What a crock of @#%^$

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Gaard
Amused - <<Most people here aren't advocation the use of pot. They are only decrying the tactics of our government. >>

Then again...most of the people here who are decrying the tactics of our government are pot smokers.

Or libertarians.

 

[Michael]

Amused,

I am aware of cases where the ability to seize property has been "abused". I'm pretty sure that the law has been tested on Constitutional grounds and found to be valid. As such, it either fit what the Founding Fathers intended or they did such a poor job of documenting it in our legal contract (the Constitution) that I can't see this having been a priority for them.

Candidates and parties have leaned towards legalizing Pot. Whenever they do, they tend to get voted out of office. It seems that the will of the people is still that this be illegal.

Michael

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin
I really don't see what the big outrage is here. I saw the episode of Cops being discussed, and it was an undercover sting. Obviously they had gathered enough information to see there was a big enough drug problem in this particular area to justify that a sting like this was necessary. How would you like to live in the neighborhood where the sting took place? I guarantee that those of you whining about this sting operation wouldn't be bitching about it, if you owned a home in that neighborhood. If you can do the crime, you can do the time. I particularly like the guy in the Nissan. He had obviously seen the police doing busts earlier in the day, so what does he do? He comes back and asks the undercover cop posing as the dealer "Are the cops gone now?" What a dumbass, he, and all the other drug addicts who whine and complain about the laws, deserve everything that happens to them. They don't seem to grasp that no matter how harmless they may think pot is to them, it's still an illegal narcotic and could be punishable with jail time.

And you don't seem to realize the danger in giving the government the power to seize property, and keep it even if you are not charged, or convicted of a crime.

The outrage here is not for the individuals who were busted, but in the powers the police and government were able to assert.

Just remember what happens to an accused criminal BEFORE conviction can happen to you, too. Even if you've done nothing. Our Founding Fathers did not create rules on how our government treats the accused for nothing, you know.

If these people weren't out commiting illegal activities, they wouldn't be getting their property seized, would they? Maybe they should think twice about the consequences first. I have no problem whatsoever with these peoples property being taken away from them, because I know that it will never effect me. I don't know about you, but I've never once had a problem with any government official knocking on my door seizing my property, because I am not commiting felonys.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin
I really don't see what the big outrage is here. I saw the episode of Cops being discussed, and it was an undercover sting. Obviously they had gathered enough information to see there was a big enough drug problem in this particular area to justify that a sting like this was necessary. How would you like to live in the neighborhood where the sting took place? I guarantee that those of you whining about this sting operation wouldn't be bitching about it, if you owned a home in that neighborhood. If you can do the crime, you can do the time. I particularly like the guy in the Nissan. He had obviously seen the police doing busts earlier in the day, so what does he do? He comes back and asks the undercover cop posing as the dealer "Are the cops gone now?" What a dumbass, he, and all the other drug addicts who whine and complain about the laws, deserve everything that happens to them. They don't seem to grasp that no matter how harmless they may think pot is to them, it's still an illegal narcotic and could be punishable with jail time.

And you don't seem to realize the danger in giving the government the power to seize property, and keep it even if you are not charged, or convicted of a crime.

The outrage here is not for the individuals who were busted, but in the powers the police and government were able to assert.

Just remember what happens to an accused criminal BEFORE conviction can happen to you, too. Even if you've done nothing. Our Founding Fathers did not create rules on how our government treats the accused for nothing, you know.

If these people weren't out commiting illegal activities, they wouldn't be getting their property seized, would they? Maybe they should think twice about the consequences first. I have no problem whatsoever with these peoples property being taken away from them, because I know that it will never effect me. I don't know about you, but I've never once had a problem with any government official knocking on my door seizing my property, because I am not commiting felonys.

Uh oh... Amused is gonna have a field day with this one...

 

[MusicSoundsBetterWithYou]

Okay, we respect the civil right movement. Non violent resistance. Right?

By concept you agree that Nelson Mandela should have been arrested and jailed.

Moron.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin
I really don't see what the big outrage is here. I saw the episode of Cops being discussed, and it was an undercover sting. Obviously they had gathered enough information to see there was a big enough drug problem in this particular area to justify that a sting like this was necessary. How would you like to live in the neighborhood where the sting took place? I guarantee that those of you whining about this sting operation wouldn't be bitching about it, if you owned a home in that neighborhood. If you can do the crime, you can do the time. I particularly like the guy in the Nissan. He had obviously seen the police doing busts earlier in the day, so what does he do? He comes back and asks the undercover cop posing as the dealer "Are the cops gone now?" What a dumbass, he, and all the other drug addicts who whine and complain about the laws, deserve everything that happens to them. They don't seem to grasp that no matter how harmless they may think pot is to them, it's still an illegal narcotic and could be punishable with jail time.

And you don't seem to realize the danger in giving the government the power to seize property, and keep it even if you are not charged, or convicted of a crime.

The outrage here is not for the individuals who were busted, but in the powers the police and government were able to assert.

Just remember what happens to an accused criminal BEFORE conviction can happen to you, too. Even if you've done nothing. Our Founding Fathers did not create rules on how our government treats the accused for nothing, you know.

If these people weren't out commiting illegal activities, they wouldn't be getting their property seized, would they? Maybe they should think twice about the consequences first. I have no problem whatsoever with these peoples property being taken away from them, because I know that it will never effect me. I don't know about you, but I've never once had a problem with any government official knocking on my door seizing my property, because I am not commiting felonys.

Uh oh... Amused is gonna have a field day with this one...

Amused can kiss my hairy Italian @$$. He's probably one of the morons I see out protesting infront of the Federal Building "Don't bomb Iraq", "Don't bomb Afghanastan", blah blah blah.

 

[Nocturnal]

well, can anyone show me a article in which someone high on pot went into a bank and robbed it? or can anyone show me an article in which someone was high on pot murdered someone? i dont think so. im basing this on pot alone, not pot and alcohol, not pot and coke, or any other substance. just pot itself.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin
I really don't see what the big outrage is here. I saw the episode of Cops being discussed, and it was an undercover sting. Obviously they had gathered enough information to see there was a big enough drug problem in this particular area to justify that a sting like this was necessary. How would you like to live in the neighborhood where the sting took place? I guarantee that those of you whining about this sting operation wouldn't be bitching about it, if you owned a home in that neighborhood. If you can do the crime, you can do the time. I particularly like the guy in the Nissan. He had obviously seen the police doing busts earlier in the day, so what does he do? He comes back and asks the undercover cop posing as the dealer "Are the cops gone now?" What a dumbass, he, and all the other drug addicts who whine and complain about the laws, deserve everything that happens to them. They don't seem to grasp that no matter how harmless they may think pot is to them, it's still an illegal narcotic and could be punishable with jail time.

And you don't seem to realize the danger in giving the government the power to seize property, and keep it even if you are not charged, or convicted of a crime.

The outrage here is not for the individuals who were busted, but in the powers the police and government were able to assert.

Just remember what happens to an accused criminal BEFORE conviction can happen to you, too. Even if you've done nothing. Our Founding Fathers did not create rules on how our government treats the accused for nothing, you know.

If these people weren't out commiting illegal activities, they wouldn't be getting their property seized, would they? Maybe they should think twice about the consequences first. I have no problem whatsoever with these peoples property being taken away from them, because I know that it will never effect me. I don't know about you, but I've never once had a problem with any government official knocking on my door seizing my property, because I am not commiting felonys.

Uh oh... Amused is gonna have a field day with this one...

Amused can kiss my hairy Italian @$$. He's probably one of the morons I see out protesting infront of the Federal Building "Don't bomb Iraq", "Don't bomb Afghanastan", blah blah blah.

I don't agree with him on everything, but I think we'll both agree that you're an idiot.

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
well, can anyone show me a article in which someone high on pot went into a bank and robbed it? or can anyone show me an article in which someone was high on pot murdered someone? i dont think so. im basing this on pot alone, not pot and alcohol, not pot and coke, or any other substance. just pot itself.

Take it to a pot thread.. that isn't what this discussion is about.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin
I really don't see what the big outrage is here. I saw the episode of Cops being discussed, and it was an undercover sting. Obviously they had gathered enough information to see there was a big enough drug problem in this particular area to justify that a sting like this was necessary. How would you like to live in the neighborhood where the sting took place? I guarantee that those of you whining about this sting operation wouldn't be bitching about it, if you owned a home in that neighborhood. If you can do the crime, you can do the time. I particularly like the guy in the Nissan. He had obviously seen the police doing busts earlier in the day, so what does he do? He comes back and asks the undercover cop posing as the dealer "Are the cops gone now?" What a dumbass, he, and all the other drug addicts who whine and complain about the laws, deserve everything that happens to them. They don't seem to grasp that no matter how harmless they may think pot is to them, it's still an illegal narcotic and could be punishable with jail time.

And you don't seem to realize the danger in giving the government the power to seize property, and keep it even if you are not charged, or convicted of a crime.

The outrage here is not for the individuals who were busted, but in the powers the police and government were able to assert.

Just remember what happens to an accused criminal BEFORE conviction can happen to you, too. Even if you've done nothing. Our Founding Fathers did not create rules on how our government treats the accused for nothing, you know.

If these people weren't out commiting illegal activities, they wouldn't be getting their property seized, would they? Maybe they should think twice about the consequences first. I have no problem whatsoever with these peoples property being taken away from them, because I know that it will never effect me. I don't know about you, but I've never once had a problem with any government official knocking on my door seizing my property, because I am not commiting felonys.

You don't think innocent people are accused of crimes and arrested???

Here's a wake up call to you: It happens every day. The rights of the accused in our Constitution are there for just this reason. Please wake up, look at the world and understand why this is wrong.

Here is another wake up call: I don't commit felonies either, but that doesn't keep me from knowing how to spell it.

 

[Zebo]

<----- pulls up a chair and Pours another shot of Glen Morangie.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin
I really don't see what the big outrage is here. I saw the episode of Cops being discussed, and it was an undercover sting. Obviously they had gathered enough information to see there was a big enough drug problem in this particular area to justify that a sting like this was necessary. How would you like to live in the neighborhood where the sting took place? I guarantee that those of you whining about this sting operation wouldn't be bitching about it, if you owned a home in that neighborhood. If you can do the crime, you can do the time. I particularly like the guy in the Nissan. He had obviously seen the police doing busts earlier in the day, so what does he do? He comes back and asks the undercover cop posing as the dealer "Are the cops gone now?" What a dumbass, he, and all the other drug addicts who whine and complain about the laws, deserve everything that happens to them. They don't seem to grasp that no matter how harmless they may think pot is to them, it's still an illegal narcotic and could be punishable with jail time.

And you don't seem to realize the danger in giving the government the power to seize property, and keep it even if you are not charged, or convicted of a crime.

The outrage here is not for the individuals who were busted, but in the powers the police and government were able to assert.

Just remember what happens to an accused criminal BEFORE conviction can happen to you, too. Even if you've done nothing. Our Founding Fathers did not create rules on how our government treats the accused for nothing, you know.

If these people weren't out commiting illegal activities, they wouldn't be getting their property seized, would they? Maybe they should think twice about the consequences first. I have no problem whatsoever with these peoples property being taken away from them, because I know that it will never effect me. I don't know about you, but I've never once had a problem with any government official knocking on my door seizing my property, because I am not commiting felonys.

Uh oh... Amused is gonna have a field day with this one...

Amused can kiss my hairy Italian @$$. He's probably one of the morons I see out protesting infront of the Federal Building "Don't bomb Iraq", "Don't bomb Afghanastan", blah blah blah.

Good gawd, you've passed judgment on me and have me pigeonholed? You're so off base, it shows just how clueless you really are.

Most people here think I'm quite conservative. I'm hard core anti-socialist and wouldn't be caught dead with those peaceniks.

Give me your paypal name so I can send you a buck or two to buy a clue, OK?

 

[MacBaine]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin
I really don't see what the big outrage is here. I saw the episode of Cops being discussed, and it was an undercover sting. Obviously they had gathered enough information to see there was a big enough drug problem in this particular area to justify that a sting like this was necessary. How would you like to live in the neighborhood where the sting took place? I guarantee that those of you whining about this sting operation wouldn't be bitching about it, if you owned a home in that neighborhood. If you can do the crime, you can do the time. I particularly like the guy in the Nissan. He had obviously seen the police doing busts earlier in the day, so what does he do? He comes back and asks the undercover cop posing as the dealer "Are the cops gone now?" What a dumbass, he, and all the other drug addicts who whine and complain about the laws, deserve everything that happens to them. They don't seem to grasp that no matter how harmless they may think pot is to them, it's still an illegal narcotic and could be punishable with jail time.

And you don't seem to realize the danger in giving the government the power to seize property, and keep it even if you are not charged, or convicted of a crime.

The outrage here is not for the individuals who were busted, but in the powers the police and government were able to assert.

Just remember what happens to an accused criminal BEFORE conviction can happen to you, too. Even if you've done nothing. Our Founding Fathers did not create rules on how our government treats the accused for nothing, you know.

If these people weren't out commiting illegal activities, they wouldn't be getting their property seized, would they? Maybe they should think twice about the consequences first. I have no problem whatsoever with these peoples property being taken away from them, because I know that it will never effect me. I don't know about you, but I've never once had a problem with any government official knocking on my door seizing my property, because I am not commiting felonys.

Uh oh... Amused is gonna have a field day with this one...

Amused can kiss my hairy Italian @$$. He's probably one of the morons I see out protesting infront of the Federal Building "Don't bomb Iraq", "Don't bomb Afghanastan", blah blah blah.

Good gawd, you've passed judgment on me and have me pigeonholed? You're so off base, it shows just how clueless you really are.

Most people here think I'm quite conservative. I'm hard core anti-socialist and wouldn't be caught dead with those peaceniks.

Give me your paypal name so I can send you a buck or two to buy a clue, OK?

It's going to take more than $2

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
<----- pulls up a chair and Pours another shot of Glen Morangie.

LOL, while you're having that drink, care to clue the most clueless fan of Led Zeppelin I've ever seen in on just how wrong he is about me?

 

[Gaard]

Disregard for a moment the right or wrong of government siezure...

I'm inclined to believe that these poor souls don't have a clue that they could lose their car over this. Who in their right mind would risk that by buying some pot? If they do know the risks and still take this gamble, maybe a hard wake up call is what they need.

 

[faZZter]

If they want to attempt to stop people from buying something truly harmful to society, then they should make alcoholic beverages illegal again.

Not that this would work, just as silly laws won't stop people from using pot either.

The goverment is wasting your tax dollars stopping these "terrible" people who smoke pot instead of just legalizing it and reaping the tax dollars instead.

And no, I don't smoke pot, or anything else, but even I can see it is stupid to have such ridiculous penalties for buying pot.

Just MHO....

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
<----- pulls up a chair and Pours another shot of Glen Morangie.

LOL, while you're having that drink, care to clue the most clueless fan of Led Zeppelin I've ever seen in on just how wrong he is about me?

Sorry Amused, some have to learn the hard way.


Oh and Led Zepplin made thier best music while sober

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: Carbonyl
<----- pulls up a chair and Pours another shot of Glen Morangie.

LOL, while you're having that drink, care to clue the most clueless fan of Led Zeppelin I've ever seen in on just how wrong he is about me?

Sorry Amused, some have to learn the hard way.

LOL

 

[Gaard]

A1 - <<Here is another wake up call: I don't commit felonies either, but that doesn't keep me from knowing how to spell it. >>

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: vi_edit

It's illegal, they bought it, they got arrested. See anything wrong with this? I sure don't.

Speeding is illegal, but I don't have to buy my car back from the state for doing 10 over.

Exactly... It is the trend that is set...

Grasshopper

 

Originally posted by: Kiyup

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Kiyup
I don't know how some of you are ignorant to the fact that rapists may see less prison time than a person buying a bag of weed.
That is not an exaggeration, and that doesn't bother you?

I do not see where comparisons on sentences was made or how some might be ignorant to that fact. All I see was an agrument on police power and pot being a victimless crime.

However, to go along with your statement, I do not agree with rapists getting less prison time, in fact, I do not agree with posession of the controllod substence in question having a jail or prison sentence, or a punishment at all for that matter.

So what is your argument? Just the matter of the forfeiture of property? The man with the 100G benz loses his car as well as the 50 buck junkyard clunker? Yea yea you get it back blah blah so so.
The fact of the matter is why they forfeit their property at all. They were buying not selling weed when busted. How can it be justified that evidence needs to be brought that the car wasn't acquired with drug money?
It's bullsh!t and you know it.

My comment was that you brought up a point that had bases in the thread. However, you seem to be mixed up, along with most everybody else, on the definitions of siezure and forfeiture. Seizure would be the cops taking the car and holding it until trial, in which case if the criminals are found guilty and they are the sole owners of the car, it is then forfeit to the state. Most of the time, that only happens when there is a jail/prison sentence involved...if it is only a fine, then the car MUST be given back, unless the department wants lawsuits. Again, perhaps you should go read a little bit more before posting ignorance.

And dont tell me what i think and dont think. If I think it is bullsh!t, then i will say its bullsh!t. Everyone here flew off the handle about the seizure of the car, without knowing how or why it does happen. Ignorance creates anger here.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Kiyup

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Kiyup
I don't know how some of you are ignorant to the fact that rapists may see less prison time than a person buying a bag of weed.
That is not an exaggeration, and that doesn't bother you?

I do not see where comparisons on sentences was made or how some might be ignorant to that fact. All I see was an agrument on police power and pot being a victimless crime.

However, to go along with your statement, I do not agree with rapists getting less prison time, in fact, I do not agree with posession of the controllod substence in question having a jail or prison sentence, or a punishment at all for that matter.

So what is your argument? Just the matter of the forfeiture of property? The man with the 100G benz loses his car as well as the 50 buck junkyard clunker? Yea yea you get it back blah blah so so.
The fact of the matter is why they forfeit their property at all. They were buying not selling weed when busted. How can it be justified that evidence needs to be brought that the car wasn't acquired with drug money?
It's bullsh!t and you know it.

My comment was that you brought up a point that had bases in the thread. However, you seem to be mixed up, along with most everybody else, on the definitions of siezure and forfeiture. Seizure would be the cops taking the car and holding it until trial, in which case if the criminals are found guilty and they are the sole owners of the car, it is then forfeit to the state. Most of the time, that only happens when there is a jail/prison sentence involved...if it is only a fine, then the car MUST be given back, unless the department wants lawsuits. Again, perhaps you should go read a little bit more before posting ignorance.

And dont tell me what i think and dont think. If I think it is bullsh!t, then i will say its bullsh!t. Everyone here flew off the handle about the seizure of the car, without knowing how or why it does happen. Ignorance creates anger here.

The cops did say "seize." However, what they described was clearly forfeiture. Remember, folks, in drug cases property may be seized AND forfeited with NO trial, and NO conviction. It is up to the individual to "prove" their property is innocent.

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Kiyup

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Kiyup
I don't know how some of you are ignorant to the fact that rapists may see less prison time than a person buying a bag of weed.
That is not an exaggeration, and that doesn't bother you?

I do not see where comparisons on sentences was made or how some might be ignorant to that fact. All I see was an agrument on police power and pot being a victimless crime.

However, to go along with your statement, I do not agree with rapists getting less prison time, in fact, I do not agree with posession of the controllod substence in question having a jail or prison sentence, or a punishment at all for that matter.

So what is your argument? Just the matter of the forfeiture of property? The man with the 100G benz loses his car as well as the 50 buck junkyard clunker? Yea yea you get it back blah blah so so.
The fact of the matter is why they forfeit their property at all. They were buying not selling weed when busted. How can it be justified that evidence needs to be brought that the car wasn't acquired with drug money?
It's bullsh!t and you know it.

My comment was that you brought up a point that had bases in the thread. However, you seem to be mixed up, along with most everybody else, on the definitions of siezure and forfeiture. Seizure would be the cops taking the car and holding it until trial, in which case if the criminals are found guilty and they are the sole owners of the car, it is then forfeit to the state. Most of the time, that only happens when there is a jail/prison sentence involved...if it is only a fine, then the car MUST be given back, unless the department wants lawsuits. Again, perhaps you should go read a little bit more before posting ignorance.

And dont tell me what i think and dont think. If I think it is bullsh!t, then i will say its bullsh!t. Everyone here flew off the handle about the seizure of the car, without knowing how or why it does happen. Ignorance creates anger here.

The cops did say "seize." However, what they described was clearly forfeiture. Remember, folks, in drug cases property may be seized AND forfeited with NO trial, and NO conviction. It is up to the individual to "prove" their property is innocent.

And I hardly see a problem in this case in which the defendent could not prove that it was his car bought legally. He was not a seller, only a buyer.

 

[Gaard]

FallenHero - <<Seizure would be the cops taking the car and holding it until trial, in which case if the criminals are found guilty and they are the sole owners of the car, it is then forfeit to the state.>>

Why is this? (Not that I care mind you. Hell, if I knew that I might lose my car if I'm busted buying pot, but decide that smoking pot is worth the risk and end up getting my car seized...I'm probably too stupid to drive anyway. ) Is this supposed to be a deterrent or punishment?

 

Originally posted by: Gaard
FallenHero - <<Seizure would be the cops taking the car and holding it until trial, in which case if the criminals are found guilty and they are the sole owners of the car, it is then forfeit to the state.>>

Why is this? (Not that I care mind you. Hell, if I knew that I might lose my car if I'm busted buying pot, but decide that smoking pot is worth the risk and end up getting my car seized...I'm probably too stupid to drive anyway. ) Is this supposed to be a deterrent or punishment?

I would have to say more of a punishment than anything else. Most people dont know about it until it happens, then they get all flustered about it. Punshment for first time and deterrent for repeat offenders. that would be my final conclusion.

EDIT: Also, part of the problem in this whole debate is that Pot is a class A controlled substance by federal law, so the cops, whether they like it or not, have to enforce the law. After that, its all up to the DA to prosecute. But nobody is going to blaim the DA in this case, are they?