http://wral.com/news/local/story/2253196/

Quote :

"Raleigh — A man wanted in Texas died Friday after being shot at a north Raleigh home as Wake County deputies and alcohol enforcement officers served a search warrant, authorities said. Meanwhile, a deputy shot during the incident was treated at WakeMed and released. The shooting occurred shortly before 10 a.m. at 5401 Alpine Drive, near the intersection of Falls of Neuse and Millbrook roads in north Raleigh, authorities said. More than a dozen law enforcement officers were serving a search warrant at the Alpine Drive home as part of a two-month investigation by Wake County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board officers into an alleged indoor marijuana-growing operation, authorities said. "We did make a forced entry into the house. Shots were fired," Sheriff Donnie Harrison said. Stephen Scott Thornton, who authorities said was using the name Scott Monaco, was shot inside the home and died at WakeMed a few hours later. Thornton, 45, was wanted in Texas on drug and firearms charges, authorities said. The U.S. Marshal's Service had a full extradition order in place to return him to the Dallas area upon arrest. Sgt. Ronnie Byrd, a member of the Wake County Sheriff's Office Special Response Team, was shot in the leg. Byrd, 37, has been with the Sheriff's Office since 1997. Neighbor Richard Walden said he heard four or five gunshots and screaming inside the house, which he said has been a rental property for several years. "It was very loud. I didn't want to venture any closer to find out what was going on and with whom," Walden said. Harrison declined to say how the shooting unfolded – who fired first and whether Thornton had been shot by a deputy. "The SBI is handling that," he said, adding that Thornton's body had been sent to the State Medical Examiner's Office in Chapel Hill for an autopsy. A full-scale search of the residence was put on hold until State Bureau of Investigation agents completed a review of the shooting. But authorities said they saw marijuana plants inside the home."

1/5/2008 1:35:46 AM

neat.

but doesnt this shit happen everywhere?

i mean, its not exactly an uncommon occurance. indoor pot operations are all over the place out here. between them and the meth labs, some motherfuckers getting shot and/or shooting at the cops every now and then.

hell we got cops shooting pedestrians on I-5 for running around hitting cars with a baseball bat.

1/5/2008 2:54:02 AM

Legalize the marijuana.

[/thread]

?

1/5/2008 3:30:15 AM

The cop is ok and the scumbag is dead.......not too shabby of an outcome. call me cynical but he wont be shooting at cops no more, dont fuck with SRT.

1/5/2008 5:36:17 AM

is a plant

and prohibition


really worth an LEO getting shot and someone else getting killed over?

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 5:48 AM. Reason : and taxpayer money paying for SRT to come out?]

1/5/2008 5:48:06 AM

well, someone made the call for SRT to be there. And my cynical response has nothing to do with the plants, rather the general principle that someone who is willing to shoot at cops is no longer a threat to anyone...score one for the good guys. he was also wanted out of Texas for something to, but i digress.

Quote :

"Legalize the marijuana."

Cops just enforce the law, they dont write it. Write your senator.

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 6:21 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2008 6:01:52 AM

yeah, this really isn't about the weed so much.

the dude shot at the cops.

now he dead.

1/5/2008 8:19:28 AM

^
not about weed?!?

are you stupid?

why the fuck were the cops there? why did they break in with guns drawn?

oh yeah, weed.


^^

Quote :

"Cops just enforce the law, they dont write it. Write your senator."

lex malla, lex nulla

any cop is smart enough to know that pot prohibition is 100% unjust, unnecessary, and soon to end

therefore, they can join L.E.A.P., and stand up and say "No, I will not enforce unjust laws"

they may get reassigned, or kicked off the force altogether

but either way, they're humans before they're cops

which means that when they get hurt or killed while enforcing clearly unjust laws

then they, well basically, DESERVE IT.

Quote :

"The cop is ok and the scumbag is dead.......not too shabby of an outcome. call me cynical but he wont be shooting at cops no more"

I haven't any knowledge of the situation other than what I read in the original post

what [actual] evidence does that article have that would indicate that Thornton is a "scumbag"??

Oh right, IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO GROW POT AND DEFEND YOURSELF WITHOUT BEING A SCUMBAG

(don't bother searching for evidence of scumbaggery, I'm just stating that he isn't necessarily a scumbag)

Quote :

"the general principle that someone who is willing to shoot at cops is no longer a threat to anyone...score one for the good guys"

so you were there? you can prove that Thornton knew he was shooting at cops? that he shot first?

in fact, should knowing that they were cops even matter?

in the past (and hopefully future,) if someone came busting in your house, you could kill them right there.

Quote :

"Legalize the marijuana. [/thread]"

1/5/2008 8:48:01 AM

Quote :

"not about weed?!? are you stupid? why the fuck were the cops there? why did they break in with guns drawn? oh yeah, weed."

People don't shoot at cops over a little homegrown weed. There was much more going on with this guy than that.

1/5/2008 8:52:46 AM

Quote :

"so you were there? you can prove that Thornton knew he was shooting at cops? that he shot first?"

1/5/2008 9:18:52 AM

my internet is sucking so bad right now

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 9:23 AM. Reason : fucked up airmimba 10 dollars a month internet]

1/5/2008 9:21:45 AM

i dont mean to be a negative nancy, but why is this thread even needed? i mean its def. chit chat worthy i guess, but not soap box worthy

this dude broke the law, and not only that, but he fucking SHOT at police...end of thread?

1/5/2008 9:22:34 AM

maybe if your read the posts....

Quote :

"but he fucking SHOT at police"

Quote :

"so you were there? you can prove that Thornton knew he was shooting at cops? that he shot first?"

Quote :

"so you were there? you can prove that Thornton knew he was shooting at cops? that he shot first?"

Quote :

"so you were there? you can prove that Thornton knew he was shooting at cops? that he shot first?"

Quote :

"so you were there? you can prove that Thornton knew he was shooting at cops? that he shot first?"

Quote :

"so you were there? you can prove that Thornton knew he was shooting at cops? that he shot first?"

1/5/2008 9:27:16 AM

i feel it is safe to assume either a) he shot first or b)cops are pretty loud, especially some douchebags called the SRT


this is another one of those wolfweb things where i feel it doesnt mean shit and its not a big deal but one or 2 users just goes fucking ape shit, like the constitution has been pissed on or something...there was a thread in soap box a while back where fermat was going ape shit over some dumb shit and the duke was even agreeing with him(i consider the duke to be at least somewhat level headed even though hes somewhat conservative)

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 9:36 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2008 9:32:33 AM

^
a) if someone broke in, what's wrong with him shooting first?
besides,

Quote :

"in fact, should knowing that they were cops even matter? in the past (and hopefully future,) if someone came busting in your house, you could kill them right there."

b) thugs can be loud too



besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist

neither guy would have been shot


the cop wasn't shot "in a vacuum"

this is about pot

and how we need to end it's prohibition

now



[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 9:57 AM. Reason : ]

1/5/2008 9:56:21 AM

so this guy breaks the law, shots a cop, gets killed and somehow thats wrong to you



good job convincing people that its the cops fault and that weed should be legal

1/5/2008 10:05:28 AM

Quote :

"serving a search warrant at the Alpine Drive home as part of a two-month investigation by Wake County Alcoholic Beverage Control Board officers into an alleged indoor marijuana-growing operation, "

Seems like there must've been something better to do with two months worth of investigation time than spy on a guy growing pot in his house.

But either way..you do not shoot at the cops. period.

1/5/2008 10:19:58 AM

Quote :

"so this guy breaks the an unjust law, shots a cop person that broke into his HOME, gets killed and somehow thats wrong to you"

yep

Quote :

"But either way..you do not shoot at the cops. period"

it's not just cops you "do not shoot at"

it's all innocent people not posing a threat that you "do not shoot at"

these cops, however, BUSTED INTO HIS HOME and he MAY not have known they were cops

(as if it matters whether someone breaking into your house with guns are cops before shooting them)




THIS COP WAS NOT SHOT "IN A VACUUM" !!!!!!!!!!1

YOU CANNOT JUST IGNORE THE INJUSTICES THAT LED UP TO THE INCIDENT

AND ONLY SEE THE "he shot a cop" PART OF IT

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

Quote :

"besides, quite simply, if the unjust prohibition of pot didn't exist neither guy would have been shot"

[/quotebombing proves I'm correct ]

1/5/2008 10:41:57 AM

if he wasn't growing pot the cops wouldn't have busted into his home

1/5/2008 10:51:59 AM

^
thank you

thank you

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 10:54 AM. Reason : oh wait, you're against growing pot?]

Quote :

"if he wasn't growing pot [during an unjust prohibition] the cops wouldn't have busted into his home"

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 10:57 AM. Reason : fixed it]

1/5/2008 10:53:23 AM

^^^your whole argument is based on what you feel is an unjust law

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 10:55 AM. Reason : .]

1/5/2008 10:53:42 AM

my feelings have nothing to do with it

it is in FACT, an unjust law

Quote :

"lex malla, lex nulla"

Quote :

"lex malla, lex nulla"

Quote :

"lex malla, lex nulla"

Quote :

"lex malla, lex nulla"

1/5/2008 10:55:02 AM

yes your point is

Quote :

"it is in FACT, an unjust law"

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 10:57 AM. Reason : lex malla, lex nulla does not apply, if the guy thought it was unjust, he took the risks involved]

1/5/2008 10:56:14 AM

"lex malla, lex nulla" always applies

1/5/2008 10:59:01 AM

so these cops did their job

/thread?



what is your big complaint about this...all i hear is you saying there is no proof that the guy shot at police first, which i guess automatically means the cops are trying to cover it up??? and he was breaking the law, which you find unjust

1/5/2008 10:59:57 AM

Quote :

"he took the risks involved"

no one [only] involved in a civil liberty should have to risk being raided by cops

1/5/2008 11:01:42 AM

^^ Only if you aren't breaking the law, thats used as a philosophy, not an excuse

I can't argue a law invalid after I've already broken it, You have to make it invalid before you break it... (or not get caught breaking it)

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 11:03 AM. Reason : a]

1/5/2008 11:03:32 AM

Quote :

"Thornton, 45, was wanted in Texas on drug and firearms charges, authorities said. The U.S. Marshal's Service had a full extradition order in place to return him to the Dallas area upon arrest. "

What he was doing here was of little consequence. His activities in Texas were going to get him arrested one way or another. The only downside to all of this is the money spent on the 2 month investigation and now this investigation due to the shooting.

1/5/2008 11:05:06 AM

Quote :

"and he was breaking the law, which you find IS unjust"

lex malla, lex nulla >>>>>>>>>>> rule of law

Quote :

"Only if you aren't breaking the law, thats used as a philosophy, not an excuse I can't argue a law invalid after I've already broken it, You have to make it invalid before you break it... (or not get caught breaking it)"

wrong

"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law indeed''' -- MLK

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 11:09 AM. Reason : USA #1]

1/5/2008 11:05:34 AM

LETS FORGET ALL THE OTHER ILLEGAL THINGS...

1/5/2008 11:10:00 AM

“An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” MLK

1/5/2008 11:10:36 AM

cause prohibition equally affects the rich as it does the poor and racial minorities

(besides, there's more than one type of unjust law. certainly MLK knew that)

nice try though



there is NO legitimate reason to prohibit pot (or many other things for that matter)

"The more prohibitions there are, the poorer the people will be." -- Lao Tzu

1/5/2008 11:18:06 AM

I'm not arguing whether or not pot should be legalized, I am saying that, even if it is a stupid law, it is still a law and you will be punished for it. There is no way the law is "unjust" to the point it is necessary to break it, and arguing the case that it is unjust after breaking it will get you no where.

1/5/2008 11:39:05 AM

Quote :

"arguing the case that it is unjust after breaking it will get you no where."

it could

jury nullification ftw (assuming the cops don't kill you before your day in court)


also, if one has gone "on the record" thoroughly arguing that a law is unjust, they then are [morally] free to break it?

is that what you're saying?

or are you saying that their arguments must first result in the repeal of the law before they "break" it?

(they're not actually "breaking" it then, are they?)

Quote :

"There is no way the law is "unjust" to the point it is necessary to break it,"

yes there is

Quote :

"even if it is a stupid law, it is still a law"

iow, you disagree with "lex malla, lex nulla"

(and "lex malla, lex nulla >>>>>>>>>>> rule of law")

1/5/2008 12:08:10 PM

im still trying to figure out why you keep saying that a bad law is no law when you are obviously against "prohibition" on marijuana

1/5/2008 12:20:02 PM

He's just high, ignore him.

1/5/2008 12:22:10 PM

Quote :

"or are you saying that their arguments must first result in the repeal of the law before they "break" it?"

yes, they would not be breaking it then, thats my point

i dont disagree with lex malla, lex nulla, as I said before, its a philosophy that can be used effectively

however, since your logic rests solely on it being a bad law, who decides if it is a bad law and can be broken?

1/5/2008 12:38:02 PM

Quote :

"im still trying to figure out why you keep saying that a bad law is no law when you are obviously against "prohibition" on marijuana"

aha, semantics

the government, police, courts, etc. have yet to acknowledge that it's a bad law, duh

Quote :

"He's just high, ignore him."

ad hominem, anyone?

Quote :

"yes, they would not be breaking it then, thats my point"

so the sit-ins and rosa's seat on the bus?

they shouldn't have done that?

they should've waited until the law was changed?

(btw, civil rights >>> drug user rights)

Quote :

"since your logic rests solely on it being a bad law, who decides if it is a bad law and can be broken?"

duh, responsible individuals that know right from wrong

(following the example set by heros like rosa parks, mlk, lenny bruce, etc.)

1/5/2008 1:05:43 PM

Quote :

" ad hominem, anyone? "

Pothead who can't get a joke, anyone? Condescending douche with THC induced delusions of intelligence, perhaps?

1/5/2008 1:10:29 PM

how many cops did Rosa Parks shoot?

1/5/2008 1:12:19 PM

^
[fail]

1/5/2008 1:13:28 PM

Quote :

"why the fuck were the cops there? why did they break in with guns drawn? oh yeah, weed."

And the fact that he was wanted in Texas for firearms charges wouldn't have anything to do with that either right? I mean, do you know how insane you have to be to be wanted on firearms charges in texas, the only state in the union where "he needed a good shootin" is still a valid legal defense?

Quote :

"but either way, they're humans before they're cops which means that when they get hurt or killed while enforcing clearly unjust laws then they, well basically, DESERVE IT. "

Equally when you get hurt or killed breaking clearly unjust laws, you DESERVE IT because it's still law.

Quote :

"in fact, should knowing that they were cops even matter? in the past (and hopefully future,) if someone came busting in your house, you could kill them right there."

Unless they entered without announcing themselves first (and yes, no knock warrants are a piece of shit) they announced that they were cops, more likely than not gave him multiple opportunities to open the door, and lastly he was wanted and committing crimes, so he knew that cops would be coming for him and would have a valid reason to be there. So yes, it does matter.

Quote :

""There are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law indeed''' -- MLK"

MLK also never advocated shooting at the cops coming to enforce those unjust laws. The difference between a criminal scumbag and a true civil disobedient is that the scumbag fights the cops, the disobedient fights the law.

Quote :

"jury nullification ftw (assuming the cops don't kill you before your day in court) "

It's easy to get your day in court when you don't shoot the cops.

Quote :

"so the sit-ins and rosa's seat on the bus? they shouldn't have done that? they should've waited until the law was changed? "

They didn't fight back. They went to jail, and went to court, and appealed to the juries and the people and there was outrage and the laws were changed. This guy shot the cops. Big difference.

1/5/2008 1:19:14 PM

Yes, and Rosa Parks was jailed for her then crime

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 1:21 PM. Reason : this is a republic, the huddled masses decide when laws should change, not the huddled potheads]

1/5/2008 1:19:27 PM

Quote :

"And the fact that he was wanted in Texas for firearms charges wouldn't have anything to do with that either right?"

well, I'm not sure RPD knew that Monaco was really Thornton until after the bust

but if they did, then yes, that would change things

they do use guns when raiding growhouses, though

Quote :

"in texas...."he needed a good shootin" is still a valid legal defense"

Quote :

"Equally when you get hurt or killed breaking clearly unjust laws, you DESERVE IT because it's still law."

you may, but not because "it's still law"

"Equally when you get hurt or killed breaking clearly just laws, you DESERVE IT because it's a just law."
(I fixed it for you)

you know, like if a trespassing thief breaks their leg when climbing a fence, they should be liable

Quote :

"how many cops did Rosa Parks shoot?"

Quote :

"MLK also never advocated shooting at the cops coming to enforce those unjust laws."

you both are addressing the shooting, (which might even have been justified,) not the pot growing

I'm talking about the pot growing being the civil liberty

besides, we don't yet know why he shot the cop, (or why the cop shot him)

Quote :

"The difference between a criminal scumbag and a true civil disobedient is that the scumbag fights the cops, the disobedient fights the law"

I would agree (quote?)

which could help to explain why the poor and uneducated tend to get busted more (aside from obvious reasons)

because it takes brains and money to fight the law

Quote :

"This guy shot the cops. Big difference."

yeah, good thing cops didn't enforce whites-only seating with SRT or SWAT

besides, the fight for civil rights never spilled out onto the streets. never.

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 2:35 PM. Reason : ]

1/5/2008 2:20:10 PM

this thread is awesome....i've never seen someone get so upset over police following the law

1/5/2008 2:23:30 PM

1/5/2008 2:30:45 PM

Quote :

"therefore, they can join L.E.A.P., and stand up and say "No, I will not enforce unjust laws" "

I really want to be a CSI, but I never could do my job since there are so many unjust laws they have to enforce.

1/5/2008 2:44:39 PM

^
exactly

"prohibition of marijuana talent among law enforcement and crime investigators"

[Edited on January 5, 2008 at 2:49 PM. Reason : csi]

1/5/2008 2:47:46 PM

^ Anybody else feel that way? I love me some CSI, but they usually only investigate murders/rapes etc.

1/5/2008 4:05:47 PM

Ashes to Ashes and dust to dust...

1/5/2008 4:18:52 PM