posted on December 2, 2000 08:10:10 PM
Ok, this story bothers me in so very many ways it is hard to even summarize.
IF the story is true, even all these years later it can be checked out and traced to you, in which all kinds of questions would be asked (of you). You gave the State and the exact crime on the internet for all to see.
IF it is true and you cared about these friends why in the hell would you post it here?
A question..... do you honestly believe that the circumstances required murder? The guy ran the cop over once in fear, the second time cannot be fear but hate. http://members.ebay.com/aboutme/[email protected]/
posted on December 2, 2000 08:26:17 PM
I'm sorry but this bothers me.
IF you are a good friend you should never have put the story here.....it could taint the family. AND
#*!@ nevermind. I dont want to get embroiled, but my heart says no no no, you might from fear run over a person (even a cop) but not back up and do it again and call it protecting the family.
I was not quoting you, I was paraphrasing you. Since you said you do not use drugs or advocate the use of illegal drugs, I assumed you would support the suppression of sale and use of illegal drugs as long as the tactics were not racist. BTW, would you care to explain the "racist" aspect?
As for the rub on the gum piece of farcical information, the statement totally destroyed any consideration of future input having any reliability.
Detox is temporary and rehabilitation has minimal affect and is hardly measurable against the non-rehabs and those that fail in rehab. However, such programs have been available for many years. Also, most whom are incarcerated drug users are usually tried and sentenced on other type crimes due to narcotic use e.g., burglary, theft, armed robbery, assault, etc.
The rehab programs are after the fact, what do you suggest be done to reduce the participants in these programs? Also, you forgot to mention the thousands of deaths related to illegal drug use.
Your statement:
….net 2 Mexican field workers with a bag of pot and a pimply faced teenager with a Quaalude probably violating their civil rights in the process,
is another corroboration that your information and your ideas have little value at all.
News flash donrob2, most subjects incarcerated for possession would not be for (mere) possession unless the simple possession was because of priors.
If you were talk to any person that is experienced in narcotic enforcement, you won't find any person using words indicating finality. You will hear words like, interdiction, suppression, ebbing the flow, high risk, obstructing the market, etc.
Regarding the garlic around the neck, you are correct. Now tell us how to do it.
For someone who does not use or advocate the use of illegal drugs, you sure are vehemently opposed to any enforcement. You want everything done with kid gloves.
posted on December 2, 2000 08:46:21 PM
No, not funny. You said the first time was fear the second time was hate. If this story happened the way it was alleged, the person ran over the cop because of a perceived self-defense.
posted on December 2, 2000 08:55:26 PM
PERCEIVED self defence, I mean the cop was leaning on the car, doing what? writing a ticket? planning his next move? what? The police officer was never given a chance was he? What was his next move? Maybe, just maybe there was no next move. He might have made a few notes and told them to be careful on the way home....... he was tried there by the driver (judge and jury)
Even if the officer intended on taking them in it is still no excuse for murder. Unfortunately the word ni**** was used quite often then and soon after changed as now the word indian is spit out in a manner that makes it seem a dirty word.
...... Don't think someone won't latch onto this and go back in time. If macandjane are truly friends they would never have posted this. The Father may be gone but the family is still alive to be hurt by this.
[ edited by kitsch1 on Dec 2, 2000 09:03 PM ]
posted on December 2, 2000 09:01:31 PM
This really is a very ugly story, on so many levels. All we have to go on is the story as it was written here. But I'm wondering if you read the details of the story, this wasn't no "you have a good day now and drive safe, folks, ya hear?" officer.
posted on December 2, 2000 09:12:22 PM
I read it jamesoblivion, I wonder if you read my post on the first page of this thread. I most certainly do see predjudice in action. BUT, one cannot assume that every cop is out to do in an entire family. Nor can one assume even if it was a predjudiced hate filled cop that he would murder the driver in front of his entire family.
The point is that we will never know......the man killed the cop. He could have just hit him and ran.... but he came back and hit him again.
posted on December 2, 2000 09:18:09 PM
Well, I guess I still can be surprised. I had not read all the posts before posting my recent reply to donrob2.
macandjan's story regarding the running down of a police officer is a story of homicide if the officer died as a direct result of the injuries, or attempted murder if the officer lived. I doubt if there was a statute of limitation on either offense. Therefore, if macandjan's statement is true, he or she is a hearsay witness to a grievous crime.
Regardless, macandjan appears to feel that the story was some kind of acceptable moral to another story. I hope he or she was not exaggerating or fabricating. I have compiled all information of what has occurred to date and am submitting a report to my local F.B.I. office.
jamesoblivion
You should be ecstatically happy that you are not within my grasp.
posted on December 2, 2000 09:24:07 PM
Mike, for what internet threats of violence are worth (they're worth nothing, Mike) seeing as I'm half your age, I don't think you'd pose a problem.
posted on December 2, 2000 09:36:34 PM
I wonder if the local FBI office groans "oh God, it's that Mike guy again" when he submits his "reports"?
Dear FBI, It has come to my attention on an auction-related internet chat board that a black man, now deceased, ran down a cop in a small town in Pennsylvania in the late 1950s. Please investigate. Yours Truly,
[i]Sgt. Mike[i]
posted on December 2, 2000 09:39:13 PM
A hearsay witness? LOLOL!
Compiling information for the FBI to use in the prosecution of a dead man. I'm sure that they'll get right on it.
You're right, James, that was clearly a threat and is in violation of the CGs. For all his supposed expertise in such things, you'd think that he'd read the law here, eh?
posted on December 2, 2000 09:46:55 PM
That is a very unsettling story, macandjan!
I take your point to be contained in the last sentence, however, I do detect a less than subtle tone of approval for this apparent murder of a cop.
Bigotry is not now, or was it then, a capital offense and Pennsylvania, even in the 50's, was not the deep South.
With the exception of the racial slurs, the officer may have had good cause to take the action alleged in your account. In your story, for instance, there is no justification for the threat of arrest. Could there possibly have been an outstanding warrant, a problem with the vehicles registration, or an observed violation of traffic laws which would require a trip to the local court house to be resolved.
I find myself imagining another scenario wherein one of my friends tells me of the dad he never met. A rural cop who was killed one night while on patrol.
I really hope you or your friend concocted that story to make a dubious point about racism and oppression.
What bothers me most of all is that I know many will read your anecdote and not be troubled by the actions of your friend's dad.
Threats are a violation of the CG's and I am issuing you an informal warning. Continuing to post in that manner could jepordize your posting priviledges.
jamesoblivion, please address the subject, not the individual.
posted on December 2, 2000 09:52:10 PM What bothers me most of all is that I know many will read your anecdote and not be troubled by the actions of your friend's dad.
posted on December 2, 2000 10:08:51 PM
So, because the friend's dad was scared that they wouldnt have gas to get home and he might be mistreated, he chose to RUN OVER the cop? With kids in the car to see and FEEL it happen as the wheels go over the man? Twice? And the reasoning (or excuse given) is because of fear? I dont know who said it, but yes, I too wonder about the boy or girl from long ago who never met their dad because he was run over some dark night and left for dead.
posted on December 2, 2000 10:14:28 PM
On a lighter note, I got pulled over a few months ago for no seat belt (hate wearing the dam thing) and going 5 miles over the speed limit. The sheriff lady pulled me over in front of my house (man, was I embarassed) and I begged...BEGGED her to let me off with a warning. She asked why she should do that for me and I said because I never have to take the test, as DMV just mails my license to me. Super Clean record and I didnt want it to ruin it. So, she thought about it (all the while, Im rattling off about what a great cook I am and she can come for coffee anytime, and if she ever has a hankering for killer enchiladas, stop on by, yadda yadda) and she finally says "ok...I will give you a ticket for no seat belt, but leave off the speeding. It wont affect your record that way, but you will have to pay a fine for the lack of belt", to which I blessed her and almost kissed her feet, lol. Her parting shot was "and keep enchiladas prepared every week, because I WILL take you up on it" (Although I havent seen her since)
posted on December 3, 2000 04:39:37 PM
Uhhh...Ok, I missed the story and it sounds like I should be thankful for that.
Moving topic a bit: I can't remember where I read/saw this bit of info (maybe someone can back me up with a link), but it was stated that over half of our money supply is 'infected' with drugs. That is, if a police dog were sniffing (or a police officer testing) the money in your wallet (general you) they would 'hit' on the drug smell/residue.
I found that very interesting as many times the money found on a subject *is* tested for drug residue.
It would really suck to be arrested because you got the wrong five dollar bill from the local market.
I've heard that also. Don't know if it's true or not. Wouldn't surprise me that half of the money in circulation has been in the proximity of drugs. Hard to believe that all of it was somehow tainted by the experience, though.
I wouldn't be too concerned about getting arrested for being in possession of trace residue currency. No court would uphold such an arrest and you'd proably get a nice false arrest settlement in the bargain.
Now if you were a drug smuggler and you'd gone to great lengths to conceal the smell of your contraband from even the most sensitive of canine noses you'd be wise to carry only credit cards lest you provide thre custom's folks with good reason to search your bags.
posted on December 3, 2000 06:03:27 PM
Xadon: Any chance you remember where you heard that? I've been racking my poor little cold medicated brain to remember where I heard it.
I guess the theory is that most of the contimination happens when money is put with other money....that is, not every five dollar bill has been in the hands of a dealer/user but the one that has can contaminate 3 others in a drawer or your pocket.
I wouldn't be too concerned about getting arrested for being in possession of trace residue currency. No court would uphold such an arrest and you'd proably get a nice false arrest settlement in the bargain.
Here is the thing about that: Police can confiscate the money without an arrest. Sounds wacked, but it is true. You can try and get your money (or other belongings back) but that requries a lawyer and a court case.
This is a *huge* problem in Florida (and elsewhere, I'm sure).
posted on December 3, 2000 06:19:20 PM
I believe I saw it one of those news magazine shows, 20/20 or Dateline.
Forfeiture laws were created by well-intentioned legislators to insure that arrested drug dealers also lose the "fruits of their criminal endeavors". These laws allow for the confiscation of profits, both in cash and property, that can be directly linked to a criminal enterprise.
In practice there have been some notable and unfortunate injustices perpetrated by the government in exercizing these forfeiture powers. An excellent example of the unforeseen consequences of hasty legislation.
I don't believe anyone's money has ever been confiscated based solely on the presence of microscopic drug residue. There would have to be some related criminal factor, such as a posession or sale arrest, to result in forfeiture.
(Although I havent seen her since)