|
Post by spaniardx on Sept 21, 2017 4:07:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Sept 21, 2017 8:22:47 GMT -5
I am totally against asset forfeiture done this way. I was going to say that it's fine if the person is convicted of a crime using that item but on re-think they've had it too good. Have a qualified third party take the assets of someone convicted of a crime using those assets and sell or auction them off, proceeds going to the local community at large, not the police or feds if you must use asset forfeiture at all. I get what they're doing with it, but taking the assets of someone innocent and/or not guilty (there's a difference legally) just makes people angry and mistrustful of the authorities. The article goes on to mention reforms under Obama but fails to connect that this theft took place under the Obama administration (2015 would be two years ago, the year restrictions were put into place.) Doing some digging, I see that Eric Holder put some restrictions into place in 2015: www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/ but that, in 2016, Loretta Lynch revived them: www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/07/sessions-forfeiture-justice-department-civil/534168/ Interesting site because it has a graph contrasting forfeiture with burglary and stating not that more items were seized but that items of greater value were seized: thefederalist.com/2017/07/20/civil-asset-forfeiture-skyrocketed-under-obama/Trump campaigned on a populist-style platform. That's why he was elected - he heard what people were saying and he addressed those concerns. I would like for him to address this issue. He holds rallies, I hope the people who attend hold his feet to the fire on this.
|
|
|
Post by spaniardx on Sept 27, 2017 18:54:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Sept 28, 2017 0:09:22 GMT -5
I think you did. I know I saw it in at least two places.
The video was released by Wubbels and her lawyer, who obtained it through a public records request
I thought parties in an ongoing investigation weren't allowed to discuss it outside of court. Wouldn't releasing the footage be a form of discussion? Vidro footage is great, but I think its use has outstripped current laws. That's something communities need to address.
Shortly after the crash, the Logan Police Department made a request to Salt Lake police to draw a couple of vials of Gray's blood.
Why? He was run into by a guy running from the police. There was no doubt that the cause of the accident was the driver who was trying to escape, not the truck driver. And why did they want his blood when he was heavily sedated by the medical pros who attended the accident? That makes no sense. I can see a doctor wanting to make sure the meds aren't poorly interacting with treatment, but I can't see why the police in the original incident wanted his blood.
|
|
|
Post by spaniardx on Oct 16, 2017 11:14:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Oct 17, 2017 9:52:26 GMT -5
The dispatcher asked the Yantis family if they would euthanize the animal.Since dispatch sent the family to the field the officers should have known they were coming. ...adding that Wood’s “shooting toward the Yantis Ranch driveway posed an unnecessary danger” to the family “who predictably would be coming down the driveway, in the dark, to deal with the bull.”Okay, lots to unpack here. First, see comment above. They should have known the family was coming and from which direction. Second, did the family carry flashlights? It was dark so they should have, but the article doesn't say. Third, the officer shouldn't fire toward an occupied dwelling. That's irresponsible. He used an AR-15, the civilian model of the military M-16. It has a target range of 600 yards: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle Shooting toward a dwelling in the dark with a target range of 600 yards/ area range of 800 yards is pure stupidity. Fourth, the officer used his personal weapon, not his service weapon. Why on earth was he carrying his personal weapon? Did he have it with him already or did he go home to get it or get called at his home to help? There was clearly enough time for him to run home or to come from home since the family had a veterinarian with them. I doubt the family has a full-time vet living on their property. So far the family's allegations are just that, allegations. There should be a trial, at the very least an investigation into the incident. It seems that the family's right, see above, but we don't know the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by spaniardx on Oct 17, 2017 14:40:45 GMT -5
OK, I missed that part. Now I'm wondering if the shooter (and possibly his partner cop) has some grudge against this family or the man he killed. And the shooter just saw an opportunity to "deal with things" when he got the call and so took his personal weapon with.
Wondering if we are looking at a pair of dirty cops? Or a dirty cop and a cop too intimidated to stop him?
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Oct 18, 2017 17:53:51 GMT -5
It was dark. I'm thinking the guy's just a trigger-happy idiot who shot first and then looked to see if anyone was out there. It would be terrible if we're talking dirty cops or dirty cop and intimidated cop. A dirty cop's the worst but cops shouldn't be able to be intimidated - imagine an easily intimidated cop in a stand-off.
|
|
|
Post by spaniardx on Oct 18, 2017 18:48:13 GMT -5
Unfortunately, too many cops like to intimidate. And some of them really love to intimidate other cops.
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Oct 19, 2017 7:06:41 GMT -5
IMO, and this is just MO, someone who is easily intimidated shouldn't be a cop. It would be bad in a stand-off situation, in a 'jumper' situation, in a traffic stop, in anything a cop does. Bad cops, overbearing cops, confused cops aren't the only ones who can take advantage of an easily intimidated cop.
|
|
|
Post by spaniardx on Oct 19, 2017 14:19:27 GMT -5
Thing is, at least locally, dirty cops don't tend to use the usual threats of violence against another cops that that a civilian might. Even threats of "feeding the cop to a lawyer" doesn't phase most of the local iffy badges either. Dirty cops are more likely to use the threat of loss of face/respect with fellow cops and/or in the community as a whole. Or the threat of job loss. Just think of all of those negative tropes about Southern cops (granted, also politicians) in the movies, television and fictional crime procedural stories. Those tropes, like the myth and legends we were raised on, have a rather hard and nasty kernel of truth in their rotting centers. Pretty sure the number of our local badges that use those tropes as a personal playbook (so to speak) for the job goes up every year. Edited to fix a grammatical goof!
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Oct 19, 2017 23:27:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by spaniardx on Oct 21, 2017 23:59:50 GMT -5
Considering that Serpico was (as some would say around here) "one of them Eye-Tallions" (rhymes with "stallions"), doubt the locals would trust him as far as they could throw him.
|
|
|
Post by vitugglan on Oct 22, 2017 10:45:20 GMT -5
Lol! Maybe a good ol' down-to-earth Scotsman, then.
|
|
|
Post by spaniardx on Oct 22, 2017 19:08:47 GMT -5
|
|