To Protect and to Serve II

Did you read and comprehend what he just asked you? Are you sure you want to asking "why not?" to that?

I got slammed earlier for making the comment to orangeblood79 about the ends justifying the means and here you go defending that approach.

Do I personally take someone else’s immorality and ascribe it to myself? No. Was my investigation into a crook moral? Yes, I believe it was. Not hard to understand. His statement assumed that I would agree with his premise. I do not. A crook is a crook.
 
Illegal and untaxed proceeds. Free game and fun to take. Dont sell drugs.

In many cases no drugs are found. Still cool with that?

Again, we’re at the immoral means not leading to a moral end. Just because some politician declares something “illegal” doesn’t make it moral.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
Sure, its called an investigation.

Read carefully.

Drugs go north.

Money goes south.

Usually not at the same place at the same time.

Drugs get sold, theyre gone. The money is now there. Boom.

That makes anyone driving with cash in the southbound lane a suspect.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
And apparently the part of the Constitution that says no one can be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process is just bs!

They get due process. Think of it as arresting the proceeds and the hearing is later in a civil court. This occurs for obvious reasons.
 
They get due process. Think of it as arresting the proceeds and the hearing is later in a civil court. This occurs for obvious reasons.

Why do the interdiction teams always face the southbound lanes and not the northbound ones? Shouldn’t they be trying to protect people from drugs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
Advertisement





Back
Top