Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
From fail blog: Tulsa Police acquisition win?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="forindooruseonly" data-source="post: 1503315" data-attributes="member: 13718"><p>Trust me, I understand the sentiment and I'm not trying to start an argument. However, there is a huge difference between seizing something that is contraband - drugs or guns during the act of a felony, and seizing someones house, car, or wad of cash because the LE thinks it is drug related. For example, there are policies that allow law enforcement to seize cash over a certain amount under the assumption that it is drug related, without proof. Then it is incumbent upon the individual to place a claim, hire a lawyer, and wait to get his/her money back. Having carried large amounts of cash for very legitimate reasons, I find such things very scary.</p><p></p><p>And that is the problem. Its not that convicted drug dealers are having their drugs and guns seized, its that the process assumes guilt and acts upon that before proving guilt, leaving the person in the position of having to prove themselves innocent. I disagree with that premise.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="forindooruseonly, post: 1503315, member: 13718"] Trust me, I understand the sentiment and I'm not trying to start an argument. However, there is a huge difference between seizing something that is contraband - drugs or guns during the act of a felony, and seizing someones house, car, or wad of cash because the LE thinks it is drug related. For example, there are policies that allow law enforcement to seize cash over a certain amount under the assumption that it is drug related, without proof. Then it is incumbent upon the individual to place a claim, hire a lawyer, and wait to get his/her money back. Having carried large amounts of cash for very legitimate reasons, I find such things very scary. And that is the problem. Its not that convicted drug dealers are having their drugs and guns seized, its that the process assumes guilt and acts upon that before proving guilt, leaving the person in the position of having to prove themselves innocent. I disagree with that premise. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
From fail blog: Tulsa Police acquisition win?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom