What protections are due informants?
posted at 6:00 pm on May 13, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend |
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Police in Tallahassee find themselves facing massive criticism after the death of an informant in a drug investigation. Rachel Hoffman agreed to become an informant and even targeted her own dealers after her arrest on charges of possession of marijuana and Ecstasy. The 23-year-old already had a history of drug arrests and wanted to mitigate her eventual prosecution, but she didn’t follow instructions on the buy — and paid for it with her life:
Tallahassee police officials are on the defensive after the killing of a young Florida woman who was serving as a
confidential narcotics and weapons informant in a sting operation that ended with her death.The body of Rachel Morningstar Hoffman, 23, was found Friday in rural Taylor County, southeast of Tallahassee, after a two-day search that began when she decided to meet Deneilo Bradshaw, 23, and Andrea Green, 25, at a location that was not the agreed-upon spot for a staked-out drug and weapons buy.
Authorities were planning to arrest Bradshaw and Green after the pair unloaded 1,500 pills of ecstasy, crack cocaine and a gun to Hoffman, who agreed to work undercover for police in exchange for possible leniency in an April drug charge that came one year after she was involved in a marijuana bust.
Instead, Hoffman left the public park where the deal was supposed to occur and met Bradshaw and Green somewhere else, a choice that Tallahassee police spokesman David McCranie said made her vulnerable to attack.
“Safety is paramount,” McCranie told ABC News. “The investigator said ‘Don’t do it.’ We call these things off all the time. But Rachel went ahead and met Green and Bradshaw and that ultimately lead to her murder.”
The police rely on informants to find the bigger fish in drug-dealing and illegal-weapons networks, as well as many other crimes. They need their informants alive in order to successfully prosecute the bigger targets, so just for that reason alone they do their best to protect those who choose to work with them. As the spokesman in the interview notes, the informers know how to operate within these illicit networks based on the same experiences that led to their arrests in the first place.
Rachel Hoffman’s death is tragic, but it seems a stretch to blame the police. First, the police certainly didn’t force her to repeatedly break the law over a period of years, putting her in position to receive a significant sentence for her most recent arrest. They also didn’t force her to become an informant. She could have chosen to face the charges in court and take her chances with the jury and the judge. Finally, the police told her not to change locations for the buy to protect her from harm. For that matter, if she went to an unsurveilled location, Hoffman wouldn’t have provided the police with any usable evidence, calling into question what she hoped to accomplish.
Tallahassee should conduct an investigation to ensure that all the facts become known, but on the face of this story, the police have nothing to defend. They did their best to keep her from making the mistake that cost Hoffman her life. They treated her like thousands or perhaps millions of informants around the nation that want to cooperate with law enforcement for tangible personal rewards. She already led a high-risk lifestyle, including associating with the two men who wound up murdering her. The police offered her a way out of that trap, but in the end, Hoffman didn’t take the necessary steps to protect herself.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
May God rest her Soul.
Zorro on May 13, 2008 at 6:06 PM
So the threat of a long prison sentence isn’t considered “forcing” someone to do something that turned out to be deadly?
corona on May 13, 2008 at 6:08 PM
A tad inconsiderate, no?
Vizzini on May 13, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Sad story, but I agree with Ed that the police don’t appear to be to blame.
mikeyboss on May 13, 2008 at 6:09 PM
Not to make light of this tragedy, but it’s almost like a reality TV show, “Can you spot the victim?” Unfortunately, the MSM would miss 9 out of 10 tries.
kirkill on May 13, 2008 at 6:09 PM
The impending sentence was the natural consequence of her convictions, not something concocted by the police.
mikeyboss on May 13, 2008 at 6:10 PM
Talk about a war that turned into a quagmire.
trubble on May 13, 2008 at 6:12 PM
Indeed. The police think it’s a tragedy too, but no need to lay it at their door considering her own choices.
Spirit of 1776 on May 13, 2008 at 6:13 PM
Bad things happen to snitches.
The cops are innocent in this one.
Rustyw on May 13, 2008 at 6:17 PM
In a word. No. The prison sentence was a forgone conclusion. No one forced her to do anything. She chose to take the deal offered hoping that she could get her sentence reduced.
Oldnuke on May 13, 2008 at 6:18 PM
Bad laws cause bad results.
Rustyw on May 13, 2008 at 6:19 PM
I am going to be blunt and people may think I am a total jerk.
Who cares! She got caught, she wanted the easy way out, they gave her the deal to be a tattle tail and opps, what a concept, she didn’t listen to what they told her to do. Not my problem she is dumb and can’t take directions. Possibly the reason she got where she was to begin with.
I have no qualms about how I see drug pushers or druggies. Those who feel symothetic obviously have never had a druggie as a family member and a drug dealer come up to your door asking for their money.
upinak on May 13, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Corona has a point. mikeyboss The impending sentence was the natural consequence of bad law, not something concocted by the police.
Rustyw on May 13, 2008 at 6:22 PM
She wasn’t smart and unfortunately this happens often. Key informants and witness get killed because the lack of assertiveness and protections that the police failed to make on their behave.
With that said, a lot of informants aren’t criminals.
jdun on May 13, 2008 at 6:27 PM
Maybe some of us who are sympathetic have been druggies ourselves.
mikeyboss on May 13, 2008 at 6:28 PM
Maybe you are lucky. I wasn’t so fortunate.
upinak on May 13, 2008 at 6:34 PM
How true Mikeboss How true
Rustyw on May 13, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Not to blame the cops for her murder, but if it took a two day search to find her after she left the known and agreed on spot for the bust it seems that they could’ve done a better job protecting her.
And yes- even with her checkered past, she deserved some degree of protection. She likely wouldn’t have been there at all had she not been working with the police to catch the “big fish”.
Plus young stoners aren’t known for their ability to follow direction well. They should have had some sort of plan in case things didn’t go as expected.
In the end- yes, she agreed to be an informant and to perform a drug deal that entailed risk. Yes, she screwed up. But in the spirit of one of Murphy’s Laws of Combat: “No plan survives first contact with the enemy”, they should’ve anticipated potential deviations from their plan to track or follow her. Instead they required a two day search to figure it out.
Hollowpoint on May 13, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Upinak,
I think that if it is a family member then it is your problem to work out, not ours, the tax payer. I just don’t see how paying to incarcerate someone for twenty years helps them in any way. Is it possible that the punishment is more harmful than the crime?
If it is your family member then it is your duty to help. Plus you seem to have had better luck than Rachel.
Rustyw on May 13, 2008 at 6:38 PM
She should not have left the park and met them at the other location where she was not protected.
I hate to say this……but she was a dumb ass for breaking the law in the first place that got her arrested and a dumb ass for leaving the park.
What ever happened to personal responsibilty?
Winebabe on May 13, 2008 at 6:39 PM
another victim of our rediculous drug laws
libertytexan on May 13, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Family member, friend, co-worker. Do you think it effects just family? Good Lord get a brain. You can’t help someone who is a druggie unless they WANT the help… You obviously have never been around one.
FYI I am also a tax payer and have to pay for this stupid crap as well. If the family decides to sue, who do you think the jury (if it got that far) would side on?
upinak on May 13, 2008 at 6:43 PM
And maybe some of us who are LESS-sympathetic have been druggies (and had family members who killed themselves with drugs) ourselves. And we more CLEARLY understand the bad choices in hindsight.
Sure, if we didn’t have any laws, we wouldn’t have any crimes.
kirkill on May 13, 2008 at 6:43 PM
Yeah…I’m sure the fact that she looks nothing like yer basic crack whore has nothing to any sympathy she’s getting here…
BigWyo on May 13, 2008 at 6:45 PM
So we can all be on the same page, would you please describe the looks of a basic crack whore.
RushBaby on May 13, 2008 at 6:49 PM
Oh, mayber something like this
BigWyo on May 13, 2008 at 6:53 PM
Sorry, but if the police make a deal they are bound by it. This is not some trained police undercover agent, this is an informant that they “hired”. They should have wired her, or kept her under tight surveillance.
No matter her past, the police hired her, offered her protection, and should have trained her or given her better back up. She, in essence, is one of them.
The police blew it, and now want to wash their hands of her.
If she was just “a crack whore”, or a criminal, then the police should not have hired her. Once a contract is made, the employer is bound to give her the protection and training needed.
right2bright on May 13, 2008 at 6:58 PM
She isn’t getting paid, she is a informant working off time in jail, in which she will still get probation and made to take manditory pee test to be sure she is clean.
I.E. she is and was not an employee, period!
And if we as a Nation start paying ever petty criminal to be an informant, get ready for a massive tax increase on something, namely your property. Doesn’t that sould a little shady to you? I know it does for me!
upinak on May 13, 2008 at 7:07 PM
Her bad choices are as to blame as much as our absurd drug laws which incarcerate hundreds of thousands of non-violent and otherwise, quite innocent people. If this one case is to be discussed I think this forum should revisit the issue as whole as it has much to do with a massive underground economy which corrupts our borders and citizens. The outlandish amounts of taxpayers money wasted in a losing battle to interdict and punish offenders and seems only to reward bad people rather than contribute to the common good through taxation as a normal activity… just as our ever growing pharma-industry, brewers and distillers.
lexhamfox on May 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Hey knock it off with the “crack whore” stuff - I actually know this girl and just found out about it recently here in Tally (in fact over the weekend). Some of my friends who knew her really well are still mourning, so try not to be too much of an @ss.
specialkayel on May 13, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Ed,
The police didn’t inform prosecutors of any “deal.” They told her to become an informant, period. Prosecutors have to approve all such plea deals and they are under no obligation to do so. In this case, the police are taking on the role of prosecutor and that is a serious, serious conflict of interest.
Apart from that serious ethical violation, not only did they place her in harm’s way, they did nothing to monitor her or oversee her when she went as an informant. They provided her with no training. They provided her with no backup. They provided her with nothing. In addition, it’s possible, based on the facts that we know, that the girl felt pressured by the POLICE to engage in the dangerous transaction even if the CASEWORKER didn’t think it was safe.
Police make mistakes all the time, and they screwed up enough that they got this girl into a situation she clearly wasn’t able to handle.
Sydney Carton on May 13, 2008 at 7:12 PM
That early-twenties feeling of invincibility is amazing. I’m glad to have made it through. Way too many take major risks thinking they’ll never get caught/hurt/incarcerated.
From getting into drugs to being irresponsible at the bars, in cars, going home with random people, travelling across the world alone or even just trying to do things like back flips on a dirt bike twenty-somethings have an unparalleled super-hero thing going on. It’s too bad this girl didn’t make it to cynical and distrustful adulthood.
NTWR on May 13, 2008 at 7:20 PM
Upinak,
Been around plenty Upinak, been around plenty. If the drugs were not illegal, they wouldn’t cost much. The family drug user, the family drunk is still a family problem. This is not an incarceration issue. It dose not help the user and I certainly don’t want to pay for your family problem.
Kirkill,
It is the fact that they are illegal that puts them in the hands of our children. Which do you think is easier for a thirteen year old to get, a bag of weed or a fifth of booze?
right2bright,
I believe you are right. I therefore renounce my earlier comment; (The cops are innocent in this one)
Lexhamfox, you could teach Upinak a thing or two. Bravo
Sydney Carton, Not if she hasn’t been charged. They do this all the time my friend.
Rustyw on May 13, 2008 at 7:22 PM
Come on now. The laws didn’t kill her, the drug dealers did.
TooTall on May 13, 2008 at 7:23 PM
Easy does it there, the reference to crack whore was that she looks nothing like one.
RushBaby on May 13, 2008 at 7:29 PM
What koolaide are you drinking to believe this crap?
I think it is easy for kids of all ages to get more or less anything they want due to lax parents. Do not tell me that alcohol is just as easy to get when their are prescription drugs all over american houses as well.
You really think it is like that don’t you? I bet you want Pot to be legalized too. Well most kids who start down that road, go from alcohol, to popping their parents pills, to pot they can either get from their parents to buying it off friends and up.
Don’t even go there with me on who does what and how concerning drug and alcohol abuse. You are only kidding yourself.
Sydney, if you are a misdemeanor for drug charges in FL, courts do not care. If you happen to get another one, they ask you if you want to become an informant to 1. keep you out of jail (since it cost 45 dollars a day to put you IN jail) 2. inform the casemanager if they are on probation still 3. make you take a daily pee test and last but not least 4. keep you in constant communication.
She didn’t let them know, she left where they said she needed to be. I don’t blame the cops. And neither should anyone.
upinak on May 13, 2008 at 7:38 PM
Read the story, she was engaged with the police to be an informant. They took her on as a partner, even you stated she was working for a better deal.
Listen, I don’t like drug dealers, I don’t have sympathy for drugs dealers, but when the police solicit or engage someone for help, they have to make it “right”. They just can’t throw people to the wolves because they have done drugs or have been convicted. The police entered into an arrangement, it is incumbent on them to make it work, they are the “experts.
right2bright on May 13, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Interesting that you should mention alcohol. It’s hard to think of a single drug responsible for more deaths, both directly and indirectly, than that one. It’s flat-out impossible to think of one with worse short and long-term health effects (with the possible exception of methamphetamine). And yet it’s legal.
I submit that those who favor drug prohibition are intellectually obligated to either call also for re-implementation alcohol prohibition, without exception, or explain in what material way alcohol is in any way less of an inherent threat to human life and society than cocaine or marijuana (a task which, once one eliminates factors brought into existence purely by the implementation of prohibition itself, I assert is flat-out impossible).
Simply put, any argument that can be made in favor of drug prohibition can be made in favor alcohol prohibition, and almost always with greater power. The only intellectually honest alternative, then, is to call for the end of all such prohibition: If you can tolerate legal alcohol, you must be willing to tolerate other (and almost always less toxic) currently-illegal drugs. And yet…
Meanwhile, am I the only person struck by how much the unfortunate girl in question looked like Amy Fisher?
Blacklake on May 13, 2008 at 7:59 PM
Wow. I have lost a lot of respect for the people on this board. Here again yet another brick in the wall of the case against criminalization of drugs, and all you people can say is. . . well, they did DRUGS! KILL THEM ALL! THEY DESERVE DEATH!
I think sharia wouldn’t be as critical. This is the police’s fault and I hope the family of the victim sues the crap out of the city for using the life of an AMERICAN CITIZEN as bait and as a pawn for MARIJUANA.
I’m shocked at the comments here. To me this is open and shut argument for why drugs should be legal, taxed, and regulated. I’m sick of people getting shot for weed. . . it is STUPID!
But I guess with the comments here, people who smoke weed (even for medicine) should be shot because it became illegal 70 years ago. Lucky for George Washington that he wasn’t shot for GROWING MARIJUANA. . . otherwise this country may never have been founded for you people to pass such critical judgment on not only fellow Americans, but for HUMAN BEINGS.
I can’t fathom how you people figure the cops didn’t do anything wrong here.
ThackerAgency on May 13, 2008 at 8:11 PM
Easy pardner….that GW grass was for hemp rope, which used to be one of the major exports of the U.S. during the age of sail.
That said…the cops blew it. If the plan went south it was their responsibility to regain control of the situation.
Limerick on May 13, 2008 at 8:19 PM
I may of missed something. Who’s rights did this women violate that made it okay to violate her rights by forcing her into either jail or acting as an informant?
I don’t know, but I think we can all be grateful for the drug war saving so many lives.
And Ed, should Muslims who want to convert in Muslim countries just obey they law and not worry? What about Egyptian bloggers?
Sorry to bring up such silly questions. By the way, if you ever want to smoke cloves or another flavored cigarette, hurry up, or you may end up like this woman.
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 8:40 PM
I think a lot of people are missing the They told her not to go thing. I mean how much back up can they provide her when she goes into a location that they haven’t set up? They should have wired her? Ummm that’s the best way to get her shot.
- The Cat
P.S. Watch more COPS
MirCat on May 13, 2008 at 8:43 PM
P.P.S. Hearing her over said wire wouldn’t help also because They weren’t at the location they told her not to go to.
MirCat on May 13, 2008 at 8:44 PM
We don’t know what the long-term effects of cocaine or marijuana though its being studied. As for alcohol its been imbibed by 9/10ths of the adult population of the West for several centuries. We know the short term effects, the long term effects. Doctors can tell you exactly how many units of alcohol to drink a week. The Bible also comments on the matter. Can the same be said of cocaine of marijuania of which the effects on the brain are not fully known? No. Prohibition on alcohol and the illegality of narcotics is totally different and the recognition of this is near universal in the world.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 8:50 PM
“In a word. No. The prison sentence was a forgone conclusion. No one forced her to do anything. She chose to take the deal offered hoping that she could get her sentence reduced.
Oldnuke on May 13, 2008 at 6:18 PM”
If I give a woman the choice to either have sex with me or spend 10 years in my basement, will you back me up when she claims she was forced?
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 8:54 PM
If I give a woman the choice to either have sex with me or spend 10 years in my basement, will you back me up when she claims she was forced?
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 8:54 PM
Straw meet Man.
- The Cat
P.S.
We don’t know the long term effects!? Just look at any stoner or crackwhore.
MirCat on May 13, 2008 at 9:01 PM
“Can the same be said of cocaine of marijuania of which the effects on the brain are not fully known? No. Prohibition on alcohol and the illegality of narcotics is totally different and the recognition of this is near universal in the world.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 8:50 PM”
Really? So what are the things we need to determine in order to make the prohibition of cocaine and marijuana the same as alcohol. In the case of marijuana, I guess it’s the one elusive case of someone dying from an overdose?
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 9:03 PM
Live a thug’s life…die a thug’s death. Like the boss would say…boo frickin’ hoo.
DanKenton on May 13, 2008 at 9:05 PM
scotta until your perfect libertarian society comes about civillised countries (not counting Iran) will enforce laws that protect the overall good of society, not just the freedom or anyone to do whatever they feel like unless it can be proved have to directly infringed on someone else’s rights.
The late Pim Fortuyn wanted to lower the age of consensual sex to 14. He said he had had sex when he was 14 and it didn’t do him any harm - he enjoyed it - so why not lower the age for all 14 year olds?
This is a man who, if he had not been murdered, would have been elected the Prime Minister of Holland - a country which have legal prostitution and soft drug use. (He was way ahead in the polls and murdered a few days before the 2002 elections.)
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 9:06 PM
“We don’t know the long term effects!? Just look at any stoner or crackwhore.
MirCat on May 13, 2008 at 9:01 PM”
Nuance.
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 9:06 PM
I calls ‘em how I sees ‘em
- The Cat
P.S. I’ve known toooo many stoners. Crackwhores not so much.
MirCat on May 13, 2008 at 9:13 PM
Aengus,
I don’t see the point of the last couple paragraphs, but the next time you hear about an Egyptian blogger sent to jail, or a gay person executed in an Islamic country, remember:
“scotta until your perfect libertarian society comes about civillised countries (not counting Iran) will enforce laws that protect the overall good of society, not just the freedom or anyone to do whatever they feel like unless it can be proved have to directly infringed on someone else’s rights”
You won’t have to remember it, actually, because the respective governments that engage in these actions will repeat it for you.
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 9:14 PM
A.S. Was responding to your earlier comments above and am now responding to your 9:03 PM comment
[I assume this is what you meant to say]
Aside from centuries of use to allow our bodies to become genetically accustomed to these drugs? Extensive studies that prove they have no ill long-term effects. Not that you have to accept my criteria. But I think if you were legalise both will-nilly tomorrow you’d run the risk of completely destroying society. Since people started using these drugs en masse in the 1970s they have created so many problems.
The destruction of the black community in the US for one, which is often attributed to “racism”. Sometimes people like Rev. Wright will go further and say that the CIA flooded the ghettoes with drugs which at is least “getting warm” in terms of locating the problem.
When British colonists wanted to conquer a land they would often flood the place with alcohol when they knew the native inhabitants had no experience of it. They did this to the Irish, the Indian tribes of North America and to many African tribes.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 9:15 PM
I already told you that I was only talking about civillised countries - just because Islamic governments engage in savagery has no bearing on anything I’m saying.
The point of my last couple of paragraphs was to try to show you that in a country that has adopted your libertarian positions on prostitution and drug use its only a skip and a hop to legalising pederasty which, with consent, does not violate anyones rights.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Aengus,
I’m pretty sure it’s established that abusing alcohol does indeed have ill long-term effects, moreso than marijuana, less so than cocaine.
Do you think the destruction of the black community has some correlation to gang violence? How do you think gangs generally fund themselves? Somewhat the same as organized crime did during prohibition?
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 9:26 PM
Also, the false dichotomy you’ve creates between bloodthirsty tyrannies and libertarian societies free of all constraints is not good argument.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 9:29 PM
Why don’t you answer my questions? I’ll be happy to answer yours.
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 9:33 PM
I don’t know about false dichotomies, but I do know about counterproductive laws that harm more than they help, limit freedom, and make government bigger and more intrusive. And I guess I now know that legalized pot leads to legalized pederasty.
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 9:42 PM
Its established that 9/10ths of the adult populations of Western countries can enjoy alcohol in moderation and have done for centuries. If 9/10ths of same adult populations were marijuana would a society continue to function? I’m arguing that it is not established that this is the case. Since the rise of drug use en masse since the 1970s and the resultant societal problems I’d wouldn’t bet my life on it.
Its one of the crimes that has a strong correlation to gang violence yes. But they commit all sorts of crimes like gang rape, armed robbery etc. They have no self-respect. I think it may have a lot to do with family break down since the 1970s which may have something to do with the concomitant rise of drug use. (Not that I’m claiming this is the only factor.)
I think the same law of supply and demand was at work in the rough black market way of doing business but thats where the similarities end.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 9:43 PM
She was a drug dealer also and the murderers were her associates that she brought to the police.
And it also seems like the same people who are excusing her for being a drug addict are also the same kind of people who say pot is harmless. She was arrested each time for possesion of pot. She threw her life away to continue smoking and selling pot. It doesn’t sound very harmless to me.
peacenprosperity on May 13, 2008 at 9:47 PM
There is an overlap. It takes me several minutes to write a reply to one of your comments. Just be patient.
I argue that drugs should be illegal but not that the problem should be necessarily be handled by an ever expanding bureau. They should however stay illegal.
While I don’t think the laws are counterproductive I would prefer to see a moral effort like the early 20th century temperance movements. A “change of manners” or culture is less possible when lots of people like yourself don’t see anything wrong with drug use in the first place.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 9:50 PM
So if drug laws were relaxed or done away with, all these crimes that are committed to support peoples drug habits would go away? If these people could buy their drugs in a convenience store they would all suddenly become responsible hard working citizens? Sounds more then a little silly to me.
peacenprosperity on May 13, 2008 at 9:50 PM
It has the potentiality to lead to legalised behaviour of any kind that cannot be shown to directly infringe on a person’s rights as an individual.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 9:52 PM
I don’t know about 9/10, but I’m pretty sure the majority of adults in the U.S. have smoked marijuana. And given your criteria it will always be illegal, since it will never get a chance to attain that crucial balance between being abused by enough people and not causing total societal breakdown. So, yeah, we should keep busting in doors guns pointed to keep this plant from ruining society.
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM
On you’re earlier point, you’re right: We do know a great deal about alcohol. And that knowledge informs us that alcohol is a profoundly deadly and dangerous drug. Unfortunately, you grossly mis-characterize knowledge of the effects of illegal drugs–particularly, for instance, opiates (which Egyptian hieroglyphs reveal have been around roughly as long as alcohol, if not longer) and marijuana.
I daresay the only substantive difference between alcohol and heroin (though certainly not marijuana, which pales in comparison to alcohol), is that alcohol is the majority of peoples’ drug of choice (well, and granted the particulars of my example, that it has remarkable capacity to do long-term damage to multiple internal organs, rather unlike opiates).
In the end maybe all you’ve done is made the case that, once again, the global majority is simply wrong (it’s also overwhelmingly socialist, you might recall).
Blacklake on May 13, 2008 at 9:55 PM
Aengus,
Who said kids and adults have the same rights? How is that part of this discussion, and how would it not equally apply to alcohol?
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 9:57 PM
You’re pretty sure? How are your sure? I think you’re wrong so I could say “I’m pretty sure you’re wrong” but then where would that leave us? I called for extensive study not second guessing.
That was one measure of criteria I gave. The other was conclusive scientific study. Anecdotal evidence whether pro (”I’m pretty sure the majority of adults in the U.S. have smoked marijuana.”) or anti (“We don’t know the long term effects!? Just look at any stoner or crackwhore.”) is not convincing enough for me.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 10:02 PM
I’m not interested in universal standards. I was talking about civillised Western countries as I’ve said. Yes, alcohol is our drug of choice and we are genetically and culturally able to handle it.
Opium is the drug of choice for ancient Egyptians and the (don’t know what century?) Chinese. As I said upthread introducing alcohol into cultures that can’t handle it is disastrous.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 10:09 PM
Your definition of rights is basically unprincipled and so it could easily be made to apply to kids, in the case of alcohol or anything else.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM
“So if drug laws were relaxed or done away with, all these crimes that are committed to support peoples drug habits would go away? If these people could buy their drugs in a convenience store they would all suddenly become responsible hard working citizens? Sounds more then a little silly to me.”
When you artificially inflate the price of drugs, which making them illegal does, some addicts will go to extremes to pay the cost they wouldn’t have to if the drugs were cheaper. That includes prostitution. Are there still some people who would commit crimes to get drugs, sure, probably on the same level as people who steal to buy alcohol, which I can’t think is a huge problem. Really, though, the crimes I was thinking about are those related to the drug trade- fighting over turf and whatnot. The same type of thing we saw happen when alcohol was made illegal.
Also, can you imagine if the police were able to devote themselves to those things we all know are true crimes, since they violate rights, like murder, rape, and robbery? My house was burglarized about a year ago. Very possibly by people who wanted the quick cash they needed to buy drugs with artificially inflated prices. I had plenty of information for the police to go by on, including credit card use in stores with cameras, including, I think, a camera at a gas station that would have given a license plate number. The police did nothing. I’m pretty sure I’m not an anomoly, and I’m pretty sure if I told them my neighbor was growing pot, they would have reacted.
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 10:11 PM
Aengus’
My principle that adults should be left alone as long as they aren’t violating other people’s rights? Have you really engaged with me this long if you really thought that I thought sex with, say, a consenting eight year old was okay?
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 10:14 PM
If you told the police your neighbour was a burglar and he was in the possession of stolen goods they’d have jumped on that too. They are pretty successful with easy-to-solve crimes. I was burgaled also. Another time I was awoken by a man trying to (unsuccessfully) crowbar his way into my bedroom. If he was looking for money for crack my reaction is not to blame the law but question his behaviour and hope the police find him and arrest him.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 10:16 PM
Yes: drug-dealers wouldn’t have guns if they had, instead, licenses.
W-2’s, not AK-47’s.
Tzetzes on May 13, 2008 at 10:16 PM
I don’t think that you think that pederasty is okay but I think that you don’t realise that using your logic someone could make the argument that pederasty (I think age 14 is a better example as psychologically balanced people are instantly repulsed by paedophilia) is not in violation of anyones rights.
Pim Fortuyn argued that as a 14 year old he enjoyed his gay sexual experience with an older man and thus the age of consent should be lowered. He took his experience as an individual and generalised it: while it might not be appropriate for all individual 14 years olds if at least some preferred it then it is their individual choice. Thus the law should be changed to make it legally acceptable.
Now you and I know that 14-year olds do not by and large have the emotionally maturity to make that decision. WE know that because we are thinking of society as a whole and taking into account forces larger than our individual selves.
This “greater good” is not a factor of your argument. It surfaces suddenly when something you find abhorrent - pederasty - is proposed but working from your logical principles there is no concrete reason to outlaw something that does not directly impinge on an individual’s right and something that doesn’t.
This, I argue, is the flaw in your thinking. My objection to prostitution/drug use is grounded in the effect it has on society as a whole.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 10:32 PM
“That was one measure of criteria I gave. The other was conclusive scientific study. Anecdotal evidence whether pro (”I’m pretty sure the majority of adults in the U.S. have smoked marijuana.”) or anti (“We don’t know the long term effects!? Just look at any stoner or crackwhore.”) is not convincing enough for me.”
Actually, it may not currently be a majority, but I think it will be in time. It’s on the order of 80 million people over 12 in the U.S. who have smoked pot, according to the government. That’snot anectodal.
But I do need to work now. Peace out, guys. And keep fighing the good fight for smaller and less intrusive government, just small enough it can take your house and put you in prison with murderers and rapists for growing a plant in your backyard. And as you take a sip of beer, take satisfaction that people ingesting a “drug” known to be less harmful for you than your “drug” will possibly be in prison soon.
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 10:34 PM
Thats quite a lot, I agree. Good luck with your work.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 10:39 PM
Okay, this one is the last one tonight. A, kids don’t have the same rights as adults, and if I must amend my earlier statements, you can be sure that I believe society has a role in determining the time when someone reaches adulthood and is able to engage in a whole host of rights, like enter into contracts, have sex, buy alcohol, whatever. But I don’t think an adult can enter into a contractual relationship with a 12 year old, or have sex with them. Sorry if I was unclear on that.
I think a good case can be made adultery in general is more harmful than prositution to society. Should it be illegal? Should I be glad when a woman is punished in Saudi Arabia for adultery since it sends a warning to others? And really, all sex out of wedlock can lead to trouble- notably single parenthood and disease, which are pretty bad for society. Why shouldn’t we make those illegal here or be glad when we see them punished in other countries, civilized or not?
scotta on May 13, 2008 at 10:43 PM
Because adultery isn’t more harmful to society than prostitution. Not even close.
Okay I have to go to bed soon so I’m not going to get into it. I’m sure we will continue this discussion on a future thread. Goodnight.
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 10:48 PM
Death and injury rates from alcoholism, drunk driving, alcohol overdose (it seems to happen year after year at college campuses across the country) and alcohol-fueled violence (both public and domestic) would tend to indicate you’re cutting alcohol more than a few breaks. Frankly, you’re looking clear the other way.
As for your bizarre claim that western peoples are “genetically” pre-disposed to tolerate alcohol, I’d venture that my grandfather might disagree–if, like untold thousands of alcoholics before him and since, his genetic disposition towards alcoholism hadn’t killed him at an early age via scirrosis of the liver.
I think it’s safe to say you know very little about deadly and addictive drugs (alcohol most certainly included), little if any more about western society in general, and virtually nothing about addiction.
Blacklake on May 13, 2008 at 11:02 PM
people and cartels dont get killed and murder over alcohol.
blatantblue on May 14, 2008 at 12:05 AM
Follow the string of stories about these maggots killing college girls on the ABC web site, and you get to this story about the murder of Eve Carson at UNC Chapel Hill. Top student, class President, good person. Killed at random by a couple of street thugs who should have already been in jail, but for North Carolina’s liberal and chaotic criminal justice system.
But the most amazing thing in the whole story has to be that quote above, from a juror in the murder trial of a similar demon a few years ago. And now it all makes sense: why are we not doing more to help the filthy maggots who are murdering innocent girls?
Impossible stupidity. I’m guessing Obama supporter.
Jaibones on May 14, 2008 at 12:23 AM
I sometimes think satan himself is behind the ACLU. I wonder why they seem to make it their mission to protect the bad guys and attack the good ones? Boy scouts? F them, let’s sue. Druggie who doesn’t want to face the consequences of her own free actions, then refuses to follow the instructions by the police? Let’s sue in her honor! (yay) Idiotic.
TheBlueSite on May 14, 2008 at 1:13 AM
By the way- these two thugs were guys she brought to the police, as they were the deadbeats she buys from apparently. This is sort of what happens when you associate with the scum of the earth. Sorry, but it’s kind of the reason parents try to make sure their kids stay away from trash.
In the end, there’s no way to get around the fact that her actions (freely chosen) in deciding to break the law (twice that we know of) and her refusal to listen to simple instructiions by police ultimately put her in the position that lead to her death. Which is sad, but it’s true.
This could be a lesson for young people- you chose to put yourself into horrible situations when you do stuff like this, and in the real world this is sometimes the outcome.
TheBlueSite on May 14, 2008 at 1:25 AM
Let me explain to you how this works TheBlueSite. NOBODY has ever died from USING marijuana. The law is more dangerous than the drug. Maybe if you decide to study it instead of believing the propaganda that you see from the drug company protecting FDA and government you would recognize that.
Apparently being the operative word. Obviously since she smoked weed she must not be worthy of being alive, right? . . .let me explain to you how these cowboy cops work to get people to ‘volunteer’.
First it starts off by arresting someone for mere possession of marijuana (Ed recently said that he didn’t think it actually happened - well here’s a dead girl to prove that police do arrest people for mere possession).
Then they do a search with a warrant and find a minor amount of marijuana that they say is strike two and attach INTENT TO DISTRIBUTE to the ‘possession’. At that point they get you in a room in the police station HANDCUFFED WITHOUT A LAWYER and say you know you are screwed. We can really put you in jail for a long long time for what we have on you. Why don’t you tell us who your suppliers are? (Police like it when other people do their work for them). They say, ‘if you help us, we can help you. We’ll put in a good word for you, we’ll help you get jobs, scholarships. . . ‘ ALL THINGS THAT THEY CAN’T DO.
They keep you there for a while WITHOUT A LAWYER and say if you don’t help us we’ll make sure that you get put in jail for a long long long time.
She’s 23, she’s probably a pretty good kid - dead now even though you don’t care because she’s ‘just another druggie’ to you. So she agrees. Once she agrees the cops say ‘SHE VOLUNTEERED’.
Bottom line, marijuana did not kill this girl - she was killed because of the LAW. I guarantee you I would sue this police station and this city for everything they have. The law did not protect and serve this girl, they got her killed. They put her in a dangerous position because they wanted a ‘bigger bust’ on their resume.
END DRUG CRIMINALIZATION NOW! If it weren’t for the law, there wouldn’t be a problem. The people who are addicted could get treatment. The people who don’t want to do the drugs don’t have to. But it is TIME that people STOP GETTING KILLED BECAUSE OF THE DRUG LAWS! It is more rare that someone gets killed from the drugs than it is that they get killed because of the laws. This is another example.
But to you people, every one who has smoked a joint should be shot anyway. . . ‘maybe they shouldn’t have broken the law’, right Ed? Nice.
ThackerAgency on May 14, 2008 at 2:22 AM
History 101
soundingboard on May 14, 2008 at 3:50 AM
I LIVE IN TALLAHASSEE AND WE’VE BEEN FOLLOWING THIS STORY FOR OVER 2 WEEKS.
Long story short is don’t let her looks fool you. She was a big time weed & ecstasy dealer. Her friends said her apartment used to look like a 7 Eleven there were so many people in and out of there. She was so successful she was the subject of one burglary and one armed robbery last year by thugs just like the ones who killed her in the police sting. The odds are very, very good the police aren’t lying when they say she introduced her killers to them, and not the other way around.
The only reason anyone gives a crap about this case is because she’s a pretty little white girl with a college degree.
thareb on May 14, 2008 at 5:20 AM
So your premise is that if you make the price reasonable these people will discover moderation and responsibility? Sorry, that’s still pretty silly.
peacenprosperity on May 14, 2008 at 6:51 AM
She was murdered because she chose to associate with dirtbag, lowlifes. She found it exciting to wallow in the underbelly of our society. Now she is dead. No ones fault but her own.
peacenprosperity on May 14, 2008 at 6:59 AM
The talk radio station in this town is about to make me sick. Now they’ve got some dumbass ex-cop from “LEAP” (law enforcement against prohibition) arguing to legalize drugs.
I’ve been to the Netherlands where it IS legal - and life there f*cking SUCKS. Everywhere you turn around there’s some damn zombie-fied looking junkie begging for change.
Everyone in the media is being a damn chickensh*t about this story. If this had been anyone but a young white girl with a college education NO ONE WOULD GIVE A DAMN.
A drug dealer is a drug dealer period. I wouldn’t want a girl like that living in my neighborhood anymore than I would a street level thug.
thareb on May 14, 2008 at 7:45 AM
You’re nuts on all counts. It wasn’t marijuana, it was dangerous drug dealers who killed her. They are gangsters, and she chose to associate with them before she was even arrested.
And ecstasy is not marijuana, ta. You can decriminalize pot — and I think we should — but not hard drugs. These maggots will always be around, and should be treated harshly. thareb has it exactly right; this is her deal, and you are only reading about this because she acted outside of her predicted path in life.
Blond Jewish girls are “not supposed to get killed this way” in our society. Color is irrelevant; roast her killers on a spit.
Jaibones on May 14, 2008 at 10:13 AM
Plea bargains, and agreements to cooperate in exchange for leniency are contracts and their terms are governed by contract law in Florida. It seems possible here that the police were negligent in failing to tail her when she left the scene, but it’s too early to jump to conclusions.
This is a person who, as far as we know, never committed a violent crime against anybody, but was addicted to an illegal substance. She didn’t deserve to pay with her life.
SWLiP on May 14, 2008 at 11:36 AM
I live is Tallahassee as well and they are planning a “protest” this afternoon. Great more idiots on parade.
This “girl” was a drug dealer and the bloggers on the local newspaper site want the police department shut down over this. Then you have a “friend” of hers who brags about buying drugs from her but it still is the police’s fault. I cannot believe that I have to share the same air as these people.
Repubtallygirl on May 14, 2008 at 11:55 AM
Well, when you ant to do drugs, and they’re illegal, you’re going to have to associate, often times, with dirtbags, just like during prohibition.
They used to, when it was illegal. Since it was made legal, I’m pretty sure what you say is true. Seems like there’s some kind of lesson there.
I would actually say the opposite- that prostitution isn’t near as close to being as bad for society as adultery in general (which, of course, includes cheating with a prostitute). As far as single guys going to prostitutes, I just haven’t been hearing about any kind of epidemic of that, or an epidemic of problems resulting from that. But that would be included in my law against sex out of wedlock.
I don’t expect you to respond to that, because I don’t think you can in a cogent way. And reading the logic and sentiment from the people on here in favor of prohibition, I really don’t think I can convince you with a reasonable argument.
I urge you guys to think about it, though, and think about the implications of what you believe, and think about Jesus commanding the one who has not sinned to cast the first stone at the prostitute.
And please think about the principle your espousing-(other than rape, murder, robbery, etc., obviously) we should be free of government regulation and intrusion, unless what we do is sinful or counterproductive to society. Because that principle is the same one lefties espouse, and the same one Islamofascists espouse, and is essentially no principle at all, because virtually any action by the government can be justified that way including fat taxes, carbon taxes, extra taxes on cigarettes, straight-up outlawing of cigarettes, etc.
Sorry if I’m coming off as a dick here, but these are real lives we’re talking about, and real future fights we’re going to have to fight, and you’re taking away the principles we have on which to fight them. I used to be on your side on this, as did William F. Buckley, so I can’t blame you for not changing on the same schedule as me, but do please think about it. And please don’t take as long as WFB did.
scotta on May 14, 2008 at 2:55 PM
What?
Rachel Hoffman’s death is tragic, but it seems a stretch to blame the police.
and
They also didn’t force her to become an informant
and
Finally, the police told her not to change locations for the buy to protect her from harm
Oh, so that absovles them? Remember Randy Weaver? The ATF tried to “blackmail” him into being an informer too. Lucky (or unlucky I guess in the long run), he refused.
This poor girl is MOST definitely NOT the type to be running a high risk operation like that despite her history (which is as far as I can tell pretty minor in the grand scheme of things), IF this is even something (fightting drugs) is something society ought to be doing.
Do we really want the police to feel free to simply “enlist” people “who break the law” without having the prosecutors or judge, SOMEBODY WHO IS MAYBE A GROWN-UP (instead of wanna-be Rambo cops), and have them risk their lives for this “war on drugs”. Does Hot Air really think thats a good idea?
Un-fricking-believable!
I read a lot of blogs, from across the spectrum - I didn’t expect this though from Hot Air.
I’ll quote Radley Balko at http://www.theagitator.com/ -
“The first thing the Tallahassee police did after announcing that they’d found Hoffman’s body was blame Hoffman for her own death. They then said they themselves “followed all the proper protocols.” Pardon my French, but maybe that’s a good indication that it’s time to change the fucking protocols.”
I agree - its about time to change the f-ing protocols. This girl did not deserve to pay with her life for violating our inane laws on drugs!
robscottw on May 14, 2008 at 3:38 PM