- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alabama tries to gut asset forfeiture, response from law enforcement is predictable
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:24 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:24 pm to NYNolaguy1
His appointment, Sessions, sure does.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 3:25 pm
0
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:26 pm to Iosh
quote:
The incentive of "it's your fricking job?"
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:35 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes.
So they're basically threatening people with more charges if we get rid of their cash cow?
Tell us again how they are so brave, selfless and heroic.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:39 pm to skrayper
quote:
Us Alabamians tried to warn people off of him.
Unfortunately for the rest of us, democrats went all in on the race card and KKK identity politics bullshite.
That was just white noise to the Senate GOP and helped unify it for his confirmation.
If they rightfully bashed his pro war on drugs stance and love for asset forfeiture, they could've gotten at least Rand Paul, Susan Collins and maybe Murkowski and Mike Lee to vote no.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:41 pm to Sentrius
quote:
If they rightfully bashed his pro war on drugs stance and love for asset forfeiture, they could've gotten at least Rand Paul, Susan Collins and maybe Murkowski and Mike Lee to vote no.
His views on both were clear for a long time. Are you suggesting his Republican colleagues wouldn't have known and would need Democrats to tell them that?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:47 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
His views on both were clear for a long time. Are you suggesting his Republican colleagues wouldn't have known and would need Democrats to tell them that?
Dude, there was no way those sensible republicans were going to vote against Sessions at the beginning of a brand new administration of their own party after he trotted out a lot of black character witnesses that shut down the identity politics and race bullshite from democrats.
The fate of a lot of big ticket nominations and legislation is a PR battle with not just their bases but the general public as well.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:49 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Dude, there was no way those sensible republicans were going to vote against Sessions at the beginning of a brand new administration of their own party after he trotted out a lot of black character witnesses that shut down the identity politics and race bullshite from democrats.
The fate of a lot of big ticket nominations and legislation is a PR battle with not just their bases but the general public as well.
In the face of such insurmountable pressure, you think anything Democrats would have said would have mattered? I'm of the opinion that Sessions was going to be confirmed regardless of what Democrats said.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:52 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:Yet many on here seem to have no problem with all the rank and file baws who seem happy to stay on and collect their paychecks in the name of this statist evil.
this is one of those issues where i think 100% of this board is unified on. Speaks to how shitty this policy is.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:55 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
this is one of those issues where i think 100% of this board is unified on. Speaks to how shitty this policy is.
the fact that they're bitching about SHARING the money by saying they'd stop doing their job wins this argument for us
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:56 pm to Sentrius
quote:
So they're basically threatening people with more charges if we get rid of their cash cow?
yes
literally yes
then they say they'll have to stop giving Pretrial Diversion b/c those people won't be convicted so they can't steal their shite
which is a lie b/c PTD is one of their biggest money making schemes
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:57 pm to Big Scrub TX
quote:
Yet many on here seem to have no problem with all the rank and file baws who seem happy to stay on and collect their paychecks in the name of this statist evil.
the vast majority of LEO don't participate in CAF and certainly don't make the laws/policies on it
criticize LEO when they violate the law (and namely a suspect's rights), not for existing in a shitty system
Posted on 2/12/18 at 4:00 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Unfortunately for the rest of us, democrats went all in on the race card and KKK identity politics bull shite.
Pffft, don't blame Sessions on Democrats. Republicans have to own up to their own stupidity.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 4:04 pm to skrayper
Posted on 2/12/18 at 4:33 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Brian McVeigh, Calhoun County District Attorney and president of the Alabama District Attorneys Association
quote:
Dave Sutton, Sheriff of Coffee County and president of the Alabama Sheriffs Association
Obviously these tools never heard of the 4th amendment. I wish I could write an op ed article on what the Constitution is and why it needs to be upheld.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 4:35 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:
I'm of the opinion that Sessions was going to be confirmed regardless of what Democrats said.
He was.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 5:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
This kind of thinking pisses me off. Lets say for a second that it was about public safety. If law enforcement agencies believe that civil asset forfeiture was so damn important they wouldn't have abused the hell out of it and turn public opinion against it. Stupid games win stupid prizes.
It'd be no different if they were complaining that the burden of collecting evidence was getting in the way of arresting murderers.
It'd be no different if they were complaining that the burden of collecting evidence was getting in the way of arresting murderers.
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 5:14 pm
Posted on 2/12/18 at 5:15 pm to stat19
quote:to use the Cathy Newman approach but legitimately........ so he's saying that if I need a cop I better hope there's a financial interest for them at stake? Otherwise why invest much in the way of resources to help me?
What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?
Yep. Stuff like this is why the police can no longer be trusted. They are so corrupt they don't even know they're corrupt anymore. They think it's normal
Posted on 2/12/18 at 5:39 pm to The Spleen
quote:
He was.
Which is why suggesting Democrats should have done something different is silly when nothing they could have said would have changed the minds of Republicans.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 6:17 pm to The Maj
quote:
or properly investigating robbery/burglary...
I had a friend who's Dad had a shed that was broken into and had a bunch of tools, etc stolen. Cop came out, took a statement, didn't even inspect the damage, and started to leave. When the Dad asked how he could follow up on the investigation or what all they would do to search, the cop stared him right in the face and goes "Man, you watch too much tv." and left.
This was in West Tennessee, town of maybe 10k people...like, what the frick else did they even have to do?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 6:38 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Two changes to the state's civil forfeiture law are especially concerning to DAs and law enforcement. One would allow forfeiture only if there is a criminal conviction;
This should be an absolute no-brainer.
quote:
...the other would require that any proceeds from forfeitures go to the state's General Fund rather than local law enforcement.
This would take away a local PD's incentive to rob people.
quote:
Though these changes may sound good, they would hurt public safety and make civil forfeiture less fair.
I would love to hear the logic behind this one.
quote:
Requiring criminal convictions would result in more criminal charges filed and more people going to prison for lesser crimes.
AKA "trumped-up charges."
quote:
Consider pretrial diversion programs, such as drug court, for example. These programs allow people arrested for nonviolent crimes, including some drug charges, to go into treatment and other programs that keep them out of prison.
Certain non-violent offenders shouldn't go to prison in the first place.
quote:
Participants in these programs are not convicted of a crime, so under the proposed change, the only way to deprive them of their ill-gotten gains would be to prosecute them.
What if the gains are not "ill gotten?" What if it's just some guy going to buy a car with cash. Besides, having large amounts of money can be suspicious, but it's not illegal.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News