Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

When cops become some of the biggest thieves

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    According to the law as cited, suspicion has to come before an interrogation of a suspect, not as the result of an interrogation.
    I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to, but it sounds like you may have your facts twisted. Maybe this will help.

    Reasonable suspicion is required to conduct an investigative detention, though no justification is needed to begin a voluntary encounter. In that sense, suspicion does need to be developed prior to making the stop. But information learned during the stop can and frequently does contribute to probable cause for arrest. Also, if he wasn't arrested then legally speaking, no 'interrogation' took place. An interview is a conversation that occurs with a person who is not under arrest. An 'interrogation' is a conversation with someone who is under arrest.
    "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by JimL View Post
      I'm very suspiscious about the truth of this story, something seems to be missing. What was the original suspiscion that gave the agent the right to interrogate the passengers on the train or to ask to search their belongings? There is nothing suspiscious about traveling to LA on a train in and of itself.
      What ever the provenance of the story, this is still a very bad law.
      Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        How can I possibly refute such a carefully thought out rebuttal. One in which you so expertly marshalled the evidence and presented it in such an organized manner so as to be irrefutable. Indeed, I am undone.
        Hey, it is firstfloor, after all.
        Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by seanD View Post
          Your skepticism is only natural being how outrageous it is. But it's apparently happening everywhere: Texas, LA, Michigan...
          Indeed, this practice is very widespread. It's been happening on the state level as well. I read an extensive article about this in the New Yorker a year or so ago, and I have to admit...I was flabbergasted. My state does not permit property dispositions to be determined prior to a conviction, so I haven't had any experience dealing with it. It blew my mind how extensive the abuse these programs was in places like Detroit, Louisiana, and Texas.
          "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Sea of red View Post
            I hate it when I hear people say "police don't make the laws, they just enforce them!" as a way to excuse their participation in enforcing an unjust use of force against citizens.

            If somebody beat you, tied you up, and stole your stuff would you feel less anger if they said "I don't actually want your stuff, I just work for a gang and they pay me to steal from you, so this is nothing personal blame them."? I doubt it.

            And yes, I know not all cops are bad.
            Was there a use of force?
            "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by myth View Post
              Indeed, this practice is very widespread. It's been happening on the state level as well. I read an extensive article about this in the New Yorker a year or so ago, and I have to admit...I was flabbergasted. My state does not permit property dispositions to be determined prior to a conviction, so I haven't had any experience dealing with it. It blew my mind how extensive the abuse these programs was in places like Detroit, Louisiana, and Texas.
              Humans are fallen, and power tends to corrupt. Hence it is only natural for many cops to be corrupt to varying degrees, just as many of them have been across times and cultures. It should not be surprising at all - unless you allow your herd instincts to override your rational capacities.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by myth View Post
                Was there a use of force?
                Has there been a complete lack of coercion in all the abuse cases that left you 'flabbergasted'?

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                  Humans are fallen, and power tends to corrupt. Hence it is only natural for many cops to be corrupt to varying degrees, just as many of them have been across times and cultures. It should not be surprising at all - unless you allow your herd instincts to override your rational capacities.
                  Especially in an environment of economic collapse. Resources and finances are spread thin, thus the rise of the criminal economy just to sustain itself.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Humans are fallen, and power tends to corrupt. Hence it is only natural for many cops to be corrupt to varying degrees, just as many of them have been across times and cultures. It should not be surprising at all - unless you allow your herd instincts to override your rational capacities.
                    I was surprised at two particular aspects: (1) the extent to which the actions were authorized by command staff and (2) the cooperation of prosecutors and other similar parties. Corruption in and of itself is not surprising, the fact that it was wide-spread, legalized, and encouraged is.

                    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                    Has there been a complete lack of coercion in all the abuse cases that left you 'flabbergasted'?
                    Coercion and a show of authority are not the same as a use of force. In the law enforcement and legal realm, a 'use of force' means using physical force to gain compliance and control (though, more rarely, something like pointing a gun at someone may count as a use of force...it varies). On the off-chance that there were facts I wasn't aware of, I thought I'd ask for clarification.

                    If you're going to be a smarty-pants, maybe you shouldn't make fun of someone who actually knows what they're talking about.
                    "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by myth View Post
                      I'm not sure specifically what you're referring to, but it sounds like you may have your facts twisted. Maybe this will help.

                      Reasonable suspicion is required to conduct an investigative detention, though no justification is needed to begin a voluntary encounter. In that sense, suspicion does need to be developed prior to making the stop. But information learned during the stop can and frequently does contribute to probable cause for arrest. Also, if he wasn't arrested then legally speaking, no 'interrogation' took place. An interview is a conversation that occurs with a person who is not under arrest. An 'interrogation' is a conversation with someone who is under arrest.
                      The O.P. refered to a man travelling on a train doing nothing illegal. You can not just hop on a train and start interrogating people and asking to inspect their belongings without reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. In the case of a traffic stop, there must first be a violation of some sort in order to stop them, and the conversation at that point should have nothing to do with anything other than the violation at hand unless something else during that conversation is observed that creates suspicion of illegal activity. The police can't just pull people over for one thing and then just arbitrarily start interrogating and or searching their vehicle without reasonable suspicion, or cause. At least not legally. They are skirting the law and robbing citizens in order to fill the county coffers, or more likely their own pockets.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by JimL View Post
                        The O.P. refered to a man travelling on a train doing nothing illegal. You can not just hop on a train and start interrogating people and asking to inspect their belongings without reasonable suspicion of wrong doing. In the case of a traffic stop, there must first be a violation of some sort in order to stop them, and the conversation at that point should have nothing to do with anything other than the violation at hand unless something else during that conversation is observed that creates suspicion of illegal activity. The police can't just pull people over for one thing and then just arbitrarily start interrogating and or searching their vehicle without reasonable suspicion, or cause. At least not legally. They are skirting the law and robbing citizens in order to fill the county coffers, or more likely their own pockets.
                        I'm fairly familiar with the relevant law. I was trying to explain some of it to you, since your previous post seemed a little off.

                        And while I have my doubts that the man in the OP is telling the whole truth, I am game to criticize the whole asset forfeiture debacle in general. Quite frankly, rehashing the legality of stops and defining reasonable suspicion versus probable cause is something I find mostly boring, and I'm not looking to debate those topics here. But thanks for ignoring the definitions I provided of some of the legal terminology you're using. It's nice to know was wasting my time.
                        "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by myth View Post
                          Indeed, this practice is very widespread. It's been happening on the state level as well. I read an extensive article about this in the New Yorker a year or so ago, and I have to admit...I was flabbergasted. My state does not permit property dispositions to be determined prior to a conviction, so I haven't had any experience dealing with it. It blew my mind how extensive the abuse these programs was in places like Detroit, Louisiana, and Texas.
                          It seems to me that the laws (including federal) that permit civil asset forfeiture are unjust. In which case it would not be a matter of abuse of the law, nor a matter of corruption (except maybe in the sense that only a corrupt cop would enforce or make use of an unjust law at all). Or do you think there is a just use of civil asset forfeiture?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Joel View Post
                            It seems to me that the laws (including federal) that permit civil asset forfeiture are unjust. In which case it would not be a matter of abuse of the law, nor a matter of corruption (except maybe in the sense that only a corrupt cop would enforce or make use of an unjust law at all). Or do you think there is a just use of civil asset forfeiture?
                            Civil forfeiture can be a great thing. It provides governmental agencies with needed resources while functioning as an effective deterrent to criminals. For hardened drug dealers, many of them honestly aren't all that upset at serving time. They view that as the cost of doing business. But take their ill-gotten money (or nice toys) away, and they get EXTREMELY upset.

                            The problem is that so many governments have failed to institute appropriate safeguards. I read about places were the money from forfeitures went into an account that provided (among other things) performance bonuses to the law enforcement agency and the prosecutor's office. This is a direct financial incentive for government employees to take people's stuff, and it shouldn't be legal.

                            Furthermore, it should be illegal for the government to decide on a disposition of seized property prior to conviction. I understand the need to seize the property and hold it until the trial, but if you can't convict them of the crime the property is tied to, then you shouldn't be able to keep their stuff. I read about where in one case the county DA had a waiver form drawn up, which was almost like a plea deal. They'd threaten some crazy serious charges and then slide the form over to the defendant and tell them, "But if you'd like to sign your property over to us, we'll agree not to prosecute you for this crime". The government there was straight-up hustling.
                            "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by myth View Post
                              Civil forfeiture can be a great thing. It provides governmental agencies with needed resources while functioning as an effective deterrent to criminals. For hardened drug dealers, many of them honestly aren't all that upset at serving time. They view that as the cost of doing business. But take their ill-gotten money (or nice toys) away, and they get EXTREMELY upset.

                              The problem is that so many governments have failed to institute appropriate safeguards.

                              ....Furthermore, it should be illegal for the government to decide on a disposition of seized property prior to conviction.
                              Taking ill-gotten money from a convicted criminal would be a criminal penalty, not a civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is about taking from (presumed) innocents (with no requirement of conviction or even criminal charges). What's more, the owner of the asset isn't even a party to the civil case, and often cannot get standing to challenge the forfeiture in court.

                              It seems that a necessary "safeguard" would be to require normal due process: presumption of innocence and the government's burden to prove of the crime. But then there would no longer be civil forfeiture.

                              Thus I say that civil forfeiture should be abolished, not reformed. Which seems consistent with your actual position.

                              Whether it is proper to hold suspected assets during a trial is a different matter from civil forfeiture.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Joel View Post
                                Taking ill-gotten money from a convicted criminal would be a criminal penalty, not a civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is about taking from (presumed) innocents (with no requirement of conviction or even criminal charges). What's more, the owner of the asset isn't even a party to the civil case, and often cannot get standing to challenge the forfeiture in court.

                                It seems that a necessary "safeguard" would be to require normal due process: presumption of innocence and the government's burden to prove of the crime. But then there would no longer be civil forfeiture.

                                Thus I say that civil forfeiture should be abolished, not reformed. Which seems consistent with your actual position.

                                Whether it is proper to hold suspected assets during a trial is a different matter from civil forfeiture.
                                Actually, it's not what I would consider criminal penalty (hence the 'civil'). It is a penalty for a criminal offense, yes, but it's civil in nature. For instance, we have two different ways to handle nuisance violations where I work. Nuisance violations are themselves criminal, but I can write a criminal citation or a civil citation. The civil citation is a monetary penalty for a criminal offense, without a criminal charge.

                                And not all of civil forfeiture is not about taking property from people without a trial (though this is frequently the case, and the cause of most of the controversy). I thought I mentioned it earlier, but in my state we can't dispose of property seized as a result of a criminal charge (like the vehicle for Driving While Impaired while also License Revoked for a DWI, or the vehicle in a Maintaining a Vehicle for Controlled Substance case, or money seized in connection with drugs, etc. -- Those are all a civil forfeiture as a result of criminal activity.) without the person first being convicted of the charge. The Feds can, and many states allow it as well, but my state does not.

                                I believe the 'civil' terminology arises because the law views the property aspect of it as a case of a dispute between law enforcement and the item of property, while the criminal punishment is (usually) settled differently. The terminology is a bit awkward.
                                "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                163 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                400 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                380 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X