No, this isn't an immigration post and it's certainly not a racism post. Rather it's a reference to the situation in Texas where prosecutors seemingly are being targeted both as reprisals for prosecutions and as a terror tactic to accomplish several things: 1) to eliminate tough prosecutors, 2) to discourage anyone from becoming a prosecutor, and 3) to establish that the bad guys are in ultimate control
We've seen this happen in Mexico, where a combination of targeted murders and threats to law officer and prosecutor families have become pretty effective in terms of corrupting officials and establishing the authority of drug gangs over various jurisdictions.
I wonder if that's what's happening here and I wonder if anything can effectively put a stop to it.
"the tactics of the Mexican drug gangs"? Exactly the same thing is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Do you honestly think the media has no stake in the matter?
And yet, you assert that the intimidations you mention are ignored by the media. Why? The media like ratings!
I'm no dope. I understand that intimidation and threats of law enforcement are nothing new. Until now, the murdering of law enforcement officials has been relatively rare (by comparison with Mexico, for example).
My question which YOU seem to be missing is whether this is going to become more common.
You seem to be describing the, "I've got your back" concept, which is great when you're going up against the bad guys, whether in war or the police force, but there should be a common understanding that that concept ends at illegal activity, despite the fact that it must be difficult to live on a cop's salary while watching high-end drug dealers driving Mercedes'.
Then too, even from childhood, everyone hates a tattle-tale.
So, you're a cop and some dude pulls you aside and shows a criminal colleague of his standing near nearby your wife and child with a "we know how to reach you" look on his face. It's either live in mortal fear for your family or do them a small favor, plus there's some cash they want you to take. Actually, they make you take it. That's how it starts.
Sure this thing has gone one from time to time here, but I wonder. Now, with the drug gangs moving to the north, whether it's going to become as epidemic as it is south of the border. You're not really providing me with much hope, Belle.
"I wonder if anything can effectively put a stop to it."
The 'war on drugs' is an abject failure that costs millions in incarcerating the poor, millions more in fighting a free market, and only ends up empowering organized crime by creating very precious contraband for them to trade.
The only way to end the drug cartels is to legalize drugs. Interestingly that will also reduce the illegal trade of guns which will have the effect of fewer people perceiving the need to legally own guns. Perhaps then, and only then, will everyone do an heroic hit of DMT, experience ego death, and come together in a truly advanced form of civilization.
But the government in any realistic scenario will always make drugs illegal to market to some segment of the population. Let's start with people who can't get a prescription for hydrocodone, to take just one of many such examples. And then it will always be illegal to market drugs to minors.
And the gangs will just then move into other areas, such as kidnapping minors to be used as prostitutes. Should we legalize that as well?
Won't they just move into other areas of crime? Armed robbery, hijacking trailer trucks full of valuable cargo, cybercrime, etc.?
Giving them a valuable category of contraband gives them immense revenues - and those revenues are sought with great violence. Legalizing the drugs eliminates that category of contraband and zaps that source of revenue. They already do kidnap minors to be used as sex slaves - but minors must be fed, groomed, and are a lot harder to transport than a kilo of coke (not to mention worth less). The problem with anti-drug laws is that drugs are so compact and carry so much value.
You don't have to make every drug available for recreational use - but you do need to keep a wide enough supply available to keep people from gravitating towards home distillations/concoctions. Of the billions saved off the 'war on drugs', you do have to spend a significant fraction on health care for the resulting junkies - but then you can keep the billions you save on prisons.
Drug addiction needs to be treated as an illness, not a crime - and doing so also curbs the spread of HIV/Hep C. Drug dealing needs to be treated as an issue for the tax collectors.