Couple has $107k stolen by cops.

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

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

Because illegal drug sales are illegal.

Who said anything about drugs being involved?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

What the cops THINK they know is not the point. The fact that they have not been convicted of any crime is what matters.

You are avoiding the point. They can't open up their brains and see the intent. They go by the circumstantial evidence and no fucking body runs around with a bag full of greenbacks for shits and giggles.

So you want the gov't to be able to seize assets based on your opinion and not on having been convicted of a crime? Nice concept of freedom you have there.

Iceweasel, is your typical tea party hypocrite. They are all about freedom and liberty and small government as along as it's their version of freedom and liberty. If not, then send in the storm troopers and abuse everyone in site, guilty or not. We don't need no stinking Constitution.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

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

Because illegal drug sales are illegal.

Who said anything about drugs being involved?

The police and federal prosecutors.

 

[Iceweasel]

Iceweasel, is your typical tea party hypocrite. They are all about freedom and liberty and small government as along as it's their version of freedom and liberty. If not, then send in the storm troopers and abuse everyone in site, guilty or not. We don't need no stinking Constitution.

I'm not in the TEA party and didn't say that, you dishonest hack.

 

[Iceweasel]

There has to be more to the story.

No, there doesn't, actually. This is kind of thing happens far more frequently than you realize under civil asset forfeiture laws, courtesy of the "War on Drugs."

It's a great law if used properly. And seems so in this case. You fall into the drug dealer support group, I see.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

We don't confiscate people's property based on your "guess" now do we? No, we actually have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.

Aren't you one of those conservatives who claims to be all about "small" government and freedom?

Yes, they did confiscate the money, you're confused. It's right there in the story. Small government isn't no government. We have a government to protect us from people like this that prey on society. That doesn't we fund every wet dream imaginable. You paint with a mighty broad brush.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

Why someone would be carrying 500 rounds of ammunition seems less fishy?

You've never gone to the range. You can shoot 200 rounds without realizing it.

I'm sure most terrorists think the same way. Now imagine if we limited the magazine/clip sizes to 5 rounds a piece. That would be 40 re-loads x about 3 seconds a re-load and gives people about 2 minutes to get away.

Oh but these are facts...we can't use those with gun nuts. My bad.

We can only limit what law abiding citizens allow government to limit. Imagine a bad guy intent on hosing down a crowded room reading your post. And how did this turn into gun control? What's next, gay marriage?

 

[candycorn]

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.

I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

Why someone would be carrying 500 rounds of ammunition seems less fishy?

You've never gone to the range. You can shoot 200 rounds without realizing it.

I'm sure most terrorists think the same way. Now imagine if we limited the magazine/clip sizes to 5 rounds a piece. That would be 40 re-loads x about 3 seconds a re-load and gives people about 2 minutes to get away.

Oh but these are facts...we can't use those with gun nuts. My bad.

We can only limit what law abiding citizens allow government to limit. Imagine a bad guy intent on hosing down a crowded room reading your post. And how did this turn into gun control? What's next, gay marriage?

Lanza used what a "law abiding citizen" had purchased. He fired 154 shots. Imagine if he had to re-load every 5 rounds. That would be 90 seconds for a get-away (30 re-loads at 3 seconds each). You can run 300 yards in 90 seconds or so. Just saying.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

I have to agree with you. It does sound a little fishy.
While there's no law saying how much money one is allowed to carry with them, I can think of very few legitimate reasons why someone would be in possession of over $100K in cash.

If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

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

Because illegal drug sales are illegal.

Who said anything about drugs being involved?

The police and federal prosecutors.

So where are the charges?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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.

We don't confiscate people's property based on your "guess" now do we? No, we actually have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.

Aren't you one of those conservatives who claims to be all about "small" government and freedom?

Yes, they did confiscate the money, you're confused. It's right there in the story.

Yes, that's the problem, dipshit.

Small government isn't no government.

Translation: " I'm a hypocrite waving a flag around pretending to be an American."

We have a government to protect us from people like this that prey on society.

Who was preying on society when this incident occurred?

You paint with a mighty broad brush.

Wow, now if that isn't the most ironic statement of the day

 

[Carla_Danger]

If the police believe the people are drug dealers, let's just have the police lock them up until they can prove they are not drug dealers.

No need for the dramatic over reaction. Just don't drive around with 100k of cash you can't account for in a pot bag with scales in your car. If you're a drug dealer and lose the illegal money, cry me a river....

Maybe you don't. And I don't. But confiscating $107k because most people don't do that is simply wrong.

This is as wrong as the use of Imminent Domain to get property for private businesses. And that is legal too.

That's not why they took the money.
That's not why they took the money.
That's not why they took the money.
That's not why they took the money.

They probably used it to purchase a new margarita machine.

Now, why don't you tell us the reason they took that money.

Texas has some of the worst civil forfeiture laws in the nation, as demonstrated by an Institute for Justice report, Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Texas Civil Forfeiture - Institute for Justice

 

[freedombecki2]

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

I read the page. A couple was on their way to Utah for a medical procedure at a hearing institute, and they were carrying money for the procedure in a duffel bag that had a smell of marijuana, which caused a delay of 3 years for $107,000.

So the government is now requiring people to wash luggage they picked up at Ma and Pa's Bargain Basement Previously Used Resale store?

lol

 

[Missourian]

Why someone would be carrying 500 rounds of ammunition seems less fishy?

Yeah! Nobody carries around 500 rounds of ammunition!!!

Please, stick to topics you have at least a crumb of knowledge about.

 

[candycorn]

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.

We don't confiscate people's property based on your "guess" now do we? No, we actually have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.

Aren't you one of those conservatives who claims to be all about "small" government and freedom?

Yes, they did confiscate the money, you're confused. It's right there in the story.

Yes, that's the problem, dipshit.

Small government isn't no government.

Translation: " I'm a hypocrite waving a flag around pretending to be an American."

We have a government to protect us from people like this that prey on society.

Who was preying on society when this incident occurred?

You paint with a mighty broad brush.

Wow, now if that isn't the most ironic statement of the day

No, the most ironic statement ever is from Gun Nuts who swear they need belt-fed weaponry,AR-15s, a zillion rounds of ammo and everything short of atomic weapons to stop a brutal government THEN turn around and applaud government brutality when it's on display time and again.

Of course, the only time applause happens is when the brutality is directed against some folks. Clive Bundy? Not so much, a black woman who wouldn't put her cigarette out? You Betcha!!!! Gee, wonder what the difference is.

 

[candycorn]

Why someone would be carrying 500 rounds of ammunition seems less fishy?

Yeah! Nobody carries around 500 rounds of ammunition!!!


View attachment 58361

Please, stick to topics you have at least a crumb of knowledge about.

Never said that. I did say nobody has a good reason to. Please stick to languages you can read.

 

[Iceweasel]

If the police believe the people are drug dealers, let's just have the police lock them up until they can prove they are not drug dealers.

No need for the dramatic over reaction. Just don't drive around with 100k of cash you can't account for in a pot bag with scales in your car. If you're a drug dealer and lose the illegal money, cry me a river....

Maybe you don't. And I don't. But confiscating $107k because most people don't do that is simply wrong.

This is as wrong as the use of Imminent Domain to get property for private businesses. And that is legal too.

That's not why they took the money.
That's not why they took the money.
That's not why they took the money.
That's not why they took the money.

They probably used it to purchase a new margarita machine.

Now, why don't you tell us the reason they took that money.

Texas has some of the worst civil forfeiture laws in the nation, as demonstrated by an Institute for Justice report, Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture.

Texas Civil Forfeiture - Institute for Justice

This case isn't all the cases you want to discuss now. Go ahead and start a thread on them. You can join the others that know more about the law than the federal prosecutors and judge. The burden is on you.

 

[Iceweasel]

If they had one I'm sure they would have mentioned it.

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

Because illegal drug sales are illegal.

Who said anything about drugs being involved?

The police and federal prosecutors.

So where are the charges?

I hope they are coming but you really do need to read the thread. I'm not repeating everything for everybody that refuses to embrace the reality.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

We don't confiscate people's property based on your "guess" now do we? No, we actually have an innocent until proven guilty justice system.

Aren't you one of those conservatives who claims to be all about "small" government and freedom?

Yes, they did confiscate the money, you're confused. It's right there in the story.

Yes, that's the problem, dipshit.

Small government isn't no government.

Translation: " I'm a hypocrite waving a flag around pretending to be an American."

We have a government to protect us from people like this that prey on society.

Who was preying on society when this incident occurred?

You paint with a mighty broad brush.

Wow, now if that isn't the most ironic statement of the day

You are still confused I see. I'm not the one claiming to know more about the case or the law. I'm pretending to be an American because I don't agree the cops and government are thieves in this case? It's hypocritical to want a smaller government but support law enforcement? That's a special kind of stupid.

 

[Iceweasel]

No, the most ironic statement ever is from Gun Nuts who swear they need belt-fed weaponry,

Never heard that, who said that?

 

[Missourian]

Why someone would be carrying 500 rounds of ammunition seems less fishy?

Yeah! Nobody carries around 500 rounds of ammunition!!!


View attachment 58361

Please, stick to topics you have at least a crumb of knowledge about.

Never said that. I did say nobody has a good reason to. Please stick to languages you can read.

Then you were wrong twice. And you would have understood that right off, had you an iota of knowledge on the subject.