Printable View
now this is ridiculous! first of all, the fact that they confiscated (and kept) the poor guy's money without any hard evidence is completely fascist. second, how is it possible to name cash (or any inanimate object, for that matter) as a defendant in a court of law? it's un-american I tell you!
Only in America.
Also... I thougt dogs were taught to seat when they found the scent of drugs, not bark.
I'm sure "Only in America" is hardly true, but regardless I do agree that the court systems in the US have gotten out of control. People getting money seized without just cause, lawyers suing the army on behalf of dolphins... there really needs to be a change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
And that was my only intention. I'm not a fascist slash communist slash democrat slash liberal americn-hater. I just giggle a lot at some of the things that come on the news from over there.
Well when you get a land that's X times the size of Europe, you get a lot of news. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
EDIT: Maybe it's the same size as Europe and even smaller if I think about it. I always forget about Eastern Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mario F.
Why not sick the dog on the guy for talking back to the officer like less developed countries do. And they call the US first world.
As crappy a situation as the guy is in. What did he expect? A dog trained in sniffing and alerting officers of drugs doing so, and a lot of money. Most cops are far from sherlock so I expect as much.
Now if it turned out that the officer was spending some side money training the dog to sniff out cash, that would be a story.
No, the cop wasn't the story...Quote:
Originally Posted by indigo0086
This was the story.Quote:
Yesterday the Eighth Circuit summarily dismissed Gonzolez's story. It overturned a lower court ruling that had found no evidence of drug activity, stating, "We respectfully disagree and reach a different conclusion... Possession of a large sum of cash is 'strong evidence' of a connection to drug activity."
I'm surprised it wasn't the 9th circuit this time, sounds like one of their stupid decisions.
I don't really fault the cops in this. At the time they made the decision they had what appeared to be drug related money with seemily no reasonable explantion give at the time. However afterwards, when the details were discovered, I would have expected them to return it.
I do find it interesting that one would fly with over $100k and that the security at the airport didn't notice or think anything of it. Personally if I was going to make a legit purchase of that sum I would have taken something like traveler checks with me. Much safer that way.
in a cooler no less.
I was clear that the cop wasn't the story, hence the use of the word "If"Quote:
Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom
Perhaps my quotation of your post wasn't the best, but regardless I read and still read three short paragraphs of what the cop did or didn't do and why he did or didn't do it. No mention of the court case, which as I said was the real story. No one is blaming the cop here, as you said, he saw something suspicious and decided it's best dealt with by a smarter party, so he confiscated.Quote:
Originally Posted by indigo0086
yes, it is indeed suspicous - but if there is no hard evidence then they shouldn't be able to keep the money. for good reasons you should be considered not-guilty unless proven otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thantos
Want your day ruined? Get yourself in the way of a good policeman and an obtuse judge.
Nobody innocent would be carrying around that much cash. And if they are innocent, oh well, it's too damn suspicious.
Still, it's not fair to take away that money without reason...Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMcGee123
These boards are good for political discussions
Use credit card:)
I misread. You got to be joking.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMcGee123
So, screw the law, right!
Lets all just say if someone carries over... what? What do you reckon is enough to condemn this man to the crime of being guilty? 50,000 USD? 100,000? 78,675 and change?
And what if someone is caught carrying a necklace worth 70,000 USD? Or a ring? Or an Armani suit? Certainly a guy with a 3,000 USD Armani suit and 300 USD underwear plus a 10,000 USD ring and driving a 150,000 USD Porsche GT2 is guilty of something!
Or better yet. Lets do it just to those that don't wear Armani Suits, drive Porches or wear expensive jewelry. Lets do it to those that can't afford a good lawyer to grab that judge by the balls and twist them while holding on the other hand a nice juicy compensation check worth 10 times more what the man had in his posession.