Woods says feds have taken away “virtually all citizens rights” and compares police to Crips and Bloods

(What the hell? – Promoted by Colorado Pols)

Sen. Laura Waters-Woods.

Sen. Laura Waters-Woods.

“We’re in a spot in our country where, at the federal level, they have taken away a bunch of states’ rights and virtually all citizens rights.”

Who said that? And what country are they talking about?

You’re right! It’s Westminster Republican State Sen. Laura Woods talking about the United States.

She’s agreeing with a KLZ 560-AM radio host who said, “I’m beginning to think that there is not a sector of government that doesn’t think they’re above everybody else.”

“Yeah, that’s probably a good assessment, right now,” Woods replied, apparently forgetting that someday she may need the help of firefighters, first responders, military personnel, or countless other public servants who sacrifice their lives for ours.

The overall topic was asset forfeiture, and Woods was angry about its abuse by police. But does this mean the police act like Cripps and Bloods?

CALLER MIKE: Ok, so, Laura, these [police] are no different than the Bloods and the Crips that they’re constantly whining and crying about down in downtown Denver or Colorado Springs, or up in [Fort] Collins. I mean, how is law enforcement different from the people they’re fighting? I mean, if they can just take your stuff for no reason.

WOODS: Yeah, when they are taking stuff from innocent people with no conviction or no charges filed, they are no different.

CALLER MIKE: Yeah.

WOODS: Yeah.

I have my problems with asset forfeiture, which has resulted in unfair confiscation of property by police. But are the problems on par with what we see from Crips and Bloods.

Here’s Wikipedia (sorry) on Crips:

The Crips are one of the largest and most violent associations of street gangs in the United States, with an estimated 30,000 to 35,000 members. It has been involved in murders, robberies and drug dealing, among other crimes.

On Bloods:

There is no known national leader of the Bloods but individual Bloods sets have a hierarchical leadership structure with identifiable levels of membership. These levels of membership indicate status within a gang. A leader, typically an older member with a more extensive criminal background, runs each set. A set leader is not elected but rather asserts himself by developing and managing the gang’s criminal enterprises through his reputation for violence and ruthlessness and through his personal charisma. The majority of set members are called “soldiers”, who are typically between the ages of 16 and 22. Soldiers have a strong sense of commitment to their set and are extremely dangerous because of their willingness to use violence both to obtain the respect of gang members and to respond to any person who “disrespects” the set. “Associates” are not full members, but they identify with the gang and take part in various criminal activities.

Maybe you don’t like using Wikipedia as a source, but you get my point about Woods, who’s not returning my calls and whose fate in November’s race against Democrat Rachel Zenzinger will likely determine control of state government. (Republicans hold the state Senate by a one-seat margin.)

When an elected official, even one like Woods who likes Trump, compares police officers to Crips and Bloods, it shouldn’t fly under the media radar, like this May 26 statement of Woods did.

21 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Zappatero says:

    this is the self-referencing world that is far removed from reality and where Frank Luntz designed test phrases trigger a Pavlovian reaction at every mention. No amount of facts, science, evidence, or logic will change their world view or opinion of us in the reality based community where facts are biased against those who live in Ailestopia.

  2. Moderatus says:

    Not surprising that Democrats support the government's right to take your property without due process.

    • Republican 36 says:

      The Democrats do not support the taking of property without due process and if you look, you will find that when the police seize property based on a forfeiture statute the owner of the property has the right to court hearings before a judge before the government can take permanent possession, control and title of someone's property.

    • BlueCat says:

      Could you name some?

  3. Voyageur says:

    In fairness to Woods, she did not compare cops to crips.   The caller did.   At some point the "you didn't denounce him so you share his views" game is an exercise in gotcha journalism. I am good friends with a state judge who feels many of the confiscations of private property , like cars, etc., are a disgraceful abrogation of the constitution.   That doesn't make her a crip or even a laura woods.  It makes her a liberal democrat.   

    I long felt that when fascism came to the United States, it would be in the name of the war on drugs.  Laura Woods is an idiot, but she is not wrong to decry the multiple abuses of the war on drugs in any forum available to her.

    • BlueCat says:

      Agree. Much as I hate to. So may I add that in all fairness,  she does seem to strongly sympathize with the whole Crips thing and I doubt very much that she is only here sharing your reasonable views

    • Moderatus says:

      Thank you. Unfortunately, many Democrats DO support forfeiture. That's where the problem is, not Laura Woods.

      • BlueCat says:

        Please name some of the many.

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        Would those "many Democrats" include that whole parcel of Republican sheriffs — you know, those same guys who want to ignore Colorado's gun laws??!  Doh!

        On a personal note, I have no doubt that some day you  could accidentally write something here that isn't totally fucking idiotic . . . 

        . . . but today isn't that day, obviously. 

    • bullshit! says:

      Wait just a minute, V.

      CALLER MIKE: Ok, so, Laura, these [police] are no different than the Bloods and the Crips that they’re constantly whining and crying about down in downtown Denver or Colorado Springs, or up in [Fort] Collins. I mean, how is law enforcement different from the people they’re fighting? I mean, if they can just take your stuff for no reason.

      WOODS: Yeah, when they are taking stuff from innocent people with no conviction or no charges filed, they are no different.

      That's more than "failing to denounce." She is consciously agreeing with him.

      • BlueCat says:

        Quite so. Not just sharing a view like V's.  Agree only with her and V's view that forfeiture is often abused. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. 

      • Voyageur says:

        So, you think it is good to be "taking stuff from innocent people with no conviction or no charges filed, "? BS?   Mighty glad you weren't at the constitutional convention!   To me, law enforcement agencies that consciously violate the constitution are a serious threat to our liberties.   Sorry you disagree.   It is very clear that Woods was limiting her agreement to the specific cases of "taking stuff from innocent people with no conviction or no charges filed,"

        And on this point," I'm with her."t

         

  4. Republican 36 says:

    Sen. Woods should be asked one question: What individual rights has the federal, state or local governments taken away from any citizen, especially those guaranteed under the Constitution? I'm betting she can't name one, but if she does she should be asked to give specific details of which of our rights have been taken from us and how and who in the government actually did it.

    She probably doesn't realize it, but based on her own comments she apparently agrees with Black Lives Matter's critique of our local police forces. She lives in several silos and doesn't think about how one comment in one silo supports or detracts from her position in another one.

     

    • Voyageur says:

      If you believe that no level of government in the history of America has ever violated a right guaranteed by the constitution, R-36. you're a lot nuttier than Laura Woods.  You might start by reading US Reports under Gideon v. Wainwright, and Miranda.   Brown v. Board of Education is another good one,   And you know, black lives matter isn't wrong in each and every case, though I admit it tries damn hard to be.   But on the specific item before the house, the unconstitutional forfeiture of property without conviction , the mockery of the law is so blatant that even you should be ashamed of the ripoffs.

      I also once wrote about a case in Denver where the city tried to confiscate an SUV whose driver had a gun without a permit.   But he had a permit for that gun in Lakewood!   Apparently, the U.S. Constitution doesn't cross Wadsworth.   My judge friend, bless her, threw the case out and the citizen kept his SUV.

      Power corrupts, R36. and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

       

  5. marklane1351 says:

    I agree we have had all our rights taken away by the government. The proof of this is that the police burst through the doors of the radio station, slapped the cuffs on her and banged her head on the side of the cruiser as they took her away. Oh wait, you mean she has a legal right to say that cops are no different than gang members who murder people and commit drive by shootings without a second thought?

  6. Voyageur says:

    Actually, she does have a right to say that.  But it's not what she said.  Sorry you're reading impaired.   For me, Woods has said enough things that actually are dumb that I see no need to make up shit she didn't say.  Change one fact inyour fantasy mark.  Assume she actually did say the shit you pretended that she said — right to a cop.  Then pretend she's black.  How certain are you in those circumstces that she would suffer no consequences for her speech?  

    Right.

     

     

     

     

     

  7. Duke Cox says:

    I think I may surprise you, V., by completely agreeing with you on this.

    I have a good friend who lives in another state. My friend is a very successful business owner who has built a vibrant company and acquired significant real estate. He did it the old fashioned way…he worked hard, saved his money. He earned it.

    The problem is..he smokes pot. He even used to grow some mighty fine weed. He is not a dealer, but does gift his friends and family with some fine green herb, from time to time. A few years ago, he made a public statement regarding police brutality during an arrest of one of his acquaintances. Since that time, the police chief has been after him, and has let it be known to many in this small town that if he can bust my friend on a marijuana charge, he will take everything my friend owns, claiming it was all purchased with sales of marijuana. It is a common occurrence in states where attitudes about Cannabis are archaic.

    Yes…many Americans are subject to such institutional theft.

     

    • Voyageur says:

      I'm not surprised at all, Duke..  You know that the unchecked power of government can be easily abused.  That's the whole reason we passed the bill of rights.  I grant that comparing forfeiture abuse to bloods and crips may be hyperbole.  But look at it this way: If the Crips steal my car, I can call the police.  Who do I call if the Police steal my car?

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.