A New Fundraiser!!!!

[ronwx5x]

I have no opinion on the truth of this story, just found it online. If true, someone is going to be repaying a lot of money.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-texas-profiling_wittmar10,0,6051682.story

[DDBooger]

some thing like this happened in another city out in West Texas I believe. Some Sheriff was cleaning up for a while lol. Man I can't remember the story.

[waterboy]

I've been against this law from the beginning. The "intent" of the law is good, but I knew that it would be abused as soon as the law was made. There's no way they (law enforcement) should be allowed to sieze anyone's property until they've been proven guilty of a crime where this money or property could be used. Even then, I think it should be up to a jury to decide. This is robbery, no doubt about it, and the law enforcement and court officials should be held liable for their actions, including being charged with robbery, and face job loss, jail time, and be forced to pay restitution. If they were treated like the criminals they are, this practice of robbery would be eliminated, or at least curtailed. This law needs to be repealed, or at least amended to include siezure can only made after a conviction, with stipulation stating how the property was used in the commission of the crime, and with punishment to law enforcement and court officials who abuse the law. This law actually makes me mad because I knew this kind of thing was going to happen!:mad:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by waterboy
I've been against this law from the beginning. The "intent" of the law is good, but I knew that it would be abused as soon as the law was made. There's no way they (law enforcement) should be allowed to sieze anyone's property until they've been proven guilty of a crime where this money or property could be used. Even then, I think it should be up to a jury to decide. This is robbery, no doubt about it, and the law enforcement and court officials should be held liable for their actions, including being charged with robbery, and face job loss, jail time, and be forced to pay restitution. If they were treated like the criminals they are, this practice of robbery would be eliminated, or at least curtailed. This law needs to be repealed, or at least amended to include siezure can only made after a conviction, with stipulation stating how the property was used in the commission of the crime, and with punishment to law enforcement and court officials who abuse the law. This law actually makes me mad because I knew this kind of thing was going to happen!:mad:

Don't forget racial profiling if the story is true! :confused:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Don't forget racial profiling if the story is true! :confused:


Please re-read the story!
Is this a bad case of racicism or is this a media member simply exaggerating a story to build interest? As usual?
200 cases.
Only 50 actually charged of a crime.
147 not charged and never got their stuff back.
40 of the 200 contacted by reporter. 39 were black. that appears to me to be less than 20% which is basically the percent of the population that Blacks make up.
Were more of the 200 black? We don't know! Did the reporter purposely choose BLACKS to contact in order to sensationalize his story? I vote yes but again we don't know! But as is normal the general public will jump to conclusions make this a race issue. And good or bad, racial profiling is here to stay. As long the crimes are committed disportortionally by one race or another we will have profiling..........(did I say that PC enough?)

[waterboy]

You did for me. I don't think race is the issue here. I think it's the injustice done by law enforcement and court officials that irks me. This is plain and simply ROBBERY by the people entrusted by their employers (the taxpayers) to be honest, law-abiding citizens. I hope they throw the book at these CROOKS! Tenaha is just one example of a trend around this entire state. I've read about this many times in different areas of the state. It's time this law is repealed, or at least amended to include DUE PROCESS, and criminal charges against those whose circumvent the law.:mad:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Please re-read the story!
Is this a bad case of racicism or is this a media member simply exaggerating a story to build interest? As usual?
200 cases.
Only 50 actually charged of a crime.
147 not charged and never got their stuff back.
40 of the 200 contacted by reporter. 39 were black. that appears to me to be less than 20% which is basically the percent of the population that Blacks make up.
Were more of the 200 black? We don't know! Did the reporter purposely choose BLACKS to contact in order to sensationalize his story? I vote yes but again we don't know! But as is normal the general public will jump to conclusions make this a race issue. And good or bad, racial profiling is here to stay. As long the crimes are committed disportortionally by one race or another we will have profiling..........(did I say that PC enough?)

It may or may not be racial profiling but what I read was that the reporter was able to contact directly 40 of those 147 people affected and all but one were black. He either did not contact the other 107 or simply left out what race they were when contacted indirectly, whatever that might mean?. Either way, these people need to be punished if the story is anywhere near the truth. Confiscating the possesions of people who have been convicted of nothing (and never will be) is just flat wrong. Pure abuse of power.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
It may or may not be racial profiling but what I read was that the reporter was able to contact directly 40 of those 147 people affected and all but one were black. He either did not contact the other 107 or simply left out what race they were when contacted indirectly, whatever that might mean?. Either way, these people need to be punished if the story is anywhere near the truth. Confiscating the possesions of people who have been convicted of nothing (and never will be) is just flat wrong. Pure abuse of power.


I agree! It was completely wrong and those cops need punished to the full extent of the law. But the story centered around the race issue rather than just reporting the story. First off the report stated he was only able to contact 40 people. For purposes of establishing a racial issue he needed to report how many of the original 200 were Black.(you must include all those convicted). That's less than 20% contacted. 39 of the 40 were Black. With the Racial undertones of the story if the other 147 people were black(or a large percentage) it would have been reported in the very first paragraph. If the percentage of Blacks in the total 200 cases were way over the top the reporter would have been all over that. This tells me it was not. That's why he chose to concentrate strickly on the 40 he did contact. And considering 39 of 40 were Black I tend to believe these were the ones he targeted for contact. Afterall without racism in the story it loses a little!!!!
Of course I could be completely wrong......

[waterboy]

Irregardless of the race issue, it just irks me to see citizens getting robbed by anybody, especially those who are entrusted to uphold the law -- not break it. The law enforcement and court officials should be punished the same as any ordinary citizen would be, because what they are doing is CRIMINAL. This law should be repealed, or at least amended to include stipulations such as DUE PROCESS and punishment for those who abuse the law, in my opinion. No way should someone in law enforcement, or in the court system, allow this kind of thing to happen based on SUSPICION alone, whether that suspicion is valid or not. It just plain CROOKED......and I don't care what color their skin is, it's just plain WRONG! That's what irks me!:mad:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by waterboy
Irregardless of the race issue, it just irks me to see citizens getting robbed by anybody, especially those who are entrusted to uphold the law -- not break it. The law enforcement and court officials should be punished the same as any ordinary citizen would be, because what they are doing is CRIMINAL. This law should be repealed, or at least amended to include stipulations such as DUE PROCESS and punishment for those who abuse the law, in my opinion. No way should someone in law enforcement, or in the court system, allow this kind of thing to happen based on SUSPICION alone, whether that suspicion is valid or not. It just plain CROOKED......and I don't care what color their skin is, it's just plain WRONG! That's what irks me!:mad:



Don't get irked until you know the truth..................We only know what this single reporter wants us to know. It could turn out to be not even close to what he says.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Don't get irked until you know the truth..................We only know what this single reporter wants us to know. It could turn out to be not even close to what he says.
Irregardless of this particular article, which I believe to have at least some validity, this sort of thing happens every day somewhere in this state. I've read about over and over. Something needs to be done to this law because it just makes it legal for law enforcement to ROB people without due process. That's what irks me..........nothing being done to curtail this practice of robbery by our so-called "do-right boys".

[sinton66]

"Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile!" The solution? Our Politicians need to write better laws and spell out what they can be used for and what they can't and provide for criminal penalties for abuse. Too many laws these days are written to be intentionally ambiguous so things are left up to the "judgement" of the officer. That provides an open door for abuse. With no penalty for it, it's a practice that's bound to multiply like rabbits.

[Phantom Stang]

Originally posted by sinton66
"Give them an inch, and they'll take a mile!" The solution? Our Politicians need to write better laws and spell out what they can be used for and what they can't and provide for criminal penalties for abuse. Too many laws these days are written to be intentionally ambiguous so things are left up to the "judgement" of the officer. That provides an open door for abuse. With no penalty for it, it's a practice that's bound to multiply like rabbits.
:iagree:
If any property is to be seized, it should be the result of a fair hearing. This hearing should only take place only after there's been a fair trial and conviction of the accused.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Phantom Stang
:iagree:
If any property is to be seized, it should be the result of a fair hearing. This hearing should only take place only after there's been a fair trial and conviction of the accused.

Hide and watch. If an ordinary citizen did something like this, they'd be charged with extortion, a felony. When and if law enforcement are charged, it will be with "Official Misconduct", a misdemeanor. Funny how that works out.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
Hide and watch. If an ordinary citizen did something like this, they'd be charged with extortion, a felony. When and if law enforcement are charged, it will be with "Official Misconduct", a misdemeanor. Funny how that works out.



Ordinary citizens would not be tried in the court of public opinion like law enforcement is. Ordinary citizens commit these crimes for selfish, personal reasons whereas law enforcement normally commit these crimes in the execution of their duties. (If a crime was truely committed.) If or when we find out the officers/judges involved took personal gain from what they did then you can bet they will be prosecuted just like a citizen. If the gains went to the town then shouldn't we prosecute the entire town????? At least the Mayor and City counsel?????

[Farmersfan]

One important factor that nobody is speaking about is that these people SIGNED over their property as forfieture for not being charged for a crime. Apparently a crime had been committed and the courts or judge allowed forfeiture of property in lue of charges. This might explain why only ONE SINGLE person spoke out about this and got a lawyer........
I don't think in today's society innocent people would have been so intimidated by Tenaha's ferocious police dept that they would simply give up all their stuff for no reason. Just think about it for a minute.

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Ordinary citizens would not be tried in the court of public opinion like law enforcement is. Ordinary citizens commit these crimes for selfish, personal reasons whereas law enforcement normally commit these crimes in the execution of their duties. (If a crime was truely committed.) If or when we find out the officers/judges involved took personal gain from what they did then you can bet they will be prosecuted just like a citizen. If the gains went to the town then shouldn't we prosecute the entire town????? At least the Mayor and City counsel?????

Unlike what this article says happened to "innocent" civilians, the policies of the city government should be scrutinzed for illegal activity. If the article's charges are found to be factual, the property should be returned or a refund made and the city officials who encouraged this type of conduct should be tried in a court of law. Same scenario if the police did it on their own.

It sounds like the law may be on the side of the city though. It is just an interpretation of the law to make confiscation easy. Thus, while not guilty of a crime, the officials and police acted in a manner that is atrocious and they should be held up to public ridicule. No crime, no legal punishment. At least a public outcry might get the practice stopped, property returned or repaid, and a very bad law changed.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Unlike what this article says happened to "innocent" civilians, the policies of the city government should be scrutinzed for illegal activity. If the article's charges are found to be factual, the property should be returned or a refund made and the city officials who encouraged this type of conduct should be tried in a court of law. Same scenario if the police did it on their own.

It sounds like the law may be on the side of the city though. It is just an interpretation of the law to make confiscation easy. Thus, while not guilty of a crime, the officials and police acted in a manner that is atrocious and they should be held up to public ridicule. No crime, no legal punishment. At least a public outcry might get the practice stopped, property returned or repaid, and a very bad law changed.


I'm thinking the most important point is being overlooked by everyone. These most likly were people who were found to have committed a crime. 200 in total. they were offered the opportunity to forfeit their property instead of being charged with a crime and going to trial were they would be given a fine and jail time. 147 of the 200 agree to forfeit their stuff and 50 decided not to. The 50 were charged. It is nonsense to think a innocent person would give up their property for no good reason. In this day of frivelous lawsuits and police bashing every single innocent person would have been screaming at the top of their lungs. They would have had every newspaper in the nation at these peoples courthouse the next day. No! These were people caught with drugs and felt lucky to give up their stuff instead of going to jail. The practice might not appeal to some people but let's quit acting like these were victims.........

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I'm thinking the most important point is being overlooked by everyone. These most likly were people who were found to have committed a crime. 200 in total. they were offered the opportunity to forfeit their property instead of being charged with a crime and going to trial were they would be given a fine and jail time. 147 of the 200 agree to forfeit their stuff and 50 decided not to. The 50 were charged. It is nonsense to think a innocent person would give up their property for no good reason. In this day of frivelous lawsuits and police bashing every single innocent person would have been screaming at the top of their lungs. They would have had every newspaper in the nation at these peoples courthouse the next day. No! These were people caught with drugs and felt lucky to give up their stuff instead of going to jail. The practice might not appeal to some people but let's quit acting like these were victims.........

Except for the fact that those in the article were never charged with any crime.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
Except for the fact that those in the article were never charged with any crime.



Because they chose to accept fortieture of property in lue of charges. No different than Deferred Adjudication. Punishment without a finding of quilt. As long as the defendant accepts it then it can be used.

[waterboy]

Yeah, in this country we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty! Don't assume guilt in these cases. They may very well have been guilty of something, but the police and court official involved should have charged them if they were alleging a crime was committed. If these people would have been convicted of a crime, yes, I can see them confiscating their property, but that's just it -- these people weren't allowed due process. I've read about a story of a woman in White Oak, Texas, a year or so ago, that was stopped. This woman had a large sum of money on her, something to the tune of $14,000. The police did the same thing to her, ASSUMED there was something illegal going on, when she allegedly had withdrawn the money to go buy a car (or something to that effect). They threatened to throw her in jail if she didn't "cooperate" and forfeit the money. It ended up taking her several months, and a hefty lawyer fee, to get her money back. No way should this have ever occurred! This sort of thing happens all the time in Texas. It's time to change this law!:mad:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by waterboy
Yeah, in this country we're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty! Don't assume guilt in these cases. They may very well have been guilty of something, but the police and court official involved should have charged them if they were alleging a crime was committed. If these people would have been convicted of a crime, yes, I can see them confiscating their property, but that's just it -- these people weren't allowed due process. I've read about a story of a woman in White Oak, Texas, a year or so ago, that was stopped. This woman had a large sum of money on her, something to the tune of $14,000. The police did the same thing to her, ASSUMED there was something illegal going on, when she allegedly had withdrawn the money to go buy a car (or something to that effect). They threatened to throw her in jail if she didn't "cooperate" and forfeit the money. It ended up taking her several months, and a hefty lawyer fee, to get her money back. No way should this have ever occurred! This sort of thing happens all the time in Texas. It's time to change this law!:mad:


If you got pulled over for ANY REASON in a small E. Texas Town and they told you that you had to sign over all your stuff(including your vehicle) or they would charge you with felony crimes what would be your response?????? How about ANY PERSON YOU KNOW?????? If you are guilty and facing jail time you sign over your stuff. If you are innocent you ask for a trial). Come on! Get a clue. 50 chose not to sign over their stuff and they were charged. The other 147 knew they would be charged and elected to sign over the property. These people were pulled over and caught with drugs or other illegal things and the law offered to allow them to sign over the contraband or get charged and they agreed to give up the property. Is it wrong for the cops to do this? Maybe it is. The Law says it isn't. But at least let's agree to stop with the "Victims" mentality.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
If you got pulled over for ANY REASON in a small E. Texas Town and they told you that you had to sign over all your stuff(including your vehicle) or they would charge you with felony crimes what would be your response?????? How about ANY PERSON YOU KNOW?????? If you are guilty and facing jail time you sign over your stuff. If you are innocent you ask for a trial). Come on! Get a clue. 50 chose not to sign over their stuff and they were charged. The other 147 knew they would be charged and elected to sign over the property. These people were pulled over and caught with drugs or other illegal things and the law offered to allow them to sign over the contraband or get charged and they agreed to give up the property. Is it wrong for the cops to do this? Maybe it is. The Law says it isn't. But at least let's agree to stop with the "Victims" mentality.



And let's not forget that most likley 10 times this many people were pulled over and let go because THEY were found innocent.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I'm thinking the most important point is being overlooked by everyone. These most likly were people who were found to have committed a crime. 200 in total. they were offered the opportunity to forfeit their property instead of being charged with a crime and going to trial were they would be given a fine and jail time. 147 of the 200 agree to forfeit their stuff and 50 decided not to. The 50 were charged. It is nonsense to think a innocent person would give up their property for no good reason. In this day of frivelous lawsuits and police bashing every single innocent person would have been screaming at the top of their lungs. They would have had every newspaper in the nation at these peoples courthouse the next day. No! These were people caught with drugs and felt lucky to give up their stuff instead of going to jail. The practice might not appeal to some people but let's quit acting like these were victims.........

There is a pending class action lawsuit.

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Ordinary citizens would not be tried in the court of public opinion like law enforcement is. Ordinary citizens commit these crimes for selfish, personal reasons whereas law enforcement normally commit these crimes in the execution of their duties. (If a crime was truely committed.) If or when we find out the officers/judges involved took personal gain from what they did then you can bet they will be prosecuted just like a citizen. If the gains went to the town then shouldn't we prosecute the entire town????? At least the Mayor and City counsel?????

It doesn't have to be for personal gain to still be illegal. There are laws against "Illegal Coercion" and "Blackmail". The "gains" aren't going to the town, they're going to the law enforcement agency to do with as they please.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
There is a pending class action lawsuit.



There are thousands of Law Firms that exist strictly for Class Action lawsuits. It is one of the great American Scams that our Liberal society has enabled. Major Corporations are constatly being bombarded with Class Action suits from Firms looking for a settlement. A class action suit proves nothing.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
It doesn't have to be for personal gain to still be illegal. There are laws against "Illegal Coercion" and "Blackmail". The "gains" aren't going to the town, they're going to the law enforcement agency to do with as they please.



My comment was in answer to the statement that these police officers will not be treated like a normal citizen would under the same conditions. I basically said the conditions are not the same. These police officers were doing their job. If they did it wrong then punish them but we can't expect them to be treated like a common run of the mill crimminal. God forbid we should make it even less appealing to be a cop in this ridiculous society we have created. We have created a "damned if you do-damned if you don't" mentality where our law enforcement is concerned. You work a 12 hour shift on the freeway under constant scrutiny from a camera where people cuss you, spit at you and call your family every name in the book and yet you are expected to take it with a smile. If you ever get in a position of having to protect yourself we will put you on leave and review your every action to make sure it fits with our moronic sensibilities. If we decide you did it up to our standards we allow you to come back to work. Oh yea! We will pay you less than a good waiter at a Applebees can make for doing this................ We really need to get a clue in America. BTW: we are also doing the same things to our teachers.

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by sinton66
[There are laws against "Illegal Coercion" and "Blackmail".


I know perhaps 500 people pretty well and 20 times that many people in passing. Not a single one of them appears to me to be the kind of person who would allow themselves to be "BLACKMAILED" or "COERCED". Come on! this is 2009. People sue for absolutely no good reason in this country. It's moronic to believe 200 people were "Blackmailed" in this town and nobody spoke up. Perhaps this police dept used the legal property seizure laws a little too litteral and that should be corrected but you people act like this was a organized crime syndicate dealing in smuggled child labor or drug trafficing. As usual it's a major over-reaction from the public when it concerns the Law.

[waterboy]

It must be nice to be so naive.:rolleyes: These people may very well have something on the majority of these people, BUT if that's the case they should have charged those people with a crime, not let them go and take anything they wanted from them. That's literally "highway robbery"! The law needs to be changed, and that's all I have to say about that.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by waterboy
It must be nice to be so naive.:rolleyes: These people may very well have something on the majority of these people, BUT if that's the case they should have charged those people with a crime, not let them go and take anything they wanted from them. That's literally "highway robbery"! The law needs to be changed, and that's all I have to say about that.


I think everyone can see who is being naive. Of course these cops should be punished if they broke the law. but the facts still remain that this process was applied to ONLY 147 people in a couple of years on one of the busiest highways in the state. You know they stopped at least 10 people per day for say 3 years=10950 people stopped by these cops and 147 were blackmailed and robbed? Not logical! These 147 people most likly were the only ones out of the 10950 people stopped who were guilty and fit into the guidelines of the Property Forfeit Law. The others were charged for crimes or released because they didn't do anything. But I guess you can live in a bash the cops world if you chose to. I for one believe the cops do a outstanding job with very little support from the general public and anytime a story like this pops up people like you jump on it with all the emotion and none of the thought.........

And I am sad that you have said all you are going to say on it...:(

[Farmersfan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by waterboy
[These people may very well have something on the majority of these people, BUT if that's the case they should have charged those people with a crime, not let them go and take anything they wanted from them.


Why do you blatantly choose to disregard half the equation? These people were given an OPTION. See definition of option below. That is an important factor when using common sense. You must calculate what is likely and what is unlikely. People don't walk away from valuable property unless they know the alternative is far worse. A innocent person never believes they would ever be found quilty. Call it a human trait.


op·tion (pshn)
n.
1. The act of choosing; choice. See Synonyms at choice.
2. The power or freedom to choose.
3.
a. The exclusive right, usually obtained for a fee, to buy or sell something within a specified time at a set price.
b. The privilege of demanding fulfillment of a contract at a specified time.
c. A stock option.
d. The right of the holder of an insurance policy to specify the manner in which payments are to be made or credited to the policyholder.
e. Baseball The right of a major-league team to transfer a player to a minor-league team while being able to recall the player within a specified period.
4. Something chosen or available as a choice.
5. An item or feature that may be chosen to replace or enhance standard equipment, as in a car.
6. Football An offensive play in which a back, usually the quarterback, has the choice of running with the ball or throwing a forward pass.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
A innocent person never believes they would ever be found quilty. Call it a human trait.





I remember when I used to believe that!!!

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I remember when I used to believe that!!!


Have you been falsely accused and convicted?

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Have you been falsely accused and convicted?

Not personally, but have seen innocent people made to believe they were in fact guilty only to find out later they weren't.

We are better just not getting me going about our "inJustice System."

Have a coworker in Florida right now fighting that very fight!!

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Not personally, but have seen innocent people made to believe they were in fact guilty only to find out later they weren't.

We are better just not getting me going about our "inJustice System."

Have a coworker in Florida right now fighting that very fight!!



I don't think many people actually KNOW of someone who was innocent and proven guilty. Everyone hears the stories but that is just what they are, Stories. Dispite what media will tell you it rarely happens.
And our " injustice system" as you put it is made that way by the citizens. It's the BS that creates most BAD COPS not the other way around.
And your coworker in Florida most likely isn't telling you the whole story.....

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I don't think many people actually KNOW of someone who was innocent and proven guilty. Everyone hears the stories but that is just what they are, Stories. Dispite what media will tell you it rarely happens.
And our " injustice system" as you put it is made that way by the citizens. It's the BS that creates most BAD COPS not the other way around.
And your coworker in Florida most likely isn't telling you the whole story.....

My coworker, is actually my boss, and she is on her way to Florida right now....and I guarantee you she's told me everything since I have been the one who has spent the past week doing her research....you have no clue!


Anyway.......you didn't say anything about someone being innocent and proven guilty...you said, "A innocent person never believes they would ever be found quilty"......that is 2 different things!

[waterboy]

Okay........I lied.:D In a perfect world, yes, I would like to think to that all police are good, but in reality there are some out there that ARE crooked. I don't know in this case whether they've abused the intent of the law or not, but it looks suspicious to me. I've read about it happening in other areas of the state, too. Sometimes greed will get the better part of people, and policemen are no different in that aspect. I'm not accusing anybody of any wrongdoing, but like the old saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck,......"

All I'm saying is that the law needs to be amended to include due process (before confiscation of ANY property), penalties for non-compliance, and criminal charges for those who circumvent the law. In this country, we are SUPPOSED to be innocent until PROVEN guilty, and this law has too many loopholes to the contrary, and allows law enforcement and officials to declare a person's guilt without a fair trial.....which to me, at least, the law as it is written now is giving these taxpayer funded officials the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. That's what I'm saying needs to be changed.:cool:

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by waterboy
Okay........I lied.:D In a perfect world, yes, I would like to think to that all police are good, but in reality there are some out there that ARE crooked. I don't know in this case whether they've abused the intent of the law or not, but it looks suspicious to me. I've read about it happening in other areas of the state, too. Sometimes greed will get the better part of people, and policemen are no different in that aspect. I'm not accusing anybody of any wrongdoing, but like the old saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck,......"

All I'm saying is that the law needs to be amended to include due process (before confiscation of ANY property), penalties for non-compliance, and criminal charges for those who circumvent the law. In this country, we are SUPPOSED to be innocent until PROVEN guilty, and this law has too many loopholes to the contrary, and allows law enforcement and officials to declare a person's guilt without a fair trial.....which to me, at least, the law as it is written now is giving these taxpayer funded officials the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. That's what I'm saying needs to be changed.:cool:

Amen Dude!:thumbsup:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by waterboy
Okay........I lied.:D In a perfect world, yes, I would like to think to that all police are good, but in reality there are some out there that ARE crooked. I don't know in this case whether they've abused the intent of the law or not, but it looks suspicious to me. I've read about it happening in other areas of the state, too. Sometimes greed will get the better part of people, and policemen are no different in that aspect. I'm not accusing anybody of any wrongdoing, but like the old saying goes, "if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck,......"

All I'm saying is that the law needs to be amended to include due process (before confiscation of ANY property), penalties for non-compliance, and criminal charges for those who circumvent the law. In this country, we are SUPPOSED to be innocent until PROVEN guilty, and this law has too many loopholes to the contrary, and allows law enforcement and officials to declare a person's guilt without a fair trial.....which to me, at least, the law as it is written now is giving these taxpayer funded officials the right to be judge, jury, and executioner. That's what I'm saying needs to be changed.:cool:


I can totally agree with you on this one. I hate the bad cops and understand that there are some bad one's out there. I am not in favor of cops being able to do whatever they want. I was only taking the side of conservative observation rather than rash judgement which is the norm these days. People seem to have a chip on their shoulder when it comes to law enforcement in this country ... edited for content - see PM ~ p4s and I think it stems from media coverage of all the negative acts by those bad cops. But rational thinking should dictate that if we are to survive as a society we need to start making the job of policing our citizens easier, not harder. Yet at every turn we are making it more and more impossible for them to do their jobs and at the same time much more expensive for society as a whole. The more difficult and undesireable we make the job the more "undesirable" the people doing the job will become....... Just my thoughts.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
My coworker, is actually my boss, and she is on her way to Florida right now....and I guarantee you she's told me everything since I have been the one who has spent the past week doing her research....you have no clue!


Anyway.......you didn't say anything about someone being innocent and proven guilty...you said, "A innocent person never believes they would ever be found quilty"......that is 2 different things!


You are correct! I don't have a clue about your Bosses situation. but I do have a clue as to what normally happens in REAL life. 99.9% of the time that a person considers themselves innocent it is because of a interpretation of the law. I see people all the time who go through the court process and the judge rules them guilty and they STILL insist they are innocent. Their rationale is based on "what' the law should say or "how" they think it was intented. So I meant no disrespect when I commented that you weren't being told the whole story. I meant that you are getting only one side of the story and of course that side of the story will say innocent...........

[sinton66]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I don't think many people actually KNOW of someone who was innocent and proven guilty. Everyone hears the stories but that is just what they are, Stories. Dispite what media will tell you it rarely happens.
And our " injustice system" as you put it is made that way by the citizens. It's the BS that creates most BAD COPS not the other way around.
And your coworker in Florida most likely isn't telling you the whole story.....

I know of a man who was convicted of "smuggling" a prohibited substance into a county jail (he was a jailer). I know he mistakenly (and probably foolishly) believed the substance to be something else. He was convicted and went to prison for a year. This was for doing this once and only once.

There was an article in the Houston paper last week about "smuggling" into state prisons by the guards, and the story shows a lot of them aren't punished by more than "probation".

I also know of a prison inmate that was a very good friend of mine before he started doing drugs. He once told me he preferred prison because drugs were easier to get inside than outside. He's now in there for being a habitual offender.

In my 60+years, I've seen many examples of inequities in the justice system. They usually at least appear to favor those who have employment within the system. Obviously, I'm not saying all the system is corrupt, but punishment of the offenders should be equal whether inside or outside that system. I understand the "bad" guys make the "good" guys look bad, but the justice system often doesn't make them look any better.

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by sinton66
I know of a man who was convicted of "smuggling" a prohibited substance into a county jail (he was a jailer). I know he mistakenly (and probably foolishly) believed the substance to be something else. He was convicted and went to prison for a year. This was for doing this once and only once.

There was an article in the Houston paper last week about "smuggling" into state prisons by the guards, and the story shows a lot of them aren't punished by more than "probation".

I also know of a prison inmate that was a very good friend of mine before he started doing drugs. He once told me he preferred prison because drugs were easier to get inside than outside. He's now in there for being a habitual offender.

In my 60+years, I've seen many examples of inequities in the justice system. They usually at least appear to favor those who have employment within the system. Obviously, I'm not saying all the system is corrupt, but punishment of the offenders should be equal whether inside or outside that system. I understand the "bad" guys make the "good" guys look bad, but the justice system often doesn't make them look any better.


Unfortunately in a system like ours where each case is judged by a different person and examined based on it's own merits you will have inequities. There is no way around it. All cases cannot be ruled on the same. Who would you put the highest punitive requirment on, a jailer who smuggles drugs to prisioners or a man who smuggles drugs to our elementary school children? I don't think these two are even close. One gets probation and the other gets life...............Even though it is basically the same crime.

[sinton66]

How about jailers that get no punishment at all? (There were several according to the story I read in the Houston paper) I wasn't talking about people pushing drugs to school children, There aren't many of those in prison or in jail that I know of. We're talking apples to apples here, jailer vs, jailer.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by sinton66
How about jailers that get no punishment at all? (There were several according to the story I read in the Houston paper) I wasn't talking about people pushing drugs to school children, There aren't many of those in prison or in jail that I know of. We're talking apples to apples here, jailer vs, jailer.

I worked at a Municipal court when I was 19. One of the girls I worked with smoked pot and her husband, who was a cop, used to bring her home pot from drug busts.

When I was reading this thread week before I last, I started thinking about them....they are divorced now, but I found out after some research that he is still a police at that very same place.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I worked at a Municipal court when I was 19. One of the girls I worked with smoked pot and her husband, who was a cop, used to bring her home pot from drug busts.

When I was reading this thread week before I last, I started thinking about them....they are divorced now, but I found out after some research that he is still a police at that very same place.
Are you sure he didn't bust me?:D I've had my weed taken from me a few times by the cops back in the late '70s. I never got charged with anything, but they sure would take my weed. I didn't mind though because I only carried a little bit at a time away from home. I kept my big stash at the house!:smoker: :D It's a good thing I gave that stuff up in the early '80s.....:thumbsup:

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by waterboy
Are you sure he didn't bust me?:D I've had my weed taken from me a few times by the cops back in the late '70s. I never got charged with anything, but they sure would take my weed. I didn't mind though because I only carried a little bit at a time away from home. I kept my big stash at the house!:smoker: :D It's a good thing I gave that stuff up in the early '80s.....:thumbsup:

He may have....did you live in Denton then?

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
He may have....did you live in Denton then?
Nope. Lived in Gilmer all that time. Could he have moved to Denton, then to that other town? I know they would take my weed to smoke it themselves.....most people did back then.:cool: I didn't sweat it though, so long as I didn't get busted!;) ....Well, it did kinda irk me at the time. They coulda just ask me for a joint.:D

[pirate4state]

Originally posted by waterboy
Nope. Lived in Gilmer all that time. Could he have moved to Denton, then to that other town? I know they would take my weed to smoke it themselves.....most people did back then.:cool: I didn't sweat it though, so long as I didn't get busted!;) ....Well, it did kinda irk me at the time. They coulda just ask me for a joint.:D

:eek: :doh: :eek: :thinking: :D

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by waterboy
Nope. Lived in Gilmer all that time. Could he have moved to Denton, then to that other town? I know they would take my weed to smoke it themselves.....most people did back then.:cool: I didn't sweat it though, so long as I didn't get busted!;) ....Well, it did kinda irk me at the time. They coulda just ask me for a joint.:D



Don't you know weed leads to harder stuff???????:rolleyes:

[waterboy]

Of course, it lead me to Coke!;)



Coca-Cola, that is!:doh: :D

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Don't you know weed leads to harder stuff???????:rolleyes:

Do you really think so??

[ronwx5x]

EASY RM, that almost sounds like a serious, concerned, question.:cool:

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by waterboy
Of course, it lead me to Coke!;)



Coca-Cola, that is!:doh: :D

I thought it lead to addiction to Dr. Pepper!:nerd:

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Do you really think so??


I know for a fact that every time I cut my weeds it leads to trimming the hedges and edging the sidewalks. I would consider that harder stuff!!!!:D :D

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I know for a fact that every time I cut my weeds it leads to trimming the hedges and edging the sidewalks. I would consider that harder stuff!!!!:D :D

I'm going to have to reread this thread and figure how we got from siezure of belongings to addiction.:doh:

[LH Panther Mom]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I'm going to have to reread this thread and figure how we got from siezure of belongings to addiction.:doh:
If you figure it out, read the terrorist thread. It's kind of run the gamut. :doh: :doh: :doh:

(But, then I just think about who's posting on them..... :devil: ;) )

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by LH Panther Mom
If you figure it out, read the terrorist thread. It's kind of run the gamut. :doh: :doh: :doh:

(But, then I just think about who's posting on them..... :devil: ;) )

Wait a minute there! I resemble that remark.:mad:

Besides, not much football going on right now.:rolleyes:

Short of arguing about football, anything else will do till the season starts.

[waterboy]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I thought it lead to addiction to Dr. Pepper!:nerd:
Sorry, man, none of that kid stuff for me! :D I went straight to Coke.........but now I've graduated to Pepsi!:thumbsup: :D

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by waterboy
Sorry, man, none of that kid stuff for me! :D I went straight to Coke.........but now I've graduated to Pepsi!:thumbsup: :D

And I'll wager there's a story behind that also!!;)

I was addicted to Dr. Pepper for years but had to give it up when I lived in Florida, as DP was hard to find back then. It was tough, but somehow I had the fortitude to break the spell.

At my age I've had to give up most anything really enjoyable so just thinking about DP makes me nostalgic.

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
And I'll wager there's a story behind that also!!;)

I was addicted to Dr. Pepper for years but had to give it up when I lived in Florida, as DP was hard to find back then. It was tough, but somehow I had the fortitude to break the spell.

At my age I've had to give up most anything really enjoyable so just thinking about DP makes me nostalgic.

Speaking of Dr. Pepper, I was in 7-11 a few weeks ago and my sister wanted a DP. When I went to get one, I noticed they had some bottles that looked different, when I looked at them, they said "made with Imperial Sugar"...is that the kind they still make in Dublin??

[ronwx5x]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
Speaking of Dr. Pepper, I was in 7-11 a few weeks ago and my sister wanted a DP. When I went to get one, I noticed they had some bottles that looked different, when I looked at them, they said "made with Imperial Sugar"...is that the kind they still make in Dublin??

I tried one a couple of weeks ago at the urging of my oldest daughter. Very sweet and I prefer Diet DP to it. But then I have always been a bit strange.

Yes, it is supposed to be more like the original made with sugar rather than corn syrup.

[waterboy]

Yeah, I started drinking Pepsi back when Coca-Cola went to the "New" Coke. I was a big-time Coke fan before that, but that "New" Coke really sucked. When they went back to the "Classic" Coke it sucked, too. I found out later why Coke didn't taste the same. It was because they stopped using Imperial Sugar, replacing it with corn syrup. It is my understanding that Coca-Cola was trying to push their weight around, kinda like Wal-Mart, and told Imperial what they would pay for their product. Imperial said no way, so Coca-Cola started using corn syrup instead........and they've sucked every since.:( For those of us who know what Coke tasted like before the change, it just doesn't hit the sweet spot anymore.:dispntd:

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by ronwx5x
I tried one a couple of weeks ago at the urging of my oldest daughter. Very sweet and I prefer Diet DP to it. But then I have always been a bit strange.

Yes, it is supposed to be more like the original made with sugar rather than corn syrup.

I took a drink of hers and it reminded me of the Dr Peppers we used to drink out of the bottles when I was young.......the ones I always loved to add peanuts to!!:D

[Farmersfan]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
I took a drink of hers and it reminded me of the Dr Peppers we used to drink out of the bottles when I was young.......the ones I always loved to add peanuts to!!:D


Didn't the original Dr. Pepper have prunes in it? :D :D


http://www.snopes.com/business/secret/drpepper.asp

[waterboy]

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Didn't the original Dr. Pepper have prunes in it? :D :D


http://www.snopes.com/business/secret/drpepper.asp
:thinking: Hmmmmm............could the rumor have been started because it causes bowel movements......:thinking: Hmmmm......


I know it does me.:D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by waterboy
:thinking: Hmmmmm............could the rumor have been started because it causes bowel movements......:thinking: Hmmmm......


I know it does me.:D
.
*cough* coffee! *cough*
:D

[Ranger Mom]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
*cough* coffee! *cough*
:D

ROFL!! When I read that about DP and prunes, you and your coffee were the first thing I thought about!!:D

[SintonFan]

Originally posted by Ranger Mom
ROFL!! When I read that about DP and prunes, you and your coffee were the first thing I thought about!!:D
.
Aww shucks.
Anything to brighten your day RM!:thumbsup:

[DDBooger]

Originally posted by waterboy
:thinking: Hmmmmm............could the rumor have been started because it causes bowel movements......:thinking: Hmmmm......


I know it does me.:D
Morning Glories! :D

[waterboy]

Originally posted by SintonFan
.
*cough* coffee! *cough*
:D
Why do you think I don't drink Dr. Pepper?;) My morning coffee keeps me regular! If I drank Dr. Pepper during the day, my library would grow exponentially.:D

[waterboy]

Originally posted by DDBooger
Morning Glories! :D
:clap: :clap: :D :2thumbsup