[Logs and Dogs]

Originally Posted by Chadd1014

Five arrested in connection with crack bust | Vt Today

Five arrested in connection with crack bust

Posted on August 30, 2012 by Darren Marcy | 0 Comments
A drug bust by federal agents and Vermont State Police led to the arrest of five people and the seizure of crack cocaine and a handgun en route to Rutland City on Wednesday.
As part of a continuing investigation of illegal drug trafficking in the city, members of the Vermont Drug Task Force along with federal agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives stopped a vehicle on Route 103 in Clarendon that contained almost 21 grams of crack cocaine.
Police also found a .22-caliber handgun on one of the vehicle’s occupants.
Police arrested all five people in the vehicle, including Rutland residents James Collins, 32, Michael Hurst, 27, Nicholas Louras, 26, and Arabella Babcock, 20, as well as Samuel McGriff, 29, of Catskill, N.Y.
Bail was set at $250,000 for Collins, who uses the street name “J Real” and was the individual in possession of the loaded .22-caliber handgun; $100,000 for McGriff, known as “Twist;” $75,000 for Hurst, AKA “Show or Showtime;” $50,000 for Louras” and $50,000 for Babcock.
All five remain jailed in Rutland pending arraignments in Rutland criminal court today.

Thanks for saving me the trouble...........

Bingo on this one !!!

[GregW]

Can I assume these guys were all caught on a nonexistent train?

I am annoyed that this thread has been derailed by a pointless discussion about drugs. Personally I would make all of the legal and let the idiots that get hooked suffer for their silliness. We already do that for drunks and tobacco smokers so what is the big deal.

I appreciate all the work you all have done on this topic. I think one of the items the critics are missing is auto fuel prices will probably double in the next decade and double again in the decade after that. The rest of the world is just as addicted to cars as us and they will drive the price of auto fuel to very high levels.

I also believe the antigrowth "environmental" laws should be repealed or made not applicable to transportation improvements like HSR. This would be of great benefit to everyone even if it does upset a few NIMBY's.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by Logs and Dogs

I'm in agreement with Chadd on the crime prevention aspect. Conductors aren't police, they will/can do nothing to prevent transportation of drugs etc. via rail. My family is in law enforcement in Hartford and if you think providing a low cost option to connect suppliers with a larger market won't lead to problems, then you are smoking crack with them.

Also, if rail in Vt couldn't catch on along the RT 7 corridor, where in VT can it?

It seems this proposal for heavy rail is taking the approach of answering a question that hasn't really been asked. If there were lines and lines of people driving north/south all week clammoring for a better way to travel from NY/CT to northern VT then maybe it is worth looking at. I just don't believe there are enough people sitting around Milford CT going, "damn, if I could only take a train to Burlington, my life would be exponentially better". At least not enough demand to justify hundreds of millions of dollars in investment.

I'm not totally anti-rail, I just don't see the fit for this.

Conductors are very strict when it comes to scanning ppl , they throw off drunks , mentally unstable and weird ppl on a daily basis. Criminals are smart enough not to move there drugs by public transit....theres a high chance of getting caught and the penalty is higher then if they had used a car. But Public Transit is easy to blame for crime increases its often not the problem. As for Improvements your state is already securing money and expanding and speeding up the Ethan Allen and Vermonter. Also the Proposal isn't Heavy Rail its Regional Rail...

[Logs and Dogs]

Agreed that the topic has strayed, but I think the discussion of transportation and drugs has concluded and it is what it is.

I think any discsussion about something as large as bringing rail service through a state at large expense is worthy of poking around in all pros/con arguments. If it frustrates you, move on and come back when that portion of the discussion is over.

As for the fossile fuel comments. Completely valid. What wiill be powering these trains? How will that be generated?

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by Logs and Dogs

Agreed that the topic has strayed, but I think the discussion of transportation and drugs has concluded and it is what it is.

I think any discsussion about something as large as bringing rail service through a state at large expense is worthy of poking around in all pros/con arguments. If it frustrates you, move on and come back when that portion of the discussion is over.

As for the fossile fuel comments. Completely valid. What wiill be powering these trains? How will that be generated?

Injecting the drug argument is weak , if you look at other Northeastern systems drugs and crime has been injected and proven to be false. Transit doesn't increase the crime rate , highways do.... Thats not a large network its small compared to whats proposed in neighboring states only 4 lines....not at all big.

[Logs and Dogs]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Conductors are very strict when it comes to scanning ppl , they throw off drunks , mentally unstable and weird ppl on a daily basis. Criminals are smart enough not to move there drugs by public transit....theres a high chance of getting caught and the penalty is higher then if they had used a car. But Public Transit is easy to blame for crime increases its often not the problem. As for Improvements your state is already securing money and expanding and speeding up the Ethan Allen and Vermonter. Also the Proposal isn't Heavy Rail its Regional Rail...

Cause of crime? Nope. Complicating fighting the crime? Yes.

Conductors sure do throw off drunks etc. you're right. Not many drug smugglers are dumb enough to look out of place. My college roomate put himself through school smuggling pounds of weed back and forth from NYC to RI every week on the train. $20K per year back in the day. No conductor threw Tommy off a train or suspected a thing.

Again, I'm not taking a position that VT should have increased rail due to crime implications; I'm taking the position in thinking that it isn't an issue is just plain naive and unrealistic.

[Logs and Dogs]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

Injecting the drug argument is weak , if you look at other Northeastern systems drugs and crime has been injected and proven to be false. Transit doesn't increase the crime rate , highways do.... Thats not a large network its small compared to whats proposed in neighboring states only 4 lines....not at all big.

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why don't you ask the Rutland, Brattleboro and Vermont State police their opinion of connecting the New Haven, Hartford, Springfield/Holyoke area with the state.

Again, it isn't a reason to not bring rail service in. Just accept the fact that pretending it isn't an issue to deal with is unrealistic.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by Logs and Dogs

Cause of crime? Nope. Complicating fighting the crime? Yes.

Conductors sure do throw off drunks etc. you're right. Not many drug smugglers are dumb enough to look out of place. My college roomate put himself through school smuggling pounds of weed back and forth from NYC to RI every week on the train. $20K per year back in the day. No conductor threw Tommy off a train or suspected a thing.

Again, I'm not taking a position that VT should have increased rail due to crime implications; I'm taking the position in thinking that it isn't an issue is just plain naive and unrealistic.

So you let your roommate smuggle interstate drugs....how long ago was this....they sniff everybody at the Major stations and due random sniffs and scans.

[Logs and Dogs]

Originally Posted by Nexis4Jersey

So you let your roommate smuggle interstate drugs....how long ago was this....they sniff everybody at the Major stations and due random sniffs and scans.

Let? More like I found out at our 10 year reuinion when discussion how expensive schools have gotten. It was late 1990s.

Say what you will about sniffs and scans. They just don't have the coverage. I just took the train from PVD to DC this week.....no sniffs or screening anywhere along the way.

You can pretend it doesn't happen all you want. You can also pretend that carloads of gangs don't drive up to NH and VT to establish turf every week, but I suggest you need to really talk to some boots on the ground in law enforcement and get the facts.

Again, this isn't a reason to not bring rail service in............just something else people will have to deal with along the way.

[DarkWolf]

Originally Posted by Logs and Dogs

We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Why don't you ask the Rutland, Brattleboro and Vermont State police their opinion of connecting the New Haven, Hartford, Springfield/Holyoke area with the state.

Again, it isn't a reason to not bring rail service in. Just accept the fact that pretending it isn't an issue to deal with is unrealistic.

Hartford is becoming a large Regional Job hub , so is Springfield and New Haven not have Rail feeding into them would be stupid.... It would be like New Jersey not investing in Rail links to NYC....where most of the decent jobs are.... I go by what happens in my region which sets the standard for regional safety and Travel....drugs and crime are often thrown up but proven to be scare tactics. There are cameras and drug sniffing dogs everywhere these days....so most of the time the criminal will drive.