If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Apparently, if during a drug bust you claim to be working as a police agent, the DEA will just let you go without any proof whatsoever   (cbc.ca) divider line 2
    More: Interesting, Drug Enforcement Administration, United States, Los Angeles, Law enforcement in the United States, Los Zetas, date rape drug, Quebec, Vancouver Police  
•       •       •

7816 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2013 at 10:50 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2013-02-12 11:43:07 AM
1 votes:

abhorrent1: Hey Canada! Your police can't arbitrarily go into another country and arrest people, just FYI.



Yeah! This!

Stoopid Canadians!

The US, OTOH, can send cops, soldiers, spies, informants, assassins (whether human or drone) into any country we  damn well please to arrest, capture, torture, murder, assassinate (or any combination of the above) anyone in any country at any time.

'Cause we're AMERICA!


USA USA USA USA
2013-02-12 11:33:45 AM
1 votes:
Honestly, I'm not worried about the guy's status as an undercover agent or not.  The article has the Canadians both admitting that they had an undercover operation going in the US, and later state that this guy wasn't working for them.  Okay, I don't really care there, one way or another, that's just one guy, and a sketchy sounding guy at that.  Basically a police informant, not really an officer.

More interesting was the fact that Canada is asking for the $2.5 million that was confiscated in the raid.  For their not officially sanctioned guy for a secret/illegal police operation that was busted by California police.  It's not their money, mind you - like, they didn't try to trap the bad guys with a drug deal - it's just that they believe it's part of a cash trail for a case they're pursuing.  They don't need the drugs for evidence, just the money.

Is that ridiculous, or is it just me? I mean, it's pretty blatant right?

US: "Hey, we busted a drug deal and one of the guys, he says he's one of you?"
Canada: "Oh, yah, 'es one of us  'eh.  Sorry."  (obligatory Canadian apology)
US: "Okay, we'll send him back.  Good thing too, with the size of the haul, he would have been put away for a long time!"
Canada: "Oh? How much would that be?"
US: "Couple million in cash, like 30 pounds of coke."
Canada: "... yeah.. uh.. the cash, that's ours too, guy.  We can tell by how you described it, eh.  We're gonna need that back, buddy."
US: "No."
Canada: "Well that guy wasn't one of ours anyway. Sorry aboot that. But the money is ... for evidence! We really need it for, like, judge things, eh."
etc...
 
Displayed 2 of 2 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report