BLM citations

gawul · Post by **gawul** » Thu Sep 08, 2005 5:47 pm

quackie and i were returning to center camp after dancing at the lotus at 10:00 and esplanade. it was about 3 am i think. we were having the best time, drug-free, but with a little alcohol on board. we were hysterically laughing at nothing in particular, just very happy to be where we were as we walked across the open playa.

suddenly, out of nowhere, headlights from a suv were shining on us, and two cops pulled up beside us. instantly we stopped laughing

they asked if we knew where we were and where we were going. we answered and they drove away. the giggles started again when we decided we'd been pulled over for an LWI

laughing while intoxicated

domitron · Post by **domitron** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 12:30 am

Ingram wrote:A survey was done, of petty MJ possession BLM citations in 2004.
Of 26 issued, most paid $250. (including 4 on installment plans),
9 didn't (got a federal warrant issued), and 2 fought and
got the charges dismissed -- How they did it, will be discussed
in a couple of weeks (when they get a chance to explain it).

If these number are right, then NO ONE on here has the right to complain about BM 2005. I would estimate that as many as 25% of those on the playa took an illegal substance that would otherwise land them in JAIL. Do the freaking math man! Let's say there is 40K people there. That's about 10K people that took something. Let's say about 70% of those folks took MJ (seems reasonable to me). That's 7K people taking MJ. 26 got caught. That's like 1 in 270 people getting caught. And those that did get caught were slapped with a tiny $250 fine and people still complain? Looks folks BM is about as police-free as anyone could reasonably expect it to be. Any less police prescence and it might start to get dangerous from a fight/rape/murder/etc. point of view.

If you want to take drugs but don't want to get caught, it's pretty darned easy. Just keep them to YOURSELF in YOUR OWN PLACE. Don't go out on the playa lighting up some stinky MJ. If some guy you don't know asks you for them, just say no. The playa might be about sharing, but sharing drugs puts YOU at risk and anyone should understand that. Make some brownies if you want to get high on MJ. And as for mushies, the second favorite, eat them before you leave the camp and don't carry them on you. What's the big deal? I think people around here get too worked up about this topic. I wish that drugs were legal just as much as the other guy. And they SHOULD be legal, but the facts are in and they're not.

And if you do have to pay $250 because you were sloppy, big deal. It's a lot less damage than that FELONY with possible jail time that you'd otherwise get on the regular street, isn't it?

WebGraphics · Post by **WebGraphics** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:51 am

Okay, I only read the first page of replies, hopefully people have a chance to read this. First about the BLM suv vehicle. I was stopped once by one of these, and they asked me if I had any trinkets, hehehe. I'm pretty sure they just wanted a necklace or something.

Anyways I told them I didn't have any but I found some on the playa. I then took a postcard out of my moop bag and gave it to them. They actually thanked me!

Also someone asked what the guys who bust you look like. A couple guys got busted Monday in center camp. The officers were wearing sort of drab khaki and did not look like burners. I can't remember much else though.

dragonfly Jafe · Post by **dragonfly Jafe** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:07 am

thinkcooper wrote:...the majority I've encountered are under-utilized and bored day to day, making them extremely gung-ho to put their training into action, oft times escalating a situation to justify their involvement...

I think there is some truth to this, especially in the context of 9/11...

Junior G-man walks into the office carrying a Latte "gee Boss, where can we field test this new X9000b spectra vision telescope that we hope to use to eventually, maybe, fight the Evil Terroists with?"

Boss, leaning back on desk, looks up at map of the USA "Well Junior, pack you bags, we're going to Burningman, where the Perps are P^2 (plentiful and peacible)."

I tend to use parked cars on the Playa at night with no lights as navigation beacons when driving. This way my headlights illuminate them so bikers and other folks can see them. All in the name of safety, of course.

obscurotron · Post by **obscurotron** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:12 am

I am a lawyer, and I believe that as Burning Man participants we should start a "legal camp." We should file a class-action lawsuit that makes it expensive for the BLM to decide to violate various 4th Amendment rights in Black Rock City. Due to legal antipathy, right now the BLM is getting away with what sound like flagarent violations of statutory and constitutional rights.

What do you propose? A section 1983 class action? Something else? I don't think you'd meet the numerosity or commonality requirements for a class (11 citations, right?) certification. I'm not trying to kill the idea, but help me understand why you think a class action would be feasible in this case.

As for 4th Am. rights, I'm going to guess that it would be tough to convince a Federal or state court that the same level of a reasonable expectation of privacy that protects you in your home should apply on public lands at a public (though pay-for) event in your tent or RV. And when it comes to RV's, I'm going to also wager that the BLM and other LEOs can likely successfully argue probable cause (under the automobile exceptions/rules) in a search of that particular automobile (disregarding for now searches with consent and searches incident to a lawful arrest, including 'wingspan' searches).

However, I think it would be wise and important to make the counterargument that this is a temporary private space and that as this event is in the nature of a city (albeit ephemeral). As such, the more traditional "right to exclude" doctrine under the various reasonable expectation of privacy tests should apply in the least to tents and RV's (though mobile, the 'exigency' rationale fails here, as none of them are immediately or readily mobile). This is, after all, arguably (for the court argument) a giant 35,000 person 'hotel' in the desert for 10 days or so. And hotel 'rooms' get the same protections as your home does under the 4th Am.

It's an interesting proposition to say the least.

It's going to be a tough road, but I think it's a worthy cause. Better yet, educate Burners about what the LEO's can and cannot do in regards to search and seizure, etc. The more people who know they can reasonably say "No" to an LEO, the better off everyone is (both in the event and in the outside world).

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 10:37 am

obscurotron wrote:I am a lawyer, and I believe that as Burning Man participants we should start a "legal camp." We should file a class-action lawsuit that makes it expensive for the BLM to decide to violate various 4th Amendment rights in Black Rock City. Due to legal antipathy, right now the BLM is getting away with what sound like flagarent violations of statutory and constitutional rights.

What do you propose? A section 1983 class action? Something else? I don't think you'd meet the numerosity or commonality requirements for a class (11 citations, right?) certification. I'm not trying to kill the idea, but help me understand why you think a class action would be feasible in this case.

As for 4th Am. rights, I'm going to guess that it would be tough to convince a Federal or state court that the same level of a reasonable expectation of privacy that protects you in your home should apply on public lands at a public (though pay-for) event in your tent or RV. And when it comes to RV's, I'm going to also wager that the BLM and other LEOs can likely successfully argue probable cause (under the automobile exceptions/rules) in a search of that particular automobile (disregarding for now searches with consent and searches incident to a lawful arrest, including 'wingspan' searches).

However, I think it would be wise and important to make the counterargument that this is a temporary private space and that as this event is in the nature of a city (albeit ephemeral). As such, the more traditional "right to exclude" doctrine under the various reasonable expectation of privacy tests should apply in the least to tents and RV's (though mobile, the 'exigency' rationale fails here, as none of them are immediately or readily mobile). This is, after all, arguably (for the court argument) a giant 35,000 person 'hotel' in the desert for 10 days or so. And hotel 'rooms' get the same protections as your home does under the 4th Am.

It's an interesting proposition to say the least.

It's going to be a tough road, but I think it's a worthy cause. Better yet, educate Burners about what the LEO's can and cannot do in regards to search and seizure, etc. The more people who know they can reasonably say "No" to an LEO, the better off everyone is (both in the event and in the outside world).

~
I suggest"you"go soak your head.
BLM is BM's landlord. The rental agreement is up this year. Get your stupid ass to the town meeings. You just jump right in and tell the goverment where to get off some druggies ass. I will enjoy watching you getting laughed ou the door.

sonicchang · Post by **sonicchang** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:06 pm

i've read all the replies... and *i* certainly wasn't doing anything illegal out there, in the open or otherwise. (...) but how about the story of my friend who got busted while in his tent sleeping? the leos were wandering around our camp, looked into his tent (only the screen was zipped up), saw something they didn't like, then woke him up and convinced his half-awake ass that they had every right to search his tent. he was anything but out in the open and he hadn't done anything to attract attention. just unlucky? or violation of privacy?

domitron · Post by **domitron** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:23 pm

sonicchang, what did your friend have they didn't like? A big 4-foot bong? You have to use your head. Don't have drug paraphernalia and the like sitting around. I would even hide my vitamin pills. Some LEOs are out there just wanting to fill quota. Don’t give them a reason to suspect you and they won’t waste their time.

sonicchang · Post by **sonicchang** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 2:41 pm

he had a case of whippets on the floor of the tent, for which possession is not illegal. ( i believe?)

and yes, he should have zipped up his damn tent.

domitron · Post by **domitron** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:09 pm

From a distance whippet cartridges look just like CO2 cartridges. Any cop would know that CO2 cartridges are used in many air guns, including fully automatic pellet guns, as well as can be easily made into an explosive. I can see why a police officer might be curious if he or she saw something like that in someone's tent. I seriously doubt whippets even came to mind at first.

Mr. Mellow · Post by **Mr. Mellow** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:50 pm

ubu wrote:alot of those "dealers" are foolish kids used to financing their expeditions with some commerce. I don't condone their activities, but I would like them to know their rights..

Agreed, I don't have much sympathy for them, but ideally they should have the most rigorous legal defense they can afford so they are fully availed of their legal rights. I'm a card carrying ACLU member, too.

ubu wrote:There are courteous BLM rangers such as brlover. There are rude and presumptuous rangers such as the lot I encountered this year. Those need to be "learned" as unjon might say.

As a LEO friend of mine once said, "after a few years in law enforcement there are only two kinds of officers, good ones and complete assholes." You can't expect it to be any different at BM than it is anywhere else.

Mr. Mellow · Post by **Mr. Mellow** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 4:57 pm

[quote="tisha2"][quote="Mr. Mellow"]People, in 2004 the number of drug citations was 173. [b]In 2005 it was 11[/b], over 90% less citations. All were drug related.
[/quote]

cites?[/quote]

Mea culpa, I'll get it from where I read it and post it.

ubu · Post by **ubu** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 9:52 am

The primary issue is with Privacy. I can't condone drug use; it is illegal. But I can promote and defend Privacy. My Lawyer adviser informs me that we perhaps could begin to delineate entire camps as private-participant only-areas complete with "property lines" and signs warning non-participants that they are not welcome without warrants.

The time to complain to an LEO is long before they detain you or before they think they have pc. Give them distance, and do it calmly, and you may get leverage. They are vulnerable to the complaint of invasion of privacy because they are in fact often scoping naked ladies.

I had a complaint from the ladies in my camp area, in fact, and I acted on it. The LEOs were not too well prepared to receive a complaint, but, they were vulnerable. They saw me watching them checking out the ladies. They did not come back.

Pushing back and standing up for your rights is not for the timid. If you are afraid of your little party not continuing, you will not stand up.

If you have stockholm syndrome, you will not stand up.

madmatt · Post by **madmatt** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:17 am

I and all my camp saw hardly any cops (could be loads of undercover, who knows) or agents of any kind this year at all, and we're hyper vigilant about it. I saw I think only one bust.

In 2003, it seemed like the place was swarming with LEO vehicles of every type and jurisdiction, and several of our campmates escaped several attempted entrapment incidents. Last year, we also saw loads and loads of LEO, I read there were fewer busts.

Once again, same thing rings true every year...BE CAREFUL!!! Privacy and subtlety is where it's at.

DVD · Post by **DVD** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:31 am

deliveryboyespecialle wrote:Doesn't that knife cut both ways??

It's a shame that some people think illegal substances might be necessary at BM.

Not to criticize... I'm all for letting people have the experience they want to have... but isn't the playa experience enough of a head trip on its own?

You know, if you're being sincere with this- stuff it.

I own myself and *should* be able to do what ever I want to with me. That there is a law doesn't make the law right. It's a shame that what seem like intelligent people don't understand that.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 10:44 am

You poor drug induced assholes. No one confronted any BLM rangers. I call bull shit. If you had they would stood on the back of you lieing neck. Lawyers can armchair any thing it wont hurt them. BM is an open area. BMorg is not going to allow any interferance with the law. The best you can expect is to get your silly ass thrown out. So just rest your neck. Do your oun drugs and run the risk of getting busted.

DVD · Post by **DVD** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 11:21 am

unjonharley wrote:You poor drug induced assholes. No one confronted any BLM rangers. I call bull shit. If you had they would stood on the back of you lieing neck. Lawyers can armchair any thing it wont hurt them. BM is an open area. BMorg is not going to allow any interferance with the law. The best you can expect is to get your silly ass thrown out. So just rest your neck. Do your oun drugs and run the risk of getting busted.

Curious- could you quote someone so I can get a point of reference as to what you are talking about that is bullshit. And the Lwayers sentence- armchair what for whom? BMOrg has no control over personal interference with the local or federal authorities- if an individual refuses consent to a search that has nothing to do the BMOrg.

I really am curious about what you are getting at.

xodiamondxo · Post by **xodiamondxo** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 3:29 pm

Want to find stats on how many LEOs were on duty in BRC at a given time, and what the crime totals were. My hunch is that BRC is over-policed given its low crime rate. All hunches, would love to look at the stats, as well as cop:citizen ratio compared to other cities.

Entering the gate, I asked a greeter what the cop situation was this year. He said a BLM buddy told him there were 3X the undercover cops this year compared to last. Might explain the lower police visibilty I noticed.

Mon. or Tue. night, an attractive 20-something woman hopped on our art car and cozied up to my man. When he asked her how her night was going, she said she was looking for fun & treats. He shut the coversation down quickish. We're more guarded in our dealings with people who mention substances. Trust of and openness to strangers somewhat lower than in past years unfortunately.

Fat SAM · Post by **Fat SAM** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 4:10 pm

I tend to be more guarded with p[eople who start a conversation by asking for drugs anyway. A buddy and I were looking for a pool we had heard about near 9 and esplanade and we found one! Asked one of the people there if it was strictly a private party and he said "Yeah. Unless you can get me something cool like some ecstacy or some acid. Or some ecstacy. Or some ecstacy." Ha ha. Very fucking funny. What a cool guy. I split right then.

I didn't think he was a cop, but I would say that his burn seemed to be pretty much drug oriented and I think that's a turn-off. I don't like meeting people like that at raves, either. I think they're missing the point a little, you know?

Cops tend to be pretty beef-witted, though, in that respect, and it's a great clue. And they always want to use the latest "street lingo" that they heard at a seminar. Assholes.

I don't do drugs and I don't fault those who do...Burning Man is a great place for it. Be careful, though. I maintain firmly the position that most cops are total dicks...former high school bullies or the guys the bullies picked on. Assholes though, almost to the last one...

robwessel · Post by **robwessel** » Sat Sep 10, 2005 7:01 pm

Well, I am one of those who received a citation this year, and mine is for distribution. I have never in my life dealt drugs, though I've been an occasional user, so I'm pretty upset about the distribution charge. I have also never had a serious run-in with the cops and am a rather trusting person, so I guess I wasn't prepared for what happened to me.

This took place on the day of the burn at around 5:15 PM, right on the esplanade in front of the Gooferville camp near 9:30. I had been enjoying the music of the DJ there and was putting my water bottle into my backpack, which was in a basket on my bike, when I was approached by a young woman who smiled at me and asked if I had any "extra pot", because she and her girlfriend needed some for that night. I said that I didn't really have any extra pot, just enough for my little one-hitter. She asked if I had any back at my camp, and I said that my camp was a good distance away and that I had very little there since I wasn't that heavy a smoker. I suggested she keep asking around and that surely someone better supplied would be able to help her out. She said that she would do that but asked if I would like a hit of acid in exchange for what little I had on me. I said OK, why not. She pulled out a plastic baggie containing what looked like 3 blotter hits and a packet of rolling papers. She tore off a hit, wrapped it in a sheet of the rolling paper, and handed it to me. I put it in a pocket of my backpack, gave her the pinch of pot that I had, and we parted company.

I continued my way along the esplanade and after about 30 seconds I was swarmed by 3 or 4 LEO's. One handcuffed my hands behind my back and the others grabbed my bike and backpack, but didn't open it up. One of them, who identified himself as BLM Ranger Hall, said I was being detained under suspicion of drug-related activity and asked me for my identification. I told him I didn't have it on me. He told me that if I could not show ID that I WOULD be taken to jail. I said that my ID was in my wallet which was locked in my car, and the keys to my car were in my tent. He said he would take me to my tent to get my keys.

They put me in a van with Ranger Hall and a woman carrying a camera with a big zoom lens on it. My bike and backpack were put in another vehicle and driven off. I told Ranger Hall where my tent with the keys in it was (I was camping alone in the walk-in camping area about 50 yards out from 4:45 and Hysteria), and we drove there.

As we emerged from the van at my tentsite, my intention was to unzip my closed tent to retrieve my keys. But Ranger Hall informed me that I must remain handcuffed and by his side until a fellow officer arrived, and that this officer would retrieve my keys, because they didn't know whether I might act aggressively if the handcuffs were removed or whether I might have a weopon inside my tent. So we waited for the other officer while the woman with the camera started taking pictures of my campsite (she took pictures of all of the proceedings that followed). The other officer arrived and I told him where to find my keys, just inside the door to my tent. He opened the tent, reached inside and found my keys. He then asked me if I had any illegal drugs in there and said that I could be taken to jail and my property impounded if I refused to let him search it. I was scared and didn't want to go to jail so I told him to go ahead. After making a mess of my tent and emptying all my bags he finally found the pot that I had (maybe 1/2 of a gram), along with a bag of mushrooms (perhaps 1/4 of an ounce).

Then he was ready to go to my car (parked on Hysteria and 4:45) with my keys to get my wallet. He searched the car as well but found nothing. Then I was taken to a BLM trailer, where I sat for half an hour or so, still handcuffed. During that time they brought in my backpack, which they apparently had not searched yet, and searched it in front of me. They found the supposed hit of blotter acid but didn't seem very interested in it. (I thought that I might see the young woman who had given it to me, but she was not in the trailer, although two other handcuffed burners were brought in toward the end of my stay--I don't know what happened to them.)

They ended up writing me a citation for "distribution of a controlled substance-- "mushrooms" ". Apparently they decided I had enough to apply the distribution charge. They checked box "A" on the citation, meaning it's mandatory for me to appear
in a Reno court on a date I'll be notified of by mail.

Needless to say I feel like an idiot, set up and knocked down like a bowling pin. I would appreciate any insight into how my case is likely to play out, and advice about how best to defend myself. I suspect that the woman I met on the playa was an undercover cop but I have no proof of that, and I suppose it may not matter.

Some other questions I have: Did the BLM officers improperly threaten me when they got me to say "go ahead" and search my tent? What quantity of mushrooms must one have to be charged with distribution? I had about 1/4 of an ounce, and it was for my personal use, and I certainly had no intention of selling, trading, or otherwise "distributing" it.

ubu · Post by **ubu** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 10:54 am

unjon,

I'm afraid your credibility is nill, and your knowledge of BMorg abysmal.
Everything I am reporting is factual, and I am a teetotaler, so there you have it. You come across as an ignorant old fool who at least knows how to rig a trailer but knows little about social or political reality; about or for your fellow human you seem to have no empathy or sense.

The lawyers get their sense of where the leverage points are not from hanging out in the law library but from the actually existing sets of encounters between citizens and their servants, the leos, and the courts of law, tested every day.

unjon, please get some manners or sense or go away and crawl back into your spider hole of inarticulate bile.

Rob, you need to tell the details of your story to a lawyer. Looks like, and this is no advice, that they thought you might be a dealer instead of a merely foolish open playa trader. Good thing you did not have the mother load in your tent. Please talk with a lawyer.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:19 am

So much for that sense of community...yeah, your opinion is different than mine, your life experiences are different than mine, which means you suck. You should shut up and not express your opinions or share your life lessons. Yeah, just go back and hide under a rock somewhere.

I'm wondering if I'm in a parallel universe or something, do we attend the same event where the 10 Principles are in play?
http://www.burningman.com/whatisburning ... iples.html

You may not agree with what someone says but if you even skim over the dissenting or what you might think are totally wrong opinions sometimes there's some kernels of truth in there, or some informational gems worth picking up. Besides...today it's telling someone to shut up about the drug busts, tomorrow it will be political views, and then nobody will speak up about anything and then we're all totally fucked.

DVD · Post by **DVD** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:25 am

Kinetic IV wrote: then we're all totally fucked.

You know it's actually the fault of the Internet. Seriously. I would like to type paragraphs on the subject but it would bore most to tears to hear about the human interference with the evolutionary cycle and the internet having caused a degree of societal acceleration that humanity was not prepared to deal with... but having entropy a close cousin to evolution gives me enough pause to know that it will work it self out at some point.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:39 am

ubu, you need to give you lieing neck a rest. What your callng for is garbage. It amounts having each person that has drugs to put a sign on there tent. What's it going to read? "I have drugs, don't look in here"
.
Folks, If you bring drugs to Burning Man. Do your own drugs. Do not share, buy, sell, trade or even discuss then with any one. For everyone that comes on this board and rails against "the man" the leash only gets tighter. Do not join anyone going up on "the man". As in any game, The house always wins.

DVD · Post by **DVD** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 11:52 am

unjonharley wrote: As in any game, The house always wins.

The French and Russians might disagree with you there. But to call to attention the facade of drug 'law' only furthers to bring more attention to the fact that every single drug should be decriminalised- that I am protected under the constitution to do anything to me that I damn well please *and* that if someone can harm no one by selling me things that I will do to myself that they should be free and clear to do so.

That is not to say that if I bring harm to a person while doing a thing to myself and that thing is known to impair ability- I should be judged not only for the harm but for being under the influence of that thing while doing something that had the potential of bringing harm to someone if my ability were imparied.

Any outlawing of those things however is assinie (and simply hypocritical at this point- *especially in Nevada* since it has been proven again and agian that regulated prostitution is actually safer and cheaper for all of society- not just the parties involved in the transaction.)

So yes- talk about it. Bitch about. Find the hipocrisy in it and rail against it. We only maintain the system now- it was designed to change. It was desinged to change to our fancy- not to the house's.

unjonharley · Post by **unjonharley** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 12:11 pm

DVD wrote:
unjonharley wrote: As in any game, The house always wins.
The French and Russians might disagree with you there. But to call to attention the facade of drug 'law' only furthers to bring more attention to the fact that every single drug should be decriminalised- that I am protected under the constitution to do anything to me that I damn well please *and* that if someone can harm no one by selling me things that I will do to myself that they should be free and clear to do so.

That is not to say that if I bring harm to a person while doing a thing to myself and that thing is known to impair ability- I should be judged not only for the harm but for being under the influence of that thing while doing something that had the potential of bringing harm to someone if my ability were imparied.

Any outlawing of those things however is assinie (and simply hypocritical at this point- *especially in Nevada* since it has been proven again and agian that regulated prostitution is actually safer and cheaper for all of society- not just the parties involved in the transaction.)

So yes- talk about it. Bitch about. Find the hipocrisy in it and rail against it. We only maintain the system now- it was designed to change. It was desinged to change to our fancy- not to the house's.

I started using grass when it was free. That's before the wild suff became imbred and usless. Into the sixties with stupid people smoking it in public and running there mouth. Then.....Here come the law. Guess what tokers, You made your own bed. Now I can't use a grow light to start grass for my kitties tummy without the law looking in my window.

ubu · Post by **ubu** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:08 pm

fair enough, unjon, I think I see your perspective better with each tourette syndrome like post. I take absolutely no offence at your sputterings or your manner.

It would suffice to say that if you do act as an observer of the LEOs on or off the playa and if you try to reason with them and try to get them to respect the privacy of others, that you doubly better not be breaking the law.

There are protocols for neutral witness and there are precedents for establishing stricter privacy, that is all I am entering into the mix of ideas here.

I thank unjon for playing the stick your head in the sand side of the debate.
I don't think that the head in the sand approach is the best one for the long haul. I do think that privacy is something you can directly ask the LEOs to respect, and I honestly have done exactly that. If they then do not respect your privacy, you can lodge a more formal complaint with their superiors or with the courts, but if you begin with friendly reminders to the LEOs in the field of your rights you may just get some leverage. Your bargaining position will be severely compromised if you are breaking the law.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 1:51 pm

Criticize ideas, not people.

Yeah I'm not perfect but before anyone points the flame thrower at me, Ubu let me ask you one question. What is accomplished by comments like the "playing the stick your head in the sand side of the debate"? Or mentioning Tourette's syndrome? If one looks at the thread views for this particular thread there's a higher number of people viewing it than are posting. You don't know who else is out there in your audience and mentioning Tourette's and making comments like that may have shredded your credibility in their eyes. Bottom line of all this: a diminished message. You're trying to make a point here, a damn good one. The approach may kill it. Would you consider taking a different approach so the message stays alive and credible? Leave the Tourette's comments out of this.

ubu · Post by **ubu** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 5:05 pm

point taken, Kinetic. I try to refrain from ad hominem.

unjon has used any number of expetives to describe the lot of non-teetotalers on this thread. Fine with me, but his lack of manners and lack of attention to detail when typing do seem indicative of a lack of judgement in my mind. Either his judgement is impaired by a substance or that is his normal state? It is hard to tell and irrelevant to the weighing of argument.

As for the "head in the sand" remark; that strikes me as a fair characterization to a certain approach to encroachment on civil liberties embodied by unjons remarks that you are better not speaking up for your rights.

Fair enough. I take no offence and I doubt I offended the rather salty unjon, but my apologies if I did.

I do see evidence of an epidemic of stockholm syndrome here and other places in our great "exporting democracy" land.

Mr. Mellow · Post by **Mr. Mellow** » Sun Sep 11, 2005 9:57 pm

Kinetic IV wrote:Criticize ideas, not people. Yeah I'm not perfect but before anyone points the flame thrower at me, Ubu let me ask you one question. What is accomplished by comments like ... mentioning Tourette's syndrome?

Agreed, those of us who do suffer with Tourette's syndrome have enough problems of our own. Mentioning that a post is "Tourette's like" as part of some awkward ad honinem attack just trumpets your misunderstanding of the symptomology of Tourette syndrome.

Let me give you a little enlightenment, people with Tourette's suffer far more from people's ignorance than we do from the syndrome itself. Show some mindfulness and compassion towards your fellow man, you may be just as crippled on the inside as we are on the outside and equally deserving of understanding. Show the same compassion towards others you would desire for yourself.

BLM citations

Re: There's a Way to Deal With It

Re: Why arrest drug users at Burning Man?

Re: Why arrest drug users at Burning Man?

far fewer cops and busts this year!

Stats wanted & observations