For the dyslexic art connoisseur there’s a painting called “gods playing poker”

http://www.dogsplayingpoker.org/img/news/gods-playing-poker.jpg

Yea in a way it’s actually worse. I mean, if the cop puts the money in his pocket the motivation to steal from you is pretty obvious but the fact that they’re willing to steal from you with no direct benefit for themselves shows the solidarity and groupthink that gives them that “us vs. them” mentality.

I spent a semester in Vietnam back in college (2004), and a few of us got tied up with the police once because of an error the customs guy made when he stamped our visas. It was painfully obvious that all they wanted was a payoff. We gave them the equivalent of like 20 bucks, they shook our hands, and we were on our way.

#23 croaker

@19 The difference is that cop isn’t putting the money into his own pocket, so it’s not a bribe.

Whether something is a bribe has nothing to do with whether it goes into the pocket of an individual or an organization. It has only to do with paying someone to illegally influence their behavior. When a cop lets someone go in exchange for cash, it’s a bribe. But, perhaps I could have used a more descriptive word. Like, say, extortion.

@19 The difference is that cop isn’t putting the money into his own pocket, so it’s not a bribe.

@21 Equador, for example…

@22 The only difference I see between a street gang and the police is that the police have a better medical package.

In those countries you can negotiate with the cop because he will keep all the money for himself. Even in the most corrupt countries they won’t leave you penniless by the side of the road.

Not here though… Nope, they take it all and make you spend a fortune trying to get your own money back.

Asset forfeiture = legalized theft. End of story.

Strays dogs one day are dogs playing poker another day. SWAT teams have to be ready.

Gambill helpfully explains how this policy was effective at separating drug mules from their ill-gotten cash. Of course, it would also be effective at getting cash out of anyone who’d rather fork over some money than face the prospect of arrest, detainment, and felony charges.

I don’t know what is more disturbing. That a cop (or anyone else for that matter) wouldn’t see that as simply soliciting bribes or that a cop (or anyone else for that matter) would believe that anyone with a brain would fall for such a lie.

“It is like we are living in some tin-pot dictatorship…

Have you ever been to Indiana? If it weren’t for Mississippi, Indiana would be the butt of every government corruption and redneck joke in existence.

Yea if it weren’t the good guys doing it I would have said that somebody should invade that country and liberate it’s people!

But those roadside “settlements” are absurd. The police can say “give me cash or go to jail”. And the reason it’s not a bribe… is that the police know can afford the bribe.

Now if the prosecutor’s wife is a cat lady and they set up a “Save the Kitties” non-profit with his wife as director and direct the contribution there which is used to pay her salary they’d better be able to show that she’s really involved in cat rescue.

My businesses have made significant (for me) contributions to drug law reform groups, with the most recent being sent to the yesonprop19 people. It just makes the most sense financially plus there’s still a part of me that doesn’t like my name being directly attached to drug law reform. But if I had Soros wealth it would be me that the Know Nothings call the devil in human form rather that Mr. Soros. I’m sure Mr. Soros has a good staff of top notch professionals taking care of his taxes and therefore possible that he might not even hear that he’s been audited.

It’s evil beyond belief. It’s straight up Fourth Reich grade Police State stuff.

More importantly, I wonder if that prosecutor would use such a broad definition if he thought that write-off impacted the taxes that go to fund his department…

But, the basic problem is that it’s “civil” asset forfeiture. As in “the government never has to prove you were involved in any criminal activity to take your stuff” asset forfeiture. Civil asset forfeiture just shouldn’t exist for law enforcement. If they want to seize the asset acquired as part of a criminal enterprise, then convict the criminals and then seize their stuff. Simply, if they say there is a crime, then prove it and use criminal asset forfeiture.

Another insidious part of this is that the government gets to look like heroes doing it because many people (who probably don’t read The Agitator) presume the guilt of anyone a cop calls a criminal. So, the prosecutor gets to frame all of these cases in terms of “we’re confiscating drug money from drug dealers” when, in fact, they haven’t proven their target was a drug dealer at all. Of course, it wouldn’t sound as righteous to say, “We are going to accuse this guy of drug dealing, but we are taking his stuff regardless of whether we ever convict him of any crime, or even ever charge him with a crime.” In that second (more accurate) phrasing, it is a lot easier for the average Joe to understand that he could be the one accused, since the government never has to prove anything.