or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WTF over-zealous police? - Page 134

post #1996 of 6095
Who here posted a Joseph Rivers story? Look, I get you have to pop up and defend your heroes in blue every time they are maligned but when we don't even malign them here you're just being a jackass.
post #1997 of 6095
Preemptive strike. The boys in blue would be proud.
post #1998 of 6095
They'll probably only make him suck the tip not the shaft when they come to violate his rights.
post #1999 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post

She reached for his remote, he had no choice but to deploy nonlethal force.

I'm glad the cops got back to their shifts safely.
post #2000 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Quote:
Earlier this week, I highlighted the story of Joseph Rivers, a 22-year old black man who left his hometown in hopes of becoming a music-video producer. En route to L.A., the DEA boarded his Amtrak and seized his life savings, $16,000 in cash, even though there was apparently no evidence he’d committed a crime or possessed any drugs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Who here posted a Joseph Rivers story? Look, I get you have to pop up and defend your heroes in blue every time they are maligned but when we don't even malign them here you're just being a jackass.

...
post #2001 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post


...

Lol, you take a half of a paragraph out of a page long story about someone else and then post a link to a case that is not the one Mr. Rivers was mentioned in anyway. Keep on rocking. icon_gu_b_slayer[1].gificon_gu_b_slayer[1].gificon_gu_b_slayer[1].gif
post #2002 of 6095
I called attention to it because the author you quoted repeated Mr. Rivers's claims as fact without even the slightest hesitation. His lack of concern for the truthfulness of the sob stories of police abuse he retells mirrors yours.

'Course he's making a pretty good living at it. What's your excuse?
post #2003 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

I called attention to it because the author you quoted repeated Mr. Rivers's claims as fact without even the slightest hesitation. His lack of concern for the truthfulness of the sob stories of police abuse he retells mirrors yours.

'Course he's making a pretty good living at it. What's your excuse?


There's nothing in the link you provided that at all attacks the truthfulness of his "sob story". The link you provided is an entirely different case. You're suggesting that once you're guilty of one crime that you are guilty of all crimes, including crimes you aren't even charged with. You accept as true that police are virtuous even when you haven't even read the police officer's own accounts of what happened. Your boot-licking knows no shame.
post #2004 of 6095
So the fact that Rivers has apparently spent most of his adult life in prison has no bearing on his claim to have saved $16,000 in cash? The fact that he used his mother as an alibi in the last case, just like he claims to have done in this one?

But, again, my complaint isn't that Rivers is a liar -- he almost certainly is, but that's not the point. The point is that his story was parroted far and wide across the internet and no one bothered to investigate it in the slightest. It's a pattern we see repeated over and over -- right here in this thread, even.
post #2005 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

So the fact that Rivers has apparently spent most of his adult life in prison has no bearing on his claim to have saved $16,000 in cash? The fact that he used his mother as an alibi in the last case, just like he claims to have done in this one?

But, again, my complaint isn't that Rivers is a liar -- he almost certainly is, but that's not the point. The point is that his story was parroted far and wide across the internet and no one bothered to investigate it in the slightest. It's a pattern we see repeated over and over -- right here in this thread, even.

That is because the credibility of police in violent situations has sunk so low people are ready and willing to believe the police were the bad guys in the situation. It's on the police forces of America to redeem their credibility. Police were in general held in very high esteem and they destroyed their own reputation.
post #2006 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

That is because the credibility of police in violent situations has sunk so low people are ready and willing to believe the police were the bad guys in the situation. It's on the police forces of America to redeem their credibility. Police were in general held in very high esteem and they destroyed their own reputation.

And in this case, it doesn't really matter. It's a matter of public record that he was never charged with a crime and had the money confiscated. Even people with previous records, even people who are probably going to commit crimes, deserve to have due process. If they have evidence that he was going to do something illegal, charge him and convict him.

Forcing people to prove their innocence to reclaim forfeited assets is something the public is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with. We're no longer comfortable writing it off by casting aspersions at the victims, and good for that. Well, those of us who aren't authoritarian apologists, anyway.
post #2007 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

So the fact that Rivers has apparently spent most of his adult life in prison has no bearing on his claim to have saved $16,000 in cash? The fact that he used his mother as an alibi in the last case, just like he claims to have done in this one?


That's correct, simply because you have committed a crime in the past does not mean you are now committing a crime. Also, there has been no evidence the police who stole his cash knew about his prior record or about him using his mother as an alibi in the past.

Quote:
But, again, my complaint isn't that Rivers is a liar -- he almost certainly is, but that's not the point. The point is that his story was parroted far and wide across the internet and no one bothered to investigate it in the slightest. It's a pattern we see repeated over and over -- right here in this thread, even.


How was it not investigated? The police refused to make a statement. They refused to make a statement because they know they're full of shit. The Defendant in a criminal action has the right to remain silent without any adverse inference regarding his/her guilt, not the Plaintiff in a civil action. If the police wanted to give their side of the story they could That they refused to do so shows how full of shit they are.

EDIT - I also would note you have no such bullshit statements to make against the actual focus of that article, Mr. Aaron Heuser, a meth technician, er, mathematician, who was unconstitutionally harassed while on the train. Or the spurious list of contradictory bullshit list of "evidence of criminal activity." Again, you focused on three sentences in a page long article dealing with police abuse and expect to have some kind of great victory for the police because a scumbag who had his rights violated was probably guilty anyway.
Edited by Harold falcon - 5/20/15 at 8:36am
post #2008 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

That is because the credibility of police in violent situations has sunk so low people are ready and willing to believe the police were the bad guys in the situation. It's on the police forces of America to redeem their credibility. Police were in general held in very high esteem and they destroyed their own reputation.

Because of what they did to Trayvon. Gotcha. Not sure what that has to do with asset forfeiture, though. You realize the cops don't have the final say about whether the government tries to keep stuff they seize, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

And in this case, it doesn't really matter. It's a matter of public record that he was never charged with a crime and had the money confiscated. Even people with previous records, even people who are probably going to commit crimes, deserve to have due process. If they have evidence that he was going to do something illegal, charge him and convict him.

Forcing people to prove their innocence to reclaim forfeited assets is something the public is becoming increasingly uncomfortable with. We're no longer comfortable writing it off by casting aspersions at the victims, and good for that. Well, those of us who aren't authoritarian apologists, anyway.

You're displaying a fundamental misunderstanding of what civil forfeiture is. The person who owns the property doesn't have to be guilty of a crime because civil forfeiture is not punishment for a crime.

You also obviously misunderstand the burden of proof in forfeiture cases, I'm guessing because of how you've been informed (sort of goes back to the point I was making, doesn't it?). If he'd been caught on the way home with $16,000 in dope, this would be more obvious -- if he's not prosecuted for some reason, say temporary insanity, do they return the drugs? The idea is absurd. It's the same situation if they'd found the $16,000 along with a copy of a receipt for a drug sale, or with a contract for the purchase of drugs to be picked up the next day (or, as in this case, I assume, less direct evidence). The money's connection to drug transactions still has to be proven by the government to uphold the seizure; the government has the burden of proof. Only once that burden is met does the owner have the option to claim to be an "innocent" owner who didn't know his property was being used for the criminal purpose. This has been twisted around by stupid and/or disingenuous activists into your claim that people have to prove their innocence to prevent their property from being seized. That's just not true.
post #2009 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

How was it not investigated? The police refused to make a statement.

Of course they refused to comment with the case still pending. You know better than this.
Quote:
EDIT - I also would note you have no such bullshit statements to make against the actual focus of that article, Mr. Aaron Heuser, a meth technician, er, mathematician, who was unconstitutionally harassed while on the train. Or the spurious list of contradictory bullshit list of "evidence of criminal activity." Again, you focused on three sentences in a page long article dealing with police abuse and expect to have some kind of great victory for the police because a scumbag who had his rights violated was probably guilty anyway.

We know someone said that, but we can also be pretty sure from past experience that the writer who relayed the story did nothing to verify that any of it was true.
post #2010 of 6095
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Because of what they did to Trayvon. Gotcha. Not sure what that has to do with asset forfeiture, though. You realize the cops don't have the final say about whether the government tries to keep stuff they seize, right?

WTF are you talking about? How did Trayvon Martin get dragged into this as that incident had nothing to do with police/civilian interaction? I also did not mention civil forfeiture. 'Turk, sometimes you're a good poster but this ain't one of those times.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › WTF over-zealous police?