A thread for LEOs on the site.

[Kalebaiden]

Since I want you to answer, and I'm certain that some of you do happen to be LEOs please make throwaway accounts for this thread. So your anonymity is preserved.

I'd like to ask some questions about enforcement and specifically when it comes to enforcing drug laws.

 

[ODanksta]

How do my tacos look?

 

[ODanksta]

This is my cop dog, ive taught him to sniff only the dankest of the dank. He care also smell your IP address too.

 

[bu$hleaguer]

How do my tacos look?View attachment 3479221View attachment 3479223

Wow I love the laptop being used as a tv stand! Adventurous!

 

[testiclees]

Valentina!

My locale is loaded with folks from Puebla. The cooking is mind bending.

 

[Singlemalt]

How do my tacos look?View attachment 3479221View attachment 3479223

Nice. Pico de gallo?

 

[ODanksta]

Nice. Pico de gallo?

Rotel

 

[Kalebaiden]

Those are some beautiful tacos, I wish I could eat them but their probably beef aren't they.

 

[vro]

fuck cops!!!!!!!!!

 

[ODanksta]

Those are some beautiful tacos, I wish I could eat them but their probably beef aren't they.

nope, it's ground jewish baby foreskins

 

[6ohMax]

Some cops mean well and are decent. ..but most of em?

Yo dre I got something to say, Fuck the Police

 

[curious2garden]

Since I want you to answer, and I'm certain that some of you do happen to be LEOs please make throwaway accounts for this thread. So your anonymity is preserved.

I'd like to ask some questions about enforcement and specifically when it comes to enforcing drug laws.

What do you want to know? I would go see a criminal law attorney not an enforcer. It's not what they enforce it's what can be proven in front of a trier of fact that matters.

 

[Kalebaiden]

What do you want to know? I would go see a criminal law attorney not an enforcer. It's not what they enforce it's what can be proven in front of a trier of fact that matters.

Initially, LEOs have the discriminatory right on whether something or not goes into investigation. This being a growers forum, at what point do officers decide that an individual is worth investigating. At what point would they look at pressing charges against an individual vs passing one over.

Since initially a LEO would be the one seeing our posts, is the guy growing 3 for personal safe and the one growing 1 for sale isn't? I'm trying to figure out where their discretion stops being a choice before investigating and if at their discretion someone could be passed over.

(P.S. I just got home, I'm really high and this is the best my brain can form wordages)

 

[Balzac89]

Initially, LEOs have the discriminatory right on whether something or not goes into investigation. This being a growers forum, at what point do officers decide that an individual is worth investigating. At what point would they look at pressing charges against an individual vs passing one over.

Since initially a LEO would be the one seeing our posts, is the guy growing 3 for personal safe and the one growing 1 for sale isn't? I'm trying to figure out where their discretion stops being a choice before investigating and if at their discretion someone could be passed over.

(P.S. I just got home, I'm really high and this is the best my brain can form wordages)

Discretion is always a choice when it comes to pursuing anyone who has broken a law.

It all depends on the investigating officer and what they are trying to accomplish.

They may use someone who has broken a minor law (misdemeanor or low level felony) to become a Confidential Informant to get a "Bigger Fish"

But as a rat if you don't have much to offer they will toast you.

 

[Kalebaiden]

It's not always a choice.

I did three years of Canadian law and from everything I've learned and looked up it seems there's a line of discretion. Anything before an 'investigation' can be overlooked or outright dismissed by an officer but as soon as that officer decided it's an investigation, everything is in motion and can't be stopped.

So where's that fine line?

 

[droopy107]

nope, it's ground jewish baby foreskins

I hear they taste like veal?

 

[OddBall1st]

It's not always a choice.

I did three years of Canadian law and from everything I've learned and looked up it seems there's a line of discretion. Anything before an 'investigation' can be overlooked or outright dismissed by an officer but as soon as that officer decided it's an investigation, everything is in motion and can't be stopped.

So where's that fine line?

That fine line is at the bottom right of the check.

 

[Balzac89]

It's not always a choice.

I did three years of Canadian law and from everything I've learned and looked up it seems there's a line of discretion. Anything before an 'investigation' can be overlooked or outright dismissed by an officer but as soon as that officer decided it's an investigation, everything is in motion and can't be stopped.

So where's that fine line?

It's hard to draw a line when there's so many variables

 

[Balzac89]

Every officer and situation is different.

 

[Kalebaiden]

Every officer and situation is different.

That's what I've learned but it's not a solid answer.

So here's a scenario:

Guy 1 has a valid medical reason to have a pot licence but doesn't actually have one, he has one grow with 2 plants and documents everything online. He's not hiding his name and is easily easily traceable. Two threads down, is a person in a similar situation but instead of having a medical reason, their growing for profit. It's illegal to grow without a licence in both places. Do they both warrant an investigation or neither of them because the amount is so low? Does the for profit guy warrant one and the medical guy not? That's why I wanted to hear from actual LEOs, I wanted to get their thoughts on this and see what their comfortable with letting slide.