Couple has $107k stolen by cops.

[Iceweasel]

That's the worst part of it, it basically issues letters of Marque to Police Departments.

....for drug dealers. Probably illegal arms sales too.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Also, since they seize money knowing that they will be able to use it for their new toys and events.


A few bad apples tho guys. Its only 107k. There is currently more than a quadrillion dollars in circulation so $107K isnt even 1%.


Waka waka

A quadrillion?! Oh, that's right, you're black and don't do math.

Lighten up Mr Panty Twist

 

[Meathead]

I suppose in a clear sense and contrary to the OP's intent, the fact that the cops turned in the money instead of 'stealing' it as erroneously claimed is proof of honest cops. It would have been very easy for that to happen and likely the couple would have kept their mouths shut about it.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I suppose in a clear sense and contrary to the OP's intent, the fact that the cops turned in the money instead of 'stealing' it as erroneously claimed is proof of honest cops. It would have been very easy for that to happen and likely the couple would have kept their mouths shut about it.

Turned in the money?

Is that what you call keeping it? I hope someone turns in your money to themselves and see if you see it so glass half full then.

 

[martybegan]

That's the worst part of it, it basically issues letters of Marque to Police Departments.

....for drug dealers. Probably illegal arms sales too.

Alleged drug dealers, where the government has no hard evidence. You keep leaving that part out.

 

[Meathead]

I suppose in a clear sense and contrary to the OP's intent, the fact that the cops turned in the money instead of 'stealing' it as erroneously claimed is proof of honest cops. It would have been very easy for that to happen and likely the couple would have kept their mouths shut about it.

Turned in the money?

Is that what you call keeping it? I hope someone turns in your money to themselves and see if you see it so glass half full then.

Don't be an idiot. If they had kept it you would have never heard of this.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Terry Dehko owns Schott's Supermarket, a small grocery store outside Detroit. An embodiment of the American Dream, Terry has successfully run his family business with his daughter Sandy for the past three decades. But earlier this year the IRS turned their dream into a nightmare. A lawsuit they are filing today in federal court seeks to change that.

In January 2013, the federal government obtained a secret warrant and took every dollar out of the Dehko's grocery store bank account — more than $35,000 — without any warning or explanation. Only later would Terry and Sandy discover that, despite doing absolutely nothing wrong, the IRS and the U.S. Department of Justice teamed up to seize their money using an increasingly abusive tactic called civil forfeiture.

Assault by civil forfeiture: Column

 

[Iceweasel]

That's the worst part of it, it basically issues letters of Marque to Police Departments.

....for drug dealers. Probably illegal arms sales too.

Alleged drug dealers, where the government has no hard evidence. You keep leaving that part out.

No, I said when they have enough circumstantial evidence. If you don't like the law lobby your senator.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I suppose in a clear sense and contrary to the OP's intent, the fact that the cops turned in the money instead of 'stealing' it as erroneously claimed is proof of honest cops. It would have been very easy for that to happen and likely the couple would have kept their mouths shut about it.

Turned in the money?

Is that what you call keeping it? I hope someone turns in your money to themselves and see if you see it so glass half full then.

Don't be an idiot. If they had kept it you would have never heard of this.

Hearing about something has nothing to do with whether you're able to keep it or not.

 

[martybegan]

That's the worst part of it, it basically issues letters of Marque to Police Departments.

....for drug dealers. Probably illegal arms sales too.

Alleged drug dealers, where the government has no hard evidence. You keep leaving that part out.

No, I said when they have enough circumstantial evidence. If you don't like the law lobby your senator.

They don't have enough circumstantial evidence for a criminal case, or they would have filed charges.

And the "if you don't like it, do X" argument is just a deflection, not a reason why these laws are a good idea.

 

[Iceweasel]

That's the worst part of it, it basically issues letters of Marque to Police Departments.

....for drug dealers. Probably illegal arms sales too.

Alleged drug dealers, where the government has no hard evidence. You keep leaving that part out.

No, I said when they have enough circumstantial evidence. If you don't like the law lobby your senator.

They don't have enough circumstantial evidence for a criminal case, or they would have filed charges.

And the "if you don't like it, do X" argument is just a deflection, not a reason why these laws are a good idea.

They would need the drugs for the conviction so that's why they have this law, with enough circumstantial evidence they can seize the cash. I didn't deflect, just pointed out the facts. The fact that the cops, federal prosecutors and federal judge believe they are within the law and you have present zero evidence to the contrary I'm siding with it's legal.

Trying to turn it into a good/bad idea argument is the deflection.

 

[martybegan]

That's the worst part of it, it basically issues letters of Marque to Police Departments.

....for drug dealers. Probably illegal arms sales too.

Alleged drug dealers, where the government has no hard evidence. You keep leaving that part out.

No, I said when they have enough circumstantial evidence. If you don't like the law lobby your senator.

They don't have enough circumstantial evidence for a criminal case, or they would have filed charges.

And the "if you don't like it, do X" argument is just a deflection, not a reason why these laws are a good idea.

They would need the drugs for the conviction so that's why they have this law, with enough circumstantial evidence they can seize the cash. I didn't deflect, just pointed out the facts. The fact that the cops, federal prosecutors and federal judge believe they are within the law and you have present zero evidence to the contrary I'm siding with it's legal.

Trying to turn it into a good/bad idea argument is the deflection.

So the people abusing their authority believe the abuse is A-OK. That's fucking hilarious.

If you think someone is a criminal you prosecute them as a criminal. You don't end run basic protections afforded all citizens just to make the government's job easier.

 

[Iceweasel]

....for drug dealers. Probably illegal arms sales too.

Alleged drug dealers, where the government has no hard evidence. You keep leaving that part out.

No, I said when they have enough circumstantial evidence. If you don't like the law lobby your senator.

They don't have enough circumstantial evidence for a criminal case, or they would have filed charges.

And the "if you don't like it, do X" argument is just a deflection, not a reason why these laws are a good idea.

They would need the drugs for the conviction so that's why they have this law, with enough circumstantial evidence they can seize the cash. I didn't deflect, just pointed out the facts. The fact that the cops, federal prosecutors and federal judge believe they are within the law and you have present zero evidence to the contrary I'm siding with it's legal.

Trying to turn it into a good/bad idea argument is the deflection.

So the people abusing their authority believe the abuse is A-OK. That's fucking hilarious.

If you think someone is a criminal you prosecute them as a criminal. You don't end run basic protections afforded all citizens just to make the government's job easier.

You haven't demonstrated where they are abusing their authority. If it's legal they have the authority. You are trying to confuse it with whether you like the law or not. That's a different matter and why I said go do some lobbying.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You haven't demonstrated where they are abusing their authority. If it's legal they have the authority.

This means there is no such thing as abusing authority as long as the foundation is "legal" they can seize anything anytime for any reason and it cant ever be considered abuse?

I love circular logic

 

[Iceweasel]

You haven't demonstrated where they are abusing their authority. If it's legal they have the authority.

This means there is no such thing as abusing authority as long as the foundation is "legal" they can seize anything anytime for any reason and it cant ever be considered abuse?

I love circular logic

You wouldn't know what logic is if you fell face first into it. They can't seize anything legally if it isn't legal to do so, duh. You claim it's an abuse, they obviously don't agree. You've made no case for your POV, just assertions and insults.

LOL

 

[ClosedCaption]

You haven't demonstrated where they are abusing their authority. If it's legal they have the authority.

This means there is no such thing as abusing authority as long as the foundation is "legal" they can seize anything anytime for any reason and it cant ever be considered abuse?

I love circular logic

You wouldn't know what logic is if you fell face first into it. They can't seize anything legally if it isn't legal to do so, duh. You claim it's an abuse, they obviously don't agree. You've made no case for your POV, just assertions and insults.

LOL

Because according to this logic there cant be abuse no matter whats seized, when or for what reason.

 

[ClosedCaption]

For Example Ice:

What cant they seize?

What is a reason they cannot seize?

Is there a limit to when, why or how they seize and what is it?


If you cant answer those questions you're defending limitless power. But since you're super duper smart those questions are childs play.

 

[Syriusly]

This couple get pulled over for speeding. The cops find over $107k in a suitcase and her purse. The cops seize the money. No drugs are found and no charges are ever made. But the couple loses the money?

WTH?? How do we allow this? This is pure theft.

Cops Seized Over $107,000 From Couple, Didn’t Charge Them With a Crime - Institute for Justice

Unfortunately this is hardly a unique situation. I remember the case of a guy travelling from the Midwest to San Diego on a bus with his life savings in cash- to start a business in San Diego- Border agents boarded the bus, questioned him and discovered his cash- seized it- and last I heard he was still fighting to get it back.

There is a terrible legal situation where a person's belongings are somehow not protected by our rights against illegal search and seizure.

This gets compounded by the 'profit' motive- these seizures typically go right to the police departments budget that makes the seizure.

The laws should absolutely be changed- if a person is not charged with a crime- all property seized(except property that is in of itself illegal) should be returned no questions asked- if the person is charged- but exonerated- return all seized property.

This is truly an un-American situation.

 

[Syriusly]

There has to be more to the story.

Civil Asset Forfeiture is a growing problem, particularly when the police departments doing it profit directly from whatever is seized.

It costs lots of money to fight the problem the drug dealers cause. So you could be paying more taxes instead. But throwing out a generic complaint doesn't shed any light on the subject.

So you would be okay if police seized your car.......and never charged you with a crime- and never returned it?

Because it costs lots of money to 'fight the problem of drug dealers"?

 

[Syriusly]

Why? Why should a citizen be forced to prove he is innocent?

I thought you said they hadn't been charged with anything.

They haven't. But their assets were seized. And Iceweasel thinks that is ok because of what he thinks they MIGHT have been doing.

Wrong, asshole. Iceweasel wasn't there in in the court room. I didn't make the determination, you completely misrepresented the case.

You made it sound like a cop can pull you over, go through your shit for no good reason, take whatever money they find and call it a day. That isn't what happened and you continuously ignore the feds were acting in accordance to the law. It's been in court. And you don't get to decide what is legal or not.

I made it sound like a cop can pull you over, and if they find a large amount of cash in your car, they can TAKE IT, and you have to prove your innocence. And whether you are EVER charged with a crime or not, they can keep the money.

If you find that acceptable, you have no right to ever bitch about intrusive gov't.

That isn't what happened, you're lying. Leaving out pertinent facts is lying.

What was his lie?

What facts did he leave out?

He posted the link to the entire article.

Show us the 'lie'