View Full Version : War on Drugs video you guys should watch
a completely inoffensive name
02-28-2011, 20:33
SWAT moves in to bust a "major distributor", it was just some dude (a father) with a couple of ounces of pot for his own personal use. But in the process of figuring this all out, his children had guns pointed at them and his two dogs had to be taken out. 7 shots fired for what turned out to be nothing.
The article: http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2010/09/jonathan_whitworth_sues_city_of_columbia_police_of ficers_for_shooting_pit_bull_during_drug_raid.php
The video of the incident you need to watch:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RbwSwvUaRqc
This is the War on Drugs. Killing pets and ruining families. I feel so safe.
EDIT: Guy was only fined 300 dollars for his pot possession, and when this video spread around initially in 2010, the police chief got a lot of flak. Luckily he learned his lesson, as shown in this follow up article: http://www.columbiamissourian.com/stories/2010/05/10/police-department-still-dealing-public-backlash-over-swat/
"I hate the Internet." -Police Chief Ken Burton
Oh, I guess he didn't.
Greyblades
02-28-2011, 20:53
Protect and serve huh?
Cute Wolf
02-28-2011, 20:54
well, let's be fair, use Singapore's Draconian policy
you have illegal drugs, you die
How irresponsible do you have to be as a family father to deal with shady people in order to acquire illegal substances and then store them at your home where your children live?
PanzerJaeger
02-28-2011, 23:05
This is a police issue, not so much a policy issue.
Police are unbelievably brazen in many areas of this country. Dog shootings (not to mention people shootings) are fairly common.
We ought to be more worried about what is going on in our own backyard instead of Libya or any other 'brutal regime'.
On a personal note, I would rather here a person scream in aggony than a dog. :no:
Well, drug dealers are notorious for being armed, drug addicts can infect you with nasty things etc.
Of course the police try not to get harmed themselves as well as possible, shooting a dog on sight is a bit much but I wouldn't advise anyone to wait until it's teeth are conveniently located inside their leg before they shoot a dog. The best way to avoid that your dog gets shot during a drug raid is not to have any drugs at home.
If it doesn't work and they raid your home and shoot your dog anyway for all the wrong reasons then you've got my full support.
Maybe the laws against drugs are debatable but then debate them, don't break them, in most democracies there are legal ways to bring about changes, although it may take a while or it may not work because most people disagree with you. It doesn't hurt to just accept that then.
It's not only the police who have to consider the consequences of their actions(we wouldn't really want a nanny state, would we? well, here you have the macho state), the guy who bought drugs has to do that, too, and it's no secret that drug raids in the US look like this. :shrug:
Tellos Athenaios
02-28-2011, 23:34
Rationalising this, dogs at least are mildly threatening mainly by them being unpredictable with convenient sharp teeth and a penchant for using them against strangers. Pitbulls aren't exactly bred for hideous grooming fashions, but for ripping bulls apart. So if I were a SWAT guy I can sort of see why I wouldn't be too cool about a pitbull in a situation where I think I am dealing with armed&dangerous type of situation.
Skullheadhq
03-01-2011, 01:40
why not just legalize drugs? when they are illegal, crime syndicates will took control. Why never learn from the utterly failed and terrible prohibition period?
Megas Methuselah
03-01-2011, 03:38
******* cops; they're all tainted pigs. Dirty people, they are not real human beings, no. Never. Look at their filth. Scumbags.
a completely inoffensive name
03-01-2011, 03:41
I don't understand how people are saying, "How could that guy bring a few ounces of pot into his house where he has children?" instead of asking "How did the police decide to bash down the door of a dude with a few ounces of pot thinking he was a major supplier?" Honestly, did they even look into him longer than a day or so? If a guy is a major supplier, than you would definitely know from tailing him for a month, tapping his phones etc... How did they get the impression he was supplying all of Ohio?!? They saw him buy (and not sell) and thought, this is our guy?
Samurai Waki
03-01-2011, 05:06
And this is why I never got into Prosecution, I hate dealing with Department of Justice.
Megas Methuselah
03-01-2011, 06:28
And this is why I never got into Prosecution, I hate dealing with Department of Justice.
I will echo this statement. I will never sully my purity in prosecution.
I don't understand how people are saying, "How could that guy bring a few ounces of pot into his house where he has children?" instead of asking "How did the police decide to bash down the door of a dude with a few ounces of pot thinking he was a major supplier?" Honestly, did they even look into him longer than a day or so? If a guy is a major supplier, than you would definitely know from tailing him for a month, tapping his phones etc... How did they get the impression he was supplying all of Ohio?!? They saw him buy (and not sell) and thought, this is our guy?
Maybe they only didn't find a lot because he had already sold most of his huge stash.
It remains that he could have easily prevented this by not dealing with criminals at all. It's really not that hard.
******* cops; they're all tainted pigs. Dirty people, they are not real human beings, no. Never. Look at their filth. Scumbags.
That's what people said about the native americans and it's what one could say about drug addicts and militant antifas and the like who make completely senseless rant posts on internet fora. :juggle2:
Oh wait, someone who says others aren't humans would be closer with his opinion to a fa rather than an antifa but let's not go too deep into that subject, right?* :oops:
This kind of rant isn't helping anyone and if you don't like having a police force, I hear Somalia doesn't really have one, must be pure bliss over there.
* I don't think you're either, just pointing this out.
a completely inoffensive name
03-02-2011, 00:05
Maybe they only didn't find a lot because he had already sold most of his huge stash.
It remains that he could have easily prevented this by not dealing with criminals at all. It's really not that hard.
But that isn't the point. First you try to justify the use of force after the fact by saying, well maybe he sold his stuff already. Well maybe that pedophile deleted everything before we got here, and that's why we didn't find any evidence. I guess we are still justified in our actions if we can make up a situation that explains why we didn't turn up anything?
I don't see how your second statement is of any help. You don't want SWAT to come in and use excessive force? Be a saint. There have been accounts were those that were raided had zero drugs on them and no connects with any criminal. Some drug gangs like to ship illegal drugs through fedex to random peoples houses and then tail the truck. When the package gets dropped off they steal it and the house is none the wiser. I remember reading a story where the cops figured out the first half of this plot but didn't realize the homeowners were not expecting the drugs, so they did the same thing you see in the video. Should have been more alert for packages being dropped off?
But that isn't the point. First you try to justify the use of force after the fact by saying, well maybe he sold his stuff already. Well maybe that pedophile deleted everything before we got here, and that's why we didn't find any evidence. I guess we are still justified in our actions if we can make up a situation that explains why we didn't turn up anything?
Can they raid a house without a search warrant? Can they get a search warrant without any evidence whatsoever? If they can, then your problem isn't the police but your laws and regulations or even your judges.
I don't see how your second statement is of any help. You don't want SWAT to come in and use excessive force? Be a saint.
Or choose a criminal action where the others involved in it aren't notorious for being armed to their teeth and shooting at policemen when they knock at the door. Maybe then they'll just knock at the door first. If you live in a country where not every second houseowner has a gun to shoot at intruders(which may or may not include police in their eyes) that may also help.
There have been accounts were those that were raided had zero drugs on them and no connects with any criminal. Some drug gangs like to ship illegal drugs through fedex to random peoples houses and then tail the truck. When the package gets dropped off they steal it and the house is none the wiser. I remember reading a story where the cops figured out the first half of this plot but didn't realize the homeowners were not expecting the drugs, so they did the same thing you see in the video. Should have been more alert for packages being dropped off?
And what made you believe that my statement concerning this particular raid is my opinion on each and every single police raid that ever happened in the USA?
The police make mistakes, too, they're also humans, for the grave ones they should get punished, this video is probably not one of them, they even let the little dog live because it's obviously not dangerous.
The problem is that they apparently aren't all that often punished for the really big mistakes.
I think a lot of this use of SWAT teams is to keep lists such as this one (http://www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/20/2025289/south-florida-officers-killed.html) shorter.
After reading the OP I also searched on youtube a bit about german police and drug-related raids and they seem to take a similar approach because dealing with drug addicts is freaking dangerous, I may be a bit tainted due to my own recent experience but I wouldn't want to take any risks either to be honest. Now he only had some Marihuana and wasn't dangerous and you complain that they didn't go all big brother on him to find out how dangerous he really was. Now if they had done this, hacked his computer, followed him permanently, looked through his windows with all sorts of optical equipment, tapped into his phones etc. and then not done anything because he was innocent, a lot of people would still complain that they heavily violated his privacy. So what should they do? Nothing? Then you get Fragony chiming in that police are useless anyway. :shrug:
A dog died, that's not nice, but I wouldn't see much wrong in the way the man and his family were handled, he was the suspect, they had no idea how dangerous, he was secured and searched and later sentenced and released, the mother and the boy were not harassed or hurt in any way, the big dog(s) was/were shot, the small one left alone, now that's not perfect but neither is an officer with some disease because the big dog bit him in his leg, that happening would also escalate the situation even more. :shrug:
Goofball
03-02-2011, 01:10
How irresponsible do you have to be as a family father to deal with shady people in order to acquire illegal substances and then store them at your home where your children live?
About as irresponsible as you have to be to exceed the speed limit by 30%, or to steal cable television signal, or to litter in a national park. All of those carry more or less the same penalty as having a small amount of pot for personal use. But I have heard of no cases of the above where the cops kick in your door, shoot your pets, and threaten your family with guns just to write you up a ticket. And quite honestly, posessing a small amount of pot is arguably a much more "victimless crime" than any of the offenses I just mentioned.
Rhyfelwyr
03-02-2011, 01:42
I do not know how common such incidents are, but I think it's fair enough to say that unless the police were basing their actions of some seriously bad intelligence, they were a bit excessive...
Samurai Waki
03-04-2011, 04:40
I do not know how common such incidents are, but I think it's fair enough to say that unless the police were basing their actions of some seriously bad intelligence, they were a bit excessive...
Usually cases involving the sale and/or exportation of narcotics involve months of careful surveillance, planning, and coordination. Whatever the tip-off was that this guy may be possessing or using an illegal substance and the lead-up to this incident was, it was poorly executed by the State and Officers in question. Ultimately these kind of incidents are damaging to the community at large, not only because of the cost in pursuing minor offenders, but also because shoddy police work has a subversive affect on people who would otherwise be willing to cooperate. Both the judge who issued the warrant and officers who did not properly screen the perp before an arrest was made should be reprimanded. Though I'm doubtful this will happen.
Crazed Rabbit
03-04-2011, 06:22
Actually, this sort of raid is depressingly common:
http://www.cato.org/raidmap/
Tens of thousands of raids (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6476) nationwide each year. I very much doubt the majority involve months of careful planning. I suspect the majority are on chicken **** stuff with little evidence - just some unnamed informant - as an excuse for the cops to go play dress up and pretend they're real men by breaking into the homes of non-violent offenders in the middle of the night.
In the last six months of 2009 in Maryland SWAT teams raided 804 times (http://reason.com/archives/2010/03/01/45-swat-raids-per-day), 94% just to search or serve warrants, which means only 6% were against hostile targets like bank robbers.
In 2008 SWAT teams raided the house of a mayor without even doing enough surveillance to know he was the mayor - killing two dogs who didn't attack them, one actually shot in the back -and the county sheriff insists to this day (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/18/AR2009111803872.html)that the officers were correct and followed procedure in that. Yes, moronic police work and trigger happy gunmen are correct procedure.
This is not an isolated occurrence. This is the daily, routine reality of the police and the war on drugs.
CR
And this is why I never got into Prosecution, I hate dealing with Department of Justice.
You are a good person. Ruining lives over a couple ounces of weed... it honestly boogles the mind. I'm waiting for the day until this nonsense stops, but unforunately, people like Husar make me lose faith.
Maybe the laws against drugs are debatable but then debate them, don't break them, in most democracies there are legal ways to bring about changes, although it may take a while or it may not work because most people disagree with you. It doesn't hurt to just accept that then.
The only way it will ever change is enough people vote, via direct ballot democracy, to legalize it in their state. After about 25 or states do this, the federal government will finally understand they don't have the physical manpower to enforce these laws, and legalize it. Unforunately, whenever when we try to do this (See Prop 19) the federal government threatens to take legal action and it scares people away. The feds will never touch the issue because for some reason a lot of America still thinks marijuana is crack due to years of propoganda and scare tactics, and any politician who tries to touch it instantly gets yelled at. It's a rather lousy catch 22. Legalization may come one day when I'm in my 50s or 60s, but until then, stop harassing people like the family in question, and oh I don't know, focus on real crime you ignorant fools.
Lesson learned: don't keep pot in your house in the US of A.
The only way it will ever change is enough people vote, via direct ballot democracy, to legalize it in their state. After about 25 or states do this, the federal government will finally understand they don't have the physical manpower to enforce these laws, and legalize it. Unforunately, whenever when we try to do this (See Prop 19) the federal government threatens to take legal action and it scares people away. The feds will never touch the issue because for some reason a lot of America still thinks marijuana is crack due to years of propoganda and scare tactics, and any politician who tries to touch it instantly gets yelled at. It's a rather lousy catch 22. Legalization may come one day when I'm in my 50s or 60s, but until then, stop harassing people like the family in question, and oh I don't know, focus on real crime you ignorant fools.
Yeah, but where do we end up when every individual can just decide for themselves which laws they like/adhere to and which laws they want to get prosecuted for etc.?
And noone has so far addressed my point/guess that they use SWAT teams to serve warrants because otherwise officers are often shot when they try to serve a warrant.
Neither result is pretty but that's America it seems. :shrug:
It also reminds me of the DRM debate. The violent defying of the law stance worked on the music industry so perhaps you guys just have to slaughter enough SWAT teams and the police might stop their draconian measures...
Crazed Rabbit
03-04-2011, 16:41
And noone has so far addressed my point/guess that they use SWAT teams to serve warrants because otherwise officers are often shot when they try to serve a warrant.
Neither result is pretty but that's America it seems. :shrug:
NO. Officers DO NOT get shot when they serve warrants normally. There's no evidence of that an no factual grounds for using SWAT teams instead of normal police to serve the vast majority of warrants.
It's common sense; breaking down a door at midnight, yelling and tossing flashbang grenades is far more likely to provoke a hostile reaction from whoever lives there.
CR
Megas Methuselah
03-05-2011, 08:04
That's what people said about the native americans and it's what one could say about drug addicts and militant antifas and the like who make completely senseless rant posts on internet fora. :juggle2:
Oh wait, someone who says others aren't humans would be closer with his opinion to a fa rather than an antifa but let's not go too deep into that subject, right?* :oops:
This kind of rant isn't helping anyone and if you don't like having a police force, I hear Somalia doesn't really have one, must be pure bliss over there.
* I don't think you're either, just pointing this out.
If it was such a useless comment, then why didn't you pull a page out of everyone else's book and ignore my comment? Do you honestly think you can have an effect on my manner of thinking through a mere post?
The fact remains that those cops are a complete and utter disgrace to everything they represent. They aren't worthy of this, no.
Not going to watch the video I hate it when animals get killed. But a SWAT-team over here would also kill the dogs, has nothing to do with the war on drugs itself. "A few ounces' is instant 'dealer' here by the way
Samurai Waki
03-05-2011, 13:25
I really don't hold SWAT accountable in this, they are trained to deal with high stress and dangerous situations. I do however hold the Department in question accountable, and Judge who gave the warrant. A clear distinction must be made, because I really dislike these "insta-warrants" and they are obviously being abused. Their original intent, as far as I'm aware was so that murderers, rapists, and people who needed to get taken out ASAP could be pursued without the days long delays in procedure, not so they could break into homes of minor offenders. This is obviously something that needs to be curtailed in legislation, as it gives too much power to people who could easily abuse it.
If it was such a useless comment, then why didn't you pull a page out of everyone else's book and ignore my comment? Do you honestly think you can have an effect on my manner of thinking through a mere post?
I don't know, maybe I just haven't given up hope just yet?
The fact remains that those cops are a complete and utter disgrace to everything they represent. They aren't worthy of this, no.
That seems like a long shot from calling them "not human", maybe I changed your mind a little bit? ~;)#
Also:
Why is that? Because they do what the government trained them for? I could understand what you're saying if they had beaten the handcuffed man or something like that, but they read him his rights and then took him into custody, don't see anything wrong on the side of the SWAT team, for all we know their instructions could have been: "drug dealer, possibly armed and dangerous, go in, lock down and be careful guys!".
The failure lies with the one who decided to send a SWAT team to a small time drug "abuser", if he knew the guy was relatively harmless.
So what does everybody think why they do that? Pure sadism and the entertainment value of showing the small guys how big and powerful the police is? Apparently the police officers' safety is out. If it's the sadism thing then America seems to have a big attitude problem with the police, now one could ask why this isn't the case everywhere? Why is America so inferior when it comes to law enforcement?
I also notice that here there are threads about police abuses everywhere, but when I go to this SimHQ site it's full of threads mourning the loss of police officers who were such nice and loving family fathers, really good and respectable cops and got killed by some nasty criminals. It's like two different worlds.
And I still don't get the point of all this police bashing here because people don't say what should be changed, it's ok, I got the point that police are sometimes really nasty and "ACAB" and this sort of thing, but what do you people want from me(and other readers)? To add some hatred to undermine your attitude? To call for the police to be disbanded? Or do you think the police will stop if you complain often enough on some random internet forum? :dizzy2:
Stopping the war on drugs wouldn't help if the police are a bunch of sadists, they'd just find other reasons to send SWAT teams to peoples' homes.
I really don't hold SWAT accountable in this, they are trained to deal with high stress and dangerous situations. I do however hold the Department in question accountable, and Judge who gave the warrant. A clear distinction must be made, because I really dislike these "insta-warrants" and they are obviously being abused. Their original intent, as far as I'm aware was so that murderers, rapists, and people who needed to get taken out ASAP could be pursued without the days long delays in procedure, not so they could break into homes of minor offenders. This is obviously something that needs to be curtailed in legislation, as it gives too much power to people who could easily abuse it.
Hmm, yes, this sounds very sensible, I wasn't really aware of these "insta-warrants", does the police have to present no real evidence to get them or how exactly do they make them available faster than normal warrants and why would police go for a normal one if they can get one instantly?
I know the guy who robbed me early in January was still free two weeks ago because all the things he'd done were stuck in different bureaus of the efficient bureaucracy and he had a place to live (less danger of him running away etc.) so the state attourney thought there was no need for an arrest warrant yet and police could thus not arrest him yet.
This seems gravely different from american sadists raiding the house of a small time drug user family dad and killing everything he ever loved one day after they saw him sitting next to a drug dealer on the subway. So where does this discrepancy come from? And would you prefer our system where a guy who began racking up crimes in November or so is still out and about in February because the state attourney thinks there's no good reason to arrest him yet?
PanzerJaeger
03-05-2011, 15:58
I really don't hold SWAT accountable in this, they are trained to deal with high stress and dangerous situations.
That's exactly why they should be blamed, along with the department.
It is true that the use of SWAT teams has escalated far beyond the original purpose of the units. It has gotten to the point where paramilitary forces are being regularly used against US citizens for any number of low level law enforcement activities outside the realm of crisis control.
However, these special forces dropouts might have taxpayer funded, ridiculously over stocked arsenals and body armor that would shame the Marines, but they are not soldiers – and the people they ‘engage’ are not enemies. They may be the tacticoolest operators in the department, but they still have an obligation to act as public servants.
Law enforcement is supposed to adhere to the concept of force escalation. That is, as has already been said, they are to meet force with force, not drag people out of cars (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOmc4E6bIX8&feature=related) and beat the hell out of them for traffic offenses or knock down doors in the middle of the night and start shooting things for small time drug offenses.
If police do not like the idea of working in higher degrees of danger, they ought not be in the profession. Officer safety does not justify treating the suburbs of St. Louis like the suburbs of Baghdad.
Samurai Waki
03-05-2011, 20:34
Hmm, yes, this sounds very sensible, I wasn't really aware of these "insta-warrants", does the police have to present no real evidence to get them or how exactly do they make them available faster than normal warrants and why would police go for a normal one if they can get one instantly?
I know the guy who robbed me early in January was still free two weeks ago because all the things he'd done were stuck in different bureaus of the efficient bureaucracy and he had a place to live (less danger of him running away etc.) so the state attourney thought there was no need for an arrest warrant yet and police could thus not arrest him yet.
This seems gravely different from american sadists raiding the house of a small time drug user family dad and killing everything he ever loved one day after they saw him sitting next to a drug dealer on the subway. So where does this discrepancy come from? And would you prefer our system where a guy who began racking up crimes in November or so is still out and about in February because the state attourney thinks there's no good reason to arrest him yet?
There-in lies the rub, a few years ago most judges liked the idea of having hard physical evidence (or very circumstantial evidence) before issuing the warrant, the exact law changes from state to state. These warrants were usually issued if the perp in question was a repeat offender and likely to be in violation of some law or another, it was just easier for all party's involved. What changed is that criminals are getting smarter, as they often do, and so law enforcement have to meet these new challenges even when bureaucracy moves sluggishly (as it often does). The old method of issuing warrants (such as I imagine how they are issued in Germany) simply doesn't equate to the reality in how quickly crime is being committed. The unfortunate drawback to this, is often people who are in violation of petty misdemeanors such as possession of a class two narcotic get the blunt end of the club, sloppy evidence gathering may see much of what was gained in the search warrant being tossed out as inadmissible, and the people who are being charged with the crime, the prosecutors who must put together the case, and the fact that our prisons are already over-crowded to the breaking point will see them walk even if the jury favors a harsher penalty. This doesn't add in to the fact that many of those nasty criminals, who have done much worse than smoke a few ounces of marijuana may also never see the inside of a real prison. It all ends up as a huge waste of time, money, and damage that could've been avoided had the police officer or detective done a little more real, honest, good old fashioned sleuthing. It's a judicial hem that is being tugged on by lazy police officers who want instant gratification.
Edit: As my former boss used to say "The police have all the right tools, but have all the wrong priorities. They obsess over drug users, and pretend there aren't any rapists."
Drugs is the currency of the black market, no law is going to change that. At least the relavily harmless weed and cocaine keeps them busy. Keep it as it is flawed as it may be.
@OT with a few ounces he could be in jail here, yes in the Netherlands. Certainly more trouble than a mere fine
@OT with a few ounces he could be in jail here, yes in the Netherlands. Certainly more trouble than a mere fine
If he's charged under federal law in this country, he will go to jail + pay thousands in fines.
If he's charged under state law, it varies a lot. He could get anything from a $100 civil fine, to x number of years in prison and pay thousands in fine for pot... for friggen pot. These people aren't even dealing, this is possession of marijuana for personal use... and people wonder why I'm so adamant about getting these stupid laws changed.
A few years back the cops did a late-night no-knock raid on a guy's home near Montreal. Long story short, the guy wakes up because his daughter is screaming that there are men in the house, the guy shot one of the cops and killed him. The cops ended up shooting the walls, the doors, and one of their own. The judge let the guy go saying the cops fudged it up from start to finish and violated the guy's constitutional rights. I think it was the first time anyone in Canada was ever let off for killing a cop.
A real game changer, you might say. Nice to see we still have the right to defend ourselves against the state here.
Greyblades
03-06-2011, 22:20
What were they raiding for?
Crazed Rabbit
03-07-2011, 05:54
A few years back the cops did a late-night no-knock raid on a guy's home near Montreal. Long story short, the guy wakes up because his daughter is screaming that there are men in the house, the guy shot one of the cops and killed him. The cops ended up shooting the walls, the doors, and one of their own. The judge let the guy go saying the cops fudged it up from start to finish and violated the guy's constitutional rights. I think it was the first time anyone in Canada was ever let off for killing a cop.
A real game changer, you might say. Nice to see we still have the right to defend ourselves against the state here.
Indeed.
Sadly, the US legal system and judges often serve just to do as requested by law enforcement.
A similar situation happened in the US in 2001 with Corey Maye; cops did a no-knock raid at night on the wrong side of a duplex (also, the warrant to search the other half was fraudulently obtained), then kick down the door to where a man slept with his 18 month old daughter. The father shoots and kills a cop.
He got the death penalty. (http://www.theagitator.com/2005/12/07/cory-maye/)
Maye’s attorney tells me that after the trial, she spoke with two jurors by phone. She learned from them that the consensus among jurors was that Maye was convicted for two reasons. The first is that though they initially liked her, Maye’s lawyer, the jury soured on her when, in her closing arguments, she intimated that if the jury showed no mercy for Maye, God might neglect to bestow mercy on them when they meet him in heaven. They said the second reason May was convicted was that the jury felt he’d been spoiled by his mother and grandmother, and wasn’t very respectful of elders and authority figures. The facts of the case barely entered the picture. Gotta’ love the South.
Luckily, he's getting a new trial. (http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/23/a-new-trial-for-cory-maye) Even if he is acquitted it will be 10 years since he was arrested.
CR
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.