-- LINK REMOVED --

Quote from: colt4 on September 25, 2017, 08:19:16 PM
-- LINK REMOVED ---

Try to use your words in answering my question.

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 25, 2017, 09:09:49 AM
Wrong, crossing the border into Mexico or vice versa with guns, ammunition or other CONTRABAND is indeed illegal, yes even a few bullets, so yes, he did technically commit a crime. There are also signs up everywhere that tell you this, in english and Spanish.

So "He's arrested for Being Hispanic and driving a nice truck"....that is what your Boy Obamao would have said when he was a big time Chicago lawyer getting street thugs and criminals released, that was his schtick, He was "Profiled" Oh dear me!

Once again, neither of us really knows the real story here, YES, I'm siding with Law Enforcement AND I ALWAYS WILL because I've been so many times in the same position as whatever example is and I understand how things work and you don't. If you want to try the case in the court of public opinion what defense do you offer other than gut EMOTION?

I RELY ON FACTS..... I would want to see the reports from the officers WHY DID THEY STOP THIS GUY AND SEARCH HIM IN THE FIRST PLACE, why single him out when hundreds are crossing the border? Even at the Border they have to be selective and they still need PROBABLE CAUSE for a search. Did a drug dog alert? ( dogs will alert even when there are no drugs as the odor lingers) Did they have PRIOR INFORMATION from some source such as EPIC, ie he is a TARGET Or a figure in an ongoing investigation....did the alert come from an INFORMANT?  Did they have knowledge from another agency such as DEA?

So until the case GOES BEFORE A JUDGE in an ASSET FORFEITURE HEARING when the reasons for the initial seizure come to light I'll reserve my judgement and side with Law Enforcement.

WHat would be your tone if we find this guy is one of the many cartel hitmen operating in the USA and is identified as thus on BOTH sides of the border, that's how he got the money to pay $60.000 cash for that shiny new truck, he ditched the gun before crossing the border but forgot a few rounds.

The part of the story we've been told is pretty clear. The guy did nothing wrong. He did not cross the border, and having five loose rounds in your truck is NOT illegal.

But the United States Border Patrol has been enjoying the use of the man's truck for TWO YEARS and counting, while he's been making the payments and keeping the registration current.

Why DID they pick him out of the crowd? Do you know? There doesn't seem to be any information about that, and I have the belief that any criminal acts or tendencies on the guy's part would be pretty dominant in the news coverage.

We are not guilty until proven innocent in this country, Billy. You say you rely on facts, but what, exactly, are the facts you're relying on in this particular case? What was the probable cause? When -- if ever -- is a judge going to grant a search warrant or a subpoena? Why has this guy NEVER been charged with any crime, even a minor misdemeanor? Please explain to me why this dude is riding around in a used Chevy when his brand-new Ford was taken from him by the "law" two years ago.

But more to the nut-cutting, why do you see your point of view as "siding with law enforcement?" If the facts as currently reported hold true, the one headed for the pokey is the guy who made the arrest, NOT the guy driving the truck. Are you siding with law enforcement, or just siding with anyone in a law enforcement uniform?

I've worked in a lot of fields in my life. There are good ones and bad ones in every field. Being an LEO is not an automatic ticket to Heaven, with your passport stamped "Angel."

As things stand, there is not one reason the dude shouldn't get his truck back -- tomorrow, with a full tank of gas, and back payments to keep the mortgage current.

Quote from: colt4 on September 25, 2017, 08:19:16 PM
http://nevadanewsandviews.com/welcome-to-post-constitutional-america/

Listen, and I'll only tell you this one time. We are a Debate/discussion Forum! That means when you post, you post your perspective along with the topic, and if challenged, you reply with your own words, not a stolen quote. Do I make myself clear?

Quote from: taxed on September 25, 2017, 08:12:43 PM
Where, specifically?

This is from a Collected Quotations ... "The U.S. Constitution may be flawed, but it's a whole lot better than what we have now."

He is out the door for the third time.

Quote from: walkstall on September 25, 2017, 09:34:41 PM
This is from a Collected Quotations ... "The U.S. Constitution may be flawed, but it's a whole lot better than what we have now."

He is out the door for the third time.

No wonder it didn't make any sense.

Quote from: TboneAgain on September 25, 2017, 08:23:06 PM
The part of the story we've been told is pretty clear. The guy did nothing wrong. He did not cross the border, and having five loose rounds in your truck is NOT illegal.



But more to the nut-cutting, why do you see your point of view as "siding with law enforcement?" If the facts as currently reported hold true, the one headed for the pokey is the guy who made the arrest, NOT the guy driving the truck. Are you siding with law enforcement, or just siding with anyone in a law enforcement uniform?

I've worked in a lot of fields in my life. There are good ones and bad ones in every field. Being an LEO is not an automatic ticket to Heaven, with your passport stamped "Angel."

I'm really getting tired of explaining myself and my position, since you really haven't been paying attention to my prior posts which spell out my stance and personal experiences where I gave you examples of similar cases and PLAUSIBLE explanations of this incident as well as the procedure surrounding asset forfeiture. You continue to side with Obamao even claiming this is some sort of racial profiling because the guy is Hispanic. Considering that most of the border Patrol are Hispanic thats sounds pretty lame.

Do I support Law Enforcement? YES, I always will, and I will ALWAYS support ASSET FORFEITURE, and the DUE PROCESS around that procedure TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW. And YES I support the actions of LEO in this case, UNLESS I HEAR EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE at the seizure hearing. THERE WAS A REASON WHY THEY TOOK THIS GUY'S TRUCK, neither of us know that reason at this point, and neither of us probably should, we have no idea what ongoing investigation may be compromised by such revelation.

Before you start arresting the whole border patrol force here understand the concept of supervision, force policy and it's relationship to THE LAW and established legal procedure. I have no evidence of any wrongdoing on the LEO part, procedurally or legally and UNTIL I DO I will support them.

The "arresting officers" didn't act on his own. He had a WRITTEN POLICY to follow in this case, a policy enforced by an immediate supervisor, a shift commander and divisional head and the head of THE BORDER PATROL, each person had a role in the decision to seize an asset from someone and each has a DUTY to ensure that the Law, the Constitution is followed and FORCE PROCEDURE that is often stricter than any existing law is followed.

Then the seizure is reviewed by the Depts LEGAL section to see if it meets the standard. THEN and Only Then after all these layers of approval does it go to the US Attorney's representative, THEY ACTUALLY FILE A CASE IN SUPPORT OF THE SEIZURE, the US ATTORNEY's OFFICE MAKES THE DETERMINATION, not the Dept. Then it goes to a judge who has final say.

Now I will grant you, two years seems an extraordinary long time for a hearing, I seem to recall some sort of time limit to which a hearing is held, which makes me SURMISE that there is some sort of ongoing investigation connected with this, which may be the delay for the determination.

Now that's my last answer. Continue to back the wrong horse at your own peril.

Sorry folk but civil forfeiture is BS. Has a friend and his wife in upstate NY who used to travel in a camper 4-5 months a yr and had $3500.00 confiscated by the law. No hearing, no court, nothing. It was in readers digest as well as one of the Sunday night news shows yrs ago.
These people were in their 60's and as American as Apple Pie. A little research will find this happens all the time all over the country.

Quote from: Josey on September 27, 2017, 03:04:37 PM
Sorry folk but civil forfeiture is BS. Has a friend and his wife in upstate NY who used to travel in a camper 4-5 months a yr and had $3500.00 confiscated by the law. No hearing, no court, nothing. It was in readers digest as well as one of the Sunday night news shows yrs ago.
These people were in their 60's and as American as Apple Pie. A little research will find this happens all the time all over the country.

Civil asset forfeiture is an obvious -- and embarrassing -- breach in the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Yes, "breach in," not "breach of," because it's like a gigantic hole in a dam. Holes in dams make dams useless. Sooner or later a civil asset forfeiture case will make it to the Supreme Court, and that will be the end of that. But until then, we enjoy the spectacle of law enforcement agencies at every level simply stealing property and money from citizens who are rarely, if ever, guilty of a crime, or even charged with one.

It is very unusual when an issue of this type unites progressives and conservatives on one side or the other, but that has happened with civil asset forfeiture. It has been condemned by the ACLU, as you might expect, but it has also been condemned by Charles Koch, who has actively campaigned for reforms designed to curb or eliminate the practice. Others who have voiced opposition to the practice include the Heritage Foundation and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Kevin D. Williamson, writing at National Review Online, recently had this to say on the subject...

QuoteThe issue, Justice Thomas wrote, is "whether modern civil-forfeiture statutes can be squared with the Due Process Clause and our Nation's history." Because these asset-forfeiture proceedings are civil rather than criminal actions, their targets do not enjoy the ordinary procedural protections that they would if they were charged with crimes, the most important of those being jury trials and the heightened standard of evidence demanded in criminal proceedings. Forfeiture cases in effect allow police to punish people for committing crimes without having to go to the trouble of proving that they have committed those crimes. And the fact that the police get to keep the money does not exactly discourage them.

Consider this. A recent case, in fact the one Justice Thomas commented on, is titled United States v. Seventeen Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars in United States Currency. Yeah, that's right. The government is suing the money to deprive it of the right to belong to somebody else.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448942/asset-forfeiture-police-abuse-it-all-time

Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 26, 2017, 10:46:51 AM
Do I support Law Enforcement? YES, I always will, and I will ALWAYS support ASSET FORFEITURE, and the DUE PROCESS around that procedure TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW. And YES I support the actions of LEO in this case, UNLESS I HEAR EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE at the seizure hearing.

That's a description of a police state. Guilty until proven innocent? What happened to the Constitution?  If the damage to the individual is done without a presumption of innocence (as with the case of the dude whose truck was taken, and many hundreds of other cases), doesn't that make the LEO judge, jury, and executioner?

If you'd care to brush up on constitutional law, you might find that "due process" has nothing to do with a cop filling out forms or a prosecutor filing papers or a judge holding a hearing. The Constitution doesn't promise due process to police departments or district attorneys or other agencies of government. It promises due process to individual citizens, and to NO ONE ELSE. It says that the government SHALL consider individuals innocent until proven guilty, and it SHALL tailor its actions in subservience to the rights of the people, and of each individual.

Civil asset forfeiture laws are screamingly unconstitutional, and a general embarrassment to the United States. These laws are being used every single day by cops across the country to just plain steal people's stuff, exactly as the Border Patrol stole that guy's truck. No major case has yet been heard by the Supreme Court, but civil asset forfeiture will not survive the very first hearing.

Re: My post to Ford.

I anticipated anger and vindictiveness in the retorts to my post, confirming my opinion.
Yet none surfaced, surprising me, as they were muted in tone and mild in temperament.
Apparently my characterizations were unfair and apparently are incorrect.
As such, I need to reflect for a while......................

Quote from: Walter Josh on October 02, 2017, 01:16:19 PM
Re: My post to Ford.

I anticipated anger and vindictiveness in the retorts to my post, confirming my opinion.
Yet none surfaced, surprising me, as they were muted in tone and mild in temperament.
Apparently my characterizations were unfair and apparently are incorrect.
As such, I need to reflect for a while......................

Yeah, Ford was not only a three strikes troll here, he was also reported by other members that frequent other forums where he was promptly booted for nonparticipation, starting threads and refusing to reply to others posts, as he did here.
He had the same MO, where he would post a new topic then promptly respond with quotes from famous people, and never accrediting their work, passing it off as his own.