What a crock of @#%^$

[Moonbeam]

Well as long as you're going to jump people about making assumptions about you, Amused, you could maybe next time not begin an otherwise good post with some self congratulatory junk like, "You guys are just now waking up to the complete abuse of the forfeiture laws in this country? Have you been under a rock?" I mean, I know you're old and everything, but maybe some of these people have known and been concerned about these issues as long as you have. Right?
----------------

LedZeppelin, your post doesn't fly:

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.
----------------------

Anybody who uses a substance that is harmless knows instinctively that it wouldn?t be illegal and therefore not punishable by jail time. I would have loved to see what the Founding Fathers would have done if King George told they they'd do time for smoking hemp.

Apparently, the training people get from infancy to do what they are told and the punishment they received when they didn't is like a ball and chain, or maybe more like a mill stone harness. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I'm a good boy I won't get punished. Mommy Jimmy is sticking his buggers under the table.

One thing is terribly obvious, people in this country don't deserve the freedoms they have. They can't even comprehend them. The nanny state, (Where have I heard that before?) has no business telling people they can't alter their consciousness. The state should get involved only when a person's actions violate some one else?s rights. The great heroic act the police performed by cleaning up that neighborhood was desirable only because the war on drugs causes people to resort to such actions. When marijuana is in every garden window, there won't be buyers on the street.

The police were doing their job. How much better the world would be if they didn't. Every cop devoted to a moronic war on drugs is a person and a dollar that could be devoted to something useful. Mass disobedience, by the citizenry and the police would be a great thing. It's beginning here and there already.

If one person's rights can be violated, nobody is save. You, Zep, are a victim of your own ignorance, waiting to happen. What your hairy ass needs is a tremendous kick. Hope it doesn't come, but if it does, you'll learn something profound about how extensive is indifference. You are everywhere.

By the way, I have recently resigned my Libertarian affiliation since discovering it was a form of disguised socialism, and I don't do drugs.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

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.

Have you no concept of our legal system? Since when is a defendant required to prove ANYTHING? The burden has been, and always should be on the prosecution.

They were seizing everyone's car for forfeiture. Did you not watch the show? Even those who had loans with the banks. Even LEASED cars.

If you don't see a problem with putting the burden of ANY proof on the defendant, I weep for both our legal system, and our education system. If you don't see a problem of forfeiture without conviction, I weep even harder.

WTF are they teaching in schools these days???

 

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FallenHero

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.

Have you no concept of our legal system? Since when is a defendant required to prove ANYTHING? The burden has been, and always should be on the prosecution.

They were seizing everyone's car for forfeiture. Did you not watch the show? Even those who had loans with the banks. Even LEASED cars.

If you don't see a problem with putting the burden of ANY proof on the defendant, I weep for both our legal system, and our education system. If you don't see a problem of forfeiture without conviction, I weep even harder.

WTF are they teaching in schools these days???

What did they teach you? Since when is the cops saying something the courts decide legally binding? If you can show me a court case or law that proves what you are saying, then more power to you. If not, do not challenge my knowledge of the law when it comes to the police. Once the defendent of found guilty, then it is his burden of proving that he legally bought it, because he now has a history of crime and his credability is shot. If he is not found guilty, again, his car should be given back.

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
more info

ueh... Look at the link. LIBERTARIANword. Well I don't think you'll get a subjective statement from there. It is a libertarism advocate group and of course it speaks in favor of the person convicted of posession.

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

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.

I'm pretty sure that "proving their property is innocent" doesn't mean proving that they own the car legally. It means proving that the car was not used to commit any drug-related crime. So if they drove the car to the place where they bought drugs, the car is "guilty" (using this strange terminology we've introduced).

Furthermore this whole idea turns our entire legal system on its head. ALWAYS it's been that the defendant was innocent until proven guilty. This is obviously the opposite, and that's a very dangerous precedent to set.

edit: quotes were messed up

 

[TNTrulez]

Legalize marijuana now. All write to your senator.

 

[JaneJane]

I think it is a misappropriation of law enforcements time and the taxpayers money.

The drug sting should be directed at more problematic abusers of crack, heroin, illegal prescription drugs and X which are great problems here in Tampa.

Someone please call the Tampa Police department!

 

[Eli]

Ahh.. If I would have known this thread was about this, I would have joined in much sooner.

Yes, I agree.. that is a crock of #%&$@. I didn't really read the thread.. so I don't know if it's been mentioned before, but it totally depends on which state you live in. Here in Oregon, 30$ is nothing.. they would just take it. If it was deemed that you were under the influence, they'd also give you a big DUII ticket. I'm not sure how much, but you can have quite a bit before it's considered a felony here. Like under an oz.. Not to mention, if you have your medical marijuana card.....

I hate those Cops shows, just for that reason... The absolute authority the cops seem to have..

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Well as long as you're going to jump people about making assumptions about you, Amused, you could maybe next time not begin an otherwise good post with some self congratulatory junk like, "You guys are just now waking up to the complete abuse of the forfeiture laws in this country? Have you been under a rock?" I mean, I know you're old and everything, but maybe some of these people have known and been concerned about these issues as long as you have. Right?
----------------

LedZeppelin, your post doesn't fly:

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.
----------------------

Anybody who uses a substance that is harmless knows instinctively that it wouldn?t be illegal and therefore not punishable by jail time. I would have loved to see what the Founding Fathers would have done if King George told they they'd do time for smoking hemp.

Apparently, the training people get from infancy to do what they are told and the punishment they received when they didn't is like a ball and chain, or maybe more like a mill stone harness. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. I'm a good boy I won't get punished. Mommy Jimmy is sticking his buggers under the table.

One thing is terribly obvious, people in this country don't deserve the freedoms they have. They can't even comprehend them. The nanny state, (Where have I heard that before?) has no business telling people they can't alter their consciousness. The state should get involved only when a person's actions violate some one else?s rights. The great heroic act the police performed by cleaning up that neighborhood was desirable only because the war on drugs causes people to resort to such actions. When marijuana is in every garden window, there won't be buyers on the street.

The police were doing their job. How much better the world would be if they didn't. Every cop devoted to a moronic war on drugs is a person and a dollar that could be devoted to something useful. Mass disobedience, by the citizenry and the police would be a great thing. It's beginning here and there already.

If one person's rights can be violated, nobody is save. You, Zep, are a victim of your own ignorance, waiting to happen. What your hairy ass needs is a tremendous kick. Hope it doesn't come, but if it does, you'll learn something profound about how extensive is indifference. You are everywhere.

By the way, I have recently resigned my Libertarian affiliation since discovering it was a form of disguised socialism, and I don't do drugs.

Moonbeam... for once, I am in complete and absolute agreement with you. It's like you read my mind, every word is exactly what I believe and feel. :Q

Except that if Libertarianism is another form of disguised socialism (a point I think I see, in that case I would prefer to call it a compromise), then it is far far better than the form of socialism we already have.

Oh well, this governmental corruption and theft is only the tip of the iceberg of what's really going on. To mix metaphors at will, the sheep have no idea how deep the rabbit hole goes.

 

[Lucky]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Lucky
that's an abuse of forfeiture laws in my opinion. pure crap. :|

Sigh. This is NOT an abuse, because they did not forfeit anything. The cops siezed the car to search for more evidence and hold it until trial. The COURTS have to take away property. This is what is called due process of law. Otherwise, after the trial, they have to return the car.

<sigh> If the property is taken, it's an abuse. How's that?

 

[flyfish]

They should just make you dump your drugs out in the ditch, chew your ass out , then send you on your way.

 

[sandorski]

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.

Those who fought for Women's Suffrage were primarily women.

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: Lucky

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Lucky
that's an abuse of forfeiture laws in my opinion. pure crap. :|

Sigh. This is NOT an abuse, because they did not forfeit anything. The cops siezed the car to search for more evidence and hold it until trial. The COURTS have to take away property. This is what is called due process of law. Otherwise, after the trial, they have to return the car.

<sigh> If the property is taken, it's an abuse. How's that?

Unfortunately, this matter won't be resolved because we don't know exactly what happened to the individuals on the show. Did they go to jail? What kind of fines did they pay? Were their cars unequivocally seized? We don't know. What I do know is that the "sergeant" said very matter-of-factly, as if he was both the judge and executioner, "You are going to jail. We will be siezing your car and its contents and you can buy it from the sheriff if you want it back." I remember the cop remarking about one of the car's expensive rims and basically saying "oh well, we're taking those too," as if he's beaming with delight that those rims might actually bring in some revenue.

At the beginning of the segment the "sergeant" said that they were running the sting because they wanted to clean up the neighborhood but he readily admitted that the buyers will eventually go somewhere else. It's a vicious cycle. It makes you wonder: why do we keeping "fighting drugs" from the same, ineffective angle? Could it be that the windfall from asset forfeiture is just too appealing to some law enforcement agencies to give up?

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD

Originally posted by: vi_edit
more info

ueh... Look at the link. LIBERTARIANword. Well I don't think you'll get a subjective statement from there. It is a libertarism advocate group and of course it speaks in favor of the person convicted of posession.

It speaks in favor of the due process of law. If you find this radical then whomever provided your civics education failed miserably.

 

[bleckywelcky]

Yeh, I saw that episode and I thought it was pretty ridiculous. Mind you that I do not smoke pot, never have, and I don't think anyone should smoke pot. However, these are just the little guys and I think the cops should spend their time going for the bigger guys. If someone is gonna just grab some pot and smoke it themselves, then that is their problem. The only time I think that the pot usage laws should really be enforced is when they are in combination with other things. Say, if you get stopped for speeding and you have pot on you, then you should get charged for both. But the cops should not be dealing to people just so they can bust them. It just uselessly fills up our prison systems and costs the tax payers money. Now, if the cops routinely find that by picking these people up that they often lead to finding other dealers, then the setup is a bit more justified.

The cars being seized is standard operation and fair for drug busts - however, as I said before, these drug busts are frivolous in the first place, so I would have preferred if they had never happened and thereby the cars would have never been seized. These people should be able to sue the department for busting their cars though, because the cop in front said that he will always hit the person's front bumper to scare them. Since the people did not know they were being chased yet, they were not fleeing, so the cops didn't have a right to bump them yet. But since the cars were seized anyhow, I guess it doesn't matter or something.

-

 

[Moonbeam]

NeoPTLD Quote:

ueh... Look at the link. LIBERTARIANword. Well I don't think you'll get a subjective statement from there. It is a libertarism advocate group and of course it speaks in favor of the person convicted of posession.
--------------------------------------------

Well I don't think you really meant subjective, but to judge a truth by a label that has been applied to the sayer is a false refutation. Truth stands or falls on its own merit or lack thereof.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by: 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.

Sorry, some of us have a life and went out with some friends and had a few drinks, you little pencil necked geek (hence, the spelling errors, and if you note the time, it was past 2am, and some don't give a flying f*ck about that, at that hour). Don't ever correct my spelling again, or anyone elses for that matter. Judging by the number of your posts, you really don't get out of the house much, and you really feel the need to argue about topics such as this with strangers on the internet to make you feel good about yourself. Clueless fool.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: FallenHero

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.

Have you no concept of our legal system? Since when is a defendant required to prove ANYTHING? The burden has been, and always should be on the prosecution.

They were seizing everyone's car for forfeiture. Did you not watch the show? Even those who had loans with the banks. Even LEASED cars.

If you don't see a problem with putting the burden of ANY proof on the defendant, I weep for both our legal system, and our education system. If you don't see a problem of forfeiture without conviction, I weep even harder.

WTF are they teaching in schools these days???

What did they teach you?

That a man is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. That a man has the right to be secure in his person and property.

Since when is the cops saying something the courts decide legally binding?

The seizure and forfeiture laws are just that, laws. The cops only enforce them.

If you can show me a court case or law that proves what you are saying, then more power to you. If not, do not challenge my knowledge of the law when it comes to the police. Once the defendent of found guilty, then it is his burden of proving that he legally bought it, because he now has a history of crime and his credability is shot. If he is not found guilty, again, his car should be given back.

That's just it... you have no knowledge of the law in this case.

You want cases of the seizure of innocent people's property?

Look up Bennis v. Michigan.

Meanwhile, that you've not heard of this amazes me. I first became aware of it about ten years ago while watching 60 Minutes on CBS. Normally, I take these news shows with a grain of salt, but this show was different.

It opened with the story of an antique dealer who had his money seized while traveling. It appears, in the interest of the WOD (war on drugs) federal agents were searching and seizing the money of anyone who bought same day return round trip tickets to certain border states. The man in question had something like $4,000 in cash on him to buy antiques. He was never charged, nor convicted... but was forced to go to court to get his money back. The court costs were more than three times the amount of money seized.

60 Minutes was skeptical, so Ed Bradley mimicked this man's actions. With $5000 in cash in his pocket, he paid cash for a same day return round trip ticket to AZ from New York. Before he could meet his flight, he was stopped by DEA agents and told they had probable cause to search him and his bags. They found his money, and informed him that it would be seized, but that he was free to go. When the cameras came flying out of the woodwork and they learned who he was, they gave his money back with red faces.

This happens ALL the time. There are pages upon pages on the web telling of asset forfeiture with no convictions, and in many cases, no charges whatsoever.

Do a simple Google search on "Asset Forfeiture" or "property seizure" and you'll get thousands of hits with cases upon cases of people who have had their property seized, forfeited, but were never charged nor convicted of a crime.

 

[Led Zeppelin]

Originally posted by: 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

You really have to love the @$$kissing around here. So pathetic.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: LedZeppelin

Originally posted by: 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.

Sorry, some of us have a life and went out with some friends and had a few drinks, you little pencil necked geek (hence, the spelling errors, and if you note the time, it was past 2am, and some don't give a flying f*ck about that, at that hour). Don't ever correct my spelling again, or anyone elses for that matter. Judging by the number of your posts, you really don't get out of the house much, and you really feel the need to argue about topics such as this with strangers on the internet to make you feel good about yourself. Clueless fool.

I see. When your argument is shattered, it's time for you to start insulting the person.

And if I'm not mistaken, you were arguing too... But you were wrong. So if I'm a clueless fool, what the fsck does that make you?

And guess what? I'll correct your spelling, grammar, stupidity and any other thing about you I damn well please. WTF are you going to do about it, tough guy? In fact, I'm making it a point to search out every post you make from now on, just to correct your spelling.

 

[mithrandir2001]

LedZeppelin: u r 0wn3d.

(How 'bout that spelling?)

 

[Michael]

Amused,

Again, I point out that you claim that the Founding Fathers would not support the law that allows the seizing of property yet this has been tried (going from memory) and found Constitutional. If the law is Constitutional, then I accept that it fit into the framwork of what the writers of the Constitution intended (I concede that some may have written and argued against such powers but as a group they did not include the protection in the Constitution).

As such, it is a valid law passed by our elected representatives. Parties and individuals who have decided to support legalizing pot get elected out of office all the time. As much as anyone can rant against the "war on drugs", it still remains the will of the American people, as expressed in their votes, that it continue to be waged.

Michael

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Michael
Amused,

Again, I point out that you claim that the Founding Fathers would not support the law that allows the seizing of property yet this has been tried (going from memory) and found Constitutional. If the law is Constitutional, then I accept that it fit into the framwork of what the writers of the Constitution intended (I concede that some may have written and argued against such powers but as a group they did not include the protection in the Constitution).

As such, it is a valid law passed by our elected representatives. Parties and individuals who have decided to support legalizing pot get elected out of office all the time. As much as anyone can rant against the "war on drugs", it still remains the will of the American people, as expressed in their votes, that it continue to be waged.

Michael

Michael,

That misguided and dishonest politicians and judges misinterpret and twist the original meaning of the Constitution does not make it right. That a liberal majority on the supreme court found that law officers can take a car from a man caught with a hooker (even though that car didn't even belong to him, but his wife) only shows that they have contempt, not respect for the original intent of our Constitution.

We've had this argument before. This is not Constitutional, but a perverted end run around what is clearly plain English. They could never hope to get the two-thirds needed to ratify such an amendment, so they merely "reinterpret" the restrictions on the powers of government.

It's just like religion. If you can't change the text, change what it means.

 

[Michael]

The Constitution is clear that the Supreme Court has the ultimate power to interpret and compare laws against the Constitution. This issue was tried in the Court and was found to be Constitutional. Like many such decisions, there are those that disagree - you being one. However, the law is valid and is a product of our elected representatives. If people are still out breaking the law then they should accept the consequences. That's even Libertarian - take responsibility for your actions.

You, of course, can continue to argue your point of view. I disagree with your attempt to take the "Constitution" or "Founding Fathers" moral high ground. That place is more properly occupied by the people who support the law.

Michael

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: Michael
The Constitution is clear that the Supreme Court has the ultimate power to interpret and compare laws against the Constitution. This issue was tried in the Court and was found to be Constitutional. Like many such decisions, there are those that disagree - you being one. However, the law is valid and is a product of our elected representatives. If people are still out breaking the law then they should accept the consequences. That's even Libertarian - take responsibility for your actions.

You, of course, can continue to argue your point of view. I disagree with your attempt to take the "Constitution" or "Founding Fathers" moral high ground. That place is more properly occupied by the people who support the law.

Michael

Bullsh!t. Blindly supporting a law that is clearly 180 degrees from the intentions of our Founding Fathers is hardly a "moral high ground."

If you choose to live your life blindly accepting the outrageous actions of a runaway government that no longer considers itself bound by the Constitution, so be it. I do not.

 

[UberDave]

I think the police should go to jail for selling it.