Originally Posted by Gibonius
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.
[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.
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.
Originally Posted by Piobaire
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