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!

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.

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.

people and cartels dont get killed and murder over alcohol.

blatantblue on May 14, 2008 at 12:05 AM

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 think a good case can be made adultery in general is more harmful than prositution to society.

Why shouldn’t we make those illegal here or be glad when we see them punished in other countries, civilized or not?”

Because adultery isn’t more harmful to society than prostitution. Not even close.

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.

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.

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.

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.

ThackerAgency on May 14, 2008 at 2:22 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.

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.

Bottom line, marijuana did not kill this girl – she was killed because of the LAW.

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.

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.

So your premise is that if you make the price reasonable these people will discover moderation and responsibility? Sorry, that’s still pretty silly.

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.

scotta on May 13, 2008 at 10:34 PM

people and cartels dont get killed and murder over alcohol.

blatantblue on May 14, 2008 at 12:05 AM

History 101

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.

By the way- these two thugs were guys she brought to the police, as they were the deadbeats she buys from apparently.

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.

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.

“It really angers me. Why are we not doing more to help these young folks who are committing these crimes and have such bad records?” the juror said. “I’m in shock still. How could something like this happen — again?”

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.

scotta on May 13, 2008 at 10:34 PM

people and cartels dont get killed and murder over alcohol.

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…
aengus on May 13, 2008 at 10:09 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.

I think a good case can be made adultery in general is more harmful than prositution to society.

Why shouldn’t we make those illegal here or be glad when we see them punished in other countries, civilized or not?

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.

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

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?

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.

Thats quite a lot, I agree. Good luck with your work.

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.

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?

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.

another victim of our ridiculous drug laws

libertytexan on May 13, 2008 at 6:43 PM

Yes: drug-dealers wouldn’t have guns if they had, instead, licenses.

W-2’s, not AK-47’s.

I’m pretty sure if I told them my neighbor was growing pot, they would have reacted.

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,
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

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.