yes. one case clearly proves the overwhelming majority of the other cases wrong

8/28/2009 7:48:40 PM

The fact is, you (and most likely the rest of us) don't have access to any of those other cases to know if they were overturned, justified, etc.

There is also this concept of justice and the courts, and that one single anecdote isn't an outlier in the United States.

Now, you can continue with your movie facts applied to real life or you can get to digging up some real examples to bolster your argument.

Most likely, you'll just bluster on like you always do, saying nothing much at all.

8/28/2009 7:53:06 PM

It's ok that you ignore the actual letter of the law here. The one that states the money is the defendant. That you don't understand how drastically this changes things is quite telling.

But, hey, put your money where your mouth is. Go get a large amount of money and flash it at the cops in this town. Hell, go do it to the cops in Durham. Let us know how it turns out.

8/29/2009 1:26:57 AM

What are you talking about you ape? They are given the option to willfully give away their possessions or be charged with money laundering. I can't help that they don't practice that libertarian hallmark personal responsibility...or, maybe they are. Maybe for a large percentage of them, the money WAS ill gotten.

These cops are being sketchy as hell, possibly even targeting minorities, but they aren't breaking any laws.

8/29/2009 6:51:53 AM

Please. I take 5000 dollars out of saving and drive to a casino. Then I get stopped on the way and through some horrible lapse of constitutional rights, they find the money and tell me that either I can give it up or I'll be charged with money laundering.

This is extortion plain and simple. They're threating ringing me through the judicial system for a crime I didn't commit to coerce me into giving them money. Fight it, then sue them for damages and court costs.

8/29/2009 9:27:42 AM

Quote :

"It's so difficult to get the money back, that even when the cops took what they claimed was a glass pipe for smoking the herb in addition to the money, they just called an attorney MONTHS LATER and got the money back."

This made me think some son.

How does one determine what a glass pipe is going to be for before it has even been used? It could have been intended for decoration only, for smoking tobacco, etc. They are simply asserting that it is for marijuana with no legal basis for that assertion. They also don't mention the fact that you can legally buy, sell or possess that pipe because nothing about it makes it "for marijuana only". It is just like any other pipe and that's why you can buy them.

It had never been used, it had no drug residue in it and there were no drugs in their possession. As a result, that pipe was NOT drug paraphernalia in any way and to say that it was for marijuana is nothing more than speculation on their part.

8/29/2009 9:59:30 AM

You actually had to think before you came to that conclusion?

8/29/2009 10:33:50 AM

No, I put that initial statement there because I wanted to indicate that I wasn't speaking to him in the main body of my post. I also wanted to do that in a nice way which would give a compliment about his post by saying that it had helped me to think about the facts that I then went into further detail about.

8/29/2009 11:26:12 AM