Torching a crack house now considered self defence

[RusskiSoldat]

News story

Grand Manan mob shouted 'let it burn,' jury hears
Last Updated: Thursday, November 2, 2006 | 2:46 PM AT
CBC News

An angry mob chanted "let it burn" while blocking RCMP and fire fighters from dousing a burning home during a riot on Grand Manan last summer, a St. Andrews jury heard Thursday morning.

Crown prosecutor Jim McAvity described it as "a very bad night on Grand Manan" while laying out his case against five men charged in connection with the four-hour riot. The men are accused of carrying out a vigilante-style attack on a reputed drug house in the small community of Castalia.

Police officers unload hunting rifles tagged as evidence in the trial of five Grand Manan men accused in an attack on a reputed drug house last July.Police officers unload hunting rifles tagged as evidence in the trial of five Grand Manan men accused in an attack on a reputed drug house last July.
(CBC)

Carter Foster, Matthew Lambert, Michael Small, Lloyd Bainbridge and Greg Guthrey are being tried together by a 12-member jury.

Defence lawyer David Lutz told the court the men were acting in self defence.

In the July 22 incident, police say, the group of people stormed a house on Cedar Street in the small community of Castalia, fought with the people inside, fired gunshots and burned the house down.

One man is charged with arson, three are charged with possession of a weapon for a dangerous purpose and one man faces both those charges. The trial is expected to last two weeks.

The Grand Manan Five is the name of the ferry that links the island to the New Brunswick mainland. It's also a nickname some are using for the five men on trial who range in age from 24 to 31.

Grand Mananer Elaine Brown is among those supporting the men.

She says drug dealers were openly plying their trade, and too many young people were getting hooked on hard drugs.

"They're good boys, they've never done drugs, they're upstanding citizens and we're very concerned about the kids on the island," she said.

Soni Gatta helped raise $30,000 for the men's legal defence fund.

"I personally believe that they were backed into a corner, and I think it was human nature, and I think there's very few of us who wouldn't have reacted the same way in the same situation."

Since the incident, people who live on the Bay of Fundy island have begun to openly admit there's a drug problem on Grand Manan, and some blame the lack of activities for young people.

As a result, citizens have organized local neighbourhood watch committees, and there are renewed efforts to create recreational programs for young people.

Alternative to drugs

Hotel owner Kirk Cheney is leading a drive to build a new skating rink for children. He says the $3.5-million recreation centre will give young people an alternative to drugs.

"Due to the events of the summer, due to the increase of the drugs and negative activities, this island I think is ready to put [in] money and time and invest in our youth."

The drug trade is something else that appears to have changed on Grand Manan. Some people say the supply of hard drugs has all but dried up on the island, and drug dealing is now a lot less blatant.

Mayor Dennis Greene said the dealers have gone underground.

"It's still there, just because it's not in the open doesn't mean that it's gone away. We still realize that there is a drug problem on Grand Manan. But I guess one person said after the Cedar Street incident, it was just a little harder to buy a joint of marijuana."

Greene also said the RCMP realize they have to regain the trust of people on the island, something, he says, that is happening, but slowly.

Hard drugs are one of the bigger problems in big cities, and I fully support the acquittal of these men. I haven't found whether anyone died in this incident, but if they did, I still back the men. Vigilante justice is still justice, which some of you might now as that thing that the American police are not capable of enforcing. For the record, I realize this is happening in Canada, but the problem of police idiocy and laziness is international in its nature. How is it that the justice system somehow manages to not know what is known by entire neighborhoods? I know dozens of people who should be arrested, and about a dozen for whom the police should, in my opinion, just forgo the arrest and line with the nearest wall. While I realize the Russian system with it's 2% acquittal rate (where I'm willing to bet nearly all of the 2% are acquitted because of bribes) and immense police corruption and brutality is not the pinnacle of policing, neither is a police system (the main purpose of which is to gather inteligence on societally dangerous individuals and groups) somehow skips past all that is common knowledge. Vigilante justice should not be punished, but rewarded, mostly by encouraging people turning each other in for crimes the effects of which could be proven (i.e. assault and battery).
Discuss how the police is utterly ineffective and, to an outsider, manages to miss information that is common knowledge and what needs to be done to change that.
Feel free to call me a fascist or whatever, but if there's one thing I believe in, it's the law. Putin promised as part of his campaign to build a dictatorship of the law, one where the law is absolute and the will of it is unchangeable. Needless to say, that is definitely not the case, but I think the idea behind this, the idea of a legal system that actually does it's job, is something that all societies should embrace as fundamental to their prosperity.

[Miraj]

BS, BS and more BS. Thanks. People can smoke whatever crack they want when they want how they want, not my bizness. "Common knowledge" is not a good standard for law and is going to be abused and I really don't know how you propose it to be used in any practical sense.

I'll take a little bit of police inneffeciency and corruption if its the price for living in a free country.

[danzig]

BS, BS and more BS. Thanks. People can smoke whatever crack they want when they want how they want, not my bizness. "Common knowledge" is not a good standard for law and is going to be abused and I really don't know how you propose it to be used in any practical sense.

Well its insane these people got off I dont know where you are getting this 'it isnt your business' thing...drugs like crack are very much your business since its not pot or other recreational drug but a drug that is self destructive and will become your business when a drug addict in need robs you or does worse. Obviously the solution isnt to burn buildings down, these people should have been tossed in jail for that act.

Couldn't they just call the police instead of storming the place themselves?
Last time I checked houses didn't have the habit of running away, so surely there was time to let the authorities deal with it?

Exactly and if police didnt respond to it for some reason then go to the media, expose it...burn it down? Sheesh that is completely idiotic.

And what do they mean by "drug house"?
Is it a place where people use drugs or where they sell them?

Basically an old abandoned (though alot of times not) building/house taken over by seedy elements in order to manfacture/sell/use (or any combo of) illegal drugs at. It is unfortunately a place that everyone who lives by knows what goes on there but for some reason continues to exist. For an extreme example see the rather lame movie New Jack City

[Miraj]

Well its insane these people got off I dont know where you are getting this 'it isnt your business' thing...drugs like crack are very much your business since its not pot or other recreational drug but a drug that is self destructive and will become your business when a drug addict in need robs you or does worse. Obviously the solution isnt to burn buildings down, these people should have been tossed in jail for that act.

People robbing me is my business. What they did to get them to that point is not my business.

People commit crimes for a myriad of reasons, economic, social or psychological and its not societies business to get nosy and start preventing supposed future crimes because of these "root causes".

Crack addicts can utterly destroy themselves as much as they want. Don't bother me a single f**in bit. The problem is not the drugs but the fact that they are illegal. Its not the governments business to impose the majorities drug preferences on citizens. Why should crack be illegal when thousands of thousands of people die in car crashes due to a more dangerous and LEGAL drug called alchohol. And don't get me started on cigarettes.

[danzig]

People robbing me is my business. What they did to get them to that point is not my business.

Dunno I think the cause of it is important as it provides area to aim at to *prevent*.

People commit crimes for a myriad of reasons, economic, social or psychological and its not societies business to get nosy and start preventing supposed future crimes because of these "root causes".

And society constantly makes attempts to solve THOSE problems, economic or social...yes it isnt perfect but it makes the effort why shouldnt drugs be any different?

Crack addicts can utterly destroy themselves as much as they want. Don't bother me a single f**in bit. The problem is not the drugs but the fact that they are illegal. Its not the governments business to impose the majorities drug preferences on citizens. Why should crack be illegal when thousands of thousands of people die in car crashes due to a more dangerous and LEGAL drug called alchohol. And don't get me started on cigarettes.

[/quote]

Problem is they dont just destroy themselves, they destroy others, their own family members and strangers. Oh and fyi dunno about Canada but most US states have stricter punishments for people caught drunk driving if it results in the death of someone. Illegal, HARD drugs are not a right nor a freedom to be protected, goverment/society has *every* right and in fact has a responsibility to combat it. Mind you Im not targeting more 'recreational' drugs like pot etc but crap like Meth and crack where the results of such drugs and its impact on the person AND those around them is clearly obvious.

[Miraj]

Problem is they dont just destroy themselves, they destroy others, their own family members and strangers. Oh and fyi dunno about Canada but most US states have stricter punishments for people caught drunk driving if it results in the death of someone. Illegal, HARD drugs are not a right nor a freedom to be protected, goverment/society has *every* right and in fact has a responsibility to combat it. Mind you Im not targeting more 'recreational' drugs like pot etc but crap like Meth and crack where the results of such drugs and its impact on the person AND those around them is clearly obvious.

What exactly is the difference between hard and soft drugs? I would argue that alchohol has destroyed more families than crack ever has. But why hasn't alchohol be banned. Consistency is key to having real meaningful laws. There is not consistency in why some drugs are banned and some arent. Its nothing but pure social taboos that drives it, not real facts. Either legalize all dangerous mind-altering drugs or ban all of them. I would respect either one but not incosisntent crap like what we have now.

Please watch this:

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?doc...********+drugs

[Erik]

Problem is they dont just destroy themselves, they destroy others, their own family members and strangers.

How exactly do they destroy others?

[Erik]

I don't get it.

Couldn't they just call the police instead of storming the place themselves?
Last time I checked houses didn't have the habit of running away, so surely there was time to let the authorities deal with it?

And what do they mean by "drug house"?
Is it a place where people use drugs or where they sell them?

[Gwendylyn]

And what do they mean by "drug house"?
Is it a place where people use drugs or where they sell them?

Neither. It's where they are made.

[MaximiIian]

I don't get it.
Couldn't they just call the police instead of storming the place themselves?
Last time I checked houses didn't have the habit of running away, so surely there was time to let the authorities deal with it?

Cops can be bribed, though, and often are. Vigilante justice works in extreme situations, and this was one of them.

And what do they mean by "drug house"?
Is it a place where people use drugs or where they sell them?

Pretty much. Also might be a place of manufacture, in the case of crystal meth.

[RusskiSoldat]

People robbing me is my business. What they did to get them to that point is not my business.

So you choose to remain blind to the cause and treat the symptoms?
If a brain cancer gives you headache, would you take an aspirin and forget about it?

People commit crimes for a myriad of reasons, economic, social or psychological and its not societies business to get nosy and start preventing supposed future crimes because of these "root causes".

I know from personal experience drugs are the cause of much violence and other crimes.

Crack addicts can utterly destroy themselves as much as they want. Don't bother me a single f**in bit. The problem is not the drugs but the fact that they are illegal. Its not the governments business to impose the majorities drug preferences on citizens. Why should crack be illegal when thousands of thousands of people die in car crashes due to a more dangerous and LEGAL drug called alchohol. And don't get me started on cigarettes.

Cigarettes don't destroy anybody who isn't directly exposed for them.
Alcohol is, admittedly, one of society's vices, but one that is too commonplace to crack down upon.
I'm all in favor of legalizing pot (I've never heard of someone going crazy for pot and robbing people to get more) as well as a myriad of others, but it is undeniable that heroin and cocaine (particularly crack) are destructive in a far greater way than alcohol or cigarettes (with cigarettes most people dead seem to be lifelong smokers who get lung cancer in their 60s or later, crack addicts tend to die or leave an utterly pathetic existence within a couple of years of trying for the first time) and often literally destroys entire communities.
Notice how Ireland and Russia have a reputation for drunks.
Why doesn't America have a reputation for crack addicts?
Because they don't live long enough to procreate, and in the rare cases they do, their children are generally clearly inferior to the average child in ability, and doomed to poverty. Crack is a societal problem, not a harmless little hobby.

[Miraj]

Cigarettes don't destroy anybody who isn't directly exposed for them.
Alcohol is, admittedly, one of society's vices, but one that is too commonplace to crack down upon.
I'm all in favor of legalizing pot (I've never heard of someone going crazy for pot and robbing people to get more) as well as a myriad of others, but it is undeniable that heroin and cocaine (particularly crack) are destructive in a far greater way than alcohol or cigarettes (with cigarettes most people dead seem to be lifelong smokers who get lung cancer in their 60s or later, crack addicts tend to die or leave an utterly pathetic existence within a couple of years of trying for the first time) and often literally destroys entire communities.
Notice how Ireland and Russia have a reputation for drunks.
Why doesn't America have a reputation for crack addicts?
Because they don't live long enough to procreate, and in the rare cases they do, their children are generally clearly inferior to the average child in ability, and doomed to poverty. Crack is a societal problem, not a harmless little hobby.

Crack is a societal problem and needs to be dealt with in mature manner. Not banning it. Clearly that doesn't work. Drugs should always be legal but controlled which is totally different. If it were like this the situation with crack addicts would be a lot neater and more easier to fix. Clearly making crack illegal doesn't stop any of the problems. If the substance were controlled and it were sold in the same way as any other legal drug then crimes would drop and so would people suffering from it quitely since illegality reduces the chances of people seeking help.

I know this will sound mean but if someone is so stupid to decide to use crack then perhaps the miserable wretch deserves to leave the gene pool. And if you made all drugs legal the mechanics of the market would probably reduce the influence of crack since miserable and unhappy people would choose to use legal marijuana or hashish rather than harm themselves with crack or cocaine.

Illegality of the drugs and the resulting black market is the problem. Illegality leads to the problem being hidden and exposing itself only at the worst stages. Legalizing them would eliminate this problem.

[RusskiSoldat]

Crack is a societal problem and needs to be dealt with in mature manner. Not banning it. Clearly that doesn't work. Drugs should always be legal but controlled which is totally different. If it were like this the situation with crack addicts would be a lot neater and more easier to fix. Clearly making crack illegal doesn't stop any of the problems. If the substance were controlled and it were sold in the same way as any other legal drug then crimes would drop and so would people suffering from it quitely since illegality reduces the chances of people seeking help.

What?
I don't think there are penalties for addicts who want to get help.
The problem is not that they can't get help, it's that they don't want help, they want more crack (some eventually do seek help after seeing how much they lost).

I know this will sound mean but if someone is so stupid to decide to use crack then perhaps the miserable wretch deserves to leave the gene pool. And if you made all drugs legal the mechanics of the market would probably reduce the influence of crack since miserable and unhappy people would choose to use legal marijuana or hashish rather than harm themselves with crack or cocaine.

You do realize that most who go on to crack start with pot?
The whole "gateway drug" think is probably true.
Pot is somewhat societally acceptable and as such is the stepping stone to other drugs.
However making it fully acceptable and legalizing it would get rid of such a stepping stone and make it so that there is no gradual path to crack.
But you're foolish to assume somebody randomly one day decides to smoke crack for the hell of it, they (in every case I know) start with something else.
Same for all drug users.
If a guy used X, PCP or shrooms, he still most likely started with pot.

Illegality of the drugs and the resulting black market is the problem. Illegality leads to the problem being hidden and exposing itself only at the worst stages. Legalizing them would eliminate this problem.

Legalizing them would indeed solve the problem of them being illegal, but not much else.
Luckily, crack and heroin do not make the majority of most dealers' sales.
Pot does.
Legalize that, and encourage competition (and possibly subsidize it) so that prices are reduced to the point where dealers can't compete, and as such don't have a start out drug (fun fact: I know a few people who went into dealing, they started out with casually dealing pot around their block. If it was sold at every pharmacy, there would be no startup). As for crack itself, it indeed needs to be kept illegal, and America has very often compromised libertarian principles (just about every regulation on anything is compromising these principles) for the sake of expediency.
Legalizing soft drugs as a way to cut off the majority of dealers' profits and get rid of a possibility of gradually upping the drug you take (in terms of rarity, as all would be freely available) is a more attractive option than letting the inner city rot as it does now.
As for my whole theory on gateway drugs: pot is very widely available, so naturally people go to that first. A lot of those who do, go on to more expensive and rarer extacy, or go on to illegally gotten prescription drugs like Xanax. By this point, the vast majority has taken all that they will. What follows are fairly rare and/or expensive drugs: shrooms, PCP, and a variety of designer drugs among them. Out of those who try that, a good majority will go on to cocaine, which is the first societally damaging one, but mildly so. Out of those, a small portion go to the really hard stuff. By legalizing everything up to coke, you get rid of 2/3 of the metaphorical ladder to hard drugs. You can climb a ladder with a few steps missing and it doesn't take much effort, but you have to really want to do it if you're going to climb a ladder most of which has no steps.

[Miraj]

You do realize that most who go on to crack start with pot?
The whole "gateway drug" think is probably true.
Pot is somewhat societally acceptable and as such is the stepping stone to other drugs.
However making it fully acceptable and legalizing it would get rid of such a stepping stone and make it so that there is no gradual path to crack.
But you're foolish to assume somebody randomly one day decides to smoke crack for the hell of it, they (in every case I know) start with something else.
Same for all drug users.
If a guy used X, PCP or shrooms, he still most likely started with pot.
.

I really doubt the whole gateway thing. If you've every smoked pot and been to a North American high school just try selling weed smoking kids crack, they will knock you out on the spot. I have plenty of pot smoking buddies in university they have never considered crack or anything else. Neither have I. Even if it it true I still don't think crack should be illegal.

Look, I used to be a religious Muslim for a long time. Never drank alchohol, never will. Even though I'm no longer religious I still don't ever drink alchohol.

When my buddies try to get me to go to the university bar and drink some beers I basically see a couple guys who are asking me to join them in pouring un-nutrional chemicals down my throat. To me alchohol really is no different than crack, an addictive subtance that makes you all f**ed up and weird. I consider them as paying to harm their bodies.

And one guy had been dumped by his girlfriend ended up drinking too much and eventualy dropped out because of low marks. Thats tragic. I think alchohol is utterly stupid and why people drink it baffles me. But crack is no different, its a way to escape, its addictive and it destroys lives and families.

Neither should be illegal.

[Erik]

The whole "gateway drug" think is probably true.

It's proven false, actually.

If a guy used X, PCP or shrooms, he still most likely started with pot.

Maybe, but this doesn't mean he went to other drugs BECAUSE he used to smoke pot.
In fact: if it wasn't for pot he would most likely used the other drugs at a much younger age.

And contrary to your theory there are lots of kids who start with cocaine before they use any other drugs (except for alcohol perhaps).
The main factor in choosing a drug is what your friends are using.

I think alchohol is utterly stupid and why people drink it baffles me.

I use it because:
1) it makes me enjoy parties and some other social events a lot more. I went off alcohol for a year once, and I found that going out wasn't nearly as much fun as it used to be.
I personally don't see why people smoke marijuana, it gave me some funny situations sometimes but more often it only made me feel dizzy and slow. (maybe I can't handle marijuana as well as the next person)
Everyone his own drugs I suppose.
2) it makes girls look prettier.

[Manji]

I use it because:
1) it makes me enjoy parties and some other social events a lot more. I went off alcohol for a year once, and I found that going out wasn't nearly as much fun as it used to be.
2) it makes girls look prettier.

Quoted for Truth, both; I'd also add:

3) it's a great complement to almost all social activities that don't require great physical action (watching football, eating, watching a movie, a box fight, etc...)

4) it's part of group bonding, namely male bonding; almost every guy goes out with his friends to get wasted, it's how one can feel "in the group".

5) Slight alcoholic side effects are great to deal with some social events as Christmas, family reunion, etc.

6) it has been proven that alcohol spirits, in moderate quantities, are good for your heart pressure and digestion.

[RusskiSoldat]

I really doubt the whole gateway thing. If you've every smoked pot and been to a North American high school just try selling weed smoking kids crack, they will knock you out on the spot.

Jesus ****ing Christ, what kind of high school did you go to where people smoke crack?
I mean, plenty of people smoke pot in school, and a few do pills of various sorts, but I've never heard of anyone smoking crack.
Also, why the hell would you randomly come up to kids smoking crack and try to sell them pot?
Dealers go up to kids looking for pot to sell them pot. It's more common sense than anything. If you have something, sell it to someone who wants to buy it.

I have plenty of pot smoking buddies in university they have never considered crack or anything else. Neither have I. Even if it it true I still don't think crack should be illegal.

Everyone smokes pot. Few people smoke crack. Considering you are all in university, you have already passed a significant inteligence test, the kind which most people who take up crack won't even before an addiction.
I know more high school drop outs than people who are university graduates/plan to be such.
Where you from?

Look, I used to be a religious Muslim for a long time. Never drank alchohol, never will. Even though I'm no longer religious I still don't ever drink alchohol.

First of all, it's irrelevant. Second of all, of course you won't because you're already used to not drinking.
Man is a creature of habit.

When my buddies try to get me to go to the university bar and drink some beers I basically see a couple guys who are asking me to join them in pouring un-nutrional chemicals down my throat. To me alchohol really is no different than crack, an addictive subtance that makes you all f**ed up and weird. I consider them as paying to harm their bodies.

If you think alcohol is anywhere as addictive as crack you have either never drank alcohol, don't know anything about crack, or both.

And one guy had been dumped by his girlfriend ended up drinking too much and eventualy dropped out because of low marks. Thats tragic. I think alchohol is utterly stupid and why people drink it baffles me. But crack is no different, its a way to escape, its addictive and it destroys lives and families.

Dropping out of a college is unfortunate.
Dying in an alley is far more so.
Anyway, considering your friends go to college, that means they have already a 1 up on my friends a good half of whom dropped out of high school or are failing most of their classes.

It's proven false, actually.

By what?
Studies?
What were they trying to disprove?
That if you smoke pot you will probably not go on to crack?
I don't need a study to tell me that, it's common sense.
I also don't need a study to tell me that someone going straight to crack without going through a multitude of other things damn near never happens.

Maybe, but this doesn't mean he went to other drugs BECAUSE he used to smoke pot.

I didn't say he did.

In fact: if it wasn't for pot he would most likely used the other drugs at a much younger age.

I fail to see the reasoning behind this.

And contrary to your theory there are lots of kids who start with cocaine before they use any other drugs (except for alcohol perhaps).

Maybe in Holland.

The main factor in choosing a drug is what your friends are using.

...which just supports me. I never said cocaine is used anywhere as widely as pot. I know a good number of pot smokers who won't do cocaine out of principle.
Anyway, cocaine is expensive (another reason kids having a coke habit doesn't seem too likely) and I know a few constant cocaine users. They sure as hell didn't start with it. They moved on from other things. Mostly pot->ecstasy->cocaine.

[Da Skinna]

Government makes too much money off alcohol and cigarettes to ban it. Ambiguous and reeking of double standards maybe, but that's that.

I think people should do whatever they like as long as they know its effects, what it does, and what can happen if they do them. Education, really. But people are not like that so when we have crack houses, and vigilante mobs, justice is done. But again, do they know what they're doing?

The one drug they could, and actually could legalize and sell, is marijuana. But like alcohol, it shouldn't be used when driving is involved, or really anything productive. But unlike alcohol, people can do better working with weed than perhaps normally, at some times.

Hard drugs simply cannot be done like that however, they are too damaging, and do contribute to society's ills. Crack is a prime example. Ultimately, it destroys lives.

[Da Skinna]

They forgot to add opium because they were on opium...

It's the harmful stuff, the actual harmful stuff including cigarettes, that needs looking after and monitoring and abolishing if need be.

[RusskiSoldat]

Well, that's what is considered the "gateway theory".
That smoking pot increases your chance of switching to harder drugs that is.

As opposed to not smoking pot?
It seems common sense (among other things) that it's true.
Everyone I know who does any sort of drugs started with pot.
As such, the chance of doing hard drugs without pot in my experience is 0.

People start using drugs for a reason.
If they can't get drug A they will use drug B.

For example: if you remove Marijuana people will look for alternatives, which are often far more dangerous.

Or they would not start with drugs.
A lot of people around here were smoking and drinking from around age 13.
If pot wasn't around, first of all, I doubt there would be many dealers around since pot is the bulk of what they sell.

Hehe, maybe.
But I see no reason why my country is so unique when coming to cocaine.
I do have to point out that it is only common in certain villages that are very isolated.
AFAIK cocaine is only common in villages that are almost entirely relying on the fishing industry.

My experience with cocaine use use in Dutch fishing villages is minimal, so I won't continue arguing this point.

But the interesting thing is: why are they so principally against cocaine, but not against alcohol and marijuana?
I think this is all cultural.

Because they see the tangible effects of cocaine as far worse than alcohol and marijuana.
In the long term, most cocaine users I know became far more angry, had constant mood swings, and as such did very out of character things that are certainly not something most would want to emulate.
Pot smokers don't really have a reputation. It's seen here that if you are lazy you smoke a lot of pot, rather than the other way around.

The type of kids I was talking about work more than 12 hours a day for certain periods and make loads of money.
They mainly use cocaine to stay awake on their job, but also to make their job more pleasant.

Since most people I know are mostly poor and avoid work as much as possible, we're clearly not on the same level.
Netherlands is very unique, and so is America.
Our experiences on drug related matters are as such very different.