Kimball County seizes $69,040 in traffic stop [title changed]

[Lerxst]

You still have not answered my pretty point blank question of...


When did "Innocent until proven guilty." become "Guilty until proven innocent."?

Until you can justify when, and why this has happened it doesn't really matter. The cops are thieves.

First of all your question isn't a real question. Innocent until proven guilty is still in effect. You don't apply it to all citizens though Steve...remember that. You don't know this man is innocent. You just know he was released without charges. That means nothing in this case. Maybe if you actually knew something about law enforcement other than your street racer run ins and your internet lawyer speak you would understand this.

Again, you don't know the case details. Your whole argument about this issue is a series of assumptions founded in ignorance. But hey, whatever works for you.

 

[Lerxst]

the only ignorance on display here is your own.

Prove it. Do you know what the term "ignorance" means?

 

[Vader]

Let me offer a request to you then...please stop running your mouth about things you are obviously ignorant of. You don't have enough information to determine this one way or the other, and just because the ****ing internet article doesn't spell it out doesn't mean the evidence isn't there.

:roll:

The fact that they released the individual in question was released without so much as a ticket SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE THEIVING NAZI BEHAVIOR OF THE DEPUTY IN QUESTION.

If they were going to seize the money, then they needed to find a reason to do so other than "his story didn't add up". That is not a valid reason to seize $70k from a passing motorist.

You and your nazi buddies can make all the excuses you want for this wanton violation of the 4th amendment but that will not change the fact that this incident is a CLEAR UNDENIABLE 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION.

 

[ARealConservative]

Prove it. Do you know what the term "ignorance" means?

Yes.

Oddly enough, I went to double check, and a picture of you appeared next to the defintion.

 

[Vader]

First of all your question isn't a real question. Innocent until proven guilty is still in effect. You don't apply it to all citizens though Steve...remember that. You don't know this man is innocent. You just know he was released without charges. That means nothing in this case. Maybe if you actually knew something about law enforcement other than your street racer run ins and your internet lawyer speak you would understand this.

Again, you don't know the case details. Your whole argument about this issue is a series of assumptions founded in ignorance. But hey, whatever works for you.

Wrong!

We do not know he is guilty ---- we are required by law to assume that he is innocent until a court of law says otherwise.

This fact is what makes the actions of the deputy and his cousin/brother/uncle sheriff boss A 4th amendment violation.

 

[stevenb]

First of all your question isn't a real question. Innocent until proven guilty is still in effect. You don't apply it to all citizens though Steve...remember that. You don't know this man is innocent. You just know he was released without charges. That means nothing in this case. Maybe if you actually knew something about law enforcement other than your street racer run ins and your internet lawyer speak you would understand this.

Again, you don't know the case details. Your whole argument about this issue is a series of assumptions founded in ignorance. But hey, whatever works for you.

So... seizing assets is generally something that happened after they were proven guilty, or the law enforcement agencies had solid evidence that someone had done something wrong.

They've basically skipped the whole proving that they did something wrong then seizing assets... to... Seize their assets, and make them prove they did nothing wrong.

Sure, there is nothing fundamentally wrong with that.. :roll:

Here is some help... for you to discern....

Presumption of innocence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You sound like a total authoritarian, btw.


Oh, and continuing to try and rib me over my past is laughable at best. You're only making yourself sound like more of an *** than you already have everytime you try and quip me with that.

 

[Lerxst]

The fact that they released the individual in question was released without so much as a ticket SPEAKS VOLUMES ABOUT THE THEIVING NAZI BEHAVIOR OF THE DEPUTY IN QUESTION.

You really think you have this nailed huh? Just because you don't like certain investigative tactics, such as catch and release, doesn't mean the cops were nazi's or thieves. Really, you are being quite juvenile. In the basement you really played yourself up, so do your image a favor here....step up and stop rehashing your same defunct point.

If they were going to seize the money, then they needed to find a reason to do so other than "his story didn't add up". That is not a valid reason to seize $70k from a passing motorist.

Just because the Sheriff said in the article "the story didn't add up" doesn't mean that is the narrative of their case. Jesus Christ. How hard is this for you to understand. It's an ongoing case! You act like this article is the entirety of the case file. Come on Vader, you made all this ballyhoo about being able to dominate arguments....well you are going to have to do better than this.

You and your nazi buddies can make all the excuses you want for this wanton violation of the 4th amendment but that will not change the fact that this incident is a CLEAR UNDENIABLE 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION.

Well, since it's not a violation of the 4th amendment Voidwar Jr., your whole point here is moot. Just because YOU think it is, doesn't mean it is. I'll admonish you again to actually learn just a little bit about what you are discussing before taking such an absolute stand. You can take a college class or read a book. It's pretty easy to do.

 

[Vader]

Yes, and you are oblivious to things like criminal enforcement, case law, Carroll Doctrine, etc.

I get it.

The Carroll Doctrine is an ancient ruling that arose out of an illegal search for bootleg alcohol back during the prohibition era.

In Carroll vs US the court held that the test is, if you have probable cause enough to get a warrant but you lack the convenience and the opportunity to get a warrant, act like you have a warrant. Search as though you had the warrant.

[FONT=Arial,Italic]"The probable-cause determination must be based on objective facts that could justify the issuance of a warrant by a magistrate and not me rely on the subjective good faith of the police officers."​

​

[FONT=Arial,Italic]Since there was no cause to arrest the driver of the vehicle and because there was not so much as a ticket issued in this case -- THE DEPUTY VIOLATED THE 4th amendment and his Sher-theif boss is helping him to cover it up.[/FONT][FONT=Arial,Italic]​

Since the officer in question had every opportunity to request a warrant, and because the vehicle in question was certainly not carrying any type of contraband or illegal substance --- THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE. THEREFORE, THE SEIZURE IN QUESTION IS AND WILL ALWAYS BE A 4TH AMENDMENT VIOLATION. ​

THE SHERIFF AND HIS THEIF DEPUTY WILL ALWAYS BE CRIMINALS AND A VAPID AND VILE DISGRACE TO THE UNIFORM. ​

Don't believe me? READ THE FOLLOWING CASE: ​

CARROLL v. U.S.
U.S. Supreme Court
March 2, 1925
267 U.S. 132​

[/FONT][/FONT]

 

[Vader]

You really think you have this nailed huh? Just because you don't like certain investigative tactics, such as catch and release, doesn't mean the cops were nazi's or thieves. Really, you are being quite juvenile. In the basement you really played yourself up, so do your image a favor here....step up and stop rehashing your same defunct point.

Just because the Sheriff said in the article "the story didn't add up" doesn't mean that is the narrative of their case. Jesus Christ. How hard is this for you to understand. It's an ongoing case! You act like this article is the entirety of the case file. Come on Vader, you made all this ballyhoo about being able to dominate arguments....well you are going to have to do better than this.

Well, since it's not a violation of the 4th amendment Voidwar Jr., your whole point here is moot. Just because YOU think it is, doesn't mean it is. I'll admonish you again to actually learn just a little bit about what you are discussing before taking such an absolute stand. You can take a college class or read a book. It's pretty easy to do.

Actually, it clearly is a violation of the 4th Amendment --- just because you are unable to accept this fact does not make it any less true.

You sir are DEFEATED by your own penchant for allowing the authorities to abuse those who they are sworn to protect.

 

[ARealConservative]

Jeff, do you work for law enforcement?

We have a 2 year criminology program in my area. The curriculum is to indoctrinate ignorance.

 

[Lerxst]

Wrong!

We do not know he is guilty ---- we are required by law to assume that he is innocent until a court of law says otherwise.

This fact is what makes the actions of the deputy and his cousin/brother/uncle sheriff boss A 4th amendment violation.

Listen killer, think about what you are saying. You read a ****ING INTERNET BLURB ABOUT THIS CASE! You don't KNOW enough to say he is guilty or not. You are not on the jury, you are an internet forum member who is making a joke of an argument based on a few paragraphs from a news brief. You are summing up an entire case with a media release.

Screw the case, I'm more interested in where you learned to debate.

 

[Vader]

Well, since it's not a violation of the 4th amendment Voidwar Jr., your whole point here is moot. Just because YOU think it is, doesn't mean it is. I'll admonish you again to actually learn just a little bit about what you are discussing before taking such an absolute stand. You can take a college class or read a book. It's pretty easy to do.

I would ask that you learn to properly interperate case law before you go spouting off about what is and is not covered by case law.

You are clearly mistaken --- just so that you are aware --- the DOJ is invesitgating the Sheriff and the Deputy. WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT IS HAPPENING?

Could it be that the feds believe the Sheriff and his deputy violated the 4th amendment?

*knock* *knock* Hello! McFly!

 

[Lerxst]

Jeff, do you work for law enforcement?

We have a 2 year criminology program in my area. The curriculum is to indoctrinate ignorance.

I have been a cop for 13 years. And your statement is representative of what true ignorance is. You don't like cops. Big deal. Your statement is still rife with bullshit. Deal with it.

 

[Vader]

Listen killer, think about what you are saying. You read a ****ING INTERNET BLURB ABOUT THIS CASE! You don't KNOW enough to say he is guilty or not. You are not on the jury, you are an internet forum member who is making a joke of an argument based on a few paragraphs from a news brief. You are summing up an entire case with a media release.

Screw the case, I'm more interested in where you learned to debate.

Listen killer --- regardless of your nonsensical backwards view of this case --- THE MAN IS INNOCENT UNTIL A COURT OF LAW SAYS OTHERWISE. None of your bullshit will ever change this. Accept this fact and move on.

:mrgreen:

 

[ARealConservative]

I have been a cop for 13 years. And your statement is representative of what true ignorance is. You don't like cops. Big deal. Your statement is still rife with bullshit. Deal with it.

I don't think 2 years is enough education for the power cops are given.

How many years of schooling did you have in law enforcement?

 

[Vader]

I have been a cop for 13 years. And your statement is representative of what true ignorance is. You don't like cops. Big deal. Your statement is still rife with bullshit. Deal with it.

I wonder how many times you've been investigated by IA for violating the rights of those whom you have arrested, questioned, detained, or investigated.

:mrgreen:

 

[Lerxst]

I would ask that you learn to properly interperate case law before you go spouting off about what is and is not covered by case law.

Lol...interpret case law? Okay, what case law am I supposed to be interpreting Johnny Cochoran?

You are clearly mistaken --- just so that you are aware --- the DOJ is invesitgating the Sheriff and the Deputy. WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT IS HAPPENING?

This would lead one to believe you now have more evidence. I have only been arguing against your position on this based upon what was presented in the OP. If there is more then this changes things. Hence my whole point being that there wasn't enough information in this article. You think you are being slick. You are not. You know damn good and well I have not ONCE argued that I knew the deputy was right, I simply argued that you didn't KNOW he was wrong based upon the OP article. Hmmmm.

Could it be that the feds believe the Sheriff and his deputy violated the 4th amendment?

I suppose we will find out. Post the link to your source, I would be interested to see it.

 

[Lerxst]

I wonder how many times you've been investigated by IA for violating the rights of those whom you have arrested, questioned, detained, or investigated.

:mrgreen:

None. Ever. Weaksauce Vader. But when it's all you have, run with it.

 

[Lerxst]

I don't think 2 years is enough education for the power cops are given.

How many years of schooling did you have in law enforcement?

I am working on my Masters. I do agree with you though about the education requirements. They are lacking. Many states now mandate continuing education, but still have no statewide requirement for an advanced degree. But then again, the pay doesn't usually attract the majority of college graduates. It's a thankless job.

 

[stevenb]

I am working on my Masters. I do agree with you though about the education requirements. They are lacking. Many states now mandate continuing education, but still have no statewide requirement for an advanced degree. But then again, the pay doesn't usually attract the majority of college graduates. It's a thankless job.

And what department do you work out of?

 

[Lerxst]

In a quick few internet searches the only thing I can find about this case other than the original link is a "bad cops" website that doesn't link anything else to the case in terms of investigation and an article about the Sheriff retiring and moving to Iowa to take a police chiefs job.

So where is the DOJ article at? I would like to see it.

 

[Lerxst]

And what department do you work out of?

Nice try. PM me your address and phone number and I'll PM you where I work.

 

[jfuh]

And what department do you work out of?

Who cares? Why would anyone actually give out such information?
Bottom line here guys, all we have to go off of with respect to this case in particular is what is provided within the article. I've looked around and couldn't find any further information with regards to.

Hence, Jeff, in that we could no more say that the department is dirty but based on what is given the only conclusion available is that it sounds dirty.
The driver was released without charges or any citation yet his property was seized on "possible suspicion of a connection" - which does hint towards guilty until proven innocent.
Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise what is shown here would fall under unjustly detention - given that the author is presenting a bias but even then, the only conclusion based on what is given can not be seen in any other way.

 

[stevenb]

Nice try. PM me your address and phone number and I'll PM you where I work.

Less revealing information then... what state are you a police officer in?

 

[Lerxst]

Who cares? Why would anyone actually give out such information?
Bottom line here guys, all we have to go off of with respect to this case in particular is what is provided within the article. I've looked around and couldn't find any further information with regards to.

Hence, Jeff, in that we could no more say that the department is dirty but based on what is given the only conclusion available is that it sounds dirty.
The driver was released without charges or any citation yet his property was seized on "possible suspicion of a connection" - which does hint towards guilty until proven innocent.
Unless there is evidence to suggest otherwise what is shown here would fall under unjustly detention - given that the author is presenting a bias but even then, the only conclusion based on what is given can not be seen in any other way.

My whole point has been that we can't pass judgment on either the deputy or the citizen because this isn't a realistic representation of the case. I have been battling the obvious bullshit anti-cop stupidity that is flowing like wine here, because the majority of it is all knee jerk, reactionary crap. Nobody here can pass judgment on either of these guys because we don't know all the facts.

Those I have been arguing with can't see past their own ignorance of the case to see the point I have tried to make. Which is, they don't know enough about the case and apparently about how the criminal justice system and case law works to intelligently make some of the statements they have made.

And now Stevenb wants to stalk me and Vader has retreated into his usual weak sauce one liners.