sarge 0 #76 March 8, 2003 Hi Michele. I thought since I might contribute to this particular question; though it seems resolved just the same by now. Quote I am still curious as to what was said to this department to instigate their presence. Or by whom...? I think it would be safe for those otherwise inclined to pursue illegal activities to think of cops as entrepenuers, trying to drum up 'business.' And not neccessarily by their own agenda (paper work for petty shit is stupid!) unless it serves some other political/social purpose. Using *Quincy as an example, there were deliberate political mechanisms that influenced not only the police presence, but the manner of the police presence. I have heard from many that the conspicuous police presence was most uncomfortable. Why? who's rights did police violate by simply demonstrating a presence? It wasn't the cops that refused WFFC, it was the city gov't. (I use the term 'refused' loosely because $$ talks; except with Turkey) Lous points should be taken kindly. Reason; Media exloitation. Ropers, etal, jumper safety. I was saddened to hear about the death of a guy shot by police a short while back who had fought and run from police [in Texas?] headlines, "Sydiver shot by Police" Drugs, blah, blah... (or whatever the exact quote was...) I just hate bad press and we as a community should stay focused on what we're all about and that using skydiving as a political platform to declare opposition to laws is unreasonable. Because, if we want to skydive nekkid, thats one thing... but if jumping wasted is so important to some, go start your own club somewhere and do bongs with your pilot on your way up to alt. bye..... see ya'll in the incidents or police blotter. * {brain-fart 'Rantoul'} Sorry-- I'm done with the personally meaningful and philosophical sigs!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #77 March 8, 2003 QuoteI have heard from many that the conspicuous police presence was most uncomfortable. Why? who's rights did police violate by simply demonstrating a presence? Not making any point or counter points here. Just stating facts. "Officer Presence" is the first "rung" on the Use of force policy for Federal Officers. So....technically.....just having them there was a use of force per Law Enforcement Policy. However, I found the Police presence VERY benign at Rantoul. Case in point......An UN-NAMED person stood up and proudly displayed a rather LARGE bag of contraband which he was proud to announce he had only paid $25 to obtain. Well......about 15-20 Ft behind him one Rantoul's finest did a QUICK 180 and removed himself from the situation. I think it was quite clear that the Rantoul cops were there to make sure things stayed peaceful and NOT there to harass anyone. Let's hope it stays that way. PS- All this being said I wish that people that choose to use these substances would make it "easier" for the Police to look the other way by using FAR more discretion. I can't tell you the amount of people I saw lighting pipes while driving around on their golf carts in BROAD DAYLIGHT. This will eventually give the WFFC a certain "reputation." That reputation WILL draw unwanted attention and pretty soon we'll have another "Quincy." So please....use some common sense. It will benefit us all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefalle 0 #78 March 9, 2003 okay, I've read this thread and feel compelled to respond. First off Chile, If the police were at the DZ conducting an investigation, its because the were ordered there by a LT., Commander, or the chief of police. They were sent there because there was a complaint called in to the police department. The complaint could have been made by a prior visitor who observed the drug use, it could have been made by a skydiver at the DZ who has a problem with skydivers getting stoned and the getting on a load with them. OR it could have been made by the city its self who may have a problem with the DZ for what ever reason. Often times the city may want to use the property the DZ is on for other uses, if they can get rid of the DZ they have use of the property. If the police make cases for narcotics (especially felony arrest) the city can close the property under a form called Nuisance abatement. Regardless of the aformentioned facts. Those officers have a duty to enforce the laws. Its not fair for anybody to bash them for doing their job. I AGREE there are alot of dick head over zealous cops out there but I think they are the exception, not the rule. Regardless of how polite or professional a cop is most people will call him an asshole if he gives them a ticket or has to arrest them for violating the law. Remember The viloator broke the law and the officer is just there to enforce the law. As far as the guy at the DZ being held for several hours awaiting a search warrant,,, I question that, if the police officer smelled an odor consistant with that of burnt cannibus he has the lawful right to search the vehicle based on that probable cause (cite case law from the supreme court) to search the vehcile without consent of the owner or operator If for some reason, you are correct and he was forced to wait SEVERAL hours for a search warrant, he has a pretty good case for violation of his 4th amendment right (see us constitution regarding search and seziure) and any evidence discovered resulting in his arrest would probably be supressed. I think the point Im trying to make here is this, the law is the law and regardless of how we feel about it Police are tasked to enforce the law regardless of wether or not you feel it is a victimless crime. Is it fair to bash the police for doing what they are paid to do? If you dont want a negative encounter with the police dont break the law, if you have an issue with a rude or unprofessional cop and you feel your rights have been violated, contact his internal affairs division and have him investigated. You may not be the only person hes been a dickhead too. I am a police officer, I am also an avid skydiver who spends alot of time at my home DZ, yes I know the're are people there who use drugs and they also know what I do for a living. they respect me and I respect them and together everyone is happy. I will tell you this. The undercover detectives that were at your DZ, if they think they have a case, THEY WILL BE BACK. and people will go to jail. Do yourselves and your DZO a favor keep the drugs off the DZ its not worth the legal battle. good luck thats all I have to say about that....... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #79 March 9, 2003 Quote I have heard from many that the conspicuous police presence was most uncomfortable. I didn't feel uncomfortable with the police presence or oppressed in any way at Rantoul. Like Clay said, they were there to "keep the peace", which they did without resorting to the kind of tactics that I heard were used the last couple of years at Quincy. Another illustration - one evening there was a large gathering around the swoop pond, with numerous golf carts parked along the edge. What was going on in the pond is very likely illegal in many jurisdictions. An officer pulled up on a cart, got off, looked around, said something along the lines of "don't go driving the carts into the pond," got back on his cart and drove away. Quote This will eventually give the WFFC a certain "reputation." That reputation WILL draw unwanted attention and pretty soon we'll have another "Quincy." So please....use some common sense. It will benefit us all. Excellent point. Keeping "contraband" and it's use discreet will go a long way toward keeping the police presence as low key as it was last year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #80 March 9, 2003 QuoteAs far as the guy at the DZ being held for several hours awaiting a search warrant,,, I question that, if the police officer smelled an odor consistant with that of burnt cannibus he has the lawful right to search the vehicle based on that probable cause (cite case law from the supreme court) to search the vehcile without consent of the owner or operator Umm...Carrol Vs. US....also known as "The Carrol Doctrine" or "Mobile Conveyance" rule. Absolutely correct. QuoteIf for some reason, you are correct and he was forced to wait SEVERAL hours for a search warrant, he has a pretty good case for violation of his 4th amendment right (see us constitution regarding search and seziure) and any evidence discovered resulting in his arrest would probably be supressed. Maybe...maybe not....depends on the judge. If I was facing drug charges I would CERTAINLY file the motion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freefalle 0 #81 March 9, 2003 please see my post it explains your question :) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #82 March 9, 2003 Quote please see my post it explains your question :) Thanks, Freefalle...from my limited understanding of the situation, and admittedly limited understanding of police protocol, I had thought there was something more to the situation than just "hey, let's check out the DZ for illegal drugs today" says one u/c to another... I appreciate yours, Sarges, and all the other folks in the know chiming in. It's helpful to understanding the situation completely, and while we still don't know the outcome, it likely wasn't something uninstigated... I still wonder if that DZ has a Farmer McNasty, though...or if it's being hardassed by anyone else for another reason... Thanks, all! Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SniperCJ 0 #83 March 9, 2003 Michele, So as not to belabor the point... Ya, what they said! Same would apply at my Dept. JC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #84 March 9, 2003 Quote It's helpful to understanding the situation completely, and while we still don't know the outcome, it likely wasn't something uninstigated... Understanding......I'll tell ya.....I have spent the past couple weeks taking classes and Thursday had to take a test on the 4th Amendment. I had NO idea how much power and how easy it is for a Law Enforcement type to hem you up and search you. It actually scared me. Some of the laws are absolutely insane. I'm just glad that in 6 more weeks I'll have a badge......that will at least kinda shield me from some of the bullshit. For everyone out there......strudy your 4th Amendment rights. If you don't know them.....the government sure as hell won't "give" them to you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #85 March 9, 2003 QuoteI don't care to continue debating this since as I stated we can both continue to drop supporting analogies and situations until we're blue in the face and arrive at nothing. Just as you strongly support your use of your addiction to use pot I will strongly support my addiction...skydiving(which isn't illegal), and if your addiction causes my addiction to be curtailed I and others will be very upset with those who make our addiction harder to fullfill. Can we agree on this? well we can stop debating if you wish, i however find my horizons expanded by arguing about issues i feel strongly about.. and to clarify the issue i feel strongly about is the pervasive erosion of the individual to determine their own fate. i do very few drugs actually, far fewer than people who claim to do "none" who should really start reading labels and examining everything they ingest before making such sweeping statements and none on an "addiction" level. Hell i'm not addicted to anything except air and water and feel sorry for anyone who actually is, many of whom i call friend.. but i cannot abide the idea that the intent of law is to protect me from myself. the rhetoric used to demonize drugs can be only slightly stretched to include the majority of activities not "mainstreamed" this includes BASE and skydiving.. if you sell it to the sheep (remember only the number of opinions count in a democracy no matter how misconceived, deliberately misled or uninformed) they decide as much as sheep decide anything, the majority of the population is actually ignorant of the amount of legislation passed or how the contents of that legislation could be used to suddenly turn them into criminals and it becomes a law and as so well demonstrated of late will agree to ANYTHING the government tells them will make them safe...suddenly you have laws and a newly illegal activities without any real need for such legislation so the point in arguing in defence of a "Doper" (lovely derogatory term you’ve got there, very useful for dehumanizing and devaluing their lives and opinions) right to abuse themselves in ANY manner they chose.. i am equally defending your right to risk your life in the manner YOU chose, without unnecessary intervention by a third party largely ignorant of the reality of the activity.____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #86 March 9, 2003 QuoteMaybe...maybe not....depends on the judge. If I was facing drug charges I would CERTAINLY file the motion. Show the They can secure the premises while they wait for a search warrant with probable cause. If they believe the person has the evidence on his person then they can secure him too while waiting for a search warrant. In this case they didn't really need a search warrant (because of the vehicle exception) but were probably just going the extra step to ensure it wasn't thrown out of court later. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #87 March 9, 2003 Quoteand to clarify the issue i feel strongly about is the pervasive erosion of the individual to determine their own fate. i do very few drugs actually, far fewer than people who claim to do "none" who should really start reading labels and examining everything they ingest before making such sweeping statements and none on an "addiction" level. Hell i'm not addicted to anything except air and water and feel sorry for anyone who actually is, many of whom i call friend.. Well, I have never taken an illegal drug in my entire life. I have passed a lie detector test with that question on it. The debate here isn't about whether marijuana should be legal or not. It is about obeying the law. Quit comparing marijuana to beer and nicotine. It is similiar but their is a large difference. You can drink a limited amount of alcohol without becoming mentally impaired. You can use nicotine without becoming mentally impaired. You cannot smoke marijuana without becoming mentally impaired. I don't really care if marijuana is legalized or not. The harder drugs should definitely be illegal. If you disagree then work to change it or do it illegally away from me and the DZ. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #88 March 9, 2003 QuoteYou can use nicotine without becoming mentally impaired. That's debatable. It's been shown in studies that smoking a cigarette while driving has the same effect on your reaction time as being .08 BAC. And can you honestly say that the majority of people who drink alcohol have one glass of wine with dinner and that's it? Because if you drink any more than that, you are impaired. And if that's the criteria for determining legality, what about xanax, paxil, valium, oxycotin, percoset, vicodin, etc... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cgross 1 #89 March 9, 2003 I agree with you buddy. I personally don't care what people do so long as it doens't affect me, HOWEVER, If you are doing something illegal, you are only asking to get caught!!!! Don't want trouble with the law, then don't break it!!!! especially in a foreign country. In some place in the world they'll shoot you for this stuff. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #90 March 9, 2003 Quoteabout xanax, paxil, valium, oxycotin, percoset, vicodin, etc... They are regulated and have other uses besides recreation. QuoteThat's debatable. It's been shown in studies that smoking a cigarette while driving has the same effect on your reaction time as being .08 BAC. You actually believe these studies. That's ridiculous. QuoteAnd can you honestly say that the majority of people who drink alcohol have one glass of wine with dinner and that's it? I do. Although it is usually one beer and that's it. I'm talking about the drug's ability to impair your mental ability. Marijuana's ability to impair you mental ability is a whole lot higher than alcohols. Do you dispute that? "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Zenister 0 #91 March 9, 2003 Quote Quit comparing marijuana to beer and nicotine. It is similar but their is a large difference. You can drink a limited amount of alcohol without becoming mentally impaired. You can use nicotine without becoming mentally impaired. You cannot smoke marijuana without becoming mentally impaired. actually you should really double check the facts, there has not been a rigorous scientific study on the mental effects of marijuana in quite a number of years. The initial studies have a number of flaws the largest being the political agenda "its bad" cant have a conclusion before performing your experiments, its bad science. driving it..there have been NO rigorous third party studies performed in 30 years..(the scientists i met in GA in the 90s who wished to do so were told not no but hell no, unless they wanted to fund it themselves ) the government isnt interested in truth if it conflicts with their political agenda...imagine how stupid they would look when/if the test results show no significant impairment when compared to currently legal activities.. btw..ever taken prescription pain medication from a friend?? (say 800mg Motrin, aka ranger candy?) guess what? your now an illegal drug user! Go to jail doper!____________________________________ Those who fail to learn from the past are simply Doomed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #92 March 9, 2003 QuoteThat's debatable. It's been shown in studies that smoking a cigarette while driving has the same effect on your reaction time as being .08 BAC. Can you site the source for this study? QuoteAnd can you honestly say that the majority of people who drink alcohol have one glass of wine with dinner and that's it? Most people do I think. Certainly most of the people I know do this, hell, most of time when I'm out to dinner it's exactly what I do. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #93 March 9, 2003 QuoteCan you site the source for this study? No, read it in the WSJ a couple months ago. QuoteMost people do I think. Certainly most of the people I know do this, hell, most of time when I'm out to dinner it's exactly what I do. Yeah, if I go out to dinner I might have one drink with dinner. But more realistically, I'll go to a bar with friends and have 3-4 or more, as do most people. Can you honestly say that if you tallied up all of the occasions where you drank any alcohol at all, that the majority of those occasions you had a single drink? I've seen you drink and I don't think you ever just had one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
CrazyThomas 0 #94 March 9, 2003 Quote I'm talking about the drug's ability to impair your mental ability. Marijuana's ability to impair you mental ability is a whole lot higher than alcohols. Do you dispute that? ABSOLUTELY! I dispute that with the case about alcohol poisoning. How many "dopers" have OD'ed on marijuana? And compare that with the number of people who get their stomachs pumped, or simply die of alcohol poisoning. Later, Thomas Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #95 March 9, 2003 Quotebtw..ever taken prescription pain medication from a friend?? (say 800mg Motrin, aka ranger candy?) guess what? your now an illegal drug user! Go to jail doper! Notice, I said I've never taken illegal drugs. Prescription drugs taken illegally are not illegal drugs. The drugs are legal (hence the prescription) but they are used illegally. Illegal drugs are illegal by their mere presence. Since you called me a doper can I call you an asshole now. Quoteactually you should really double check the facts, there has not been a rigorous scientific study on the mental effects of marijuana in quite a number of years. I don't require a rigorous scientific study to know the effects of marijuana. I've seen it on a regular basis. Cigarrettes do not have the same effect. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #96 March 9, 2003 Quote Yeah, if I go out to dinner I might have one drink with dinner. But more realistically, I'll go to a bar with friends and have 3-4 or more, as do most people. I can only speak about the behavior of those I know, but in that small sample most people go to dinner and have just a glass of wine or a beer with dinner. When going out to the bar most have a designated driver. Maybe I just spend too much time with the responsible crowd. Quote I've seen you drink and I don't think you ever just had one. When you've seen me drink it's been at the DZ where my tent is never more than a stumble or two away. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kmcguffee 0 #97 March 9, 2003 QuoteABSOLUTELY! I dispute that with the case about alcohol poisoning. What does alcohol poisoning have to do with impairing your mental ability to make rational decisions? You make a point but it has nothing to do with my argument. Were you directing this at someone else? If you want to go OD on a drug that is your decision. When you take drugs that cause you to lose your rational decision making ability then you start becoming a danger to other people. Your rights to do what you want end when you start intruding on other people's rights. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #98 March 9, 2003 QuoteQuote That's debatable. It's been shown in studies that smoking a cigarette while driving has the same effect on your reaction time as being .08 BAC. You actually believe these studies. That's ridiculous. Actually, that one I'd almost believe. Think about how many times someone smoking a cigarette is distracted from the road - lighting it, flicking ashes in the ashtray, putting it out, smoke in eyes. Then add in the occasional "whoops! dropped it!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AndyMan 7 #99 March 9, 2003 Speaking of rational decision making, somebody who admits to never haven taken drugs is in a rather poor position to argue about the effects it has on ones mind. _Am__ You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skybytch 273 #100 March 9, 2003 QuoteThey are regulated and have other uses besides recreation. Marijuana is also regulated... and it does have uses other than recreation. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
