The War On Drugs Claims Another Life

April 13, 2012 by Kager
Filed under: News, Police, Question, Seacoast

This article was posted on LadiesInKeene.com last night regarding the standoff in Greenland, NH.

Around 6:30PM, April 12th in Greenland, NH, five police officers were seen standing on the front porch and peering into the windows of 517 Post Road. The officers were at the home to serve a ‘search warrant’ as part of a ‘drug related investigation.’ Kevin Clay from WMUR reports: “Police went to 517 Post Road and entered the home. They were confronted by an armed suspect.” A man who noticed the police officers on the porch and a cruiser on the lawn as he was driving by said that he then heard gunshots and saw police running away from the home. After the passerby pulled over to direct traffic away from that area, the cruiser went flying past him, presumably to the hospital with an injured officer.

A woman living across the street from the house said she was cleaning when she heard the gunshots and looked out the window to see four police officers running away from the house and three of them falling. More officers arrived very quickly and steadily continued arriving. The woman reported that an officer came to her daughter’s bedroom window and told her that they needed to stay in their basement. Other neighbors were told to stay in their homes and as the area was blocked off, other residents were prevented from returning home.

As of right now, the standoff is still underway: helicopters, SWAT teams, and police officers from numerous areas throughout the state are present in the area of the home. Portsmouth Regional Hospital, where the five officers shot – one who did not survive – were taken for medical attention, is swarming with LEOs from dozens of departments.

WMUR reports, “That [male] suspect and a female were still inside the home Thursday night as police tried to negotiate a peaceful resolution.”

It is very unfortunate that this incident occurred, and though many will blame the man who shot at police officers entering his home for the outcome of this interaction, he probably did not act with malicious intent. Reacting to an aggressor with force is commonly known as self-defense and generally viewed as acceptable and often applauded – unless the aggressor wears a badge or is deemed a “government official.”

Many have been conditioned to believe and accept the idea that police officers and other government officials have authority over them and that through the written word of ‘law’ and threats of imprisonment or force in other manners, it is acceptable for those with special uniforms or job titles to forcefully control the actions of others or use force to punish them for actions with which they or written ‘law’ disagree.

The officers who arrived at the home on Post Road were there to enter the man’s home without his consent, search through all of his belongings, take anything deemed ‘illegal’ if they were to find it, then try to put the man in a cage for possessing it. Although the men approaching the door of the Greenland home wore uniforms with “police” written on them and had a man in a robe also deemed to be a “government official” sign a fancy-sounding permission slip [search warrant] supposedly granting them access into another man’s home, they were there with the intent to break in to the home, steal his property, and force him into a cage.

I’m sure some will deny that police with a warrant entering a home constitutes breaking in; entering a person’s home against their wishes is breaking in. Some will say that taking items deemed to be ‘illegal’ isn’t theft, but taking somebody’s property without their permission is theft. Clearly a cell fits the definition of a cage.

Like I said, I’m sure many will blame the man who shot at police officers entering his home for the outcome of this interaction – but this could have been prevented. Due to the seemingly endless War On Drugs, a man lost his life tonight, four others were shot, and the occupants of the Post Road residence will either be killed by “government officials” trying to extract them from the home, or put in a cage for the rest of their life.

WMUR reported that the police were trying to negotiate a peaceful resolution, but peacefully is an inaccurate way to describe how this situation will end. As I just mentioned, many lives have been severely affected in a negative manner due to this interaction. Why? What did the man inside the home possess that would warrant people to come into his home and put him in a situation where he feels the need to defend himself and his property – a plant, a powder, a liquid? What drug voluntarily ingested by a person could possibly be more harmful than all the damage and despair caused by the War On Drugs?

People should be free to make their own decisions so long as they don’t initiate force on others. If people did not feed in to the idea that badges or government titles grant extra rights, this horrible incident would have never unfolded. The trauma, injuries, and death that family members of the officer and others in the community now must cope with could have been avoided. I hope this event causes people to realize the harm caused by the War On Drugs is much greater than the harm caused by voluntarily ingesting the substance itself.

If I were the man inside the home in this situation, I probably would not have reacted to the officers on the porch in the same manner that the man in his Greenland home is, but the United States Government is one of the largest criminal gangs in the world and he wanted to protect his life and his property from them. I do not advocate violence or the initiation of force, but I can not condemn a man for acting in self-defense; it makes no difference whether one is defending themselves from a random aggressor on the street or a random aggressor with a badge.

“In an ideal world, cops would do nothing except protect people from thieves and attackers, in which case shooting a cop would never be justified.” [Larken Rose from When Should You Shoot a Cop?]

bbraduma

Excellent piece, Kate. Thank you.

The police should
Despotic_Keene

”

It is very unfortunate that this incident occurred, and though many
will blame the man who shot at police officers entering his home for the
outcome of this interaction, he probably did not act with malicious
intent.”
———–

How, exactly, is it possible to knowingly shoot uniformed police officers without malicious intent?

—-

”
I’m sure some will deny that police with a warrant entering a home
constitutes breaking in; entering a person’s home against their wishes
is breaking in. Some will say that taking items deemed to be ‘illegal’
isn’t theft, but taking somebody’s property without their permission is
theft.”
—

A search warrant can involve breaking into a building. That said, there is a big difference between an illegal B&E and executing a lawful search warrant. Similarly, there is a difference between theft and a court ordered seizure of property. One involves a random person committing a crime. The other involves trained police conducting an investigation and justifying the warrant to a judge, who then determines whether or not there is enough evidence to justify forcible entry.

This post is little more than a poorly thought out apologia for cop killers. Disgusting.
- MaineShark
  
  “How, exactly, is it possible to knowingly shoot uniformed police officers without malicious intent?”
  
  Because malicious intent requires a /desire/ to cause harm. For example, when some nutcase tried to carjack me and I was forced to defend myself, I did not /desire/ to harm him. My only desire was that he stop trying to murder me. If he suffered harm as a result of my employment of the most practical available means of stopping his attack, that’s merely a side-effect of his choices, not the result of a /desire/ on my part. I would have been just as happy if he had stopped because something shiny distracted him. I was /willing/ to harm him to end his attack, but I had no /desire/ to do so.
  
  “That said, there is a big difference between an illegal B&E and
  executing a lawful search warrant. Similarly, there is a difference
  between theft and a court ordered seizure of property. One involves a
  random person committing a crime. The other involves trained police
  conducting an investigation and justifying the warrant to a judge, who
  then determines whether or not there is enough evidence to justify
  forcible entry.”
  
  “Cop” and “judge” are no different from “gang member” and “gang leader.” They have not one iota more legitimacy than any other gang.
- Despotic_Keene
  
  “Cop” and “judge” are no different from “gang member” and “gang
  leader.” They have not one iota more legitimacy than any other gang”
  
  ———
  
  FKers love to make this claim, but I have yet to hear any explanation of the reasoning behind it. Let’s see your proof.
- MaineShark
  
  Um, because they /are/ a gang? What do you want me to do, offer a list of the similarities between them and other gangs? Okay, here’s my list:
  
  100% of everything they do, is similar to other gangs.
  
  In what way do you imagine that they are at all different from any other gang?
- Despotic_Keene
  
  Explain how cops and judges are the equivalent of a street gang, FKer.
- MaineShark
  
  Already did/ As I said, 100% of everything they do, is similar to other gangs.
- Despotic_Keene
  
  Let’s try this differently-explain why the police have no more moral authority than a street gang.
- MaineShark
  
  Explain why they /would/ have more moral authority than a street gang? No one has greater or lesser rights than anyone else. “All men are created equal,” and all that.
  
  If two individuals engage in the same behavior, it has the same moral implications. “But I’m a cop!” doesn’t change that. Assault and mugging is assault and mugging, regardless of who does it.
- http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1360234408 Darryl W. Perry
  
  “One involves a random person committing a crime. The other involves
  trained police conducting an investigation and justifying the warrant to
  a judge”
  So, as long as I have a piece of paper from a man in a black robe, I can do anything I want because the man in the robe said I could?
- Jessi Elliot
  
  ….. wow I didn’t think I would have to answer a retarded question but here it goes.
  If your a Government official and the request is within the current law then yes you can have a warrant signed by the judge. Yes he is called a judge, not just a man in a robe. Anyone can be a man in a robe but it takes alot of processes to become a judge. I’m just helping you out here so you don’t sound retarded like Ian and the rest of the circus.
- MaineShark
  
  Oh, so it’s the “amount” of “processes” that matter? How many “processes” do I have to go through, to have nifty magical powers like that? If I spend 50 years carefully sewing my robe, does that count?
  
  Sorry, but no /sane/ person is going to see any difference between one psychotic gang leader, and another.
- PabloKOh
  
  Common law or statute law?
- http://www.facebook.com/jessi.elliot Jessi Elliot
  
  lol MaineShark your all like the rest of the paranoid circus freaks. theres no sense into talking sense into you, your a lost soul. Your totally right no sane person could see a difference, but you on the other hand, well lts just say your not the brightest bulb on the tree.
- MaineShark
  
  You don’t want to go down that road, kiddo. If you try and attack someone else’s intelligence, it only demonstrates that you have no capacity to actually address his arguments. And if you’re going to claim that someone else is unintelligent, and you cannot address the arguments he makes, what does that say about your /own/ intelligence?
  
  Plus, you /really/ don’t want to go down that road… you will lose… badly.
- http://www.facebook.com/jessi.elliot Jessi Elliot
  
  MaineShark your right…… I forgot to use the word delusional. I mean its like arguing with a child, he or she will never understand because they already have a severely biased point of view, then its denial, shame on you back and forth, bickering baseless opinions. But it’s your right to deny the truth, I mean by all means you live in America, and we have to put up with some of you delusional folks. However in the end only the delusional end up losing. Its adorable that you think it is I that is going to lose when you have nothing to base that on. see? it is an opinion. All I’m trying to say is that having an “argument” with a delusional person is a waste of time. the argument doesn’t change anything. In the end your just as delusional and in a deep state of denial (if not deeper) as you were in the beginning.
- MaineShark
  
  Given that you already admitted that I am “totally sane,” you’re not making much sense.
  
  Of course, since /one/ of us believes that costumes and ceremonies can render someone else the possessor of super-human rights, I think that you might need to look behind your own eyes for delusions.
  
  Sorry, no… all people have exactly the same rights. No one’s super-human. No one’s sub-human. Everyone has the same rights. So, if I don’t have the right to invade someone else’s home, or to order others to do so, then no judge does, either. All the fancy clothing and mystical ceremonies in the world cannot change that. If you believe otherwise, then you are quite clearly living in some altered state of reality which is disconnected from objective reality.
- http://www.facebook.com/jessi.elliot Jessi Elliot
  
  first of all your putting words in my mouth because I never said you were sane (typical of delusional person to insert words in someone else’s mouth). Plus there you go with your opinions of another world. I must remind you, the current planet your living on is earth. we as a people have decided on these laws and your flawed ideas of rights leaves us defenseless against crime and lawlessness. I can compare you, again, to a child complaining to his/her mother/father “well if he can do it why can’t I?” and we almost always have a perfect explaination as to why or why not. I mean, ya know, there is a reason why we call the government “Big Brother.” Because many of you delusional people act like children.
- MaineShark
  
  “first of all your putting words in my mouth because I never said you were sane”
  
  Just having fun with your statement: “Your totally right no sane person could see a difference…”
  
  No, you didn’t say I was sane. But, you flat-out admitted your own insanity, since you claim to see a difference. When an admittedly-insane individual calls me insane, I take that as confirmation of my sanity.
  
  “Plus there you go with your opinions of another world. I must remind
  you, the current planet your living on is earth. we as a people have
  decided on these laws…”
  
  In which you demonstrate your own delusions. “We” did not decide on any laws. An extraordinarily-small number of individuals created those laws. I wasn’t asked. You weren’t asked. The overwhelming majority of the population were not asked. Nor would it matter, if they had been. If one man stands upon his rights, and all of the rest of the population of the planet wants to infringe those rights, he is right and they are wrong. There is no magical number of participants in an unjust act, which can make it just. Your belief in these silly ideas of magical ceremonies that change evil into good, is just a facet of your delusional world-view.
  
  “I can compare you, again, to a child complaining to his/her
  mother/father “well if he can do it why can’t I?” and we almost always
  have a perfect explaination as to why or why not.”
  
  I do appreciate the comparison, actually. Given that your example of a “perfect explanation” involves nothing more rational than unicorns and fairy dust as an excuse, it’s quite apt at demonstrating that you are little more than an infant pretending to be a parent, as you are unable to actually articulate a rational explanation for your edicts. If my kids were to ask me such a question, I would be able to explain with careful logic, why it was the case. Of course, that’s because I would never make such an assertion unless there was a rational basis for it. As a result, my kids were more intellectually mature than nuts like you, by the time they were even three years old.
- http://www.facebook.com/jessi.elliot Jessi Elliot
  
  Damn MaineShark you love to play with sentences and twist logic don’t you?
  It must be your specialty. First you were talking about the difference in judges (“gang-leaders” as your delusional term) and now your saying I do see differences in judges? Even when I said I didn’t? if you don’t believe me read back on your insanity-driven rants.
  
  Well, regardless of your fantasies, you live on Earth here in reality. You can actually figure that out because the flawed opinions of the few, as are yours (the childish type), are disregarded. to put it simple. Opinions only get you so far but it is the facts that count. You can deny it like the delusional person you are, and say they are facts but when it comes down to it, they’re not. If they were, don’t you think this world would have changed? hell, some of these processes and statuses that you think are unfair go back ages! Don’t you think things would have changed then if the majority thought they were unfair? I must remind you again what planet you live on, and that you live in reality. Your not just arguing with me, your arguing with history, humanity, the way of life for Christ sake! All in all,your arguing opinion against fact. Facts always win. You lose.
- MaineShark
  
  You know what? I think you said that more eloquently than I could. Your inability to even comprehend your /own/ statements, your insistence that your deranged beliefs are “facts,” and your lack of comprehension of grammar and definitions speak better to the state of mind of folks like you, than anything I could write.
  
  (normally, I don’t mention grammatical errors, as you’ll note throughout this conversation, when I’ve made a point of not addressing your inability to use “your” and “you’re” correctly, but you’ve gotten to the point where you are clearly just ranting, and demonstrating the sort of linguistic failures that occur during psychotic rants, as grammar goes to hell and words are used in ways which make no sense, relative to their definitions)
- http://www.facebook.com/jessi.elliot Jessi Elliot
  
  I like how you use the “I’m a mirror, you are glue” childish technique with this argument. its quite adorable. I know your going to deny it but call it whatever you want it is what it is. But it does show you’re inability to respond to an argument with originality. Plus, when did this become English class? I love how you deny any and all fact and turn this on me…. again, its absolutely adorable.
denni04011

“he probably did not act with malicious intent”?
And you feckers don’t see any danger in drug use? We don’t need FREESTONERS doing this shite anymore. AND you have the colossal nerve to mock the police?
- PabloKOh
  
  The danger of drug use is the 5 armed men standing on your doorstep kicking in your door ready to kill you and your dog. Drug LAWS are VERY dangerous. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng6mfpZ2kR4
- Jessi Elliot
  
  Right? they’re friggin waste of souls is what they are.
http://www.facebook.com/people/Jay-Warren/1788938545 Jay Warren

You are a fckin scumbag
http://www.facebook.com/people/Danielle-Ponnwitz/1166638270 Danielle Ponnwitz

Obviously this writer is anti-government maybe even an anarchist. Yes the government does some stupid, unethical things but the home owner is in the wrong here. Yes marijuana should be legalized but that doesn’t give us smokers the right to kill other people. We should be changing laws not going on a homicidal rampage. Fellow readers, please do not let this one obviously insane Marijuana user taint your thoughts that we are all like that.
- PabloKOh
  
  I think it was steroids without a medical prescription, not cannabis.
- Jessi Elliot
  
  anarchist = propaganda
- MaineShark
  
  If armed men break down your door and threaten you, you /do/ have a right to use force (including lethal force) in self-defense.
  
  When they are members of a particular gang, it may not be the wisest choice. It almost certainly is not. But that’s only because they are gang members, and their compatriots will engage in any level of violence necessary to see you “pay” for daring to defend yourself against their fellows, like any other gang does.
- denni04011
  
  No mention was made of police DRAWN GUNS. The police had a slip of paper, and you lot think that’s a weapon? The fella that shot the police also had a weapon, pointed at the police, and deliberately KILLED another person.
  Then used it on himself. (which is good news). Bit confusing about the NONVIOLENT part, as there were no guns aimed at the KILLER, (MURDERER), just a slip of paper. Was he in danger of a paper cut?
  What Ian and his freeloaders are trying to say, all general public should be armed, so they can kIILL law enforcement off and then the FREAKEENERS can have some pot and laugh at the death of an officer. You sick bastards.
  Know it or not, which you obviously”don’t, Police are people too, which means you lot are justifying taking lives,which is VIOLENT!
- MaineShark
  
  “No mention was made of police DRAWN GUNS. The police had a slip of
  paper, and you lot think that’s a weapon? The fella that shot the police
  also had a weapon, pointed at the police, and deliberately KILLED
  another person.”
  
  Your claim is asinine. If they just had paper to deliver, they could have mailed it to him; they do that on a regular basis. If it was in-hand service of a lawsuit or something, it would have been served by a sheriff, because that’s who serves papers in NH.
  
  You don’t show up with a third of a dozen armed men who have a history of violence and bang on someone’s door so you can have a polite conversation over a cup of tea. They were there to physically force their way into his house and attack him. If he resisted, they would escalate the attack until they murdered him.
  
  “Know it or not, which you obviously”don’t, Police are people too, which
  means you lot are justifying taking lives,which is VIOLENT!”
  
  What’s your point? Self-defense is, by definition, violent. It’s still /justified/ violence. If someone else attacks you, or threatens to do so, and he’s carrying a deadly weapon, you are justified in defending yourself from his attack. Costumes and tin badges don’t change that moral principle.
  
  I certainly would have preferred if he had chosen a different path, but that doesn’t change the fact that the police instigated the situation, and the results derive from the choices they made. I wouldn’t have done what he did. Most folks who post here regularly would not have done what he did. But it’s a predictable result of going around attacking folks on a daily basis, that /some/ percentage of them will fight back.
C0ast

The Chief of Police in Greenland, NH:
“Was responding to a call for shots fired. When he was shot right near his vehicle and that’s when he was killed. He did not even know that this Raid was going on. The raid according to sources was being done by officers outside the Greenland police department and The Chief again, did not even know the raid was going on.” LIVE video/audio feed “Officers Ambushed.” via on scene reporter, Victoria Block. Anchorwomen: Kim Khazei & Christa Delcamp. 7News First at 4PM. NBC. WHDH, Boston, Massachusetts, Channel 7. 13 April 2012.
- denni04011
  
  ”The raid according to sources”…… which sources?
PabloKOh

“Policemen would not bust down a door and immediately start shooting
anything in sight, unless they feel their life is in danger. “ Except dogs running away from them, right? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng6mfpZ2kR4
YOU LIE!
Mekayla lagerberg

Seriously it is pathetic that you feel the need to stoop so low that you feel you have a right to critisize the police for doing their jobs. One, drugs are illegal so if you plan on using them you should accept the consiquence that come with them. Second, I believe that you shouldnt fight against our government unless you have truely seen how other governments are compared to us. If you even spoke the way you do in other countries such as Afghanistan or Iraq you would get shot in an instant without any thought. The fact that you have a right to speak the way you do makes you very lucky.