Rental car + cash = no cash for you - Page 3

Donkey® · 08-23-2006, 02:47 AM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Needs a scooter and stupid girls

I am going to put all arguments aside and call "f5" on these girls.

willis · 08-23-2006, 05:26 AM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

How is it considered forfeiture if you can't even prove the money was yours?

The proof the money was his is that it was in his posession.

If they can't prove it's not his, that should be it

And if you're going to say that posession doesn't count, fine.. try driving around with some weed or something illicit in your car, and when you get pulled over and it gets found, just tell them it's not yours and expect to walk of any charges because "it's not yours". You are in possesion of it, it's yours unless you can prove otherwise (which would be a defense to a charge). In this case, the money should be considered his because he had possession of it and the govt didn't provide evidence (charge, trial, conviction.. etc) that the money wasn't his.

archangel003 · 08-23-2006, 05:49 AM

Donkey, the laws of our land clearly state that the burden of proof rests on the state, not the suspect.

I'm saddened to see even liberals advocating the policies of a police state.

Donkey® · 08-23-2006, 09:12 AM

Originally Posted by willis

The proof the money was his is that it was in his posession.

If they can't prove it's not his, that should be it

And if you're going to say that posession doesn't count, fine.. try driving around with some weed or something illicit in your car, and when you get pulled over and it gets found, just tell them it's not yours and expect to walk of any charges because "it's not yours". You are in possesion of it, it's yours unless you can prove otherwise (which would be a defense to a charge). In this case, the money should be considered his because he had possession of it and the govt didn't provide evidence (charge, trial, conviction.. etc) that the money wasn't his.

Just holding drugs is illegal. Just holding money isn't illegal...ie he wasn't charged with holding money. They deemed the money to be part of a drug conspiracy, that was the end of that. Doesn't matter WHOM owned it at that time. At least they gave him a chance to prove it was legit and his....which he could not do. Doesn't matter if he was supposed to be made to prove it or not...he couldn't do it. What does that mean? It means the drug money belongs to someone but the police don't know who. Obviously they're not going to just hand drug money to someone who isn't even the owner of it.

Donkey® · 08-23-2006, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by archangel003

Donkey, the laws of our land clearly state that the burden of proof rests on the state, not the suspect.

I'm saddened to see even liberals advocating the policies of a police state.

Burden of proof doesn't apply to ownership...only charges of a crime. As far as "proving" it was drug money, they did just that.

Ardentfrost · 08-23-2006, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Burden of proof doesn't apply to ownership...only charges of a crime. As far as "proving" it was drug money, they did just that.

They didn't prove it was drug money... they claimed it was drug money and took it. You can't prove money is drug money without drugs, of which they found none.

According to the law I quoted earlier, the police have to charge and convict someone of a crime, then they can forfeit the person's assets related to that crime. They didn't even CHARGE this man with a drug-related crime, but forfeited the money under SUSPICION of its relationship to drugs.

So there's all kinds of shit wrong with the situation.

Donkey® · 08-23-2006, 02:53 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

They didn't prove it was drug money... they claimed it was drug money and took it. You can't prove money is drug money without drugs, of which they found none.

According to the law I quoted earlier, the police have to charge and convict someone of a crime, then they can forfeit the person's assets related to that crime. They didn't even CHARGE this man with a drug-related crime, but forfeited the money under SUSPICION of its relationship to drugs.

So there's all kinds of shit wrong with the situation.

It's a double edged sword. They COULD charge him with a crime if they could PROVE the money is his. They can't. Neither could the guy.

Ardentfrost · 08-23-2006, 03:13 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

It's a double edged sword. They COULD charge him with a crime if they could PROVE the money is his. They can't. Neither could the guy.

Possession of money is enough to say the money is his. Then it would be up to him to prove that it is NOT his.

Donkey® · 08-23-2006, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Possession of money is enough to say the money is his. Then it would be up to him to prove that it is NOT his.

Possession != ownership.

Ardentfrost · 08-23-2006, 03:29 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Possession != ownership.

Ok, then let's free all the people in prison who are there for possession charges.

Donkey® · 08-23-2006, 04:52 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

Ok, then let's free all the people in prison who are there for possession charges.

Drugs in your hand = possession. Money in your hand != possession. Money is not illegal. Drugs are.

Ardentfrost · 08-23-2006, 04:55 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Drugs in your hand = possession. Money in your hand != possession. Money is not illegal. Drugs are.

They treated that money like it was illegal, otherwise they wouldn't have taken it away. They take illegal drugs when you have them, and they can prove they're illegal because there is a list that says "Drug X is illegal" or some shit. If the money is illegal, so that they can take it, they have to prove that it is illegal. Since, as you said, money can't be illegal, it has to be associated with an illegal act.

If they cannot prove that, which they didn't, then how can they legally take the money?

archangel003 · 08-23-2006, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Burden of proof doesn't apply to ownership...only charges of a crime.

ORLY? Link?

Kytro · 08-23-2006, 07:41 PM

There are laws that allow the police to take money they believe is related to drugs, charges or not.

This sort of law in unjust.

Regardless of what the law is or is not, thjey should have to charge someone with a crime linked to the money, or they shouldn't be able to take it.

Donkey, I don't understand your position. Why should the man have to prove the money is his?

He has the money in his custody, if the police say "it's drug money, it isn't yours" they should have to prove that assertion true, not just have a possible link. They police make an assertion, they should have to prove it.

This is the same as claming having to prove innocence, that is screwed up.

willis · 08-23-2006, 08:04 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

Drugs in your hand = possession. Money in your hand != possession. Money is not illegal. Drugs are.

I can't even formulate a response to you..

possession of one arbitary thing (in this case drugs) = you own it

possession of another arbitrary thing (money) = you don't own it.

Is life easier when you don't follow any sort of logic??

Ardentfrost · 08-23-2006, 08:16 PM

Originally Posted by willis

Is life easier when you don't follow any sort of logic??

That's why I wash my dog every morning... because my head hurts and my car is low on gas.

Donkey® · 08-23-2006, 08:57 PM

Originally Posted by willis

I can't even formulate a response to you..

possession of one arbitary thing (in this case drugs) = you own it

possession of another arbitrary thing (money) = you don't own it.

Is life easier when you don't follow any sort of logic??

I didn't invent the drug laws homo. That's how it is. You don't like it? Change the laws.

willis · 08-23-2006, 09:36 PM

Originally Posted by Donkey®

I didn't invent the drug laws homo. That's how it is. You don't like it? Change the laws.

can we play fantasy and you describe an opinion on whether you think actions like these are wrong or right without appealing to "that's the law, deal with it hippie"??

willis · 08-23-2006, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That's why I wash my dog every morning... because my head hurts and my car is low on gas.

If it wasn't for my horse, I wouldn't have spent that year in college

Ardentfrost · 08-23-2006, 09:42 PM

Originally Posted by willis

can we play fantasy and you describe an opinion on whether you think actions like these are wrong or right without appealing to "that's the law, deal with it hippie"??