Sessions: Restore federal asset seizures
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/stories/sessions-restore-federal-asset-seizures,513975
Yes he did. Do you have a point/response/opinion?
Americans used to believe in freedom.
Quote from: ford on September 16, 2017, 11:15:03 AM
Americans used to believe in freedom.
This is old news, but how Sessions doing this mean Americans don't believe in freedom?
Quote from: ford on September 16, 2017, 11:15:03 AM
Americans used to believe in freedom.
...and your point is...?
This is one of my pet peeves. It amazes me that Americans of any political stripe would support Civil Asset Forfeiture.
Quote from: Wyatt5 on September 22, 2017, 12:33:15 AM
This is one of my pet peeves. It amazes me that Americans of any political stripe would support Civil Asset Forfeiture.
So Cartel drug dealers should be able to come to the USA (illegally) and amass millions by selling drugs, smuggling other illegals and committing an alphabet directory of felonies and still keep the profits (assets) from said crimes?
What kind of "American" believes in that.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 22, 2017, 06:29:03 AM
So Cartel drug dealers should be able to come to the USA (illegally) and amass millions by selling drugs, smuggling other illegals and committing an alphabet directory of felonies and still keep the profits (assets) from said crimes?
What kind of "American" believes in that.
No, of course not. But arbitrary seizure of assets in the absence of a warrant, a subpoena, a trial, an arrest, or even a criminal or civil charge or evidence of a crime is not a good thing, and it's happening all the time. Here's a recent write-up from the Washington Post on exactly this issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/13/customs-agents-seized-a-lawful-gun-owners-truck-over-five-bullets-now-hes-suing-to-get-it-back/?utm_term=.4cbadc678b80
What kind of American believes in that?
Quote from: TboneAgain on September 22, 2017, 10:21:51 AM
No, of course not. But arbitrary seizure of assets in the absence of a warrant, a subpoena, a trial, an arrest, or even a criminal or civil charge or evidence of a crime is not a good thing, and it's happening all the time. Here's a recent write-up from the Washington Post on exactly this issue: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/13/customs-agents-seized-a-lawful-gun-owners-truck-over-five-bullets-now-hes-suing-to-get-it-back/?utm_term=.4cbadc678b80
What kind of American believes in that?
What kind of American believes anything written up in the washington post?
Lot of red flags in this article, this guy going back and forth across the border to visit "relatives" yeah... :rolleyes:
I wonder what the border intel report is on him.
Having dealt with asset forfeiture I know how difficult it is to seize vehicles from drug dealers even when you have a good case.
Unless you are suggesting we throw out the baby with the bath water, asset forfieture is a powerful weapon to use against the bad guys.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 22, 2017, 12:55:03 PM
What kind of American believes anything written up in the washington post?
Lot of red flags in this article, this guy going back and forth across the border to visit "relatives" yeah... :rolleyes:
I wonder what the border intel report is on him.
Having dealt with asset forfeiture I know how difficult it is to seize vehicles from drug dealers even when you have a good case.
Unless you are suggesting we throw out the baby with the bath water, asset forfieture is a powerful weapon to use against the bad guys.
I get what you're saying. But nothing in the case I cited -- and there are thousands of other cases -- indicates that the guy whose truck was confiscated did a single thing wrong. In two years, the guy has never been charged with even jaywalking.
The WaPo may not be your source of choice, but the exact same story was reported in at least ten other journals, including Fox News here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/20/has-asset-forfeiture-gone-too-far-truck-seizure-case-sparks-outrage-call-for-change.html You can also check out Forbes here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/09/13/border-agents-seized-american-citizens-truck-never-charged-him-with-a-crime/#1bb62fa57a04
We definitely need every LEGAL tool available to combat drug crimes. The civil asset forfeiture laws were originally written to address mob crime and specifically money laundering, but they were graduated to address the drug problem. I don't have a problem when a for-sure bad guy loses his shit or his bling to the government. But I have a MAJOR problem when some schmo who did nothing but carry five live cartridges in his truck to a border checkpoint loses his $60,000 vehicle because the Border Patrol thinks he is "transporting munitions of war," for Christ's sake.
Dude has NO record. Dude was NEVER charged or even arrested. Dude has NO pending actions against him. Dude is an American citizen and a property owner. Dude is clean.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was written to prevent PRECISELY this.
I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But somebody better be able to PROVE there's a baby in there. Nobody did that in this case, and thousands of others.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 22, 2017, 06:29:03 AM
So Cartel drug dealers should be able to come to the USA (illegally) and amass millions by selling drugs, smuggling other illegals and committing an alphabet directory of felonies and still keep the profits (assets) from said crimes?
What kind of "American" believes in that.
Convict them of a crime first. Otherwise see Tbone's posts.
One other thing I neglected to mention....
It's odd to me that so many of these egregious 4th Amendment cases involve stuff that would sure be nice for the confiscating agency to have. I mean, a lot of times it's money, and money is always nice. But this time, it's a nearly-new Ford F-250 4WD pickup truck with all the bells and whistles. How sweet would that ride look with Border Patrol insignia on the sides?
Quote from: Wyatt5 on September 22, 2017, 04:13:54 PM
Convict them of a crime first. Otherwise see Tbone's posts.
What does the 4th amend say about collecting evidence of a crime..... If there is
probable cause to seize the asset it is treated the same as evidence seized for use in court. Also. there is a hearing in front of a judge who determines if the asset can be "seized" and a separate hearing to determine if the asset can be converted to Govt use.
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 22, 2017, 05:15:33 PM
What does the 4th amend say about collecting evidence of a crime..... If there is probable cause to seize the asset it is treated the same as evidence seized for use in court. Also. there is a hearing in front of a judge who determines if the asset can be "seized" and a separate hearing to determine if the asset can be converted to Govt use.
The 4th Amendment doesn't address the collection of criminal evidence. It addresses the right of an American to be free from unlawful search and seizure of his person, his home, and his property.
C'mon, Billy. Where was the "probable cause" in this case? The guy shows up at a border checkpoint and the feds roust him around and conduct an ILLEGAL search of his truck and find {gasp!!!} five pistol cartridges. No gun or anything, just five cartridges. They feed him a line of shit, tell him he's transporting "munitions of war." Guy's got no record, he's not on any watch list. He hasn't resisted arrest -- even though he wasn't "officially" arrested -- and he's clean in every way. He is released without any charge, and never appears before a judge.
Please explain to me how the federal government is entitled to take his truck.
Quote from: TboneAgain on September 22, 2017, 02:11:45 PM
Dude has NO record. Dude was NEVER charged or even arrested. Dude has NO pending actions against him. Dude is an American citizen and a property owner. Dude is clean.
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution was written to prevent PRECISELY this.
I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. But somebody better be able to PROVE there's a baby in there. Nobody did that in this case, and thousands of others.
I harken back to my Halcyon days of yore when I seized many an asset from a Drug dealers network. One of my prize confiscation's was a pair of BMW's owned by "the Mom's" who was the real driving force behind the operation of a genuine drug dealing family...heroin. Sweet ol' church going Mom who never had so much as a traffic ticket. She ordered a girlfriend of Sonny boy
killed because she had the audacity to ask her for $200 for an abortion, when refused Mom speculated she might rat to the cops soooooo.....one of the teenage sociopaths in the organization Moms affectionately called "my grand baby" beat her to death with a baseball bat and dumped her body off the Suitland parkway, Made Mom's very happy no doubt.
Now why da PO-lices pickin' on that Ol' Woman?
I can give you about a dozen or so other examples of asset forfeiture, many automobiles driven around by drug dealers who never had any sort of record,said vehicles never actually hauled the drugs, which brings the whole other issue of surrogate purchases and ownership, very common among criminals, organized crime etc etc.
Here is another kicker, many times you have to give those assets back if you cannot prove so and so owns it, thats why the surrogate purchases,(Dis my cousins car) OR if there is a big note usually the cops don't file for a Forfeiture coz the Judge won't award the asset if the BANK owns it, it goes down as a "repo".
So Dude here is "clean"...? Maybe, Maybe not. Going back and forth across the border with a $60,000 truck, Hmmmmm, not illegal but then again The case hasn't gone to court yet, when it does any intell report will outline the probable cause, then it is up to a judge. All within the confines of the 4th and due process.
Quote from: TboneAgain on September 22, 2017, 02:11:45 PM
The WaPo may not be your source of choice, but the exact same story was reported in at least ten other journals, including Fox News here: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/09/20/has-asset-forfeiture-gone-too-far-truck-seizure-case-sparks-outrage-call-for-change.html You can also check out Forbes here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/instituteforjustice/2017/09/13/border-agents-seized-american-citizens-truck-never-charged-him-with-a-crime/#1bb62fa57a04
The WAPO doesn't give a flying burrito about the 2nd amend, the Constitution or American Citizens. They are setting you up with this sob story with 2nd amend overtones. They know damn good and well that Sessions is in the process of declaring all out war on the scum from across the southern border, MS-13 and the cartels. The entire leftist cabal is on it's ear knowing that blood money and other assets from their darling illegal alien groups who GIVE THEM GENEROUS CAMPAIGN DONATIONS UNDER THE TABLE are on the line and maybe, just maybe some of these dummy shell corporations and offshore boiler rooms might take a hit and they might be exposed for what they are no more Dinero to buy votes with
Personally I'd seize every asset from every illegal alien and throw their asses out of Our Country without a penny, then militarize the border with the money and other assets seized.
One thing people are forgetting. That stupid law Congress passed without any public input in 1953, the 100 mile Constitution Free Zone.
Though really not quite free, border patrol has certain freedoms where crossing the border is concerned.
(https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/public/wysiwyg/constitutionfreezonemap.jpg?itok=umNWZ7v)
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 22, 2017, 05:58:27 PM
I harken back to my Halcyon days of yore when I seized many an asset from a Drug dealers network. One of my prize confiscation's was a pair of BMW's owned by "the Mom's" who was the real driving force behind the operation of a genuine drug dealing family...heroin. Sweet ol' church going Mom who never had so much as a traffic ticket. She ordered a girlfriend of Sonny boy killed because she had the audacity to ask her for $200 for an abortion, when refused Mom speculated she might rat to the cops soooooo.....one of the teenage sociopaths in the organization Moms affectionately called "my grand baby" beat her to death with a baseball bat and dumped her body off the Suitland parkway, Made Mom's very happy no doubt.
Now why da PO-lices pickin' on that Ol' Woman?
I can give you about a dozen or so other examples of asset forfeiture, many automobiles driven around by drug dealers who never had any sort of record,said vehicles never actually hauled the drugs, which brings the whole other issue of surrogate purchases and ownership, very common among criminals, organized crime etc etc.
Here is another kicker, many times you have to give those assets back if you cannot prove so and so owns it, thats why the surrogate purchases,(Dis my cousins car) OR if there is a big note usually the cops don't file for a Forfeiture coz the Judge won't award the asset if the BANK owns it, it goes down as a "repo".
So Dude here is "clean"...? Maybe, Maybe not. Going back and forth across the border with a $60,000 truck, Hmmmmm, not illegal but then again The case hasn't gone to court yet, when it does any intell report will outline the probable cause, then it is up to a judge. All within the confines of the 4th and due process.
There are no charges whatsoever against this man. The case hasn't gone to court yet, and it never will, because there IS NO CASE against this guy. He has been charged with NOTHING. The government has had TWO YEARS to come up with something against this guy, and it has bupkis.
Is attempting to drive across the Mexican border in a $60,000 truck now a crime? Sad to say, a fancy new F-250 actually does cost sixty grand. If YOU were the driver of a new F-250, would YOU expect to be detained, questioned, searched, bullied, deprived of your property? Would YOU think it was all OK because, you know, drugs and stuff?
You're advocating the rule of border cops, and abandoning the rule of law. You may catch more drug dealers that way, but you'll also catch people like me and you and everybody else who likes nice trucks every time.
T Bone if I had a $60,000 truck the last thing I'd do is drive it to Mexico, WOULD YOU? And if I was stupid enough to do that I'd damn sure be certain I had nothing it in like loose rounds or loose joints. Then again I'm probably not in EPIC (El Paso Information Center) which would not give any LEO cause to pull me over and subject me to such scrutiny.
Quote from: ford on September 16, 2017, 11:15:03 AM
Americans used to believe in freedom.
Ford, an observation.
Well at least you got in about 6 words before the usual hit and run.
In fairness, any 'newbie' deserves a chance to be heard.
But predictably, your introduction speaks volumes about the posse of schmucks who infest the site; whose relentless posture is intolerance.
While the site leader is an earnest, even handed, fair minded and hard working guy who posts some 100X daily, he is surrounded by a gaggle of jackasses w/the perpetual rag on, since pre-school, over anything and everything that does not conform to their biases. Consequently they are compulsively hostile, humorless and hollow.
Case in point. Some weeks ago, I labeled American Economist Fisher, a Nobel Laureate; confusing him w/Norwegian Frisch. The error was clearly mine yet the reaction was apoplectic from some self important doofus labeled boner or blather or some such. The sturm und drang prolly reached the FBI.
The point is, nothing will change so free yourself and flee since 'newbies' are perceived as dangerous to the established order and needy of close monitoring till they conform.
Like Dracula's Igor; "It's what they do."
Quote from: Billy's bayonet on September 23, 2017, 06:24:54 AM
T Bone if I had a $60,000 truck the last thing I'd do is drive it to Mexico, WOULD YOU? And if I was stupid enough to do that I'd damn sure be certain I had nothing it in like loose rounds or loose joints. Then again I'm probably not in EPIC (El Paso Information Center) which would not give any LEO cause to pull me over and subject me to such scrutiny.
I'm not saying that driving his new truck to the border was the smartest thing the guy ever did, given the circumstances on the ground. But having a few loose rounds in the truck is NOT a crime on either side of the border, as long as there is no corresponding firearm present. This is precisely why the guy has never been charged with a crime -- he didn't commit one.
What is this "EPIC" of which you speak? Is that some sort of database? Do you know with certainty this guy was listed on this database? If so, do you know why? If you have some sort of inside info, it'd be nice if you'd share it with the rest of us.
Based on everything I've read about this case, the guy was arrested for driving a nice truck while being Hispanic. And that, my friend, is bullshit. Arrests for driving a nice truck while being Caucasian are the very next step. Are you willing to take that step?
The taxpayers are eventually going to take it up the ass -- again -- for the actions of one Border Patrol agent who should still be in his momma's basement. The civil suit will be in the millions, and the guy (and his gut-sucking lawyers) will win it hands down. It's a Fourth Amendment gimme.
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 23, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Ford, an observation.
Well at least you got in about 6 words before the usual hit and run.
In fairness, any 'newbie' deserves a chance to be heard.
But predictably, your introduction speaks volumes about the posse of schmucks who infest the site; whose relentless posture is intolerance.
While the site leader is an earnest, even handed, fair minded and hard working guy who posts some 100X daily, he is surrounded by a gaggle of jackasses w/the perpetual rag on, since pre-school, over anything and everything that does not conform to their biases. Consequently they are compulsively hostile, humorless and hollow.
Case in point. Some weeks ago, I labeled American Economist Fisher, a Nobel Laureate; confusing him w/Norwegian Frisch. The error was clearly mine yet the reaction was apoplectic from some self important doofus labeled boner or blather or some such. The sturm und drang prolly reached the FBI.
The point is, nothing will change so free yourself and flee since 'newbies' are perceived as dangerous to the established order and needy of close monitoring till they conform.
Like Dracula's Igor; "It's what they do."
Ford, a welcome and an invitation.
Free and open thought, good ideas, clear thinking, conservative principles, accurate accountings of history, open-mindedness, wholesome values, positive attitudes are all welcome and encouraged here. You are too new for most of us to form an opinion about you. (Forget the Leftist bullshit about being "non-judgmental." Everybody judges everybody else every single day. I have been judged here by my peers for many years now, and you will be too, as long as you stay. As Igor said, "It's what they do.")
We thrive on positive thinking. We look for solutions, instead of dwelling on problems. We are of the school that values teaching the man to fish instead of giving him a fish.
But be warned! We hold you to your words. We demand that you back up what you say. We expect that you have your own opinions, but we insist that you back them up with something approaching logic. If you present a stand that you believe is fact, we will want to see your evidence. If you have none, we will crucify you, as some folks have discovered to their intense displeasure.
You have discovered a Good Place To Be on the internet. Treasure it. Respect it. Most of all, enjoy it.
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 23, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Ford, an observation.
Well at least you got in about 6 words before the usual hit and run.
In fairness, any 'newbie' deserves a chance to be heard.
But predictably, your introduction speaks volumes about the posse of schmucks who infest the site; whose relentless posture is intolerance.
While the site leader is an earnest, even handed, fair minded and hard working guy who posts some 100X daily, he is surrounded by a gaggle of jackasses w/the perpetual rag on, since pre-school, over anything and everything that does not conform to their biases. Consequently they are compulsively hostile, humorless and hollow.
Case in point. Some weeks ago, I labeled American Economist Fisher, a Nobel Laureate; confusing him w/Norwegian Frisch. The error was clearly mine yet the reaction was apoplectic from some self important doofus labeled boner or blather or some such. The sturm und drang prolly reached the FBI.
The point is, nothing will change so free yourself and flee since 'newbies' are perceived as dangerous to the established order and needy of close monitoring till they conform.
Like Dracula's Igor; "It's what they do."
Walter Josh
IF you can not handle feedback then don't let the door hit you in the ass. This is from just one of the "gaggle of jackasses" that let you post on this adult board. Now be a "man" and take the feedback like a "man."
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 23, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Ford, an observation.
Well at least you got in about 6 words before the usual hit and run.
In fairness, any 'newbie' deserves a chance to be heard.
But predictably, your introduction speaks volumes about the posse of schmucks who infest the site; whose relentless posture is intolerance.
While the site leader is an earnest, even handed, fair minded and hard working guy who posts some 100X daily, he is surrounded by a gaggle of jackasses w/the perpetual rag on, since pre-school, over anything and everything that does not conform to their biases. Consequently they are compulsively hostile, humorless and hollow.
Case in point. Some weeks ago, I labeled American Economist Fisher, a Nobel Laureate; confusing him w/Norwegian Frisch. The error was clearly mine yet the reaction was apoplectic from some self important doofus labeled boner or blather or some such. The sturm und drang prolly reached the FBI.
The point is, nothing will change so free yourself and flee since 'newbies' are perceived as dangerous to the established order and needy of close monitoring till they conform.
Like Dracula's Igor; "It's what they do."
Hey Walt, just so you know, not one of his post were his own, he merely copy the words of others without accreditation and was warned several times again since the last time he was booted, to not do it again.
He did and was banished from the forum for copyright violations.
Had he simply credited the original author, this would not have been an issue. That, and the fact he'd start threads and never once respond to posts, and if he did, it was done with a stolen quote, unaccredited.
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 23, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Ford, an observation.
Well at least you got in about 6 words before the usual hit and run.
In fairness, any 'newbie' deserves a chance to be heard.
But predictably, your introduction speaks volumes about the posse of schmucks who infest the site; whose relentless posture is intolerance.
While the site leader is an earnest, even handed, fair minded and hard working guy who posts some 100X daily, he is surrounded by a gaggle of jackasses w/the perpetual rag on, since pre-school, over anything and everything that does not conform to their biases. Consequently they are compulsively hostile, humorless and hollow.
Case in point. Some weeks ago, I labeled American Economist Fisher, a Nobel Laureate; confusing him w/Norwegian Frisch. The error was clearly mine yet the reaction was apoplectic from some self important doofus labeled boner or blather or some such. The sturm und drang prolly reached the FBI.
The point is, nothing will change so free yourself and flee since 'newbies' are perceived as dangerous to the established order and needy of close monitoring till they conform.
Like Dracula's Igor; "It's what they do."
Gee Walter ... it seems by your commentary that you don't like this forum, nor the people in it ... so...why oh why, do you then continue to post here? Interesting that you decided to insinuate what I think of 'newbies'. I welcome them, but those that post in here just to stir the pot with nothing more than a bunch of talking points that they think is going to upset the apple cart don't contribute squat to the forum; though initially I find them quite entertaining and at times humorous, after awhile become nothing more than an annoyance.
Quote from: Walter Josh on September 23, 2017, 11:12:12 AM
Case in point. Some weeks ago, I labeled American Economist Fisher, a Nobel Laureate; confusing him w/Norwegian Frisch. The error was clearly mine yet the reaction was apoplectic from some self important doofus labeled boner or blather or some such. The sturm und drang prolly reached the FBI.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I'm the "doofus," y'all. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
This bonehead "confused" an American economist named Irving Fisher with a Norwegian economist named Ragnar Anton Kittil Frisch. Really. We're supposed to believe this.
Being a doofus, of course, I make mistakes like that all the time. Just the other day, I got ol' Josef Stalin mixed up with Sir Henry M. Stanley, the Scottish bloke who chased around Africa looking for Dr. Livingstone (I presume). Then there was the time I got Enrico Fermi mixed up with Geraldine Ferraro.... But I don't want to go there.
Quote from: TboneAgain on September 23, 2017, 12:27:39 PM
I'm not saying that driving his new truck to the border was the smartest thing the guy ever did, given the circumstances on the ground. But having a few loose rounds in the truck is NOT a crime on either side of the border, as long as there is no corresponding firearm present.
Based on everything I've read about this case, the guy was arrested for driving a nice truck while being Hispanic. And that, my friend, is bullshit. Arrests for driving a nice truck while being Caucasian are the very next step. Are you willing to take that step?
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 U.S. Constitution may be flawed, but it's a whole lot better than what we have now.
Quote from: colt4 on September 25, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
The U.S. Constitution may be flawed, but it's a whole lot better than what we have now.
Where, specifically?
Quote from: colt4 on September 25, 2017, 08:12:02 PM
The U.S. Constitution may be flawed, but it's a whole lot better than what we have now.
:biggrin: :huh:
It's currently flawed? Yet it's better than what we have now?
I don't follow.
-- 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.