Drug Trade on Wyandotte in Wesport

[chrizow]

i don't think brian is concerned with drug transactions per se, but the substantially heightened risk of violence that is attendant to such transactions and some of the people who participate in them. 

if brian is afraid to walk down 39th b/c there are crack dealers and crackheads milling about, his liberty has been impinged by the dealer and buyers. 

what if there were a fire dealer behind labor ready?  people could go up, pay a guy $10, the guy lights him/her on fire and then he/she walks down the street minding his/her own business.  should we not call the cops or fire department until those individuals ignite brian or his property?  isn't the heightened fire risk enough?  (surreal example but i think it is prescient)

[LenexatoKCMO]

As an alleged officer of the court, why would you support involving the authorities on one crime (assault, or whatever), but not another (using/selling drugs)?

Perhaps sadly, a Lawyer's only ethical obligation is to not break the law and to "uphold the legal process" 

MO RPC Preamble - ". . . A lawyer's conduct should conform to the requirements of the law, both in professional service to clients and in the lawyer's business and personal affairs. A lawyer should use the law's procedures only for legitimate purposes and not to harass or intimidate others. A lawyer should demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including judges, other lawyers and public officials. While it is a lawyer's duty, when necessary, to challenge the rectitude of official action, it is also a lawyer's duty to uphold legal process. . ."

Unlike other professions such as doctors and social workers, Lawyers are not under a direct ethical obligation to report crimes.

[kigmee]

I agree that the whole narcotics issue needs to move from a penal to a public health model.  However, trying to decide which crimes are victimless and therefore not worthy of enforcement is not a good basis for building a healthy society.  A lot of infractions are victimless until suddenly they aren't.  You can speed on the roads and coast through stops signs all day long without hurting anyone until someone else fails to check their blindspot when changing lanes and you're overtaking them, or a pedestrian steps out from behind a parked truck at a crosswalk.  Some laws are written to prevent bad situations from developing instead of dealing with the aftermath.

[KCMax]

Let's all drink and drive! It only hurts our bodies!

[nota]

Did you happen to think that Tom P might be one of the drug dealers?

I'm voting on "get the jerks out of your neighborhood" period the end. Let them take it to their own neighborhood.

If the cops have to earn their money a little more, so be it.

[KCKev]

once again I will say...

Make everything legal,sell it in a controlled environment so kids are safe from the drugs till the are 21. Use the taxes from sales to benefit everyone.

This eliminates the drug dealer and controlls quality.

Let the police catch the real criminals that are infesting our society!

So simple.....

[tompendergast]

i don't think brian is concerned with drug transactions per se, but the substantially heightened risk of violence that is attendant to such transactions and some of the people who participate in them. 

But that's just an assumption.  Clearly, these people haven't done anything to briantsmith25 yet.  So, again, basing the incredibly harsh remedy of criminal prosecution shouldn't be based on a mere assumption.

if brian is afraid to walk down 39th b/c there are crack dealers and crackheads milling about, his liberty has been impinged by the dealer and buyers. 

Being afraid isn't a liberty interest - especially when that fear comes from nothing more than an assumption.  One could apply that same reasoning to smoking, drinking, or any other legal activity.  See my several months of posts in the proposed smoking ban thead for more details.

what if there were a fire dealer behind labor ready?  people could go up, pay a guy $10, the guy lights him/her on fire and then he/she walks down the street minding his/her own business.  should we not call the cops or fire department until those individuals ignite brian or his property?  isn't the heightened fire risk enough?  (surreal example but i think it is prescient)

Surreal indeed, and wholly irrelevant.  When a person is lit on fire and running around uncontrollably, that fire presents a clear and present physical danger to any property it touches - clearly implicating an interest in property.  A few people milling about and using/dealing drugs isn't the same clear and present physical danger at all to anyone or anything besides those people themselves.

Let's all drink and drive! It only hurts our bodies!

Drinking and driving also presents a clear and present danger to others on the road.  A more analogous situation to the one presented here would be drinking, without driving.  Drinking while milling about on a street or in an alley only does hurt the drinker's body; that's why the General Assembly changed the law so as to allow street consumption it in the Power & Light District.

Did you happen to think that Tom P might be one of the drug dealers?

If only... then I wouldn't have all these darned student loans to pay back.    No, I neither use nor sell drugs, despite my extreme disapproval of sumptuary laws.  Though I choose not to use those things myself, that doesn't mean I believe that other people shouldn't have the liberty to make a different choice.  If someone isn't actively harassing me in a physical or verbal manner, I mind my own business as to their affairs.

I'm voting on "get the jerks out of your neighborhood" period the end. Let them take it to their own neighborhood.

Your notion that the people in question are "jerks" is a mere subjective opinion.  Actions of force should not be based on assumptions.  briantsmith25 was concerned about a few people using/dealing drugs near his residence.  In my subjective opinion, that doesn't make those people jerks; why should your subjective opinion be more important than mine?  Clearly, both simply are opinions.  Until the people in question do something which encroaches on briantsmith25's property or liberty interests, I do not believe that resorting to criminal prosecution is warranted.  My advice stands: let the drug users/sellers be and chill out. 

[voltopt]

A good friend of mine was mugged at Central and 39th by persons offering to sell him various illegal and ridiculous drugs.  They took his cell phone and cash, and broke his nose.  Why should these drug traffickers be free to violently attack and rob innocent passerby?

[K.C.Highrise]

How long ago was that Voltopt

[mean]

A good friend of mine was mugged at Central and 39th by persons offering to sell him various illegal and ridiculous drugs.  They took his cell phone and cash, and broke his nose.  Why should these drug traffickers be free to violently attack and rob innocent passerby?

Who said they should be free to violently attack and rob innocent passersby? That is exactly what tompendergast is saying they shouldn't be free to do.

I'm afraid he's the only one making a persuasive argument here so far.

[Brodees]

I'm afraid he's the only one making a persuasive argument here so far.

Actually I've been waiting for a response since 3:20:46 PM (to be exact) this afternoon.  Again:

That is a dangerous attitude.  You've made it clear that these people operate outside of the law in order to exact their ideas of justice.  So why should this person, being an innocent bystander, willingly shoulder a greater risk of being injured or killed should an armed confrontation break out near his residence simply because the danger is "certainly less than if [he] actually did interfere with their interprise"?  The grave risk is still there and it's greater than any citizen should have to accept.

Per Tompendergast, others' assumptions appear to be the flaw du jour, yet the crux of my reasoning for contesting his stance arises from what I see as his own assumption -- and a dangerous one, too.  He stated that "The only chance he stands at getting hurt is if he interferes with their enterprise, because they can't sue him for commercial frustration or something of the like."  Well if the only chance that this guy has of getting injured or killed comes from interference, then our beloved (and deceased) ex-city councilman appears to be making the assumption that briantsmith25 runs no risk of getting injured or killed as an innocent bystander should an armed confrontation break out.  He has explicitly stated that these dealers can't "sue" as a means to seek remedy for "commercial frustration or something of the like," thus they must resort to vigilante justice should a problem arise.

So I ask again: Though the risk of being injured or killed by happenstance may be less than the risk arising from direct interference with these rogue individuals, why should briantsmith25 have to shoulder even the risk of the former?  Even if he had no intention of interfering in any way, he still takes on the additional worry and risk that one day somebody may very well interfere or cause a problem with these dealers and that he may be the unfortunate casualty of a stray bullet. 

[mean]

So I ask again: Though the risk of being injured or killed by happenstance may be less than the risk arising from direct interference with these rogue individuals, why should briantsmith25 have to shoulder even the risk of the former?  Even if he had no intention of interfering in any way, he still takes on the additional worry and risk that one day somebody may very well interfere or cause a problem with these dealers and that he may be the unfortunate casualty of a stray bullet. 

"Causing worry" is not an infringement upon liberty, and any possible "risk" to briantsmith25 has not been demonstrated and could very well be in his head. You're making a lot of assumptions about who is or is not a "rogue individual". Maybe briantsmith25 is a "rogue individual" trying to cause distress to an innocent group of people who happen to hang out in his neighborhood that he doesn't like, for whatever personal reasons he might have. How are we to know? How quick we are to assume that people different from us are drug dealers or other so-called unsavory characters!

Further, if you look at the real risk of being the "casualty of a stray bullet" I think you will find that this fear is entirely irrational and stupid. Might as well lock yourself in a rubber room in fear of that lightning that is going to blast you, or that truck that is going to run you over as you cross the street.

[Brodees]

"Causing worry" is not an infringement upon liberty, and any possible "risk" to briantsmith25 has not been demonstrated and could very well be in his head. You're making a lot of assumptions about who is or is not a "rogue individual". Maybe briantsmith25 is a "rogue individual" trying to cause distress to an innocent group of people who happen to hang out in his neighborhood that he doesn't like, for whatever personal reasons he might have. How are we to know? How quick we are to assume that people different from us are drug dealers or other so-called unsavory characters!

All of the above could be resolved by requesting the assistance of the police -- which Tompendergast protested to begin with since, in his opinion, these people are just "minding their own business."  I certainly didn't claim that anyone should be arrested or prosecuted without due process of law just because they are causing worry; I am supporting a concerned citizen's desire to have this investigated by the police in order to determine whether or not it is "in his head," so that if he indeed is correct, he doesn't have to assume the consequential increased risks associated with living near rogue individuals.  Does he, as a concerned citizen, not have the right to ask for that assistance? (And where in his comments did he assume that they must be drug dealers because they are "different" from him?)

Further, if you look at the real risk of being the "casualty of a stray bullet" I think you will find that this fear is entirely irrational and stupid. Might as well lock yourself in a rubber room in fear of that lightning that is going to blast you, or that truck that is going to run you over as you cross the street.

No matter how "irrational" or "stupid" that you claim the fear to be, the difference between your hypotheticals and mine is that the latter is the result of illegal activity (assuming the truck driver wasn't breaking any laws).  If lightening strikes me, so be it; if I get run over by a truck, so be it.  But if I am the resulting casualty of a law-breaking vigilante drug dealer's conflict, because someone was told to just "chill out" (since there's "no chance" of getting hurt) in lieu of calling the police after witnessing said dealer partaking in strange daily activities, then that is perverted justice in my book.

[nota]

The whole problem here is that those who are advocating leaving the poor drug dealers to ply their trade are not having it happen in their own neighborhood.

For many reasons, a neighbor should call the cops and insist they respond and clean up these criminals.

[tjokskalle]

    YOU GOTTA PLAY DIRTY WITH THESE ASSHOLES!
  Be a little creative and have some fun with these jerk offs;get
some dog poop and toss it over where they hang making it
a little less comfortable or you can use my favorite trick and use the poop
in the purse with a dollar bill hanging out of it or better yet the mother
of all chuckles...empty a six pack"bottles" of beer and piss in em,put the
caps back on and rechill them.you put them out when you know they will
be there and man is it funny as hell.

        We can even invite that ass burgler pendergast....we`ll use em for bait

[briantsmith25]

I think some people kind of got the wrong idea about me. I not afraid of these guys. These aren't the kingpin drug dealers. They are basically junkies selling to junkies. I'm not assuming they are selling and using drugs. I KNOW THEY ARE. I watch them do it. Do these guys bother me personally? No. Besides the occasional begging for a cig or money. Am i worried for my safety? Absolutley not. A strong wind would blow most of these guys over.

So why don't I just chill?

Nobody wants this on their street. I don't care what your tolerence of "shadyness" is. I don't consider where I live the "Ghetto" nor do I think I will never see any of this activity. But this shit goes on everyday. Not every now and then. It makes the street look like shit and brings in unwanted riff-raff. I don't give a damn about "civil liberties". They can go practice their civil liberties on their own block. The trash they leave behind is absolutley disgusting and the vibe they put off is intimidating to a lot of people. So NO. I'm not just gonna let them be and leave them alone to do what ever they want on what is otherwise a peaceful block.

[kard]

I think some people kind of got the wrong idea about me. I not afraid of these guys.

I don't think you have anything to prove to anyone here--I'd say almost everyone is glad to hear what you're doing and would appreciate neighbors like you living next to them.  Keep up the good work.

[briantsmith25]

I don't think you have anything to prove to anyone here--I'd say almost everyone is glad to hear what you're doing and would appreciate neighbors like you living next to them.  Keep up the good work.

I'm tyrin man, I'm tryin.

[chrizow]

I'm afraid he's the only one making a persuasive argument here so far.

he's the only one making a purist, in-a-vacuum, libertarian appeal to platonic notions of Liberty, etc., but c'mon, as a practical matter, would you seriously tolerate open air crack dealing 10 feet from your doorstep?  you're telling me you wouldn't call the police b/c the crack dealers and crackheads haven't infringed on your "liberty" until they rob or assault you?

i actually went down to check this situation out yesterday.  i parked on wyandotte and walked around.  i saw at least three separate jokers that were clearly dealing - one behind labor ready just to the east, one across the street, and one on the west/rear side of Labor Ready.  i have no idea why the cops just don't take them down - makes me wonder if the cops leave them be for some reason (i.e. they're rats or something)

regardless of concerns about Liberty, the fact that these people are selling crack on a street corner increases the risk of violent and property crime for everyone around there.  even if the risk went from one in a million to one in a 100,000, that's enough to call the police.  again, i support legalization, but in the meantime, when people rob and shoot other people due to drugs like crack, i will call the police 600 times per day to get it out of my backyard.  briantsmith is entirely justified.

[Brodees]

i actually went down to check this situation out yesterday.  i parked on wyandotte and walked around.  i saw at least three separate jokers that were clearly dealing - one behind labor ready just to the east, one across the street, and one on the west/rear side of Labor Ready.  i have no idea why the cops just don't take them down - makes me wonder if the cops leave them be for some reason (i.e. they're rats or something)

Novel idea.  Maybe we should arrange a KCRag field trip with a big yellow school bus, sack lunches, permission and waiver forms, and we can all experience the wonderful burgeoning enterprise that has shot up (pardon the pun) around the Labor Ready block.