambitions unspoken out of fear. I have truth on my side with facts, although the penal system is on the other side, I'd like to think I got a couple of these "enemies" to think. As for Niteshift and Slate, I respect both of them tremendously. Most cops would shrug us off into a stereotypical group with crack-addicts and whatever. The LEOs have looked at and listened to the truth. The fact that they make the effort is, to me, extremely significant that they have brains of their own. I, for one, don't feel I need to persuade someone who already agrees with me. What I want, and what I feel we need, are those "enemies" to cross the line drawn in the sand to where we can stand together. Cops are our enemies, but they should not be (thank stupid laws for that). If we want to legalize MJ, then we don't want cops on the other side ... we want them on our side. That's the point, aint it, to not be abused by laws and fear cops for neurotically enforcing stupid laws.
I don't look up to cops, in fact, I look down upon most cops. Ideally, I like to look them straight in the face. I stood up to them when I was harassed around the age of 14, and I stand up to them now. I'd rather stand with them, and here I do (or argue with them, lol).

The bottom line is that they are people, some suck and some are cool. There is no sure-fire way to tell the difference, but is there with members of any profession?

I need to watch my wording since some here are paranoid (understandably so), but for all you guys know, I could be a cop. There was no background check when I signed up ... hell, MJ.COM accepts anonymous proxy servers (disguising one's true IPN).

I always need to remention this ... in Great Britain the cops held a protest in support of decriminalizing MJ. I want that here. I want all who can see the truth to stand up for what they know is right. For those here who cop-bash (I was one of you when I started posting) ...do we really want to reinforce the concept of us being criminals?! The worst thing we could do is to display sentiments of criminals on a site open to the entire WWW. We must defeat that stigma, not support it.

Niteshift and Slate, I welcome both of you and appreciate your input. I'd still rather have my eyes pecked out by buzzards with poor aim rather than be a cop. Then again, if you were typical cops, you wouldn't be here at all, but over at officer.com reinforcing the ignorance of stigmatized stereotypes. We need more cops sympathetic to our cause ... that would make less of us get arrested. I can't see any down side to this. I have suffered more than most of you because of MJ laws, so I should hope my input gets a little credibility.

PS ..Niteshift, you were antagonizing Deluxe earlier in this thread. Bad Niteshift, you need a time-out!

Niteshift

The Random Seal of Approval...........I don't know if I was just helped or damned.

Who antagonized whom first Random?

Randøm_

The Random Seal of Approval...........I don't know if I was just helped or damned.

lol, every gift is a curse and vice versa ... accept the compliment, for cops get those from me oh-so-rarely I guess that makes you favored by a felon ... do with that as you will (though I will be de-felonized soon ).

Who antagonized whom first Random?

Tell me, in your professional opinion, Niteshift, if you weren't a party to this, and each act of antagonism was a physical assault, who would get arrested? To my knowledge, both parties would be. The "but he did it first" defense never held up very well with LEOs.
If he jumped off a bridge first ... etc.
It's all copacetic, would it be better if everyone took a time out? Okay, I'll sentence myself to 5 minutes restricted to the confines of cyberspace.