You should read this

[EMDDIESEL]

A POLICE OFFICER SPEAKS



(The author of this article was Trooper Mitchell Brown of the Virginia

State Police. More about him at the end of the article. )



Well, Mr. Citizen, it seems you've figured me out.

I to fit neatly into the category where you've placed me. I'm

stereotyped, standardized, characterized, classified, grouped, and

always typical.



Unfortunately, the reverse is true. I can never figure you out. From

birth you teach your children that I'm the bogeyman, then you're

shocked when they identify with my traditional enemy... the criminal! You

accuse me of coddling criminals... until I catch your kids doing wrong.



You may take an hour for lunch and several coffee breaks each day, but

point me out as a loafer for having one cup. You pride yourself on your

manners, but think nothing of disrupting my meals with your troubles.

You raise hell with the guy who cuts you off in traffic, but let me

catch you doing the same thing and I'm picking on you. You know all the

traffic laws... but you've never gotten a single ticket you deserve.



You shout "foul" if you observe me driving fast to a call, but raise

the roof if I take more than ten seconds to respond to your complaint. You

call it part of my job if someone strikes me, but call it Police

brutality if I strike back. You wouldn't think of telling your dentist

how to pull a tooth or your doctor how to take out an appendix,

yet you are always willing to give me pointers on the law. You talk

to me in a manner that would get you a bloody nose from anyone else, but

expect me to take it without batting an eye.



You yell something's got to be done to fight crime, but you can't be

bothered to get involved. You have no use for me at all, but of course

it's OK if I change a flat for your wife, deliver your child in the

back of the Patrol car, or perhaps save your son's life with mouth to mouth

breathing, or work many hours overtime looking for your lost Daughter.



So, Mr. Citizen, you can stand there on your soapbox and rant and rave

about the way I do my work, calling me every name in the book, but

never stop to think that your property, family, or maybe even your life

depends on me or one of my buddies. Yes, Mr. Citizen, it's me... the

cop!



The author of this article was Trooper Mitchell Brown of the Virginia

State Police. He was killed in the line of duty two months after

writing the article.



I found this on another website. It made me think alot about the way people are towards the police. This officer makes ALOT of good points.

 

[Batman]

Thanks for posting this. Several friends of mine are either policeman or firefighters. Neither usually get the repect they deserve until you need them.

George

 

[Archive]

A whole lot of truth there! Nice post. Although, I didn't care much for the ending...

 

[Happy Camper]

I have never had any bad dealings with any law enforcement personnel! I have treated them with respect and in turn have been treated the same. Think of what the highways would be like if the patrols were not there! Sorry to hear any one loosing their life in the line of duty.

 

[Shovelhead]

Thanks for the reminder EMDDIESEL,

I printed a copy and gave it to my buddy in the Air Force Security Forces.

 

[Murle]

This is a real nice story, but it does hack me off when they give you a ticket for doing something and when you see them do the same thing and you complain, it is ok for them to do it because they are a cop. Try and file charges on one that has done something wrong and they will usually get off with it.



Read this story: See, they don't want the law to pertain to the officer. I'll bet he gets off scott free. If it was me or you we would be in jail with no bond.







Father is charged in shooting

Secret Service officer accused of not securing gun that son, 3, found

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------







By Lisa Goldberg

Sun Staff

Originally published June 28, 2001







A White House Secret Service officer whose 3-year- old son accidentally shot himself in the stomach with his father's service weapon has been charged under a Maryland law that makes it illegal to leave a loaded gun where a minor can get to it.



The officer is accused of leaving the semiautomatic weapon unlocked and atop the refrigerator in the family's Elkridge home.



Kenneth John Bouley, 33, was served with a summons Tuesday evening, 2 1/2 weeks after he told police that he awoke to the sound of a gunshot and found his son, Kenneth Randall Bouley, bleeding on the kitchen floor.



The charge, a misdemeanor, carries no jail time. Bouley could receive up to a $1,000 fine if convicted.



Bouley, who went to Howard County's Southern District police station with his lawyer to turn himself in shortly after learning that charges had been filed, will plead not guilty to the charge, said Patrick J. McAndrew, a lawyer who represents the officer through the Fraternal Order of Police.



McAndrew said yesterday that he was "dismayed" by the investigators' decision to bring the charge.



"I do not believe this charge was warranted," he said. "What occurred was not a crime. It was a tragedy. An accident, nothing more. "



But police said yesterday that the investigation turned up a "clear violation of the law. "



"For that reason, it was absolutely appropriate to charge in this case," said county police spokeswoman Sherry Llewellyn.



County prosecutors said that their office is reviewing the case to determine whether it has "prosecutorial merit. "



The boy was in good condition yesterday at Johns Hopkins Children's Center in Baltimore.



McAndrew said that at least one family member is with Kenny Bouley "24 hours a day. "



The Secret Service has placed Bouley on administrative leave with pay pending completion of an internal review of the incident, said Special Agent Marc Connolly, a Secret Service spokesman.



Charging documents revealed for the first time the father's account of the day and hours leading to the shooting.



Bouley, a uniformed officer for the Secret Service, told police that he had gone to a training session at the Johns Hopkins University on June 7, the day before the shooting.



When he returned to the home in the 6500 block of Huntshire Drive, he put his service weapon, a Sig Sauer Model P229, a . 357-caliber semiautomatic pistol, on top of the refrigerator, according to the documents.



Later, he looked for the pistol lock that Secret Service officials say they issue to their personnel, but couldn't find it and figured that his son had left it at a neighbor's house. Because it was late, he didn't call the neighbor, and the gun remained on the refrigerator "unsecured," the documents said.



When his wife left for work the next morning, Bouley and his children - Kenny and Rachel, 5 - were sleeping. Rachel told police that Kenny climbed up cabinet drawers to a countertop, got the gun and shot himself. The shot awakened Bouley, who found Kenny on the floor.



Bouley is scheduled to appear Aug. 28 in Howard County District Court.



The charge leveled against him this week is a low-level misdemeanor - one expert likened it to a traffic ticket that carries a large fine - but a gun-safety advocate said yesterday that such laws are important as a deterrent.



Maryland is one of 18 states that make it illegal to leave loaded weapons where a minor would be able to access them. Although the 1992 law is modeled on the first law (Florida's in 1989), its penalties are less strict than those of other states. In Connecticut and California, the violation is considered a felony.



A study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in October 1997 said unintentional shooting deaths among children younger than age 15 decreased by 23 percent in 12 states where such laws had been in effect for at least a year.



Joe Dennison, director of state affairs for the Washington-based Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, said it is important to enforce such laws to remind adults that they need to act responsibly where weapons are concerned.



"It's a tragedy," he said of the Bouley case. "But we really need to get the message out to people that guns need to be stored safely - away from kids. "

 

[Max340]

Not again......

I think this essay is firmly planted as urban legend. Its been debunked, and claims the officer never existed are out there.



But even further... . Its one more attempt to get the public to sympathize with a certain sector of the population due to occupation, race, gender, etc.



To me, that is the epitome of whining about your job. If you don't like the way things are, do not take the job, or make a difference in some other way than whining.



I don't have a reason to interrupt a cops mealtime, nor have I. I know a considerable amount about the vehicle code, and I have gotten tickets I deserved. I paid them and treated the cop like he was a friend while I accepted the ticket.



I call "foul" when I see a cop driving in an inappropriate manner, and that includes driving too fast for conditions, even if those conditions include an emergency. Sixty MPH in a 25MPH zone while kids are walking and crossing the street around a ball field is too doggone fast, no matter what.



It IS part of your job if someone strikes you, it is ALSO part of the job to learn and practice personal control of oneself AND restraint of a prisoner without striking a person. Striking back is a last resort, and ANY good cop will tell you that, since it leads to further possible injury of the cop.



When a cop tells me that a conflict in the law doesn't matter, or that a section of the law "doesn't apply", it is my personal opinion that the cop needs any pointer he can get. Further, any cop that tells me and the magistrate UNDER OATH, that the defendant is obligated to prove innocence, needs a remedial course in U. S. citizenship.



If a cop comes off with an attitude to me, I will return in kind. To get respect, one must give it. Too many young cops do not understand this. Most veteran cops know this.



I think something has to be done about crime. But when the officer seems indifferent, fails to accept help when he knows he needs it, but wants to play "secret mission", its very hard to see where the citizens who fail to help out are at fault. Our local department refused twice an attempt to start a town watch. Get the feeling I don't want to hear how the citizen doesn't get involved? How about the cop that returned the favor of my chasing down underage car burglary suspects by arresting me for an absurd traffic violation weeks later?



I have griped to my town counsel that NOT hiring a full force is MUCH more dangerous than running the budget a bit low by paying the right number of officers.



I call officers by their given names. Others get called what they deserve.



All this goes to say one thing... if cops expect to be treated as professionals, they need to not only act as pro's, but discipline the ranks as any professional organization would. Toss out the fools that make a mockery of an important job.



Flame away.

 

[Randy J]

Max340 brings up some good points. And while the story may be false, it also brings up some good points. I for one am totally respectful of police officers, even if I disagree with them. For one thing, they can make your life much more miserable than you can theirs. Also, you have to remember that they do a VERY difficult job. They are out there risking their lives every day. They never know if the next car they pull over is going to pull a gun on them, or not. The police officer that was recently killed here in San Antonio was breaking up a domestic dispute, trying to save the life of some woman he didn't even know, and was shot dead for his efforts. I for one, want to thank all the police officers out there (including SALaw) for risking their life everyday to protect me & my family.

 

[Murle]

Very well put Max340.

 

[JAnderson]

Max 340 and Murle,



Both of you just stereotyped the whole police force just like the first article implies.

open your eyes. Not all police are perfect just like not all TDR Members are. When you generalize like that it sickens me. How about treating all police with respect until they act in a way to loose it! Then if you want to talk bad about them, only talk bad about the ones who deserve it.

 

[EMDDIESEL]

Personally, i dont care if that letter is an "Urban Legend" or not, it still makes plenty of good points as mentioned by Randy J. , i cant tell you how many times growing up i would see cops and think "i hope that jerk does not pull me over". Now i have alot of friends who are police officers, and i know that it is totally wrong to assume ALL police are bad. That letter helps reinforce that. Police dont make great money, and as far as i am concerned, the ones i have seen do a great job, which most of the time is thankless one.

If someone is speeding and gets pulled over and gets a ticket, the first thing you ALWAYS here is "The cop was such a jerk" or something along those lines. Now i think, WHY?? he is a jerk, because you broke the law and he caught you? that logic is just plain stupid.

 

[merryman]

For over 30 years I served as a trial judge hearing all kinds of cases, but allways many more criminal than civil cases--everthing from traffic (first 12 years) to numerous murder cases. That means hearing testimony from both sides about a huge number of citizen/police officer contacts/conflicts.



I have encountered a few rotten apples and have initiated complaints to police agencies that resulted in three or four officers being disciplined and a couple fired. ; That said, I have many, many times been amazed at the restraint and self discipline officers have exercised in bad situations. Those circumstances have by many fold outnumbered those situations where an officer over reacted was rude to citizens, or otherwise failed to conduct him/herself appropriately.



Police officers do to a degree, develope an "us vs them" mentality and that is unfortunate, but considering the abusive atmosphere in which they work, it is probably unavoidable.



In summary, while some officers will conduct themselves in a manner that does not reflect well on the group, they do a very difficult and largely thankless job that most of us could not handle. They are by and large just a bunch of yound people--just like our friends and neighbors, whom I belive deserve more credit and less criticism.



Next time you want to give an officer a bad time, imagine yourself out there at 2 AM, on a dark road, walking up to a car load of guys wondering are you going to get a smile when you get to the drivers window or a bullet.



Vaughn

 

[rich m]

OH, boy.....I feel another essay/sermon coming on....

If it's a bad ticket, go to court and beat it.

If it's a good ticket, go to court and pay it.



If they're "hunting a baited field" (speed trap or the like) they have to get the judge to corrupt himself in order to make it "stick"

This happens on TV 1,000's of times more often than in real life, so go to court and beat it (my cynical, unresearched opinion).



For those who say: $50 bad ticket vs. $200 in lost daily pay, that may well be "good" math when you pay the bad ticket, but, that only re-inforces the validity of the tactic, and perpetuates that technique of bad ticketing. How many times do you want to write that $50 check, and also have record of it given to your insurance company, which will cost you more, still??



FWIW, I appeared (twice!) for a single $165 invalid "violation".

If i'd plead "guilty" it would have been $82. 50. . I did not.

On the 2nd appearance, my accuser (we'll just call him "Officer Friendly") wasn't there, so it was dismissed. 2 work days to save $165 is bad math, (used "benefit time" worth about $600, which was subtracted from actual fun "days off" I could have taken some other time) but one penny to a bad cause is, IMHO, an even worse crime... .



The cops themselves don't enjoy this activity, I'm sure. They are pressured into it by their increasingly liberal management. This, my friends, is the way liberals impose their will. They make compromises, even when they are one-sided "compromises".

Even the liberals who read this would probably not want to encourage this, and would rather spend their traffic ticket money in a different manner, therefore, my liberal friends, this might be a good time to stand with those of us who are a bit more "conservative" and show a unified front, with no weak spots in the "left", "right", or "center".



Then maybe we could enjoy two results:

1. Observation that bad tickets become less numerous.

2. The Cop can devote more of his/her time to doing the more honorable activities of LEO work, such as catching REAL bad guys, and, over a do-nut and coffee, getting to know the citizenry in his assigned area, so that he'd be more accepted in his "serve and protect" mode, rather than just being that intrusive guy with the flashing lites and the ticket book. #ad






(here's my suspicion: Cops, you can "yea" or "nay" this, accordingly, to confirm or discount my suspicion:

Deep down inside, every cop wants to be more similar to Andy Taylor than Harry Callahan... . For this to work out, however, we, also should be more like Mayberryites (in LOTS of ways) than like residents of Haight-Ashbury, Watts, South Central, etc.

 

[Max340]

JA, I think the same generalization comment goes for the original article. It acts as if all citizens are arrogant ignorant jerks. It reads like we don't give a rats backside about cops. It certainly implies we never thank them for their efforts. You don't like my reply, but how about having to read the same essay time and again knowing the truth is rather removed from what it says.



If you actually read what I wrote, you would also find that I did NOT generalize and in fact gave examples of how I felt the police as a general rule were a decent bunch of average people. I also noted how I treated them with respect, helped them when I could, and noted where one did in fact pull a move that was pure garbage.



Merryman, your comment on the "Us vs. Them" mentality hits the nail on the head. Too many times cops resort to a trap (speeding, staking out bars to catch drunks, etc) to get the job done. While I agree that the methods of enforcement may be somewhat necessary, they are STILL "us against them" in nature, and clearly the average citizen will not like this.



One cop friend of mine noted that the whole thing is PR when it comes to dealing with the public. Having been pulled over for speeding a few times in my life, I can give first hand testimony that the guy is exactly right. I was pulled over by a MD State Trooper for 80. 5 MPH in a 55 MPH zone years ago. He did not assume a parental condescending attitude like some do (Do you know WHY I pulled you over?) He walked to the middle of the lane, pointed up the road at me and indicated the shoulder. I pulled in directly behind his car. He informed me of the charge, asked for paperwork, described his method of clocking me, asked for my signature, (on a ticket that was easily read, not sloppy handwriting, its called professional) and proceeded to explain the way the ticket folded up and became an envelope, and where to send the fine. He then thanked me for my time, and asked that I keep it below the limit.



Another trooper, in PA, radared me, pulled me over, I had my paperwork ready, he told me I was doing 66mph, I replied that the speedo was accurate, he chuckled, and went to his car. Came back, noted my age and job (small town) and asked that unless I was intent on contributing to the COmmonwealth, that I please slow down. Sent me on my way with a thank you.



Then we have the cop that deliberately aims his search light in my mirror (unnecessary with two bright "take down" lights on top of the car), demands my paperwork ("give me your license and registration!") and asks me if I have any idea what I did wrong (I did not) and then informs me that I am being charged with a minor infraction at 2AM. He returned to the car with a ticket that was so poorly written I barely recognized my own name on the citation, the date was illegible, and the fine was so blurred I had to ask about the amount. I was told "it doesn't matter how much it is, you are still being charged. " At this point I excersized my right to not sign the ticket, and he replied he was "going to write that you refused to sign the ticket and took my pen" at the bottom. I asked if I could write that his penmanship was lacking and he was rude. "Just give me my **** pen!!!"



Turns out I am not the only one that thinks the guy is rude and obnoxious..... so do his coworkers.



Back to the cop that thinks PR is the name of the game. He told me that if he pulls a kid over, he makes the ticket as unembarassing as possible. He said its not about making the kid feel like crap, its about enforcing the law and showing people that he is doing his job, the law is the law and its not a terrible thing to break it, but there is a price to pay. He explained that making citizens feel negatively towards a cop for doing his job is a bad thing and he believes thats why the two seem to divide into "us and them" which fails the community in getting the job done. He said, "hey, I live here, I do a job. I want to be able to look my neighbors in the eye and know they don't hate me, and that I did my job to the best of my ability. " I've never heard this guy whine about the job, and he has never expressed regret for being in bad situations.



So when I read about how bad the public is, I have to wonder how good the cop is.

 

[Murle]

JAnderson, Sorry, but I have worked in a Sheriff's Dept. It is get their money no matter what. Right or wrong, fine them and if they want, let them fight us in court. It will cost them more money.



Yes I have been there and I know how most of them work and operate. And if you don't think the lawyers and judges are not in on it then you are living in a different world. You are guilty until you can prove that you are not.



If you don't believe me. Just go to court sometime. Everyone there thinks you are guilty and you have to prove other wise.



Here is more of your local police at work... .....





Government Property Seizures out of Control

Jarret Wollstein

Saturday, June 30, 2001

Across America, the Drug Enforcement Administration is seizing the luggage, cash and cars of hapless travelers. Mere possession of a large amount of cash or a drug dog barking at your luggage is sufficient probable cause for police to legally seize everything you are carrying under America’s new civil forfeiture laws.



In Albuquerque, N. M. , in February 2000, DEA agents detained Sam Thach, who was traveling on Amtrak from Fullerton, Calif. , to Boston, and seized $147,000 in cash he was carrying. Thach had no drugs. His crime? He had bought a one-way ticket for cash and didn’t give Amtrak his phone number. (1)



The DEA seized $640,000 from Jennifer Leigh Ames while she was traveling on Amtrak on April 5, 2001. Agents say she looked nervous and had refused permission to search her luggage. (1)



Former Newark, N. J. , policeman Carlos Hernandez discovered police searching his Amtrak sleeper cabin and demanding to search his luggage on July 22, 1999. Hernandez’s crime? He’s Hispanic and paid for his $694 ticket in cash. (2)



At Houston’s Hobby Airport, police stopped 49-year-old Ethel Hylton and seized her luggage because a drug dog had scratched it. Agents searched her bags and strip-searched her but found no drugs. They did find $39,110 in cash from an insurance settlement and her life savings, accumulated through over 20 years of work as a hotel housekeeper and hospital janitor.

Ms. Hylton completely documented where she had gotten the money and was never charged with a crime. But the police kept her money anyway. Destitute, she had no way to fight them.



These outrageous seizures are completely legal and have been upheld by the highest courts in the land, including the U. S. Supreme Court.



The DEA's Web site claims, "Property is seized by the DEA only when it is determined to be a tool for, or the proceeds of, illegal activities such as drug trafficking, organized crime, or money laundering. " But the above examples show the reality.



Under civil asset forfeiture, your property – not you – is charged with a crime. Hence the bizarre title of civil forfeiture cases: "United States vs. one 1998 Mercedes Benz,” "California vs. 1711 Main Street,” and so forth.



Once your property is charged with a crime, it can be seized and kept by police, even if you are never convicted of anything. An appeals court in Florida even ruled that police can personally receive bounties of 25 percent of the value of anything they seize from you, such as your car, bank accounts or home.



There are now more than 400 federal offenses and thousands of state and local offenses for which your cash, car, bank accounts and home can be seized - including shoplifting, hiring an illegal alien such as a maid (California), playing a car stereo too loud (New York), transporting illegal fireworks, gambling, having illegal drugs on your property, and merely discussing violating any law ("conspiracy”), such as underpaying your taxes.



More than $1 billion in property is now seized without trial each year from innocent Americans, according to the national forfeiture defense organization FEAR (Forfeiture Endangers American Rights) (3). Seizures range from the pocket cash of poor street people ... to the cars of men accused of soliciting prostitutes ... to multimillion-dollar apartment buildings.



Once police seize your property, the burden of proof is on you to prove your property’s innocence. Any suspected illegal actions of your relatives, guests, friends and employees on or even near your property are sufficient grounds to seize it.



In Montgomery, Ala. , police seized the home of 69-year-old Gussie Mae Gantt after videotaping police informants buying drugs in her yard. Ms. Gantt had previously called the police, complaining about drug-dealing in her neighborhood, and had posted no-trespassing signs. The drug dealers wouldn't stop - so police set up a drug deal and confiscated her home.



Easy Money for the Government



Once your home, car, and bank accounts are seized under civil asset forfeiture laws, you can pretty much forget about ever getting them back. It’s you versus the police and courts, who divide up the proceeds from your property according to formulas such as "80 percent for police, 20 percent for the court. ”



If you want to fight seizure of your property, expect to spend at least $15,000 just to hire a competent asset defense attorney. Also expect the police to introduce hearsay evidence and to go through trial after trial, because the normal constitutional protections afforded criminal suspects don’t apply to civil forfeiture of your property. (4)



With all of this easy confiscated money, asset confiscation is now big business across America. In Volusia County, Fla. , police seized more than $8 million worth of cars from motorists stopped for minor traffic violations along Interstate 95. (5) In Alameda County, Calif. , police auction off hundreds of seized cars and boats every month.



The latest wrinkle in civil asset forfeiture is police working with Amtrak, Greyhound, airlines and hotels to seize cash from travelers. The Albuquerque Journal reports that Amtrak gave the Drug Enforcement Administration access to its booking system in exchange for 10 percent of any monies seized by police.



The DEA has similar deals with airlines at major airports and many hotel and motel owners in Los Angeles, Las Vegas and other large cities. DEA agents are now permanently stationed at major airports and hotels.



So, the next time you pay for an Amtrak ticket, airline flight or hotel room in cash, don’t be surprised if you get a knock on your door from machine-gun-armed DEA agents.



Sources:



(1) "Railway Bandits,” Reason, July 2001, p. 14.



(2) "Railway Bandits,” Reason, July 2001, p. 15.



(3) Forfeiture Endangers American Rights, www.fear.org.



(4) An analysis of U. S. asset forfeiture laws, with extensive legal citations, can be found in the book "Your House is Under Arrest," by Brenda Grantland, one of America’s leading asset defense attorneys. Copies are available from ISIL, 707/726-8796, www.isil.org. Another excellent source is "Forfeiting Our Property Rights," by U. S. Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill.



(5) Orlando Sentinel, Aug. 2, 1992.

 

[EMDDIESEL]

Lets not forget you are reading something published by the MEDIA and we all know how true everything they write is. Lets also not forget you are hearing one side of the story, The MEDIAS side. I dont agree with what they are doing, but i am CERTAINLY not going to pass judgement based on facts reported by them. And the following quote:



"So, the next time you pay for an Amtrak ticket, airline flight or hotel room in cash, don’t be surprised if you get a knock on your door from machine-gun-armed DEA agents. "



Are you kidding me? When was the last time you saw a DEA agent carrying a machine gun on a routine search?. I see DEA agents and customs employees where i work at train stations and have even had them ask me questions and i would say 99% of the time, they are wearing buissness suits with no visible side arm and the ones who are in uniform, are wearing regular gun belts with a handgun, no "Machine Gun". If you want to make a point, thats one thing, but dont stoop to the level of the media and fabricate things to make it sound worse then it really is.



Personally, if your DUMB enough to carry around HUGE amounts of cash, or worse yet, you life savings while on a trip IN YOUR LUGGAGE, you deserve to lose it. I dont trust the airlines with my CLOTHES let alone cash.

 

[Sled Puller]

I believe the "good cops" are being pressured into "bad cops", in order to keep there jobs.

In my run-ins, I'd say about 7 to 3 were total jerks. I am always polite, never sarcastic, don't argue.

I believe most have forgotten they are there to "serve and protect"

I think their new motto is" To pillage as we see fit"



Flame away!!!





I also keep BOTH HANDS on the wheel where they can see them!



No sense getting shot by mistake.



Gene

 

[Max340]

EMD, you won't believe the media, but that editorial you posted came from where? Just a thought... is the source of the editorial any more reiable than the media?

 

[merryman]

Murle;

Ya gotta quit readin those media and 'lets support our friendly community drug dealer group' fairy tales!!!

Forfieture oponents are with some exceptions druggies.

Forfietures are one of the few things that works effectively against dealers. The groups you quote say wait till after trial and a conviction to forfiet. . ya, sure; The cop stops the drug dealer with $50k or $150k in a suitcase (of course he just cashed in his ins. policy), and he says to him, "now, when ya'll come down to Texas from Chicago for trial, don't forget to bring that suitcase fulla money so we'uns kin forfiet it ifin ya'll is convicted. " Naturally the friendly drug dealer would come back for trial and bring his money. Na, those dealers don't want to keep that drug money, they just want a trial before they turn it over.

Actually, the most common device used by the heavy dealers is to send a "mule" to deliver the drugs and bring back the money. They like to use innocent looking people--a family group, a nicely dressed young woman, or an elderly woman, who can more convincingly claim its the proceeds of an insurance policy.

There is one real rule---"If it is cash or easily transportable, such as a vehicle, you get it when the stop is made, or you never see it again. "

No forfieture till after trial equals NO forfieture except with real property. . period!!!!! i. e. the drug dealer keeps his proceeds!



But then I have only seen a few thousand cases, with a little more real world experience, I might change my mind.



By the way, we are not talking about forfieture with or without a trial or hearing, we are talking ONLY about taking the cash or thing into possession of the police.

There IS NO forfieture without a trial or hearing. The people yelling for no forfieture without a trial only mean no POSSESSION before trial. Now there is no forfieture, only taking the thing into police possession so it (usually cash) won't disapear before trial or hearing and formal forfieture.



Vaughn

 

[EMDDIESEL]

The source of the letter is irrelevant being that it is (supposedly) a reprint of someones letter. Its not a news article and its not trying to be

And secondly, the letter is not trying to state any facts, its just an individuals thoughts on paper. Its that officers OPINION. No wjere was it mentioned that he was saying was fact.



Hardly in the same catergorie as a reporters editorial that is usually "Filled in" with BS. The post about "Search and Seizure" was implying that what it printed was the truth, not an opinion, but facts. I believe very little the media tells me, especailly about politics or scandals.