Measure G? Again?

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
Its not law enforcement's job to develop evidence , only collect it.

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
Its not law enforcement's job to develop evidence , only collect it.

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you a commercial grower? Are you nervous?
Have you ever heard of investigators and detectives? Even patrol has the responsibility to "develop" leads and evidence. Think of it this way. Before the digital revolution people took pictures with cameras but someone had to "develop" the film to see what was actually in the picture.

Redbird wrote:

Where do we find people like "Just Asking"? Sounds like the folks we have in Washington that have taken our nation to it's lowest point in history.
Look for the money, and you'll find the evil!

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you a commercial grower? Are you nervous?
Have you ever heard of investigators and detectives? Even patrol has the responsibility to "develop" leads and evidence. Think of it this way. Before the digital revolution people took pictures with cameras but someone had to "develop" the film to see what was actually in the picture.

reality checker wrote:

<quoted text>
So, when you said leo needed to "develop" evidence, were you referring to the old school cameras?

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
It was an analogy. Law enforcement officers are trained to process information and if there are indications of criminal activity they are trained to pursue it. If they are able to develop a complete enough picture you get arrested or cited and a report goes to the DA.

just asking wrote:

<quoted text>
I am just stating the facts if Kelly is upheld. It is now up to the responding officer to make the initial determination if the amount of marijuana on hand is consistent with the patient's personal medical need. Its the law.
Remember how happy you were when the Kelly decision invalidated the state limits of SB 420? You were ecstatic at the time because you thought Kelly was a sword to be used against B.
What you failed to comprehend at the time was that no state minimum limits meant exactly that: no state minimums. That is, no presumption that someone in line with the state minimums was compliant with the laws allowing for medical marijuana.
Now, post Kelly, if it stands, every patient will have to justify that the amount of marijuana in their possession is consitent with their personal medical need. If they have no medical need, their limit is zero.
The unintended consequence of Kelly is that it invalidates the reasonable protections provided to patients by Senate Bill 420. But your concern has never been for legitimate patients. Your concern is to defend your right to profit under the pretense that you are growing "medicine" for sick people.
The statements are correct and no retraction is necessary. Get your facts straight.

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text> Law enforcement officers are trained to process information and if there are indications of criminal activity they are trained to pursue it. If they are able to develop a complete enough picture you get arrested or cited and a report goes to the DA.

I M Paranoic wrote:

<quoted text>
The general run of your comments here and elsewhere seem to indicate a partisan 'developing' information with the intent of finding enough to support an arrest. Is possible, rather than probable or even likely, criminality what you regard as deserving of arrest and possible prosecution?
Example: 8.5oz Pot +Medical recommendation + ziplok baggies (in kitchen drawer)+ digital scale in garage = possession with intent to sell charge because of so-called indicia. Some LEO's would go for that one, irrespective of whether or not the pot was weighed out in eighths in the baggies. There's a difference. Those weighed out eighths may be legit indicia but baggies in kitchen drawer are not. Treating the latter as indicia would be over the dividing line, in my mind, between legit LE activity and overzealous rogue cop. Where's YOUR line?

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
It's your fantasy law enforcement cares about someone 1/2 ounce or 1 plant out of compliance. But those who are should not beat their domestic partner or otherwise attract law enforcement. Measure B was promoted as a tool to go after commercial growers and that is how it is being applied by law enforcement. Where are all the innocent medical growers you keep talking about?

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
It's your fantasy law enforcement cares about someone 1/2 ounce or 1 plant out of compliance. But those who are should not beat their domestic partner or otherwise attract law enforcement. Measure B was promoted as a tool to go after commercial growers and that is how it is being applied by law enforcement. Where are all the innocent medical growers you keep talking about?

Think wrote:

<quoted text>
A business associate of a friend of mine was arrested in Redwood Valley a few weeks ago for being 5 plants over the limit. He had 4 medical recommendations and 30 immature plants He is now looking at 2 felony counts - all because he had a few extra 4" tall clones.

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
It's your fantasy law enforcement cares about someone 1/2 ounce or 1 plant out of compliance. But those who are should not beat their domestic partner or otherwise attract law enforcement. Measure B was promoted as a tool to go after commercial growers and that is how it is being applied by law enforcement. Where are all the innocent medical growers you keep talking about?

Think wrote:

<quoted text>
A business associate of a friend of mine was arrested in Redwood Valley a few weeks ago for being 5 plants over the limit. He had 4 medical recommendations and 30 immature plants He is now looking at 2 felony counts - all because he had a few extra 4" tall clones.

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
A few weeks ago, right up until today, Measure B was/is up in the air, so you and/or your friend are probably lieing. If your friend was busted at all, it was not for having 4 cards and 30 plants. How much processed bud? Packaged for sale? Other indicia of commercial cultivation, possession and sales? A year ago it was pretty easy to pretend you were a "medical grower" and get away with anything. Today, if you are really a commercial grower, it is pretty easy for law enforcement to bust you. The real difference is an arroused public and a DA who is willing to follow the law.

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
A few weeks ago, right up until today, Measure B was/is up in the air, so you and/or your friend are probably lieing. If your friend was busted at all, it was not for having 4 cards and 30 plants. How much processed bud? Packaged for sale? Other indicia of commercial cultivation, possession and sales? A year ago it was pretty easy to pretend you were a "medical grower" and get away with anything. Today, if you are really a commercial grower, it is pretty easy for law enforcement to bust you. The real difference is an arroused public and a DA who is willing to follow the law.

Bob wrote:

<quoted text>
The real difference is jury nullification and that hasn't changed at all!

lawnorder wrote:

<quoted text>
It worked once for Memo Parker, but it didn't work for the guy in Ft. Bragg. Going to a jury has always been a roll of the dice and still is. The conventional wisdom is "you never know what a jury will do." Some let the obviously guilty go free and others convict on flimsy evidence. Do you want to trust your fate to the whim of twelve people who don't know or care about you? THe uncertainty of going to trial and the fact that nearly all are guilty as charged is why nearly all dope growers, even Memo, take a plea bargain.