What's his motive? Did he do this just so he would get credit for a bunch of drug busts?

Your video, How to avoid a roadside drug bust, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'american weed, marijuana, colorado, drug bust, grow room, medical marijuana' to 'american weed, marijuana, colorado, drug bust, grow room, medical marijuana, natgeo' - edited by MrFisk

Again, no. The term "gross" doesn't take into account expenses (and in this case, I doubt it even includes cost of goods sold, because seeds don't cost much). Grossing 20K a month doesn't even mean that you are ever necessarily holding 20K. That is, it doesn't factor in that he has to pay his supplier, and cut in his distributors. That is, they are giving him credit for the full street value of all the product that went through his hands, even though he's certainly only keeping a fraction of it.

Assume a pound retails at 5K. That means he's flipping 4 pounds a month (which doesn't sound too insane to me). Of that 5K, he could easily be making only 5 or 10% after expenses. Which would mean that if he didn't spend any of it, or run into any other unexpected expenses (e.g. robbery), he could have taken a year or so to earn 9k, and still have been "grossing" 20k a month. Yes, it's to make the figures sound big, but it isn't necessarily technically wrong. The kid would never say it that way though. He was just slangin' quaps.


>> ^MrFisk:

If the teen only had $9,000, does that mean he only dealt for less than two weeks?
No, this story is just a press release for the police department, which always inflates drug figures to make them noteworthy.
If you added up how much every drug bust in the U.S. is worth according to police, we'd most likely be able to pay off every loan, war, default credit rating and still have money to colonize Mars.
No, this is shoddy journalism.
Reporter: "What happened?"
Police: "This happened."
Reporter: "Ok, thanks! I'll type it up."

If the teen only had $9,000, does that mean he only dealt for less than two weeks?
No, this story is just a press release for the police department, which always inflates drug figures to make them noteworthy.
If you added up how much every drug bust in the U.S. is worth according to police, we'd most likely be able to pay off every loan, war, default credit rating and still have money to colonize Mars.
No, this is shoddy journalism.

Reporter: "What happened?"
Police: "This happened."
Reporter: "Ok, thanks! I'll type it up."

>> ^Porksandwich:

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.
And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.
And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.
If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: none; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> NetRunner said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/n/NetRunner-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)
</div></div></div></div>
The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?
My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.
Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.
If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.
It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: both; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Lawdeedaw said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/l/Lawdeedaw-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...
</div></div></div></div>
Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.


This is a long quote.

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.

And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.

And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.

If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.

>> ^NetRunner:

, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)


The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?

My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.

Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.

If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.

It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...


Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.

some interesting fox news coverage
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4186793/drug-bust-gone-awry?loomia_ow=t0:s0:a4:g4:r4:c0.000000:b0:z5
*doublepromote

>> ^jwray:

>> ^reiwan:
>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.

If some bogus tip that was extracted under duress (i.e. plea bargain) can lead to this kind of raid, then we're still doing the same shit as the Salem witch trails.


You mean the red scare, or the Red Scare 2001?

>> ^reiwan:

>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.


If some bogus tip that was extracted under duress (i.e. plea bargain) can lead to this kind of raid, then we're still doing the same shit as the Salem witch trails.

>> ^reiwan:

>> ^dannym3141:
>> ^reiwan:
>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.

You could apply this argument to ANYTHING.
Yes, i pulled the guy over because one of his tires was bald. Yes i shot him when he put his hand in his pocket - he could have had a grenade in there. No one would be saying anything if he'd turned out to be an undiscovered serial killer.
If i should have a dog, is his life REALLY forfeit if for any reason whatsoever authorities should suspect that i am a drug dealer? They break my door down and as a precaution kill something... REALLY?
How about using your argument back on you:
If the police broke in and the dog killed a policeman, nobody would be saying anything if the policeman had been a burglar.

Do most people who have bald tires have weapons or are associated with having weapons? Your argument is illogical. As is your second one. There is a certain threat when dealing with people who choose to participate in illegal activities, anything from drug dealing to you name it. When you do this, you're forcing "the man" to come to the situation at a certain level.
I'm not saying what happened was right or wrong. I'm mainly trying to make the point that everyone is basing their opinion on a short video and a blurb of text about what happened. There is a lot more to the situation that you don't know than just those two things. And instead of being an armchair critic, why dont you try to think about the situation as a whole, rather than whats placed in front of you.


The argument IS MEANT to be illogical because i believe YOUR argument to be illogical. I'm glad you've seen the point, though i'm not sure you realised it was the point.

The second argument isn't illogical.

And one more time, your argument straight back at you - we are BOTH armchair critics in this situation. You're an armchair critic RE: the video, you're an armchair critic RE: me. Neither of us know the whole story, we are left with our gut reactions.

If you believe that authorities should be allowed to kill or destroy things we own based on a hunch, a tip, or "intelligence" - see weapons of mass destruction - all of which as we can see can turn out to be wrong, more fool you.

I would rather a hundred drug dealers get away than one incident like this occur. In fact, i'd rather let people use the drugs they want to use, allow them to live their lives as they see fit. We can deal with the crimes as they occur, not invent new crimes (drug taking) to prevent the possibility of further ones (theft to fund drug taking). That's a thought crime.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^reiwan:
>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.

You could apply this argument to ANYTHING.
Yes, i pulled the guy over because one of his tires was bald. Yes i shot him when he put his hand in his pocket - he could have had a grenade in there. No one would be saying anything if he'd turned out to be an undiscovered serial killer.
If i should have a dog, is his life REALLY forfeit if for any reason whatsoever authorities should suspect that i am a drug dealer? They break my door down and as a precaution kill something... REALLY?
How about using your argument back on you:
If the police broke in and the dog killed a policeman, nobody would be saying anything if the policeman had been a burglar.


Do most people who have bald tires have weapons or are associated with having weapons? Your argument is illogical. As is your second one. There is a certain threat when dealing with people who choose to participate in illegal activities, anything from drug dealing to you name it. When you do this, you're forcing "the man" to come to the situation at a certain level.

I'm not saying what happened was right or wrong. I'm mainly trying to make the point that everyone is basing their opinion on a short video and a blurb of text about what happened. There is a lot more to the situation that you don't know than just those two things. And instead of being an armchair critic, why dont you try to think about the situation as a whole, rather than whats placed in front of you.

>> ^reiwan:

>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.


Hind sight is twenty twenty, especially when the state has to cover the cost of livestock.

You're taxes hard at work, go towards paying for their armory, and the cost of life that is directly or indirectly caused by the strong arm of the bureaucracy.

I want to see the search warrant; I bet you it isn't even correct.

>> ^reiwan:

>> ^volumptuous:
"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.

They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.


You could apply this argument to ANYTHING.

Yes, i pulled the guy over because one of his tires was bald. Yes i shot him when he put his hand in his pocket - he could have had a grenade in there. No one would be saying anything if he'd turned out to be an undiscovered serial killer.

If i should have a dog, is his life REALLY forfeit if for any reason whatsoever authorities should suspect that i am a drug dealer? They break my door down and as a precaution kill something... REALLY?

How about using your argument back on you:
If the police broke in and the dog killed a policeman, nobody would be saying anything if the policeman had been a burglar.

>> ^volumptuous:

"Could have been" is not a very good justification for militarized police terrorizing citizens.


They go off of the information that they have, and their level of force they use is indicative of that. Hind sight is always 20/20. Drug dealers have lots of drugs. Drug dealers also have weapons. Nobody would be saying anything if this ended up being the largest drug bust in Columbia this year.