Police to go undercover at Colby parties

WATERVILLE -- Deputy Police Chief Joseph Massey said he will send undercover police officers to the Colby College campus to stem the surge of underage drinking after another alleged weekend of college boozing.

Massey said five Colby women, three of them members of the college's lacrosse team, were arrested and several others were issued summonses after parties Friday night and Saturday night. He said the numbers of hospital visits, arrests and summonses for illegal possession of alcohol by minors this school year has forced his hand.

"I will do some undercover operations on campus," Massey said Monday. "I think the level of underage drinking we're seeing since the beginning of the year warrants some undercover details."

Massey said plainclothes police officers will walk the Mayflower Hill campus and will sit in parked cars, watching the comings and goings of students at Colby. He said the officers also will try to blend in at house parties off campus where Colby students live and entertain.

http://morningsentinel.mainetoday.com/news/local/2211534.shtml

If these students are minors, I don't see a problem with having undercover police officers on campus. The adults are breaking the law by furnishing alcohol to the minors and they should be arrested.

Because police-state tactics are all well and good when its minors|blacks|jews they are targeting.

Nap, there's a really easy way for these students to avoid being "targeted".

Sure, stop being kids.

Its amazing how quickly people will hate on others for doing the exact same thing they were doing as kids.

That doesn't justify 1984-style monitering, though.

So the biggest threat right now is terrorism, the 9/11 commission gave most government agencies a failing grade in preparedness and you're justifing the police wasting resources to catch underage drinking...

The college around here has been focusing on cracking down on underage drinking and parties as well. All the while violent crime and thefts are constantly rising and not being twarted.

This is just a way for a failure of a police department to pretend they are actually doing something to protect the community.

Since when do police announce an 'under-cover' operation? Sounds to me like Massey has political aspirations and is trying to make a name for himself.

20 Million illegal aliens running around in our country ......and ...........the police are going after potential college drinking parties.

You can't make this stuff up.

Where the hell is Colby College anyways ....never heard of it. Waterville, Maine ...........???


Slim

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Sure, stop being kids.

Its amazing how quickly people will hate on others for doing the exact same thing they were doing as kids.

That doesn't justify 1984-style monitering, though.

oh stop it you drama queen. As long as kids have been partying cops have been breaking it up. drop the dramtics already. 1984 style monitoring :rolleyes:

Sure Trav, its all about the 'dramtics'.

Drama queen indeed! You probably ought to read it again, but with your pea brain, you probably wouldn't be able to link our rapidly diminishing rights with the increased power and reach of law enforcement with the scenario outlined in the book. Noooo, anybody who does that is a filthy socialist!

please name us some "rapidly diminishing" rights we have lost drama queen, and no, underage drinking is not a right.

This thread should have been shut down after Napsterbater's post pointed out that kids will be kids -- NB hit it right on the head and there isn't much left to say.

Post-it note to parents, overbearing police and campus administrators -- get the F off the kids backs and let them grow up with the same enjoyments you had.

I wonder how smart it was to raise the drinking age from 18 to 21? It seems like the more society tries to hold back from kids the more they feel the need to do it. I know kids that couldn't ever touch the parent/s guns{forbidden fruit}. Of course when the cat is away the mice will play. I allways though it was retarded to have a young adult be able to fight for their country but not let them have a beer.

Well, Trav, before I go into that, let me point out to you, that the only thing you really have issue with here is my comparing this with 1984. Apparently to you, 1984 is just a bit of fluff that the socialists bring out when they want to do things like, oh, live in a world without the cops poring over every thing we say and do. I suppose your answer to that will be, "Well, they shouldn't have anything to hide, then," thus cementing my opinion of you as a brainwashed idiot.

Well, now, with that said, lets move on. Without thinking too hard, I can come up with three areas in which we have had our rights considerably scaled back. The first is property rights, for reasons we probably both agree on. The second is in our right to due process. Police have had their checks on subpoena and warrant issuings largely eliminated. In many cases police don't even have to convince a judge anymore that a warrant is needed, they just have to tell him what they are doing. And yet a third is in free speech rights. Between the DMCA, the Patriot Act, erosions to measures to prevent political corruption of campaign donations, we have our futures sewn up with the corporations these laws were designed to benefit.

And, like I said, that's without thinking too hard.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Well, Trav, before I go into that, let me point out to you, that the only thing you really have issue with here is my comparing this with 1984. Apparently to you, 1984 is just a bit of fluff that the socialists bring out when they want to do things like, oh, live in a world without the cops poring over every thing we say and do. I suppose your answer to that will be, "Well, they shouldn't have anything to hide, then," thus cementing my opinion of you as a brainwashed idiot.

Well, now, with that said, lets move on. Without thinking too hard, I can come up with three areas in which we have had our rights considerably scaled back. The first is property rights, for reasons we probably both agree on. The second is in our right to due process. Police have had their checks on subpoena and warrant issuings largely eliminated. In many cases police don't even have to convince a judge anymore that a warrant is needed, they just have to tell him what they are doing. And yet a third is in free speech rights. Between the DMCA, the Patriot Act, erosions to measures to prevent political corruption of campaign donations, we have our futures sewn up with the corporations these laws were designed to benefit.

And, like I said, that's without thinking too hard.

agreed... some rights have been curved in abit... but don't bring up 1984 until they install cameras in my house and keep tracks on me.

I can tell you right now that gov't is not going to get any smaller, we are actually all fucked because the gov't and military are now one, and when a gov't can defend itself, it becomes unstoppable. They could pass any law they want right now and we couldn't do a damn thing about it.

But cops busting in on parties to catch under-aged drinkers is nothing new at all.... i dont even know why 500 brought it up.... *yawn*

Well, its because how we treat our kids s a glowing symbol of how we treat the rest of our citizenry. As I've said before, kids will be kids, and they have to get all that stuff out of their system before they can grow up to be responsible adults. Putting cops under the welcome mats and tossing everybody who even remotely smells like alcohol in jail is going to do two things. First, breed resentment of the police in them so that when they are older they are less likely to cooperate with them to keep order, and two, make punks out of kids who would have ordinarily grown out of the resisting the establishment thing about three months after they graduate. There's something about a criminal record that gives teens long grudges against the "pigs", especially when they can't get jobs because of it. People who can't get jobs tend to look for other avenues of paying the bills, avenues that may or may not be legal.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Well, its because how we treat our kids s a glowing symbol of how we treat the rest of our citizenry. As I've said before, kids will be kids, and they have to get all that stuff out of their system before they can grow up to be responsible adults. Putting cops under the welcome mats and tossing everybody who even remotely smells like alcohol in jail is going to do two things. First, breed resentment of the police in them so that when they are older they are less likely to cooperate with them to keep order, and two, make punks out of kids who would have ordinarily grown out of the resisting the establishment thing about three months after they graduate. There's something about a criminal record that gives teens long grudges against the "pigs", especially when they can't get jobs because of it. People who can't get jobs tend to look for other avenues of paying the bills, avenues that may or may not be legal.

I'd say most of that comes from respect for authority... if you are doing something illegal and you get caught.. why would you get mad??? You are guilty... am i correct?

And most people who hate cops, at least in my experience, pretty much all listen to rap music LOL:@@: .. maybe we should just get rid of that, except for at dance clubs :)

No but seriously... anyone who is doing somethign illegal and is mad that the cops caught them and doesn't realize that they were wrong is just ignorant and stupid.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Well, Trav, before I go into that, let me point out to you, that the only thing you really have issue with here is my comparing this with 1984. Apparently to you, 1984 is just a bit of fluff that the socialists bring out when they want to do things like, oh, live in a world without the cops poring over every thing we say and do. I suppose your answer to that will be, "Well, they shouldn't have anything to hide, then," thus cementing my opinion of you as a brainwashed idiot.

Well, now, with that said, lets move on. Without thinking too hard, I can come up with three areas in which we have had our rights considerably scaled back. The first is property rights, for reasons we probably both agree on. The second is in our right to due process. Police have had their checks on subpoena and warrant issuings largely eliminated. In many cases police don't even have to convince a judge anymore that a warrant is needed, they just have to tell him what they are doing. And yet a third is in free speech rights. Between the DMCA, the Patriot Act, erosions to measures to prevent political corruption of campaign donations, we have our futures sewn up with the corporations these laws were designed to benefit.

And, like I said, that's without thinking too hard.

actually 1984 was an anti-communism book, as was Animal Farm. It wasn't meant to beat right wingers over the head with as you may think. and you can argue all you want about rights you think are gone, but the fact is there is nothing you cant do now you could do 5 years ago, and more then likely is there anyone you know who has been affected or is in jail now for something they wouldn't be in jail for 5 years ago. The whole "they are stealing our rights" thing is pure scare tactic. And of course any good scare monger has to reference 1984 at least once.

I will agree with you on the property rights thing, but that doesnt count as you have to have property for it to affect you, I am talking about things that affect everyone, like free speech, which I will agree with you on the campaign finance law.

ut that doesnt count as you have to have property for it to affect you, I am talking about things that affect everyone, like free speech,

Not so, lack of property rights for the average person does affect everybody, because people are less likely to want to acquire property if they know it can just be taken away.

I do grimace at your characterisation of 1984 as a socialist dystopia as opposed to a fascist one. I could care less about right wingers and left wingers. 1984 is what happens when we combine extreme nationalistic pressure with a police state and ubiquitous monitoring. All of which are hallmarks of the fascism, not extreme socialism. I suppose you are being confused by "communist" Russia, which was in reality an oligarghy right up until the fall.

And of course any good scare monger has to reference 1984 at least once.

Well they could reference bioterror, avian flu, nuclear holocaust, or just good-ole-fashioned "terrorists in your backyard" tactic that BushCo loves to bring up on a regular basis whenever his poll numbers are sagging. Difference is here, one is doing it to maybe spread support for some corporate or government product or service that is supposed to cure it, like the Department of Homeland Security, or to get us to check our rights and what we are letting the government get away with.

I'd say most of that comes from respect for authority... if you are doing something illegal and you get caught.. why would you get mad??? You are guilty... am i correct?

Things are rarely that black and white. Underage drinking is against the law, but it isn't necessarily wrong. There is a big difference there. There really is no need to hide cops in the bushes to check for it, and I'd be rightly mad if I had my privacy rights violated to target victimless crime.

No but seriously... anyone who is doing somethign illegal and is mad that the cops caught them and doesn't realize that they were wrong is just ignorant and stupid.

Again illegal != wrong.

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Not so, lack of property rights for the average person does affect everybody, because people are less likely to want to acquire property if they know it can just be taken away.

I do grimace at your characterisation of 1984 as a socialist dystopia as opposed to a fascist one. I could care less about right wingers and left wingers. 1984 is what happens when we combine extreme nationalistic pressure with a police state and ubiquitous monitoring. All of which are hallmarks of the fascism, not extreme socialism. I suppose you are being confused by "communist" Russia, which was in reality an oligarghy right up until the fall.

I know you are an arrogant know it all, but to think you know what Orwell meant more then Orwell did takes the cake.



Originally posted by Napsterbater
Well they could reference bioterror, avian flu, nuclear holocaust, or just good-ole-fashioned "terrorists in your backyard" tactic that BushCo loves to bring up on a regular basis whenever his poll numbers are sagging. Difference is here, one is doing it to maybe spread support for some corporate or government product or service that is supposed to cure it, like the Department of Homeland Security, or to get us to check our rights and what we are letting the government get away with.

And if he didnt mention it you would bitch about that too. Face it, you dont like Bush, so no matter what he does, he is wrong in your book.

Oh lordy. This is what I get for thinking you could actually be argued with.

*insert intelligence questioning remarks that I can't be bothered with right now here*

go home masterbater, re read 1984 and then come back

Perhaps I should be telling you that, seeing as all you have to back up your convictions is some vague idea as to what Orwell's intentions were, (which you haven't elaborated on) as opposed to what actually was in the book.

LOL, you are one self centered son of a bitch masterbater. why the hell should I back up what I say while all you have to do is say it and that is good enough? good lord, learn some humility boy.

That I am, but I am not claiming some knowledge of George Orwell that somehow doesn't get translated into his classic book.

If you don't want to endure requests for supplemental information, write your arguments so that they don't need them. That is what I try to do.

Notice how I didn't even bother to insult you this time, and I still made you stoop to ad hominem.

I forgot, only you can insult people intelligently :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Napsterbater
Things are rarely that black and white. Underage drinking is against the law, but it isn't necessarily wrong. There is a big difference there. There really is no need to hide cops in the bushes to check for it, and I'd be rightly mad if I had my privacy rights violated to target victimless crime.

i would say its not necessarily wrong... in the right setting. But at a college party, alot of things can go wrong. I never drank until i was 21, i followed the law. Now i dont know EXACTLY what happened, but i doubt cops just picked a random house and sat in the bushes... there was probably a good reason they went into the party. Word gets around fast about parties, and who drinks at them. And after miss 19 year old bongs a few beers.... and passes out on the couch, who is to say she doesn't wake up to 5 guys running a train on her, knocking her up, and running off? It happens alot more than you might think.

In short, if a cop comes into a small little get-together of teens who are watching tv or something and busts them for drinking.... that is stupid.

but if he comes and breaks up a loud, crazy college party? I think he is warranted to do so.

I brought this up because it completely stupid.

You do not need "under cover" cops to break up parties. The cops break up parties all the time. This just turns into more of a waste of resources and government illegally spying on the people. If the cops want to break up a party and ticket underagers fine (still a waste IMO) but going 'undercover' is just fucking stupid.

and passes out on the couch, who is to say she doesn't wake up to 5 guys running a train on her, knocking her up, and running off? It happens alot more than you might think. you seem to sound like you have first hand expirience (not being a ick you just sound pretty certain)... Anyways your example is lame and just fits so nice with the police propaganda saying the same. I highly doubt that this would happen in a party where everyone can see. If it did the guys would be lynched. If its being done in private it would get broken up by police breaking up the party. You example in no way would be effected by undercover cops. Its useless.

You do not need "under cover" cops to break up parties. The cops break up parties all the time. This just turns into more of a waste of resources and government illegally spying on the people. If the cops want to break up a party and ticket underagers fine (still a waste IMO) but going 'undercover' is just fucking stupid.

What he said.

I forgot, only you can insult people intelligently.

Well, when all you bother to do is that, instead of argue, well, what can I do?