http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/tx/5081398.html
Sure it's possible (and maybe even probable) that the money is from drugs, but with not proof it's F'D up the authorities to seize that man's money. Maybe he's just one of those conspiracy theorists that is afraid that the government will take his money if he keeps it in the bank. And if so, looks like his suspicions are true.
I'm not sure if you're going to find this as interesting as I did, but it's definitely something to be outraged over:
http://forum.weedspotter.com/legal/455-budthirsty-washington-state-patrol-will-do-almost-anything-bust.html
You know, CrAz3D, if you don't slant the entire article straight from the title, people might like, read your topics and read your threads. But until then, every time I see something offensive right from the title, I tend to avoid it. I'm sure others do too. :/
Quote from: Newby on August 25, 2007, 02:38:58 PM
You know, CrAz3D, if you don't slant the entire article straight from the title, people might like, read your topics and read your threads. But until then, every time I see something offensive right from the title, I tend to avoid it. I'm sure others do too. :/
What kind of good Republican tells it straight? Honestly.
Quote from: Explicit[nK] on August 25, 2007, 02:21:57 PM
I'm not sure if you're going to find this as interesting as I did, but it's definitely something to be outraged over:
http://forum.weedspotter.com/legal/455-budthirsty-washington-state-patrol-will-do-almost-anything-bust.html
That is jacked up. I dislike abuses of authority like that. Cops tend to think themselves above the law, it annoys the crap out of me.
Quote from: Newby on August 25, 2007, 02:38:58 PM
You know, CrAz3D, if you don't slant the entire article straight from the title, people might like, read your topics and read your threads. But until then, every time I see something offensive right from the title, I tend to avoid it. I'm sure others do too. :/
I suppose my title could've been less vulgar, but it is true nonetheless.
Some over zealous cops took a man's money without good reason or evidence because they believed him to be a drug dealer of sorts. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
There have been other news stories like this where money gets seized based on the slightest suspicion and then the suspected criminal ends up having to spend money in legal fees to get some of it back. Where is the justice in any of this?
Quote from: deadly7 on August 25, 2007, 02:53:16 PM
Quote from: Newby on August 25, 2007, 02:38:58 PM
You know, CrAz3D, if you don't slant the entire article straight from the title, people might like, read your topics and read your threads. But until then, every time I see something offensive right from the title, I tend to avoid it. I'm sure others do too. :/
What kind of good Republican tells it straight? Honestly.
Don't you have a cow to go eat or something?
Quote from: CrAz3D on August 25, 2007, 03:16:44 PM
I suppose my title could've been less vulgar, but it is true nonetheless.
Some over zealous cops took a man's money without good reason or evidence because they believed him to be a drug dealer of sorts. What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"?
There have been other news stories like this where money gets seized based on the slightest suspicion and then the suspected criminal ends up having to spend money in legal fees to get some of it back. Where is the justice in any of this?
It's not about what happens. It's about naming the facts with as little bias as possible. Remain neutral. You can rant and rave about how unfair it is in the topic itself, but come on, the title is important. You could have done "Washington police arrest parents of little accident surviving girl" and then explained what happened. "Douche bag cops/fucked up system" is not very specific. At all.
That was Explicit's article, but ok ;)
Is it better now?
Quote from: CrAz3D on August 25, 2007, 03:22:05 PM
That was Explicit's article, but ok ;)
Lose the bonus. Life will be good.
Or consolidate: "Man has possible drug-money seized by DEA"
Something doesn't add up about that:
QuoteAnastasio Prieto of El Paso gave a state police officer at the weigh station permission to search the truck to see if it contained "needles or cash in excess of $10,000," according to the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed the federal lawsuit Thursday.
That's sort of glossed over -- why were they specifically searching for needles or money?
They probably just asked. We have A LOT of friggin drugs that come up through here
Quote from: Newby on August 25, 2007, 02:38:58 PM
You know, CrAz3D, if you don't slant the entire article straight from the title, people might like, read your topics and read your threads. But until then, every time I see something offensive right from the title, I tend to avoid it. I'm sure others do too. :/
Actually, this is about a douchebag cop and a fucked up system, though..
Quote from: CrAz3D on August 26, 2007, 12:00:07 AM
They probably just asked. We have A LOT of friggin drugs that come up through here
I doubt they walk up to everybody and say "can we search for needles and money?". That's way too specific and vague.
Quote from: iago on August 26, 2007, 03:20:59 AM
I doubt they walk up to everybody and say "can we search for needles and money?". That's way too specific and vague.
They probably had suspisions about the guy and needles and money are two things that AFAIK dogs can't really sniff for or might not be trained to sniff for. Which is probably why they needed to search by hand for them.
Is it just and legal? Well thats for the court to decide.
Well, since they had no evidence/reason to seize his money, it IS unjust.
Pretty sure it's legal for money to be taken as drug money on basis of suspicion. It's not like they'll keep it if it turns out to be wrong.
If your money is taken for drug related purposes, chances are you're behind bars without the ability to spend it anyhow.
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=10110.msg128706#msg128706 date=1188132822]
Pretty sure it's legal for money to be taken as drug money on basis of suspicion. It's not like they'll keep it if it turns out to be wrong.
If your money is taken for drug related purposes, chances are you're behind bars without the ability to spend it anyhow.
But the suspicion would only have to be based on just a hunch that he is (from what the article says) as he had nothing else on him
Quote from: CrAz3D on August 26, 2007, 11:09:31 AM
Quote from: Warriorx86] link=topic=10110.msg128706#msg128706 date=1188132822]
Pretty sure it's legal for money to be taken as drug money on basis of suspicion. It's not like they'll keep it if it turns out to be wrong.
If your money is taken for drug related purposes, chances are you're behind bars without the ability to spend it anyhow.
But the suspicion would only have to be based on just a hunch that he is (from what the article says) as he had nothing else on him
Keep in mind that the only source of information for the article is the driver, so there is a high probability that it's slanted.
Not necessarily. There are going to be official reports of such
But the article doesn't discuss those. It specifically states that everybody (except the trucker) were unavailable for comments.
Quote from: iago on August 26, 2007, 01:19:57 PM
But the article doesn't discuss those. It specifically states that everybody (except the trucker) were unavailable for comments.
Would it be possible that officials refuse to comment because they're trying to save face? I see it happen too often here in Seattle, and I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case for this as well.