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 135

post #2011 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Of course they refused to comment with the case still pending. You know better than this.


Lol, it was a civil case. Cops comment on these things all the time. You know this.
post #2012 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

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.

Can you be that dense? Let me try again: the perception that some of the public holds you described is largely a product of ignorance and misinformation.
post #2013 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

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.

You're appealing to the legal technicalities to justify unjust actions. I really don't care if they're following proper legal procedures, the actions themselves are unjust and if the laws need to change to fix that, fine. Having your otherwise legal property taken from you on extremely vague suspicion of criminal activity and then having to fight through the legal process to get it back is horseshit, even for former criminals, even for people who are plausibly on their way to engage in criminal activity.

Cash is not drugs. Drugs are illegal on their own, simply having them is a crime and you (more or less) can't possess any quantity legally. It's entirely reasonable to confiscate intrinsically illegal property prior/pending an arrest, and then obviously you can't give it back being illegal and all. Cash isn't illegal. Cash isn't (shouldn't be) legally fungible with drugs. If you can legally prove that someone obtained their money through illegal activities, get them convicted of a crime and confiscate it.
post #2014 of 6081
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.


You did.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Quote:
Law enforcement agencies in the state of New Mexico may not be able to seize citizens' assets without charging them with a crime, thanks to a new law signed last month. But said law means nothing to federal law enforcement agencies. While the Department of Justice investigates alleged racist police practices in Baltimore, the agency's wayward child, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), is snatching the life savings of a young black male for the crime of being alone on a train.

The man, Joseph Rivers, 22, was traveling from Michigan to Los Angeles by train with $18,000 in cash to pay for a music video. In Albuquerque, DEA agents boarded the train and started asking people questions. They got to Rivers, who told him he was going to shoot a music video and agreed to let them search his stuff. That, as police abuse observers know full well, was going to be a mistake. Joline Guiterrez Krueger of the Albuquerque Journal was alerted to what happened by a contact who also happened to be on the train and ended up helping Rivers when he was left with nothing:

Rivers was the only passenger singled out for a search by DEA agents – and the only black person on his portion of the train, [attorney Michael] Pancer said.

In one of the bags, the agent found the cash, still in the Michigan bank envelope.

"I even allowed him to call my mother, a military veteran and (hospital) coordinator, to corroborate my story," Rivers said. "Even with all of this, the officers decided to take my money because he stated that he believed that the money was involved in some type of narcotic activity."

Rivers was left penniless, his dream deferred.

"These officers took everything that I had worked so hard to save and even money that was given to me by family that believed in me," Rivers said in his email. "I told (the DEA agents) I had no money and no means to survive in Los Angeles if they took my money. They informed me that it was my responsibility to figure out how I was going to do that."

Other travelers had witnessed what happened. One of them, a New Mexico man I've written about before but who asked that I not mention his name, provided a way for Rivers to get home, contacted attorneys – and me.

What does the DEA in Albuquerque have to say about it? They wouldn't say much but insisted Rivers hadn't been racially profiled:

Waite said that in general DEA agents look for "indicators" such as whether the person bought an expensive one-way ticket with cash, if the person is traveling from or to a city known as a hot spot for drug activity, if the person's story has inconsistencies or if the large sums of money found could have been transported by more conventional means.


NOTE - This is what cops actually believe -

Quote:

"We don't have to prove that the person is guilty," Waite said. "It's that the money is presumed to be guilty."

Those are the now-heavily-publicized rules for civil, not criminal, asset forfeiture. The money is the defendant, regular criminal due process does not apply, and Rivers will face a huge battle trying to get it back, assuming this burst of publicity doesn't help at all. A GoFundMe page has been set up to try to replace Rivers' money.


Fucking pig fucks. I hope they all get raped by the Nation of Islam.
post #2015 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Can you be that dense? Let me try again: the perception that some of the public holds you described is largely a product of ignorance and misinformation.

Yes, I can be that dense. As we all know I'm an idiot. Yes, it's all Trayvon Martin's fault so many people dislike the police. Clearly, the is the single data point that ruined the reputation of police.

Seriously 'Turk, I give you more credence than most anyone here, but you've lost it at the moment.
post #2016 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gibonius View Post

You're appealing to the legal technicalities to justify unjust actions. I really don't care if they're following proper legal procedures,

Forgive me for not picking up on that since your prior post was lamenting the perceived lack of due process.
Quote:
[T]he actions themselves are unjust and if the laws need to change to fix that, fine. Having your otherwise legal property taken from you on extremely vague suspicion of criminal activity

Where do you get "extremely vague suspicion"? The cops have to have probable cause to seize property. Probable meaning enough evidence that it's more likely than not.

We don't know what the evidence is in this case, or at least not much -- we've got a convicted felon right out of the big house, on his way from Detriot to California (the drug distribution capital of the world), with a large amount of unexplained cash and a bullshit story. And just what we know so far, and we only know that because it's what the guy himself admitted, he being the only source of information thus far available.

Maybe you should wait for the legal process to unfold to make up your mind what happened. That's what it's for, you know. They called it due "process" for a reason.
Quote:
If you can legally prove that someone obtained their money through illegal activities, get them convicted of a crime and confiscate it.

You can say what you like about the law, but it's generally better thought out than you give it credit for. Assume for the sake of argument that the money was unquestionably intended for a drug purchase. He gets caught and he says -- "that was my mom's money." She hasn't been convicted of anything. Now you have to give back, right? Drug dealers (and criminals in general) usually title everything they have in the names of friends and relatives for this reason exactly. Requiring the owner to be convicted is an unworkable idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Yes, I can be that dense. As we all know I'm an idiot. Yes, it's all Trayvon Martin's fault so many people dislike the police. Clearly, the is the single data point that ruined the reputation of police.

Seriously 'Turk, I give you more credence than most anyone here, but you've lost it at the moment.

You're doing a pretty good job of convincing me that you are. I am just flabbergasted that you can't understand that the Martin example was deliberately phrased as a joke, the suggestion being that some people think the cops killed Travyon Martin (they probably do). But it was also cited on a more serious level, which is that in the Martin case, the cops did nothing wrong and were subsequently vindicated during the trial, but there was (a) a lot of misinformation on the case before the facts came out; (b) about a third of the population still believes it; and (c) you, hopefully, are one of the people who doesn't, putting you on the side of the authoritarian lackeys in that particular case
post #2017 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fang66 View Post

You did.


This has already been addressed by Ata trying to make it an issue when it is not.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ataturk View Post

Can you be that dense? Let me try again: the perception that some of the public holds you described is largely a product of ignorance and misinformation.

Lol, this is just false. The cops routinely beat and kill innocent civilians. They violate our rights nearly every day. They lie in court. That's the reason they are perceived as the scumbags they are.
post #2018 of 6081
How come none of the anti-police crowd, such as you Harv, are not tying your police criticism toward the Waco Bikers massacre. There's a good chance that the police killed up to 4 of the bikers and that they might have fired the first shots. That would certainly impact the whole incident and should effect how it's being reported.

In my book, outlaw bikers should get as much sympathy as thugs and heroin dealers with 19 arrests. Maybe the bikers need lying witnesses like Dorian Johnson and great slogans like "Hands up, don't shoot".

#BikerLivesMatter

https://twitter.com/hashtag/bikerlivesmatter

post #2019 of 6081
I think harvy already offered to bet someone that this would be the case.
post #2020 of 6081
I love the fact that blacks and bikers are arguing on twitter about which group is more oppressed by the MSM and cops.

Postmodern America, 2015.
post #2021 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by brokencycle View Post

I think harvy already offered to bet someone that this would be the case.

Correct. I believe it was for a sawbuck.
post #2022 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

Correct. I believe it was for a sawbuck.

The defense of David Koresh helped make Dick DeGuerin famous. You ought to go to Waco, Harv, and defend the ugliest, meanest biker you can find. There is a lot more to be known in this case.

And this is right in your wheelhouse. It's not PI work. Defending maligned 1% bikers has to compare with defending midget rapists. As an added bonus you'll go up against the ATF and DEA. They make local Police Forces look like Mother Theresas.

If course, you can't work for free. I propose we set up a defense fund here and I'll be the first to donate.

#BikerLivesMatter
post #2023 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnoldh View Post

The defense of David Koresh helped make Dick DeGuerin famous. You ought to go to Waco, Harv, and defend the ugliest, meanest biker you can find. There is a lot more to be known in this case.

And this is right in your wheelhouse. It's not PI work. Defending maligned 1% bikers has to compare with defending midget rapists. As an added bonus you'll go up against the ATF and DEA. They make local Police Forces look like Mother Theresas.

If course, you can't work for free. I propose we set up a defense fund here and I'll be the first to donate.

#BikerLivesMatter


The only stumbling block is I'm not admitted in Texas. I have defended militia people in PA on several occasions. I learned that income taxes are voluntary and if the American flag has gold or yellow fringe on the side in the courthouse it is a military tribunal and the defendant is to be treated as a prisoner of war.
post #2024 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

The only stumbling block is I'm not admitted in Texas. I have defended militia people in PA on several occasions. I learned that income taxes are voluntary and if the American flag has gold or yellow fringe on the side in the courthouse it is a military tribunal and the defendant is to be treated as a prisoner of war.


That's fine, but:

Have you been paid in silver specie?

Or been asked to sue for copyright violations when the state attorney writes your client's name on a pleading?
post #2025 of 6081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harold falcon View Post

I don't have video but cops have set up illegal roadblocks up here for the last two weeks to catch a guy who shot a cop that was fucking his married sister. The governor has been up here four or five times to give his blessing to it, and I've gotten a dozen or more clients from illegal DUI arrests that I am quite confident I will beat on pre-trial suppression motions. I will keep you all updated.


Update to this, the first of these cases (I actually wound up with 11) has been suppressed because the police are power-mad assholes.
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?