She is innocent until proven guilty in a legal sense. But when you are arrested for a crime, they handcuff you and take you to jail and you hire a defense attorney. So in a practical sense you also must prove your innocence. The point of innocent until proven guilty is that you retain certain rights until you are proven guilty and that any lacking evidence is in your favor. You cannot be arrested w/o cause and things like that. It does not mean that we must play stupid when you are caught with $250,000 in the back of your car. Name me one, just ONE, legitimate reason she might have had for that. There really isn't one. Still, if I were on the jury I would need a lot more than that. I doubt this is a difficult case to make.
INVAR, you are a brilliant poster, as is Smoking Joe. I come here to read posters like the two of you. It is so rare that I disagree with you about anything. Thanks for all the great stuff you post here. On this issue I don't really have sympathy for the lady or feel that law enforcement overstepped in any way. Yet. No one drives around with that kind of money in the back of their car. The closest personal experience I can think of is that my grandpa used to keep cash in his house. Why? The rumor is that he evaded taxes whenever he could. I really have no first hand knowledge and he died over 30 years ago, completely broke. He had nowhere near that kind of money stashed. He ran his own business and I suspect some customers paid with cash. For the most part, even way back then, everyone wanted the paper trail of checks. But he would never have had it a quarter mil in the back of his car. Not ever. A bank branch does not have that much money in their entire bank at any given time.
I am going to turn this right back at you. I also generally respect your opinions--in this case we disagree.
There have been times when it was not unusual for me to have over 5K in my pocket or on my person. At an auction, a gun show, a flea market, or other events money talks, BS walks. Not all in the same place on me, but on me nonetheless. Now, I'm not an upscale dresser. I only own one suit because I thought it might come in handy, and a couple months ago, I didn't even have that. To someone who does not know anything about me, they might assume (especially someone from an urban environment where clothing and newness of vehicle are seen as class designators) that I was some lowlife, and with that amount of cash on my person it had to be from nefarious sources.
Not so. It has all been taxed, or was in the process of being taxed, but during an oil boom, even businesses I had done business with would no longer accept personal checks. I don't like using plastic, because the less you do, the less likely you are to get your data snagged by some thief. That leaves cash. When I bought vehicles, I paid cash--quite literally. I have only ever been in one place that would not take it, and I just left and took my money elsewhere where I was welcome. There have been occasions when I, wearing leathers, vest, biker boots an a do-rag rode my Harley Davidson to the night deposit with over 10K in the saddlebags.
Nothing nefarious involved, it was money from the day for a charity bingo.
The assumption that because someone has something is the thin end of the rich people are holding the poor people down wedge--the assumption that because they have it, they acquired it illegally, are using it illegally, stole it or didn't pay taxes on it, and all rich people are criminals sounds like someone reading posters at an OWS march.
That is the assumption being used to take stuff from anyone who has stuff. I don't shell out fro new cars--I consider that a waste of money. One third of the value of that vehicle evaporates when you drive it off the lot. That isn't a good investment. Instead, I look for reasonably well kept vehicles which will do the job I want done, have no mechanical issues, and a decent service record, and weigh the anticipated remaining mileage in that vehicle's life against the price.
My vehicles are all old enough to vote, and I recently drove one from the Montana line to the Chesapeake Bay and back with no issues, as I fully expected it to perform. I don't own it for status, but function. My clothing I have addressed, it protects me, it keeps my parts concealed from public view, it is durable, and that's what I want. People spend huge amounts of money impressing one another with their clothing and cars, but that leaves me with a lot of money left over to do other things with. Now, that money I saved is gone after an extended period of goofing off combined with dealing with family matters, so it's time to start piling it up again, but what is the point if I don't have
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
People will often live lean lives to have nice things. A guy who lives modestly might have rare books, or a valuable stamp or coin collection, a tin box full of little gold bars or silver, or a gun collection and a "stockpile" of ammo, or fine art on the walls, while he walks to work in worn out boots and faded jeans or drives a beat up old car there.
It's what makes him happy, what he feels is important that he will spend his life collecting, even if that is cash.
This was done
sans warrant.
On the reaction of a dog.
I like dogs, I know they can smell things I can't.
They can hear things I can't. My dog is my first line of defense against intruders, my alarm system, and I have known him long enough to tell whether or not he knows who is coming by his reaction, and even who that is.
I don't have anything against the dog, but the idea of the government setting the dogs against my property and person and using that fishing expedition to take my stuff bothers me, and it should bother you, too.
This is characterized as a "routine" search, but no search conducted on an American on American soil should be "routine".
We have become so inured to having our Rights violated, that conservatives now support this? We are metal detected, swabbed and sniffed at the airport (remove your shoes) put your stuff on the conveyor belt to be x-rayed. We are metal detected on entering public buildings and schools (get the kids used to that?). RFID scanned leaving the store, videotaped more than Johnny Carson, tracked by ez pass, phone GPS or triangulation, and have even those communications recorded by the NSA and others. Every non-cash purchase is recorded.
My grandfather would have shit. My great great grandfather would have rebelled. Instead, are we to meekly say "Go ahead take my stuff so I can be safe".
Yeah, If you don't have anything, no one can take it from you, and who better to deprive you of it than they guys with the authority, the network, and the weapons: The Government. But wait, the purpose of government was supposed to be to
secure our Rghts, not trash them.
I am adamantly against the illicit drug trade in the US. I have seen a whole generation of my extended family, with a few exceptions, decimated by that shit. I have one grandson I have been happy to hear was in prison, because he has a chance to get clean and isn't on the street where he has died three times now. He'd be dead today, but the last time someone tossed his OD'd ass out of a pickup, the convenience store clerk locked his till, called 911 on the way to give him CPR and the policeman who pulled up had Narcan on board and administered the shot that saved his life.
You have no idea and no words can adequately express the animosity I have toward pushers. No point in profanity, even though four decades of construction work and oilfield have left me a virtuoso of the invective, it would be woefully inadequate.
I'd gladly support the death penalty for
convicted drug dealers, out to the yard with them and bust some caps-- I'd gladly volunteer to man the rifle to help eliminate that scourge--as long as the conviction was just and not the product of someone seeding a 'crime scene' to justify stealing their stuff.
But I cannot, in good conscience, advocate nor support the wholesale deprivation of people of their assets without specific reason, other than they have them. Follow the rules, if they are found guilty, loss of assets. Don't kick that money back to the agency who seizes them in order to eliminate some of the profit motive.
Which raises the next question.
How do we know it was ONLY $237K? Seems like an odd total. I thought the 'big boyz' liked round numbers. Did $13K go missing? More? $1K in fresh c-notes is about an eighth of an inch thick, doubled over. That hides fairly well.
