Asset Seizures fuel Police Spending

#6
#6
GreveHaller said:
...in your opinion
Click to expand...

Mine too. I don't see a need for small town police departments to have armored vehicles and other capabilities traditionally reserved for the military. You can centralize some of that at the county level or in larger municipalities and rely on the national guard for the rest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7
#7
YorkVol said:
Mine too. I don't see a need for small town police departments to have armored vehicles and other capabilities traditionally reserved for the military. You can centralize some of that at the county level or in larger municipalities and rely on the national guard for the rest.
Click to expand...

in the end, its not your money buying it so what they want to spend it on is planning for the future, not using public money to maintain the level of protection they give. To get anything above the bare basics in today's limited resources require an act of God, better known as a tax increase. That's our money. All they have done was use money from the bad guys to buy stuff to fight the bad guys. Using their own money against themselves, not my money.
 
#8
#8
GreveHaller said:
in the end, its not your money buying it so what they want to spend it on is planning for the future, not using public money to maintain the level of protection they give. To get anything above the bare basics in today's limited resources require an act of God, better known as a tax increase. That's our money. All they have done was use money from the bad guys to buy stuff to fight the bad guys. Using their own money against themselves, not my money.
Click to expand...
Ah, but that is the point, it could very easily be my money, or yours. If I'm carrying some cash, like the guy going out to buy a car and get stopped for a broken tail light, that cash is subject to be seized of I can't prove that I earned it legally and am not headed to do something illegal with it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#9
#9
GreveHaller said:
in the end, its not your money buying it so what they want to spend it on is planning for the future, not using public money to maintain the level of protection they give. To get anything above the bare basics in today's limited resources require an act of God, better known as a tax increase. That's our money. All they have done was use money from the bad guys to buy stuff to fight the bad guys. Using their own money against themselves, not my money.
Click to expand...

So you assume anything seized must have come from a bad guy?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#11
#11
GreveHaller said:
in the end, its not your money buying it so what they want to spend it on is planning for the future, not using public money to maintain the level of protection they give. To get anything above the bare basics in today's limited resources require an act of God, better known as a tax increase. That's our money. All they have done was use money from the bad guys to buy stuff to fight the bad guys. Using their own money against themselves, not my money.
Click to expand...

That's the whole point of the article. Anything can be seized from anyone suspected of a crime. It's a huge abuse of power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#12
#12
utvolpj said:
So you assume anything seized must have come from a bad guy?
Click to expand...

The problem is simply that there are no checks and balances when it comes to seizures. TN has a huge problem with this. It is not illegal to have cash, but the cops on one case seized tens of thousands in cash under the pretense of "currency violations".

Innocent people are forced to spend even more cash on lawyers to get the money back and then wait for years to see a result.

Highway Robbery: Tennessee Police Are Seizing Cash From Out-of-State Visitors In Policy Called “Policing For Profit” | JONATHAN TURLEY
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#13
#13
jjay2518 said:
That's the whole point of the article. Anything can be seized from anyone suspected of a crime. It's a huge abuse of power.
Click to expand...

No, there is no suspicion of a crime needed. You only have to fail to satisfy the officer's skepticism that people shouldn't carry cash with them. There is no probable cause and there doesn't need to be any charges against the person. In fact, the charges will go against the asset seized, as in "the State of Tennessee vs $2000 in cash." You have to go to the judicial center and petition to get your asset back and often it is a prosecutor, not a judge who is the decision maker in the matter.

I would love to see some data on how many asset seizures occur right after a local city council passes the police budget..."Oh, they didn't fund the new H&Ks? Ok, boys, go get some cash!"
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#14
#14
John Oliver did a good piece on this a few weeks ago:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks[/youtube]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#15
#15
GreveHaller said:
in the end, its not your money buying it so what they want to spend it on is planning for the future, not using public money to maintain the level of protection they give. To get anything above the bare basics in today's limited resources require an act of God, better known as a tax increase. That's our money. All they have done was use money from the bad guys to buy stuff to fight the bad guys. Using their own money against themselves, not my money.
Click to expand...

It' not always "bad guy's" money and that is the problem.
 
#16
#16
Should be using money to equip every single officer with full time video recording and less than lethal armament.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#17
#17
Anyone believing in or that supports pre conviction asset seizures either profits from it or participates in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#18
#18
GreveHaller said:
so you'd be ok if they bought that stuff with your tax money. :crazy:
Click to expand...

You are overlooking the fact that the state is able to simply take property, often just based on a whim and no conviction. Are you comfortable with this going on in 'Murica?
 
#19
#19
Rasputin_Vol said:
You are overlooking the fact that the state is able to simply take property, often just based on a whim and no conviction. Are you comfortable with this going on in 'Murica?
Click to expand...

and you're overlooking the fact that they are not using tax payer money to make purchase to help their department. Are you comfortable for your tax money being paid for this instead of the bad guy's money?
 
#20
#20
GreveHaller said:
and you're overlooking the fact that they are not using tax payer money to make purchase to help their department. Are you comfortable for your tax money being paid for this instead of the bad guy's money?
Click to expand...

Are you going to just keep repeating that it's "the bad guy's money"? You've said that already and it's already been addressed in this thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#21
#21
GreveHaller said:
and you're overlooking the fact that they are not using tax payer money to make purchase to help their department. Are you comfortable for your tax money being paid for this instead of the bad guy's money?
Click to expand...

So none of the people who had their assets seized are tax payers?

And again, if it was ONLY the bad guys money I might, support it but it's not ONLY the bad guys money and possessions being taken.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#22
#22
I'm just not a fan of the organization that seizes money getting to spend it. That creates such a conflict.

I think gov't should be a little more advanced than 'finders keepers'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#23
#23
WallyBalls said:
I'm just not a fan of the organization that seizes money getting to spend it. That creates such a conflict.

I think gov't should be a little more advanced than 'finders keepers'.
Click to expand...

can you give an example of what to do besides raise our taxes?


btw, if the seizure was undue you can get your money back
 
#25
#25
VolsSportsFan said:
Are you going to just keep repeating that it's "the bad guy's money"? You've said that already and it's already been addressed in this thread.
Click to expand...

what else do you want to call it? it is money obtained from criminals and or criminal activies. Does that help you? Not sure why the wording has you worked up

This is a source of funding that does not add to the burden of the tax payer. It is using the resources available without depleting the bottom line which is the business plan governments work on.

If you have any suggestions on how to provide funding for a police department without adding to the tax payer then lets hear it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top