Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him • Hacker News Board

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#171

Post by douche » Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 7:43 AM UTC

scintill76 wrote: post #164

Riseed wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I pay rent every month with a check, and this still seems common. Only one of my previous four landlords has accepted another form of payment (a large rental company who accepted credit/debit cards).

And in my experience, landlords charge extra fees for credit/debit. A cheque is usually the most universal and cheap way to pay in the US.

Although it is weird. Many bigger businesses won't take personal checks, while smaller businesses often are not setup to process cards and will only take checks.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#172

Post by rebootthesystem » Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 7:46 AM UTC

Falkon1313 wrote: post #169

rebootthesystem wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Before taking that opinion it might be useful for you to go through the exercise of engineering solutions for the various problems that lead to some of the things you point out. It sounds like you are in Norway, it might just be impossible for you to think of these solutions because of the lack of context. Not putting you down, it would be just as impossible for me to have a valid opinion about anything going on in N…

>a situation where segments of the population are advocating killing cops. And, in fact, cops have been killed just sitting in their cars doing absolutely nothing more than existing. [...] >They are very concerned that every time they put on their uniform they become targets for maniacs. They'd love to be able to walk around without their guns when in uniform but, today, in the USA, that would be suicidal. And today,…

I am not going to dispute your points. I'll just say that painting all cops with the same brush is as fair as painting all Muslims as terrorists. Which is to say it isn't fair at all.

Their jobs are unimaginable to most of us, particularly when they work difficult areas. One of the cops from my Aikido dojo is in a gang task force. One day he entered this room (I can't give too much detail) and had a full clip emptied in his direction just as he closed the door. To this day he has no clue why not one bullet hit him.

Not one of us outside law enforcement or military service is equipped to understand what it would mean to wake up every day and go to work doing THAT job. It's far too easy to be angry at videos on youtube from behind a keyboard.

Again, I am not pushing back on anything you said. Your opinion could be exactly on point. I don't know and I won't take sides other than to say, perhaps take the time to go talk to a cop or two human-to-human in order to understand their plight. Buy them a cup of coffee and tell them there are a few things you'd like to understand. You know, they are sons, daughters, fathers and mothers, they are people, just like you and I. And yes, there are assholes in there just like in any other population.

I am not defending the assholes, but, yes, the vast majority of good cops out there deserve our thanks and respect for doing a job most of us might not want to do. Let's walk in their shoes a bit and avoid lumping them in with the assholes you see on youtube.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#173

Post by dalke » Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 9:24 AM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #159

dalke wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Weird" is an odd word. Should we penalize the weird? Should we be encouraging more conformity? Or is it merely that only the unusual makes the news? The doctor received $15K in cash from wedding gifts. How is that weird? Is it because your baseline doesn't include people with rich relatives? The "Baltimore Woman [who] Posted a Stranger’s $15,000 Cash Bail" was because of a judge's order: > But in addition to crimina…

Would the bail really be paid on physical cash? I'd expect them to take an electronic transfer, or a cheque in the name of the bank.

You're right - I'm not sure what "cash bail" means. In New Hampshire it means:

> CASH BAIL - a person who is required to post cash bail must put up money, either cash or money order/bank check, to be released. If the funds are not posted with the court, the person may not leave and will be jailed. - http://www.courts.state.nh.us/district/criminal/

According to http://www.24jdc.us/bail-bonds/ :

> CASH BAIL: Cash for the total amount of bail in the form of cashier’s check or money order delivered to the Jefferson Parish Correctional Center. If the defendant shows up for all his scheduled court appearances, the bail is returned at the conclusion of the case. If the defendant fails to appear, the bond is forfeited to the court.

I now think it's more likely to have been cashier’s check or money order than actual physical cash.

Thanks for that out.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#174

Post by yason » Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 9:50 AM UTC

sobkas wrote: post #141

yason wrote: post #80

While the capability of the police to forfeit property is absolutely and completely unfair and, in an (supposedly) equal society, deeply questionable——as opposed to taking the property temporarily unless proven guilty——the unescapably stupid thing to do is to a) transfer money in cash and b) smoking weed while doing that. All kinds of unlucky things could happen with a) such as losing the baggage/wallet/jacket with t…

>the unescapably stupid thing to do is to a) transfer money in cash and b) smoking weed while doing that. So stupidity is now a crime? Because he wasn't charged with for a or b. >losing the baggage/wallet/jacket with the money in it or being robbed Police took his money because they believed they can get away with it(pothead like him would be to afraid to do anything about it), so just because it is legal, it doesn't…

I believe I did not say stupidity was a crime.

I suggested that it's stupid to carry large amounts of cash while smoking weed, because that can easily get you into a bigger trouble combined than merely carrying lots of cash or only smoking weed.

Factor in the unfair and unpredictable behaviour from the police and while you've done nothing wrong, you have a lot of explaining to do to the officers who really aren't that interested in hearing your explanation in the first place.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#175

Post by yason » Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 9:58 AM UTC

teddyh wrote: post #95

yason wrote: post #80

While the capability of the police to forfeit property is absolutely and completely unfair and, in an (supposedly) equal society, deeply questionable——as opposed to taking the property temporarily unless proven guilty——the unescapably stupid thing to do is to a) transfer money in cash and b) smoking weed while doing that. All kinds of unlucky things could happen with a) such as losing the baggage/wallet/jacket with t…

There’s a phrase for what you are doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

Victim blaming is an ideal that often forgets to factor in realities.

Theoretically, you should be able to walk into a Hell's Angels biker bar at 11pm on a Saturday evening and shout aloud "Only assholes ride a Harley!", then walk out. Theoretically you don't pose a credible threat to anyone and you merely state your opinion. In an ideally perfect world you should have nothing to worry about. But it just might be the most stupid thing you can do in ten seconds.

There's a difference between saying the consequences are completely the victim's fault versus thinking that the victim should have a license to do stupid things and yet get away with it against some, if not all, odds.

What happened to the guy who got his money confiscated is completely unfair but there was a wide range of choices he could've realistically made to avoid the unfairness from taking place. That's not victim blaming.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#176

Post by Zak » Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 10:13 AM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #41

MichaelGG wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having cops steal money should not be a risk anyone is taking, let alone a stupid one. If he got mugged, that'd be another thing. Also, free alternatives? Elaborate. And certainly they aren't free from surveillance. We should encourage and treat the carrying of $$$$$ in cash as a normal thing to do.

Checking accounts. Bitcoin (not free, but close). If it weren't the state, it could just as easily have been an ordinary mugger, or an airline employee theft, or simple airline incompetence. >And certainly they aren't free from surveillance. If you want a financial system free from surveillance then you need to get the public on board with ending taxation (and consequently all public services). Good luck. And, as we…

If it weren't the state, it could just as easily have been an ordinary mugger, or an airline employee theft, or simple airline incompetence.

We, as a society condemn muggers and thieves. We, as a society hold airlines responsible for safely transporting baggage without losing it or its contents. We lock muggers and thieves in cages to discourage such behavior and isolate those who perpetrate it from everyone else. We require airlines to pay compensation (up to $3000 in the US) to people whose property they lose.

We should similarly condemn the state behaving in a way that produces the same result as a mugger.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#177

Post by teddyh » Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 1:29 PM UTC

yason wrote: post #175

teddyh wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There’s a phrase for what you are doing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

Victim blaming is an ideal that often forgets to factor in realities. Theoretically, you should be able to walk into a Hell's Angels biker bar at 11pm on a Saturday evening and shout aloud "Only assholes ride a Harley!", then walk out. Theoretically you don't pose a credible threat to anyone and you merely state your opinion. In an ideally perfect world you should have nothing to worry about. But it just might be the…

Suppose there’s political and societal pressure to do X, and a person (for their own reasons, which may be ethical or political) instead does an alternative thing Y, all also perfectly legal and ethical. Then suppose that this person gets in unreasonable amounts of trouble by the political and societal pressure. To then say, in effect, “But they could have done X instead, why do they have to be so difficult?” is blaming the victim.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#178

Post by Houshalter » Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

ghshephard wrote: post #87

jMyles wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's still a false positive. Dogs are ostensibly trained to distinguish between a lingering odor (or "residue") and actual material. So the dog, we're told, indicated because of "residue," falsely giving a positive indication for material.

That would be pretty challenging, particularly as weed in transit is often double-vacuum packed and stored in boxes containing coffee beans to (try) and elude drug sniffing dogs. I can't even conceive how you could train a dog to distinguish between lingering/residue in that scenario.

I think he meant users that have a joint in their pocket or something. Not experienced criminal operations that know about the dogs and are trying to evade them.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#179

Post by joshuaheard » Sun, Oct 11, 2015, 7:41 PM UTC

fmihaila wrote: post #108

joshuaheard wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't get your news from a comedian. Edit: Sorry, still on my first cup of coffee. Here it goes: the purpose of news is to objectively inform you of facts. The purpose of these comedy shows is to make you laugh, often by distorting or exaggerating the facts. By getting your news from comedy shows, you are receiving a distorted view of reality, which you seem to admit in your post. However, I see this as a greater pro…

"Last Week Tonight" is a commentary news show that also happens to be funny. Its content is entirely factual and has way more in common with "60 Minutes" than with "Saturday Night Live". I'd argue that the purpose of the show is in fact to make you cry. Sometimes laughing makes that easier.

"Last Week Tonight" is satire. It says so on its web site. Satire involves the use of humor to exaggerate or ridicule. It is not serious news and if that is your source of news, you are foolish.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#180

Post by jMyles » Mon, Oct 12, 2015, 12:20 AM UTC

pandaman wrote: post #167

jMyles wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, if you think that Balko mis-reported, go ahead and ask him for clarification.

No, I don't think so. I don't see where he said dogs are trained like that. He actually said almost the opposite - dogs are not ignoring weak smells.

I'm not following. He said that 1) such training is possible, and that 2) at least in some cases, it is ignored or that dogs who have this capability are rejected.

So indeed, the feature appears, at least according to his source, to be available. And it also appears to be regarded as (or mistaken for) a bug by the users.