Print this story |
E-mail story |
This story has 26 comments Add your own |
iPod friendly | Bookmark this
What is this?
Drugs found in child's backpack
Published Friday, February 5, 2010
CLAYTON — Instead of holding schoolbooks or clothes, a child’s backpack local authorities confiscated in Clayton contained more than $10,000 in drugs.
The backpack, which featured a picture of a cartoon character on it, was confiscated at a Third Street residence, where Kenzeric D. Jefferson, 21, Shaundly Jefferson, 25, and Eddie C. Spencer, 27, were arrested, according to a news release from the Concordia Parish Sheriff’s Office.
The deputies were initially at the residence to serve warrants.
The backpack reportedly contained crack cocaine, 121 bags of powder cocaine, 51 bags of marijuana packaged for sale, a baby bottle with suspected hydrocodone syrup in it and a child’s cup containing small bags of cocaine.
A small amount of money — $391 in small bills — was reportedly found with the drugs.
The three suspects were charged with possession of schedule I substances with intent to distribute, possession of schedule II substances with intent to distribute and possession of schedule IV substances with intent to distribute.
Kenzeric Jefferson was also booked on charges of two counts distribution of schedule II substance and a bench warrant for failure to appear in court on charges of simple burglary.
“I am really pleased that our deputies were able to get these drugs off of the streets,” Sheriff Randy Maxwell said. “These situations can become unpredictable, so I’m always thankful when they have a good outcome.”
Comments
Posted by Js_Mommy (anonymous) on February 4, 2010 at 11:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This is good work, but can we charge them with more? How about endangerment of a child? Intent to distribute to children? If it is packaged for a child, one can only assume that the intent was so. These people should not get away with a few nights in the local jail!
Posted by natashakubelikov (anonymous) on February 4, 2010 at 11:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Typical around that area
Posted by ntzmom (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 12:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Wow...unbelievable.
Glad the police got these people...were there any children living in that house? If so, some sort of additional charges should apply.
Posted by sugadada (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 6:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)
natashakubelikov...."typical around that area". I think Rounds had a Hell alot more than those street thugs and I do believe that was here in Natchez.
Posted by bayou (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 7:03 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They will be right back out on the streets just like the ones I saw on the streets yesterday that got busted in Clayton last week!!! Welcome to con-crooked parish!!!
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 7:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think that the goods were in a child's backpack is any evidence that children were involved in this crime. More likely would be that it was a good container.
My take would be that is sounded catchy, so the deputies or the Democrat led with that.
Posted by belle_south (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)
They should be let out and have low bonds if molestors and rapists are freed or have next to nothing bonds. My case and point:
Terry Holmes, 49, 11 Ellis Lane, on charges of sexual battery. Bond set at $20,000.
Colby A. Verucchi, 19, 6 Verucchi Road, on charges of sexual battery. Bond set at $5,000.
20K and 5K bond for sexual battery. I would love to know the story behind this!!!!!!
Posted by SIOUXLADY (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 8:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)
LA LAW VS MS LAW.
Posted by shagnasty (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 8:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)
One bullet each to the head.......cheap ,easy and quick. You will never rehab or help a person that is low enough to use a child to pedal drugs.
Posted by jersey (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 9:01 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Why is it a big deal that the drugs were in a backpack with a cartoon character on it? There is no mention of kids in the house, or these guys being charged with any child related charges. Maybe these guys get high all day and watch cartoons.
Posted by UpNorth (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 9:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Does Clayton still have a police officer, the last one I remember was the Skipper guy that you never see on the beat.
Posted by cchat123 (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I don't think the accused intentions were to sell drugs to school children but rather the intentions were to use
a child's apparel to hide drugs in the event of DEA raid.
It's obvious the pushers believed the DEA would not search a child's handbag....WRONG....Oh! how wrong they were and I am glad they were wrong.
Still yet, had the child left the house to school with his school sack in tout unknowingly about the contents in the school bag then certainly a charge of child endangerment would be an appropriate measure to charge these fools with ex-post facto regarding child endangerment .
In addition, having illegal drugs in the home where a child resides is in itself a form of child endangerment.
In law one has to prove the intent to do harm existed not just an accusation that something has occurred.
I believe people who smoke cigarettes in their homes and cars with children present surely endanger the lives of children by exposing them to 2nd hand smoke. Too many children and infants are exposed to the dangerous effects of tobacco which result in early childhood illness and how quickly we let this pass as an issue of personal right because tobacco is legal.
I know some readers will misinterpert my statements as someone who is supporting drugs dealers and low human beings that preys on other people addicition illness...to the contrary, my message is to anyone to be sure criminal charges stick like a tongue to a frozen flag pole middle of Alaska in order to keep these predators off our streets and get them out of the community and thus childen-children will not become the next cycle of drugs pushers or worse customers.
Posted by ntznative (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 9:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I was just about to say the same thing *Jersey* Please people read the article all the way thru then and only then try to make an informed opinion. I am glad to see the CPSD is finally tackling some of the issues that have long been present in the area.
Posted by Yeahuhuh (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 10:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen ntznative. You can certainly depend on these forums for some of the STUPIDEST comments you would ever want to hear from adults.
Ol shagnasty would already be guilty of murder....the DEA was involved...packaged for children.....
Posted by Crakalakin (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 11:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"Posted by cchat123 -...
I believe people who smoke cigarettes in their homes and cars with children present surely endanger the lives of children by exposing them to 2nd hand smoke. Too many children and infants are exposed to the dangerous effects of tobacco which result in early childhood illness and how quickly we let this pass as an issue of personal right because tobacco is legal.
..."
I, for one, am glad we don't have laws based on what people "believe". Much of what people "believe" is utter nonsense, as demonstrated by this paragraph. Smoking is bad for you but there is not one shred of scientific data to support that secondhand smoke has anything other than negligible.
And there is no such thing as a "drug pusher". That was made up out of whole cloth. Some people do sell drugs to other people who want them but the notion of some shady guy going around giving "free samples" to school kids is simply urban legend.
Posted by bigblulights (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 12:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Yes. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. National Toxicology Program (NTP), the U.S. Surgeon General, and the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) have classified secondhand smoke as a known human carcinogen (cancer-causing agent).
Crakalakin, try cancer.gov if you don't believe there is scientific evidence of second hand smoke.
Posted by shagnasty (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 12:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I bet my way will at least make these thugs think twice about selling drugs. And its cheaper than spending tax dollars to house them in jail.
Posted by butch (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 1:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)
They'll never be able to get rid of street level drugs . The government is losing that so called war . They need to come up with a way to devalue it some way . I used to think that legalizing would be a good start but with the way Americans love their street drugs . It would be catastrophic to society . Just continue to make small strides and send a harsh message to the drug thugs . Take their freedom !
Posted by rburke1 (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 3:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Amen, Jbirdisback.
In Iowa it's against the law to smoke a cigarette in a rest area on I-80, but you can crap your dog so other's can step in it and that's ok. It's against law there to not wear a seat belt and they strictly enforce it, but you can smoke pot and ride a motorcycle without a helment and that's ok. Weird ain't it? Society is going to have liberals, ooops... I mean losers.
Posted by cchat123 (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 7:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Okay, I won't say I believe. I know for a fact that I have treated people with these issues crakalakin. I have been practicing in this field for more than 30+ years and have seen the devasting effects of second hand smoke on adults, children,infants and even the unborn.
Take a sit and think about this. Here is just a few effects of second hand smoke and its not my belief anymore...its a FACT: Low birth weight, pre-mature birth, asthma ,liver disease, lung cancer, chronic bronchitis, acute pneumonia, intellectual and congnitve impairment in children, premature cardiovascular disease, renal cell carcinoma, ear, nose and throat infections, chronic heart problems including acute MI, SIDS, carbon monoxide posioning, early tooth decay, increase risk of reduction of alpha -antitrypsin factor and the list goes on and on.
But people like you just don't get the get the writing on the wall.
Even studies in animals has shown negative effects caused by second hand smoke and I never seen an animal willingly take something as silly as a cigarette and inhale this trash into their lungs.
My credentials are CRTT, RRT, RCP, A.A.S., B.A. M.A.P.D.; C.A.T.D.S. ...so I can speak about this with some credibility whether you choose to believe it or not.
Posted by squeetlebomb (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 8:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Make the bail so high that they can't get out of jail before their hearing, or they will be right back out on the streets selling again.
Posted by chsmom (anonymous) on February 5, 2010 at 9:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)
bellesouth........ why don't you not make a "case in point" when you obviously don't know the facts about some of these cases....
Unfortunately in some cases you are guilty until you can prove yourself innocent.
Posted by belle_south (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 5:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)
thanks jbirdisback. a lot of people have a reading comprehension problem. Matter of fact, i would like to see them all with no bond..... especially the sex offenders!!!
Posted by belle_south (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 5:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)
chsmom, i will see if you feel that way if your family becomes victim....
Posted by consider_reason (anonymous) on February 6, 2010 at 7:13 p.m. (Suggest removal)
No names of deputies given. Usually RJ rewards his minions by putting their name in the paper.
No search warrant, yet they grabbed a bagful of dope?
Wonder what kind of "consent" they got to search - from what I know of the family names, this wouldn't have been their first rodeo.
More info would be nice...
Posted by chuckydaone (anonymous) on February 8, 2010 at 7:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Iowa is a red state. Nothing in the article suggested a child was actually a resident of the home or that the backpack belonged to a child. Cartoon charaters are popular in clothing as well among many whom we consider to be young adults. Just look around the next time you are out at the mall, movies, etc.
Post a comment (Terms of Use Policy)
(Requires free registration.)