31–40 of 69 posts
He's stealing those assets from the citizens he professes to protect. Do they have seminars on cynicism at police academy?
John Oliver did a segment on this - http://youtu.be/3kEpZWGgJks One thing that doesn't seem to be covered is how it changes the motivation to seize contraband, as it is much more profitable to wait until the contraband is sold and then seize the money.
Illegal contraband, such as drugs, are destroyed. The federal government gives grants to companies or police departments to cover the inflated costs of destruction.
No matter how police choose to play the game, they get money.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There should be a downside for police if the seizure turns out to not be legit. I don't think paying back double would be that out of line. In principle, I agree. But since the police are taxpayer funded, this just ends up costing the people money, and the only damage to the police force is political/reputational. Not to say those would not be good pressures to have, just that trying to hit them in the pocketbook i…
How about drawing from the salary of individual officers?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There should be a downside for police if the seizure turns out to not be legit. I don't think paying back double would be that out of line. In principle, I agree. But since the police are taxpayer funded, this just ends up costing the people money, and the only damage to the police force is political/reputational. Not to say those would not be good pressures to have, just that trying to hit them in the pocketbook i…
How about drawing from the salary of individual officers?
pstuart's pension fund idea is also a good idea. If really you want to grab the cops by their balls, just threaten to take their retirement savings.
The downside is that you'd probably lose a lot of cops by instituting policies like this, so then you'd have to raise salaries or something to make the profession more lucrative. Otherwise, you'll just keep getting bottom-of-the-barrel candidates, just like now, but they'd end up quitting or getting fired under the stricter rules.
which leaves me to wonder.. what would be appropriate, or publicly acceptable, use of the seized funds?
perhaps donating directly to services that hope to solve the problems that the seizure was made in claim against?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'm not really sure what happened to the fourth and fifth amendments. Both prohibit arbitrary seizure of property.
Simple; the people affected are not wealthy and, especially after their money is taken, cannot take the process to courts.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2014/02/ci...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How about drawing from the salary of individual officers?
Garnish their wages until they're just above the poverty line. And you could also repo/liquidate their house/cars/other assets. pstuart's pension fund idea is also a good idea. If really you want to grab the cops by their balls, just threaten to take their retirement savings. The downside is that you'd probably lose a lot of cops by instituting policies like this, so then you'd have to raise salaries or something to…
I'm no fan of police, but there is no way that's an acceptable situation.
I have to wonder though is this not just policy but also a cultural thing on the far-left side there's the 20-something Occupy 1%, pro-weed crowd is this the same thing only on the far-right?
As far back as 1999 my first time to the US by myself I was held at the border for no reason other than I was traveling alone, I was going to visit a friend for US Thanksgiving. My car was searched, my suitcase torn apart, held for an hour. Now I wonder if that means I will be flagged on the system as someone who was searched even though it was for no good reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I'm not really sure what happened to the fourth and fifth amendments. Both prohibit arbitrary seizure of property.
Simple; the people affected are not wealthy and, especially after their money is taken, cannot take the process to courts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Garnish their wages until they're just above the poverty line. And you could also repo/liquidate their house/cars/other assets. pstuart's pension fund idea is also a good idea. If really you want to grab the cops by their balls, just threaten to take their retirement savings. The downside is that you'd probably lose a lot of cops by instituting policies like this, so then you'd have to raise salaries or something to…
Honestly I think we need that anyways. The average police officer salary is massively lower than the average systems administrator salary (or at least that's what some cursory google research tells me). I'm no fan of police, but there is no way that's an acceptable situation.
Probably not in SF. Here the starting salary for a cop is about $85K, plus overtime. And then there's the lifetime healthcare and pension. It all adds up.