Another Family ruined over a lil bud and "citizen forfeiture

[Rob Roy]

Seems like an overly simplistic analysis. It assumes that to be a good person, you need to ONLY do good things, like 99 good things and 1 bad thing makes a bad person (as opposed to everyone having flaws, which is much more realistic "It is a melancholy truth that even great men have their poor relations"-Charles Dickens) and it blames cops for enforcing laws that we the people are responsible for passing (even if we didn't want them passed, we are complicit in a system that passes them as much as cops are complicit in a system that enforces things they may not personally agree with). So, if there are no good cops, then there are no good citizens either. Blanket statements rarely hit the mark.

I can see your point about people being imperfect and agree, everybody makes mistakes.

I think it comes down to recognition though. A "good person" recognizes when he/she fucked up and doesn't condone or try to justify their bad behavior. They take responsibility for it and try not to do it again.

A person who has a license not to be held accountable, is essentially proclaiming they are exempt from their personal actions, which is standard operating procedure for a cop and for Nazi prison guards.

 

[Fogdog]

I understand its not against the law to have large amounts of cash. I also understand that not being able to prove how you earned that large amount of cash seized when suspected of drug dealing doesnt put the law on your side either. I've read about multiple cases where the money is confiscated and more times than not, the money is kept due to the person not being able to prove such income....or any income at all. Not sure why someone would have 20K in cash, but dont work, or file taxes or 1099. Not sure why someone with that kinda coin just "saved up" doesnt have a retainer for a good lawyer either.

In many cases, they charge the property of the person. State of bumfuck vs white cadilliac. The property has no rights to due process and so can be confiscated if it is suspected of being involved in a crime. Proof is not necessary. Totally fucked up situation.

 

[HydroRed]

that was with 3 lawyers....

Sorry for any confusion. My comment was in regards to the OP's link posted. There were no lawyers until after the seizure and they also agreed to let the police keep the 9K and they get back 3K as sort of a "plea agreement". In other words, they admitted some form of guilt and now the money will be kept.
"If the claimant does file an answer, a hearing is set within 30 days. The cases rarely go to trial. Usually the parties agree to a settlement, which is much like a plea agreement in a criminal case. That’s what happened in the case of Torres and Gomez — they agreed to get back $3,000 and let the county sheriff’s office keep the remaining $9,010."
I cant help but think that there is an admission of guilt by the claimant when they make a "settlement" similar to a plea agreement.

@doublejj What felony was your friend charged with if you dont mind me asking?

 

[Ace Yonder]

I can see your point about people being imperfect and agree, everybody makes mistakes.

I think it comes down to recognition though. A "good person" recognizes when he/she fucked up and doesn't condone or try to justify their bad behavior. They take responsibility for it and try not to do it again.

A person who has a license not to be held accountable, is essentially proclaiming they are exempt from their personal actions, which is standard operating procedure for a cop and for Nazi prison guards.

I agree to a certain extent, but I think there are good and bad people in every profession. I think that bad cops are the ones who don't take responsibility for what they do, and I think there are good cops who, even though they have a badge to hide behind, still take personal responsibility for their actions and use their own judgement to do their job, as undesirable as it may be, in the best way possible. Every cop is (theoretically) told to enforce the same laws, but not all cops choose to enforce all the laws all the time. Cops often look the other way to minor infractions, just as other cops turn a nothing into a something just to be an asshole. Some cops plant evidence, and some cops ignore evidence. Some cops are crooked, some cops testify against crooked cops. That was even true with the Nazi's. Some of them hated their jobs, some of them relished it. Rommel was their best general, but he routinely protested the treatment of Jews, often refused direct orders from Hitler to execute Jewish POWs, and plotted to kill Hitler. I wouldn't really consider him to be a bad or evil man, even though he fought for an evil side. Good men make the best of bad situations, in the best way they know how.

 

[doublejj]

Sorry for any confusion. My comment was in regards to the OP's link posted. There were no lawyers until after the seizure and they also agreed to let the police keep the 9K and they get back 3K as sort of a "plea agreement". In other words, they admitted some form of guilt and now the money will be kept.
"If the claimant does file an answer, a hearing is set within 30 days. The cases rarely go to trial. Usually the parties agree to a settlement, which is much like a plea agreement in a criminal case. That’s what happened in the case of Torres and Gomez — they agreed to get back $3,000 and let the county sheriff’s office keep the remaining $9,010."
I cant help but think that there is an admission of guilt by the claimant when they make a "settlement" similar to a plea agreement.

@doublejj What felony was your friend charged with if you dont mind me asking?

They offered a plea deal for a misdemeanor "intent to traffic" with 6months prison sentence, or face trial for felony trafficking and face up to 5 years to prove the money was legit. even with tax returns you might still lose at trial...

 

[Rob Roy]

I understand its not against the law to have large amounts of cash. I also understand that not being able to prove how you earned that large amount of cash seized when suspected of drug dealing doesnt put the law on your side either. I've read about multiple cases where the money is confiscated and more times than not, the money is kept due to the person not being able to prove such income....or any income at all. Not sure why someone would have 20K in cash, but dont work, or file taxes or 1099. Not sure why someone with that kinda coin just "saved up" doesnt have a retainer for a good lawyer either.

I agree to a certain extent, but I think there are good and bad people in every profession. I think that bad cops are the ones who don't take responsibility for what they do, and I think there are good cops who, even though they have a badge to hide behind, still take personal responsibility for their actions and use their own judgement to do their job, as undesirable as it may be, in the best way possible. Every cop is (theoretically) told to enforce the same laws, but not all cops choose to enforce all the laws all the time. Cops often look the other way to minor infractions, just as other cops turn a nothing into a something just to be an asshole. Some cops plant evidence, and some cops ignore evidence. Some cops are crooked, some cops testify against crooked cops. That was even true with the Nazi's. Some of them hated their jobs, some of them relished it. Rommel was their best general, but he routinely protested the treatment of Jews, often refused direct orders from Hitler to execute Jewish POWs, and plotted to kill Hitler. I wouldn't really consider him to be a bad or evil man, even though he fought for an evil side. Good men make the best of bad situations, in the best way they know how.

Making whining noises like, "hey guys maybe we shouldn't do this" isn't the same as stopping doing something wrong.

Good people not only question immoral orders, they refuse to follow them.

There is no justifying a slave catcher "just doing his job" that I can think of.

 

[Ace Yonder]

Making whining noises like, "hey guys maybe we shouldn't do this" isn't the same as stopping doing something wrong.

Good people not only question immoral orders, they refuse to follow them.

There is no justifying a slave catcher "just doing his job" that I can think of.

But a slave catcher has no purpose other than a bad one. SOME laws are unjust and bad, MANY laws are just and good. Slave catchers ONLY catch slaves, cops don't just enforce unjust laws, they enforce the just ones as well, and do stop a large number of crimes that should indeed be prevented.

 

[Rob Roy]

But a slave catcher has no purpose other than a bad one. SOME laws are unjust and bad, MANY laws are just and good. Slave catchers ONLY catch slaves, cops don't just enforce unjust laws, they enforce the just ones as well, and do stop a large number of crimes that should indeed be prevented.

The problem with your statement is it pretty much says as long as you take your wife out to dinner on Saturday, you can beat her on the other days and we'll overlook that.

It also exemplifies what government is, a provider of goods and services intermingled and inseparable from bads and disservices, this will ALWAYS be so, since the primary means of its operation is coercion based.

Absent a coercion based central authority, the goods and services people like could be done via free market relations without the inescapable "bads and disservices" that come with the central authority.

In other words, you are championing the idea that a real thug who enforces bad laws using violence must be hired to protect you from a potential thug who will use violence. It needn't be that way.

 

[The Green Griffin]

From my perspective it is all about intent. There are only a few reasons to become a cop; mostly desire for power, thirst for thrills and excitement or "white knight" syndrome. It sure isn't about the money. I've met/known all three, although I don't have any friends that are still cops, lol! Saying that all cops are bad and evil is very bigoted, quite Trump-like, in fact. I get it, I would not open my door to police or speak any more than necessary without an attorney present. Caution dictates assuming the worst about the police you are dealing with and behaving accordingly. But without police? I have little doubt that violence and true crime would escalate rapidly. I like people, but I guess my faith in humanity is pretty battered at this point.

 

[Fogdog]

I agree to a certain extent, but I think there are good and bad people in every profession. I think that bad cops are the ones who don't take responsibility for what they do, and I think there are good cops who, even though they have a badge to hide behind, still take personal responsibility for their actions and use their own judgement to do their job, as undesirable as it may be, in the best way possible. Every cop is (theoretically) told to enforce the same laws, but not all cops choose to enforce all the laws all the time. Cops often look the other way to minor infractions, just as other cops turn a nothing into a something just to be an asshole. Some cops plant evidence, and some cops ignore evidence. Some cops are crooked, some cops testify against crooked cops. That was even true with the Nazi's. Some of them hated their jobs, some of them relished it. Rommel was their best general, but he routinely protested the treatment of Jews, often refused direct orders from Hitler to execute Jewish POWs, and plotted to kill Hitler. I wouldn't really consider him to be a bad or evil man, even though he fought for an evil side. Good men make the best of bad situations, in the best way they know how.

Oh come on man, we are talking about department and local government level policy to deprive people of property without due process. Pull a person over and if they are carrying a lot of cash, that's enough to take it. It's theft, out and out theft. This is a department wide scandal from the police chief down to the cop on the beat. If they can suspend morality in this case then they, all of them, can suspend morality whenever convenient. Cops beat people for no reason too and across the department every single officer will be silent about what happened. By their silence, they are culpable.

 

[Straw Man]

It's ok because to a reasonable person that money was most likely earned illegally.

Theyre here ilegally. Theyre counterfeiting our documents. And they're selling drugs to support themselves and I would be willing to bet taking social services while at it.

Yes, kick them the fuck out and keep their cash.

In opposed to civil forfeiture in many cases. But in cases where the money is clearly derrived from the sale of drugs, it's hard to be opposed.

hypocrite lout

 

[Growdict]

John Oliver on Citizen Forfeiture

 

[Ace Yonder]

Oh come on man, we are talking about department and local government level policy to deprive people of property without due process. Pull a person over and if they are carrying a lot of cash, that's enough to take it. It's theft, out and out theft. This is a department wide scandal from the police chief down to the cop on the beat. If they can suspend morality in this case then they, all of them, can suspend morality whenever convenient. Cops beat people for no reason too and across the department every single officer will be silent about what happened. By their silence, they are culpable.

I totally agree that the policy is bullshit, but that doesn't mean every cop is bad, and I'm sure not all cops choose to exercise the right to seizure granted by the policy. IMO, cops are no worse than the general population. I've been fucked over by many more civilians than I have been by cops. People are pretty shitty in every walk of life, and all groups today are pretty balls to the wall about protecting their own, it's an attitude I hate but it it is one that exists. A few years ago two 15 year old kids were killed in my neighborhood a few months apart (one was gang related and the other was a robbery of the kid's skateboard), and all these "Don't snitch to the cops" posters started showing up all around the neighborhood. Everyone wants their own group to be able to get away with whatever they can, cops aren't the only ones who protect their own even when they shouldn't. I've never been robbed by a cop, I have been robbed by a civilian. I've never been assaulted by a cop, I have been assaulted by civilians. Some people are real shitty, just like some cops are real shitty. Some people are also good, and some cops are also good.

 

[Fogdog]

I totally agree that the policy is bullshit, but that doesn't mean every cop is bad, and I'm sure not all cops choose to exercise the right to seizure granted by the policy. IMO, cops are no worse than the general population. I've been fucked over by many more civilians than I have been by cops. People are pretty shitty in every walk of life, and all groups today are pretty balls to the wall about protecting their own, it's an attitude I hate but it it is one that exists. A few years ago two 15 year old kids were killed in my neighborhood a few months apart (one was gang related and the other was a robbery of the kid's skateboard), and all these "Don't snitch to the cops" posters started showing up all around the neighborhood. Everyone wants their own group to be able to get away with whatever they can, cops aren't the only ones who protect their own even when they shouldn't. I've never been robbed by a cop, I have been robbed by a civilian. I've never been assaulted by a cop, I have been assaulted by civilians. Some people are real shitty, just like some cops are real shitty. Some people are also good, and some cops are also good.

No. A police force that holds a code of silence when another member practically beats one of the people they are supposed to protect to a pulp or to death has no innocent members. Do you think there were good Nazi guards in the Holocaust death camps?

 

[Rob Roy]

I totally agree that the policy is bullshit, but that doesn't mean every cop is bad, and I'm sure not all cops choose to exercise the right to seizure granted by the policy. IMO, cops are no worse than the general population. I've been fucked over by many more civilians than I have been by cops. People are pretty shitty in every walk of life, and all groups today are pretty balls to the wall about protecting their own, it's an attitude I hate but it it is one that exists. A few years ago two 15 year old kids were killed in my neighborhood a few months apart (one was gang related and the other was a robbery of the kid's skateboard), and all these "Don't snitch to the cops" posters started showing up all around the neighborhood. Everyone wants their own group to be able to get away with whatever they can, cops aren't the only ones who protect their own even when they shouldn't. I've never been robbed by a cop, I have been robbed by a civilian. I've never been assaulted by a cop, I have been assaulted by civilians. Some people are real shitty, just like some cops are real shitty. Some people are also good, and some cops are also good.

Cops are under the false belief that a robbery which has been made legal is somehow not really a robbery.

Question for you - Do you think a thing inherently wrong to do, if it is legally blessed, somehow exonerates a cop when they do it ?

 

[Rob Roy]

From my perspective it is all about intent. There are only a few reasons to become a cop; mostly desire for power, thirst for thrills and excitement or "white knight" syndrome. It sure isn't about the money. I've met/known all three, although I don't have any friends that are still cops, lol! Saying that all cops are bad and evil is very bigoted, quite Trump-like, in fact. I get it, I would not open my door to police or speak any more than necessary without an attorney present. Caution dictates assuming the worst about the police you are dealing with and behaving accordingly. But without police? I have little doubt that violence and true crime would escalate rapidly. I like people, but I guess my faith in humanity is pretty battered at this point.

I don't support Bernie, Trump, Hillary or any of the other actors.

Without Police, as they presently exist, it doesn't have to mean people would be without protection services. You kind of imply or assume that it does.

Protection, like any service will be better if consumers choices aren't limited to only one kind of provider. Especially when that alleged "service provider" has a forcibly imposed monopoly on providing that same service. It becomes a contradiction, when the entity which purports to provide the protection, first uses coercion ON THE PEOPLE THEY PURPORT TO PROTECT, to fund themselves.

So, it is reasonable to assume there must be another way...

In a free market, people would be able to get protection, WITHOUT the coercion.

I agree with you that people need to be able to be protected, but the present model doesn't do that in a realistic way, it simply creates a forcibly imposed hierarchy, "imposed order" as opposed to a peaceful society where people are free to make choices, rather than have others choices forced on them.

 

[The Green Griffin]

I get your point, but I don't want to decide between eating and paying for protection. I fear that those most abused by the current policing organizations (Poor, uneducated) would be the ones most unable to afford protection - and they live many times in the highest crime areas. There are some things that the government should provide, just wish there was better oversight or better screening to keep power-hungry thugs from becoming policemen/women. And Civil Forfeiture is a horrible, horrible law that should NEVER have been found constitutional. You get the behavior you incent, and allowing the police to keep the funds from these seizures gives them all the incentive they need to basically steal. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid law.

 

[Growdict]

a lot of african countries have this same system of free market protection, it doesnt work out well.

 

[Rob Roy]

I get your point, but I don't want to decide between eating and paying for protection. I fear that those most abused by the current policing organizations (Poor, uneducated) would be the ones most unable to afford protection - and they live many times in the highest crime areas. There are some things that the government should provide, just wish there was better oversight or better screening to keep power-hungry thugs from becoming policemen/women. And Civil Forfeiture is a horrible, horrible law that should NEVER have been found constitutional. You get the behavior you incent, and allowing the police to keep the funds from these seizures gives them all the incentive they need to basically steal. Stupid. Stupid. Stupid law.

Your point about getting the behavior you incentivize is a great point, but a bit ironic if viewed in the context of what we are discussing.

Please consider how your point bolsters my point about the contradiction of using a coercion based means to fund a one size fits all police agency / coercion based authority .

You can't rationally, purport to protect people, but gain your funding using forcible means ON THOSE SAME PEOPLE. If those means are wrong for US to use, they are wrong for a person who purports to have our interests in mind.

In other words, protection of a person in a free market, involves a consensual relationship between the protected and the protector. In the present paradigm of "police protection" that isn't true.

 

[doublejj]

Here is a place with freemarket & without police.....Samalia
How's that working?