• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Illegal to carry lots of money??

See, as one who doesn't believe generally speaking that there is such a thing as victimless crimes (at least in general) I agree with Nerdius Maximus that, yeah, they are being arrested for their thoughts. There is no victim.. the victim was fictional. "Intent" is one of those words that cal lie in a gray area legally.. After thinking about it though, I guess I just hate the cavalier way the show was handled.
 
IRC "To Catch A Predator" right (bee a while) didn't they catch the predators when they showed up to have sex with the decoy? A bit different from just popping over a chatroom convo; they actually showed up willing and ready to have sex with a minor.

As for large sums of money: Welcome to why I never keep more than $20 on me without a bank slip.
 
Police in the USA have any power they wish,

No, they don't.

look at the fucker cop at the DC snowball fight who drew a gun.

I believe he was disciplined and/or terminated. One bad cap does not represent the group as a whole.



No, he cannot. He has to have a reason.

and when you resist being arrested for any reason then they will charge you with resisting arrest. i have seen it several times, it's sickening, that's all they will be charged with because the police had no right to arrest them.

"Seen it several times"? Let me guess -- friends of yours got out of line with the police in the past, resisted arrest and then claimed innocence. :rolleyes:

it's why guns, even missile launches meed to be legal in this country, protect yourself or violent revolution.

:wtf: That closing statement was for effect, right?

1260694387137.gif
 
Police in the USA have any power they wish,

No, they don't.



I believe he was disciplined and/or terminated. One bad cap does not represent the group as a whole.



No, he cannot. He has to have a reason.



"Seen it several times"? Let me guess -- friends of yours got out of line with the police in the past, resisted arrest and then claimed innocence. :rolleyes:

it's why guns, even missile launches meed to be legal in this country, protect yourself or violent revolution.
:wtf: That closing statement was for effect, right?

1260694387137.gif
Even if they do/did have badges, those half dozen thugs in that video should go to prison for assault. After that idiot got thrown out of the car the trauma from the beating could have killed him, and there's a good probability he wasn't going anywhere under his own power anyway.
 
^ Thank you.

Absolute power corrupts absolutely.


Maybe you should watch the news, it's on the national news several times a year, it's on the local news several times a year. People get arrested, asked why they are being arrested, never really explained, resist being arrested for no reason. In the end all they are charged with is resisting an illegal arrest!
 
I have to agree the police have been given far too much leeway in interpeting "suspicious circumstances" and being allowed to arrest and detain people on the slightest of claims. This has only gotten worse since the government has given into terrorism and started seeing it everywhere.

It's spread to the police being allowed to arrest people with less evidence than ever and allowed to abuse their power more than ever without being disciplined unless they get caught by someone outside the force.
 
^ Not just their thoughts, their intent. There's a difference.

Everyone knows Spider-Man doesn't exist (so there can't be intent there), but real underage kids do (so there can be, in that case).

To Catch A Predator isn't entrapment because the offender is always the one who brings up the subject of sex. The decoy never does.

The guys are scummy, and probably deserve to be humiliated on TV, but I dunno, I still think it's kind of questionable to arrest people unless there's a real kid involved. I wonder if they can't use a genuinely underage decoy, like they do when they do those sting operations at convenience stores, with the kids being sent in to attempt to purchase alcohol or tobacco.
 
On the other hand, many of the "suspects" on the police ride along/chase shows would have fewer charges if they weren't so cooperative with the officer's requests to "man up", "be honest" and "let me search your car". Many wouldn't even have been caught with illegal substances or suspended drivers licenses if they had come to a full stop at a stop sign, used their turn signals and made sure all their lights were working.
 
On the other hand, many of the "suspects" on the police ride along/chase shows would have fewer charges if they weren't so cooperative with the officer's requests to "man up", "be honest" and "let me search your car". Many wouldn't even have been caught with illegal substances or suspended drivers licenses if they had come to a full stop at a stop sign, used their turn signals and made sure all their lights were working.

That part in bold, plus intimidation, allows police to circumvent the 4th Amendment. Read up on it some time.
 
On the other hand, many of the "suspects" on the police ride along/chase shows would have fewer charges if they weren't so cooperative with the officer's requests to "man up", "be honest" and "let me search your car". Many wouldn't even have been caught with illegal substances or suspended drivers licenses if they had come to a full stop at a stop sign, used their turn signals and made sure all their lights were working.

That part in bold, plus intimidation, allows police to circumvent the 4th Amendment. Read up on it some time.
That's one of the points in my post. If the officer was allowed to search the car without permission, he/she probably wouldn't bother to ask (would just search). At least if the "suspect" doesn't give permission their lawyer might be able to argue that the officer didn't have the right to search the car.
 
Fair enough. But I still hate the cavalier way that these police officers and reporters treat a person's rights. Sure they may in fact be criminals, but whether they are or they aren't, you gotta be very careful with how you treat their rights, and their mindset is all wrong.

So you acknowledge it's the reporter's words (note no use of direct speech marks, always a warning sign in news media reports), and yet it's still "these police officers and reporters" who are treating his rights in a cavalier manner? Perhaps it isn't the police who are being quick to jump to conclusions here.

Having large amounts of cash money and scales is plenty for reasonable suspicion of being a drug dealer, because it is classic and established drug dealing behaviour. Out of interest, what would you consider sufficient reasonable suspicion? Short of actually finding the drugs sitting on the passenger seat, which takes you out of the realms of 'suspicion' a bit. Reasonable suspicion constitutes circumstances which would make a reasonable person suspect the criminal activity. It's worth noting no-one here has suggested he wasn't up to no good, which seems to support the idea that a reasonable person finds his activity suspicious, even on the tiny bit of information we have.
 
Why was he pulled over though? And since having a "suspiciously large amount of money" violates state law it sounds like a really good vague term for the police to find criminal activity rather than investigate it. Too similar to profiling people. Someone looks suspicious so they must be guilty of something. The way it's written it really is a crime to possess any large sum of money regardless of the reason which is not reasonable.
 
On the other hand, many of the "suspects" on the police ride along/chase shows would have fewer charges if they weren't so cooperative with the officer's requests to "man up", "be honest" and "let me search your car". Many wouldn't even have been caught with illegal substances or suspended drivers licenses if they had come to a full stop at a stop sign, used their turn signals and made sure all their lights were working.

That part in bold, plus intimidation, allows police to circumvent the 4th Amendment. Read up on it some time.
That's one of the points in my post. If the officer was allowed to search the car without permission, he/she probably wouldn't bother to ask (would just search). At least if the "suspect" doesn't give permission their lawyer might be able to argue that the officer didn't have the right to search the car.

Consent does not need to be given for a search. The Courts have ruled on that.
 
That part in bold, plus intimidation, allows police to circumvent the 4th Amendment. Read up on it some time.
That's one of the points in my post. If the officer was allowed to search the car without permission, he/she probably wouldn't bother to ask (would just search). At least if the "suspect" doesn't give permission their lawyer might be able to argue that the officer didn't have the right to search the car.

Consent does not need to be given for a search. The Courts have ruled on that.

In the absence of probable cause, consent does need to be given if there's no search warrant presented. Your car is private property.
 
That's one of the points in my post. If the officer was allowed to search the car without permission, he/she probably wouldn't bother to ask (would just search). At least if the "suspect" doesn't give permission their lawyer might be able to argue that the officer didn't have the right to search the car.

Consent does not need to be given for a search. The Courts have ruled on that.

In the absence of probable cause, consent does need to be given if there's no search warrant presented. Your car is private property.

Yes, I didn't type that out right. I meant to say that a car owner is NOT required to give consent, thereby "forcing" the police to get a warrant (meaning abide by the 4th Amendment). They'll try all kinds of bullshit tactics to scare you, but stand firm.

I had also meant to say that by allowing the police to search, you automatically forfeit 4th Amendment protection.
 

Clearly this video shows every cop in the country also demonstrates what they can do to you under the letter of the law. Congrats. You win the thread. :rolleyes:

Cops have many restrictions under the law and the accused has many privileges. Remember, we live in a system that presumes inocence. Some bad apples cannot be applied to everyone.

Cops do not have absolute power. You do. Don't want to talk to a cop? You don't have to. Not under an arrest? The cop has no right to hold you against your will. And it's not illegal in any shape or way to carry with you any ammount of cash.

Now, carrying a large ammount of cash and a scale with you could give the cop reasonable cause to hold you for questioning or further investigation up-to an including holding in a cell pending investigating/bail as there's a precedent set that drug dealers will commonly carry large sums of cash with them and possibly even a scale.

To Catch a Predator is also legally in the clear because the accused in those cases not only break the law by simply talking about sex with what they believe to be a minor (and that's a key point regardless of what the reality is) but they also travel distances, sometimes even crossing state-lines, under the intent to have sex with a minor. It's hard to rationalize that in favor of the accused if any of it is unreasonable, manufactured, or false then that's for a jury to decide.

But, consider that undercover officers all of the time work as drug dealer king-pins, prostitutes and other members of the criminal element to sniff out the dirt of our society. These internet stings are no different than an undercover operation.
 
IRC "To Catch A Predator" right (bee a while) didn't they catch the predators when they showed up to have sex with the decoy? A bit different from just popping over a chatroom convo; they actually showed up willing and ready to have sex with a minor.

As for large sums of money: Welcome to why I never keep more than $20 on me without a bank slip.


Just :wtf:
 
IRC "To Catch A Predator" right (bee a while) didn't they catch the predators when they showed up to have sex with the decoy? A bit different from just popping over a chatroom convo; they actually showed up willing and ready to have sex with a minor.

As for large sums of money: Welcome to why I never keep more than $20 on me without a bank slip.


Just :wtf:
Simple reason: In my neck of TN hell, large undocumented cash sums screams "meth dealer/pot dealer" to the cops".
 
IRC "To Catch A Predator" right (bee a while) didn't they catch the predators when they showed up to have sex with the decoy? A bit different from just popping over a chatroom convo; they actually showed up willing and ready to have sex with a minor.

As for large sums of money: Welcome to why I never keep more than $20 on me without a bank slip.


Just :wtf:
Simple reason: In my neck of TN hell, large undocumented cash sums screams "meth dealer/pot dealer" to the cops".

Really? Even if you're dressed clean and have all of your teeth?
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top