AKA "Steal anyone's money we can because we can...We are cops and because drugs".
Seems that everyone is finally figuring this out....
Some commentors think I am overly negative about this practice. Perhaps I am. They seems to feel that it is OK, if it catches one drug smuggler ...I think that it needs revision if it inconveniences even one innocent person.
This is theft, plain and simple. No one should have to account for the source of the money they carry unless they have been PROVEN to have committed a crime and it can be proven that the money or goods was/were from profits from illegal activities.
Anyone involved in such schemes to steal from the citizens of this country should be charged with theft....Officer or government official or whatever. No immunity should apply.
Link fixed!
8 comments:
Yeah, because so many "innocent citizens" travel cross-country with tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash hidden in their fifteen-year-old cars, particularly citizens who have no jobs and can't explain where the money came from or just deny that it's even theirs once it's discovered.
It's also telling that when given a chance to appear in court offer up the most basic claim to that money, over seventy percent of those it was taken from don't even appear and about half of the thirty percent who do show up can't or won't explain how they came by such funds. Law-abiding citizens have bank records and W2s, but then those people also use checks and wire transfers to move their funds, not Julio in a beater Chevy.
The link seems to be broken. Keep getting a "page not available" message
Murphy: read the article. This isn't about drug dealers. It is about normal people having their money taken.
And you still don't address the issue: Why does ANYONE have to account for the source of their money when they are not even charged with, much less convicted of, a crime?
Even those who have records (which they should have no need to produce) have their money taken and have to go to court and spend thousands to recover their money.
I have travelled hundreds of miles in a beater car with cash to buy a car...or to go to an auction...are you saying that that makes me a criminal?
Again, No one who is not charged and convicted of a crime should have their money or property seized.
@-->Murphy
""'The Washington Post this week reported that in the past 13 years, there have been 61,998 cash seizures on roadways and elsewhere without use of search warrants.
The total haul: $2.5 billion.'"
That is the new Highwaymen (aka Pricks with badges) in action.
-Moe
I read the article. It's incredibly one-sided and it basically only talks about one town, and even then, though it tries, it can't help but allude to the vast number of drug smugglers that it's caught, which is really the whole point.
Now I know a thing or two about such programs, and there is typically plenty of oversight built in, as with the interdiction programs themselves, to screen out innocent travelers who have their own money vs. drug smugglers or currency mules working for them. It's a valuable and effective tool for hitting the drug cartels hard and a few isolated abuses, real or alleged, aren't cause to kill the whole thing.
Carrying cash alone does not make one a criminal, nor is it even suspicious in itself. The seizures come after lots of other factors come into pay, and of course this story does not report on the numerous people who don't have their assets seized, and they greatly outnumber those who do, let me tell you.
Circular Logic
I can't argue against that...
-Moe
Do they still teach the words of Blackstone in college?
"Better that 10 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted"?
Another telling point is all the private firms which hold classes for departments to demonstrate how to steal legally....often for a small percentage of the first years take.
The carriage of cash is not in itself an indicator of a crime. No one should be required to carry checks, money orders nor have to use a credit card. Often when making a purchase, cash helps the deal happen.
I have traveled, when a vendor at gunshows, with thousands of dollars for hundreds of miles.... often passing through at least two states..... Often passing through small towns on a Sunday evening, when there was no bank in which to make a deposit, even if I had wanted to.
Does this make me a criminal? Is this indicative of criminal behavior?
Now, had I had this happen to me, I would have had to retain an attorney... figure $2k at least. Then I would have had to travel back to the scene of the crime in order to testify in court....Had I had $3k stolen, It might well have been a net loss when I "won" my case. I wonder how many people don't even bother for this reason?
Again, I should not, in this country where I am supposed to be innocent until PROVEN guilty, have to demonstrate where I got the cash I am carrying. I should not have to fight to have that property returned to me. Especially when I am NOT EVEN CHARGED WITH A CRIME....Much less convicted.
I fail to see how you, in your mind, can justify such behavior even if the innocents are 1%.
'tis a slippery slope you are treading there. Do you really believe that the ends justify the means?
They don't just take your money because you happen to have a few grand in your wallet. There's more to it than that.
Now if you have thirty grand concealed inside your spare tire or under your hood wrapped in foil and you deny knowing who it belongs to but insist that it's definitely not yours...yeah, that's getting taken. And that's the case in most of these instances--the person caught with the cash denies ownership immediately. So when that happens, the police are just supposed to let them keep it? I mean, they already said that it wasn't theirs...
Post a Comment