Throw her ass out. I’ll bet she was so old she never detected the odors coming out of junior’s room. Yeah right. My heart bleeds.

Interesting notion, though today forensic sciences often take the place of eyewitnesses; when administered fairly, they’re probably more accurate than eyewitnesses, though fair administration is hardly a given.

That ties into something else I’ve wondered: for the Constitution’s “oath or affirmation” requirement for search warrants to mean anything, it must refer to an oaths and affirmations related to personal knowledge sufficient to yield probable cause. The Constitution doesn’t expressly say that, but that’s because the framers would have thought the requirement to be so obvious it could go without saying. When, and by what court, was the Constitution amended /de facto/ to remove the personal-knowledge requirement?

Though I have some sympathy for Mrs. Johnson’s plight, if I were a legal advisor for NDC Realty, I would sue to evict her as well.

Why?

Because with today’s asset forfeiture laws, finding the dope in Mrs. Johnson’s apartment – no matter the source – opens up the possibility for NDC to lose the entire building to government seizure.

That comment was not directed at you or others who make reasonable posts. It was supposed to reference (which it must not have done well enough) the people who defended adult-child relationships recently and to people like JJH2 and TGGP who support (or don’t oppose) ouright infanticide. I’m sorry if I’m being rude or obnoxious, but they seem like sociopaths, and I’d personally rather be in a stall next to Larry Craig than in a room with these characters.

“Your time would be better spent somewhere else.” Well that’s what that comment was saying, and I’m returning to retirement in one minute.

“And remember the good old days when a cop just said, ‘move along’ instead of arresting people at the drop of a hat?”
Yea, I also remember when kids could ride their bikes down the street without interrupting a craps game. Ahh, simpler times.

The comment was about zero tolerance rules in general. Their only purpose is to make the life of whoever is enforcing the rules easier and not to make them just.

I certainly agree rent controls or subsidies are a bad thing under any circumstance. Your probably right the landlord is trying to get a better deal on the rent, and teenage boys are notorious dumb asses.

Your comment about the commenters being pederasts is rude and obnoxious. Your time would be better spent somewhere else.

Did you actually read the article? The DCHA is not evicting her. The landlord is filing suits to evict. There’s only two reasons to do this: she’s a bad tenant or she’s not paying enough rent. Sometimes neighborhoods become too expensive. That’s life. Also, realize that, by proxy, her grandson is getting federal money to buy drugs and gamble.

About the grandson being arrested: yea it’s stupid and ticky-tacky, but c’mon, he’s playing dice in the street with pot in his pocket. He might as well just stand on a corner with a sign that says “Search me, I’ve got pot.”

With comments like that, I think you should continue not commenting on this site.

“I’m all for legalized gambling, but I’d prefer dice games not be played in the street. There’s better venues for that.”

I agree. Though ‘in the street’ probably does not mean in the street. We know better than that. It means a sidewalk, a stair well, an alley wall.

And remember the good old days when a cop just said, ‘move along’ instead of arresting people at the drop of a hat?

I think libertarians should develop a response to law and order types that they would be hard-pressed to ignore and be even remotely consistent: “What would Jesus do? He’d ask who your two witnesses are!”

The woman was living in a subsidized apartment, not public housing. From the picture, it appears to be one of the gentrified DC neighborhoods. All landlords I’ve had could evict me if dope was found in the apartment, and I always paid market value. Also, the article mentions nothing about “taking . . . children into her home,” in the sense that phrase is normally used. It says she taught classes and let them hang out 15 years ago after a drug raid (no mention of whether it was paramilitary). One would assume from the article that her grandson living with her is not related to the drug raid. And finally, how in the hell does her grown grandson having dope in a subsidized apartment relate to mentoring at-risk youth in public housing? That’s quite a stretch.

“Of course, if we were a remotely free country, his gambling on the street would never have resulted in an arrest and all of this would be moot.”

I’m all for legalized gambling, but I’d prefer dice games not be played in the street. There’s better venues for that.

I don’t see anything in the article that indicates to me any reasonable reason to have raided her home. In a more sane time, I think the raid on her home would have been considered illegal based on nothing more than the kid gambling on the street with a joint in his pocket.

Of course, if we were a remotely free country, his gambling on the street would never have resulted in an arrest and all of this would be moot.

Perfectly describing the situation in so few words!

Nothing more than yet another example of “tough on crime” knee-jerk vote-whoring stupidity that creates more criminals instead of solving problems.