5 HPD Officers Shot

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

Okay, I know this probably won't do my karma any favors, but what is the case against Acevedo here?  I get that he got out in front of it as it it was a legit raid and the cops were injured by violent drug dealing thugs, but I think that probably says more about the information that was being fed to him by those involved in the aftermath of the raid than anything else.  I doubt he was involved in the day-to-day dealings of the narcotics unit, other than seeing their stats.  Once the real facts started coming to light, he was quick to acknowledge the fault of the officers and to start making the necessary change to ensure that this doesn't happen.  Cynics (myself included) can argue that this is all window dressing to try to get the media frenzy to blow over before he is forced out of a job.  Even still, that's more than you hear from most chiefs of police when shit like this happens.  Circling the hero wagons doesn't seem to be his top priority as much as cleaning the department and restoring public faith.

My point is that this behavior was present long before Acevedo took the position in Houston.  As far as I can tell, this is the first egregious abuse of power that has come to light under his watch and he seems to be making efforts to correct it (calling out officers misconduct, working with the DA to bring about criminal charges, calling out the POU, eliminating/severely limiting no-knock raids going forward, etc.).  He's making the right moves in my mind, with the only thing I'd ask for more of is a 3rd party investigation by the Texas Rangers.  If he can fix this issue and can drive out the bad actors in the department, I'd have to change my opinion of him as it relates to policing.

[huge 3793]

Just now, TwiceHorn said:

Eh.  While making an appearance on this thread would be a bold and brave thing, I'm not sure I'm going to fault him for not doing so.

Sorry, outrage is the only allowable response.

[hayden_horn 11362]

49 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

In Constant's defense, he laid out what should be in a narcotic search warrant:

The problem is, there was only a single "informant buy" there, and that even apparently was bullshit.  I think Constant made that post before the contents of the warrant were made public.  I imagine that he would admit that that was a suspiciously skimpy search warrant affidavit.

with all respect to constant's point of view, he didn't come in here to inform. he clearly came in to defend with the quote you've got there. he stated something as a fact that later did not come out in the wash as a fact. he did so in a very informed tone, which is very cop-like.  he did not seem to entertain the idea that the cops either fucked up or were corrupt, and ultimately, that's a bit of a microcosm of the conflict we the public have with the thin blue line.

[mycox 582]

I haven't heard much from this guy lately either

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

again - most punchable face in all of Houston

[Updawg 2266]

I can't believe that guy still has his job.
Art seems to be handling it ok except for not allowing an outside investigation.

[SHOOTER12 8800]

10 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

again - most punchable face in all of Houston

Be careful,  don't forget they're watching you....

[Huckleberry 32850]

31 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Eh.  While making an appearance on this thread would be a bold and brave thing, I'm not sure I'm going to fault him for not doing so.

I thought your claim was that you always distrust governmental authority. You've whined about how you get flamed because you are so super consistent. Here you're defending a police officer and fighting to assume that he's pure and good and defending him from others questioning his motives.

Edited February 19, 2019 by Huckleberry

[TwiceHorn 31440]

22 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

I thought your claim was that you always distrust governmental authority. You've whined about how you get flamed because you are so super consistent. Here you're defending a police officer and fighting to assume that he's pure and good and defending him from others questioning his motives.

I offered a small defense of a specific statement, not a universal one of his character or motives or of police generally or him specifically.  I take issue with your last sentence.

What I get testy about is people mischaracterizing what I said because they think they understand where I am coming from or even what I actually said, when they apparently do not.  Also being called a "troll," which is the current de rigueur for anyone espousing a view contrary to the orthodoxy and daring to persist in it. I have posted the same way on Texas boards for 20 someodd years without being called a troll.  Granted, in that interim, some of my views have changed and hardened.

I try to be consistent, I don't claim to always be.  I am, after all, human.  And some cases, like the Guyger case pit someone acting under color of government authority (Guyger) against government authority (the DPD and the Dallas County DA), and, in that case, you kind of have to root for government authority, while also being skeptical of their motives and actions.

Edited February 19, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Llano Estacado 1257]

I haven't heard much from this guy lately either

The only recent news tied to his name are Facebook posts from various other LEOs and Departments sharing his statement and thanking him for “what needed to be said”

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2652]

40 minutes ago, hopkinsnhorns said:

Okay, I know this probably won't do my karma any favors, but what is the case against Acevedo here?  I get that he got out in front of it as it it was a legit raid and the cops were injured by violent drug dealing thugs, but I think that probably says more about the information that was being fed to him by those involved in the aftermath of the raid than anything else.  I doubt he was involved in the day-to-day dealings of the narcotics unit, other than seeing their stats.  Once the real facts started coming to light, he was quick to acknowledge the fault of the officers and to start making the necessary change to ensure that this doesn't happen.  Cynics (myself included) can argue that this is all window dressing to try to get the media frenzy to blow over before he is forced out of a job.  Even still, that's more than you hear from most chiefs of police when shit like this happens.  Circling the hero wagons doesn't seem to be his top priority as much as cleaning the department and restoring public faith.

My point is that this behavior was present long before Acevedo took the position in Houston.  As far as I can tell, this is the first egregious abuse of power that has come to light under his watch and he seems to be making efforts to correct it (calling out officers misconduct, working with the DA to bring about criminal charges, calling out the POU, eliminating/severely limiting no-knock raids going forward, etc.).  He's making the right moves in my mind, with the only thing I'd ask for more of is a 3rd party investigation by the Texas Rangers.  If he can fix this issue and can drive out the bad actors in the department, I'd have to change my opinion of him as it relates to policing.

The fact be is refusing to allow an outside investigation is enough to fire him in my book. 

 

Plus he keeps on calling the victims suspects. 

[Guest Lobo]

1 hour ago, mycox said:

I haven't heard much from this guy lately either

He looks like Joe Lo Truglio with shorter hair.  And less funny.  And more murder-y.  

[Huckleberry 32850]

I offered a small defense of a specific statement, not a universal one of his character or motives or of police generally or him specifically.  I take issue with your last sentence.
What I get testy about is people mischaracterizing what I said because they think they understand where I am coming from or even what I actually said, when they apparently do not.  Also being called a "troll," which is the current de rigueur for anyone espousing a view contrary to the orthodoxy and daring to persist in it. I have posted the same way on Texas boards for 20 someodd years without being called a troll.  Granted, in that interim, some of my views have changed and hardened.
I try to be consistent, I don't claim to always be.  I am, after all, human.  And some cases, like the Guyger case pit someone acting under color of government authority (Guyger) against government authority (the DPD and the Dallas County DA), and, in that case, you kind of have to root for government authority, while also being skeptical of their motives and actions.

I appreciate the response but to be accurate you didn't simply offer a small defense of a specific statement, you also hypothesized a change of heart on his part based on new information and then defended his disappearance from the discussion and failure to actually indicate that change of heart on his own behalf.

[Brisketexan 105082]

This is only going to get worse, in two related ways.

1 -- the facts that continue to come out are going to be worse and worse.  The trajectory of such facts thus far will continue.  Things like "we're going to find out about other times he did this and people got shot" (we've already heard about one other incident....there will be more).  

2 -- the PD will successfully insulate itself from any real scrutiny or change.  They have only two plays: 1) deny everything, pin all blame on the dead "criminals."  2) if that fails, throw one cop -- and one cop only -- under the bus.  Push the narrative of "rogue cop" to avoid even the possibility of the truth of "entirely crooked system and division" coming out.  That's what we'll hear, and what will succeed.  Even though MULTIPLE cops participated in this, surely knew the plan, and frankly, their conduct for hours after the entry looks murderous as hell.....they won't answer for it.  Only the one cop will go down.  And business as usual will continue.

Take those to your bookie as a stone-cold lock.

[SquishMitten 10403]

2 hours ago, Lobo said:

"You can't control the supply the time they chose to serve the warrant."    Really?  Outstanding logic.  

To be fair, you can't. However, that should not ever be a concern. The basis for issuing a no-knock should be for places where there will undoubtedly be a large supply regardless of when they serve it. I don't like no-knocks to begin with, but if they are to be used, it should only be when there is absolute, undeniable danger to the officers who will be serving it. If you want to search a house that may or may not have any drugs in it, you aren't dealing with an exceptionally dangerous drug house that requires such extreme measures. 

There should also be a significant number of additional safeguards prior to execution...photos of the house, description of expected vehicles, etc... all verified by someone (other than the cops executing it) on-site immediately proceeding the raid. 

 

Edit to add: Just so I'm not misinterpreted, I'm saying these are my feelings on how the issuance of a no-knock should go down, if ever. I am NOT saying I believe any of this is the reality.

Edited February 19, 2019 by SquishMitten

[Player 4575]

1 hour ago, mycox said:

I haven't heard much from this guy lately either

[PilotsError 2287]

2 minutes ago, SquishMitten said:

To be fair, you can't. However, that should not ever be a concern. The basis for issuing a no-knock should be for places where there will undoubtedly be a large supply regardless of when they serve it. I don't like no-knocks to begin with, but if they are to be used, it should only be when there is absolute, undeniable danger to the officers who will be serving it. If you want to search a house that may or may not have any drugs in it, you aren't dealing with an exceptionally dangerous drug house that requires such extreme measures. 

There should also be a significant number of additional safeguards prior to execution...photos of the house, description of expected vehicles, etc... all verified by someone (other than the cops executing it) on-site immediately proceeding the raid. 

 

The cops describe ALL encounters with citizens and undeniable danger.  They'll call ANY raid undeniable danger to officers.  You can't allow them even to have a foot in the door.  Murderous gangs can't be reformed, but to play along with the game, no knock raids must be outlawed one hundred percent.  Not even an inch of wiggle room.  If anyone's response is "only in extreme circumstances" then the police will make sure every instance is an extreme circumstance.

 

[SquishMitten 10403]

Just now, PilotsError said:

 

The cops describe ALL encounters with citizens and undeniable danger.  They'll call ANY raid undeniable danger to officers.  You can't allow them even to have a foot in the door.  Murderous gangs can't be reformed, but to play along with the game, no knock raids must be outlawed one hundred percent.  Not even an inch of wiggle room.  If anyone's response is "only in extreme circumstances" then the police will make sure every instance is an extreme circumstance.

 

I don't disagree with you at all. That is how many cops seemingly view the general public. Like I said, I don't think no-knocks should exist. I also don't think they will ever go away entirely. With those two opinions in mind, I think there should be an extremely high - almost unattainable - burden for proving one should be issued, as well as on-site oversight by a third-party prior to and during execution.

[Brisketexan 105082]

2 minutes ago, PilotsError said:

 

The cops describe ALL encounters with citizens and undeniable danger.  They'll call ANY raid undeniable danger to officers.  You can't allow them even to have a foot in the door.  Murderous gangs can't be reformed, but to play along with the game, no knock raids must be outlawed one hundred percent.  Not even an inch of wiggle room.  If anyone's response is "only in extreme circumstances" then the police will make sure every instance is an extreme circumstance.

 

^^^

A reasonable approach says otherwise.

However, as noted above, the PDs have shown that they are not capable of handling a reasonable approach.  Every single interaction with another human must be presumed to be a life-and-death gunfight just waiting to happen.  Therefore, every extreme action that a cop might take is always justified.  Always.

You know a shortcut that would solve 99% of this problem?  It's an easy one: decriminalize drugs.  All of them.  End the War on Drugs.  Drugs won.

[NeverMarryAStripper 21877]

1 minute ago, Brisketexan said:

You know a shortcut that would solve 99% of this problem?  It's an easy one: decriminalize drugs.  All of them.  End the War on Drugs.  Drugs won.

Just have the President go on television and declare victory over drugs and end the war

[Texas_Rocks 346]

Yeah but it’s a lot easier to gain warrant under false pretense and then plant a larger a more incriminating piece of evidence as the house is being torn apart during the post raid search. These guys were pretty much going by unwritten procedure that’s available to bad cops when they need it. Again, this guy’s biggest mistake was getting shot/incapacitated before he had a chance to retrieve the drugs from his car and make the drop.

The drug dealer that he got the drugs from is most likely freaking out. On one hand he may come out as the only winner without this cop’s thumb on him, and then on the other hand he may be fucked as he just lost his PD protection.

What a fucking mess.

[drt 638]

22 minutes ago, Texas_Rocks said:

Yeah but it’s a lot easier to gain warrant under false pretense and then plant a larger a more incriminating piece of evidence as the house is being torn apart during the post raid search. These guys were pretty much going by unwritten procedure that’s available to bad cops when they need it. Again, this guy’s biggest mistake was getting shot/incapacitated before he had a chance to retrieve the drugs from his car and make the drop.

The drug dealer that he got the drugs from is most likely freaking out. On one hand he may come out as the only winner without this cop’s thumb on him, and then on the other hand he may be fucked as he just lost his PD protection.

What a fucking mess.

The fact that some people believe this reality of bad actors in every layer of society is preferable to a reality where drugs are legal blows my mind.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Updawg said:

I can't believe that guy still has his job.
Art seems to be handling it ok except for not allowing an outside investigation.
 

How does one get to be an entity that must authorize investigayions into its own possible misconduct?

[David Dennison 18851]

50 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is only going to get worse, in two related ways.

1 -- the facts that continue to come out are going to be worse and worse.  The trajectory of such facts thus far will continue.  Things like "we're going to find out about other times he did this and people got shot" (we've already heard about one other incident....there will be more).  

2 -- the PD will successfully insulate itself from any real scrutiny or change.  They have only two plays: 1) deny everything, pin all blame on the dead "criminals."  2) if that fails, throw one cop -- and one cop only -- under the bus.  Push the narrative of "rogue cop" to avoid even the possibility of the truth of "entirely crooked system and division" coming out.  That's what we'll hear, and what will succeed.  Even though MULTIPLE cops participated in this, surely knew the plan, and frankly, their conduct for hours after the entry looks murderous as hell.....they won't answer for it.  Only the one cop will go down.  And business as usual will continue.

Take those to your bookie as a stone-cold lock.

How effective will the inevitable lawsuits be in ferreting out wrongdoing on the part of officers and/or HPD?

[TwiceHorn 31440]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

I offered a small defense of a specific statement, not a universal one of his character or motives or of police generally or him specifically.  I take issue with your last sentence.
What I get testy about is people mischaracterizing what I said because they think they understand where I am coming from or even what I actually said, when they apparently do not.  Also being called a "troll," which is the current de rigueur for anyone espousing a view contrary to the orthodoxy and daring to persist in it. I have posted the same way on Texas boards for 20 someodd years without being called a troll.  Granted, in that interim, some of my views have changed and hardened.
I try to be consistent, I don't claim to always be.  I am, after all, human.  And some cases, like the Guyger case pit someone acting under color of government authority (Guyger) against government authority (the DPD and the Dallas County DA), and, in that case, you kind of have to root for government authority, while also being skeptical of their motives and actions.

Read more  

I appreciate the response but to be accurate you didn't simply offer a small defense of a specific statement, you also hypothesized a change of heart on his part based on new information and then defended his disappearance from the discussion and failure to actually indicate that change of heart on his own behalf.

Lol wut?  Where do you get this  about change of heart?  Perhaps there is some context I am missing here, but Constant's "change of heart," whatever that refers to, was not in my mind in any way shape or form when I posted.

He made a fairly accurate statement about search warrants generally without defending, as far as I can tell, the shitty warrant in this case, which wouldn't comply with his own standard.  I defended that statement.

I cop to defending him not coming back in here.  And I actually didn't defend it, I said I understood it. He's an OU fan/alum on a Texas board, so, really he should come back and eat a healthy ration of shit on general principles.  But I understand why he's not here for the gangbang.

I dunno, posting on a messge board is a very imperfect medium for conveying one's meaning, Perhaps we should avoid ascribing too much to all but the most obvious meanings.

Edited February 19, 2019 by TwiceHorn

[Updawg 2266]

How does one get to be an entity that must authorize investigayions into its own possible misconduct?

It's crazy. But unless pressure gets city hall to force the issue, art isn't letting anyone in on this. He wants full control.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

How do we put pressure on city hall to call in the Rangers?

[TwiceHorn 31440]

15 minutes ago, slorch said:

How does one get to be an entity that must authorize investigayions into its own possible misconduct?

And is he really the final arbiter on that?  Surely the Mayor or Council has some say if not the City Manager (is Houston a manager city?).

[elnimo 55]

We need the feds to step in.  This is way bigger than just one dirty cop.  

[Guest Lobo]

4 minutes ago, elnimo said:

We need the feds to step in.  This is way bigger than just one dirty cop.  

nm34

Edited February 19, 2019 by Lobo

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

What about the new Harris County Judge, the young democrat that just replaced old Ed Emmett?  Does she have any say on a 3rd party investigation?  I'm guessing she and her base would be amenable to the idea.

Edited February 19, 2019 by hopkinsnhorns

[Guest Lobo]

BurntEyes, not cool...please delete or edit.  

[SHOOTER12 8800]

15 minutes ago, BurntEyes said:

Twice and Huck..

If you don't mind, let's focus on the real issue here, which isn't a single Surly poster.

My anti-WOD rant is being interrupted and got dayum I like my soap box to be the center of attention.

Well, get back on it and preach on dammit!

[SHOOTER12 8800]

10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

And is he really the final arbiter on that?  Surely the Mayor or Council has some say if not the City Manager (is Houston a manager city?).

He probably isn't, and doesn't need to be.   When you control the information whoever is the arbiter will be basing their findings on the information provided them.  That's the problem with inside investigations.  Let someone else decide guilt/innocence/fault based on the information you did or did not provide.

I also think that due to the depth of the stink involved that there may very well be more than one "scapegoat" thrown under the bus.   That way, with the current public uproar over this case, the public will in the end be led to believe, "wow, they found 5, 6, 8, 15, crooked cops, they really did do a great job getting to the bottom of this".  Yay Art, keep your job, you cleaned it up.  Whereas if only 1 cop is sacrificed the public will know they just went through the motions to get it over with.

TLDR:  Outside investigation NOW, before evidence is bastardized.

[FORTY NINE TO ZERO 2652]

"No one has said Goines has reached out to law enforcement to provide information, that he hasn't been available for comment because he's incapacitated," she said. "It's not like someone's hiding information – he's been medically unavailable, and that hasn't stopped the chief of the department from making outrageous comments and I wonder if maybe a different agency should be brought in to investigate this."

 

even the dirty cops lawyer thinks there should be a 3rd party investigation. 

[Reagan1k 3024]

Has any organization that has a lengthy history of abuse of power, cover-ups, and nepotism/partisanship ever successfully performed a rigorous and honest self-investigation that was publicly revealed and fully transparent?

I'll hang up and listen.

 

[TwiceHorn 31440]

It's looking more and more like powerful police review commissions comprised mostly of civilians are going to be the only answer.

Also, I fear that this is more normal than aberrational.  There is going to be pressure to treat this as an outlier and people of all stripes are going to want to believe that.  I fear that they really shouldn't.  Law enforcement and criminal justice in this country have gone far too long without critical scrutiny.

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

And the Supreme Court has validated their expanses of power (and thus loss of civil liberties) at each and every step.  Citizens need to protest this to help return some balance to our justice system.

[Foggy Notion 1202]

3 minutes ago, Xian said:

"No one has said Goines has reached out to law enforcement to provide information, that he hasn't been available for comment because he's incapacitated," she said. "It's not like someone's hiding information – he's been medically unavailable, and that hasn't stopped the chief of the department from making outrageous comments and I wonder if maybe a different agency should be brought in to investigate this."

 

even the dirty cops lawyer thinks there should be a 3rd party investigation. 

Goines might be incapacitated now, but according to this news report that came out the next day, he was well enough to write a note and pass it to Art after being shot. He was still working the cover up while being treated at the hospital. 

https://abc13.com/hpd-chief-recalls-struggle-that-left-suspects-dead-officers-shot/5110369/

"Houston Police Chief Art Acevedo said a senior officer shot while serving a narcotics warrant at a home later passed a note to him at the hospital saying he had to jump in there when other officers were down.... According to Acevedo, once two officers were down and a third was shot, the other officers left their cover positions to pull their fellow officers out of harm's way.

The 54-year-old senior officer breached the door when he knew his partners were down.

"I had to get in there because I knew my guys were down," the officer later said in a note to Acevedo.

"That just speaks volumes as to what this man... just his courage under fire," Acevedo said of the officer.

This was the third time in the officer's career that he had been shot. He was shot before in 1992 and 1997."

[immortal13 4059]

Too bad he didn't get shot in the right place

[Brisketexan 105082]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

How effective will the inevitable lawsuits be in ferreting out wrongdoing on the part of officers and/or HPD?

They won't.  Because cases require evidence.  That's usually testimony and physical evidence.  Most relevant physical evidence has already been destroyed or tampered with, and any remaining relevant evidence will be destroyed or tampered with.  And there won't be any helpful testimony - the blue wall will go up.  They won't talk, except for the things that they can lie about and get away with.  

Omerta ain't just for the mafia.

[David Dennison 18851]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

They won't.  Because cases require evidence.  That's usually testimony and physical evidence.  Most relevant physical evidence has already been destroyed or tampered with, and any remaining relevant evidence will be destroyed or tampered with.  And there won't be any helpful testimony - the blue wall will go up.  They won't talk, except for the things that they can lie about and get away with.  

Omerta ain't just for the mafia.

So what you're saying is, fuck tha police?

[Reagan1k 3024]

21 minutes ago, Xian said:

"No one has said Goines has reached out to law enforcement to provide information, that he hasn't been available for comment because he's incapacitated," she said. "It's not like someone's hiding information – he's been medically unavailable, and that hasn't stopped the chief of the department from making outrageous comments and I wonder if maybe a different agency should be brought in to investigate this."

 

even the dirty cops lawyer thinks there should be a 3rd party investigation. 

The headline quote for that article is ironic 

Quote

HOUSTON & TEXASSUBSCRIBE

‘I feel like it’s a set-up’: Attorney for Houston cop at center of deadly raid speaks out

Keri Blakinger | February 18, 2019

 

[Brisketexan 105082]

Just now, Reagan1k said:

The headline quote for that article is ironic 

 

Well, she's not wrong.  I think maybe she has the subject and object mixed up, but she's not wrong.

[Telegraph_it 3357]

Just now, Brisketexan said:

Well, she's not wrong.  I think maybe she has the subject and object mixed up, but she's not wrong.

Or this is a set up of the initial set up. The guy who set the stage to create the initial fall guy (the one who was murdered in his house) is now being positioned as the fall guy for the set up of the original fall guy.

Or something like that. 

[Huckleberry 32850]

1 hour ago, TwiceHorn said:

Lol wut?  Where do you get this  about change of heart?  Perhaps there is some context I am missing here, but Constant's "change of heart," whatever that refers to, was not in my mind in any way shape or form when I posted.

I was referring to this post:

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

In Constant's defense, he laid out what should be in a narcotic search warrant:

The problem is, there was only a single "informant buy" there, and that even apparently was bullshit.  I think Constant made that post before the contents of the warrant were made public.  I imagine that he would admit that that was a suspiciously skimpy search warrant affidavit.

This is where you made an assumption about how Constant would now view things differently based on additional information. I think the miscommunication here was based on the fact I only quoted one of your replies in my initial snarky post but was actually replying to more than one reply's worth of content.

1 hour ago, BurntEyes said:

Twice and Huck..

If you don't mind, let's focus on the real issue here, which isn't a single Surly poster.

My anti-WOD rant is being interrupted and got dayum I like my soap box to be the center of attention.

You can't tell me what to do, copper!

[Brisketexan 105082]

3 minutes ago, Huckleberry said:

You can't tell me what to do, copper!

You'd think you'd learn....not only can he tell you what to do, he can shoot you and your dog dead, and you need to just sit back and take it.  This guy says so:

[hopkinsnhorns 533]

You'd think you'd learn....not only can he tell you what to do, he can shoot you and your dog dead, and you need to just sit back and take it.  This guy says so:

Proposal to rename Gimaldi as “Ole Beady Eyes”. All in favor?

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4975]

2 hours ago, Brisketexan said:

^^^

A reasonable approach says otherwise.

However, as noted above, the PDs have shown that they are not capable of handling a reasonable approach.  Every single interaction with another human must be presumed to be a life-and-death gunfight just waiting to happen.  Therefore, every extreme action that a cop might take is always justified.  Always.

You know a shortcut that would solve 99% of this problem?  It's an easy one: decriminalize drugs.  All of them.  End the War on Drugs.  Drugs won.

Yeah, well at least we didn't lose a war on a bunch of emus.

[immortal13 4059]

1 hour ago, Brisketexan said:

You'd think you'd learn....not only can he tell you what to do, he can shoot you and your dog dead, and you need to just sit back and take it.  This guy says so:

Fuck. This. Guy.