13 replies to this topic

[camay2327]

I am sure that this happens a lot. And NO, I am not saying all police officers do this. I am sure

it is just a few. At least I hope so.

 

Cops are seizing hundreds of millions of dollars from drivers and bragging about it in chat rooms

This weekend, The Washington Post published a deeply reported look at "highway interdiction," a controversial tactic that has allowed police to seize hundreds of millions of dollars from motorists without formally charging anyone with a crime. Typically, police will stop a driver under suspicion of drug trafficking, seize their cash as evidence, and refuse to return it without a legal challenge. Only one in six seizures were challenged, typically because of the high cost of legal assistance.

 

// go to the below website //

 

http://www.theverge....rom-drivers-and

 

[The Average Joe]

Asset forfeiture is bull s.  It certainly violates the Constitution. Even as a young man before I was interested in politics, I KNEW this was a bad idea. No trial, no charges, just give me your stuff at the end of a gun. And people wonder why  I am against an all powerful government and the militarization of domestic police forces.

 

And on that note, remember when we were having the discussion about Ferguson and the militarization of domestic police. Check this out. Painting "rescue" on the side makes me feel oh so much safer...   Hey, maybe Folsom can get an Abrams tank to pass out speeding tickets and a few machine gun emplacements on the corners of busy streets in school zones.

 

http://www.utsandieg...rmored-vehicle/

[Homer]

Asset forfeiture is bull s.  It certainly violates the Constitution. Even as a young man before I was interested in politics, I KNEW this was a bad idea. No trial, no charges, just give me your stuff at the end of a gun. And people wonder why  I am against an all powerful government and the militarization of domestic police forces.

 

And on that note, remember when we were having the discussion about Ferguson and the militarization of domestic police. Check this out. Painting "rescue" on the side makes me feel oh so much safer...   Hey, maybe Folsom can get an Abrams tank to pass out speeding tickets and a few machine gun emplacements on the corners of busy streets in school zones.

 

http://www.utsandieg...rmored-vehicle/

 

 

 

http://www.folsomtel...minimizes-risks

 

Folsom P.D. doesn't have MRAPS, However it does have $290,000 Peacekeepers which i'm fine with assuming they acquired them through a surplus program.at a lower cost, I'd also be fine with them having a surplus Brinks truck, They all serve the same purpose in an emergency. Local public safety agencies should have whatever equipment that's available to them to do their jobs. Once the hand wringing stops and logic returns it's not unreasonable for first responders to have an armored vehicle available for emergencies. 

[The Average Joe]

Yeah, that's how it starts... always in the name of "safety." 

 

No knock warrants, asset forfeiture, imminent domain forfeiture, NSA collection of private data without warrant, the ability to detain without charge or trial, local police with military hardware, free speech "zones."

I'm sure those all sound like good ideas... right up until it's YOUR rights being trampled.  Of course, by then it's too late.

[Homer]

 

Yeah, that's how it starts... always in the name of "safety." 

 

No knock warrants, asset forfeiture, imminent domain forfeiture, NSA collection of private data without warrant, the ability to detain without charge or trial, local police with military hardware, free speech "zones."

I'm sure those all sound like good ideas... right up until it's YOUR rights being trampled.  Of course, by then it's too late.

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Yeah, that's how it starts... always in the name of "safety." 

 

It usually all starts when there's a breakdown in public safety.

 

 

"No knock warrants, asset forfeiture, imminent domain forfeiture, NSA collection of private data without warrant, the ability to detain without charge or trial, local police with military hardware, free speech "zones."

I'm sure those all sound like good ideas... right up until it's YOUR rights being trampled.  Of course, by then it's too late."

 

These are all separate issues that should be looked at individually. The current mantra about the police being militarized is a bunch of nonsense originating from those that have their  own agendas. Would we all be safer if we made the police go Barney Fife style by taking away their body armor and Sig's? It would be a concern if local public safety agencies were receiving SAM's, artillery and A-10s but i have yet to see this happen. 

[The Average Joe]

Another example of "disproportionate force" when you get a military mindset in the local police. In this case, backing up bureaucrats attacking hairdressers. A brief summary from the judge is below. The bureaucrats and police in question were trying to hide behind "qualified immunity."  The judge was having none of that nonsense. How would you like to be fully in compliance of the law, and have swat police bust into your business guns drawn and masks on without reason or warrant to do so? Only 2 days after being inspected and found in compliance? With women and children present... You think those kids will ever respect the police after getting the crud scared out of them? There is no reason they should after that kind of nonsense.

Read below. This was done as a LICENSE INSPECTION. Has anyone ever heard of the fourth amendment?

 

 

http://reason.com/bl...ukes-florida-co

 

"The August 21 search was executed with a tremendous and disproportionate show of force, and no evidence exists that such force was justified," the court says. "Despite the fact that neither OCSO nor the DBPR had any reason to believe that the inspection of Strictly Skillz posed a threat to officer safety, the record indicates that several OCSO officers entered the barbershop wearing masks and bulletproof vests, and with guns drawn; surrounded the building and blocked all of the exits; forced all of the children and other customers to leave; announced that the business was 'closed down indefinitely'; and handcuffed and conducted pat-down searches of the employees while the officers searched the premises. Such a search, which bears no resemblance to a routine inspection for barbering licenses, is certainly not reasonable in scope and execution....The show of force and search were all the more unreasonable in view of the fact that DBPR inspectors visited Strictly Skillz a mere two days before the search and had already determined that the barbershop and its employees were in compliance with state regulations."

[Homer]

Another example of "disproportionate force" when you get a military mindset in the local police. In this case, backing up bureaucrats attacking hairdressers. A brief summary from the judge is below. The bureaucrats and police in question were trying to hide behind "qualified immunity."  The judge was having none of that nonsense. How would you like to be fully in compliance of the law, and have swat police bust into your business guns drawn and masks on without reason or warrant to do so? Only 2 days after being inspected and found in compliance? With women and children present... You think those kids will ever respect the police after getting the crud scared out of them? There is no reason they should after that kind of nonsense.

Read below. This was done as a LICENSE INSPECTION. Has anyone ever heard of the fourth amendment?

 

 

http://reason.com/bl...ukes-florida-co

 

"The August 21 search was executed with a tremendous and disproportionate show of force, and no evidence exists that such force was justified," the court says. "Despite the fact that neither OCSO nor the DBPR had any reason to believe that the inspection of Strictly Skillz posed a threat to officer safety, the record indicates that several OCSO officers entered the barbershop wearing masks and bulletproof vests, and with guns drawn; surrounded the building and blocked all of the exits; forced all of the children and other customers to leave; announced that the business was 'closed down indefinitely'; and handcuffed and conducted pat-down searches of the employees while the officers searched the premises. Such a search, which bears no resemblance to a routine inspection for barbering licenses, is certainly not reasonable in scope and execution....The show of force and search were all the more unreasonable in view of the fact that DBPR inspectors visited Strictly Skillz a mere two days before the search and had already determined that the barbershop and its employees were in compliance with state regulations."

 

 

 

I have a feeling that there is a lot more to this story then whats being told in this transparently hyped up article, It would be interesting to hear what happened from the officers involved, Unfortunately they don't get to tell their side of the story and the version the public gets in this case comes from the plaintiffs attorneys who have their own agenda, Which being truthful is not a part of. 

 

Apparently from a couple of articles i read the inspectors were recently threatened, intimidated and ignored while trying to conduct routine  health inspections at some of the barber shops involved in this incident and it's also apparent that some of the witnesses are lying when they claimed that a dozen masked machine gun toting SWAT members raided these "family" hair salons full of kids.  

 

From The Orlando Sentinel -

 

http://www.capitalga...0,3319450.story

 

 

"Records show as many as 14 deputies, including narcotics agents, were involved in operations at the nine barbershops targeted in the two main Pine Hills-area sweeps on Aug. 21 and Sept. 17. Vidler said Friday that many of those deputies were not directly involved in the inspections.

At one shop in particular, though barbers and customers who said they'd been there that day described about a dozen deputies being involved in an inspection, Vidler said as few as three uniformed deputies entered the shop, which he said had no customers at the time.

Vidler also stated that the store's owner, Brian Berry of Strictly Skillz, told deputies arriving at the shop that he knew they were coming and had "cleaned house." Berry told the Sentinel that he had been told by another shop that inspectors were en-route, and had gone through his shop to ensure there were no obvious health or other violations."

[The Average Joe]

Hmmm, Well, the judge heard both the plaintiff's  and the defendant's attorneys. I think I'll go by what the judge says since he saw all the evidence.

 

I too have read many articles about this strategy by police. It seems the  courts have generally held that the 4th Amendment is NOT violated if officers are along for "license checks."  Of course, this has lead to using police to conduct searches WITHOUT A WARRANT. In essence, police are using this strategy as a loophole for the 4th Amendment. By doing an "administrative search," cops can avoid getting a warrant, and as the case above indicates, often with excessive force. Several home poker nights have had swat raids on them, and a few of those incidents have resulted in death of the homeowner. Security guards have been killed. Police have killed several innocent homeowners when they served no knock warrants/raids on the wrong houses.

 

In St Louis alone, cops fired their weapons for an average of 23 shootings a year with 4 fatalities a year.  How many people do cops shoot a year? No one knows.  Estimates run from a low of 400 to thousands. Both LA and Chicago shot more than 55 people each in 2012.

 

Just for contrast, there were 6 police fatal shootings in a year in Germany and the same in Australia.  Granted, laws are different, but even adjusted for population, should there be 65 times more.

 

Annually, about 150 police are killed. It's a dangerous job, no doubt. However, there are at least nine job categories more dangerous, none of which make over 19 dollars an hour. Our police are well paid, and it is not unreasonable to expect them to behave professionally AND to have a healthy respect for our 4th Amendment rights. SWAT using overwhelming shows of force on class 2 misdemeanors and administrative witch hunts shows neither professionalism nor respect for the rights of those they "serve and protect."

[supermom]

Asset forfeiture is bull s.  It certainly violates the Constitution. Even as a young man before I was interested in politics, I KNEW this was a bad idea. No trial, no charges, just give me your stuff at the end of a gun. And people wonder why  I am against an all powerful government and the militarization of domestic police forces.

 

And on that note, remember when we were having the discussion about Ferguson and the militarization of domestic police. Check this out. Painting "rescue" on the side makes me feel oh so much safer...   Hey, maybe Folsom can get an Abrams tank to pass out speeding tickets and a few machine gun emplacements on the corners of busy streets in school zones.

 

http://www.utsandieg...rmored-vehicle/

Where are abrams tanks being passed out to schools? Really? .... aw fluffy kitties Im so not getting the paranoia

Hmmm, Well, the judge heard both the plaintiff's  and the defendant's attorneys. I think I'll go by what the judge says since he saw all the evidence.

 

I too have read many articles about this strategy by police. It seems the  courts have generally held that the 4th Amendment is NOT violated if officers are along for "license checks."  Of course, this has lead to using police to conduct searches WITHOUT A WARRANT. In essence, police are using this strategy as a loophole for the 4th Amendment. By doing an "administrative search," cops can avoid getting a warrant, and as the case above indicates, often with excessive force. Several home poker nights have had swat raids on them, and a few of those incidents have resulted in death of the homeowner. Security guards have been killed. Police have killed several innocent homeowners when they served no knock warrants/raids on the wrong houses.

 

In St Louis alone, cops fired their weapons for an average of 23 shootings a year with 4 fatalities a year.  How many people do cops shoot a year? No one knows.  Estimates run from a low of 400 to thousands. Both LA and Chicago shot more than 55 people each in 2012.

 

Just for contrast, there were 6 police fatal shootings in a year in Germany and the same in Australia.  Granted, laws are different, but even adjusted for population, should there be 65 times more.

 

Annually, about 150 police are killed. It's a dangerous job, no doubt. However, there are at least nine job categories more dangerous, none of which make over 19 dollars an hour. Our police are well paid, and it is not unreasonable to expect them to behave professionally AND to have a healthy respect for our 4th Amendment rights. SWAT using overwhelming shows of force on class 2 misdemeanors and administrative witch hunts shows neither professionalism nor respect for the rights of those they "serve and protect."

Really? Im pretty sure a whole lot of people know. Every shooting is reported, whether you pay attention to the news or not. These kinds of comments are typical of people trying to stir up a hornets nest from a crock of peace honey. 

[The Average Joe]

Where are abrams tanks being passed out to schools? Really? .... aw fluffy kitties Im so not getting the paranoia

Really? Im pretty sure a whole lot of people know. Every shooting is reported, whether you pay attention to the news or not. These kinds of comments are typical of people trying to stir up a hornets nest from a crock of peace honey. 

No, they are not.

You need to educate yourself. Every one of the 17000 individual police agencies keeps track. However, despite a law requiring them to do so, there is no FEDERAL database of justified or unjustified shooting by police.

http://www.washingto...r-no-one-knows/

[supermom]

No, they are not.

You need to educate yourself. Every one of the 17000 individual police agencies keeps track. However, despite a law requiring them to do so, there is no FEDERAL database of justified or unjustified shooting by police.

http://www.washingto...r-no-one-knows/

California, however does that such a data base. 

 

FOIA the Dept of justice-Ca. and ask for it. They track bullets used by departments, they certainly track shootings.

[Homer]

Hmmm, Well, the judge heard both the plaintiff's  and the defendant's attorneys. I think I'll go by what the judge says since he saw all the evidence.

 

I too have read many articles about this strategy by police. It seems the  courts have generally held that the 4th Amendment is NOT violated if officers are along for "license checks."  Of course, this has lead to using police to conduct searches WITHOUT A WARRANT. In essence, police are using this strategy as a loophole for the 4th Amendment. By doing an "administrative search," cops can avoid getting a warrant, and as the case above indicates, often with excessive force. Several home poker nights have had swat raids on them, and a few of those incidents have resulted in death of the homeowner. Security guards have been killed. Police have killed several innocent homeowners when they served no knock warrants/raids on the wrong houses.

 

In St Louis alone, cops fired their weapons for an average of 23 shootings a year with 4 fatalities a year.  How many people do cops shoot a year? No one knows.  Estimates run from a low of 400 to thousands. Both LA and Chicago shot more than 55 people each in 2012.

 

Just for contrast, there were 6 police fatal shootings in a year in Germany and the same in Australia.  Granted, laws are different, but even adjusted for population, should there be 65 times more.

 

Annually, about 150 police are killed. It's a dangerous job, no doubt. However, there are at least nine job categories more dangerous, none of which make over 19 dollars an hour. Our police are well paid, and it is not unreasonable to expect them to behave professionally AND to have a healthy respect for our 4th Amendment rights. SWAT using overwhelming shows of force on class 2 misdemeanors and administrative witch hunts shows neither professionalism nor respect for the rights of those they "serve and protect."

 

 

"Hmmm, Well, the judge heard both the plaintiff's  and the defendant's attorneys. I think I'll go by what the judge says since he saw all the evidence."

 

​When i skimmed over the appeals court decision, It was full of hyperbole and ignored the fact that the plaintiffs were lying about some details of the raid, I highly doubt that there would be universal approval of this decision  by the peers of these judges. 

[Homer]

No, they are not.

You need to educate yourself. Every one of the 17000 individual police agencies keeps track. However, despite a law requiring them to do so, there is no FEDERAL database of justified or unjustified shooting by police.

http://www.washingto...r-no-one-knows/

 

 

I don't understand why the FBI doesn't track officer involved shootings, This is something that should of been done a long time ago. The fact that there's not a transparent national database allows criminal advocates to manipulate data for their own agendas. 

[The Average Joe]

 

 

I don't understand why the FBI doesn't track officer involved shootings, This is something that should of been done a long time ago. The fact that there's not a transparent national database allows criminal advocates to manipulate data for their own agendas. 

 

Or, allows people like me who HATE criminals to wonder why there is no transparency or accountability for one of the most powerful responsibilities a police officer has; the decision whether or not to take another life.  It was mandated that the feds track this in the 1994 Crime Control Act. However, there is no mandate on the 17000 individual police departments who "voluntarily" submit information that has the potential to make them look bad. Thus, no database. From the NYT:

 

"Despite widespread public interest and a provision in the 1994 Crime Control Act requiring the attorney general to collect the data and publish an annual report on them, statistics on police shootings and use of nondeadly force continue to be piecemeal products of spotty collection, and are dependent on the cooperation of local police departments. No comprehensive accounting for all the nation's 17,000 police departments exists."

 

Huffpo (yes I read lib sources too) Had a pretty decent editorial about this topic with a lot of good links.   http://www.huffingto..._b_2278013.html