391–400 of 517 posts
"No, officer, you may not see my wallet. I do not consent to a search of myself, my vehicle, or my property. I furthermore, refuse to have any further conversation with you. May I go now, or am I under arrest?"
Works every time for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the police catch a person running away from a recently robbed bank holding a bag of money do you think they should have to convict the person before taking back the money? Yes. The money may be held in escrow pending the trial, but appropration by police is unjust -- and should be illegal if the person is not charged and arrested.
So if it's clear that a person is in possession of illegally obtained property, but it's a mystery exactly how they got it so law enforcement can't indict them for a crime, they should just get to keep it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a similar vein, I liked the suggestion that we should start calling "Parallel Reconstruction" evidence laundering.
"Officer involved shooting" These are all language tricks used to manipulate the masses. "Double plus good" is not a stretch at this point if we become complacent to this kind of manipulation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/...
I've seen it said before and I'll say it again. Anyone who works for companies who make products like this in any capacity should be blacklisted in the industry. The missing scruples here could fill several large containers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not going to try to defend civil asset forfeiture (it's an abhorrent practice), but I still do think America is marginally more free than most places for a few reasons: - I don't think the number of people in prison is the best measure of whether a country is free or not. By that logic, a backwater regime which simply dealt with undesirables via extrajudicial shootings would be more "free." - Likewise, the notion…
"But I'm no more afraid of getting shot by the police than I am of dying in any other unlikely way (terrorist attack, random serial killer, etc.)." You may be unafraid, but there is an order of magnitude difference between your examples. Serial killers murder about 150 people per year, terrorist attacks killed 19 in 2015. Cops killed 1146 people. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2015/jun/0... https:/…
Here's a fun little video from the manufacturer extolling the virtues and showing a demo of their device: https://youtu.be/XYbgnCi7NYI These are some truly evil people. Apparently they can only target prepaid cards with this thing, which unsurprisingly will disproportionately affect people with lower incomes (the "unbanked"). According to the manufacturer's FAQ [1]: Intel™ and ERAD-Recovery™ will only retrieve balanc…
Yes, evil. As is Sergeant Rob Hain (of Chicago) who uploaded this... "Sheriff's Deputy Ron Hain improperly detained Marsh after issuing him a warning and continued questioning him when he should have been free to leave, Barsanti ruled. The questioning led to Marsh's admission he was carrying a gun, which prompted further searches of his truck, phones, GPS and eventually the storage lockers." "The discovery was made b…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Scary. These prepaid debit cards are being used everywhere in lieu of traditional checks from unemployment benefits, short term disability(maternity benefits) etc.
The thing that I don't understand is that these prepaid debit cards are only loaded from the government or your employer, hence guaranteeing the money is legal. Yet these cards are what is being targeted, because only the poor use them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case, wouldn't it be evidence ? I genuinely don't know all the details of how this works, but I do find it disturbing that the police turn around and spend the forfeited cash. Should they be allowed to do that with the sack of money from the bank, in your example?
Sure, if it's clear who the property is owned by it goes back to the rightful owner. But in cases where that is unclear or nonsensical (like money obtained by selling illegal drugs) it goes to the state. Where else would it go?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing that I don't understand is that these prepaid debit cards are only loaded from the government or your employer, hence guaranteeing the money is legal. Yet these cards are what is being targeted, because only the poor use them.
What's not to understand? Money is money, it spends just as well regardless of who gave it to you.
Some states have enacted laws (Illinois is one I believe) that prohibits employers using these cards if the employee does not wish to use one.
Employers use these cards because the debit card providers are willing to take on the cost of payroll for the privilege of gouging the employees in fees.