- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Dallas PD steals woman’s $100,000 dollars; Praises dog
Posted on 12/7/21 at 1:45 pm to OMLandshark
Posted on 12/7/21 at 1:45 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Dallas PD steals woman’s $100,000 dollars; Praises dog
This is why I will never ever blindly support the police.
Because at their core, they are the enforcement arm of the state and they will carry out the interests of the state, no matter how disreputable it may be.
0
Posted on 12/7/21 at 1:46 pm to Strannix
quote:
We know, and as stated there is basically little if any money that doesnt have drug residue on it.
If 9 of 10 bills are contaminated then in a stack of 100 bills there is more or less a statistical ZERO chance a dog wont hit on it.
Don't all bills from at least $20.00, maybe $10? have that strip in them as an anti-counterfeit measure?
In that Marine's case, he was traveling and they knew to pull him over. Are those license plate scanners all over the damned place also able to scan how much money one has in their vehicle?
There must be something else besides a dog's nose for these other circumstances.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 1:49 pm to Tantal
quote:
Title should be "Dallas PD confiscates $100,000 of cartel money from Chicago woman." I highly doubt that it was actually hers. That's why they give them a receipt. They give it to their cartel handler to avoid being killed. The cartels consider it a business expense and adjust their pricing accordingly.
This post spits and shits on the very concept of innocent until proven guilty, the lode star and defining principle of our legal system.
You should be embarrassed for yourself.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 1:51 pm to Tantal
quote:
If she can show any documentation of legal receipt of that money, she'll get it back.
That is not her burden to prove.
It is squarely on the government to prove who did not charge her with a crime.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 1:56 pm to Tantal
quote:
Title should be "Dallas PD confiscates $100,000 of cartel money from Chicago woman."
You may be right, but the default is that the state has to have evidence and prove their case.
If the state can put punish us based on assumptions then we live in as bad a dictatorship as has ever existed.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:02 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
Wow, openly bragging about robbing a woman blind with no evidence against her. And don’t think that people on the Federal Level won’t do this to you either if they think you have been saying bad things and going against the Feds.
Everyone knows if you have cash, you're a drug dealer!
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:10 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
You are assuming guilty to be proven innocent. You know nothing besides the fact that she had $106K on her. You are a fricking fascist and get the frick out of my country.
I'm willing to bet that they knew about her long before they ran the dog on her. As stated previously, there were very likely numerous other factors that went into the seizure decision besides just the amount and the dog hit. I also doubt that DPD did this on their own. This was most likely a DEA/HIDTA Task Force with DPD being part of it. If so, they'd have access to numerous databases that would show things like evictions, vehicle repossessions, employment information, etc. An unemployed former part-time Dollar General clerk that just got evicted from her apartment is not someone likely to have $100K of legally obtained cash on them. This can be determined at the scene......along with any statements that she may have made.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:25 pm to Tantal
Some people on this planet suck arse.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:26 pm to Tantal
quote:
I'm willing to bet that they knew about her long before they ran the dog on her. As stated previously, there were very likely numerous other factors that went into the seizure decision besides just the amount and the dog hit. I also doubt that DPD did this on their own. This was most likely a DEA/HIDTA Task Force with DPD being part of it. If so, they'd have access to numerous databases that would show things like evictions, vehicle repossessions, employment information, etc. An unemployed former part-time Dollar General clerk that just got evicted from her apartment is not someone likely to have $100K of legally obtained cash on them. This can be determined at the scene......along with any statements that she may have made.
Innocent unless the combined efforts of the faceless law enforcement machine create a vague sense that some undefined criminal activity is underway
This post was edited on 12/7/21 at 2:32 pm
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:30 pm to OMLandshark
I'm not saying this applies in this particular case, but....
Sometimes the police will get a tip or acquire evidence of a crime through a confidential informant or an undercover cop. They might then use that information to stage what appears to be a regular discovery of evidence - in this case the sniffing dog at an airport.
The reason they do this is because they don't want to blow the identity of their CI or undercover agent. Pursuing full criminal investigations and trials could ultimately lead to the loss of a valuable CI or undercover and they are selective about when they burn those identities.
As others have mentioned, drug mules are a dime a dozen. The cartels will have them replaced by the end of the day and write off the seizure as cost of business expense. So law enforcement sometimes goes with the middle ground of seizing cash/contraband to get it off the streets while avoiding criminal proceedings that would require them to disclose the identity of a suspect's accusers.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:32 pm to OMLandshark
Maybe she was on a recruiting trip for Saban.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:36 pm to Tantal
quote:
I'm willing to bet
“I’m willing to bet” isn’t something that holds up in court.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:37 pm to AUFANATL
quote:
The reason they do this is because they don't want to blow the identity of their CI or undercover agent.
Or if they don't have a search warrant.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:37 pm to Scruffy
quote:
You could probably find “traces of cocaine” on a large percentage of all circulating bills.
I've read 60-70% of all bills do.
If you have 100k in case 100% chance some of those bills have trace amounts of cocaine or other drugs.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:44 pm to AUFANATL
0
This post was edited on 12/7/21 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:45 pm to Tantal
quote:
As stated previously, there were very likely numerous other factors that went into the seizure decision besides just the amount and the dog hit. I also doubt that DPD did this on their own. This was most likely a DEA/HIDTA Task Force with DPD being part of it. If so, they'd have access to numerous databases that would show things like evictions, vehicle repossessions, employment information, etc. An unemployed former part-time Dollar General clerk that just got evicted from her apartment is not someone likely to have $100K of legally obtained cash on them. This can be determined at the scene......along with any statements that she may have made.
You posted what you think is good circumstantial evidence behind a keyboard completely removed from the situation and the cops and prosecutors on the scene still didn't charge her with a crime. Not even a misdemeanor.
You're a boot licking fascist that shits on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:47 pm to Tantal
quote:
As stated previously, there were very likely numerous other factors that went into the seizure decision besides just the amount and the dog hit.
I've seen several bodycam footage reels where that was exactly the case...
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:49 pm to AUFANATL
quote:
law enforcement sometimes goes with the middle ground of seizing cash/contraband to get it off the streets while avoiding criminal proceedings that would require them to disclose the identity of a suspect's accusers.
You see absolutely nothing wrong with this?
You're literally advocating the government doling out punishment in the form of confiscating property and currency without due process and no chance to exercise the right to face your accusers.
You're a fascist.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 2:54 pm to Sentrius
I mean it's obvious Tantal is a dumbass Constitution hating sheep fricking aggie.
What I want to know is who're the dumbfricks upvoting that turd eater?
What I want to know is who're the dumbfricks upvoting that turd eater?
Posted on 12/7/21 at 3:15 pm to Tantal
quote:How much? If she’s participating in a crime she would have been charged. The story you made up in your head isn’t convincing in the least.
I'm willing to bet that they knew about her long before they ran the dog on her.
Oh BTW, I’m willing to bet you’re a child molester. Prove you aren’t.
This post was edited on 12/7/21 at 3:17 pm
Page 3 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News