You mean these specimens of physical fitness wouldn't hack it????
Posted on 12/21/2007 12:14:30 AM PST by LibWhacker
As a “young scholar” you should know that “probable cause” is the tenant used by the criminal justice system to arrest and charge a suspect. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is used by the judiciary to determine guilt. If cops were arresting based on “beyond reasonable doubt” what would we need the courts (and juries) for?
That was profound. Where’s the beef?
And since you were present at the scene....why don’t you explain to me what happened....PS reading the Lima paper doesn’t count.
As a law student you should also know that there has been no disposition of this case. The money was seized. It is being held as evidence. This entire thread is predicated on a newspaper story which, we all know is the most unreliable source of all. You should also know that no judge is going to award forfeiture without one of the two underlying tenants....facilitation and/or proceeds. No one here has yet to explain why the Feds became involved. They aren’t just going to walk in and take over a local case (assault, homicide, robbery/burglary) since they HAVE NO STANDING. There have been a lot of comments by some very uninformed people that will be the first to criticize the DBM, yet are relying on the same DBM for all the “facts” in this case. Frankly, watching the Law and Order marathon on USA network does not an informed citizen make (no offense to you)
And I'm inclined to oppose allowing government confiscation with only a preponderance of evidence even were the burden of proof placed on the government, although I'd be open to other arguments on this issue.
A bank account probably would’ve saved him some grief. Illicit drugs and a large amount of cash on one’s property is bound to make the police suspicious.
OK, as you are well aware, “preponderance of the evidence” is a civil standard, not a criminal standard. And, in spite of what you may have read on this thread, and as you will experience as an officer of the court, judges do not like to have their cases overturned by an Appeals Court. My problem with this whole scenario is I know most of the players in the Federal Prosecutors office in Toledo (which covers Lima) I’ve also been involved in forfeiture at both the state and federal level. The issue here is STANDING. Why would the Feds step in and take the case w/o standing? There were no Federal issues here where they could move the case to Federal court.
Lastly, I don’t know how many forfeiture hearings you’ve been party to, but even though there is a lower burden of proof (civil forfeiture) most judges try cases very similarly. I’d reserve judgement until all the facts come out.
As a law student, remember to follow the evidence and look at things with an objective eye. Your passion for the law will serve you well if you can seperate the emotion from the fact.
Good luck in your career, :) from an old retired forfeiture detective.
You make a good point, and I try to avoid declaring an opinion on a particular case based on one article, since facts not revealed in news articles often have a way of making those premature opinions look foolish.
Usually far better to use the story as an opportunity to discuss the broader rules and principles that are relevant, and leave the actual judgment up to the judge and jury.
If there’s “more to this,” then why hasn’t he been charged?
Easy, while performing the duties of a police officer you don't have the same constitutional rights as I do, a mere peon citizen. The Constitution limits and enumerates the power of government, that would be you, and guarantees my rights as an individual citizen. It doesn't guarantee the rights of government as government has no rights.
And if you were really concerned about the safety of the suspect and the officers, you'd do some simple surveillance and arrest them 9 times out of 10 while they're walking out of the 7-11 with a chili cheese dog in their hands. But then that wouldn't enable the agency to seize property now would it??? Which is the real reason for knocking down someone's door, that and getting to dress up and play commando.
With all the recent "wrong address" no-knock warrants being served(http://www.cato.org/raidmap/), I'm more concerned with "citizen safety" than "officer safety". If you don't want to accept the risks, then hand in the gun and the badge and go sell used cars, no one press-ganged you into service. The "it's a dangerous job" argument always falls on deaf ears around me, occupational safety statistics always show that being a cop doesn't even make the top ten. Logging and fishing usually are at the top. And you know what?? They don't get to wipe their behinds with the Constitution.
I've got an alternative for you. Instead of being "law enforcement officers" like everyone likes to be called now, go back to being "peace officers" like when I was a kid. The difference in mindset would probably surprise you. Leave the paramilitary BS to the military and get your adrenaline kick by jumping out of an airplane.
Have you donated to Fred lately????
That's a silly statement. That's like saying that since you weren't in New York when the towers fell, you don't know what really happened. That is why we all watch the news. But, what I do know is: Due to some silly federal overreaches, a grown man who wasn't hurting anybody but himself by smoking a plant that is naturally grown (a victimless crime) has lost his life's savings to agencies who care nothing about the drug problem, but only care about the money and assets seized. It is a sad day in our Republic when we've allowed our government to get so large.
Beautifully said! Although I appreciate those who CHOOSE to put on a uniform and the very small percentage that pay the ultimate price in doing so, I am so tired of police officers acting as if what they do is honorable when compared to other services. A police officer is paid pretty well and most who are officers are doing so because it is a relatively easy job when compared to a construction worker or other labor intensive, skilled trade (which is usually far more dangerous than being a police officer with much longer hours and a more unforgiving work environment). Also, like the Loss Prevention department of your local big-box store, police officers are an overhead that is only sometimes worth the cost; other jobs are productive and only by other occupations is the occupation of police officer possible (no tax production, no police officers).
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
The decision, with an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia and dissents from Justices John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, overturned a ruling by a federal appeals court in Colorado. The appeals court had permitted a lawsuit to proceed against a Colorado town, Castle Rock, for the failure of the police to respond to a woman's pleas for help after her estranged husband violated a protective order by kidnapping their three young daughters, whom he eventually killed.
For hours on the night of June 22, 1999, Jessica Gonzales tried to get the Castle Rock police to find and arrest her estranged husband, Simon Gonzales, who was under a court order to stay 100 yards away from the house. He had taken the children, ages 7, 9 and 10, as they played outside, and he later called his wife to tell her that he had the girls at an amusement park in Denver.
Ms. Gonzales conveyed the information to the police, but they failed to act before Mr. Gonzales arrived at the police station hours later, firing a gun, with the bodies of the girls in the back of his truck. The police killed him at the scene.
See Castle Rock v. Gonzales, No. 04-278
My heroes.
You mean these specimens of physical fitness wouldn't hack it????
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.