Couple has $107k stolen by cops.

[martybegan]

By the way- I don't have a problem with asset seizure laws regarding property or money seized from convicted criminals, gotten from their illegal activities.

I do have a problem with the idea that nothing prevents any law enforcement officer from seizing property from any one of us, without having any obligation to charge us with a crime.

Exactly. There should not be an "easy" button when it comes to law enforcement.

 

[whitehall]

"Stolen by Cops"? Another unfounded deliberate incendiary charge leveled at Police at a time when there is a 4% rise in Police Officers killed in the line of duty this year. You could say the Mass. A.G. (democrat) stole the money if you wanted to stretch the point but the Officers certainly aren't guilty.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I think the logic is unconstitutional- but currently it is considered 'legal'

However, I think that seizing property of a person who has not been charged or convicted of a crime- is particularly un-American- and particularly immoral.

As I said before- would you be okay if police pulled you over and seized your car- and never charged you with a crime?

Since it would be legal.

If I got the money selling drugs you mean? Yes, I'd be happy to be free from jail and wouldn't push my luck.

 

[Iceweasel]

Civil Asset Forfeiture was a big thing around 6 months ago among the screeching libertarians. Only someone who wants to evade discovery carries their own private treasury around in a suitcase.

Who does this? No one I've EVER ran into.

IN this case it was 107,000 dollars. It could be 10,000 dollars- and I know people- gamblers mostly- who carry that much cash on them when they head to Vegas.

And then there are jewelers who very typically carry thousands- sometimes millions of dollars worth of gems on their person transporting them- all subject to seizure- all trusting that no law enforcement officer will ever make a mistake, ever be over-zealous......

Would you be okay with it if they seized your car?

Well, if they have evidence of a withdrawal to that amount they are good to go. That isn't what we are discussing though. We are discussing money from ill gotten gains.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I think the logic is unconstitutional- but currently it is considered 'legal'

However, I think that seizing property of a person who has not been charged or convicted of a crime- is particularly un-American- and particularly immoral.

As I said before- would you be okay if police pulled you over and seized your car- and never charged you with a crime?

Since it would be legal.

If I got the money selling drugs you mean? Yes, I'd be happy to be free from jail and wouldn't push my luck.

Okay- so if you got the money selling drugs- you would be happy to turn your car over to the police.

Now- As I said before- would you be okay if police pulled you over and seized your car- and never charged you with a crime- if you didn't get the money selling drugs?

 

[Syriusly]

Civil Asset Forfeiture was a big thing around 6 months ago among the screeching libertarians. Only someone who wants to evade discovery carries their own private treasury around in a suitcase.

Who does this? No one I've EVER ran into.

IN this case it was 107,000 dollars. It could be 10,000 dollars- and I know people- gamblers mostly- who carry that much cash on them when they head to Vegas.

And then there are jewelers who very typically carry thousands- sometimes millions of dollars worth of gems on their person transporting them- all subject to seizure- all trusting that no law enforcement officer will ever make a mistake, ever be over-zealous......

Would you be okay with it if they seized your car?

Well, if they have evidence of a withdrawal to that amount they are good to go. That isn't what we are discussing though. We are discussing money from ill gotten gains.

What money with ill gotten gains?

None of the cases discussed have been shown to have been 'ill gotten' at all.

That is what i object to- and you apparently do not.

Here is one example

Take the case of Matt Lee, 31, who in 2011 was pulled over by police in Nevada while on the last leg of a cross-country move from Michigan to California. In an ensuing K-9 search, police discovered $2,400 in cash, loaned to Lee by his father. Though officers had no proof of any connection to a crime -- Lee had never even been arrested before -- they seized the cash and left Lee with $151. Lee later hired a lawyer, and the county eventually agreed to return his money. By then, his legal fees had reached $1,269, leaving Lee with less than half of the money that had been taken from him.

 

[Iceweasel]

Civil Asset Forfeiture was a big thing around 6 months ago among the screeching libertarians. Only someone who wants to evade discovery carries their own private treasury around in a suitcase.

Who does this? No one I've EVER ran into.

IN this case it was 107,000 dollars. It could be 10,000 dollars- and I know people- gamblers mostly- who carry that much cash on them when they head to Vegas.

And then there are jewelers who very typically carry thousands- sometimes millions of dollars worth of gems on their person transporting them- all subject to seizure- all trusting that no law enforcement officer will ever make a mistake, ever be over-zealous......

Would you be okay with it if they seized your car?

Well, if they have evidence of a withdrawal to that amount they are good to go. That isn't what we are discussing though. We are discussing money from ill gotten gains.

What money with ill gotten gains?

None of the cases discussed have been shown to have been 'ill gotten' at all.

That is what i object to- and you apparently do not.

Here is one example

No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I think the logic is unconstitutional- but currently it is considered 'legal'

However, I think that seizing property of a person who has not been charged or convicted of a crime- is particularly un-American- and particularly immoral.

As I said before- would you be okay if police pulled you over and seized your car- and never charged you with a crime?

Since it would be legal.

If I got the money selling drugs you mean? Yes, I'd be happy to be free from jail and wouldn't push my luck.

Okay- so if you got the money selling drugs- you would be happy to turn your car over to the police.

Now- As I said before- would you be okay if police pulled you over and seized your car- and never charged you with a crime- if you didn't get the money selling drugs?

If I was 7' tall I could have played for the NBA. I'd be happy to be free, like I just said.

 

[reconmark]

Highway robbery? Texas police seize black motorists' cash, cars

You can drive into this dusty fleck of a town near the Texas-Louisiana border if you're African-American, but you might not be able to drive out of it—at least not with your car, your cash, your jewelry or other valuables.

That's because the police here allegedly have found a way to strip motorists, many of them black, of their property without ever charging them with a crime. Instead they offer out-of-towners a grim choice: voluntarily sign over your belongings to the town, or face felony charges of money laundering or other serious crimes.

More than 140 people reluctantly accepted that deal from June 2006 to June 2008, according to court records. Among them were a black grandmother from Akron, who surrendered $4,000 in cash after Tenaha police pulled her over, and an interracial couple from Houston, who gave up more than $6,000 after police threatened to seize their children and put them into foster care, the court documents show. Neither the grandmother nor the couple were charged with any crime.

But in 147 others, Guillory said the court records showed, police seized cash, jewelry, cell phones and sometimes even automobiles from motorists but never found any contraband or charged them with any crime. Of those, Guillory said he managed to contact 40 of the motorists directly—and discovered all but one of them were black.

"The whole thing is disproportionately targeted toward minorities, particularly African-Americans," Guillory said. "None of these people have been charged with a crime, none were engaged in anything that looked criminal. The sole factor is that they had something that looked valuable."

Highway robbery? Texas police seize black motorists' cash, cars

Been happening to Black people forever...

 

[Carla_Danger]

There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.

I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.

Shouldn't it be innocent until proven guilty, instead of guilty until proven innocent?

 

[Iceweasel]

There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.

I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.

Shouldn't it be innocent until proven guilty, instead of guilty until proven innocent?

Jesus Christ. How about reading the thread?

 

[Carla_Danger]

There has to be more to the story.

I have looked and found nothing. They brought a dog out and it keyed on the luggage. But it has been shown many times that cash often has traces of drugs on it.

But if you can find more, I'd love to see it.

I'm not interesting in investigating the case, it sounds like bullshit to me. Who drives around with their savings and disability payments in cash in a bag? My guess is they were looking to buy drugs to supplement their income and the feds know it.

Shouldn't it be innocent until proven guilty, instead of guilty until proven innocent?

Jesus Christ. How about reading the thread?

I already have.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Very interesting....

 

[Carla_Danger]

Cops (since 9-11) have taken in over 2.5 billion dollars, in 61,998 cash seizures, in which zero of those people were charged in a crime.

And most people don't have the money to challenge these cops...especially since the cop just took all their money. lol

Mind blowing!

 

[Syriusly]

Civil Asset Forfeiture was a big thing around 6 months ago among the screeching libertarians. Only someone who wants to evade discovery carries their own private treasury around in a suitcase.

Who does this? No one I've EVER ran into.

IN this case it was 107,000 dollars. It could be 10,000 dollars- and I know people- gamblers mostly- who carry that much cash on them when they head to Vegas.

And then there are jewelers who very typically carry thousands- sometimes millions of dollars worth of gems on their person transporting them- all subject to seizure- all trusting that no law enforcement officer will ever make a mistake, ever be over-zealous......

Would you be okay with it if they seized your car?

Well, if they have evidence of a withdrawal to that amount they are good to go. That isn't what we are discussing though. We are discussing money from ill gotten gains.

What money with ill gotten gains?

None of the cases discussed have been shown to have been 'ill gotten' at all.

That is what i object to- and you apparently do not.

Here is one example

No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.

No- we are discussing the principle of the seizure of goods without warrant or arrest.

Why should any of us have any obligation to explain how we obtained our property?

The very same principle that applies to the young man who had his $2,000 dollars seized and had to spend half of that fighting to recover it- applies to the couple who has $107,000 seized without warrent, without arrest.

So you have no issue with the police seizing property with no arrest- no evidence of wrong doing?

 

[Syriusly]

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.

I think the logic is unconstitutional- but currently it is considered 'legal'

However, I think that seizing property of a person who has not been charged or convicted of a crime- is particularly un-American- and particularly immoral.

As I said before- would you be okay if police pulled you over and seized your car- and never charged you with a crime?

Since it would be legal.

If I got the money selling drugs you mean? Yes, I'd be happy to be free from jail and wouldn't push my luck.

Okay- so if you got the money selling drugs- you would be happy to turn your car over to the police.

Now- As I said before- would you be okay if police pulled you over and seized your car- and never charged you with a crime- if you didn't get the money selling drugs?

If I was 7' tall I could have played for the NBA. I'd be happy to be free, like I just said.

Now- As I said before- would you be okay if police pulled you over and seized your car- and never charged you with a crime- if you didn't get the money selling drugs?

You seem particularly uncomfortable answering that simple question.

 

[Syriusly]

Civil Asset Forfeiture was a big thing around 6 months ago among the screeching libertarians. Only someone who wants to evade discovery carries their own private treasury around in a suitcase.

Who does this? No one I've EVER ran into.

IN this case it was 107,000 dollars. It could be 10,000 dollars- and I know people- gamblers mostly- who carry that much cash on them when they head to Vegas.

And then there are jewelers who very typically carry thousands- sometimes millions of dollars worth of gems on their person transporting them- all subject to seizure- all trusting that no law enforcement officer will ever make a mistake, ever be over-zealous......

Would you be okay with it if they seized your car?

Well, if they have evidence of a withdrawal to that amount they are good to go. That isn't what we are discussing though. We are discussing money from ill gotten gains.

Isn't it odd that in this issue you are all for Big Government taking property without any due process.

But you had a real problem with Big Government when it went to enforce the law against Bundy?

Did you have a sudden change of heart- where you embrace Big Government flexing their muscles? Or does your concern only apply to Conservative Poster boys who we know are disobeying the law?

Quote:
For the libs the thing that matters most is Bundy's mindset, while big government does what it wants to do. A truly backwards philosophy and much more dangerous than what the Bundys in the world think.

We need to reel the feds in a bit, they are flexing their muscles and the writing is on the wall if we do nothing. It's a story retold all around the world. The outcome was a bit different this time because we are unique in being armed compared to other societies. There will soon be another Bundy in the news and you guys will focus on his personality, as if that was the issue.

Bundy - Flee from him | Page 4 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[Carla_Danger]

Civil Asset Forfeiture was a big thing around 6 months ago among the screeching libertarians. Only someone who wants to evade discovery carries their own private treasury around in a suitcase.

Who does this? No one I've EVER ran into.

IN this case it was 107,000 dollars. It could be 10,000 dollars- and I know people- gamblers mostly- who carry that much cash on them when they head to Vegas.

And then there are jewelers who very typically carry thousands- sometimes millions of dollars worth of gems on their person transporting them- all subject to seizure- all trusting that no law enforcement officer will ever make a mistake, ever be over-zealous......

Would you be okay with it if they seized your car?

Well, if they have evidence of a withdrawal to that amount they are good to go. That isn't what we are discussing though. We are discussing money from ill gotten gains.

What money with ill gotten gains?

None of the cases discussed have been shown to have been 'ill gotten' at all.

That is what i object to- and you apparently do not.

Here is one example

No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.

No- we are discussing the principle of the seizure of goods without warrant or arrest.

Why should any of us have any obligation to explain how we obtained our property?

The very same principle that applies to the young man who had his $2,000 dollars seized and had to spend half of that fighting to recover it- applies to the couple who has $107,000 seized without warrent, without arrest.

So you have no issue with the police seizing property with no arrest- no evidence of wrong doing?

Weasel is an anti-American Nazi bastard.

 

[Syriusly]

IN this case it was 107,000 dollars. It could be 10,000 dollars- and I know people- gamblers mostly- who carry that much cash on them when they head to Vegas.

And then there are jewelers who very typically carry thousands- sometimes millions of dollars worth of gems on their person transporting them- all subject to seizure- all trusting that no law enforcement officer will ever make a mistake, ever be over-zealous......

Would you be okay with it if they seized your car?

Well, if they have evidence of a withdrawal to that amount they are good to go. That isn't what we are discussing though. We are discussing money from ill gotten gains.

What money with ill gotten gains?

None of the cases discussed have been shown to have been 'ill gotten' at all.

That is what i object to- and you apparently do not.

Here is one example

No, we are discussing this example. They can't account for the money, they didn't just withdraw it in cash. That isn't a crime but add it to everything else and you have to be retarded to not know how they got it.

No- we are discussing the principle of the seizure of goods without warrant or arrest.

Why should any of us have any obligation to explain how we obtained our property?

The very same principle that applies to the young man who had his $2,000 dollars seized and had to spend half of that fighting to recover it- applies to the couple who has $107,000 seized without warrent, without arrest.

So you have no issue with the police seizing property with no arrest- no evidence of wrong doing?

Weasel is an anti-American Nazi bastard.

Well apparently his nickname is well deserved.

 

[Missourian]

If they don't have enough evidence to convict them of a crime, they don't have enough evidence to keep the money.

It's as simple as that.