Deliciously Disgusting

[deleted_user0]

The police wouldn't do shit just on his say-so. He needed evidence that he had been threatened. It's not like those guys scheduled a formal meeting telling him before "we are going to threaten you", so he could record it.
No, maybe he just bumped into some of that mobster's henchmen and one of them told him: hey dude, our boss said once he gets out of jail, you're fucking dead, because you turned him in to the police.

I don't know all the details, since I haven't kept in contact with this high school friend, so most of what I know is from rumours that went around our town. I was living in the capital at that time, so I had no idea what was going on there.

Moral of the story: don't get into drug dealing. There's no telling what can happen if you get in a dealers' network. So, imo, it was her fault too, she should have known better than getting caught with ecstasy pills. And she should have simply consulted a lawyer about the proposal the police made to her. She's not that innocent as you're trying to portray her. Yeah, sure, the police have been greedy and irresponsible too, because they are using informers that have no instruction, no experience in doing that shit, so they can easily get killed if they don't know what they're doing.

But according to their law, she was a criminal, she risked her life in order to save her ass and get the police the information they wanted. The whole thing blew in her face and the police were left holding the bag.

were still talking about a 17 year old child, a person not even old enough to vote, and that is still legally someone elses responsibility, up to a certain extent. yes shes not innocent, but justice is not just about being guilty or responsible etc, its also about the appropriate punishment for a crime, and there is no way that this is it.

[howlingwolfpaw]

constitution states: "freedom to pursue happiness". This nation was founded on hemp products and wasn't originally illegal. It has industrial, medicinal, spiritual and recreational purposes. It is a plant and if you don't like it so fine, but no one has the right to criminalize those people. That's when and why the constitution has provisions to overthrow itself in case of a tyrannical regime. The law is null in void under the constitution.

The consequences for pot possession are completely overblown. This is a medical issue that should be treated if anything with therapy, community service not jail and threatened to ruin their live over. How many lives have been ruined and for what? 20% of the population still uses this medicine. The drug war is only continuing because of the mass of money these drug agencies are making. These agencies should not be permitted to extort people in such a way, its despicable. Purely driven by greed and does not solve any problem, infact there is evidence they sell the products back into the black market to feed it. In a rigged economic system there will always be another person willing to step up and take that chance for easy money.

[Papist]

No, you're a bad person if you break drug laws. You don't have a right to deal pot just because you think it should be legal. As for this girl, she knew the consequences. If she didn't want to deal with the consequences of this undercover operation, she should have done her time, or, better yet, not dealt drugs in the first place.

she was 17, shes legally not even an adult. there is no way that cops should be allowed to use kids in sting operations. I'm pretty sure there are laws against that in normal countries, and if there arent in the usa, then I should really consider that you change that, because this is pure insanity.

that doesnt mean the girl didnt deserve punishment for dealing pot, but that punishment should never have been death, or even risking her life in any case. if you believe that is normal, i am sorry sir, but you are insane.

No, she wasn't 17; the article clearly states she was a college graduate, so I'm not sure where you got that number from. Also, note the part where I said she should have done her time in prison if she didn't want to risk her life. Nobody forced her to do this - she chose to of her own accord. I agree that the result was horrific, but it's not the governments choice she made an arguably poor choice and got killed because of it.

The fact is that informant missions like this are more often than not the only way to shut down illicit drug dealers and criminal groups.

[deleted_user0]

I got my number from incog lol. frigging frenchies, cant get nothing right.

but i still disagree with you, the government shouldnt be allowed to offer these kinds of deals to people. you shouldnt barter with justice, and you shouldnt play with lives of citizens, especially in dangerous circumstances and with untrained people. in my opinion, there is no way that the police didnt fail in this, not because the girl was not a criminal or whatever, but being a criminal doesnt mean that your life can be put on the line like that. the police should have known about the potential consequences and made the call, she shouldnt even have had a say in it, because the law, which you should obey as you say, says that the punishment for her crimes is so many years in jail, so there shouldnt even have been such a deal to be made in the first place. Saying that it was not the governments choice is complete bullcrap, because im quite sure that she didnt propose it on her own, and even if she did, the government agreed to it, so its coming from two sides, and the government should always be the responsible party, thats the only fucking reason they exist in the first place.

[Papist]

constitution states: "freedom to pursue happiness". This nation was founded on hemp products and wasn't originally illegal. It has industrial, medicinal, spiritual and recreational purposes. It is a plant and if you don't like it so fine, but no one has the right to criminalize those people. That's when and why the constitution has provisions to overthrow itself in case of a tyrannical regime. The law is null in void under the constitution.

The consequences for pot possession are completely overblown. This is a medical issue that should be treated if anything with therapy, community service not jail and threatened to ruin their live over. How many lives have been ruined and for what? 20% of the population still uses this medicine. The drug war is only continuing because of the mass of money these drug agencies are making. These agencies should not be permitted to extort people in such a way, its despicable. Purely driven by greed and does not solve any problem, infact there is evidence they sell the products back into the black market to feed it. In a rigged economic system there will always be another person willing to step up and take that chance for easy money.

No, "pursuit of happiness" is not in the Constitution - it's in the Declaration of Independence, not itself a governing document.

I agree that pot should be legalized, but please stop pretending that the people who are using it illegally are anything other than criminals until that time. And I'm not even going to dignify the "tin foil hat" claims at the end with a proper response; if you honestly believe that stuff about the DEA, you shouldn't be taking part in this conversation.

[Papist]

I got my number from incog lol. frigging frenchies, cant get nothing right.

but i still disagree with you, the government shouldnt be allowed to offer these kinds of deals to people. you shouldnt barter with justice, and you shouldnt play with lives of citizens, especially in dangerous circumstances and with untrained people. in my opinion, there is no way that the police didnt fail in this, not because the girl was not a criminal or whatever, but being a criminal doesnt mean that your life can be put on the line like that. the police should have known about the potential consequences and made the call, she shouldnt even have had a say in it, because the law, which you should obey as you say, says that the punishment for her crimes is so many years in jail, so there shouldnt even have been such a deal to be made in the first place.

No "lives are being played with" here You are talking as though this girl didn't have a choice, where she demonstrably did. Being an informant is also not "punishment", it is restitution. In law, there is a big difference between the two.

[deleted_user0]

Looking at the level of professionalism that comes forth in the article, I don't know what else to make of it except toying with someones life. They didnt know where she went, they lost track of her, they send someone on the first time, to make the biggest drugbuy in history in that area. with a wire in her fuckin purse... that just seems to me like a blatant disregard for someone elses life, just because she was a criminal.

whats next? we left prisoners on deathrow fight to death as restitution for their crimes? winner walks or gets only a few years instead of the death penalty.

[Dolan]

Whether she was a criminal or not is completely irrelevant to the point, as far as I'm concerned: no one should be blackmailed and threatened by the police into doing sting operations. The fact that this criminal and victim was an under-age woman guilty of a – morally speaking – hardly serious crime is equally irrelevant. It merely serves as the icing on the shitcake; she's too young to have sex or drink alcohol, but guns and coercion by authorities into suicidal sting operations is A-OK.

Oink oink oink!

The fuck are you talking about? It's your Swedish feminism talking thru you, m8.
From the article:

Rachel Hoffman, a recent college graduate who was caught with a large stash of marijuana and a few Valium and ecstasy pills. It was her second marijuana arrest.

So she was a full-grown woman, not some teen afraid her parents might find out... She was on her 2nd criminal offense, she was a recidivist, so she wasn't just fooling around with a stash of weed. She had ecstasy and valium pills too. Nobody forced her to become an informer. The police gave her a choice: you're on your second offense, you're facing 4 years in jail if you get convicted, we're offering you a deal, if you help us catch more dealers, we will recommend the prosecution to not demand maximum penalty for your crime. That's all. She was free to turn the offer down and take her chances with a lawyer, maybe she would get a suspended penalty, or she would get 1 year on parole. But she was a pothead, so I guess her brain was so fried she couldn't think straight.

Even when she chose to become a police informer, her actions were so incredibly stupid. There were 20 police agents monitoring her, while she was supposed to meet some dealers. The dealers told her they changed plans and wanted to meet somewhere else. She accepted that, the police lost her trace, and then the dealers found out she had a wire in her purse and made her unalive.
She should have never accepted a change of plans, that was a stupid move on her part, again. She just made stupid choices, one after another.

[howlingwolfpaw]

Ok you are right about my error in the constitution, to me they are bound together in the same brain file. whether or not in either document it still holds true as an unalienable right. meaning as long as it is not hurting anyone else to grow a plant then there are no laws that can be made which are valid. There is also the freedom of religion thing as the bible even states in genesis that all herbs are for us as meat. the declaration is what our countries freedoms were founded upon, the bill of rights are really mainly about legal proceedings.

there is a difference between having a choice and being coerced into a choice. Due process of the law was not followed they should have red her her rights and pressed charges. After reading up on my constitution vs declaration i find the 5th amendment interesting:

Fifth Amendment
Main article: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[79]

now lets focus on " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" She was coerced into the loss of liberty (to unwillingly snitch on others) with no due process. no files charges. There are no records of these crimes or confidential informants, the police simply find them, and black mail them into doing their dirty work.

Even the article asks if the agencies are addicted to the drug money. That they get with more arrest.
I don't have a tin foil hat, but I do have a copper pyramid wrapped with crystals!

[noissance]

You play around with drugs and die, it's on you haha.

[deleted_user0]

Whether she was a criminal or not is completely irrelevant to the point, as far as I'm concerned: no one should be blackmailed and threatened by the police into doing sting operations. The fact that this criminal and victim was an under-age woman guilty of a – morally speaking – hardly serious crime is equally irrelevant. It merely serves as the icing on the shitcake; she's too young to have sex or drink alcohol, but guns and coercion by authorities into suicidal sting operations is A-OK.

Oink oink oink!

The fuck are you talking about? It's your Swedish feminism talking thru you, m8.
From the article:

Rachel Hoffman, a recent college graduate who was caught with a large stash of marijuana and a few Valium and ecstasy pills. It was her second marijuana arrest.

So she was a full-grown woman, not some teen afraid her parents might find out... She was on her 2nd criminal offense, she was a recidivist, so she wasn't just fooling around with a stash of weed. She had ecstasy and valium pills too. Nobody forced her to become an informer. The police gave her a choice: you're on your second offense, you're facing 4 years in jail if you get convicted, we're offering you a deal, if you help us catch more dealers, we will recommend the prosecution to not demand maximum penalty for your crime. That's all. She was free to turn the offer down and take her chances with a lawyer, maybe she would get a suspended penalty, or she would get 1 year on parole. But she was a pothead, so I guess her brain was so fried she couldn't think straight.

Even when she chose to become a police informer, her actions were so incredibly stupid. There were 20 police agents monitoring her, while she was supposed to meet some dealers. The dealers told her they changed plans and wanted to meet somewhere else. She accepted that, the police lost her trace, and then the dealers found out she had a wire in her purse and made her unalive.
She should have never accepted a change of plans, that was a stupid move on her part, again. She just made stupid choices, one after another.

rofl how do you expect someone without any training whatsoever to make the right call in a situation such as that? the police never shouldve put her in that situation.
its one thing to arrest a criminal thats part of a druggang and have him inform on it, its something else to put someone in a completely foreign situation to them and expect them to act as if they are trained professionals or in their natural habitat (which is basically what you trian the professionals to do, to act as if they are at home in a situation that is unnatural to them, and guess whwat... its one of the hardest things to do as a human being).

[Dolan]

I'm not defending the police, they were obviously greedy and careless with how they organised the whole thing. There's probably a lot of stupid people who work in the police, what can I say.

She had a choice, nobody forced her to take the deal. If she was afraid she might get in trouble, then she shouldn't have taken that deal anyway. I'm sure the police must have told her something about the risks of those actions. She probably even signed something to make that deal. All in all, it's not something that could happen to anyone. If you posses drugs and that's a criminal offense in your country, then first make sure you don't get caught not even once (she got caught twice), don't get into deals with the police that could get you killed, even if you do that, don't accept any change of plans when you're dealing with druglords. Just say you don't have enough money on you or some BS excuse and scram. Run as fast as you can. If the dealers asked you to make a change in plans, it means they have something prepared or they don't trust you. On top of it all, they found her wire in her purse. There were so many lines she crossed until she got to that point, one stupid choice after another.

[Papist]

Looking at the level of professionalism that comes forth in the article, I don't know what else to make of it except toying with someones life. They didnt know where she went, they lost track of her, they send someone on the first time, to make the biggest drugbuy in history in that area. with a wire in her fuckin purse... that just seems to me like a blatant disregard for someone elses life, just because she was a criminal.

whats next? we left prisoners on deathrow fight to death as restitution for their crimes? winner walks or gets only a few years instead of the death penalty.

She made a conscious choice, and was aware of the possible ramifications of her actions. If the police messed up, that speaks to their incompetence, not to any inherent flaw in the larger informant system.

[deleted_user0]

fair enough to the first part, but the last part you are saying seems quite naive to me. how the situation appears to me is that she would have died just as well if she had not accepted the change of venue. and its not like she put the wire in the purse, i mean the police should not have been so completely idiotic to put a wire in a spot that is obviously going to get checked... but ye, ofcourse she has a responsibility too, and she was stupid, but thats exactly why the police shouldnt do these kind of things. shes not really capable of judging the danger that she was putting herself in, and the police ought to know better, thats what theyre trained for.

[deleted_user0]

Looking at the level of professionalism that comes forth in the article, I don't know what else to make of it except toying with someones life. They didnt know where she went, they lost track of her, they send someone on the first time, to make the biggest drugbuy in history in that area. with a wire in her fuckin purse... that just seems to me like a blatant disregard for someone elses life, just because she was a criminal.

whats next? we left prisoners on deathrow fight to death as restitution for their crimes? winner walks or gets only a few years instead of the death penalty.

She made a conscious choice, and was aware of the possible ramifications of her actions. If the police messed up, that speaks to their incompetence, not to any inherent flaw in the larger informant system.

if that article is true, than the police most definitely messed up, and in fact, it does show the flaw in the larger informant system, because they are taking untrained informants and put them in a situation thats not natural to them. its not like she was dealing with her normal customers and trying to get them caught red handed. No instead they put her in an entirely different situation, with people that were strangers to her and didnt trust her obviously. I'm not sure how you cannot see the flaw in that.

She did mke a conscious choice, but shes not the only one that made a choice, and shes not the one trained to actually know and fully understand the ramifactions of that choice as you put it, im pretty sure she was not aware that she put her life on the line as accutely as she did, and that she put her life in the hands of incompetent police.

to try and make an analogy, which is always dangerous, she got offered the choice to sign up for the army, and her officers then sent her into combat unarmed and without training and obviously she got killed. you just say well, it was her own choice to sign up for the army, and if her officer was so stupid to send her into combat while she wasnt ready, its just that he was incompetent, not that the army system is flawed. but the army system is flawed if that sort of thing happens systematically, which according to the article, it does.

[momuuu]

I honestly don't understand this prevailing narrative that breaking drug laws in fine as long as the drug is pot. The law is the law, and you should follow it until you get it changed.

So persuading someone to risk her life for a smaller offense is according to the law then? The police, court and thus government are at least in part responsible for her death.

[Papist]

Ok you are right about my error in the constitution, to me they are bound together in the same brain file. whether or not in either document it still holds true as an unalienable right. meaning as long as it is not hurting anyone else to grow a plant then there are no laws that can be made which are valid. There is also the freedom of religion thing as the bible even states in genesis that all herbs are for us as meat. the declaration is what our countries freedoms were founded upon, the bill of rights are really mainly about legal proceedings.

there is a difference between having a choice and being coerced into a choice. Due process of the law was not followed they should have red her her rights and pressed charges. After reading up on my constitution vs declaration i find the 5th amendment interesting:

Fifth Amendment
Main article: Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.[79]

now lets focus on " nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" She was coerced into the loss of liberty (to unwillingly snitch on others) with no due process. no files charges. There are no records of these crimes or confidential informants, the police simply find them, and black mail them into doing their dirty work.

Even the article asks if the agencies are addicted to the drug money. That they get with more arrest.
I don't have a tin foil hat, but I do have a copper pyramid wrapped with crystals!

The Declaration of Independence is not a legal document, therefore the entire first paragraph of your post is moot. But I'll respond, just to clear up some misconceptions you seem to have. You say that rights are unlimited, but this is written nowhere in any legal document. If that were the intention, it would have been directly stated (as opposed to relying on an incredible stretch of interpretation).You also appeal to the a freedom of religion, but following this strand of logic, what right CAN'T one claim under freedom of religion? Can I claim the right to carry out animal sacrifices if it's part of my faith? The answer is no, because secular law (in this case, protecting animals from abuse) has always trumped religious law. Therefore, your "smoking dope is my religious right" argument falls short as well.

Now onto the second part of your post: she was read her rights during her arrest, and she did not rue ended her right to a trial. In cases like these, the state offers a deal on exchange for not pursuing a guilty verdict (or looking for more lenient sentencing) at trial. They still charge people, read them their rights, and take them to trial. They simply agree beforehand not to pursue certain results at trial. This girl, I imagine, was offered a lesser charge if she cooperated, which is perfectly within the rights on the state. And again with the blackmail claim, lol. Repeat after me: SHE VOLUNTARILY SIGNED A DOCUMENT. SHE RETAINED THE OPTION TO DROP OUT AND GO TO TRIAL FOR THE ORIGINAL OFFENSES AT ANY TIME. SHE WAS NOT BLACKMAILED - SHE WAS OFFERED A CHOICE.

The agency has every incentive to get drug-dealing thugs off the street. They pollute our society with their filth, and I hope they rot in prison for what they have done. Anyone who makes money getting adults and children addicted to drugs deserves time behind bars.

[Papist]

I honestly don't understand this prevailing narrative that breaking drug laws in fine as long as the drug is pot. The law is the law, and you should follow it until you get it changed.

So persuading someone to risk her life for a smaller offense is according to the law then? The police, court and thus government are at least in part responsible for her death.

They didn't persuade anyone of anything, they told her the truth. They told her her, as a criminal caught in the act, she could either stand trial for possession and distribution of illicit drugs, or be an informant and get a less serious charge. Could you guys stop pretending she was "forced" to do anything here?

[noissance]

I honestly don't understand this prevailing narrative that breaking drug laws in fine as long as the drug is pot. The law is the law, and you should follow it until you get it changed.

So persuading someone to risk her life for a smaller offense is according to the law then? The police, court and thus government are at least in part responsible for her death.

They didn't persuade anyone of anything, they told her the truth. They told her her, as a criminal caught in the act, she could either stand trial for possession and distribution of illicit drugs, or be an informant and get a less serious charge. Could you guys stop pretending she was "forced" to do anything here?

Doesnt change the fact that they played mind games with her, resulting in 'coercion.'

[Papist]

No, she had two options. If she didn't want to risk her life, she should have gone to jail instead.

[momuuu]

I think that in no way is it acceptable to knowingly put someone's life at risk. But apperantly you do if the person agrees with it...

[deleted_user0]

I honestly don't understand this prevailing narrative that breaking drug laws in fine as long as the drug is pot. The law is the law, and you should follow it until you get it changed.

So persuading someone to risk her life for a smaller offense is according to the law then? The police, court and thus government are at least in part responsible for her death.

They didn't persuade anyone of anything, they told her the truth. They told her her, as a criminal caught in the act, she could either stand trial for possession and distribution of illicit drugs, or be an informant and get a less serious charge. Could you guys stop pretending she was "forced" to do anything here?

can you please stop to pretend there is only one person that was responsible for this situation? and that its normal for the police to conduct their affairs in this manner?

she wasnt forced, i doubt she was given an accurate portrayal of her situation either, nor do i think she was given proper legal council. i doubt any lawyer in his right mind wouldve agreed to this.

[deleted_user0]

I think that in no way is it acceptable to knowingly put someone's life at risk. But apperantly you do if the person agrees with it...

its acceptable if the person agrees with it, and then receives the best possible training and chance to reduce the risk as much as possible. something which obviously didnt happen here.

[zoom]

Whether she was a criminal or not is completely irrelevant to the point, as far as I'm concerned: no one should be blackmailed and threatened by the police into doing sting operations. The fact that this criminal and victim was an under-age woman guilty of a – morally speaking – hardly serious crime is equally irrelevant. It merely serves as the icing on the shitcake; she's too young to have sex or drink alcohol, but guns and coercion by authorities into suicidal sting operations is A-OK.

Oink oink oink!

The fuck are you talking about? It's your Swedish feminism talking thru you, m8.
From the article:

Rachel Hoffman, a recent college graduate who was caught with a large stash of marijuana and a few Valium and ecstasy pills. It was her second marijuana arrest.

So she was a full-grown woman, not some teen afraid her parents might find out... She was on her 2nd criminal offense, she was a recidivist, so she wasn't just fooling around with a stash of weed. She had ecstasy and valium pills too. Nobody forced her to become an informer. The police gave her a choice: you're on your second offense, you're facing 4 years in jail if you get convicted, we're offering you a deal, if you help us catch more dealers, we will recommend the prosecution to not demand maximum penalty for your crime. That's all. She was free to turn the offer down and take her chances with a lawyer, maybe she would get a suspended penalty, or she would get 1 year on parole. But she was a pothead, so I guess her brain was so fried she couldn't think straight.

Even when she chose to become a police informer, her actions were so incredibly stupid. There were 20 police agents monitoring her, while she was supposed to meet some dealers. The dealers told her they changed plans and wanted to meet somewhere else. She accepted that, the police lost her trace, and then the dealers found out she had a wire in her purse and made her unalive.
She should have never accepted a change of plans, that was a stupid move on her part, again. She just made stupid choices, one after another.

I blame OP for tricking me into thinking she was a kid. You seem to have completely ignored the first and only important part of what I said, however.

[momuuu]

I think that in no way is it acceptable to knowingly put someone's life at risk. But apperantly you do if the person agrees with it...

its acceptable if the person agrees with it, and then receives the best possible training and chance to reduce the risk as much as possible. something which obviously didnt happen here.

Well, if you mediate the risk at least somewhat and actually make clear what you're doing.

Even then it's not morally acceptable to send someone on a mission with this high of a risk tbh. Maybe if she'd been thoroughly trained.. But this is just using persons as cannonfodder almost.