Lend your son your car, lose it to a state

How are police supposed to determine if a crime was committed, without materials useful to the case? It's like you guys are saying you should be able to lie down with dogs, but shouldn't be persecuted for the fleas.

 

She could have chosen a better husband. And before you scoff, that kind of character flaw is screamingly obvious from the get go. This is what I'm talking about when I say it's a matter of choice. If you don't want police attention, don't associate with dodgy people.

And having criminal children (whose actions result in the loss of your property) is also a choice. You could have raised them better, if it was important enough to you that the family stays off police radar.

 

They get a warrant signed by a judge showing probable cause that a crime has been committed. Then they get to search specific property and seize/ impound it for the purpose of investigation. Suspicion is nothing more than a hunch, a gut feeling, and that is not sufficient to search or seize.

Fleas do not walk into people's houses, toss the room/ car, and grab whatever they want for however they want cuz they have a hunch you might deserve it.

 

How is life up there in the clouds these days??

 

So lets take this to its logical conclusion. If we can all avoid being suspicious people, we can all avoid suspicious people, and it is easy to avoid the impact of such people in our lives, then the victims of crime chose to be 'stupid' enough to put themselves in harms way. The solution to an overly vigorous police force that may use and abuse this concept of suspicion to their own enrichement is to disband police entirely and force the victims of crime to take responsibility for their own circumstances. Police have no business deciding who is suspicious for us and protecting us, when we can do it ourselves by being aware and carefull.

if we can all control our victim status by avoiding suspicious people and circumstances , then given enough incentive, we will have no crime, no need for jails, or criminal justice system at all. Cops cannot impound property, if cops do not exist.

 

If we expect police to do their job and keep us safe, we have to be willing to tolerate these things. After all, if you're not guilty either actually or by association, it's not likely to ever effect you anyway. Even in the uncommon case of a genuine mistake, it's a small price to pay (in inconvenience) to keep society safe. I'd be ok with a police search of my property if they felt there was reason to do so. Since I have nothing to hide, the mistake would become apparent fairly quickly, and would put them (police) one step closer to closing the case.

 

Actually it's ordinary common sense and self-preservation. Those who lack these basic survival skills are the ones with heads in clouds. Expecting good results from bad decisions, indicates a very poor grasp of reality.

 

This isn't about victims of crime, it's about criminals and those who associate with them.

 

No its about ALL of us being about to stay away of suspicious people. Your argument is that is easy smeasy to stay away from suspicious people and out of situations that might cause one to be involved with such folks so that they are never around our property or borrowing our property. We are even responsible if our own children turn out to be suspicious people. With that kind of wonderful intuition, there is no reason for us to be victims. Its a choice to put down our guards, ignore the signs and allow criminals around us and our stuff. If we accept it is a choice to put ourselves in those situations, then its a choice we should pay for, not taxpayers. Disband the police and we should each accept the consequences of allowing criminals to commit their acts on us and our property. its our own fault.

That is your argument. It can't just be a skill we have to avoid impounding, when the same skill set will keep us from all harms way that the 'bad suspicious sort of characters bring.

Crank, own your argument and be follow it to freedom from victimhood and excuse-making ! and freedom from a police state that requires victims for its justification.

 

What, for that the Michigan woman who years later lost her car, should have been her "grasp of reality" just before her wedding? You are saying she should have known that her fiancée, many years down the road, will borrow her car to go pick up prostitutes. Only people with their head in the clouds would expect such stuff.

 

It is easy smeasy. Most of us manage to do it for a lifetime. That's why most of us aren't attracting police attention and/or having our stuff impounded.

And yes, we're absolutely responsible for how our kids turn out. If you can't even manage to raise kids who stay out of crime, you've failed spectacularly as a parent.

I'm all for a solid police force. Because there will always be people who make poor choices.

 

Absolutely she should have known. That's no minor character flaw. Stuff like that stands out a mile, from childhood.

She made a poor choice, and paid for it. That's how it works.

 

Making poor choices is not a crime. Otherwise we could arrest millions for voting for Hillary.

 

That's what I mean by your head in the clouds..... or in maybe some other dark place.

 

This was ultimately the type of scam that touched off the Ferguson business. The local legal agancies were operating an extortion scam on the public.

 

No one who voted escaped making a poor choice. She's toast, rightly so, one party down, one to go.

 

Crank you are walking away from your own argument, when you should embrace it. Just like the impounding is really about poor choices,, let those same people suffer from the criminal conduct for their poor choices. Retire the cops as enablers of a victimhood class. People will learn to stay away from drug pushers, rapists, thieves and other suspicious characters if you stop interfering with the natural process and consequences of being stupid and blind. A 'solid police force. is a crutch. Crank, stop defending tax funded enabling.

 

it's funny republicans always make these kinda laws against people, but never against corps
how about when a corp does something wrong, we take the corporation from them
corps are people too right, so why not

 

No, those who imagine their bad choices won't come back and bite them, have cloud heads.

 

Not all of them. But all of them will come back to bite you.

 

Walking away? I'm a proud socialist/democratist, and believe in big govt and big police. I'm a huge fan of taxation, and am happy to contribute mine.

 

You are walking away from your own argument, not your ideology. I will quote it again so you can actually respond "Just like the impounding is really about poor choices,, let those same people suffer from the criminal conduct for their poor choices. Retire the cops as enablers of a victimhood class. People will learn to stay away from drug pushers, rapists, thieves and other suspicious characters if you stop interfering with the natural process and consequences of being stupid and blind. A 'solid police force. is a crutch. Crank, stop defending tax funded enabling." now do you get it? There really is no such thing as a true victim or a true criminal. they are two sides of a dependency coin and the police just validate the notion of victimhood over the concept of choice. Ditch them to the curb and force 'victims' to accept their own role as the real cause of crime, not criminals.

 

I will check this out, but i have a near certain belief this is a Democrat party crafted law. Sounds exactly like them.

Who pays the highest fines to the government? Individual or corporation?

I am correct. it was the 1970 congress, entirely controlled by Democrats that came up with this draconian law.

 

Estimate the haul you pay to government in taxes?

 

All fully declared. We've never tried to reduce our tax burden via sleight of hand etc.