• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Could this qualify as blackmail?

Fisher said:
Don't know about where you live, but drug paraphernalia is illegal where I live. Two, she voluntarily made the choice. They were her rights and to whatever extent she had them, she gave them up. and Three, I do not believe her side of the story. I have seen enough instances where criminals tried to paint themselves the innocent victim that I just don't believe it.
Click to expand...

Paraphernalia is state-specific, yes.

Yeah, what a choice. Would you like to be beat with a baseball bat or a hockey stick?

Just because the police are legally able to offer a choice does not make the choice any less reprehensible, nor does it mean that we as a society should blindly accept such low standards. I've stated before that this issue is really nothing to do with guilt or innocence. That's actually irrelevant. If you can prove your case and get a conviction, go for it. The issue is the ability for the government to simply take stuff without even making an official accusation and filing charges, let alone a gaining conviction. This is nothing less than a grown up version of the schoolyard bully stealing lunch money from easy targets.

Your protests are one of two things... 1) You're being argumentative just to be argumentative, or 2) You're an "end justifies the means" kind of person and because you believe a person to be guilty we have no need for due process or even a court system.

Option 3 does not exist.
 
CanadaJohn said:
I can't address the child endangerment issue because I don't know all the facts. I know here, if there is any concern on the part of a person in authority, such as a teacher, coach, police officer, etc. that a child is at risk, they are required by law to report that concern and failure to do so is a crime.
Click to expand...
You know the concept, and could quite easily comment on that... the police's choice between protecting the kids vs grabbing easy cash... doesn't matter who. I suspect you know that avoiding the general question by dodging and weaving and hiding behind "I don't know all the facts" specifics is because you know your answer would be inconvenient to your points thus far.
 
radcen said:
Paraphernalia is state-specific, yes.

Yeah, what a choice. Would you like to be beat with a baseball bat or a hockey stick?

Just because the police are legally able to offer a choice does not make the choice any less reprehensible, nor does it mean that we as a society should blindly accept such low standards. I've stated before that this issue is really nothing to do with guilt or innocence. That's actually irrelevant. If you can prove your case and get a conviction, go for it. The issue is the ability for the government to simply take stuff without even making an official accusation and filing charges, let alone a gaining conviction. This is nothing less than a grown up version of the schoolyard bully stealing lunch money from easy targets.

Your protests are one of two things... 1) You're being argumentative just to be argumentative, or 2) You're an "end justifies the means" kind of person and because you believe a person to be guilty we have no need for due process or even a court system.

Option 3 does not exist.
Click to expand...

or maybe the non-existent choice 3 is that I think she should have availed herself of the legal process and challenged this all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America if necessary, you know, if she were actually innocent, which I doubt she was.
 
radcen said:
You know the concept, and could quite easily comment on that... the police's choice between protecting the kids vs grabbing easy cash... doesn't matter who. I suspect you know that avoiding the general question by dodging and weaving and hiding behind "I don't know all the facts" specifics is because you know your answer would be inconvenient to your points thus far.
Click to expand...

It's not inconvenient for me at all - do you know for a fact that after they signed the waiver and gave up the cash that child protection wasn't called? Do you know for a fact that part of the "deal" was that child protection wouldn't be called?

My only points have been that a) police don't pull innocent people randomly off the street and empty their bank accounts, and b) people who are innocent of any crime don't voluntarily sign away all of their money simply because the police tell them to.
 
Fisher said:
or maybe the non-existent choice 3 is that I think she should have availed herself of the legal process and challenged this all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States of America if necessary, you know, if she were actually innocent, which I doubt she was.
Click to expand...
Got you down for #2. :thumbs:


CanadaJohn said:
It's not inconvenient for me at all - do you know for a fact that after they signed the waiver and gave up the cash that child protection wasn't called? Do you know for a fact that part of the "deal" was that child protection wouldn't be called?

My only points have been that a) police don't pull innocent people randomly off the street and empty their bank accounts, and b) people who are innocent of any crime don't voluntarily sign away all of their money simply because the police tell them to.
Click to expand...
You mean this?
from the original linked article
...told Henderson and Boatright that they had two options. They could face felony charges for “money laundering” and “child endangerment,” in which case they would go to jail and their children would be handed over to foster care. Or they could sign over their cash to the city of Tenaha, and get back on the road. “No criminal charges shall be filed,” a waiver she drafted read, “and our children shall not be turned over to CPS,” or Child Protective Services.
Click to expand...
Regardless, you're naive... or in denial. What you say doesn't happen does happen more often than we want to think. It goes against everything that decent people believe in, and it's a figuratively painful process to come to realize that those who ostensibly 'protect' us are really no better than the average person... and too often not even that high. Most people would rather hide their head in the sand and continue to pretend that the justice system is really about justice as its #1 priority.
 
radcen said:
Got you down for #2. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Nope I am the one who thinks the Courts are there to determine truth, punish the guilty, and check the government like the Po-Po. I have faith in the legal system, blemishes and all. You, on the other hand, are a sucker if you believe one-sided stories by a liberal rag.
 
Fisher said:
Nope I am the one who thinks the Courts are there to determine truth, punish the guilty, and check the government like the Po-Po. I have faith in the legal system, blemishes and all. You, on the other hand, are a sucker if you believe one-sided stories by a liberal rag.
Click to expand...

1) Calling the New Yorker a "liberal rag" is ridiculous. Hell, they were the first publication I read that called out Obama for engaging in "Chicago style" politics.

2) If the Linden police had anything approaching an actual case against Boatright they'd have charged her with something. They didn't do so because they had no evidence. While you may not want to believe it, this was a shakedown, pure and simple; and that's pretty obvious if you look honestly at the facts as we know them.

3) Did you actually read the article? Washington flat out admits to engaging in blatantly unconstitutional activity on a regular basis. Why you refuse to see that stems, I suspect, from exactly the type of bias of which you're accusing the New Yorker.
 
Fisher said:
Nope I am the one who thinks the Courts are there to determine truth, punish the guilty, and check the government like the Po-Po. I have faith in the legal system, blemishes and all. You, on the other hand, are a sucker if you believe one-sided stories by a liberal rag.
Click to expand...

You're too close to the system and have lost objectivity.
 
Aderleth said:
1) Calling the New Yorker a "liberal rag" is ridiculous. Hell, they were the first publication I read that called out Obama for engaging in "Chicago style" politics.

2) If the Linden police had anything approaching an actual case against Boatright they'd have charged her with something. They didn't do so because they had no evidence. While you may not want to believe it, this was a shakedown, pure and simple; and that's pretty obvious if you look honestly at the facts as we know them.

3) Did you actually read the article? Washington flat out admits to engaging in blatantly unconstitutional activity on a regular basis. Why you refuse to see that stems, I suspect, from exactly the type of bias of which you're accusing the New Yorker.
Click to expand...

All New York publications just about are liberal rags. The author is a "reformer" and the piece is one-sided

If it was a shakedown, why did she not stand up for her rights? She gets no benefit of the doubt from me.

Yes I read the article.
 
Aderleth said:
1) Calling the New Yorker a "liberal rag" is ridiculous. Hell, they were the first publication I read that called out Obama for engaging in "Chicago style" politics.

2) If the Linden police had anything approaching an actual case against Boatright they'd have charged her with something. They didn't do so because they had no evidence. While you may not want to believe it, this was a shakedown, pure and simple; and that's pretty obvious if you look honestly at the facts as we know them.

3) Did you actually read the article? Washington flat out admits to engaging in blatantly unconstitutional activity on a regular basis. Why you refuse to see that stems, I suspect, from exactly the type of bias of which you're accusing the New Yorker.
Click to expand...

Bingo. They'd have pressed charges AND taken the money. They only wanted the emotional blackmail to get the parents to agree to not come back after the money in court later on.

If it were me, I'd have considered signing it then still sued and claim that it was signed under duress. I might have lost, but maybe not, and at the very least their $6K in profit would have been eaten up in litigation and/or overhead costs.
 
Fisher said:
All New York publications just about are liberal rags. The author is a "reformer" and the piece is one-sided

If it was a shakedown, why did she not stand up for her rights? She gets no benefit of the doubt from me.

Yes I read the article.
Click to expand...
If the charges were legit, why were they not filed? :shrug:

Today's justice system is no longer entitled to the benefit of the doubt, either.

Nobody has yet directly addressed the child neglect aspect, either. It's a concept question, and does not need case specifics to answer, yet there's been a bunch of dodging and weaving and sidestepping. Is it ethically acceptable to allow children to continue to be abused and/or neglected... as was informally accused... in exchange for money?
 
Fisher said:
All New York publications just about are liberal rags.
Click to expand...

Right. That explains The New York Post's ongoing love affair with Democratic politicians. :roll:

Fisher said:
The author is a "reformer" and the piece is one-sided

If it was a shakedown, why did she not stand up for her rights? She gets no benefit of the doubt from me.

Yes I read the article.
Click to expand...


Attacking the author of a piece without being able to point to specific facts that are wrong is a pretty sad attempt at deflection and nothing else. The author of the piece specifically stated that she attempted to speak with the major players on the pro-forfeiture side, and they refused to do so. So to the extent that the piece is one-sided, that's entirely the fault of the people who refused to defend their own actions.

Boatright did stand up for her rights by joining in a class action law suit against the municipality (which, as you'll recall, resulted in a moderately favorable result for the plaintiffs). She didn't immediately fight the forfeiture because they were threatening to take away her child. There's a reason blackmail is effective.

You don't need to give her the benefit of the doubt, all you have to do is look at the facts:

No charges were filed. If there had been any actual evidence of wrongdoing, Linden would have charged Brightboat with one or more crimes and seized her stuff (initially as evidence, and eventually under criminal forfeiture statutes). The fact that they didn't do so makes it pretty obvious that they couldn't do so.

You're also ignoring the fact that this wasn't an isolated incident. Given this weight of evidence, the question you should be asking yourself is, "why am I giving the benefit of the doubt to law enforcement personnel who have repeatedly seized property from citizens who have in no way demonstrated criminal behavior, for the purpose of enriching their own department and themselves?"
 
CanadaJohn said:
My point is, there has to be some underlying crime that was committed otherwise the police would not have them in their sights and offered them this "bargain". I don't for a minute believe the police just picked someone out of the phonebook or off the street and started a shake-down exercise with them - we don't live in China......
Click to expand...

"A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses....."
Reuters
 
Hard Truth said:
"A secretive U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration unit is funneling information from intelligence intercepts, wiretaps, informants and a massive database of telephone records to authorities across the nation to help them launch criminal investigations of Americans.

Although these cases rarely involve national security issues, documents reviewed by Reuters show that law enforcement agents have been directed to conceal how such investigations truly begin - not only from defense lawyers but also sometimes from prosecutors and judges.

The undated documents show that federal agents are trained to "recreate" the investigative trail to effectively cover up where the information originated, a practice that some experts say violates a defendant's Constitutional right to a fair trial. If defendants don't know how an investigation began, they cannot know to ask to review potential sources of exculpatory evidence - information that could reveal entrapment, mistakes or biased witnesses....."
Reuters
Click to expand...

All bad stuff - makes me caution people to avoid a life of crime.
 
CanadaJohn said:
My point is, there has to be some underlying crime that was committed otherwise the police would not have them in their sights and offered them this "bargain". I don't for a minute believe the police just picked someone out of the phonebook or off the street and started a shake-down exercise with them - we don't live in China.

If you're innocent, and the police try this on you, there's no way you're going to sign a waiver giving them access to all you have. If you're guilty, however, you're likely to lose all that money in a court conviction and go to jail too - giving up the money seems like a good deal in that scenario.
Click to expand...

New York's stop-and-frisk policy is unconstitutional, judge rules

A New York judge ruled Monday that stop-and-frisk searches carried out by city police are unconstitutional – and ordered that a federal monitor be brought in to oversee their reform.

In a major victory for civil rights activists who have long contended that stop-and-frisk amounts to racial profiling, US district court judge Shira Scheindlin said the stops violated individuals' right to privacy and equal treatment under the law. In addition, the city's highest officials had "turned a blind eye" to evidence that officers carried out the searches in a "racially discriminatory manner", she added.

The ruling provoked a furious response from both New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and police commissioner Ray Kelly – both fervent supporters of the stop-and-frisk policy.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It seems this policy is only a problem because of racial profiling. To me, it looks like a problem due to the 4th. and 14th. Amendment violations. Apparently, it's OK to stop and frisk people at random so long as you do it to whites.
 
CanadaJohn said:
Mrs. Bloomers is my nickname for Mayor Bloomberg - I didn't know he had a husband, but I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

Was this common knowledge, because I sure didn't know that either! :shock:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, CJ. :2wave:

Was this common knowledge, because I sure didn't know that either! :shock:
Click to expand...

Good evening Lady P.

I think Ditto misunderstood my reference - but like I said, it wouldn't surprise me.
 
Dittohead not! said:
New York's stop-and-frisk policy is unconstitutional, judge rules



It seems this policy is only a problem because of racial profiling. To me, it looks like a problem due to the 4th. and 14th. Amendment violations. Apparently, it's OK to stop and frisk people at random so long as you do it to whites.
Click to expand...

So, if what you say is correct, and if I understand it correctly, they can continue to stop-and-frisk minorities as long as they increase the stopping-and-frisking of other races and ethnicities as well.
 
radcen said:
So, if what you say is correct, and if I understand it correctly, they can continue to stop-and-frisk minorities as long as they increase the stopping-and-frisking of other races and ethnicities as well.
Click to expand...

Sounds that way.
So, it's perfectly OK to ignore the Bill of Rights, as long as it is ignored equally for all races.
 
Dittohead not! said:
Sounds that way.
So, it's perfectly OK to ignore the Bill of Rights, as long as it is ignored equally for all races.
Click to expand...

It's kind of like the TSA patting down the 90 yr old granny or the 4 yr old child - throw in a few distractions so you can then check out all the arab looking/sounding travellers you want.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom