UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
smccomas wrote:
smccomas wrote:
I stand corrected. Thank you. You got my point anyways.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
20 yo friend pulled over... gun taken.
- Thread starter leprechaun117
- Start date
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
smccomas wrote:
smccomas wrote:
I stand corrected. Thank you. You got my point anyways.
smccomas
Regular Member
imported post
UTOC-45-44 wrote:
Yes I did and unfortunately I am wrong just for grins I looked up the term civilian on websters and this is what I found from the american heritagedictionary
UTOC-45-44 wrote:
Yes I did and unfortunately I am wrong just for grins I looked up the term civilian on websters and this is what I found from the american heritagedictionary
- A person following the pursuits of civil life, especially one who is not an active member of the military, the police, or a belligerent group.
swatpro911
Regular Member
imported post
we all should write to the police chief to train these officers before they go out on the street enforcing laws without knowing how many laws are int he book and how many are valid. Officers do get training with their firearms, so how in the world they dont know any gun laws? I think they do know and testing innocent citizens on it and if they dont it, then they will charge them with it. Its all insider tricks of the agency
we all should write to the police chief to train these officers before they go out on the street enforcing laws without knowing how many laws are int he book and how many are valid. Officers do get training with their firearms, so how in the world they dont know any gun laws? I think they do know and testing innocent citizens on it and if they dont it, then they will charge them with it. Its all insider tricks of the agency
Chopper Dad
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
LEO 229 wrote:
FWIW, LEO229, I think you owe CATO an apology for that little zinger. The man may very well believe quite sincerely that "innocent until proven guilty" means exactlywhat it says. How is it that youare able totransition so easilyfrom a vague suspicion to"reasonable suspicion", and thento "probable cause"? I respectfully suggest that it's attitudes like this on the part of law enforcement that scare the hell out of the citizens of this great nation, not to mention the founding fathers. Do you TRULY wish to live in a society where "abnormal" behavior is automatically deemed criminal?
imported post
Chopper Dad wrote:
You keep thinking that.....
I am entitled to my opinion. I do not see you telling others on here openly attacking me to apologise.
Till then, I suggest you mind your own business.
Chopper Dad wrote:
Off Topic...
You keep thinking that.....
I am entitled to my opinion. I do not see you telling others on here openly attacking me to apologise.
Till then, I suggest you mind your own business.
SicSemperTyrannis
Regular Member
imported post
Back to the last off-topic issue: businesses depositing more than $10,000 - a CTRis still required, but businesses can (and regularly do) fall under an exception where the financial institution can create a list (run against the federal OFAC list regularly) of businesses (and individuals, if the banks policy allows for this) that do not have to have an individual CTR documented for every cash transaction over $10,000. The financial institution I am most familar with does not typically grant individuals this priveledge, but most commerical banks set up businesses accounts from the very beginning such that individual CTR's are not required. You may not remember this part of the account opening process (it would have been one signature on one page), but if you are depositing more than $10,000 into a business account and a CTR is not being filled out each time, it is because you are on this "list of acceptable large-cash depositers".The information is still being recorded every time you make a transaction over $10,000 into that account - the teller just doesn't have to fill out an individual CTR.
I said it takes "2 minutes" to fill out a CTR in an earlier post. It actually typically takes less time than that. The teller is only going to ask a very few, very basic questions - and then write down whatever you say (you aren't being interrogated, so there won't be any follow-up questions. If you say "my grandma gave me the money" - then that is exactly what they are going to write down. You won't be asked why your grandma has that much cash, or anything like that).
PS - I am really glad LEO 229 is part of this forum. I have benefited, and am thankful. Hating mostcops or thinkingmost cops are out to get"us" or thatmost cops intentionally do bad thingsis as irrational and absurd as saying "all men like football" or "all gay men hate women" or any other ignorant nonsense people are capable of saying.Let's judge people as individuals, based on their individual behavior....
Back to the last off-topic issue: businesses depositing more than $10,000 - a CTRis still required, but businesses can (and regularly do) fall under an exception where the financial institution can create a list (run against the federal OFAC list regularly) of businesses (and individuals, if the banks policy allows for this) that do not have to have an individual CTR documented for every cash transaction over $10,000. The financial institution I am most familar with does not typically grant individuals this priveledge, but most commerical banks set up businesses accounts from the very beginning such that individual CTR's are not required. You may not remember this part of the account opening process (it would have been one signature on one page), but if you are depositing more than $10,000 into a business account and a CTR is not being filled out each time, it is because you are on this "list of acceptable large-cash depositers".The information is still being recorded every time you make a transaction over $10,000 into that account - the teller just doesn't have to fill out an individual CTR.
I said it takes "2 minutes" to fill out a CTR in an earlier post. It actually typically takes less time than that. The teller is only going to ask a very few, very basic questions - and then write down whatever you say (you aren't being interrogated, so there won't be any follow-up questions. If you say "my grandma gave me the money" - then that is exactly what they are going to write down. You won't be asked why your grandma has that much cash, or anything like that).
PS - I am really glad LEO 229 is part of this forum. I have benefited, and am thankful. Hating mostcops or thinkingmost cops are out to get"us" or thatmost cops intentionally do bad thingsis as irrational and absurd as saying "all men like football" or "all gay men hate women" or any other ignorant nonsense people are capable of saying.Let's judge people as individuals, based on their individual behavior....
BIG SHAFE
Regular Member
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Sounds illegal to me.
LEO 229 wrote:
4th Amendment
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Sounds illegal to me.
imported post
LEO 229 wrote:
And no one owes you an apology either.
Because no one HERE put ANY words in YOUR keyboard for YOU to communicate. THAT YOU managed to do all by YOURSELF.
WE just WATCHED you and RESPONDED to you. IF you were not so outrageous, then no one would bother with you. IS that why you are provocative ?
LEO 229 wrote:
No one is attacking you. Openly or otherwise.
And no one owes you an apology either.
Because no one HERE put ANY words in YOUR keyboard for YOU to communicate. THAT YOU managed to do all by YOURSELF.
WE just WATCHED you and RESPONDED to you. IF you were not so outrageous, then no one would bother with you. IS that why you are provocative ?
UTOC-45-44
Regular Member
imported post
swatpro911 wrote:
swatpro911 wrote:
They don't know them cuz they feel that Gun Laws don't apply to Them. It's that thing about Ignorance....
ijusam
Regular Member
ijusam
Regular Member
imported post
Itried to post a case of dogs alert on money being given little worth as much of the money is contaminated with drugs. for some reason the link came thru but the summery of the case didn't.
United States v Muhammed (92 F. 3d 648 (1996) Eighth Circuit
A drug dog alerted to $80,990 in currency located in an airline passenger’s bag. The money was seized by DEA agents.
In an asset seizure action, the court stated that it is well established that an extremely high percentage of cash in circulation in America today is contaminated with drug residue. The fact of contamination, alone, is virtually meaningless and gives no hint of when or how the cash became so contaminated.
The asset seizure was overturned.
Itried to post a case of dogs alert on money being given little worth as much of the money is contaminated with drugs. for some reason the link came thru but the summery of the case didn't.
United States v Muhammed (92 F. 3d 648 (1996) Eighth Circuit
A drug dog alerted to $80,990 in currency located in an airline passenger’s bag. The money was seized by DEA agents.
In an asset seizure action, the court stated that it is well established that an extremely high percentage of cash in circulation in America today is contaminated with drug residue. The fact of contamination, alone, is virtually meaningless and gives no hint of when or how the cash became so contaminated.
The asset seizure was overturned.
Tomahawk
Regular Member
imported post
You gotta love the logic:
"Why are you taking my money from me?"
"Because you have too much. So it's ours now. You might be a drug dealer."
"But I'm not a drug dealer."
"How do we know that?"
"Good point. I'm just going to kiss my money good bye, smile at the sunshine and be on my way. I"m so glad I live in the land of the free!
"
You gotta love the logic:
"Why are you taking my money from me?"
"Because you have too much. So it's ours now. You might be a drug dealer."
"But I'm not a drug dealer."
"How do we know that?"
"Good point. I'm just going to kiss my money good bye, smile at the sunshine and be on my way. I"m so glad I live in the land of the free!
"
sccrref
Regular Member
imported post
gsh341 wrote:
gsh341 wrote:
I wish I could be a nobody in this league or even a league a bit higher up there.LEO 229 wrote:
Well, I guess I'm nobody.
imported post
Gotta love ALL of it.....
If I cannot 'prove' where the cash came from, it belongs to the state.
I wonder what suitable proof might look like?
(Um , no real reason to answer...the question IS, of course, rhetorical as there could be no encompassing answer. i.e. The 'state' wins and the LEOs' are happy because they are fighting victimless crime. OUTSTANDING. <- My kind of scenario.)
Gotta love ALL of it.....
If I cannot 'prove' where the cash came from, it belongs to the state.
I wonder what suitable proof might look like?
(Um , no real reason to answer...the question IS, of course, rhetorical as there could be no encompassing answer. i.e. The 'state' wins and the LEOs' are happy because they are fighting victimless crime. OUTSTANDING. <- My kind of scenario.)
imported post
Before any cash was confiscated.. the officer would obviously take a great deal of things into consideration before actually seizing it.
The point I was originally making before so many decided to spoof it and go off on their own.... was that "items" can be seized when there is a good and compelling reason to believe they are evidence. Evidence MUST be preserved when you suspect a crime has been or is being committed.
In the case of cash.... finding drugs or other items of contraband would bea huge deciding factor. It is also very rare for an every day citizen to travel between states with large sums of cash.
When I mentioned "nobody" carrying cash of high amounts.. I was talking about the average citizen on a daily basis. Business owners making deposits is expected and they would have receipts to prove where it came from. A citizen paying cashhe received from his bank to buy a car also has areceipt or transaction record.
Before any cash was confiscated.. the officer would obviously take a great deal of things into consideration before actually seizing it.
The point I was originally making before so many decided to spoof it and go off on their own.... was that "items" can be seized when there is a good and compelling reason to believe they are evidence. Evidence MUST be preserved when you suspect a crime has been or is being committed.
In the case of cash.... finding drugs or other items of contraband would bea huge deciding factor. It is also very rare for an every day citizen to travel between states with large sums of cash.
When I mentioned "nobody" carrying cash of high amounts.. I was talking about the average citizen on a daily basis. Business owners making deposits is expected and they would have receipts to prove where it came from. A citizen paying cashhe received from his bank to buy a car also has areceipt or transaction record.
imported post
Yeah I got all of that.
None of that was in question.
The state's intentions, methods, results (or lack thereof), and 'their' necessity taking precedence over the Bill of Rights is disgraceful for both the LEOs in jack-booted footstep and for their lords directing these disgraces.
That was what I was remarking on. If it seems like I referred to remarks you might have made, well then you should take this up with your lords and masters that encourage this disgraceful behavior.
Yeah I got all of that.
None of that was in question.
The state's intentions, methods, results (or lack thereof), and 'their' necessity taking precedence over the Bill of Rights is disgraceful for both the LEOs in jack-booted footstep and for their lords directing these disgraces.
That was what I was remarking on. If it seems like I referred to remarks you might have made, well then you should take this up with your lords and masters that encourage this disgraceful behavior.