22 replies to this topic

[The Uniballer]

This whole episode at TCU has confirmed my relatively newly formed opinion on the War on Drugs -- that we need to quit calling it a war, take resources away from police enforcement, and reallocate those resources towards more treatment.  Ignore for the sake of this thread, the arguments about whether or not drugs should be legal or not or whether or not marijuana is really bad for you -- we can start another thread on those topics if you'd like.  The fact is that it's currently illegal.  These kids knew what they were doing was illegal and made stupid choices.  They should have consequences for their actions.  But I think that the War on Drugs will result in some of these kids suffering consequences that are more severe than the situation actually calls for.  The War on Drugs creates this atmosphere where we're celebrating what the police did without any regard for the lives it has impacted.  Again, I'm not some hippy-give-them-a-stern-talking-to-and-a-hug-then-let-them-go-guy.  They broke the law and deserve to be punished.  Proportionately to their crime.  I think when it settled, we'll find there were a few kids selling A LOT of drugs, a few kids selling some hard stuff, and a bunch of kids selling -- illegally -- some marijuana.  Throw the book at the first two, and punish the last group -- but fairly.  But it feels like we go the other way.  We try to make it as bad as possible -- it's extra bad because it's in a drug free zone.  We're looking for any reason we can to punish these kids to the max.  

And I know some of these charges will get dropped, and a lot will agree to pleas, but until I started reading about this, I had no idea the long term effects that pleading guilty can have.  If you plead guilty to a felony itallows employers, lenders and property owners to discriminate against you, you may be ineligible for school loans, to vote, to serve on jurys, to own a gun, hold professional licenses.  You can be subject to police searches anytime anywhere.

I could ramble on about this forever, so I'll stop.  But I think it's something we need to change.

[The Uniballer]

Duq said: "In my completely specious and uninformed opinion, I suspect the administration was concerned about TCU having a growing and/or existing reputation as a drug-friendly party school, perhaps driven by big donors (and football recruits?) and wanted to make a big, public statement that it is not being condoned.

I guess we'll see how hard they hit these kids in court, but I wouldn't be surprised if they ultimately plea to relatively minor crimes/punishments. I bet this was ultimately an effort to scare the chit out of the student body, show parents they're being proactive, and perhaps get to the suppliers."

I agree that a lot of these kids will plea to relatively minor crimes/punishments.  But they'll still have this on their record.  When it's not my kid or anyone I know, it's easy to say "make an example out of them", but ultimately, I'm with Bud Kennedy -- that so TCU could puff out its chest, make a grand display to almuni/parents/donors, they were willing to sacrifice the lives of some of their kids.

[Duquesne Frog]

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

I agree that a lot of these kids will plea to relatively minor crimes/punishments.  But they'll still have this on their record.  When it's not my kid or anyone I know, it's easy to say "make an example out of them", but ultimately, I'm with Bud Kennedy -- that so TCU could puff out its chest, make a grand display to almuni/parents/donors, they were willing to sacrifice the lives of some of their kids.

They may ultimately plea many of these kids down to misdemeanors.  Which still will cause them problems down the road, but not ultimately deny them basic rights.

Like Boston, said, I say this not trying to pick a fight, but how would you have preferred TCU to have handled it.  Kick them out of school but don't press charges?

I guess I don't know how else TCU could have handled this, given the circumstances.  FWPD comes and says we've got 17 kids who sold illegal drugs to undercover cops.  Like H71 said in the other thread, they've gotta go get all of them at once to maximize evidence seizure, so you're going to have police cars all over campus and the surrounding area.  TCU has to issue a statement of some kind.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Duq said: "In my completely specious and uninformed opinion, I suspect the administration was concerned about TCU having a growing and/or existing reputation as a drug-friendly party school, perhaps driven by big donors (and football recruits?) and wanted to make a big, public statement that it is not being condoned.

I guess we'll see how hard they hit these kids in court, but I wouldn't be surprised if they ultimately plea to relatively minor crimes/punishments. I bet this was ultimately an effort to scare the chit out of the student body, show parents they're being proactive, and perhaps get to the suppliers."

I agree that a lot of these kids will plea to relatively minor crimes/punishments.  But they'll still have this on their record.  When it's not my kid or anyone I know, it's easy to say "make an example out of them", but ultimately, I'm with Bud Kennedy -- that so TCU could puff out its chest, make a grand display to almuni/parents/donors, they were willing to sacrifice the lives of some of their kids.

Dunno. Best I can say is it may have been better to nip the problem in the bud rather than to let it grow and fester. That said, I am hardly an anti-marijuana campaigner.

Pardons/Expunctions are available re. records for minor crimes. If they can get the charges reduced to Class C or whatever they call it in Texas, that is.

[Tucson Frog]

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 09:10 AM, said:

Duq said: "In my completely specious and uninformed opinion, I suspect the administration was concerned about TCU having a growing and/or existing reputation as a drug-friendly party school, perhaps driven by big donors (and football recruits?) and wanted to make a big, public statement that it is not being condoned.

I guess we'll see how hard they hit these kids in court, but I wouldn't be surprised if they ultimately plea to relatively minor crimes/punishments. I bet this was ultimately an effort to scare the chit out of the student body, show parents they're being proactive, and perhaps get to the suppliers."

I agree that a lot of these kids will plea to relatively minor crimes/punishments.  But they'll still have this on their record.  When it's not my kid or anyone I know, it's easy to say "make an example out of them", but ultimately, I'm with Bud Kennedy -- that so TCU could puff out its chest, make a grand display to almuni/parents/donors, they were willing to sacrifice the lives of some of their kids.

Good post. Bad law. No I don't take drugs or drink alcohol but doing so should not be a crime IMO. With me it is a moral question.

[The Uniballer]

Duquesne Frog, on 17 February 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

They may ultimately plea many of these kids down to misdemeanors.  Which still will cause them problems down the road, but not ultimately deny them basic rights.

Like Boston, said, I say this not trying to pick a fight, but how would you have preferred TCU to have handled it.  Kick them out of school but don't press charges?

I guess I don't know how else TCU could have handled this, given the circumstances.  FWPD comes and says we've got 17 kids who sold illegal drugs to undercover cops.  Like H71 said in the other thread, they've gotta go get all of them at once to maximize evidence seizure, so you're going to have police cars all over campus and the surrounding area.  TCU has to issue a statement of some kind.

I don't have a problem with them investigating and prosecuting people breaking the law.  
I think the way TCU sensationalized it -- using words like "magnitude of students" -- was unnecessary, unfair and irresponsible.  I don't think it was right to lump all 17 of these kids together.  I think in the next few days we're going to learn that some of these kids had major, big dollar operations going, and most were selling some weed.  
My biggest issue continues to be that the story doesn't make sense.  It makes no sense to me that you use words like "magnitude" and "history of TCU" and "drug dealers", but never bothered to tell the Chancellor until 8 days before the arrests?  I've asked TCU in several different ways, hoping that he meant he knew the investigation was going on but only knew the bust was going down 8 days in advance, but TCU keeps saying he only knew of the investigation 8 days in advance and that this was a FWPD opeartion -- which sure sounds different than how it was presented at the press conference.

[The Uniballer]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 17 February 2012 - 09:25 AM, said:

Dunno. Best I can say is it may have been better to nip the problem in the bud rather than to let it grow and fester. That said, I am hardly an anti-marijuana campaigner.

Pardons/Expunctions are available re. records for minor crimes. If they can get the charges reduced to Class C or whatever they call it in Texas, that is.

I'm making a broad generalization here, but I'd say there's a decent chance that most of these kids can afford good attorneys that might ultimately make this appear as a little blip on their radar.  But overall, I think that's a crappy way to run a country -- that the consequences of actions vary based on what kind of representation you can afford.  

If a lot of this stuff is ultimately going to be dismissed or reduced, why trump it up in the first place?

[NewfoundlandFrog]

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

I'm making a broad generalization here, but I'd say there's a decent chance that most of these kids can afford good attorneys that might ultimately make this appear as a little blip on their radar.  But overall, I think that's a crappy way to run a country -- that the consequences of actions vary based on what kind of representation you can afford.  

If a lot of this stuff is ultimately going to be dismissed or reduced, why trump it up in the first place?

w.r.t. TCU and the wider society, well I'm not too sold on the value of marijuana laws at all--though note that wekl who is a true national expert on drugs in the workplace does not agree.

w.r.t. the football team--i.e., these guy's workplace in a very real sense--I think that allowing the problem to grow and spread would have been the wrong course entirely.

How's that for definitive thinking?

[HFrog71]

Moving some posts over from the GBS thead to consolidate the action here:

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 09:18 AM, said:

TCU is claiming that Boschini only learned about this investigation 8 days before the arrest happened.  Which means that a) he's lying (why?) b) TCU Police were running and undercover operation in conjunction with the FW Police Department for 6 months and no one bothered to tell the Chancellor or c) TCU is grossly overstating it's proactiveness/involvement in this whole affair.  There's no conspiracy there -- just 3 scenarios that make no sense and are bad news for TCU in my humble opinion.

Ask yourself this question:  If you were a parent of a TCU student and wanted to lodge a complaint about drug activity your son/daughter has told you about, who would you call/write:  The Chancellor's Office; go one box down the chain and write the Dean of Student Affairs; or go VFR-direct to the head of the campus cops?

Since one of my neighbors has a daughter who lives on Waits Ave, if they were among the complaining parents, they would have addressed their concerns to the Chancellor...just as they would go to the head of any company/organization with a letter of complaint.

To answer your questions above, a) and b), two words:  Plausible deniability.

In my last post on this topic, I described actions I had to take as a commander.  In none of those cases was it made public knowledge that I was the one who initiated the investigation--or agreed to allow my organization to be used during an investigation.  The cops and/or special investigations office took the credit/blame.

Boschini needs to appear to the student body as being "on their side"...so, he needs to look like one of the "good guys wearing a white hat"...he can let the FWPD and TCU PD wear the black hats.  And, let's be honest, this isn't the first time the head of an organization has fudged a little on the facts.  He can't lead TCU if the student body views him as the "Head Narc".

I re-watched the news conference this morning, and a lot of the "conspiracy theories" appear to be springing forth over information regarding operational tactics and details that the FWPD declined to divulge.

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 09:57 AM, said:

I disagree with this.  I think he needs to appear as the guy in charge.  My expectation of the Chancellor are quite a bit different than what I would expect from a commander.  It seems like there's by totally different dynamics involved.  As a commander, I can absolutely see the value in the way you describe things being handled.  But I don't see that same value as Chancellor.

Both a Chancellor and a commander are "the guy in charge."  No difference whatsoever in the scope of their responsibilities.  The Chancellor has to answer to his bosses--the Board of Trustees.  A commander must answer to his bosses up the chain-of-command.  Both are held accountable in the always present "court of public opinion."

Taking your side of the argument for a moment, let's say you take Boshini's statement about " 8 days ago" as a given.  Does that portray him as being "the guy in charge" to his bosses (BOT)?  To big money donors and parents?  

The only way Boshini is going to make a public statement like that is because it's not true...and he's got "top cover" from the BOT to feign a bit of ignorance for the greater good of maintaining a good relationship between the Chancellor's office and the rest of the TCU community.

[The Uniballer]

HFrog71, on 17 February 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

Moving some posts over from the GBS thead to consolidate the action here:



Ask yourself this question:  If you were a parent of a TCU student and wanted to lodge a complaint about drug activity your son/daughter has told you about, who would you call/write:  The Chancellor's Office; go one box down the chain and write the Dean of Student Affairs; or go VFR-direct to the head of the campus cops?

Since one of my neighbors has a daughter who lives on Waits Ave, if they were among the complaining parents, they would have addressed their concerns to the Chancellor...just as they would go to the head of any company/organization with a letter of complaint.

To answer your questions above, a) and b), two words:  Plausible deniability.

In my last post on this topic, I described actions I had to take as a commander.  In none of those cases was it made public knowledge that I was the one who initiated the investigation--or agreed to allow my organization to be used during an investigation.  The cops and/or special investigations office took the credit/blame.

Boschini needs to appear to the student body as being "on their side"...so, he needs to look like one of the "good guys wearing a white hat"...he can let the FWPD and TCU PD wear the black hats.  And, let's be honest, this isn't the first time the head of an organization has fudged a little on the facts.  He can't lead TCU if the student body views him as the "Head Narc".

I re-watched the news conference this morning, and a lot of the "conspiracy theories" appear to be springing forth over information regarding operational tactics and details that the FWPD declined to divulge.



Both a Chancellor and a commander are "the guy in charge."  No difference whatsoever in the scope of their responsibilities.  The Chancellor has to answer to his bosses--the Board of Trustees.  A commander must answer to his bosses up the chain-of-command.  Both are held accountable in the always present "court of public opinion."

Taking your side of the argument for a moment, let's say you take Boshini's statement about " 8 days ago" as a given.  Does that portray him as being "the guy in charge" to his bosses (BOT)?  To big money donors and parents?  

The only way Boshini is going to make a public statement like that is because it's not true...and he's got "top cover" from the BOT to feign a bit of ignorance for the greater good of maintaining a good relationship between the Chancellor's office and the rest of the TCU community.

There are certainly similarities between the two jobs -- I think the differences are the realtionships down the chain, not up.  Saying that he only knew 8 days ago does not portray him as the guy in charge, which is why if that's not the case, why you would say it.  I just don't see the value in that.  I think it hurts his realtionship/credibility more than helps it.  if you're trying for some plausible deniability, why not say that you don't want to go into specifics about who knew what and when because this is an ongoing investigation, but that you knew what you needed to know while at the same time keeping enough distance so the investigation wouldn't be influenced.  You didn't want for it even to appear that TCU was trying to hide things.

[The Uniballer]

I heard another interesting theory this morning -- that Patterson's surprise drug test was a surprise to everyone, and that the investigation sped up because they were afraid that Gary's test and the hellstorm that he was about to unleash on the team was going toend up being a warning signal for some of the people they were investigating.

[HFrog71]

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

I heard another interesting theory this morning -- that Patterson's surprise drug test was a surprise to everyone, and that the investigation sped up because they were afraid that Gary's test and the hellstorm that he was about to unleash on the team was going toend up being a warning signal for some of the people they were investigating.

Folks on the FFF are making a big deal over the UC's discussions about the GP drug test in two of the arrest warrants.

To me, the UC was just "keeping in character" as a drug buyer.  If you were a regular buyer and you heard something that might possibly affect your supplier, it would be natural to ask about it.  i.e., you still gonna be in business for my next buy?

And, I agree with you.  GP's unilateral action most likely led to the curtailment of the undercover operations, and the scurry to get the arrest warrants signed (7 Feb) and the bust set up.

[Boston Frog]

I love the concept of a drug-free zone. Drugs are illegal, but they're REALLY illegal in a drug-free zone. Now there's some rational policy. Talk about a mixed message...

In general, I agree with Uni's original post.

[The Uniballer]

Boston Frog, on 17 February 2012 - 11:27 AM, said:

I love the concept of a drug-free zone. Drugs are illegal, but they're REALLY illegal in a drug-free zone. Now there's some rational policy. Talk about a mixed message...

In general, I agree with Uni's original post.

I think when we start writing stuff in stone and stop allowing some wiggle room for common sense, it's a problem.  The idea behind a drug free zone is trying to keep kids from buying/using/selling.  And I am totally in favor of giving people a stronger punishment for selling to kids.  But that doesn't seem like what happened here.  And one of those deals happened within sight of the school my kids go to.

[The Uniballer]

HFrog71, on 17 February 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

Folks on the FFF are making a big deal over the UC's discussions about the GP drug test in two of the arrest warrants.

To me, the UC was just "keeping in character" as a drug buyer.  If you were a regular buyer and you heard something that might possibly affect your supplier, it would be natural to ask about it.  i.e., you still gonna be in business for my next buy?

Agree.  It's probably a good investigatory question.  And if the thoery is correct that they were concerned about the drug testing setting off alarms, it makes sense to ask about it to judge what the response has been.

[Boston Frog]

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

I think when we start writing stuff in stone and stop allowing some wiggle room for common sense, it's a problem.  The idea behind a drug free zone is trying to keep kids from buying/using/selling.  And I am totally in favor of giving people a stronger punishment for selling to kids.  But that doesn't seem like what happened here.  And one of those deals happened within sight of the school my kids go to.

I guess I think of something as being legal or illegal. I got pulled over a couple of years ago driving in Maine on I-95. There was nobody else on the highway; it was a Saturday morning in February, and the weather was clear. I wasn't hurting anybody by going 85 (the cop said 83, thankfully...) in a 65 zone, but the cop gave me a ticket, anyway, because what I was doing was illegal. It didn't matter that I wasn't in a school zone or a residential neighborhood. I got busted. The trooper was waiting on a mostly deserted highway looking for a Masshole like me who couldn't keep his foot off the pedal.

Part of my problem with the notion of a "drug-free zone" is simply the phrase itself. It implies that other zones are not necessarily drug-free and do not even have to be drug-free. Something like a "drug-enforcement zone" or an "increased-penalty zone" might make more sense as a name, but with "drug-free," I feel as though I can take one step outside the zone and sell all the drugs I want without having to worry too much about facing a strict punishment. There's definitely a conflicting message there.

I understand wanting to keep drugs away from schools and such, but there are so many extenuating circumstances at play. Was the drug dealer targeting kids from your kid's school, or did he happen to be making a deal in the vicinity of the school by coincidence (hypothetically speaking)? Let's say a kid from an elementary school takes one step outside a designated drug-free zone and buys pot. Should the guy who sold him that pot get a lesser sentence than a dealer who sold pot to an adult while standing one foot inside a drug-free zone? That's the kind of thing that makes no sense to me. If we're going to have laws, let's have laws. Let's enforce them evenly and fairly. If we're not going to do that, maybe we should rethink the laws themselves. But I think that's what you were saying to begin with.

[The Uniballer]

Boston Frog, on 17 February 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

I guess I think of something as being legal or illegal. I got pulled over a couple of years ago driving in Maine on I-95. There was nobody else on the highway; it was a Saturday morning in February, and the weather was clear. I wasn't hurting anybody by going 85 (the cop said 83, thankfully...) in a 65 zone, but the cop gave me a ticket, anyway, because what I was doing was illegal. It didn't matter that I wasn't in a school zone or a residential neighborhood. I got busted. The trooper was waiting on a mostly deserted highway looking for a Masshole like me who couldn't keep his foot off the pedal.

Part of my problem with the notion of a "drug-free zone" is simply the phrase itself. It implies that other zones are not necessarily drug-free and do not even have to be drug-free. Something like a "drug-enforcement zone" or an "increased-penalty zone" might make more sense as a name, but with "drug-free," I feel as though I can take one step outside the zone and sell all the drugs I want without having to worry too much about facing a strict punishment. There's definitely a conflicting message there.

I understand wanting to keep drugs away from schools and such, but there are so many extenuating circumstances at play. Was the drug dealer targeting kids from your kid's school, or did he happen to be making a deal in the vicinity of the school by coincidence (hypothetically speaking)? Let's say a kid from an elementary school takes one step outside a designated drug-free zone and buys pot. Should the guy who sold him that pot get a lesser sentence than a dealer who sold pot to an adult while standing one foot inside a drug-free zone? That's the kind of thing that makes no sense to me. If we're going to have laws, let's have laws. Let's enforce them evenly and fairly. If we're not going to do that, maybe we should rethink the laws themselves. But I think that's what you were saying to begin with.

Agree.  Same thought behind a hate crime.  Me stabbing you to rob you isn't as bad as me stabbing you because I hate you?

[pcf]

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

I think when we start writing stuff in stone and stop allowing some wiggle room for common sense, it's a problem.  The idea behind a drug free zone is trying to keep kids from buying/using/selling.  And I am totally in favor of giving people a stronger punishment for selling to kids.  But that doesn't seem like what happened here.  And one of those deals happened within sight of the school my kids go to.

BUT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We have a society where the police came and congratulated the laptop murderer for good parenting.

Common sense is out the window whenever the authorities have to get involved. They're like accountants. They can add up the numbers, but that doesn't mean they have a clue how to really change the numbers. You need a lot more imagination than that.

[The Uniballer]

http://www.wfaa.com/...-139493658.html
For criminal defense attorney and former assistant district attorney for Dallas County Toby Shook, more arrests might be on the way, but he doesn't expect investigators to round up any large suppliers.

"Usually the police, when they make arrests like this, they are looking to turn suspects into an informant to make a bigger drug bust," Shook said. "In this case, it looks like from the very beginning they were planned to send a message to the student body."

"If they don't go to the penitentiary, they still are going to face some serious probation," Shook said. "I think this was a very organized effort to send a message to their student body. [...] I'm sure there are a lot of toilets being flushed in the TCU area."

[Tucson Frog]

The Uniballer, on 17 February 2012 - 12:43 PM, said:

http://www.wfaa.com/...-139493658.html
For criminal defense attorney and former assistant district attorney for Dallas County Toby Shook, more arrests might be on the way, but he doesn't expect investigators to round up any large suppliers.

"Usually the police, when they make arrests like this, they are looking to turn suspects into an informant to make a bigger drug bust," Shook said. "In this case, it looks like from the very beginning they were planned to send a message to the student body."

"If they don't go to the penitentiary, they still are going to face some serious probation," Shook said. "I think this was a very organized effort to send a message to their student body. [...] I'm sure there are a lot of toilets being flushed in the TCU area."

Thought this would be a good place to hang this one.

"No drug, not even alcohol, causes the fundamental ills of society. If we're looking for the sources of our troubles, we shouldn't test people for drugs, we should test them for stupidity, ignorance, greed, and love of power." ~ P.J. O'Rourke