TheAgitator.com
SWAT Team Meets…Smoking Ban?
Saturday, December 22nd, 2007Two Agitator favorites in one story…maybe.
A bar owner in Independence, Missouri says the city sent four members of the SWAT team to arrest one of his customers for smoking, a violation of the city’s smoking ban.
The police chief denies the charge, and says two of the cops were patrol officers, and two had just finished working a nearby DWI roadblock.
Of course, even if the police chief is right, we’ve reached the point where are there are places in this country where four cops will come to haul you off in handcuffs…for smoking a cigarette in a bar.
I was born and raised in Independence, and while it was always a corrupt town, it’s gotten ridiculous.
Check out this: http://stolemyland.com/
There was also an incident where a journalist went to the police station to complain about police misconduct and ended up in handcuff with his head smashed against the wall: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p53ky3RIjfU
I’ll never move back there.
The guy should probably thank his lucky stars he wasn’t tasered, pepper sprayed or worse for this gross infraction. Who knows…maybe they can think up a way that this entitles the state or city to seize all his assets and claim them for their own.
Holy cow…
true fact….My mother just bought a house in Independence this past month so she could live close to my younger sister and three grandkids.
I don’t even use tobacco and I’m thinking I may duck low at the next family dinner.
How about death administered by the RCMP goons to a confused and lost unarmed Polish man in Vancouver Airport?
The guy was arrested for BREAKING THE LAW. Doesn’t matter if he murdered someone, smoked a cigarette or touched his dick in private. If the LAW says you can’t do it, then the men in the uniforms are going to come and take you away if they find out about it, and they’ll just kill you if you resist.
That’s where we’re headed — total law enforcement. And soon enough, they’ll know if you’re THINKING about committing a crime. And they’ll put you away for that.
Oh, wait! I forgot! Ron Paul is going to save all of us from that! And he’s going to load us all in his golden chariot and airlift us to Heaven, where there’ll be candy and virgins and lots and lots of video games!
Bwahahahahahaha!
Lawmakers ought to know that its better find words that draw a thin line that somewhat misses their intent (especially when that line is placed more on the freedom side) than to have a grossly ambiguous law that draws a very fat line that, although might be CENTERED around the line they wish they could draw, is so fat that it can easily be interpreted in ways that everybody agrees is unfair. In this case, its the lawmakers trying to create a new term similar to “public place” which means a lot more than just public property. How ambiguous and dangerous is THAT?!
Ambiguous laws create nothing but loopholes and unfairness for both sides, and any lawmaker that proves he doesn’t understand this, is no lawmaker. Loopholes like “private clubs” requiring their guests to spend ten seconds filling out a little card, so that they can better prove they aren’t a public place. And law enforcement can still say its a public place if they REALLY want to.
Then there’s the question of whether the local lawmakers are even doing what the local voters want.
So I can go 50 in a 30mph zone and get a ticket but if I smoke in a bar I’ll actually get arrested?