And so goes the war on drugs, regardless of who gets hurt...

Hi, James.

Not speaking for anyone else, but my assertion is that Ashcrot has as little understanding of and respect for Constitutional protections as the police and the principal -- and Bush is not much better.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Dave, according to the story, the raid was conducted by the Goose Creek SC Police Department. It's time for a little persective. You used to live in the Washington D.C. area. Remember the little town of Leesburg, VA., about 35 miles to the west of D.C.? Goose Creek and Leesburg are almost the exact same size, in population.
Dave, remember the Leesburg, Police Department? Nice people, but not the troop with the biggest number of scouts, nor the greaatest amount of resourses in the campground. Get my drift?
Dave, before this story broke, do you honestly think that either Ashcroft or Bush could have told you off the top of their heads much about Goose Creek South Carolina, yet alone the Goose Creek Police Department? Yet I get the impression that some people think that Ashcroft and/or Bush had anything to do with the Goose Creek PD's actions, yet alone caused it.

Hi, J.

Ah, thanks for telling me where Goose Creek is -- I have indeed been through Leesburg. I think there used to be a restaurant there my family liked -- does "The Battle Inn" sound familiar? A web search came up empty...

Anyway, unlike some in the thread, I didn't say Ashcroft or Bush had any direct impact. But they appear to have very little regard for civil rights of the accused, and when the leadership of the country has that attitude, it percolates down.
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

when people introduce some other situation or subject that has no discernible bearing on the the present subject and act as if it does, simply because they have an ax elsewhere they want to grind on a bit more.

It's about as appropriate as blaming every person having an affair on Bill Clinton and Monica. Excessive use of police power has happened prior to Ashcroft, during Ashcroft, and I doubt will end after Ashcroft. Unless there is some direct link to Ashcroft in regards to this current school drug bust that wasn't, then it is just a useless and distracting red herring tossed into a discussion with which it has nothing to do, simply because it makes the ax grinder feel better at the time.

James,

I fully agree with DK in that what starts at the top trickles down.

Or have you forgotten already trickle down economics? Why, just the other day, many on the right were up in arms over some mini-series that was said to have portrayed their darling, Mr. trickle down himself, in a unfavorable light.

Besides, I think axe grinding is a perfectly noble profession.

Don't forget the Apostle Paul: "This one thing I do."

Tim

***
Is it your assertion that Ashcroft ordered this raid on that school?
***

It's a stretch to read that into his comments. It is more reasonable to believe that the tone of disregard for the constitutional protections that is set in the white house and justice department under this benighted administration has a tendancy to influence the behavior of police departments and prosecutors throughout the country.

Dan

but, isn't it time for you to take your head out of that dark warm place and realise that not everybody who disagrees with you is doing it for personal reasons!

any right thinking person would disagree with what you wrote, because you distorted what was written in the article!

you and your twisted mind have a history of distortion on SE, and that, along with an over inflated "I Julius" complex do nothing to improve the weather around here....

stick to the facts, stop twisting the truth, things may improve...

when you can discuss things without twisting them, maybe, just maybe, we'll have something to discuss..

but, as long as you twist and distort the 'facts' to suit yourself...

"Monique Gonzalez, a senior at the school, says she saw students during the raid running from campus, dumping drugs along the way.

"There were kids throwing pills and things in the bushes. People were taking bags out and throwing them on the ground," said Gonzalez, who was at a shopping center less than 200 yards from the school during the raid."

There were drugs, just didn't catch the kids that had them in time.

that says they searched off campus? The article says they searched one hallway frequented by black kids. That leaves a LOT of territory that wasn't searched.

Taking into account the extreme importance of the raid, it would surprise me if the officers forgot to search the surroundings...

that isn't in any reports that were linked to in this thread. None of the reports mention that they searched anywhere other than that hallway. In fact, one of the complaints was that they didn't search areas where predominantly white kids hung out so don't assume that they searched outside.

Do you think the cops did the right thing?

Maybe. Since they watched school surveillance cameras for a number of days and targeted a specific hallway, they obviously had some suspects in mind. They needed to have people immobilized quickly - people moving around when you don't know if any weapons are present is asking for an "accident". Drawing the guns is a decision that they made that could be questioned but then, I'm not a cop and I've never had weapons drawn on me during a normal day of work. If they didn't have anyone stationed outside to see who was running, that was a mistake.

Back when I was in secondary school, I was in a bar that wasn't too strict about the age limit. I was there when they got raided. 2 at the front door and an unknown number waiting outside the fire exit.

I assume that high executives from different companies do wear guns for their own safety and that can be discussed in another thread. But would you think that MAYBE it would be a good idea for the Law Enforcement to do the same to the gangsters of Enron?

Apples and oranges, red herring,...

They arrange for executives to turn themselves in at their convenience and with their lawyers. Why would you need to draw guns then? Fraud is usually not a violent crime. However, if they were raiding the post office...

You have weapons in schools, drugs in schools and youth that are not the most rational people to be making a decision on whether to pull a weapon or not. If you plan for the worst, you don't get surprised. If the police aren't ready with their weapons, then maybe a student thinks he can get away if he pulls his first. Then you have cops with weapons in a deadly situation in a hallway with innocent students. We can "what if" all day long but the end result is, the only injuries in that raid were pride and feelings. Lucky, maybe. Luck seems to favor those that have a plan. The courts will probably decide whether the force was justified.

Hi, Keith.

>>They arrange for executives to turn themselves in at their convenience and with their lawyers. Why would you need to draw guns then? Fraud is usually not a violent crime.<<
And maybe if they weren't so accommodating, it would be more of a deterrant to help prevent other executives from doing the same thing. Why should a guy who took fifty bucks from a liquor store be led away in handcuffs, while a guy who stole millions from the public and his employees is treated with kid gloves? Maybe if we started treating "white collar criminals" more like the criminals they are and less like executives, we wouldn't have so many of them! Why is it that when conservatives talk about being "tough on crime" they mean primarily minority street criminals, but they're perfectly willing to go on coddling *white* collar criminals who (individually, at least) have a much more severe impact on the economy and people's faith in "the system?" In short, why shouldn't we be just as tough on Ken Lay as on Willie Horton?
-- Dave K.
Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

Maybe nothing untoward of a violent nature happened, but your argument would justify police walking our streets with drawn guns all the time in order to insure their own safety to the maximum degree. One should not overlook the seeds of distrust and anger have been sown among the students and parents and the full fruit its harvest may not become apparent till some future time, or never even understood to have had it's roots or beginnings in the actions engaged in that day by the police.

Yes, let's be thankful no one was injured. As far as I know however, lack of injury still does not constitute justification for unreasonable force being used. What happened to the concept of only drawing a weapon in face of clear and present danger?

How many cops have died because they didn't go in with drawn guns during a routine traffic stop or a domestic dispute? Until they have complete control of the situation, the safer option for the cops is to draw their guns subject to any "rules of engagement" that they might have.

The whole episode literally reeks of police terrorist tactics against children. They are probably real proud of themselves. I can see them slapping themselves on the backsides telling how they really showed the whole town what a bunch of "real men" they are. Proud they terrorized a group of kids and having a good ol' boy laugh over it all. Jerks.

get real.........

you imply that they all rushed in there and each and every policeman decided to pull his weapon without orders........

.

Teens often have a tendency to exaggerate when telling a story to enhance it's shock value. I wonder if Miss Monique would be saying the same things in light of evidence to the contrary in a court of law or admit she embellished it a bit. Who knows? Maybe they were tossing things away just to be on the safe side, like all their lemon heads and gummy bears lest the cops thing they were designer drugs.