Farmer found innocent of drug charge, now battles to save land

lubbockonline.com ^ | 11.20.03 | P. CHRISTINE SMITH

[robertpaulsen]

I was under the impression from the article that this was a working farm of 320 acres of corn. Well, 310 acres, anyways.

Not a mountainous area consisting of 10 acre to 100 acre non-farming parcels. Growing ten acres of marijuana on a ten acre parcel would be obvious, yes?

Even a 100 acre parcel is only 2000X2000 feet. You could spot 10 acres of marijuana from your front door, for crying out loud.

[Oztrich Boy]

I don't believe that the government has the power to take possession and/or dispose of the assets until a guilty verdict has been reached.
Bear in mind that we imprison people "before they're found guilty by a court of law",

You are delusional. The courts have ruled that "innocent until proven guilty" applies only to people; if the State thinks your property is guilty, then it's guilty until *you* prove it innocent.

[Jack Black]

OK Robert, you disagree with the jury. That's fine, maybe your even right. But the point his he had his day in court and won. They took their best shot and lost. Now give the guy has stuff back. Otherwise we have no freedom. The government, by definition, is huge and can prosecute someone like this forever, if they are not restrained. Conservatives supposedly support the limitations on unchecked government power provided in our Constitution and Bill or Rights. Even if it occassionally means someone gets off who some people don't think should.

What's the alternative your proposing?

[TankerKC]

You make a great case, but I see the case is over:

After more than a two-year ordeal, a Parmer County jury Thursday found Ronnie Puckett, 47, innocent of possession of marijuana, a charge that came after police found an estimated 250 pounds of the drug on his Lazbuddie farm in October 2001.

Was the jury wrong? Should we change to a "Trial by robertpaulsen" system? Well,...as long as we're tinkering with the Constitution.....

[robertpaulsen]

"actually; it looks like the ol' guy is takin' the fall for the kid..."

Yep. And some fall -- probation and pocket change.

I wonder how much they all took in the year before, and the year before that, and ...

[banjo joe]

It's happened in my rural area the mj has been found interspersed among legit crops, and no, the property owner didn't plant it, but the property owner has the burden of proving that. You have several hundred acres, auto irrigated, not you don't walk it weeks at a time.

[Lurker]

The man was found "not guilty" you moron.

L

[Lazamataz]

Wot, you're claiming you're coherent? ;^)

Yes. Anybody who can write a message ending with this, is clearly coherent.

That's because our government can do this.



That's right. We can dress pigs up like soldiers and give Osama Bin Laden a puppy.

Fear us.

[Sam Cree]

It doesn't seem right to me that the state can seize, freeze, or hold private property on the basis of an accusation, no.

IMO, the potential for abuse is too great. Specifically because it gives the state the kind of arbitrary decision making ability which makes a mockery of the ideal of freedom.

Even if a man is found guilty, I'm not sure the government is whithin it's rights in selling his property. And if it does this who is to say where such poceeds should go?

[robertpaulsen]

"He was found not guilty. The government still hasn't given his property back. You don't have a problem with that?"

He was found not guity of possession of marijuana.

I didn't read where the jury found that no marijuana was being grown on his farm, or that no marijuana was found in his barn. Did you?

I believe the government is HOLDING his property until that issue is resolved. No, I don't have a problem with the government HOLDING his property until that issue is resolved.

[slag]

You are exactly right. I am a farmer in the same area and you know what is growing on every square foot. Besides some had already been harvested and was in the barn. The local talk is that the retired father is the only one who did not know about the "weeds" in his sons field.

[robertpaulsen]

"then it's guilty until *you* prove it innocent.

No, you're wrong. That standard has changed.

[Jack Black]

Bear in mind that we imprison people "before they're found guilty by a court of law", . No we bind them over for trail, and unless they are a immediate risk to commit more crimes or flee they are given bail.

[robertpaulsen]

A$$hole can't read and he's calling me a moron.

Look, jerkoff, he was found not guilty of possession of marijuana. That's it. That's what keeping his ignorant butt out of jail.

Nowhere did I read where a jury found that marijuana wasn't growing on 10 acres of his land or that there was 250 pounds of marijuana in his barn. Absent that finding, it's adios farm.

[Sam Cree]

Do you favor state seizure of assets in the case of other accusations of crimes, or just in drug cases?

[Ben Chad]

Can we as conservatives at least join together and agree that it's complete and utter crap for the state to be able to seize property of people merely accused of a crime?

Non-drug-user bump

[microgood]

I don't believe that the government has the power to take possession and/or dispose of the assets until a guilty verdict has been reached.

Oh yes they do. 40% of the people whose assets are seized are never charged with a crime. And they try to seize all your assets 401Ks, checking accounts, everything so that you cannot fight them to get your property back. The property is ususally sold before it even goes to trial.

[robertpaulsen]

Call it what you will, they are imprisoned before a trial verdict. Their freedom is taken away without a trial. They are locked up on mere accusations.

Sam Cree was hyperventilating because we seize assets before a person is found guilty. All I was saying is that we do worse than that by locking up suspects and people seem to understand -- even make excuses for it, like you do.

[CindyDawg]

No, I just can't agree. The state shouldn't be able to seize anything, unless, it can be proved that property was purchased with drug money and only a jury should decide this. Any seizures should only be done after a jury trial and the money should never go in to the department that has a vested interest in the arrest. I just got my CCW license and the instructor (a cop) said jokingly, your gun can be taken by the police for any reason so yall buy good, expensive ones. Where is this going to stop? Look at seatbelts. It used to be for safety but it's a money maker now too. What's next? Our cars?

[Principled]

"I think an official accusation gets it done."

As does 10 acres of marijuana plants on one's property and 250 pounds of marijuana in one's barn.

But that shouldn't count because "he didn't know" (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

It seems from this dialogue that you agree that if the owner did not know about it, then he shouldn't have his property siezed?