Posted on 09/16/2014 10:10:36 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
After 9/11, the federal government “…called on police to become the eyes and ears of homeland security on America’s highways.” But if the new, more aggressive agenda of seeking out suspicious individuals was embraced by officers as part of their interdiction training by the federal government, their policing behavior turned out to be worlds removed from the mundane yet somehow historically reassuring promise to “protect and serve” the American public. For law enforcement officers throughout the nation were eagerly learning and practicing the fine art of “policing for profit,” that is, the barely legal method of confiscating money and assets from generally guileless American citizens taught since childhood that police may be trusted.
Thirty years ago, the Department of Justice created a civil asset forfeiture program known as “Equitable Sharing.” Though originally used for the purpose of separating drug dealers from their assets and cash, since 2001, Equitable Sharing has been employed by the nation’s police to score $2.5 Billion in cash and assets from citizens “who were not charged with a crime and without a warrant being issued.” It is a high-dollar confiscation scam which is painfully easy to operate and, to ensure the successful practice of which, law enforcement has been dealt every trump. How can billions be confiscated from law abiding drivers?
Simply pull over a car for any violation, real or imagined. While issuing a warning or a ticket, “study [the driver or passengers] for signs of nervousness, including…clenched jaws or perspiration.” Police are then taught to look for “supposed indicators of criminal activity, which can include such things as trash on the floor of a vehicle, abundant energy drinks or air fresheners hanging from rear view mirrors.” Unbelievable.
It will be after...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Using secret compartments in vehicles is still legal in most states, but some like Ohio have made it illegal.
I’ve always wondered about that. ‘In his diary for August 7, 1765, Washington writes, “Began to separate the Male from the Female hemp … rather too late.” Female marijuana plants are the ones that contain enough THC to be worth smoking. Some take this to mean Washington was cultivating the plant not just for fiber. Of course, two days later Washington says he put the hemp in the river to soak and separate out the fibers, and later in September that he started to harvest the seed. That suggests he divided the plants because the males made stronger fiber while the female plants produced the seed needed for the next year’s crop. Jefferson in his Farm Book wrote that a female plant would produce a quart of seed, and a bushel of seed was enough to plant an acre.’ - http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2912/did-george-washington-and-thomas-jefferson-grow-marijuana
“For me it’s the principle. I don’t like feeling like a “subject” or “peasant”.”
Me neither.
But this is exactly what they say about Ferguson.
That’s the Jackson Sharpton Holder position.
Druggie! /s
Non sequitur.
You two please pull over to the side of the thread.
Do you consent to a search of your dictionaries?
Interesting.
I think the urban legend we got was that Washington actually wrote that he preferred smoking hemp over tobacco.
I don’t think that is written anywhere in his papers.
Do you consent to being the worst kind of grammar nazi... one that worries about the proper spelling of a dead language?
You only go to jail if you get caught. Don’t get caught.
But this is exactly what they say about Ferguson.
This is why these must be scrutinized on a case by case basis. Sometimes the cops are right. Sometimes they are thugs. If I’m a twenty something in a beat up car and I smoke pot on a fairly regular basis, I should not be surprised if the cops seem suspicious and may want to pursue some search. If I’m a middle aged guy going home from a white or gray collar job in my mid-life crisis Camaro, it would be ridiculously improbable that the cops weould insist on a search. If I look nervous it’s because I gotta explain to my wife/girlfriend why I’m late.
It is not a dead language. It is an immortal language.
Sir, do you have something to hide in that dictionary?
Latin is pretty much the prime example of a dead language. It doesn’t matter if it is still used in some special contexts, it has no living native speakers.
The original purpose of this law was to deny assets to criminals who could use those assets to defend themselves in court.
IOW no money means no way to hire lawyers to defend you.
No legal defense means prosecutors have a field day.
Civil forfeiture doesn't require that any criminal charges ever be brought.
They used to do this in Florida back in the late 1980’s, which is why I refuse to this day to visit the state. It’s also why I never ever carry any large amounts of cash on me.
“The fact is, most of the time the cops actually do have reasonable doubt. How many of that gob of money was taken from people that WERE involved in drugs?”
This comment reveals a common misunderstanding of the concept of probable cause (which is what you really mean by “reasonable doubt”, I think). Probable cause is not reasonable if it is not specific to the case at hand. Saying that “many people who carry lots of cash are drugs dealers, and you are carrying lots of cash” just doesn’t meet the definition, because it is too non-specific.
Now, if the cop knew that $18,275 in five dollar bills had recently been robbed from a bank nearby, and he stopped a car that was carrying $18,275 in five dollar bills, that would be probable cause, as it could be reasonably viewed as evidence linked to a specific criminal act. Just a random large amount of money could come from any number of sources, and therefore can’t be evidence for any specific criminal act.
This comment reveals a common misunderstanding of the concept of probable cause (which is what you really mean by “reasonable doubt”, I think).
Well, to be fair, they are both “legal terms” and I’m just trying to be conversational. What I mean is that they have their HONEST suspisions before they even find the money that something’s not right. I understand there are some roads in the US that are VERY popular drug running routes and the cops can be rather agressive with some people they pull over. If you have a large sum of cash that is legitimate you may be risking it simply by driving those roads. Not that I think that is right, but you gotta ask yourself how many people who are NOT drug dealers carry large sums of cash. And what are the odds of them getting pulled over AND SEARCHED on one of these roads.
Then there was the black elderly woman after hurricane andrew who was driving west with her life savings to buy building material to fix her damaged home (because local lumberyards were gouging the buyers). But then even in that case does her story hold water? I certainly would not have needed to do that to buy building materials.
IOW, even these “unfair” stories we hear about may not be all that unfair. I like to say that they got Al Capone on tax evasion. What if the parents in the op were CLEARLY part of the drug thing but the cops could not prove it?
But again, none of my info is first hand, and I’ve read plenty of stories about people who were clearly victims of the police and won their court case. But each case is unique and both sides really do need to be heard.
And the cops should be treated like robbers when they get caught.
BUMP & Save for later
Yep.
But then the forced political correct irrationality comes forth and we end up with old ladies searched at airports but not young male Muslims because it must all be balanced and equal and random.
Thanks. I appreciate the correction.
I will remember.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.