We Are On Our Own

911_dispatch 2

It’s 0-dark-thirty one hot summer night. Your wife is home alone as you work the late shift. She’s asleep. Suddenly, she’s startled awake by the sound of something—or someone—trying to break in the back door. Frightened, she grabs  her cell phone and pads in bare feet close enough to see the shadow of someone through the curtain covering the door glass. As his assault on the door becomes louder and more frantic, she realizes she has only minutes, perhaps seconds before he breaks through. With shaking hands, she calls 911 . . .

She manages to get through to the 911 dispatcher. He takes her information. The dispatcher becomes distracted, and doesn’t tell the officers what is happening. The responding officer is told only that there is some kind of disturbance in the area. He arrives ten minutes later. Seeing and hearing nothing, leaves after a few minutes, clearing the call.

In the meantime, and long after the officer leaves, your wife is brutally beaten and repeatedly raped. The rapist is never caught. You are determined to do two things: (1) buy a gun for your wife when she recovers, and (2) sue the police.

We’ll return to this tragic scenario shortly. First, let’s consider a recent, similar case from Tech dirt: 

Craig Patty runs a tiny trucking company in Texas. He has only two trucks in his ‘fleet.’ One of them was being taken to Houston for repairs by his employee, Lawrence Chapa. Or so he thought.

In reality, Chapa was working with the DEA, which had paid him to load up Patty’s truck with marijuana and haul it back to Houston so the DEA could bust the prospective buyers. That’s when everything went completely, horribly wrong.

[A]s the truck entered northwest Houston under the watch of approximately two dozen law enforcement officers, several heavily armed Los Zetas cartel-connected soldiers in sport utility vehicles converged on Patty’s truck.

In the ensuing firefight, Patty’s truck was wrecked and riddled with bullet holes, and a plainclothes Houston police officer shot and wounded a plainclothes Harris County Sheriff’s Office deputy who was mistaken for a gangster.

The truck’s driver was killed and four attackers were arrested and charged with capital murder.

Does this, so far, sound like the plot of a B movie? You have no idea.

Until Patty received a call notifying him that his employee had been killed, he was completely unaware of the DEA’s operations involving both his truck and his driver. Unbelievably, things got even worse for Patty after this discovery.

Patty’s truck was impounded by the DEA. After it was released to him, it was out of service for several months as it underwent more than $100,000-worth of repairs. The DEA offered him no financial assistance for the truck it helped fill with bullet holes nor did it offer to make up for the revenue Patty lost while his truck was out of commission. His insurance company likewise turned down his claim, citing his truck’s use in a law enforcement operation.

Nor did the DEA offer to do something to repair his newly-acquired reputation as a drug runner and/or DEA informant — something that makes Patty’s life a little bit more dangerous.

As one might imagine and hope, Patty filed suit against the DEA seeking compensation for damages and lost income. If ever there was a case someone like Patty should win, this is it, right?

“A federal judge has dismissed Patty’s lawsuit against the DEA seeking up to $6.4 million in damages.

A Houston-based federal judge ruled that the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration does not owe the owner of a small Texas trucking company anything, not even the cost of repairing the bullet holes to a tractor-trailer truck that the agency used without his permission for a wild 2011 drug cartel sting that resulted in the execution-style murder of the truck’s driver, who was secretly working as a government informant.

The government argued that it is neither culpable for the damage nor under any obligation to inform the owner of any property that it wishes to use in its operations, because ‘clandestine.’

No statute, regulation, or policy ‘specifically prescribe[d]’ or prohibited the course of action Patty alleges the DEA agents followed. The DEA derives its authority from the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801, its implementing regulations, and various executive orders…

In this case, Task Force Officer Villasana submitted a similar declaration. He states that the DEA’s decision ‘to proceed with such an operation is entirely discretionary, and not mandated by any statute, rule, or policy.’ Whether and how to conduct such an undercover investigation and operation is’“necessarily discretionary in nature.’ Villasana did not try to give advance notice to Patty that the Task Force would be using his truck because of operation’s covert nature, the risks of injury and potential for damage if something went wrong, and the uncertainty about whether other individuals (including Patty) could be trusted.”

The judge ruled that the government has no obligation to so much as determine the owner of the vehicle their botched operation destroyed. In effect, the government has no obligation to return borrowed property in the same condition in which they originally found it, nor is it obligated to pay for damages incurred.

Couldn’t the DEA, acting as decent reasonable people should, pay for Patty’s damages anyway? At least they could pay for repairs to his truck? After all, they are employees of the citizens of the United States, and Patty is a citizen.They could but – that would set a precedent. It could be argued that the government must pay for the damage it causes to private property in the course of its duties, even if they enter a property without an owner’s knowledge or permission.

And what about the unfortunate woman at the top of this article? Surely that was an alarmist, paranoid fantasy? That sort of thing doesn’t really happen, does it? Consider this 2013 case from Oregon via the New York Daily News: 

The first clue as to how dangerous it is to live in Oregon’s Josephine County?

No one answers the phone at the sheriff’s office.

“Due to budgetary constraints,” says a recorded voice, “we are only able to answer the phone from 9 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.”

In the cash-strapped county that is home to scenic Grants Pass, a special election was held this week asking voters to approve a tax levy so more deputies could be hired.

Last year, a woman was raped in her home after calling 911 and staying on the line for more than 10 minutes. She was told there were no officers available to help her.

And another case:

After having to fire 23 deputies after the 2012-2013 budget was passed was in July, Gilbertson issued a press release suggesting domestic violence victims ‘consider relocating to an area with adequate law enforcement services.’

Less than a month later, a woman called 911, saying her ex-boyfriend was trying to break into her house.

The call came in at 4:58 a.m. on a Saturday. The strapped Josephine County sheriff’s deputies are only available Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

So the dispatcher transferred the woman, whose identity has not been published because she is a sex crime victim, to the state police.

And from there, things got even worse. The state police said they didn’t have anyone to send, either.

Dispatcher: ‘Uh, I don’t have anybody to send out there. You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away?’

Michael Bellah, the former boyfriend, did not go away.

‘I’ve already told him I was calling you,’ the woman tells the dispatcher. ‘He’s broken in before, busted down my door, assaulted me.’

The dispatcher tells the woman to hide somewhere in the house.

‘It’s unfortunate you guys don’t have any law enforcement out there,’ the dispatcher then says.

Bellah, who later pleaded guilty to kidnapping, assault and sexual abuse, busted down the front door, then beat and raped the woman.

Wait a minute! That’s just a little rural county! That sort of thing wouldn’t happen anywhere else, would it? Indeed it would. Throughout America, similar failures to respond to calls for help, whether due to lack of manpower, mistakes, or simple incompetence have all had the same result when victims or their surviving relatives tried to sue the police.

The primary Supreme Court case upon which they are denied satisfaction: Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005).

Despite a custody order, Castle Rock Colorado resident Jessica Gonzales’ three young daughters were kidnapped by her estranged husband. Over many hours, she pled, repeatedly and pitifully, to the Castle Rock Police for help. They did nothing.

Early in the morning, the husband committed suicide by cop, opening fire on the police station. The police were finally compelled to act. They shot and killed him. They found the perp’s pickup nearby. His daughters were dead inside, murdered earlier.

Gonzales sued the Castle Rock police. The case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme court. The rulings of the lower courts were upheld; citizens cannot successfully sue the police for failure to protect them. The police owe no duty to protect any individual; they exist only to provide services to the public at large and to deter crime by their presence.

Now you know what happened when the midnight shift-working husband tried to sue the police. Without question, the police do their best to help their communities. Generally. But no one should depend on the police for their protection. Practically and legally, we are on our own. We always have been.

Mike’s Home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.

comments

  1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

    There should be no such thing as an undercover government operation and the government should be liable for any and all damages it causes to a citizen’s property. Including cleaning up the mess after a search warrant.

    1. avatar JasonM says:

      There should be no such thing as an undercover government operation and the government should be liable for any and all damages it causes to a citizen’s property. Including cleaning up the mess after a search warrant.

      That’s better.

      1. avatar John in IN says:

        +1000.

      2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Just settle disputes with fists and guns in the street, huh?

        1. avatar Steve in TX says:

          To be honest aren’t disputes settled by the government settled the same way? Maybe not always in the street but its not like you can just not comply with a judge’s orders and nothing happens. Force is something we will always live with in any form of government or in anarchy. And force is never accepted by those on the receiving end. The problem here is solely if the government is to use force to insure justice amongst all equally. Which this article shows they are not and the ever constant attack on gun owners proves they are not interested in anything but control.

        2. avatar Drew in Michigan says:

          Just practice the three SSS = shoot, shovel and shut up.
          If they are under no obligation to respond, then we are under to obligation to report.

          um I had a problem, but I took care of it. so, no more problem

          Out here in the stix we are at least 20-30 min from having a officer on site, and you all now how much can happen in that length time

        3. avatar Dustin says:

          “Just settle disputes with fists and guns in the street, huh?” People who make this argument are those who are deluded enough to believe that the current system is better. It is not.

  2. avatar mike oregon says:

    And this was truth before the mass media declared war on the police, Cops and E.MT. s are frequently called first responders, in reality at best the are 2nd responders, first is victim, 2, is whoever calls 911,

  3. avatar Chris. says:

    —The government argued that it is neither culpable for the damage nor under any obligation to inform the owner of any property that it wishes to use in its operations, because ‘clandestine.’—

    How is this not a clear cut 5th Amendment case?

    –nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.–

    1. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

      Who reads the pesky constitution

      1. avatar Gruney says:

        So the same private property rights that allow me to ban guns or you from my property are no defense against “government gone bad” (new Fox special!!).

        Why is it legal to just trash someone’s property and not compensate them? He never gave consent to use his property in the first place. And pity the poor driver for ever getting involved. A perfect demonstration of the 3S rule.

        Maybe this is some weird extension of eminent domain? No, they compensate you then. Asset forfeiture? Your truck got shot up by drug dealers, you must have been up to something! When all else fails, fall back on Interstate Commerce. Yeah, that’s it!

        When the only outlaws are government agents, only the government will have outlaws. Or something like that……

    2. avatar Steve says:

      I know, right? It’s not like the drug cartels were going to pay more in excise tax on that truck, so Kelo should be irrelevant.

      Most people think the American Revolution was over tea, but by actually reading the Declaration of Independence, one sees clearly that the grievances were much greater than that.

      It seems that as days go by, the government is doing their damnedest to recreate that list.

      1. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

        You can see the direct correlation between the greviances in the Declaration of Independence and the amendments of the Constitution

        1. avatar MoveableDo says:

          Which is why the 2nd Amendoment is clearly only about militia members…/sarcasm/

    3. avatar uncommon_sense says:

      Exactly Chris … I had the very same thought.

      That trucking company owner needs to hire a new attorney and appeal the previous ruling.

  4. avatar scooter says:

    But only police and military need guns, right?

  5. avatar Ken G says:

    Being on our own would be OK, if we were also left alone… but we’re not.

    1. avatar mike oregon says:

      Yes! +10

    2. avatar Tex300BLK says:

      Yep, using the above example the officer is only told there is a disturbance, so when your wife shoots the POS rapist and the neighbors call reporting gunfire he comes in hot and finishes off your wife when she walks outside thinking the police came to help her.

      As they say, bad information is worse than no information.

  6. avatar Governmentknowsbest says:

    I agree but hell the government fix what it destroys on a daily and public basis.

    1. avatar sota says:

      only in the sandbox.

  7. avatar Spencer says:

    We are indeed on our own unless we are wealthy and politically connected.

  8. avatar Ddub says:

    “Safety” as ” fairness” exist nowhere in nature or this universe. Why some people cling to theses concepts is beyond me. “We are on our own now, just as we have always been.”, so true.

    1. avatar GreatPlainsSower says:

      ““Safety” as ” fairness” exist nowhere in nature or this universe”

      “Safety” in numbers by surrounding ones self with like minded folks, from different social positions, provides a “fair” chance for someone intent on harm to receive fatal amounts of lead, as is the American way.

      1. avatar Ddub says:

        ANY construct that attempts to preserve safety is a fleeting illusion.

        1. avatar Chris says:

          Excluding my Smith & Wesson, of course.

  9. avatar Sian says:

    DEA truck: Most of this was on the employee Lawrence Chapa. He took the truck under false pretenses, was working with the DEA, using his employer’s vehicle to haul drugs without his employer’s knowledge or permission. The owner probably could have recovered the value of the truck with a very legitimate theft claim.

    1. avatar Chris. says:

      –The owner probably could have recovered the value of the truck with a very legitimate theft claim.–

      A theft claim… against the dead guy? How do you get the dead guy to pay? put a lien on his future earnings?

      1. avatar Sian says:

        No a claim on his insurance as the truck was stolen by the deceased/fired employee.

        1. avatar Chris. says:

          Ah I misunderstood what you were saying. Yeah, That whole thing seems messed up. How can the insurance deny the claim? How can the courts not rule in his favor based on the 5th.

          Must be some info we don’t actually have yet… I hope.

        2. avatar John in Ohio says:

          AFAIK, it would’ve been unauthorized use and not auto theft in many jurisdictions since the employee had initial permission to be in possession of the vehicle. Still, yeah, I think most of us agree that the owner should’ve, at the very least, been able to collect an insurance claim given the circumstance.

    2. avatar working4change says:

      1 chapa died…. no money there
      2 he was compelled by the DEA… have seen what happens if you refuse the DEA. you end up in jail on false charges, everthing confiscated, life time Felon, family ripped apart. sense you did not “assist” you get protection from the criminals that assume you were an issue, even if 100% innocent…

      Family Suicide by DEA. fact not fantasy

      they need there power… they want more power… we will either up sheeple or die as Patriots. be prapared or stay Baaaaaa Baaaa and get your free stuff

  10. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    A cop is too heavy, too far or too late. A gun can be manageable, close and on time. Cops show up or not, one can try to pass the buck. No buck passing in self defense accomplished or failed.

  11. avatar JFrame says:

    That is why you won’t find an empty magazine in my house. You are on your own.

  12. avatar Noire says:

    The population of the United States is something like 295 million legal citizens, once you account for removing the illegals and cartel. The man who had this happen to his truck was well to do enough to hire a lawyer and drum up some support and sympathy. It is disturbing that his upper-middle class income was insufficient to provide justice – Because most of those legal citizens aren’t upper-middle class. Far more than half of Americans aren’t even lower-middle class anymore. This article is basically saying if you aren’t Well connected and have the millions needed to finance all the way to the Supreme Court, you don’t have rights.

    When sufficient numbers of people realize they cannot expect justice, they riot. How long before they realize en masse?

    1. avatar C.S. says:

      As soon as the government handouts run out…

  13. avatar lionsfan54 says:

    Good info in here, but it REALLY feels like this should be 2 separate posts

  14. avatar Ed Rogers says:

    This indicates to me that the DEA is a lawless organization, that should be eliminated…

  15. avatar kevin says:

    “It could be argued that the government must pay for the damage it causes to private property in the course of its duties. . . .”

    They are. It’s called inverse condemnation. It’s a thing. I’ve used it several times, and it works. Poor dude must have had a really bad lawyer.

  16. avatar Kyle says:

    Stories like this just make me OH SO PROUD to call myself an american.

    …When did Putin take over the US government?

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      As difficult as it it for me to state this, Putin might very well have been a less progressive president than Barry. In other words, we might have been slightly better off had Putin been elected.

  17. avatar Gunr says:

    S.O.S., different day. As always, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away! or hours!

  18. avatar KCK says:

    With shaking hands, she calls (1)911 . . .
    Fixed it

  19. avatar IdahoPete says:

    Recommended reading: “Dial 911 and Die” by Garn Turner and Richard W. Stevens

  20. avatar Alan Livingston says:

    And what REALLY galls me is that the government is actually telling us “we are not responsible for protecting you, but we are going to restrict your right to do it yourself as well. In other words, we do not care about you.” Does that sound like ‘of the People, by the People and for the People’ to you? I think not, and anyone who agrees with this position is the enemy.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      That’s at the heart of the argument; when government disarms someone then government is responsible for their individual safety. As it stands, the average individual in some locations has his RKBA infringed and his ability to engage in lawful self defense hobbled. All the while, government washes its hands, proclaiming no duty to protect. All power and little to no responsibility.

      I would rather government just leave me the hell alone, not creating stumbling blocks in law and action to me being able to protect myself and family.

  21. avatar Gman says:

    It’s 0-dark-thirty one hot summer night. Your wife is home alone as you work the late shift. She’s asleep. Suddenly, she’s startled awake by the sound of something—or someone—trying to break in the back door. Frightened, she grabs …
    1. Wow, is that sexist. Like wives can’t protect themselves.
    2. … her Ruger SR40
    With shaking hands, she calls 911 . . .
    …to tell them the perp is dead, her gun is empty (as she reloads), and she’s holding the dog back to keep the scene pristine.

  22. avatar BDub says:

    What does the truck situation have to do with any “duty to protect”? That is clearly a due process and property violation.

  23. avatar Grindstone says:

    We are on our own, but we are not left alone. We pay taxes for government services that do not serve anyone but themselves.

    By the way, where’s that busybody El Mac to defend the brave, noble police here?

  24. avatar mk10108 says:

    N duty to protect, yet legislators enact laws denying lawful self protection and judges sustaining work around for pesky Bill of Rights thingy. Three branches working to make a better world.

  25. avatar S.CROCK says:

    Illegal marijuana strikes again. People dying from over dosing on it left and right. It is a good thing it is illegal so the communities are safer and there is no loss of life because of this poison plant.

  26. avatar gsnyder says:

    There is a promoted delusion by anti-firearm agendas a cop can Star-Trek like be teleported to your side at the moment of a 911 call. They don’t say it but it certainly is implied. If brought up for discussion it is universally side-stepped, they do not want to discuss. The anti-firearm groups have blood on THEIR hands, not the other way around as they exclaim. The pro-firearm side needs to be even louder to call-out the unsafe propaganda to believe in teleportation. It would make for a damn good TV ad. NRA, GOA, SAF, are you listening?

  27. avatar Ralph says:

    If government actually paid for all the harm it does, there wouldn’t be enough money left to cover the welfare checks.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      Yep. 😀 and 🙁

    2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

      Thank you for replacing private drug addiction with government welfare addiction.

  28. avatar dwr says:

    Wait a minute! That’s just a little rural county! That sort of thing wouldn’t happen anywhere else, would it? Indeed it would.

    Sir Arthur made that same observation:

    “Do you know, Watson,” said he, “that it is one of the curses of a mind with a turn like mine that I must look at everything with reference to my own special subject. You look at these scattered houses, and you are impressed by their beauty. I look at them, and the only thought which comes to me is a feeling of their isolation and of the impunity with which crime may be committed there.”
    Sherlock Holmes: The Complete Novels and Stories, Volume I

    “It is my belief, Watson, founded upon my experience, that the lowest and vilest alleys in London do not present a more dreadful record of sin than does the smiling and beautified countryside.”
    Sherlock Holmes in “The Copper Beaches.”

  29. avatar Paul says:

    “The government argued that it is neither culpable for the damage nor under any obligation to inform the owner of any property that it wishes to use in its operations, because ‘fuck you.’”

    Fixed it for you.

  30. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    Soooo we’re all agreed that the root cause of the woman’s assault, is that she accepted this monster into her life in the first place? After all, for female murder victims, the majority of attackers are a friend or intimate partner. (For assaults, I’d bet it’s the same, but I don’t have that stat ready at hand.)

    OMG! Did he just blame the victim? Yes. Yes he did.

    Make better decisions, ladies. Raise your standards. Failing that, purchase and become proficient with a self-defense firearm. Familiarize yourself with self-defense laws in your state. Don’t rely on the police and/or courts alone in an emergency.

    Will that solve every problem with potential violent attackers? No. Just most of them.

  31. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    The above is a good example of why the DEA is more harmful than beneficial. The War On Drugs is a war on people. The DEA should be abolished along with the stupid drug laws.

  32. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    You know, obviously, if he comes inside the residence and assaults you, can you ask him to go away?’ Yeah, huh huh, go away, huh huh, just go away. Beavis tell him to go away. No, Butthead, you tell him to go away. Huh huh huh.

  33. avatar Gatha58 says:

    Shut down the DEA and just make drugs legal. Or maybe do what Portugal has done and at least decriminalize drug use. It is terrible and unconstitutional that they are allowed to get away with this. What is wrong with our legal system when this kind of tragedy can happen with no consequences for those who planned it and carried it out ?

  34. avatar David says:

    “In reality, Chapa was working with the DEA, which had paid him to load up Patty’s truck with marijuana and haul it back to Houston so the DEA could bust the prospective buyers. That’s when everything went completely, horribly wrong.

    [A]s the truck entered northwest Houston under the watch of approximately two dozen law enforcement officers, several heavily armed Los Zetas cartel-connected soldiers in sport utility vehicles converged on Patty’s truck.”

    How many times have progressives played down the severity of the civil war in Mexico by insisting all the violence occurs only in Mexico? The spill over has been going on for awhile folks . . . And has gotten very little coverage by the mainstream media.

    We are on our own – not just in terms of protection but information as well.

  35. avatar Worc1 says:

    I’m wondering why Josephine County sheriff deputies only work between 8 a.m. to 4 p.m? Isn’t there more crime between say 4 PM and 1 AM? Could it be that they’ll issue a whole lot more traffic tickets during the daylight hours? So in reality Josephine County sheriff deputies have their jobs just to pad the county’s treasury and fighting crime is an after thought.

    1. avatar Patrick Wider says:

      Because they’re lazy and the donut shops are closed. No one wants to work the graveyard shift.

  36. avatar MontieR says:

    Regardless of what the supreme court thinks they do NOT make law. The constitution clearly states the government has to pay for private property.

  37. avatar Patrick Wider says:

    At the risk of repeating myself: a couple years ago some guy was banging on my front door about 3 am in the morning. Called the local village cops. Getting impatient, I finally answered the door with a gun in my hand. The crazed and incoherent guy subsequently took off when I told him to beat it. About 15 minutes later, two village cop cars pulled up on the street adjoining mine. Door to door, the cops chatted for a minute or two and then drove away. I later complained about the lousy response on their part and was told that they contacted the homeowner who called (me) and determined that all was safe. It never happened. Someone was too lazy to leave the comfort of their cruiser so they lied. Yeah, we’re on our own all right.

  38. avatar ADM says:

    No matter where in the country you live, expecting the police to respond in time to prevent a crime from happening—assuming you manage to contact them in the first place—is naïve. I’m absolutely not blaming the women mentioned above for being victims; they just believed the lie. People have been lulled into this false sense of security that the police are everywhere, that they’re there to “help you”. Good cops exist, absolutely. There are communities with wonderful police relations, definitely. But don’t let the outlier color your perception. Your first and last line of defense is yourself. Don’t hand off your ability or willingness to protect yourself to someone you don’t even know.

  39. avatar Chris T from KY says:

    You can put Marijuana, crystal meth or anything else into your body. But no Government money for you. No college loan from the government. No welfare.

    1. avatar John in Ohio says:

      No taxation? Government will leave you completely alone as long as you don’t steal or physically harm another?

      You can have whatever firearms you want…

      See how that works?

      1. avatar Chris T from KY says:

        Crystal meth users and others like them will not be able to pass a drug test for work. Freedom means you have the right to put poison into your body. Freedom also means the shop owner has the right to drug test you before you are hired and during your employment.

        At that point you will not be able to afford a Glock. But you might be able to save your pennies for a Hi point.

        1. avatar John in Ohio says:

          Not all employers demand drug tests. Nice try at a straw man though. 😉

        2. avatar Chris T from KY says:

          I like the libertarians who have never worked in the real world where intoxicated workers hurt and destroy the work place. Sometimes injury themselves or even kill someone or just damage private property. An intoxicated injured worker can cost all company employees their bonus incentive checks.

          Bus drivers, delivery drivers, trucks big or small, heavy equipment operators, restaurant workers so intoxicated they screw up your order. In the early to middle 1990’s a new york city subway train operator crashed his train. Six were killed and dozens were injured. He was intoxicated on marijuana.

          Libertarians do not believe in freedom because responsibility comes with it. They believe in intoxication on illegal substances.

          http://www.kptv.com/story/20368360/driver-charged-with-dui-marijuana-after-deadly-crash-in-vancouver

          While it may now be legal to smoke marijuana in the state of Washington, police say it is never legal to smoke it and then get behind the wheel

          http://texas.24-7newz.com/driver-admitted-smoking-pot-before-deadly-hwy-281-crash-sanantonio/

          Nice try guys. Then again not really.

        3. avatar John in Ohio says:

          I like the libertarians who have never worked in the real world where intoxicated workers hurt and destroy the work place.

          Implying?

          Also, how does your latest comment relate to your original post (quoted below)?
          “You can put Marijuana, crystal meth or anything else into your body. But no Government money for you. No college loan from the government. No welfare.”

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email