To Protect and to Serve II

#5,727
#5,727
NorthDallas40 said:
Why does anybody on this forum, none of whom were involved in this, owe you a damn explanation or defense about any of it Ras? Hmmmm?
Click to expand...

Also... You really think not a single of the LEOs who frequent this thread work for departments who are involved in this BS criminal activity?
 
#5,728
#5,728
Matt2496 said:
How the actual **** is that even a thing?
Click to expand...

Been happening for years. In fact, as if a few years ago (maybe since 2014), it’s gotten to the point where law enforcement actually steal more money from people through asset forfeiture each year than criminals do. Well... I mean the non law enforcement criminals.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,729
#5,729
It’s okay when they do it though cause some politicians wrote down on a piece of paper that it was and, in doing so, actually altered morality. So it’s cool.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#5,731
#5,731
Cdywolfe said:
Been happening for years. In fact, as if a few years ago (maybe since 2014), it’s gotten to the point where law enforcement actually steal more money from people through asset forfeiture each year than criminals do. Well... I mean the non law enforcement criminals.
Click to expand...

Can you post the link to that data?
 
#5,732
#5,732
Cdywolfe said:
Lol... Looks like somebody got their feelings hurt.
Click to expand...

Nope. But since we’re all about demanding explanations how about you explain why any LEO on here has to justify the bad actions of other LEOs which they had nothing to do with? A few of you guys just demand it of them. It’s ridiculous!

And in reply to your other post I don’t think about the actions the LEOs that post on here much at all. I just take them at their posting content. You on the other hand apparently are convinced they’re all corrupt individuals wanting nothing but to personally oppress you? Sounds that way anyway. Again. Ridiculous.
 
#5,733
#5,733
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,737
#5,737
Cdywolfe said:
Now that assets seized by federal law enforcement agencies exceed burglaries, bipartisan bill aims to stop the abuse - AEI

This was the first thing that popped up when I googled it. There appeared to be plenty of other articles if you don’t like this one for some reason. I also tried to google a counter argument and couldn’t find one. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, only that I couldn’t find it.
Click to expand...

That is unreal. This sounds like something that would have happened in Nazi Germany, not the supposedly freedom-loving United States of America.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#5,738
#5,738
Cdywolfe said:
Now that assets seized by federal law enforcement agencies exceed burglaries, bipartisan bill aims to stop the abuse - AEI

This was the first thing that popped up when I googled it. There appeared to be plenty of other articles if you don’t like this one for some reason. I also tried to google a counter argument and couldn’t find one. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist, only that I couldn’t find it.
Click to expand...

No, I just wanted to see the data, and the source.

And at first read, it looks solid. Now...

First off, what with me being an LEO, let me say that I have no stomach for or tolerance of misapplication of the law. And anytime an innocent suffers due to misapplication or overzealous or immoral application of the law, I'm firmly on the side of the citizen.

That being said, Asset Forfeiture / Civil Forfeiture laws are another example of good law that is being abused in too many cases. One of the lawyerly types here can hold a seminar on it if you'd like, but the basic idea is that when law enforcement busts a major (key word, "major") crime ring / drug dealer / financial fraud ring, group, or even individual, they have a means to go after everything that is connected to the crime(s), i.e. - any real property, homes, vehicles, boats, cash, stocks, or any assets that are a direct result or "fruit" of the crimes charged. In theory, it's a really good idea. Take everything they stole or converted to personal assets, and use it to pay for the prosecution, victim's compensation, etc, etc. Good idea.

And there are a zillion "rules" related to it. And as is the case with most laws, all it takes is an overzealous or poorly trained USA, DA, or anyone in that pipeline, including cops, to turn it into something bad instead of something good.

Unless the law has changed recently, that much cash heading to a known terrorist sponsor state should have, and did, raise eyebrows. He either did not have the proper documentation to show the origin of the cash (I know...his money...he shouldn't have to prove anything), or something else didn't match up, because CBP is usually...usually...by the book. So I don't know.

Not taking sides. If it were my money, I'd be mad as hell. Here again, we (maybe) have an example of the 11th Commandment Of Law Enforcement, which states "Lo, Verily...there be no situation that a good cop cannot make worseth."

All I got. Hope it helped.
 
#5,739
#5,739
Context of why he was running in the first place is important, but most of us can give a "damn!" after watching that.

[twitter]1001961844653817856[/twitter]
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,741
#5,741
Grey- going to have to disagree with you. Civil asset forfeiture was never a good law. Nobody in this country should subject to having their property seized without being convicted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 people
#5,742
#5,742
hog88 said:
Grey- going to have to disagree with you. Civil asset forfeiture was never a good law. Nobody in this country should subject to having their property seized without being convicted.
Click to expand...

Actually I agree with this. I’ve got no problem with asset forfeiture tied to a conviction (obviously not the traffic stop crap. That’s just wrong. We have a little town called Lavon near me that got the whole PD busted on corruption over stuff like that. ) But the order should be 1) indictment 2) conviction 3) then forfeiture tied to a conviction.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,744
#5,744
NorthDallas40 said:
Actually I agree with this. I’ve got no problem with asset forfeiture tied to a conviction (obviously not the traffic stop crap. That’s just wrong. We have a little town called Lavon near me that got the whole PD busted on corruption over stuff like that. ) But the order should be 1) indictment 2) conviction 3) then forfeiture tied to a conviction.
Click to expand...

Agreed, although if I take someone to jail whom I've arrested with a lot of dope on them, and thousands of dollars in cash, I wouldn't feel bad in the slightest of seizing their cash.

I've never actually done it, for the record.
 
Last edited:
#5,745
#5,745
hog88 said:
Grey- going to have to disagree with you. Civil asset forfeiture was never a good law. Nobody in this country should subject to having their property seized without being convicted.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with that. But...the really smart crooks (cartels, organized crime, major types) are smart enough to know to move or liquidate everything after they're arrested, and hence...nothing to seize or forfeit upon conviction.

Hence the key difference between "seizure" and "forfeiture".

So how do you (a) hold the really nasty guys accountable, and (b) not screw over the little guy, or the innocent one?

And therein lies the rub. Asset forfeiture hinges on...depends upon...and relies upon accurate, detailed, and mature examination of all of the factors. And we all know....not much of that running around in our noble government, right?

In the end, it's always better to let a bad guy walk away rather than to hurt the good guy. Is there a fix, or a middle ground? Probably. But I'm not smart enough to figure it out, so I'll leave that to you sophisticates.

You just tell me what I can and can't do. I stay within the rules.

:)
 
Last edited:
#5,747
#5,747
orangeblood79 said:
Agreed, although if I take someone to jail whom I've arrested with a lot of dope on them, and thousands of dollars in cash, I wouldn't feel bad in the slightest of seizing their cash.

I've never actually done it, for the record.
Click to expand...

Remember, "seizure" and "forfeiture" are two different things. I've seized a lot of cash on stops and warrant service where I found enough drugs to keep Neyland Stadium stoned for a month.

And believe it or not, we ended up giving some...maybe 30%?...of it back because we could not positively connect it to the criminal activity.

Remember, we only catch the dumb ones.
 
#5,750
#5,750
GreyWolf1129 said:
I'm fine with that. But...the really smart crooks (cartels, organized crime, major types) are smart enough to know to move or liquidate everything after they're arrested, and hence...nothing to seize or forfeit upon conviction.

Hence the key difference between "seizure" and "forfeiture".

So how do you (a) hold the really nasty guys accountable, and (b) not screw over the little guy, or the innocent one?

And therein lies the rub. Asset forfeiture hinges on...depends upon...and relies upon accurate, detailed, and mature examination of all of the factors. And we all know....not much of that running around in our noble government, right?

In the end, it's always better to let a bad guy walk away rather than to hurt the good guy. Is there a fix, or a middle ground? Probably. But I'm not smart enough to figure it out, so I'll leave that to you sophisticates.

You just tell me what I can and can't do. I stay within the rules.

:)
Click to expand...

Fair enough and I agree, better to have some bad guys get off than screw over 1 innocent.

Only way I know how to fix it is to do away with it.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top