0
90

[–] zedoriah 0 points 90 points (+90|-0) ago 

And none of the peoples involved in this theft are going to jail. Fuck the police.

0
48

[–] Shammyhealz 0 points 48 points (+48|-0) ago 

The most amazing part of the whole situation is that then people wonder why we don't like or trust police. Hmm, because I don't like or trust someone who has the potential to completely fuck me over, and even if I can manage to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I did nothing, those who screwed me over will never be punished.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
10

[–] JoshuaLV 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Amazing. And scary. I've literally had zero negative run-ins with law enforcement, but I still have an irrational fear of catching one on the wrong day. And they probably like the fear.

0
7

[–] TahTahBur 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

He should have got interest...

1
6

[–] TheJubJubBird 1 points 6 points (+7|-1) ago 

And none of the peoples involved in this theft are going to jail. Fuck the police.

The problem is not the police. The problem is it was perfectly legal.

The issue is unconstitutional asset forfeiture laws. That's a problem of legislators passing a bill which was unconstitutional. The Executive for failing to veto it, and courts all the way up to the supreme court failing to find it unconstitutional. Every single politician and judge along the line that didn't see this should be impeached for failing to uphold their oath of office. And then tarred, feathered and ridden out of town on a rail.

This is not some vague bit of the constitution where reasonable people could disagree about it's meaning. it's not some edge case where there are conflicting principles. It's crystal clear and appears twice: first in the 5th amendment and then in the 14th amendment: No one can be deprived of property without either due process of law or being compensated.

0
1

[–] Popsquat81 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Based on the Supreme Court ruling in Horne v Department of Agriculture (Regarding the Taking Clause with regards to Raisin Industry) the Supreme Court ruled that the 5th Amendment protection applies not only to the Government taking of Real Property (as it had been applied in the past, specifically with eminent domain) but also that they government cannot take a person's personal property without fair and just compensation. This ruling was released 22 June, 2015.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

0
0

[–] Shinobi 0 points 0 points (+0|-0) ago 

couldn't have expressed it any clearer.

0
40

[–] Boyakasha 0 points 40 points (+40|-0) ago 

I'm honestly impressed that he got his money back. Police shouldn't be allowed to keep confiscated cash and assets. That would be the first step in fixing this issue. They're becoming more dangerous than the criminals. I'm honestly more fearful of police.

0
10

[–] bill.lee [S] 0 points 10 points (+10|-0) ago 

Agreed. Cash-strapped police have been given an out with the civil forfeiture laws and they've learned how to use them. We can also trust that the court-system won't hold them accountable (like @zedoriah noted). I'm glad it worked out for this guy and very sad that he had to spend 2 years fighting.

3
0

[–] Fenrirwulf 3 points 0 points (+3|-3) ago 

I am in no way condoning what the cops did, but a good way to avoid having them seize your cash is to not have large amounts of cash for them the grab.

0
1

[–] SailorMitch 0 points 1 points (+1|-0) ago 

Man, that is the truth. I don't feel nervous or scared when I am around "dangerous" criminals. But put me in a room with cops, I will shit bricks and I'm a veteran doing nothing wrong.

0
12

[–] theoldguy 0 points 12 points (+12|-0) ago 

http://www.reddit.com/r/ProtectAndServe/comments/3auevs/its_a_trap_sophisticated_bmw_trap/

The comments say they wouldn't have found the hidey-hole if they hadn't gotten consent to search based on his apparent crime of having $4700.00 on him.

[–] [deleted] 0 points 15 points (+15|-0) ago 

[Deleted]

1
5

[–] GenghisSean 1 points 5 points (+6|-1) ago 

And sometimes you can't appeal because you weren't charged with a crime; your cash was charged with a crime.

0
11

[–] illpoet 0 points 11 points (+11|-0) ago 

i collect silver bullion and sweat bullets when i'm transporting it bc of stuff like this. So weird that i feel like a smuggler of some sort just bc i'm moving my legally obtained collection of silver. But yeah i figure if i was pulled over and searched with my shinies they'd be gone

0
8

[–] TommyNobody 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago 

They're legal highwaymen.

0
9

[–] humanmilkfarm 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

"Gorman’s use of the word “chick” aroused Monroe’s suspicion that Gorman’s answers were rehearsed because Monroe thought that “chick” was an unusual word for a person Gorman’s age—thirty-one at the time of the stop—to use."

WTF? 31-year-olds use the word "chick" all the time. That's the best they could come up with, "obsolete vernacular"? I can't believe that even counts as probable cause.

0
9

[–] MrHarryReems 0 points 9 points (+9|-0) ago 

How is it that it's ok for them to just seize any cash you have?

0
8

[–] Tsugumori 0 points 8 points (+8|-0) ago  (edited ago)

So... No punitive damages? Hell, for that matter a return on opportunity costs? Either the judge screwed him or his lawyer was incompetent.

0
5

[–] taxation_is_slavery 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Most lawyers wouldn't have got the money back. The cops would just utter a single word, and the trial would be over, "weed".

0
7

[–] TynanSylvester 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

Is 'chick' old vernacular? I'm 29 and I say this...

0
7

[–] RedditSucksNow 0 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago 

My dame gives me the cold shoulder when I call her that.

0
5

[–] TommyNobody 0 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago 

Broads these days.

load more comments ▼ (22 remaining)