Policing For Profit

[Revoltingest]

If you're carrying a lot of cash,
cops see it as belonging to them.
It's not a crime to have their money,
but they have the right to take it, &
divide it up among themselves.
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/07/26/asset-seizure-money-marijuana/

 

[Stevicus]

If you're carrying a lot of cash,
cops see it as belonging to them.
It's not a crime to have their money,
but they have the right to take it, &
divide it up among themselves.
https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2018/07/26/asset-seizure-money-marijuana/

Who do we have to thank for the law that allows the government to do this?

Who do you think signed this law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984

 

[Revoltingest]

Who do we have to thank for the law that allows the government to do this?

Who do you think signed this law? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Crime_Control_Act_of_1984

There was no single President or lawmaker behind civil
forfeiture, which dates back to the founding of the country.
Things worsened in 1970, & continued thru 2015.
Ref....
https://www.forthepeople.com/blog/history-behind-civil-asset-forfeiture/

 

[Revoltingest]

Federal government to us:
"If you have more money that we think you should have,
we'll take it. Sign it over to us, & we won't investigate you."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There was no single President or lawmaker behind civil
forfeiture, which dates back to the founding of the country.
Things worsened in 1970, & continued thru 2015.
Ref....
https://www.forthepeople.com/blog/history-behind-civil-asset-forfeiture/

And it helps none the Supreme Court has a history of being anti-citizen and stupidly supporting the cops to ends that have been detrimental and fatal to citizens, law abiding or otherwise. Other Western countries aren't this obsessed with beinghard on crime amd they have less crime. America shoulf take notes.

 

[Revoltingest]

And it helps none the Supreme Court has a history of being anti-citizen and stupidly supporting the cops to ends that have been detrimental and fatal to citizens, law abiding or otherwise. Other Western countries aren't this obsessed with beinghard on crime amd they have less crime. America shoulf take notes.

SCOTUS is not entirely anti-citizen. Many rulings
have been in our favor. We just have a long way
to go, particularly at the state & local levels.

 

[Twilight Hue]

We've long had a problem that governments will tailor laws & enforcement to produce revenue. Asset forfeiture has been
particularly popular, eg, find some dope in a car, & confiscate the car to sell at auction, letting repeat drunk drivers back
on the street after they pay hefty fines & court costs. Florida has a new game to snare innocent drivers...
Florida quietly shortened yellow light standards & lengths, resulting in more red light camera tickets for you | wtsp.com

Further reading:
Policing for Profit - Institute for Justice

Don't forget sentencing for profit.

The new slave trade.

 

[Twilight Hue]

If law enforcement is seen as a profit center, this creates an incentive for government to create more lucrative violations, with just enforcement being supplanted with oppression.

There is a difference: We have a far more voluntary relationship with the private sector. Moreover, government limits business's ability to impose sanctions, eg, in MI a landlord's late fees must be reasonable to be enforceable. Government has far greater power, & less of a limit on punishment they can inflict.

New York, like California are masters at the trade.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Fun fact: Quebec has the world's highest rates of colour blindness. It also has unique traffic signals: each signal light is a different shape, and the "stop" indication is shown at both ends of the signal head to make it easy to differentiate.

I don't care what people say, Quebec is a fun place.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

SCOTUS is not entirely anti-citizen. Many rulings
have been in our favor. We just have a long way
to go, particularly at the state & local levels.

I consider them generally dangerously anti-citizen/pro-police, such as their "defacto writs of execution" with disasterous ruling allowing for things like no-knock warrants and qualified immunity. That blood is on their hands.

 

[Revoltingest]

I consider them generally dangerously anti-citizen/pro-police, such as their "defacto writs of execution" with disasterous ruling allowing for things like no-knock warrants and qualified immunity. That blood is on their hands.

But for example, we have their support for 1st & 4th Amendment
rights, eg, Miranda warning, Terry stops.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

But for example, we have their support for 1st & 4th Amendment
rights, eg, Miranda warning, Terry stops.

The Miranda warnings is good, but the 4th gets circumvented a lot. Such as those drug sniffing dogs that may not even actually be there. We can flip off the cops, but they can take our cash.
It seems the Supreme Court occasionally tosses us a scrap. They even let businesses circumvent the 4th for employment, even randomly so.

 

[Revoltingest]

The Miranda warnings is good, but the 4th gets circumvented a lot. Such as those drug sniffing dogs that may not even actually be there. We can flip off the cops, but they can take our cash.
It seems the Supreme Court occasionally tosses us a scrap. They even let businesses circumvent the 4th for employment, even randomly so.

Ain't nuthin perfect.
Maintaining your rights requires some knowledge
& dedication to getting the best result.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here's a good one.....
Lantana Fines - Institute for Justice
Excerpted...
Most people accept that the government can fine you a small amount for parking illegally. But can the government cripple you financially for how you park your car on your very own driveway?

In Lantana, Florida, that is exactly what happened to local homeowner Sandy Martinez. The city fined her more than $100,000—at a rate of $250 per day—for violating an ordinance regulating how one can park their car on their own driveway. When stacked on top of the astronomical fines the city imposed for two other trivial code violations—$47,375 for a storm-damaged fence and $16,125 for cracks in her driveway, each of which she fixed as soon as she could afford to—Lantana has fined Sandy over $165,000. That outrageous amount is nearly four times her annual income and more than half the value of her home.

But the government cannot lock you into a lifetime of crushing debt for such harmless code infractions. That is because Florida’s Constitution clearly forbids “excessive fines.” This protection enshrines a centuries-old axiom: The punishment must fit the crime. By trying to impose ruinous fines on Sandy for such minor infractions, Lantana is violating Sandy’s constitutional right to be free from excessive fines. To fight back, she’s teamed up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit in Florida state court to hold the city accountable for this unconstitutional behavior.

Explore Case In Depth »

 

[Revoltingest]

When government smells money, your 4th Amendment
rights are out the window.

Excerpted...
Retired railroad engineer Terry Rolin’s life savings were seized by the government, but he hasn’t been charged with any crime. Terry saved up cash and kept it in his Pittsburgh home over many years. But when he moved out of his old house into a new, smaller apartment he didn’t feel safe keeping so much in cash savings. He asked his daughter, Rebecca Brown, to take the money home with her to Boston, deposit it into a new joint bank account, and use the money to replace his teeth and fix his truck, among other needs. https://ij.org/case/pittsburgh-forfei... Concerned about flying with the more than $82,000 her father had entrusted to her, Rebecca checked online to make sure that she didn’t need to do anything to take the money with her on the plane. She found out that flying domestically with any amount of cash is completely legal. So, she packed the money in her carry-on and headed to the airport. But she didn’t make it to Boston with her father’s life savings. Her bag was held by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) after she went through security screening because the money showed up on their X-ray. She was questioned by Pennsylvania State Troopers and then further by a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agent. The DEA agent took the money without charging Rebecca with a crime or arresting her. After making them wait for months, the government told Terry and Rebecca that it wants to take that money for good using a legal process called civil forfeiture. Terry and Rebecca didn’t do anything wrong. That’s why they are teaming up with the Institute for Justice (IJ) to file a lawsuit to get the money back from DEA. Furthermore, their lawsuit is a class action against DEA and TSA for practices that violate the constitution and are outside TSA’s legal authority. Finally, the individual DEA agent is being sued for damages because of his violation of Rebecca’s and Terry’s rights.

 

[Revoltingest]

Another example of predatory government is creating
a law that few know about. It criminalizes normal
behavior, ie, depositing $10,000 in cash, but not
all at once.

Excerpted....
http://ij.org/case/connecticut-forfei... In May 2013, the IRS seized more than $68,000 from Vocatura’s Bakery—a third-generation family business located in Norwich, Connecticut—because they claimed the owners violated so-called “structuring” laws by depositing cash in the bakery’s bank account in amounts less than $10,000. Three years later, the government still has the bakery’s money, although it has never brought its case before a judge, and is now threatening to launch a sweeping investigation into practically every aspect of the business’s finances in an effort to find some retroactive justification for taking the money. This is the ultimate example of the abusive law enforcement tactic of seizing first and questioning later—much later.

 

[Valjean]

Who do we have to thank for the law that allows the government to do this?

Who do you think signed this law? Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 - Wikipedia

Just one more right-wing baby step towards Fascism.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just one more right-wing baby step towards Fascism.

That particular legislation also included strong
support from the left in both the Senate & Congress.
It's not just a tribal problem, since both Dems & Pubs
want to appear tough on crime, & to fill government
coffers with booty.

 

[pearl]

The head of public housing in our city will evict anyone convicted of a drug or gang crime, and the family.

 

[Revoltingest]

The head of public housing in our city will evict anyone convicted of a drug or gang crime, and the family.

Here in MI, private landlords (like me) cannot evict
anyone for that....unless a judge agrees. Housing
run by the state (eg, university dorms) is different.
To merely be accused is grounds for immediate
eviction with no due process.
Government gives itself much power over us, eh.