Skip to main content

Will someone who is always saying the cops are always right, please defend this and tell me why theft is ok if a cop does it. 
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8...iture-charles-clarke

 

 

 

=========================================================

 

“Attempting to debate with a person who has abandoned reason is like giving medicine to the dead.”
― Thomas Paine

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Originally Posted by seeweed:

Will someone who is always saying the cops are always right, please defend this and tell me why theft is ok if a cop does it. 
http://www.vox.com/2015/6/17/8...iture-charles-clarke

 

 


This has nothing to do with the cops.  Who sponsored the current law that makes this possible is the question that needs to be answered.  Additionally, the guy is an admitted drug user.  How are the cops to discern he's not a dealer?  If he had chosen not to use illegal drugs, then this most likely would have never happened.  Choices, bad and good, usually determine how your life goes.

Hi seaweed, I don't think cops are always right and having power corrupts some and what they did to this guy isn't right but I also was taught to respect the law. If there is ever trouble who am I going to call? The cops! What a hard job. Having this job puts your life in danger every time you go to work. I grew up in a small town where there wasn't much crime.

 

Recently, talking to a friend in TN, he made it apparent he has no love for the police force. He thinks they are all power hungry people who are corrupt. Could be because he was on the wrong side of the law. Or, he could be right. I don't know.

 

Working with kids I saw how some think the police are the bad guys or the good guys. Guess which kids came from families who were in trouble with the law.

 

Trying to stay on the right side of the law, I am not afraid of the police. I'm thinking that makes me a cop lover. I think Mr Hoober makes some good points.

This is a bad law that needs to be eliminated.  Just close to home in Tish County a former head deputy is under investigation of similiar mis deads.  No one should be able to take your stuff without proving a crime.  No it is not realistic for someone to have to hire a lawyer for this.  Prove a crime or intent then take the stuff or cash

I would like to read the law or better yet have someone with a working knowledge of the law explain it to me rather than can the law because of the conduct of a couple of rogue cops.

-------------------

It's not just a couple of rogue cops. It's all over America. The police forces are taking assets from people and claiming that they took stuff that was drug related. After the cops take it, it's almost impossible to get it back.

===================

This has nothing to do with the cops.  Who sponsored the current law that makes this possible is the question that needs to be answered. 

-------------

It has everything to do with the cops. The law is not from this current administration. The practice was going on before Obama

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

I would like to read the law or better yet have someone with a working knowledge of the law explain it to me rather than can the law because of the conduct of a couple of rogue cops.

-------------------

It's not just a couple of rogue cops. It's all over America. The police forces are taking assets from people and claiming that they took stuff that was drug related. After the cops take it, it's almost impossible to get it back.

===================

This has nothing to do with the cops.  Who sponsored the current law that makes this possible is the question that needs to be answered. 

-------------

It has everything to do with the cops. The law is not from this current administration. The practice was going on before Obama

 


Who said anything about BO?  Knee jerk reaction?

 

Please explain how a law that was created by politicians has anything to do with the cops.

Last edited by Mr. Hooberbloob

This has been going on for a long time and cops are involved big time. This law gives the cops or any other law enforcement the right to take property without any proof of guilt. It is up to the individual to spend the money on lawyers to get their property back. Both political parties are to blame for this unfair practice and the law needs to be changed. 

 

Go to ij.org and take a look at some of the cases going on. It should make you mad.

 

 

 

Last edited by Jobe

You are spot on Jobe.  It is the same thinking that says if I save enough money to buy a new truck or boat or whatever the h  e  l  l  else I want, I have to explain it to the government.  If I get stopped by  the police on the way with a large sum of cash, they can just seize it and claim it was from drug money.  The real winners are the lawyers who write these laws, cause now you gotta pay one to get your money back. 

 Who sponsored the current law that makes this possible is the question that needs to be answered. 

-------------------------

Hoob, your words, "current law"

==================================

Who said anything about BO?  Knee jerk reaction?

 

Please explain how a law that was created by politicians has anything to do with the cops.

-------------------

Current law leads one to think current administration.

The cops are the ones out of control on taking property by using the law that politicians wrote.

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

 Who sponsored the current law that makes this possible is the question that needs to be answered. 

-------------------------

Hoob, your words, "current law"

==================================

Who said anything about BO?  Knee jerk reaction?

 

Please explain how a law that was created by politicians has anything to do with the cops.

-------------------

Current law leads one to think current administration.

The cops are the ones out of control on taking property by using the law that politicians wrote.


 The law needs to change as it incentivizes police as they get to keep the booty.  However, the police did not create the law.  The pols need to have their possessions "confiscated" and maybe things will change.  I don't think the vast majority of police forces use this law to pad their budgets.  I'm sure there are consequences if they abuse it. 

 

In this particular case, the person was an admitted drug user.  Who do we believe, the cops or him?

Just watch the video I posted. There is a cop who ask everyone he pulls over if they have over 500 dollars in cash on them. If they do, the cop takes it and claims they must be drug dealers.  The video shows one instance that was caught on video. Who is going to hire a lawyer to recover 500 dollars? Not many and the cops know it.  And btw, you most likely won’t be charged with anything. This law is a license for law enforcement to steal from law abiding people.

Originally Posted by Jobe:

Just watch the video I posted. There is a cop who ask everyone he pulls over if they have over 500 dollars in cash on them. If they do, the cop takes it and claims they must be drug dealers.  The video shows one instance that was caught on video. Who is going to hire a lawyer to recover 500 dollars? Not many and the cops know it.  And btw, you most likely won’t be charged with anything. This law is a license for law enforcement to steal from law abiding people.

______

You are dead on, Jobe!  This misbegotten law  is an outrageous license to steal!

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
Originally Posted by Jobe:

Just watch the video I posted. There is a cop who ask everyone he pulls over if they have over 500 dollars in cash on them. If they do, the cop takes it and claims they must be drug dealers.  The video shows one instance that was caught on video. Who is going to hire a lawyer to recover 500 dollars? Not many and the cops know it.  And btw, you most likely won’t be charged with anything. This law is a license for law enforcement to steal from law abiding people.

______

You are dead on, Jobe!  This misbegotten law  is an outrageous license to steal!

 

+++

 

So why don't you change it?

 

Originally Posted by Jobe:

Just watch the video I posted. There is a cop who ask everyone he pulls over if they have over 500 dollars in cash on them. If they do, the cop takes it and claims they must be drug dealers.  The video shows one instance that was caught on video. Who is going to hire a lawyer to recover 500 dollars? Not many and the cops know it.  And btw, you most likely won’t be charged with anything. This law is a license for law enforcement to steal from law abiding people.

 

+++

 

So why don't you change it?

 

Originally Posted by jtdavis:

 Who sponsored the current law that makes this possible is the question that needs to be answered. 

-------------------------

Hoob, your words, "current law"

==================================

Who said anything about BO?  Knee jerk reaction?

 

Please explain how a law that was created by politicians has anything to do with the cops.

-------------------

Current law leads one to think current administration.

The cops are the ones out of control on taking property by using the law that politicians wrote.

 

+++

 

So why don't you change it?

 

Bud sez (ask) no less than 3 times "Why don't you change it ?"

 

I will give an answer from a personal prospective :
the CCCA  of 1984 was an attempt to more fully prosecute the  so called failed "War on Drugs" , a leftover , failed policy of Richard Nixon, bu the Reagan Bush administration.
I cannot find a reference to it at this point, but I remember GHW Bush making a statement on TV that he would make it so that if one marijuana seed is found in your house , or car, that the feds could take your property based on that small amount.

But, back to your question,
I AM trying to change it in a number of ways; one would be making more people aware of this horrendous theft by passing along articles such as these. Another, is trying to get drug laws changed , and in voting for people who I think will change them and the law. 
The current  US AG, has recently proclaimed that the federal government will no longer be part of this theft. 
I cannot change the law myself, neither can you, or any other citizen, but together, we can and should collectively exercise our power at the polls to select people to represent us who will vote to rid the nation of this heinous  law, and when presented, vote to end this war on drugs. 
While I don't advocate drug use, as a very wise man once said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results".
If that statement is as true as the theory of Relatively seems to be, then collectively we are all insane if we keep this war on drugs going.

 

 

The current  US AG, has recently proclaimed that the federal government will no longer be part of this theft.-------'weed

 

Bullsheet!

 

After the tumultuous Attorney Generalship of Eric Holder, what the country badly needs is a replacement who will uphold the law fairly and guard against injustices perpetrated by the government. President Obama’s nominee to replace him, federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch is questionable in that regard because of her enthusiastic embrace of civil asset forfeiture, which often deprives perfectly innocent people of their property.

 

In an editorial published November 22, “Loretta Lynch’s Money Pot,” the Wall Street Journal revealed that during her tenure as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch has used civil asset forfeiture in more than 120 cases, raking in some $113 million for federal and local coffers. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture cases is that they frequently inflict severe losses on people who have only the most tenuous connection with a crime – or even no connection at all. (For some very distressing examples, see my September 12 Forbes article.)

 

The editorial discloses the facts of the Bi-County Distributors case, overseen by Lynch’s office. Bi-County is a small business run by Jeffrey, Richard, and Mitch Hirsch. Their business deals largely in small amounts of cash and in May 2012, their account held $446,651.11, when it was confiscated entirely by Eastern District prosecutors.

 

Bi-County sells candy and snack food items to small retailers on Long Island, but, disfavored as such things may be by the Washington elite, that business is entirely legal. There has never been any allegation of any wrongdoing by the company or its owners, but they were under suspicion because of many cash deposits of less than $10,000. Under IRS regulations, banks must report cash deposits of $10,000 or more, but the feds look at substantial deposits of smaller amounts as grounds for suspicion, thinking that the depositor must be trying to avoid detection.

 

Now, if Ms. Lynch’s office had bothered to inquire about Bi-County’s business, they would have found that it is clean. But they did not bother to inquire. Under civil asset forfeiture, authorities can take money (or other property) and then dare the owner to battle through legal obstacles to get it back. To do that, the owner must prove innocence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ge...and-thats-a-problem/

Originally Posted by Stanky:

The current  US AG, has recently proclaimed that the federal government will no longer be part of this theft.-------'weed

 

Bullsheet!

 

After the tumultuous Attorney Generalship of Eric Holder, what the country badly needs is a replacement who will uphold the law fairly and guard against injustices perpetrated by the government. President Obama’s nominee to replace him, federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch is questionable in that regard because of her enthusiastic embrace of civil asset forfeiture, which often deprives perfectly innocent people of their property.

 

In an editorial published November 22, “Loretta Lynch’s Money Pot,” the Wall Street Journal revealed that during her tenure as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch has used civil asset forfeiture in more than 120 cases, raking in some $113 million for federal and local coffers. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture cases is that they frequently inflict severe losses on people who have only the most tenuous connection with a crime – or even no connection at all. (For some very distressing examples, see my September 12 Forbes article.)

 

The editorial discloses the facts of the Bi-County Distributors case, overseen by Lynch’s office. Bi-County is a small business run by Jeffrey, Richard, and Mitch Hirsch. Their business deals largely in small amounts of cash and in May 2012, their account held $446,651.11, when it was confiscated entirely by Eastern District prosecutors.

 

Bi-County sells candy and snack food items to small retailers on Long Island, but, disfavored as such things may be by the Washington elite, that business is entirely legal. There has never been any allegation of any wrongdoing by the company or its owners, but they were under suspicion because of many cash deposits of less than $10,000. Under IRS regulations, banks must report cash deposits of $10,000 or more, but the feds look at substantial deposits of smaller amounts as grounds for suspicion, thinking that the depositor must be trying to avoid detection.

 

Now, if Ms. Lynch’s office had bothered to inquire about Bi-County’s business, they would have found that it is clean. But they did not bother to inquire. Under civil asset forfeiture, authorities can take money (or other property) and then dare the owner to battle through legal obstacles to get it back. To do that, the owner must prove innocence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ge...and-thats-a-problem/

My apologies, I was thinking about the former AG. 
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...-state-and-local-law

Originally Posted by seeweed:
Originally Posted by Stanky:

The current  US AG, has recently proclaimed that the federal government will no longer be part of this theft.-------'weed

 

Bullsheet!

 

After the tumultuous Attorney Generalship of Eric Holder, what the country badly needs is a replacement who will uphold the law fairly and guard against injustices perpetrated by the government. President Obama’s nominee to replace him, federal prosecutor Loretta Lynch is questionable in that regard because of her enthusiastic embrace of civil asset forfeiture, which often deprives perfectly innocent people of their property.

 

In an editorial published November 22, “Loretta Lynch’s Money Pot,” the Wall Street Journal revealed that during her tenure as U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of New York, Ms. Lynch has used civil asset forfeiture in more than 120 cases, raking in some $113 million for federal and local coffers. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture cases is that they frequently inflict severe losses on people who have only the most tenuous connection with a crime – or even no connection at all. (For some very distressing examples, see my September 12 Forbes article.)

 

The editorial discloses the facts of the Bi-County Distributors case, overseen by Lynch’s office. Bi-County is a small business run by Jeffrey, Richard, and Mitch Hirsch. Their business deals largely in small amounts of cash and in May 2012, their account held $446,651.11, when it was confiscated entirely by Eastern District prosecutors.

 

Bi-County sells candy and snack food items to small retailers on Long Island, but, disfavored as such things may be by the Washington elite, that business is entirely legal. There has never been any allegation of any wrongdoing by the company or its owners, but they were under suspicion because of many cash deposits of less than $10,000. Under IRS regulations, banks must report cash deposits of $10,000 or more, but the feds look at substantial deposits of smaller amounts as grounds for suspicion, thinking that the depositor must be trying to avoid detection.

 

Now, if Ms. Lynch’s office had bothered to inquire about Bi-County’s business, they would have found that it is clean. But they did not bother to inquire. Under civil asset forfeiture, authorities can take money (or other property) and then dare the owner to battle through legal obstacles to get it back. To do that, the owner must prove innocence.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ge...and-thats-a-problem/

My apologies, I was thinking about the former AG. 
http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...-state-and-local-law

___________________________________________________

Only relates to "adoptions". The Fed's can still steal and the states aren't stopped from seizing property and cash; they just can't use the Fed's as the bank or pawnshop without approval.

 

The new policy applies only to adoptions, not to seizures resulting from joint operations involving both federal and state authorities, or to seizures pursuant to warrants issued by federal courts.  The policy does not limit the ability of state and local agencies to pursue the forfeiture of assets pursuant to their respective state laws.  Law enforcement agencies working on joint task forces are required to follow the 2015 Guidance for Federal Law Enforcement Agencies Regarding the Use of Race, Ethnicity, Gender, National Origin, Religion, Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity.

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/...-state-and-local-law

Originally Posted by seeweed:

Bud sez (ask) no less than 3 times "Why don't you change it ?"

 

+++

 

I dam sure did.

 

I ask Contendahah.

 

And Jobe.

 

And you.

 

Individually.

 

Problem?

 

Anyhow,

 

I cannot change the law myself, neither can you, or any other citizen, but together, we can and should collectively exercise our power at the polls to select people to represent us who will vote to rid the nation of this heinous  law, and when presented, vote to end this war on drugs.

 

Which is exactly what I have been saying.  You, through your representatives, enacted the law and yes, by dam, you can repeal it by the same method you enacted it.  Feel like showing some love, embrace your politician.

 

Speaking as a former LEO, we can all go back to Baltimore Law . . . the law enforcement you deserve . . . for all I care. 

 

I also asked "what the hell is a 100% cop lover?"

 

Even the cricket is silent.

Last edited by budsfarm
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
I dam sure did. 

I ask Contendahah.

 

And Jobe.

 

And you. 

Individually.

 

Problem? 

Anyhow, 

I cannot change the law myself, neither can you, or any other citizen, but together, we can and should collectively exercise our power at the polls to select people to represent us who will vote to rid the nation of this heinous  law, and when presented, vote to end this war on drugs.

 

Which is exactly what I have been saying.  You, through your representatives, enacted the law and yes, by dam, you can repeal it by the same method you enacted it.  Feel like showing some love, embrace your politician.

 

Speaking as a former LEO, we can all go back to Baltimore Law . . . the law enforcement you deserve . . . for all I care.   

I also asked "what the hell is a 100% cop lover?" 

Even the cricket is silent.

________

I hate cricket's, scared to death of'em.......but love to read your post.

Originally Posted by semiannualchick:
Originally Posted by budsfarm:
I dam sure did. 

I ask Contendahah.

 

And Jobe.

 

And you. 

Individually.

 

Problem? 

Anyhow, 

I cannot change the law myself, neither can you, or any other citizen, but together, we can and should collectively exercise our power at the polls to select people to represent us who will vote to rid the nation of this heinous  law, and when presented, vote to end this war on drugs.

 

Which is exactly what I have been saying.  You, through your representatives, enacted the law and yes, by dam, you can repeal it by the same method you enacted it.  Feel like showing some love, embrace your politician.

 

Speaking as a former LEO, we can all go back to Baltimore Law . . . the law enforcement you deserve . . . for all I care.   

I also asked "what the hell is a 100% cop lover?" 

Even the cricket is silent.

________

I hate cricket's, scared to death of'em.......but love to read your post.

 

+++

 

The cricket is a lot more afraid of you.   

 

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by jtdavis:

My truck has over 300,000 miles on it and I usually have about $20 on me. I'm pretty safe. If I were a drug dealer, I would be a bad one.

I've read this nine times. I'm going to rest it for a while, maybe it will hit me

later.

____

Yes, you get some rest for your compromised brain and then maybe what is obvious to even a borderline imbecile will become obvious to you as well.

Originally Posted by Contendahh:
 

Yes, you get some rest for your compromised brain and then maybe what is obvious to even a borderline imbecile will become obvious to you as well.

This was as funny -- well, pathetically sad cowards do mumble with their 

thumb in their mouth, you should wash the thumb Commie no matter who

it belongs to -- the tenth time I read it as the first.

You're hung up on the word "obvious" are you? Well that's cute, but your

limited vocabulary needs much work.  

 

Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Jobe
WhileI think this law has been misused by some law enforcement agencies,  there is no way you're statement is remotely true!

That's the way I see it Jobe, I have no fear of law enforcement. I've kicked

up my respect -- but not out of fear.

 

______________________________________________________

 

Here is an example of why I said what I said. Not all police do this but most do.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/storie...ght-on-camera-doing/

 

 

Originally Posted by Jobe:
Originally Posted by Jack Flash:
Originally Posted by HIFLYER2:
Jobe
WhileI think this law has been misused by some law enforcement agencies,  there is no way you're statement is remotely true!

That's the way I see it Jobe, I have no fear of law enforcement. I've kicked

up my respect -- but not out of fear.

 

______________________________________________________

 

Here is an example of why I said what I said. Not all police do this but most do.

 

http://www.theblaze.com/storie...ght-on-camera-doing/

 

+++

 

most do?

 

BS

 

 

Last edited by budsfarm

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×