Civil Asset Forfiture

13567

Replies

  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,659 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Maybe the other guy in the sex episode had dope.:nono: Dogs only alert on SCENT. If the scent wasn't there or was new, no alert. They're not trained to alert on drugs that are planted a few minutes before, just not their training...new planted dope 4 ft high doesn't always provide scent. And it's not practical, as the officer can see it without a dog. You must understand that dogs find dope that's not evident from visual inspection. Humans are the best for making charges and finding dope, dogs are secondary to making charges. Dogs aren't robots and they're not infallible. And dogs can't testify.

    Dogs are good, but far from infallible. They are a useful tool, but like all tools they can be abused by those who wield them. I know in a world in which we are fighting "wars" on drugs and terror, it's easy for many to forgive some intrusion, but some of us still care about civil liberties and the 4th amendment still exists and is important.
    Traffic stop data reported by the Springfield Police Department shows the police found contraband in 25 percent of searches prompted by a drug dog’s alert.

    http://illinoistimes.com/article-13352-drug-dogs-fail-the-sniff-test.html

    I'm sorry these statistics are not good. However, the ones I'd really like to see and have yet to see is the number of times a dog is brought out to search a car that leads to an alert and a search. That's the real number that will tell you if the dogs and handlers are really trying to do their job and only initiating a search when there really is an honest alert by the k9, or if they're just being used as an excuse to justify a search based on officer suspicion that couldn't be justified otherwise. The stats I've seen so far at least lend credence to the idea that in more cases than we'd like to admit that it's the latter that's taking place. The real problem there beyond the civil liberties implications, is that it also diminishes the credibility of the working dogs which can be a valuable tool when used correctly and honestly.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,990 Senior Member
    I think neither side should be given Carte Blanche , a pass to wrong doers or LEOs on this. Seems some checks and balances are needed. I mean we don't need drug dealers laughing in the face of the law because of a loophole and we don't need abuses by the law on the other side.

    Obviously if Farmer John came down off Sand Mountain to buy a new tractor and had large amounts of cash rolled up inside his overalls like many still do, it shouldn't take LEOs over a few minutes to know he is legit and release him with an apology. OTOH if they pull over someone known to be a dealer/long rap sheet and in the possession of large amounts of cash/drugs why then they should detain him and charge him. I guess the sticky point is how and why they searched in the first place.

    I too have seen many abuses in the news where perfectly legit citizens were robbed of their cash on highways and in airports just because they can be by LEOs who want nothing more than cash for their agencies. That is a big incentive.

    What if they didn't get to keep the money/property (or portions of it) seized and it went into a general fund for their states or the feds or even the fight against breast cancer, to the Red Cross or build new highways and bridges would they still keep doing it in the name of Law and Order?
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,137 Senior Member
    Alpha, the original officer usually has a suspicion before the dogs go around the vehicle. And as I've stated before, the dog alerts on scent, which may be there if the drugs are gone. These are not "false alerts," the dog is only looking for scent. If it's there, he'll alert, but if no drugs are found, no charges can be made.

    Chief, you're right.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,659 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    I think neither side should be given Carte Blanche , a pass to wrong doers or LEOs on this. Seems some checks and balances are needed.

    This. Sure take the money, but make it much easier and less expensive for the innocent to get their cash back, and more expensive for the agency to take it if they don't have good cause. Use the dogs, but keep good stats, make them public, and remove certifications for teams with low performance ratings, not just during testing, but in the field. 75% false positives is far too high. Most well trained dogs are capable of much better.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,137 Senior Member
    Dogs are trained to not give a false alert. If the scent is there, OR HAS BEEN THERE,nthey'll hit it. Agree that a 75% false alert is unacceptable, never heard of such a thing, I would question of the alert is "false" or just if the drug had been there but no longer is.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,957 Senior Member
    I don't give either side a pass, cops or crooks. But I have a HUGE problem with stopping people and taking their money for the simple reason they had too much, in the officer's opinion.

    Case in point. Gene, have you ever been to a big car auction? Lots of car dealers go to those auctions to buy used cars to resell. And LOTS of those dealers have HUGE amounts of cash on them for buying the vehicles; makes it a lot simpler for them than bank drafts or certified checks as the auction place want their money NOW, not tomorrow. I've been to more than one of those auctions and seen more than one briefcase full of money. And it wouldn't be unusual for one of those auto dealers to get pulled over for speeding. And then get robbed at gunpoint by 'officers of the law' for carrying too much cash.

    Innocent until proven guilty means something. The Fourth Amendment has been raped by every federal and state agency to make it easier to take what is not theirs and turn innocent until proven guilty on its head. I fail to see how anyone with any respect for the Constitution and rule of law can support civil forfeiture as it is now practiced.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,338 Senior Member
    The solution is simple- - - - -prevent the agency doing the confiscation from keeping ANY of the money they discover. Put it in some sort of escrow fund until the "due process" our resident JBT's are so fond of citing is complete, with mandatory hard jail time meted out to officers who abuse the process. Armed robbery is the same crime, no matter who does it.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • alphasigmookiealphasigmookie Senior Member Posts: 8,659 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Dogs are trained to not give a false alert. If the scent is there, OR HAS BEEN THERE,nthey'll hit it. Agree that a 75% false alert is unacceptable, never heard of such a thing, I would question of the alert is "false" or just if the drug had been there but no longer is.

    As I said before I've worked with the bomb teams and helped set out training/testing courses. They are good, far better than any electronic detector, but they're a long way from perfect, even in these highly controlled test situations.
    "Finding out that you have run out of toilet paper is a good example of lack of preparation, buying 10 years worth is silly"
    -DoctorWho
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,137 Senior Member
    Money is held until the case is heard, but not in escrow. Can't do that. The physical money is held as evidence of the seizure. For officers who abuse the process for personal monetary gain, hard jail time is indeed called for.

    Got that case cite yet, Teach?
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,338 Senior Member
    :deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse::deadhorse:
    :roll:
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,137 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    Nobody is defending drug dealers or terrorists. You need to get a grip. What is being defended is the right to travel with cash (most of which is tainted with cocaine and MJ residue) without being robbed at gunpoint by jack booted thugs with a dog trained to alert from subtle directions of the handler.

    I missed the reference in your lenghty post that said the dogs were trained to alert from subtle directions of the handler. Can you reference this, or did I miss it? Or is this entirely in your imagination?

    Maybe you should get acquainted with court rulings. Since you've already said you don't care about the law and court rulings, and only the enforcement of GA laws, this might come as a surprise to you.

    http://nation.time.com/2013/03/28/supreme-court-says-a-dogs-sniff-can-be-a-fourth-amendment-intrusion/

    If you’ve ever worried about whether the U.S. Constitution protects you from a dog’s nose, there’s no need to fret: even a canine cop needs a warrant to sniff your front porch.

    The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision on Tuesday that a police drug-sniffing dog picking up a scent outside of your home still constitutes a search for which law enforcement would have to obtain a warrant. The ruling may limit how police use animals‘ sensitive noses to detect illicit substances on private property.

    Of course a jack-booted cop needs a warrant to search a house since there are no exigent circumstances. You speak of Search and Seizure but know nothing of it, apparently. This is different from a car, which has mobility and which gives an exigent circumstance.

    (MORE: To Sniff or Not to Sniff? Supreme Court to Decide if Drug Dog’s Nose Went Too Far)

    The justices made their decision after hearing arguments in Florida v. Jardines, in which Franky, a Miami-Dade police dog, searched for marijuana in the home of Joelis Jardines. Jardines’ front door was closed and no search warrant had been issued. But when the chocolate labrador got a good enough whiff, he sat down at the front door, indicating that he smelled pot. Police felt that was good enough to obtain a warrant, and they arrested Jardines with more than $700,000 worth of marijuana.

    In his trial, Jardines’s attorney argued that Franky’s sniff was an unreasonable search without probable cause under the Fourth Amendment, which made the search warrant invalid. Jardines’ motion was successful, but a Florida appellate court disagreed, saying that the sniff wasn’t an unconstitutional search.

    But Jardines lawyers would not relent, arguing that because Franky smelled the plants outside the house, it was a violation of the Fourth Amendment protection. The case bounced between courts for years before landing in Florida’s Supreme Court, which eventually took Jardine’s side and ruled that the sniff was an “unreasonable government intrusion into the sanctity of the home.”
    State attorneys last year filed to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, which handed down its ruling in a 29-page document. Justice Antonin Scalia led the majority opinion, which stated that a search did indeed take place when Franky smelled the marijuana. His nose was considered to be a detection device (citing Kyllo v. United States), which cannot be used by police to peer into the homes of private citizens without a warrant.

    Again, no exigent circumstance. However, the jack-booted (doesn't say they wore jack boots, but let's assume they did) did not have to return the marijuana.


    And yet another study confirming the unreliability of dogs. Below is small part of article at site:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3078300/

    Our aim was to evaluate how human beliefs affect working dog outcomes in an applied environment. We asked whether beliefs of scent detection dog handlers affect team performance and evaluated relative importance of human versus dog influences on handlers’ beliefs. Eighteen drug and/or explosive detection dog/handler teams each completed two sets of four brief search scenarios (conditions). Handlers were falsely told that two conditions contained a paper marking scent location (human influence). Two conditions contained decoy scents (food/toy) to encourage dog interest in a false location (dog influence). Conditions were (1) control; (2) paper marker; (3) decoy scent; and (4) paper marker at decoy scent. No conditions contained drug or explosive scent; any alerting response was incorrect. A repeated measures analysis of variance was used with search condition as the independent variable and number of alerts as the dependent variable. Additional nonparametric tests compared human and dog influence. There were 225 incorrect responses, with no differences in mean responses across conditions. Response patterns differed by condition. There were more correct (no alert responses) searches in conditions without markers. Within marked conditions, handlers reported that dogs alerted more at marked locations than other locations. Handlers’ beliefs that scent was present potentiated handler identification of detection dog alerts. Human more than dog influences affected alert locations. This confirms that handler beliefs affect outcomes of scent detection dog deployments.


    As to why the unreliable detection abilities of the dogs has not taken out or limited their use is as obvious as the nose on your face. The state and federal lawmakers, and the police, have HUGE pecuniary interest in keeping the dogs working. And that goes for seizures of cash without any drugs being present. Why would the cops or the state governments be interested in slaughtering their cash cows and losing out on all that free money that can be taken at gunpoint with no danger to themselves? All kinds of 'reasons' can be found to justify something when lots of free cash is there for the taking. Just ask any street thug, burglar, or bank robber.

    Maybe all kinds of 'reasons' can be found to justify something when lots of free cash is there for the taking, there are at least as many reasons to justify NOT to steal cash. Laying false accusations on anyone usually reflects upon the writer...it's something HE would do, not necessarily another person would do.

    Bottom line: a house is not mobile, a car is. The PC to search either is the same, but with a car, the LEO cannot get a warrant before the car leaves, so a warrantless search is usually justified. And WELL justified if a dog hits on a car.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • Johnny rebJohnny reb Member Posts: 444 Member
    Had a friend who got liberated of his money. Was going too look at a dog for sale a walker coonhound. He had left Pennsylvania and got pulled over for speeding. For whatever reason they asked too search the vehicle which he told them too go ahead they foumd $10000 which was traveling money and money for the dog they were asking $7500 for the dog. Long story short took about 6 months too get his money back. He even had bank statements from withdrawing the money and loan statement where he had actually gotten a loan for some of the cash.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,957 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    Maybe all kinds of 'reasons' can be found to justify something when lots of free cash is there for the taking, there are at least as many reasons to justify NOT to steal cash. Laying false accusations on anyone usually reflects upon the writer...it's something HE would do, not necessarily another person would do.

    Bottom line: a house is not mobile, a car is. The PC to search either is the same, but with a car, the LEO cannot get a warrant before the car leaves, so a warrantless search is usually justified. And WELL justified if a dog hits on a car.

    Bolded text in your quote = :rotflmao: Not true in most cases. I suppose it is easier to do a warrantless search and confiscate the money that it is to get a warrant. Then the person has to spend thousands of dollars they don't have to recover their cash. It's a win-win for the state either way. They steal the cash at gunpoint, and if the person wins it back in court, the county/state still wins on court costs and attorney fees. If the person loses, the state wins twice; court costs/attorney fees/stolen cash in the LE pockets for more toys. It's all in that link I provided that you didn't read.

    False accusations; I don't think so. If the LE thinks the person has too much cash and relieves the person of it, then that meets the standard of robbery. Where is the probable cause that the person got it by illegal means? Make that all up in his head? BOLO on a bank robbery? Or just seeing an opportunity to feather the nest of the LE agency?

    Maybe a refresher on the 4th Amendment is in order. What part of that is giving you heartburn?

    Amendment IV

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


    And for what it's worth, GA has much the same language in the GA State Constitution. Just because state legislators, judges, and cops have colluded to make an end run around both the U.S. and State Constitutions does not make it right. If having $XXXX in cash over what the cop thinks is reasonable is somehow morphed into probable cause to seize it, then it would appear that the law is no longer a protector of rights, but an usurper and trampler of those rights.

    Play it any way you please, but theft is theft, and you can make nothing else of it. And any person with two brain cells to rub together can see that civil forfeiture laws set 'innocent until proven guilty' on its head, and that is antithetical to the so called 'rule of law' upon which our jurisprudence is founded.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,137 Senior Member
    A warrantless search is only justified when the officer doesn't have time to get a warrant. The facts and circumstances leading to the search must be the same and will eventually be testified to in court. If you have probably cause to search a car but the car being mobile, you don't have time to get a warrant, then it's warrantless search time.

    As for seizing money, there has to be other factors than what you seem to think, i.e. the officer's judgement.

    This is not only GA law, it's Constitutional law. If you think cops, courts, and legislators have colluded to seize money, you need to adjust your tinfoil hat to another channel.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,957 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »

    This is not only GA law, it's Constitutional law. If you think cops, courts, and legislators have colluded to seize money, you need to adjust your tinfoil hat to another channel.

    For someone that has a VAST HISTORY of not reading any provided link to information that does not swallow YOUR position hook, line, and sinker, I'd guesstimate that you're the one that needs the tin foil hat.

    Case in point; you did jumped all over the dogs sniffing around houses, but totally ignored the other part that had to do with seizing cash, and using dogs trained to 'point on command'. Why is that? Do you not read such things because they do not fit your preconceived idea of how things are?

    You are right on one thing; it's not just GA law, it's Constitutional law regarding the 4th Amendment, another bit that you refuse to say anything about. And if you'd bothered to read the documents I linked on page 1 of this thread, this one:

    http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf

    then you would know that legislators, judges, and cops have a huge pecuniary interest in keeping civil forfeiture laws in place, and strengthened, to rake in the cash. But you won't read it because your tin foil hat is screwed down too tight.
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,990 Senior Member
    Dang, I'd wear a Tin Foil hat :conehead: :conehead: :silly:, but have you seen the price of Reynolds Aluminum Foil lately? :roll2::roll2:
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • coolgunguycoolgunguy Senior Member Posts: 6,410 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Dang, I'd wear a Tin Foil hat :conehead: :conehead: :silly:, but have you seen the price of Reynolds Aluminum Foil lately? :roll2::roll2:


    Chief, NEVER use brand-name foil!! :nono: Didn't you know that getting you to pay brand-name price on foil is the BIGGEST conspiracy there is??
    "Bipartisan" usually means that a bigger than normal deception is happening.
    George Carlin
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 25,957 Senior Member
    Big Chief wrote: »
    Dang, I'd wear a Tin Foil hat :conehead: :conehead: :silly:, but have you seen the price of Reynolds Aluminum Foil lately? :roll2::roll2:

    I had to buy two rolls of the NON STICK Reynolds aluminum foil for cookin' powder coat on bullets. Holey Mother of Pearl, that non stick stuff is $$$$$$! :silly:
    Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup.


  • Big ChiefBig Chief Senior Member Posts: 32,990 Senior Member
    coolgunguy wrote: »
    Chief, NEVER use brand-name foil!! :nono: Didn't you know that getting you to pay brand-name price on foil is the BIGGEST conspiracy there is??

    Oh, I have tried house brands, some ain't as thick or good as some is. Some so bad made it tears when you spread it. Some works just as good. Just depends, but all of it is getting $$$$
    It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
    Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
    I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
  • NomadacNomadac Senior Member Posts: 890 Senior Member
    I recommend you read "Loretta Lynch’s Money Pot" WSJ article. http://online.wsj.com/articles/loretta-lynchs-money-pot-1416615114

    Prosecutors have taken a yen to civil forfeiture laws, which they’ve used to shore up state and municipal budgets with sums from confiscated private property. One happy joiner is Attorney General nominee Loretta Lynch, whose U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York has been an enthusiastic grabber of private assets.

    In addition to addressing this issue, the Senate needs to fully vet and investigate her background before confirming for AG. She sounds just like a clone of Holder and her beliefs.
    I recommend you contact your Senators when they start confirmation hearings, based on other things and actions she has taken in office.
  • horselipshorselips Senior Member Posts: 3,626 Senior Member
    Nomadac wrote: »
    In addition to addressing this issue, the Senate needs to fully vet and investigate her background before confirming for AG. She sounds just like a clone of Holder and her beliefs.
    I recommend you contact your Senators when they start confirmation hearings, based on other things and actions she has taken in office.

    You're kidding me, right? Do you seriously think the lame-duck Democratic controlled Senate gives a darn about anything except the progressive agenda? Do you really have fantasies about liberal legislators caring a whit about you? Do you actually believe she was nominated for any other reason than she is exactly like Holder? Or worse? To them, the more Lynch is like Holder, the better. Her penchant for civil forfeiture is just icing on the cake - sure to clinch her confirmation.

    How did you miss the grim reality that we are now in a post-Constitutional world? From Obamacare to Obamnesty, to Fast & Furious, to the scandals of the Stimulus Package and Green Energy, to the IRS, EPA, Choke Point, the wars on gun rights, coal and energy independence, Christianity, the 4th Amendment, and so forth, the concept of a nation of laws has been tossed into the garbage dump of history. And to make sure the judiciary and civil service is well-stocked with radical political sociopaths, Harry Reid enacted the nuclear option in the Senate. All to make sure he and his fellow maniacal Democrats would not be delayed in their schemes by GOP filibusters.

    For six years now, a slow-motion coup d'état has been steadily progressing through the government, the civil service, the military, the judiciary, the Federal Reserve, and federal-level law enforcement - all working to insure the legacy of Barack Obama and his ilk far outlasts his term of office. The national debt he has accumulated was deliberately calculated to be impossible to repay, and to hogtie every future administration
    to insure the end of American ascendancy over the world, and further the liberal goal of an equality of outcomes for all nations.

    Even if Tea Party conservatives won every election for the next 20 years, it would take at least that long to achieve the de-Stalinization of America. If Hillary Clinton or some other Democrat wins in 2016, forget about it completely - at least for your lifetime.
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    I rejoice at this move by Holder. I do cautiously await the self serving parts that are to come, but on the surface this is a victory for freedom. The saddest part about this is that it was done by one of the biggest libtards of our age. Where was the so called conservative leadership on this? Where were the Republicans calling for this unconstitutional practice to end?

    https://eatgrueldog.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/civil-forteifure-seizures-to-be-halted-without-proving-a-crime-has-occurred/
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,137 Senior Member
    I rejoice at this move by Holder. I do cautiously await the self serving parts that are to come, but on the surface this is a victory for freedom. The saddest part about this is that it was done by one of the biggest libtards of our age. Where was the so called conservative leadership on this? Where were the Republicans calling for this unconstitutional practice to end?

    https://eatgrueldog.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/civil-forteifure-seizures-to-be-halted-without-proving-a-crime-has-occurred/

    I hope you don't regret this endorsement at some point. What makes you think Holder has suddenly turned into a Constitutionalist? Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • tubabucknuttubabucknut Banned Posts: 3,520 Senior Member
    Gene L wrote: »
    I hope you don't regret this endorsement at some point. What makes you think Holder has suddenly turned into a Constitutionalist? Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.
    I rejoice at this move by Holder. I do cautiously await the self serving parts that are to come, but on the surface this is a victory for freedom. The saddest part about this is that it was done by one of the biggest libtards of our age. Where was the so called conservative leadership on this? Where were the Republicans calling for this unconstitutional practice to end?

    Just sayin.

    I know you hate this Gene. CAF is right up your alley, as you have said.
    It's because I hate Trump.
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,137 Senior Member
    This won't stop CAF, it'll just delay them until "guilty." Which means proof in court, which means that the assets will be tied up for a longer period of time until after the case has been adjudicated. Plus it doesn't apply to local seizures, just to "federal" seizures. Used to be, seizures were settled by a hearing before a judge. And not the seizure of assets, the FORFITURE of these assets according to your concept. Which illustrates why people need to read the fine print in any thing from the Obama administration.

    I think you and the source you referenced are reading into this what you want it to be, not what it actually is. You both do not know what CAF actually is, it's just a concept you don't like, not its application, of which you're blissfully ignorant. Eric Holder is not the friend of America, and I can't think of a single thing he's done as AG that I approve of. Can you? You'll soon find this out. There are ripples from a rock being thrown into a pond, and the bigger the rock, the larger the ripples. I suspect a lot of good practices will be washed away by the ripples.

    But we'll see.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,338 Senior Member
    I've seen at least three news stories recently where LEO's have been charged with murder for outrageously inappropriate shootings. Maybe there's also the possibility of armed robbery charges in the case of some of the ridiculous asset seizures. If the armed thugs with badges faced the same risks as other criminals for official misconduct, I think it would go a long way toward rebuilding the public's confidence in the people we trust to protect us. In far too many situations they just get away with it.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,137 Senior Member
    Teach, you need to check with your brother on (a) the definition of armed robbery and (b) the methods and procedures of CAF. You giving information on CAF is like me giving information on rebuilding an engine.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
  • TeachTeach Senior Member Posts: 18,338 Senior Member
    OK, I'll bite- - - -what would be an appropriate criminal charge for the guys along Interstate 10 who shake down travelers caught with a few thousand dollars in cash? It's been happening for years with virtually no repercussions.
    Jerry
    Hide and wail in terror, Eloi- - - -We Morlocks are on the hunt!
    ASK-HOLE Someone who asks for advice and always does something opposite
  • Gene LGene L Senior Member Posts: 10,137 Senior Member
    Are these examples from reality, or "a guy I know" stories? If they are, in fact, stealing money they should be charged with Theft by Taking. Maybe it's a TN thing, not in GA.

    Edited to add: I don't see how cops can get by with shaking people down in the world of everyone having a camera. Unless this is one of those Conspiracy things where the entire judicial/legal system is crooked, which I do not believe. Even in TN.

    We're all opposed to theft, by whomever does it. However, let's don't throw out a perfectly good practice of CAF because some people abuse it.
    Not too many problems you can't fix
    With a 1911 and a 30-06
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.