- 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 3:20 pm to Comic_Tiger
Posted on 12/7/21 at 3:20 pm to Comic_Tiger
quote:
I mean it's obvious Tantal is a dumbass Constitution hating sheep fricking aggie.
I guarantee he’s a cop.
0
Posted on 12/7/21 at 3:27 pm to Comic_Tiger
Civil forfeiture and imminent domain both need to be abolished. They have no place in free society.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 3:34 pm to Sentrius
quote:
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.
I didn't say I don't have a problem with it. I do on a certain level.
But your arguments about due process aren't true. People have legal recourses to reclaim seized property. But when they are part of a criminal enterprise they often chose not to exercise them for obvious reasons.
It's a compromise. The criminal gets off the hook in terms of charges and jail time. And the cops get to report a victory and spit in the eye of the cartels.
Remember I'm talking about a narrow hypothetical situation where the police have legitimate and viable evidence of a criminal operation but chose asset forfeiture as an easier and safer alternative to a traditional arrest, seizure and trial.
But I agree it's a slippery slope and a lot of this stuff is an indefensible theft of property.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 3:40 pm to HalfCocked
Amateur hour move, which is how they were able to seize the cash.
I wouldn't say it's never been abused, but the asset forfeiture scenario 99.99% is preceded by nefarious actions/info related to the carrier.
I also believe she has the right of refusal & passed on refusal.
I have contacts that never have issues with crazy sums of money when traveling, but they aren't involved in known shady shite. Including one whose stock response is: "its real, its mine & go frick yourself".
I wouldn't say it's never been abused, but the asset forfeiture scenario 99.99% is preceded by nefarious actions/info related to the carrier.
I also believe she has the right of refusal & passed on refusal.
I have contacts that never have issues with crazy sums of money when traveling, but they aren't involved in known shady shite. Including one whose stock response is: "its real, its mine & go frick yourself".
Posted on 12/7/21 at 3:44 pm to OMLandshark
quote:
“I’m willing to bet” isn’t something that holds up in court.
Right. The State will have to come with something more substantial. The reason that I added the qualifiers is that the article was short on hard details, but 24 years of experience working in a high drug trafficking area and untold hours of training and education in drug trafficking interdiction tells me that I'm right. I could be wrong, but that's what court is for.....provided they ever hear from her again.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 3:52 pm to AUFANATL
quote:
I'm talking about a narrow hypothetical situation where the police have legitimate and viable evidence of a criminal operation but chose asset forfeiture as an easier and safer alternative to a traditional arrest, seizure and trial
If that were the case, shouldn't they be charging her with an actual crime? I don't think law enforcement taking the "easier" way out should be used as an excuse for circumventing our justice system and trampling on people's 4th Amendment rights.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 3:59 pm to Tantal
quote:
provided they ever hear from her again.
She's surely a amateur runner right? A connection with a clean record that doesnt look like Wiz Khalifa.
Whoever she's connected to gives zero fricks about $100k under the circumstances.. merely a "cost of goods sold".
Posted on 12/7/21 at 3:59 pm to Tantal
Interesting experiment. Officer and drug dog go into bank. Dog alerts to the presence of drugs and heads to vault. Can officer confiscate all of the money in the bank because the dog ate their lunch?
Posted on 12/7/21 at 4:11 pm to ImaObserver
quote:
Officer and drug dog go into bank. Dog alerts to the presence of drugs and heads to vault. Can officer confiscate all of the money in the bank because the dog ate their lunch?
No. The entire money supply is tainted with drug residue and the bank can show documentation of where every penny came from.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 4:26 pm to AUHighPlainsDrifter
quote:
If that were the case, shouldn't they be charging her with an actual crime? I don't think law enforcement taking the "easier" way out should be used as an excuse for circumventing our justice system and trampling on people's 4th Amendment rights.
The example I used was protecting the identity of a confidential informant or undercover officer.
If the primary basis of evidence of a crime comes from the above then you have to blow their cover in a trial, or potentially expose them to harm or retribution. Sometimes the cops don't think a case is worth it to do that, or maybe the key witness refuses to testify because they don't want the drug dealers to kill them.
In that case the police take the partial win of seizing the drugs or cash without prosecuting anyone.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 4:32 pm to AUFANATL
quote:
I didn't say I don't have a problem with it. I do on a certain level.
This is a weak hedge.
Civil forfeiture is one of those non-negotiable black and white issues where there is no middle ground.
quote:
People have legal recourses to reclaim seized property.
That property was seized WITHOUT charging its owner with a crime and then promptly says the owner has the burden of proof that there was no crime committed, also without accusing the owner of committing a crime.
That's what you're ignoring here.
quote:
It's a compromise.
You're compromising on constitutional rights and think it's defensible.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 4:37 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
She's surely a amateur runner right? A connection with a clean record that doesnt look like Wiz Khalifa.
Maybe an amateur, maybe a pro. Either way, she'd be clean both in appearance and on paper. Sure, beat cops might get the average doper rolling around in a shitbox with low level dealer amounts in the car, but the major weight is going north stuffed into the door panels of clean Tahoes or stuffed into the frames of newer F250s.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 4:37 pm to Sentrius
quote:
You're compromising on constitutional rights and think it's defensible.
Yeah, compromising the Constitution. That’s working out so well for us right now isn’t it? Only communists and fascists want to compromise the Constitution.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 4:39 pm to BurntOrangeMan
quote:
I wouldn't say it's never been abused, but the asset forfeiture scenario 99.99% is preceded by nefarious actions/info related to the carrier.
So only one in ten thousand? Are you simply stupid? Or more likely you yourself are a pig that plants drugs in people. “99.99%.” L. O. fricking. L.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 4:49 pm to Tantal
quote:
The State will have to come with something more substantial.
The state doesn’t have to come up with anything. It is on the owner to prove that their money is legitimate.
Most states have horrible civil forfeiture laws. And the ones that don’t circumvent their state laws by transferring the property to the Feds and getting a big chunk of it back with “equitable sharing.”
Posted on 12/7/21 at 4:56 pm to OMLandshark
Prob just profits from her lemonade stand
Posted on 12/7/21 at 5:09 pm to Antioch
was she a US citizen?
Also, isn't a law about traveling with so much cash or amount of Jewelry? Or is that just international?
Also, isn't a law about traveling with so much cash or amount of Jewelry? Or is that just international?
Posted on 12/7/21 at 5:13 pm to FMtTXtiger
quote:There is no law about how much money you can carry domestically.
Also, isn't a law about traveling with so much cash or amount of Jewelry? Or is that just international?
The police are literally just saying, "hey, looks fishy.........prove it isn't".
Posted on 12/7/21 at 5:15 pm to the808bass
quote:
The state doesn’t have to come up with anything. It is on the owner to prove that their money is legitimate.
It's not quite that simple. Granted, I've only done one civil forfeiture case related to drugs, but I'm fairly certain that the state has to offer more than just "she has money". Looking at it from the government's perspective, which I don't always agree with, I can't think of a scenario where someone would have $100K in cash on them that wasn't either ill gotten gains or lawful gains that were untaxed where there wasn't a paper trail for it.
Posted on 12/7/21 at 5:21 pm to Black Hole
quote:
There is no law about how much money you can carry domestically.
The police are literally just saying, "hey, looks fishy.........prove it isn't".
Yeah, do you know how many people have had their casino winnings just point blank stolen by the cops thanks to civil forfeiture? Thousands of people, and they haven’t even had the opportunity to go put it in the bank. “99.99% of the time they’re drug dealers.”
This post was edited on 12/7/21 at 5:23 pm
Page 4 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News