If it was seized as evidence, then it isn’t asset forfeiture. Absent some other proceeding, the person would get the evidence back at the end of the case (though often they have to file a motion to do that, which is bullshit).
Given that your conjecture about the timing an method of release of the body cam video has turned out to be completely erroneous, and in fact has helped to prove the complete and utter opposite of your conclusion about “the blue line”…
He said he would try to get the park person to try depositing my cheque at a bank.
He was true to his word. A couple of weeks later the cheque cleared my account, and a couple of weeks after that, he called me again and told me that he spoke with the judge and had the warrant quashed. I never received any paperwork concerning the matter.
I find that story profoundly disturbing. If I were you, I’d scan a copy of that cleared check and a copy of the bank statement showing it, and store both someplace in the cloud so that in ten years, you’ll be able to produce it just in case the sheriff’s expertise with warrants matched his expertise with banks.
Or contact the court directly and confirm there is no longer an outstanding warrant.
And here I was hoping I wouldn’t have to make this post, and, for ONCE, people would just get it. It seemed like it–no one commented for nearly a day.
How the fuck is money from a wallet supposed to be evidence? It’s evidence the guy had money in his wallet. And it deprives him of all the money he had that day.
If it’s the number and quantity of bills, you can just write that information down. Have the guy sign off on it, even. The guy is obviously poor if he’s busking hotdogs, and thus taking all the money he has on his person is cruel.
The fact that he didn’t ticket open alcohol or other vendors (who he just told to leave) shows that the cop cannot say “I had to because of the law.” He clearly didn’t. Which means the law is not a defense for his actions.
The cruelty of his chosen actions are the reason the guy got a ton of money. People see what happened in the video and the reports, and come to the conclusion that there was no way what the cop did was justified. Enough people chose to contribute that he got a decent bit of money.
He can actually go get that permit he’s supposed to have, and even buy his own cart, as he’s always wanted to. The cop, on the other hand, deliberately made that harder out of “law and order in action.”
We may not be able to get cruel cops off the force, but we can make their cruelty not affect others so much, so that maybe they’ll realize it’s not worth it. If the guy they want to hurt gets off better in the end, maybe they’ll stop hurting people.
Pretty much anyone can see the non-cruel action was to cite the guy and make him leave, not take his money. The fact that so many law enforcement officers are so out of touch with what the public thinks the right thing is is a problem. Same with lawyers.
And I really hope that, unlike Reddit, you guys do realize that this is different from the guy actually going and robbing a bank or something. Then the funds belong to other people, for one thing. And, for another, a lot of money means more than a small bit. He’s in a rich city: $60 is not a lot.
There are times when taking the money makes sense, even if the “evidence” concept doesn’t. Taking money that is actually likely used in a crime and holding it until the crime is proven not to have happened is not a bad idea inherently.
Taking money as “evidence” kinda is. You can document that it exists with a camera and signed statements and such. You don’t need the actual cash. Hell, we spend money without cash all the time.
And, no, the law saying otherwise has no bearing on anything, any more than “just following orders” is ever an excuse.
Even though I live in St. Louis, I haven’t been following this story all that closely. But:
At trial, Stockley said he was afraid the suspect, Anthony Lamar Smith, was going to shoot him. But, during the chase, Stockley was recorded saying to another officer, “I’m going to kill this motherfucker, don’t you know it.” A gun was found in Smith’s car, but only Stockley’s DNA was found on the gun.
As I said, I haven’t followed the case closely. The judge said the prosecution hadn’t proved their case adequately. I suppose there might be a couple of reasons for that.
So he said he was gonna kill the guy, he killed the guy, then he may or may not have planted a gun on the guy, all on tape, but still no conviction.
Screw being rich; kids today should wanna be cops. You can do anything you want and in the unlikely event you get caught AND charged with breaking the law, it’s highly unlikely that you’ll be found guilty, but if you are the POTUS will just pardon you.
Los Angeles Times
15 Sept 2017
Deputy accused of raping 2 in jail
‘Horrific’, Sheriff Jim McDonnell says of inmate sex assault claims; arrest within hours of complaint
Los Angeles – A 10 year veteran deputy of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has been arrested, accused of raping two women inmates at a Lynwood jail, an act the sheriff termed “horrific”, officials announced Thursday. … “Criminal misconduct, especially criminal misconduct that preys upon a vulnerable population, will not be tolerated and will be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. We have a public obligation to follow the evidence and the facts.”
This is a refreshing change from the usual “horror stories” we see, that usually end up demonizing the victim(s) and with the bad cop getting away (again).
But we have yet to see what really happens next.
So you are saying the police shouldn’t follow the law? That they should do whatever they think is best?
You don’t seem to realize that there are many different POV. The law sets a standardized set of procedures that can be monitored and changed if needed. I’m not sure what your point is.
I think the point was that the police do not follow the law, that they do whatever they think is best. The cop did not bother with the other vendors selling without a license. He did not bother the people drinking alcohol in public.
He did very specifically what you think you are admonishing BigT about suggesting, selectively enforcing the law, not following a standard set of procedures.