Cops talk about stealing man's property over bag of weed

reply to post by Animatrix


Dislike of policy is entirely a different subject than what is being discussed here. This is a case of a handful of police officers being accused of breaking the law by disguising theft as asset seizure.

The issue of the Constitutionality of the laws regarding property seizure is another argument entirely and is not the subject I have been addressing. In specific I have replied, directly, to the assertions that all police officers are somehow inherently corrupt simply by virtue of their job description. My disagreement with this idea is already stated. But let us address your words directly.

Originally posted by Animatrix

It doesnt matter if these cops are carrying out the written law or not.
The last MAJOR ruling that I've read about is that "I was only following orders" is NOT a defense...

Would you please cite the MAJOR ruling which states that cops are not to follow the written law - as this would be the most disturbing and dangerous development to happen in this country in its history. THE ONLY functions the police serve is to enforce the written law and to protect the citizenry within the confines of that law.

If there is a MAJOR case based upon a LEO claiming he was just following orders, then the orders this LEO followed were illegal and the LEO was aware of this fact. "Illegal" is, by definition, criminal behavior and is defined by WRITTEN LAW.

Originally posted by Animatrix

I believe that these officers, along with several thousand others across the country are guilty
of the crime of theft AND violating the Fourth Amendment of our Constitution.

Your beliefs have no legal standing in and of themselves, nor do they imply that you have effectively interpreted the data available. Visit a prison and you will play Hell to find a single person who feels they belong there. Visit a preschool and you'll have difficulty finding a kid who doesn't believe in a fairy tale character. In short, believing something is a starting point, not the destination.

If you truly do believe this, then write your Congressmen, and local city officials. Write the President. Picket. Do something to change the laws. As a citizen you do realize that, if you truly believe these things to be true, then you are wholly complicit in the evils because you are doing nothing to stop them.

Originally posted by Animatrix

Ill say again...
The law was originally created to combat major drug suppliers, that made their living selling drugs, not the
CASUAL user that bought an OZ a month or a few pain pills here and there.

Cops, D.A's and Judges have corrupted it to fund their cities, counties and states with funds, PERIOD.

Its turned into a Business.. Understand Now?

As far as understanding goes, we've already covered your beliefs and I understand them. However you substantiating them with anything more than rhetoric and opinion seems to be a challenge you either avoid or are unable to perform.

And the argument that a law began life as one thing and has changed is an invalid argument. Whatever current laws are on the books ARE THE LAW. Not last years version. Not the rules from 200 years ago. We are governed by current law. This isn't a statement of my agreement or disagreement with any law. It is just fact. The law is the law. Police officers uphold the law. If we, as Americans, don't like laws, we use our votes to change those laws by electing people who share our opinions.

This is the Constitutional remedy provided to us... something many people in America seem to have forgotten. Now it is all about "me" and "what I want" and taking shortcuts to get it. No wonder this world is so screwed up.

~Heff

There are too many stories like this.
Have fun with your friends Heff.

One law for them, One law for them, One law for them, and another law for us
4-Skins

this is terrible however not all that unusual considering all the other things cops have been caught doing.

reply to post by Hefficide


I will not even take the time to "nitpick" your post like you seem to enjoy doing to others.
My position stands, this law is wrong, it allows the street punks (cops) to take peoples property
for the most minor drug offense and that alone invites corruption.
EVERY law and EVERY ruling that seems to be made lately, always seems to favor the Government or major Corporations, with a few exceptions.
The breaking point for me was the US Supreme Court case, allowing corporations Eminent Domain rights over us average peasants.

As far as the ruling I mentioned about "I was just following orders" unless you are completely ignorant, you would know the ruling I am speaking of.

For you to seriously take the position that you do, you are either a cop or associated with cops or the judicial system.

I don't understand people that yell, "This doesn't mean all cops are bad just because 2 did something criminal!"

That's stating the obvious, but ignoring the even more obvious that obviously, the system has been rigged to allow corruption to flourish- there are huge problems with the drug laws that such injustice could happen.

It would not have been uncovered had this not been an incident in which there was an unknown recording happening.

How long did it go on? Where is it happening that has not been discovered yet?

There's problems with the laws, and the laws encourage criminal behavior on the part of the cops.

reply to post by Animatrix


You seem to be missing my point entirely, and consistently. This thread is entitled "Cops talk about stealing man's property over bag of weed." and that is what I am discussing.

The title of this thread is not Laws Suck and Cops Are All Nazi's. nor Pot Should Be Legal - Now Gimme Back My Car And My Dimebag. nor "Let's Connect Unrelated Dots And Draw Pretty Pictures."

Rather than discussing the topic it appears you are content referring to Socratic debate structure as "nitpicking" and choose to use ad-hom attacks - saying that I must be a cop - rather than dealing in facts and debating your point of view.

Once again, I will summarize the pertinent facts as they relate to THIS thread and THIS subject:

1. A man is accusing a small group of cops of impropriety.
   
2. These cops are being charged with crimes, breaking down the empty argument that "this is what the law is doing to us". The law is protecting the victim here by charging those responsible.
   
3. Only a few of the cops present were charged, meaning only a small minority engaged in this behavior if the accusation is true.
   
4. The laws on the books do not support cops stealing whatever they wish from drug users. This is why these officers are facing charges. Confiscation of property does not work this way. Police officers cannot "cherry pick" your possessions and rob you." If they do so, they are breaking the law
   
5. Not all police officers engage in criminal behavior. While some surely do, others do not. Therefore all cops are not "bad".
   
6. A few bad members of any group do not make the whole of the group guilty by association. Seeking to vilify an entire group, in this manner, is bigoted thinking and is irresponsible and dishonest.
   

Tossing out a basketful of red herring statements does nothing to address the above issues. Appealing to emotion makes for great conversation, to be sure... but doesn't work in debate, at all.

~Heff

reply to post by hadriana


The laws are prosecuting the individuals involved - so explain to me how the laws are set up to allow it if the laws are prosecuting here?

Are you implying that the law is written in such a way as to both allow and prosecute the same behavior?

A few cops got caught apparently breaking the law. They will have their day in court. They will face their accuser and the evidence against them, and they will be found innocent or guilty. The same as anyone else. Just because they are cops does not mean they are above or beneath the process of law.

~Heff

reply to post by Hefficide


I have given links AND suggested to others, to research it on their own, to find examples of the increased corruption of this specific law.
Every single issue that I have brought up relates to someone or something that has been affected by this law, so dont say otherwise.

Me saying you are a cop or other "official" just an observation that caused me to form an opinion, so quit accusing me of attacking you..
How the hell did you become a mod on here anyway?

reply to post by Animatrix


My status as a moderator has nothing to do with this debate and you know it. Another red herring. But I am seeing a trend which explains much of this debate... bit of an issue with "authority figures" perhaps?

The good news is that I am not corrupt and you cannot accuse me of using my "power" to beat you down, hold you back, or harass you in any way. For example, I won't be filing any complaints about you as a means of trying to sway the debate. Oh bitter irony...

Again, I reiterate, this thread is about a specific case where several LEO's apparently overstepped their authority and have been called to the carpet for it. They are facing criminal prosecution. I still fail to see how this is a viable and glaring example of a broken system - when the system seems to be doing exactly what we'd expect it to. Somebody broke a law and they are facing punishment.

If you truly love sticking it to the man... I'd honestly suggest finding a better soapbox to stand on. The one you're balancing upon now is rather wobbly.

~Heff

Originally posted by Hefficide

The laws are prosecuting the individuals involved - so explain to me how the laws are set up to allow it if the laws are prosecuting here?

Are you implying that the law is written in such a way as to both allow and prosecute the same behavior?
~Heff

Yep. You've got the foxes watching the henhouse. You've got vague laws that are applied unequally and where a profit motive comes into play. You've got ample opportunity for the cops to steal from 'the criminals' and a system that tends to believe the word of the cop, vrs. the citizen.

Then, you've got a crime with a clear victim - taking someone's property- perpetrated by the cops, when the CRIME- a bit of weed? Is, IMO, victimless, in that no one has to smoke it that doesn't want to.
So where is the justice in that?

reply to post by hadriana


I honestly don't take issue with what is being said about fairness or the equity of law here. What I am saying is that the law is the law. Sometimes laws come into being that are unpopular, unfair, or even just plain daft. Such is the nature of our type of governance.

But to label all cops as corrupt is unfair. All broad brush statements tend to be. Such statements actually undermine the process of remedying problems. Broad strokes tend to obscure the real issues and focus our attention upon distractions. For this reason I make it a habit of arguing against this particular logical fallacy whenever I see it. In this case it is anger over an unfair law that has people upset and emotional. The act of putting this anger into this particular case is a fruitless endeavor, however, as it places emphasis upon the wrong aspect of our anger.

Follow?

I don't agree with property seizure laws at all. In fact there are several posts in my posting history which state this fact. It is a scam. It's a very deep revenue rabbit hole to be sure. But this is not a case of a legal property seizure - this is a case of police corruption. Two separate problems. For me to place my anger over a bad policy into this case would be to do a disservice to my dissent.

I keep my eye on the ball and not on the tricks and obfuscations that try to take my eye away from it.

~Heff

reply to post by Xcathdra


Did you listen to the recording of the cops involved discussing what they wanted to take? It seems to me to be a clearly smoking gun...how much more evidence is needed?

From what I can see this was clearly an ongoing criminal conspiracy taking advantage of a very poorly and loosely (perhaps deliberately?) written forfeiture law.

What it implies, and I stress only implies, is a broader collusion than just the few indicted.

For people trained to observe, collect, and collate data about criminal behavior, and then draw the appropriate conclusions about what the data say, police do an appallingly bad job of policing themselves. It would seem a fair statement that either a member of that department was in collusion (actively or passively) or incompetent.

The logical thing to do here is to conduct a complete audit of the department and all the police in it, and see how many of them are living above their stated income levels. All unable to explain where the excess came from should be charged as a member of the ring under RICO. If they can prove in court their innocence, they have absolutely nothing to fear from the justice system.

In any case it would seem the top levels of the department have de facto not exercised sufficient or proper oversight of it, and should be fired immediately with prejudice.

Why should the tax-paying citizens tolerate such incompetence?

reply to post by la vie


I have a real problem that cannabis causes harm to others as shown in your chart. I also have a problem with the chart saying it causes more harm than steroids. I would like to know how they figured cannabis causes any harm to others. The only harm done is because it is illegal and the legal system messes up your life if you get caught with it. Make it legal and no harm comes to anyone.

Originally posted by Hefficide

These LEO's broke the law - it happens. And now they are going to pay for their crimes. But this doesn't infer that all cops are bad people. In fact I have a few friends who are in law enforcement and they are straight-up good people who care about others and do not engage in this kind of petty behavior.

~Heff

I think you meant to say 'In fact I have a few friends who are in law enforcement and they are straight-up good people who care about others and do not engage in this kind of petty behavior, as far as I am aware.'

People don't know when you jerk off because you don't tell them. Same applies here, I'm not trying to say your friends are guilty, but if they were breaking the law at work how would you ever know?

"All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."

Plainly speaking, police have been given too much power and authority over the daily lives of the citizen. We are now seeing the abuse of that presumed authority in our daily lives. To quote my great-grandmother, "When does it all end?"

-Lightrule