Vile wrote:
This makes me wish I were a tennessean. Sorry to say, but gays should not be immune from drug laws. If I'm not, then they shouldn't be. Fuck 'em. Not everyone in America finds them charming.

You can find them "not charming" all you like, but the fact of the matter is that when you target a particular group for enforcement of laws, and the focus of that group has nothing to do with illegal activity, it's not only sloppy police work but probably legally actionable as well. Meaning the police force in question is likely to be hit with a lawsuit that's going to drain their funds and resources and keep them from actually pursuing as many dangerous criminals as they otherwise could.

Besides which, if you'd read the article, you'd know that the police force mentioned aren't merely selectively enforcing laws, they're working in a manner that actually presumes guilt in the face of a lack of evidence (and in this case, in the face of evidence to the contrary!). The defendant that the article focuses on was requested by the CI (confidential informant, or "snitch") to bring over a substance which is actually legal and then for lack of anything better to charge him with, are attempting to charge him with intent to distribute a counterfeit controlled substance. Nevermind that the CI explicitly requested amyl nitrate (the legal inhalant) and told him to leave the butyl nitrate (an illegal inhalant) behind.

Honestly, in this man's case it's not only a certainty that that charge won't stick, but that an appeal of the additional charge of resisting arrest is almost certain to be successful should it be brought before a jury (no 12 sane people are going to say the defendant was off-base in backing away considering the circumstances). None of this madness would have happened to begin with if the police were trying to do their jobs instead of just looking to "bust some queers".

RE: 'Policing Gays'