What's new
By:

Tough Day To Be In Law Enforcement

Sardines said:
Good point. Hopefully that PD is able to buy an armored personal carrier with the money they seized so they can more effectively serve their community.
Click to expand...

100k for an APC? That would be some knackered old tat, need at least a million for anything useful. They'd be better off investing the money into coke and whores, like they probably will do anyway.
 
Rubashov said:
100k for an APC? That would be some knackered old tat, need at least a million for anything useful. They'd be better off investing the money into coke and whores, like they probably will do anyway.
Click to expand...
It's a down payment. And I guess it's pretty important to clarify that while in the video comments are made that it was about 100K, it was apparently 87K, if that changes anything for anyone. I doubt it does, but facts are facts.
 
Sardines said:
It's a down payment. And I guess it's pretty important to clarify that while in the video comments are made that it was about 100K, it was apparently 87K, if that changes anything for anyone. I doubt it does, but facts are facts.
Click to expand...

I found the video, the one you posted wasn't available here. These civil forfeiture laws exist to legally steal the cash of drug dealers yes? They're never applied in corporate crimes or anything like that yeah? When the banks collapsed and people had their homes taken from them, no banker lost a home in the Hamptons did they?

The cop had no PC for the search or even the stop. How he can seize the guys money without convicting the guy of an offence is ridiculous
 
Rubashov said:
I found the video, the one you posted wasn't available here. These civil forfeiture laws exist to legally steal the cash of drug dealers yes? They're never applied in corporate crimes or anything like that yeah? When the banks collapsed and people had their homes taken from them, no banker lost a home in the Hamptons did they?

The cop had no PC for the search or even the stop. How he can seize the guys money without convicting the guy of an offence is ridiculous
Click to expand...
Yeah, civil forfeiture is theft. There are some small town police departments that happen to be along some major interstate that specialize in civil forfeiture. Just like the cop in the above video, they pull people over for minor traffic infractions but they are not traffic enforcement and they are not there to write speeding tickets. They are "interdiction" officers and there entire job is to fight the drug war. The drug war is the war America has waged against itself for more than 50 years now. As one could likely predict, America is losing the war, on both sides.

If that man had trusted the police as much as he trusted banks he never would have lost his money (he got it back). There is never a reason to disclose sensitive information to the police when they pull you over. They are not entitled to the information and they will more likely than not use any information you give them against you rather than for you.

Police have a prosecutorial mind. That means that they are always looking for lies and guilt. They see everything through the lens of discovering the crime that must be occurring. You can support the police 100% but that doesn't mean you should answer all their questions or consent to their searches.
 
Sardines said:
It's a down payment. And I guess it's pretty important to clarify that while in the video comments are made that it was about 100K, it was apparently 87K, if that changes anything for anyone. I doubt it does, but facts are facts.
Click to expand...
...and the money was returned. They guy in the video from 4 years ago got his money back 4 years ago. The piece of hate-farming you are pushing is ancient.
 
Al-O-Meter said:
...and the money was returned. They guy in the video from 4 years ago got his money back 4 years ago. The piece of hate-farming you are pushing is ancient.
Click to expand...
It is an example of why you should not answer questions like the ones this man answered and why you should never consent to searches.

There is no hate farming. GFYS.

This is about individual liberty. That's what I'm advocating for here.
 
Sardines said:
Yeah, civil forfeiture is theft. There are some small town police departments that happen to be along some major interstate that specialize in civil forfeiture. Just like the cop in the above video, they pull people over for minor traffic infractions but they are not traffic enforcement and they are not there to write speeding tickets. They are "interdiction" officers and there entire job is to fight the drug war. The drug war is the war America has waged against itself for more than 50 years now. As one could likely predict, America is losing the war, on both sides.

If that man had trusted the police as much as he trusted banks he never would have lost his money (he got it back). There is never a reason to disclose sensitive information to the police when they pull you over. They are not entitled to the information and they will more likely than not use any information you give them against you rather than for you.

Police have a prosecutorial mind. That means that they are always looking for lies and guilt. They see everything through the lens of discovering the crime that must be occurring. You can support the police 100% but that doesn't mean you should answer all their questions or consent to their searches.
Click to expand...

Dude my director was Detective Inspector and my direct report was a Detective Sargeant, the only thing worse than cops is ex cops. They're driven by two motivations, they either still want to be cops or they're trying to feather their retirement nest by doing every dodgy deal possible.

Without doubt they were the worst bosses I ever had, left a job of nearly 20 years because of them.
 
Last edited:
Sardines said:
There is no hate farming. GFYS.
Click to expand...
I am the most prominent individual liberty advocate on this board have long advised not answering these kinds of questions...

Al-O-Meter said:
Watch JCS. Watch Audit The Audit. Watch something to give you a clue. You do not talk to law enforcement even when you believe you are innocent. You are failing your kids if you do not teach them this. Even retired police investigators will tell you not to talk to police investigators.

A police investigator's job is not to solve crimes or find the criminal responsible. A police investigator's job is to gather as much evidence as possible and pass it on to prosecutors.

A prosecutor's job is not to solve crimes or find the criminal responsible. A prosecutor's job is to compile the evidence in a way that it can be used in a trial.

A grand jury's job is not to solve crimes or find the criminal responsible. A grand jury's job is evaluate the prosecutor's work to confirm if it meets a threshold to proceed.

As someone who is accused, it is never in your best interest to give information of any kind to police investigators, prosecutors, or grand juries. NEVER. Those parties are not capable of finding you innocent. As someone who is accused, you give your evidence of your innocence to your lawyer and your lawyer will use that to advocate on your behalf. That is how our system works.
Click to expand...
...but I don't stoop to exaggerations and leaving out the context of how the situation was resolved. If you watch any of the content from the well known sources I mention above, you'll see they don't do that either. You may think telling half the story and implying an ending that didn't happen is "advocating", but most have a different term to describe what you're doing.
 
Sardines said:
It is an example of why you should not answer questions like the ones this man answered and why you should never consent to searches.

There is no hate farming. GFYS.

This is about individual liberty. That's what I'm advocating for here.
Click to expand...
Yep. Never talk to the police.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top