It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Policing for Profit: Cops Stealing Cash from Citizens under War on Drugs Hoax

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Xcathdra,Your a honorable Officer of the Law,by all accounts. I think many people,myself included, believe that Officers bend certain rules,for themselves,and for their respective fellow officers.That being said,What could LEO's change, that would make the average citizen,not look at these officers,like they were criminals themselves? I ask,because most good citizens out there ,have a hard time respecting LEO's after seeing and hearing story's like this one. I graciously await your response.




posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


First, the title of the post is misleading. The officers are not stealing the money. They are seizing it because they suspect it is proceeds from criminal activity.

Second, take the whole drug trade aspect out of it. Should people who break the law and receive financial gain from their criminal activity be allowed to keep the proceeds of said criminal activity?



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


To be honest.. People need to learn how their government works - at all levels. They must take part in the political process instead of rubberstamping laws etc. Hold Government accountible.

The other recomendation would be for people to understand the laws, how they work and how they apply given the circumstances.

People are very quick to voice their thoughts on how something is a 4th amendment violation while at the very same time not understanding the 4th amendment. The 4th applies to the government, NOT the people.

Seizure and forfeiture laws are goofy and have strict guidelines on what can be sezied, how the seizure is reported, what it can be used for, if at all, how people are prosecuted (if at all) etc etc etc.

People need to understand that the Constitution is not a plain text interpretation anymore. Its refined by amendments and case law. Its meant to be a living document, which is to say it was designed to be flexible with the times. Our founding fathers new that what they created at the time would not look the same 200 years in the future.

People need to understand that law enforcement does not send people to jail, nor do we determine any type of punishment. The courts do that, and law enforcement is not part of the judicial branch.

Last - Communication must be imporved on both sides, LEO and the citizens we serve and work for. Lack of communication results in mistrust. Couple that with lack of understanding on how laws work, jurisdiction etc, and it creates a scenario where people hate the cops, or love the cops.

Its not an easy fix, and will require understanding on both sides of the fence here.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by sonnny1
 


First, the title of the post is misleading. The officers are not stealing the money. They are seizing it because they suspect it is proceeds from criminal activity.

Second, take the whole drug trade aspect out of it. Should people who break the law and receive financial gain from their criminal activity be allowed to keep the proceeds of said criminal activity?


First,So,"suspect" gives them that right? Got it. No due process,just grab and go..........
Second, Should LEO'S,who bend the law,and receive financial gain,from criminal activity,be allowed to keep the proceeds of said criminal activity?

Sorry,Police Departments shouldnt be making ANY money,off the criminals they arrest. ALL monies should be given back to the taxpayers,who pay for their jobs.Let the community decide what its officers need.You wouldnt have officers making the mistake,if you didnt give them a reason to make one.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Xcathdra
 


I totally agree. Seriously,if you are not a high ranking officer,you should be. I say that with the deepest respect. "We the People" need to have a closer relationship with our law enforcement. I think some of these seizure laws,are akin to eminent domain laws. Both of these kind of laws,are ones that need clear understanding. I had a talk with one of my childhood friends,thats a Sargent in the police force. I asked him the same thing,and he told me that most folks dont understand how hard it is to be an officer. The interaction with people,the hours,the paperwork,lawsuits. He tells me hes all for better testing for new recruits,psychological,physical,etc. He wants the average citizen to know what goes on,on a daily basis. I told him,I am hard on LEO'S.
We both grew up in a high crime area,so we saw good and bad officers.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


You did not answer the question.

Probable cause gives the police the right to seize the money. Probable cause also gives the police the right to charge people with crimes. What you are not realizing is that those people have their day in court. The judicial system finds you guilty or not guilty not the police. The judicial system also decides if the money that is seized is returned to the person or forfeited, not the police. There is plenty of due process. It clearly said in the video that people can go to court and defend themselves to get their money back.

Where are the officer's bending the law or benefiting financially from criminal activity? We are talking about seizing money that is suspected of being gained through criminal activity. None of the cash goes into the police officer's pockets. It is seized as evidence. If you are talking about police corruption then no I do not think the officer's should keep the money gained through corruption. This is not a case of corruption though.

The rules vary state to state on how the seized money is appropriated. Some states dictate that the money goes into the State's general fund and a percentage goes to the police department while others allow the police department to take it.
edit on 25-5-2011 by areyouserious2010 because: edit to add



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:24 AM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


Actually,the real question has been raised by the OP. From the article:

Among the questions:are some police agencies more concerned about making money off the drugs, than stopping them?

At the center of this months-long investigation are laws that let officers pull driver over looking for cash. Those officers do not even have to file criminal charges against a person to take his/her money.

"If I am a criminal, if they allege me to be a criminal," Petrosyan told NewsChannel 5 Investigates, "why would they settle? They do not just let criminals go."

LINK

Defend it all you want,but the Law gives the LEO's more power to make mistakes,and gives them the right to seize money,WITHOUT filling criminal charges. It also makes them look like they are PROFITING,WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. I find this fundamentally wrong,

Heres a great read on the subject.

POLICING FOR PROFIT

You will understand that this is a billion dollar racket,that hurts the average citizen,and puts law enforcement in a bad light.


edit on 25-5-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


It is not the police that dictate policy though. And some on this site call for outright violence towards police officers. That is where most people who are posting here are wrong. You do not agree with the law so instead of dealing with the persons responsible for passing the laws non violently, you take it out on the ones that are bound by duty to enforce the law violently?


When I wore a military uniform I did not dictate policy either, yet I was still an enemy soldier to another country's army. I don't know why they were taking it out one me. Someone did declare this a War on Drugs, but of course we like to just call it a "police action". Seems I've heard that before.


The country that you live in, Mexico, is now the drug violence capital of the entire world. This violence is the reason the police combat the drug problem with such voracity. Because politicians make the policy and pass the laws, the police have to enforce them by any means possible.

The drug cartels make billions of dollars a year off of the trade. Instead of simply selling the drugs, they then turn it around, buy weapons and kill anyone who stands in their way. This includes other cartel members, innocent people and police officers.


You know about Mexico what you are told about Mexico along with the pretty picture they paint for you in their stories about Mexico. I believe you may have a somewhat distorted view of the reality of it here. For example you say,

" This violence is the reason the police combat the drug problem with such voracity."

It would appear you have that somewhat reversed. The politicians made that policy and passed the laws and now the police have to enforce them by any means possible. The stats we keep on that all show a tremendous spike in violence just after the Mexican War on Drugs was put into action. Everyone reporting on the wave of violence over the past several years offers those figures "since the start of Calderon's war." The people here are well aware of this sequence of events.

The Mexican people as a whole are not as easily taken in by government shenanigans as those up north, they recognize it for what it is, most of them. Our violence is mostly confined to those you mentioned, i.e., police, military, and other cartel members. Unfortunately there have been some civilian victims getting caught in the crossfire or sucked into a very flawed and failed policy, particularly in the border regions. It certainly is nothing compared to the random acts of violence carried out against unfortunate innocents everyday up north that are drug-violence related. I know in Mexico I am relatively safe from that even though I live in one of the so-called "hot spots". I never felt entirely safe while living in my coastal southern California town. No one had that luxury there.


If tomorrow drugs were legalized, the police would no longer enforce drug laws. "Blank check" legalization is not the answer though. I would argue that legalization of SOME drugs with regluation of their trade is more in order. "Blank check" legalization would not stop the criminal elements from continuing to use the drug trade. It would have to be legitimized like the alcohol trade.


As I am now a "senior citizen" by most standards I am concerned about the upcoming infirmities of old-age approaching. I want heroin and other opiates available to me on demand when I feel the need for them has arrived. I wish to be required nothing more than showing I was counseled by a physician about the use of these medicines, and regardless of his recommendation I want the free-will to choose to purchase and use them, or not. And if a time comes when I am riddled in pain day in and out and wish to fade off into oblivion with those drugs if that is my choice, I would like to do so without government interference. As I no longer live in the US I believe I have taken steps to reserve those options, among others.

I believe there are other useful drugs I wish to reserve option on as well, and will do so as I see fit. I believe if the US were to concede use of one particular benign and useful plant - and all its possible uses - they could have a drug policy that is manageable and serves the people. If the US wishes to make recreational drug use a thing of the past they would need to tear-down the institution, tradition, industry, and lifestyle they have built around the recreational use of alcohol.


First, the title of the post is misleading. The officers are not stealing the money. They are seizing it because they suspect it is proceeds from criminal activity.


Are You Serious? When there is no evidence of criminal activity present it is nothing more than suspicion and supposition. Under those circumstances keeping the money is incentive to initiate criminal activity of their own. The first rule of prohibition policy is that it creates corruption.


Second, take the whole drug trade aspect out of it. Should people who break the law and receive financial gain from their criminal activity be allowed to keep the proceeds of said criminal activity?


White collar stuff that rich-ol'-boys get away with everyday? I think I would make busting some of that my first priority.


edit on 25-5-2011 by Erongaricuaro because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Erongaricuaro
 


"When there is no evidence of criminal activity present it is nothing more than suspicion and supposition. Under those circumstances keeping the money is incentive to initiate criminal activity of their own. The first rule of prohibition policy is that it creates corruption."

Couldn't have said it better myself.

Star for you!



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
The civil forfeiture laws allow the police department to seize large sums of money when they have probable cause to believe it is connected with the drug trade or other illegal activities.


Lots of money.... no drugs... not committing a crime... not wanted for a crime.... NO PROBABLE CAUSE!



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   
"Seizure and forfeiture laws are goofy and have strict guidelines on what can be sezied, how the seizure is reported, what it can be used for, if at all, how people are prosecuted (if at all) etc etc etc."

I am stopped in a Tennesee trap with 9500 dollars in cash from a vehicle sale and am heading to the bank to deposit. I have left my bill of sale in my lock box at home and am only carrying money. First will I make it out of there with my cash? and if not please outline the procedure that I must go through to prove my CASH committed no crime so it can be released to me. For LE you either have some misunderstandings of how this really works or are dissembling over this large flaw in the argument.You say plenty of due process and I say plenty of road blocks to keep your cash. Hell if you sold the car to a person suspected of drug dealing in ignorance that money is gone and you will never prove the money was not "criminal" even though you did nothing criminal. Couple this with the new forced entry rulings and the landscape is mighty grim.
seed



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 11:37 AM
link   
reply to post by sonnny1
 


I have already said that the seizure laws, when it comes to money, should be very strict. Even though it is suspicious to carry that much cash in that manner, it is not illegal. What you are not seeing is the questions that are asked by the police officer to the driver during the stop that lend to the suspiciousness of the cash.

There is a difference between SEIZED and FORFEITED. Seized only means the police take it and hold it until someone makes a claim for it in court. If it was legitimate money, someone would have no problem coming into court and explaining where it came from. Although I do not agree with this type of "prove your innocence" in court, it is not criminal court it is a civil proceeding. When the money if forfeited, because no one came to claim it or it is proven to be proceeds from criminal enterprise, it then goes either to the state general fund or the police department according to state law. Not a single dime goes directly into the police officer's pocket.

I understand and agree that the laws need to be tightened when it comes to asset seizure. Fundamentally though, it is necessary because it is taking back the proceeds of criminal enterprise that the criminal should not be allowed to keep.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:27 PM
link   
reply to post by areyouserious2010
 


Sorry,but I disagree with the policy. Would you read this? After you do,tell me again,why they need to do it.If you could also back your stance,with some legitimate reasons,testimonials,that make your case,i would be glad to discuss it with you further.The OP clearly shows the flaws in this instance. I one up it all with proof its flawed.

POLICING FOR PROFIT



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
So what the hell isn't suspicious?

Seems like every damn thing is subjected to "probable cause", seizure and harassment.

Grandma's got 10K in her mattress. Better kick in the door and tase her.

Then just hold the 10K until somebody with a viable claim (obviously not Grandma since it was taken from her to begin with) comes and asks for it back.

Oh, surprise, nobody came for it. Gee, I guess the PD and the town can have it now.

Hey, who am I to question policy or expect any of policys mighty minions to disobey the great policy?

Can't wait for policy to stone those driving Saudi women to death. All hail policy!



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:01 PM
link   
reply to post by mustard seed
 


and yet again you guys are failing to understand what we are talking about. We are NOT talking about the average citizen driving down the road. We ARE talking about commercial motor vehicles, where PC and RS are NOT needed to inspect.

Quit giving hypotheticals or examples that are a normal person leaving their house in their pontiac G6.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Quit giving hypotheticals or examples that are a normal person leaving their house in their pontiac G6.


Like these:


The 45-minute program focused on cases in which motorists were stopped, arrested, and had their property seized without evidence of drugs in their car. The program said most of the misconduct occurred along Interstate 10 in Jefferson Davis and Cameron parishes in southwestern Louisiana, and that out-of state travelers, particularly minorities, were usually targeted. Hidden cameras used to record searches and seizures showed police officers stopping the TV crew for "violations" they did not commit and asking crew members how much money they had. "Dateline" reporter John Larson spent more than a year researching abuses of the state's drug forfeiture law.link



A gang in Minnesota accosted innocent people, seized money and cars, fenced property, and destroyed evidence. They were not crooks, at least not the kind we usually think of. They were members of a select branch of law enforcement, the Metro Gang Strike Force. Officers often took property seized during searches for their personal use, even if they didn't arrest anybody. Vehicles were grabbed and sold off; some just disappeared. Other seized property included cash, large-screen Tvs., computers, jewelry, even a wood chipper, stump grinder and ice auger.

These outrages were revealed by two official investigative reports in 2009. To date, none of the 34 Strike Force officers has been charged with a crime. link


I realize you've been told something. Trained to believe something. But it isnt reality.

There are people in this uniform running around taking whatever the hell they want from whoever the hell they want and harassing, jailing and killing whoever the hell they want in the process of this theft and for the most part they're getting away with it because so many others have been told one thing, trained to believe one thing, and are all too happy to play along with the mass delusion.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:31 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


...and award for best drama goes to......



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Reply to post by Xcathdra
 


Laugh all you want. My point is this is far from hypothetical.

Ignoring it with jokes doesn't help it. It only makes you look like one of the "good cops" who are enabling the "bad cops."


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 05:56 PM
link   
you know, after they steal all the money from citizens, all that will be left is stealing money from the cops. So cops watch out, you may think you're at the top of the food chain but you are also subject to the same tyranny that gave you power in the first place.



posted on May, 25 2011 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by thisguyrighthere
 


What I am laughing at is the lack of common sense being applied. The lack of understanding of how laws work. The lack of understanding about the basics of jurisdiction, and which agency has what where.

So yes, after spending time trying to explain to people the issue, I will laugh at some of the drama coming from people that have absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join