Wavels
Well-Known Member
Wow, what a pathetic state of affairs....The WOD is immoral and unjust and anti-freedom....here are two stories which illustrate the abuses dramatically
Don't Pot Growers Have a Right to Self-Defense?
Jacob Sullum | December 21, 2007, 3:53pm
In another case at the intersection of drug prohibition and armed self-defense, Gershom L. Avery of Lima Township, Michigan, faces charges of assault and using a gun in the commission of a felony after shooting a burglar. The fact that the burglar was trying to steal the marijuana Avery was growing seems to be clouding what should be a clear case of self-defense:
"This is not some wacko shooting off a gun," said [Scio Township Trustee Chuck] Ream, a member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "This is a homeowner, a worker, and a citizen. Even if it was found that he was growing a green plant, he doesn't give up his right to defend his family. He wasn't protecting his plants. He was protecting his wife and his life."
also...
Luther Ricks and his wife worked most of their lives at a steel foundry in Ohio. Not trusting of banks, they say they've lived frugally, and managed to save more than $400,000 over the years, which they kept in a safe in their home.
Last summer, two burglars broke into Ricks' home. He shot and killed one of them. Police determined he acted in self-defense, and cleared him of any criminal wrongdoing. But local police did find a small amount of marijuana in Ricks' home, which Ricks says he uses to manage the pain of his arthritis and a hip replacement surgery. Ricks was never charged for the marijuana. But finding it in his home was enough for city police to confiscate Ricks and his wife's life savings under drug war asset forfeiture laws. Oddly enough, the FBI then stepped in, and claimed the money for itself.
Consistent with asset forfeiture laws, the federal government now says Ricks has to prove he earned the money legitimately in order to get it back. Of course, he doesn't have dated receipts going back thirty-plus years. And he can't hire a lawyerthe government has of his money.
Also, under asset forfeiture laws, even if Ricks were able to prove in court that he earned the money legitimately, he, not the government, would have to absorb the court costs.
Story here and here.
both from
Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Another Asset Forfeiture Outrage
What a pile of steaming, reeking dung!!!
Don't Pot Growers Have a Right to Self-Defense?
Jacob Sullum | December 21, 2007, 3:53pm
In another case at the intersection of drug prohibition and armed self-defense, Gershom L. Avery of Lima Township, Michigan, faces charges of assault and using a gun in the commission of a felony after shooting a burglar. The fact that the burglar was trying to steal the marijuana Avery was growing seems to be clouding what should be a clear case of self-defense:
"This is not some wacko shooting off a gun," said [Scio Township Trustee Chuck] Ream, a member of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML). "This is a homeowner, a worker, and a citizen. Even if it was found that he was growing a green plant, he doesn't give up his right to defend his family. He wasn't protecting his plants. He was protecting his wife and his life."
also...
Luther Ricks and his wife worked most of their lives at a steel foundry in Ohio. Not trusting of banks, they say they've lived frugally, and managed to save more than $400,000 over the years, which they kept in a safe in their home.
Last summer, two burglars broke into Ricks' home. He shot and killed one of them. Police determined he acted in self-defense, and cleared him of any criminal wrongdoing. But local police did find a small amount of marijuana in Ricks' home, which Ricks says he uses to manage the pain of his arthritis and a hip replacement surgery. Ricks was never charged for the marijuana. But finding it in his home was enough for city police to confiscate Ricks and his wife's life savings under drug war asset forfeiture laws. Oddly enough, the FBI then stepped in, and claimed the money for itself.
Consistent with asset forfeiture laws, the federal government now says Ricks has to prove he earned the money legitimately in order to get it back. Of course, he doesn't have dated receipts going back thirty-plus years. And he can't hire a lawyerthe government has of his money.
Also, under asset forfeiture laws, even if Ricks were able to prove in court that he earned the money legitimately, he, not the government, would have to absorb the court costs.
Story here and here.
both from
Reason Magazine - Hit & Run > Another Asset Forfeiture Outrage
What a pile of steaming, reeking dung!!!
.
