Cops steal 360k from person's car

[R.C. Christian]

Never, ever give a pig consent to search your car. This is simple shit.

 

[National Socialist]

Exactly.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They had suspicions he was carrying something..gonna go out on a limb here and say he was black....

I think I will point out that only a racist would feel a need to speculate like that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It doesn't matter. Carrying cash is not a crime and is not a reason to stop, detain or search anyone.

If an activity is generally associated with crime, then I think it is a reason for the police to at least question why that person is engaging in that activity.

Police do that all the time.

Most criminals drive, does that mean police should be able to question everyone who drives?

 

[National Socialist]

They had suspicions he was carrying something..gonna go out on a limb here and say he was black....

I think I will point out that only a racist would feel a need to speculate like that.

I was saying that as that being the reason they pulled him over..I am with the victim here not the pigs.

 

[OnePercenter]

Unfortunately, because of criminals, we have to justify why we're carting large amounts of cash.

With credit cards too.

When I purchased my apartment in NYC and my boat for my San Diego home I used a credit card. Had to fill out an IRS form.

No we don't.

It is not illegal to carry cash even large sums of it.

Why don't you check out the forfeiture laws and get back to me.

 

[OnePercenter]

Is he supposed to keep it in one of those banks that got bailed out?

Um. Yeah. That was the purpose of a bailout, so people didn't lose their savings.

No it wasn't. Savings accounts are insured by the FDIC, the purpose of the bailout was to protect rich people from going broke.

Try bank collapse.

 

[OnePercenter]

Even if they just sold a brand new boat to a paranoid recluse who never uses banks?

Yes.

You could make up hypotheticals all day but it is extremely rare that someone legitimate would be driving around with a car full of money. Criminals, not legitimate business people, deal in large amounts of cash. That's why he is suspicious. He may not be guilty of anything, but most times, someone driving around with large amounts of money like that are involved in crime.

When he was out of the area, my uncle's boss ALWAYS carried a roll of cash on him...often $50,000+ (and this was 30 years ago). He owned a trucking company, and if buying used equipment, cash talks!

I'm sure he also carried the receipt for the money.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Um. Yeah. That was the purpose of a bailout, so people didn't lose their savings.

No it wasn't. Savings accounts are insured by the FDIC, the purpose of the bailout was to protect rich people from going broke.

Try bank collapse.

Banks collapse all the time.

 

[OnePercenter]

No it wasn't. Savings accounts are insured by the FDIC, the purpose of the bailout was to protect rich people from going broke.

Try bank collapse.

Banks collapse all the time.

I didn't write 'banks'. I wrote 'bank'.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Never, ever give a pig consent to search your car. This is simple shit.

The latest trick they use is to get a drug dog to give a false indication.

Tribune analysis: Drug-sniffing dogs in traffic stops often wrong - Chicago Tribune

Look at this video and the cop saying to the dog in a playful tone "Find the drugs boy. Find the drugs!"

[youtube]rJqq6KCOkdM[/youtube]

The Stop: Bad Cops, Drug Dogs and Trekkies Along I-70

"Just before the dog alerts, you can hear a change in the tone of the handler's voice. That's troubling. I don't know anything about this particular handler, but that's often an indication of a handler that's cuing a response." In other words, it's indicative of a handler instructing the dog to alert, not waiting to see whether the dog will alert.

"You also hear the handler say at one point that the dog alerted from the front of the car because the wind is blowing from the back of the car to the front, so the scent would have carried with the wind," Papet says. "But the dog was brought around the car twice. If that's the case, the dog should have alerted the first time he was brought to the front of the car. The dog only alerted the second time, which corresponded to what would be consistent with a vocal cue from the handler."

 

[Toro]

It doesn't matter. Carrying cash is not a crime and is not a reason to stop, detain or search anyone.

If an activity is generally associated with crime, then I think it is a reason for the police to at least question why that person is engaging in that activity.

Police do that all the time.

Most criminals drive, does that mean police should be able to question everyone who drives?

No, because unlike driving around with enormous amounts of cash, driving a car isn't usually associated with criminal activity. Driving a car isn't suspicious. Driving a car with $360,000 in cash is.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Try bank collapse.

Banks collapse all the time.

I didn't write 'banks'. I wrote 'bank'.

Did you mean banking? If not, you aren't making any sense. If yes, there was zero danger of a banking collapse in the US.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If an activity is generally associated with crime, then I think it is a reason for the police to at least question why that person is engaging in that activity.

Police do that all the time.

Most criminals drive, does that mean police should be able to question everyone who drives?

No, because unlike driving around with enormous amounts of cash, driving a car isn't usually associated with criminal activity. Driving a car isn't suspicious. Driving a car with $360,000 in cash is.

I don't care if it is suspicious, the police cannot demand answers form a person under any circumstances, thus they have no reason to take the money unless they ask, and the guy admits he got the money as a result of an illegal activity.

 

[Toro]

Most criminals drive, does that mean police should be able to question everyone who drives?

No, because unlike driving around with enormous amounts of cash, driving a car isn't usually associated with criminal activity. Driving a car isn't suspicious. Driving a car with $360,000 in cash is.

I don't care if it is suspicious, the police cannot demand answers form a person under any circumstances, thus they have no reason to take the money unless they ask, and the guy admits he got the money as a result of an illegal activity.

I'm not sure. I'm just saying that it's suspicious a guy is driving around with $360,000 in cash.

 

[OnePercenter]

Banks collapse all the time.

I didn't write 'banks'. I wrote 'bank'.

Did you mean banking? If not, you aren't making any sense. If yes, there was zero danger of a banking collapse in the US.

Bank failure, and yes we did come close.

Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes

(cue the music) and it could happen again......better buy that gold!!!!!!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I didn't write 'banks'. I wrote 'bank'.

Did you mean banking? If not, you aren't making any sense. If yes, there was zero danger of a banking collapse in the US.

Bank failure, and yes we did come close.

Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes

(cue the music) and it could happen again......better buy that gold!!!!!!

We really didn't. Most of the banks that took the "bailout" didn't need it, they just did it because the regulators strongly suggested that, if they didn't, it would go bad for them in the future. We would have been better off if we had let the couple of big banks that were in trouble go under. Now we have even bigger banks that are even more critical to the economy, thus institutionalizing and endless round of bailouts.

 

[OnePercenter]

Did you mean banking? If not, you aren't making any sense. If yes, there was zero danger of a banking collapse in the US.

Bank failure, and yes we did come close.

Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes

(cue the music) and it could happen again......better buy that gold!!!!!!

We really didn't. Most of the banks that took the "bailout" didn't need it, they just did it because the regulators strongly suggested that, if they didn't, it would go bad for them in the future. We would have been better off if we had let the couple of big banks that were in trouble go under. Now we have even bigger banks that are even more critical to the economy, thus institutionalizing and endless round of bailouts.

Which banks didn't need it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Bank failure, and yes we did come close.

Big Banks and Derivatives: Why Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable - Forbes

(cue the music) and it could happen again......better buy that gold!!!!!!

We really didn't. Most of the banks that took the "bailout" didn't need it, they just did it because the regulators strongly suggested that, if they didn't, it would go bad for them in the future. We would have been better off if we had let the couple of big banks that were in trouble go under. Now we have even bigger banks that are even more critical to the economy, thus institutionalizing and endless round of bailouts.

Which banks didn't need it?

You are the financial expert, you tell me.

Keep in mind that only three or four big banks were ever in danger, and that not all of them got a bailout. The real danger was the collapse of the real estate market, and the fact that the government had pinned the entire economy to it for years.

 

[Skull Pilot]

We really didn't. Most of the banks that took the "bailout" didn't need it, they just did it because the regulators strongly suggested that, if they didn't, it would go bad for them in the future. We would have been better off if we had let the couple of big banks that were in trouble go under. Now we have even bigger banks that are even more critical to the economy, thus institutionalizing and endless round of bailouts.

Which banks didn't need it?

You are the financial expert, you tell me.

Keep in mind that only three or four big banks were ever in danger, and that not all of them got a bailout. The real danger was the collapse of the real estate market, and the fact that the government had pinned the entire economy to it for years.

First nine banks were forced to take bailouts - The Boston Globe

NEW YORK - The chief executives of the country's nine largest banks had no choice but to accept capital infusions from the Treasury Department in October, government documents released Wednesday have confirmed....

Obtained and released by Judicial Watch, a nonpartisan educational foundation, the documents reveal "talking points" used by then-Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson during the Oct. 13 meeting between federal officials and the executives that stressed the investments would be required "in any circumstance," whether the banks found them appealing or not.

There you go.