Heh... I thought generally it was "Hard cases make bad law".
The difference is that Blackstones thoughts form the basis of the entire legal system in the United States. The other, not so much.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Carry too much $ the police will take it!!!!
- Thread starter JonathanD
- Start date
Heh... I thought generally it was "Hard cases make bad law".
The difference is that Blackstones thoughts form the basis of the entire legal system in the United States. The other, not so much.
aborgman said:
So that was the opinion of the people who wrote those documents. We're not talking laws of physics here.
Clearly there's currently enough scope in your legal system for folks to find ways round that (otherwise this thread wouldn't exist). Your OPINION is that this is a bad thing.
Just saying, is all...
I don't know man I'd say that (at least from my studies) politics 200 years ago was just as dirty, if not more because of the lack of media coverage and widespread outrage.
As far as a PM discussion, its not as entertaining that way. It aint no fun if the homies can't have none...
Just slightly OT:
There is a legal limit to the number of...um...I'm trying to be discreet here, in deference to the younger readers... There is a legal limit to the number of ADULT NOVELTY TOYS that an individual can have in their possession. (I'm sorry I don't know what the exact number is...but it's pretty small, you could probably count it on two hands. Or one hand and a finger or two.)
Beyond that small number, you can be arrested for being an "unlicensed merchant" ...essentially, the law presumes that anyone who has more than a half dozen or so ADULT NOVELTY TOYS must be inventorying and selling them, because no one in their right mind could possibly have a need for a dildo collection!!!!!
Annie Sprinkle elaborates on this ridiculous law in one chapter from her book Post-Porn Modernist
There is a legal limit to the number of...um...I'm trying to be discreet here, in deference to the younger readers... There is a legal limit to the number of ADULT NOVELTY TOYS that an individual can have in their possession. (I'm sorry I don't know what the exact number is...but it's pretty small, you could probably count it on two hands. Or one hand and a finger or two.)
Beyond that small number, you can be arrested for being an "unlicensed merchant" ...essentially, the law presumes that anyone who has more than a half dozen or so ADULT NOVELTY TOYS must be inventorying and selling them, because no one in their right mind could possibly have a need for a dildo collection!!!!!
Annie Sprinkle elaborates on this ridiculous law in one chapter from her book Post-Porn Modernist
No problem man, I just don't want to go much deeper on a public forum. Enjoyed the discussion, thanks!
£200? How come I'm getting busted for less than a tenth of that other guy
Needless to say, I would have either gotten it from work, cash in hand, can check the books there if you really want. Or from a cash machine, here, look, reciept.
*wishes he had £200
*
If the money was legit then they should have fought tooth and nail to keep those creeps from taking it. But maybe they got off easy had they discovered what the money was really for. Either way the government is screwed up. And sadly it will get worse I fear.
Yeah, it boils down to opinion, this is true. Why else do we discuss these sorts of things?
But my opinion is that the whole "some may be inconvenienced for the better of the many" doesn't cut it. As I said in an earlier post, this kind of mentality lurks dangerously close to "profiling"... racial, ethnic, religious, whatever, it sounds remarkably similar to me.
Understood. That's why I made the comment about checks and balances.
The thing is, I can see both sides of this argument. The main reason I commented here at all is to point out that thinking one side or the other of this type of discussion is indisputably correct and other indisputably wrong is an over-simplification, to say the least. There's nothing wrong with opinions as long as we realise that's what they are.
Bassybill et al: I would be interested in hearing your opinion after you have been the victim of profiling and legal abuse by the police (as I have on more than one occasion). Till then, you are just trying to be clever with words.
Why don't these people go back and try to prove that he money is theirs? Maybe they don't want to be wrongfully jailed as so many others have been for challenging the police. Maybe they really are drug dealers. The point is, you don't know. If the police points a gun at you and takes your money, I think your bravado and complacence would fade a bit.
And yes, there is something wrong with opinions if it results in the needless suffering of innocents. The checks and balances are not working very well.
Why don't these people go back and try to prove that he money is theirs? Maybe they don't want to be wrongfully jailed as so many others have been for challenging the police. Maybe they really are drug dealers. The point is, you don't know. If the police points a gun at you and takes your money, I think your bravado and complacence would fade a bit.
And yes, there is something wrong with opinions if it results in the needless suffering of innocents. The checks and balances are not working very well.
OK, here is my last thought on it... 
If having a large amount of cash raises enough suspicion to justify taking it, why not use the cash as evidence for a search warrant? Get the warrant, search their house and place of business, found out what they are doing and prosecute them. I would support that completely, it allows the law to do it's job without violating anyone's rights.
Just my thoughts, YMMV
If having a large amount of cash raises enough suspicion to justify taking it, why not use the cash as evidence for a search warrant? Get the warrant, search their house and place of business, found out what they are doing and prosecute them. I would support that completely, it allows the law to do it's job without violating anyone's rights.
Just my thoughts, YMMV
So, where do YOU think the twenty-six thousand dollars came from?
And how many people have been wrongfully jailed as a result of unsuccessfully challenging a confiscation in cases like this? I ask just to get some sort of perspective on your comments. Maybe you see that as being "clever with words" - I see it as reasoned argument.
Like I said, I respect your right to have an opinion on this. But I don't agree that your opinion is beyond dispute any more than anyone else's is.
Okay, since this has become on topic, I'll chime in.
My brother drives an old but clean Mercedes 190E. It's still the original black, with chrome headlights.
At least once a month, he gets pulled over by the police. The first time really angered him, as this was clearly profiling. But as it happened again, with officers always having a clean approach and a structured inspection. At some point, you realize that there is a certain level of profiling, done for the sake of being efficient. Of course we'll be chosen over the mother driving a Grand Caravan. The officers really have no prejudice (around here at least), just an understanding that some characteristics will be shared by a higher percentage of criminals than others.
My brother drives an old but clean Mercedes 190E. It's still the original black, with chrome headlights.
At least once a month, he gets pulled over by the police. The first time really angered him, as this was clearly profiling. But as it happened again, with officers always having a clean approach and a structured inspection. At some point, you realize that there is a certain level of profiling, done for the sake of being efficient. Of course we'll be chosen over the mother driving a Grand Caravan. The officers really have no prejudice (around here at least), just an understanding that some characteristics will be shared by a higher percentage of criminals than others.
I do not know where you learned your history lessons. I will just say that my history lessons disagree with yours. England was the largest drug dealer(mainly opium) in the world for a long time. They were pawning it on China. Trafficking was around when Ben Franklin, it was a taxable product at that time from what I understand.
Imagine this scenario:
You are on your way to a gig with a car packed full of your rig and basses. A cop pulls you over and asks "what is all this gear for and where did it come from?" You say you are on your way to a gig and that you bought the gear from guitar center and talkbass and ebay. The cop says "prove it." How are you supposed to prove it? This is actually pretty hard to do. If there is a rider for this gig and you happen to have it on you then yeah maybe that'll work. But I think most of us here wouldn't have that luxury. And are you supposed to carry around receipts for all the gear you bought?
The cop says, "well I can't charge you with anything since you haven't actually done anything wrong but I don't believe your story and you look like the kinda guy that might steal stuff so I'm going to take all this gear from you. If you want any of it back you'll have to come down to the precinct and prove this stuff actually belongs to you."
Now this isn't a perfect analogy but it is not that far off. Would you not feel completely violated if this happened to you?
You are on your way to a gig with a car packed full of your rig and basses. A cop pulls you over and asks "what is all this gear for and where did it come from?" You say you are on your way to a gig and that you bought the gear from guitar center and talkbass and ebay. The cop says "prove it." How are you supposed to prove it? This is actually pretty hard to do. If there is a rider for this gig and you happen to have it on you then yeah maybe that'll work. But I think most of us here wouldn't have that luxury. And are you supposed to carry around receipts for all the gear you bought?
The cop says, "well I can't charge you with anything since you haven't actually done anything wrong but I don't believe your story and you look like the kinda guy that might steal stuff so I'm going to take all this gear from you. If you want any of it back you'll have to come down to the precinct and prove this stuff actually belongs to you."
Now this isn't a perfect analogy but it is not that far off. Would you not feel completely violated if this happened to you?
