Armed robbery

[Quantum Windbag]

BS, it was hyperbole and scare tactics. If you really want to come to a logical conclusion, here is the question...You, a law enforcement officer, find five ziplock bags containing 200 thousand dollars being smuggled in the back of a loaded semi tractor trailer...the logical conclussion is _____________?

This law is smart...take what you can use against your enemy...fund his defeat with his own money.

If it actually becomes corrupt, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you fighting against it...but based on what I saw in the video, which I'm sure was editted to put the police in the worst possible light, I didn't see that at all, despite the "reporters" best efforts. I saw a common sense seizure of $200,000.

My impression from the video is that the owner of the truck in question IS involved in something dishonest most likely drug trafficking.

On the other hand, the report states that the cops are pulling drivers over indiscriminately and confiscating any large amount of cash they find. This could just be a couple of grand that people are using for vacation money. I have a major problem with that! This appears to be nothing less than the county governments shaking down tourists. Hell, it is something I would expect when driving through Mexico not the USA.

Immie

They insinuate that...but provide not a stitch of proof...no tourists interviewed who had their $1500 seized with crying children in the background whose Disney trip was ruined.

Why? Because that doesn't happen...the reports have an agenda that is furthered by making you believe it happened without providing any evidence.

If those tourists existed, the would have been featured front and center in this report.

I linked to a story about a guy on his way to buy a car that had his money stolen by police and you still insist that it never happens.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

BS, it was hyperbole and scare tactics. If you really want to come to a logical conclusion, here is the question...You, a law enforcement officer, find five ziplock bags containing 200 thousand dollars being smuggled in the back of a loaded semi tractor trailer...the logical conclussion is _____________?

This law is smart...take what you can use against your enemy...fund his defeat with his own money.

If it actually becomes corrupt, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you fighting against it...but based on what I saw in the video, which I'm sure was editted to put the police in the worst possible light, I didn't see that at all, despite the "reporters" best efforts. I saw a common sense seizure of $200,000.

The logical conclusion is irrelevant. If said LEO cannot take the owner of those bags to court and convict him of a criminal act, he gets to drive away with them. Period.

What is to stop the police from pulling you over, find the $5,500 you just got paid back from all the years you loaned your deadbeat brother money, conclude there is no reason for any non drug dealer to be carrying that amount of cash, and confiscate it? Any policy which allows the police to confiscate money simply because you have it will inevitably catch someone who is innocent.

Due process is not something that applies only when you think the facts make a person look innocent, it applies all the time. Don't let your belief that this particular instance caught someone who is a drug dealer cause you to support a policy that is wring. This is not about the one instance in the video, it is about civil asset forfeiture in general.

We're not talking about $5,500 and never were.

We're discussing YOUR video of a $200,000 seizure.

When a cop actually seizes $2000 from tourists or the $5500 my deadbeat brother paid me back, we'll discuss it and I'll agree with you that that is crossing the line.

But seizing $200,000 smuggled in the back if a semi tractor trailer is NOT crossing the line. It's good police work.

Let me see if I understand your position. The cops can do anything they want as long as they do it to people you think are guilty.

 

[Missourian]

My impression from the video is that the owner of the truck in question IS involved in something dishonest most likely drug trafficking.

On the other hand, the report states that the cops are pulling drivers over indiscriminately and confiscating any large amount of cash they find. This could just be a couple of grand that people are using for vacation money. I have a major problem with that! This appears to be nothing less than the county governments shaking down tourists. Hell, it is something I would expect when driving through Mexico not the USA.

Immie

They insinuate that...but provide not a stitch of proof...no tourists interviewed who had their $1500 seized with crying children in the background whose Disney trip was ruined.

Why? Because that doesn't happen...the reports have an agenda that is furthered by making you believe it happened without providing any evidence.

If those tourists existed, the would have been featured front and center in this report.

I linked to a story about a guy on his way to buy a car that had his money stolen by police and you still insist that it never happens.

I searched Google for "Anthony Smelley" and could find a single return that was not a biased blog entry. I don't know about you, but I don't formulate my opinion based on the facts as presented by "The Agitator".

 

[Missourian]

The logical conclusion is irrelevant. If said LEO cannot take the owner of those bags to court and convict him of a criminal act, he gets to drive away with them. Period.

What is to stop the police from pulling you over, find the $5,500 you just got paid back from all the years you loaned your deadbeat brother money, conclude there is no reason for any non drug dealer to be carrying that amount of cash, and confiscate it? Any policy which allows the police to confiscate money simply because you have it will inevitably catch someone who is innocent.

Due process is not something that applies only when you think the facts make a person look innocent, it applies all the time. Don't let your belief that this particular instance caught someone who is a drug dealer cause you to support a policy that is wring. This is not about the one instance in the video, it is about civil asset forfeiture in general.

We're not talking about $5,500 and never were.

We're discussing YOUR video of a $200,000 seizure.

When a cop actually seizes $2000 from tourists or the $5500 my deadbeat brother paid me back, we'll discuss it and I'll agree with you that that is crossing the line.

But seizing $200,000 smuggled in the back if a semi tractor trailer is NOT crossing the line. It's good police work.

Let me see if I understand your position. The cops can do anything they want as long as they do it to people you think are guilty.

My position is, if you are smuggling $200,000 in the back of a loaded semi...that IS probable cause.

Having $1,500 cash IS NOT probable cause.

Having $5,500 from your deadbeat brother and no other contraband is NOT probable cause.

Having $5,500 in cash IN CONJUNCTION WITH a stash of drugs IS probable cause.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Seems pretty common sense to me.

 

[TheBrain]

I'll tell you what amazes me - the number of guys who (allegedly) give the cops permission to search, knowing they have meth in their pocket or a gun under the seat of the car. My clients don't always have the best judgment, but they can't be THAT stupid. And then toss in how many times I have heard, "He never asked permission to do shit. He just sat me on the curb and searched the damn car."

Kinda makes one wonder what goes on out there in the field where there are no witnesses except the cops and the crooks . . . .

The truth is quite different though. Cops NEVER ask to search the vehicle. They STATE “I am going to search your car now, all right” and then look at you. The cursory “whatever” is usually said because most people do not even realize that it was a question in the first place. If you say no, they are likely to lie anyway. I used to get arrested DAILY because I drove home from work at 2am. Every day I would get a bullshit excuse like my lights are not working when we are both looking at them while they are on. I would get cuffed, jammed in the back of the police car and not one word was said to me until after the search turned up nothing. They did not ask or even try and justify their position. It was not the same cops all the time so I do not think they were targeting me because it was me but rather because the time. It was almost like it was against the law to be out past 11pm. I have been robbed, lied to and cheated by the police FAR more than not. I give them credit for the job they do and the fith they need to deal with on a daily basis but I give them ZERO trust as it has been violated FAR to many times.

All this and I have NEVER been convicted of any crime whatsoever outside of some traffic violations. I did dumb things as a teenager but never anything to warrant the attention I had received even if they knew about it.

Happen to me as well..."You drove over the double yellow line back there".

How do you prove you didn't?

And that wasn't in the city either, it was a little town with a population of 600...two police officers comprised the entire department.

Small town cops are the worst, because they receive little training and have watched too many episodes of COPS.

 

[TheBrain]

We're not talking about $5,500 and never were.

We're discussing YOUR video of a $200,000 seizure.

When a cop actually seizes $2000 from tourists or the $5500 my deadbeat brother paid me back, we'll discuss it and I'll agree with you that that is crossing the line.

But seizing $200,000 smuggled in the back if a semi tractor trailer is NOT crossing the line. It's good police work.

Let me see if I understand your position. The cops can do anything they want as long as they do it to people you think are guilty.

My position is, if you are smuggling $200,000 in the back of a loaded semi...that IS probable cause.

Having $1,500 cash IS NOT probable cause.

Having $5,500 from your deadbeat brother and no other contraband is NOT probable cause.

Having $5,500 in cash IN CONJUNCTION WITH a stash of drugs IS probable cause.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Seems pretty common sense to me.

But LOTS of legitimate businessmen wander around with $200K in cash.

Here's my issue. Civil forfeiture. That's BS. They should have confiscated the money, charged the guy with trafficking and let a jury decide if $200K in the back of a semi on a known drug route was enough to warrant a conviction. If so, he goes to jail, and they keep the money, if not he gets his money back and the world goes on.

I actually think that is QW's point as well.

 

[Contumacious]

Hyperbole much? I'd like to see an example of someone having their home seized for a seed. I'll help you out by moving the goalpost for you, give me one case where a home was seized over possession of a joint.

I did not say it has happened, I just pointed out the logical conclusion of your support of a stupid law that allows the government to claim your property is guilty of a crime.

BS, it was hyperbole and scare tactics. If you really want to come to a logical conclusion, here is the question...You, a law enforcement officer, find five ziplock bags containing 200 thousand dollars being smuggled in the back of a loaded semi tractor trailer...the logical conclussion is _____________?

This law is smart...take what you can use against your enemy...fund his defeat with his own money.

If it actually becomes corrupt, I will be shoulder to shoulder with you fighting against it...but based on what I saw in the video, which I'm sure was editted to put the police in the worst possible light, I didn't see that at all, despite the "reporters" best efforts. I saw a common sense seizure of $200,000.

I love the double standard.

When you do it is a "common sense seizure. When Jesse Woodson James did it it was a crime. A difference without A distinction.

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Let me see if I understand your position. The cops can do anything they want as long as they do it to people you think are guilty.

My position is, if you are smuggling $200,000 in the back of a loaded semi...that IS probable cause.

Having $1,500 cash IS NOT probable cause.

Having $5,500 from your deadbeat brother and no other contraband is NOT probable cause.

Having $5,500 in cash IN CONJUNCTION WITH a stash of drugs IS probable cause.

Is that so hard to comprehend?

Seems pretty common sense to me.

But LOTS of legitimate businessmen wander around with $200K in cash.

Here's my issue. Civil forfeiture. That's BS. They should have confiscated the money, charged the guy with trafficking and let a jury decide if $200K in the back of a semi on a known drug route was enough to warrant a conviction. If so, he goes to jail, and they keep the money, if not he gets his money back and the world goes on.

I actually think that is QW's point as well.

Essentially.

 

[MikeK]

We're not talking about $5,500 and never were.

We're discussing YOUR video of a $200,000 seizure.

When a cop actually seizes $2000 from tourists or the $5500 my deadbeat brother paid me back, we'll discuss it and I'll agree with you that that is crossing the line.

But seizing $200,000 smuggled in the back if a semi tractor trailer is NOT crossing the line. It's good police work.

Essentially we are talking about the hypothetical $5,500. Because the $200,000 is simply a large amount of cash, which, by itself, is not even prima facie evidence of a crime. The truck driver can say he has been saving it up all his life and likes to carry it around with him. And on the basis of that, unless there is evidence of some crime, he can be accused of eccentricity and nothing more.

However, in the police state America has become it will cost $200,000 or more in lawyer's fees to impose that conclusion.

America became a police state when the corporatist Supreme Court replaced the Probable Cause requirement with Reasonable Suspicion, which is a hunch -- a feeling.

 

[TheBrain]

We're not talking about $5,500 and never were.

We're discussing YOUR video of a $200,000 seizure.

When a cop actually seizes $2000 from tourists or the $5500 my deadbeat brother paid me back, we'll discuss it and I'll agree with you that that is crossing the line.

But seizing $200,000 smuggled in the back if a semi tractor trailer is NOT crossing the line. It's good police work.

Essentially we are talking about the hypothetical $5,500. Because the $200,000 is simply a large amount of cash, which, by itself, is not even prima facie evidence of a crime. The truck driver can say he has been saving it up all his life and likes to carry it around with him. And on the basis of that, unless there is evidence of some crime, he can be accused of eccentricity and nothing more.

However, in the police state America has become it will cost $200,000 or more in lawyer's fees to impose that conclusion.

America became a police state when the corporatist Supreme Court replaced the Probable Cause requirement with Reasonable Suspicion, which is a hunch -- a feeling.

Probable cause by its very definition is open to interpretation. That is what courts are for. To decide "did this meet the standard" since there can't possibly be a one size fits all definition of probable cause.

 

[George Costanza]

If only people knew their rights and had the guts to look a cop in the eye and insist on them.

"You got anything illegal in your car here?"

"No."

"Mind if we take a look?"

Proper answer: "Yes, I do mind. If you want to get a search warrant, then you can search my car. Until then, you cannot." In order to get a search warrant, the cop is going to have to convince a judge that probable cause exists to issue the search warrant. If the only reason for the traffic stop was a traffic violation, with nothing more, the cop is either going to have to lie in the search warrant affidavit, or not get the warrant. If he lies, the search warrant affidavit is subject to extreme scrutiny once the case gets to court and if he is caught lying, his ass is grass.

Answer usually given (or answer which the police often claim is given): "Sure, go ahead."

Don't even get me started on police agencies confiscating "drug money" that ends up in their own coffers.

It is complacency and a concept of ‘I didn’t do anything wrong.’ When I was younger that was what I used to be like but a few years ago I came to the realization that I will never agree to a search simply under principal. I don’t care if it costs me time or heartache. I have seen too much abuse and the random assumption that they have the right to do whatever they please to you.

One of the main reasons people allow police to search their cars (i.e., agree to a consensual search) is the fear that if they refuse to let the cops search, they will then be arrested. There is also the worry that the police will then conduct the search anyway and, in the course of so doing, tear their car apart, impound it, etc.

Of course, a sensible person would compare those fears with the reality of what will happen when the cops find the drugs in their car (which they know are there) - but people are not always sensible when the flashlight is in their eyes and the cop is glaring at them.