81–90 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police aren't actually required to protect anyone (see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)), but just to generally maintain social order.
what happened to the "to protect and to serve" motto then?
Presumably it does have some effect. "Don't be evil" seemed to work for a while.
The atrocities have been going on for decades, yet suddenly everyone is interested. Any ideas what changed, so that press is paying attention now?
The media attention has been going on for decades too. It's just that nothing changes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the issue mark-r was talking about is that the property is seized before any sort of due process has concluded. Also, if the government doesn't bring a case against you you have to actively fight to get your property back. So if your car is seized and neither party takes any further action the default behavior is the government now owns your car. [someone correct me if I'm wrong about this]
You are arrested and placed in a cage before any sort of due process has concluded. The due process doesn't have to be first, it just has to happen, and it has to be binding. (i.e. they can't just keep you or your property if they lose the trial)
Well, that's not really supposed to happen either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
man you're not even trying with the racial dogwhistles here but it speaks to a deeper truth
Curious, where was race mentioned?
...which noonespecial acknowledged was a racial "dog whistle", although I think it's just an insinuation, not a "dog whistle."
What should I do if I am in the United States and a police officer asks me how much money I have?
Of course, as others have said, it's probably best to seek advice from a group that focuses on this topic - perhaps Flex Your Rights.
But when in doubt, definitely don't answer. "Officer, I prefer not to discuss money right now" is a completely reasonable answer that most cops will respond to with an understanding nod. If they don't, just calmly tell them you aren't sure what questions to answer until you have a lawyer present. Again, totally reasonable answer.
In theory we live in a democracy that should make fixing this easy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what happened to the "to protect and to serve" motto then?
It's just a motto, not a legal doctrine. Presumably it does have some effect. "Don't be evil" seemed to work for a while.
The Washington Post provided excellent coverage in September: http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/investigative/2014/09/06/st... IIRC, it was this article that described police being trained on how to obtain valuable assets, and police collaborating on message boards: One example was an officer posting on a message board a car's description and license plate, and telling officers in a neighboring jurisdiction that the c…
The article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/08/12/taken?currentPa... Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6161465
Similar NYTimes article posted yesterday with a bit more substance: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-w... I'm not really sure why civil forfeiture places the burden on owners. Kind of defies the logic of innocent until proven guilty.
A quick fix would be to use the proceeds for charity or to pay down the national debt. That way the incentives are atleast reduced somewhat.
Similar NYTimes article posted yesterday with a bit more substance: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-w... I'm not really sure why civil forfeiture places the burden on owners. Kind of defies the logic of innocent until proven guilty.
The practice originally seemed to be in place to give discretion to officer to deal with druglords and people like that since proving everything is court is very hard, but since the incentives are all wrong(departments keep the proceeds), it seems to be quite abused. A quick fix would be to use the proceeds for charity or to pay down the national debt. That way the incentives are atleast reduced somewhat.
The operative question would seem to be, how does one write a blank check to law enforcement to seize property with no judicial oversight or lawful reason required, but then make them promise by law to give it away rather than simply use it for their own personal/departmental reasons?
If you want to empower someone to be a thug and take peoples stuff, you have to recognize that Robin Hood was actually a work of fiction and consider that maybe nobody is going to actually do that. Apparently in Utah, everyone ignored the new law -- police, prosecutors, judges, the press, and even the voting public who passed the original ballot initiative, failed to hold anyone to account when the next election time came around.