PHONE'S RINGING -- IT'S URBAN ON THE LINE
The comments on that article are fucking ridiculous. People implying that he had drug money and deserved to have it taken?? Jesus, the police don't get to just take 30k from someone and disappear with it, no matter where it came from.
Most comments at the end of news stories make me sick. It's scarry to think how many people have the kind of mentality these idiots do. What's telling in the story is, they didn't charge him with a crime. He did nothing wrong, and if he wants to drive around with 30k, that's his business. It's really none of our concern how he obtained the money because HE WASN"T CHARGED WITH A CRIME!
If I Remember correctly he asked the Nighthawks to withhold all of his game checks and pay him in one large check at the end of the season, and yes the comments made on the article are ignorant and just plain cowardly !!!!!
Police Officer's can seize large amounts of money due to suspicion and other elements that I shouldn't release here (or so I hear). The departments can not keep that money. It has to be turned over to the government if the owner doesn't return to claim it with valid proof of earnings. If Clarette shows this department an earnings statement from Omaha showing that he was paid x amounts of dollars then he should be able to reclaim his money. I agree that it looks very wrong to take a mans money with out evidence that he committed felonious acts in obtaining it. On the contrary, how often does somebody drive around with 30k in cash money on their person? Due to Mo C's previous history, do you think that it is unlikely that he committed such a felonious act? You counter, "Mo C served his time. He learned a lesson. He wouldn't do such a things and he is innocent until proven guilty." I mean how many guys leave prison and never return once they have learned their lesson? [sarcasm] While true, it does not alleviate reasonable suspicion which is in fact present here. Research the laws and you will see the grounds for which the money was taken. It is not like he can not get it back. Would I be offended if someone took money from me and I was doing nothing wrong? Sure would. That is because I have done nothing in my past or present to give the indication that I was doing anything unlawful. Mo C doesn't have that defense. Before you attack my comment, I am all for our rights afforded to us by the constitution but you have to be able to look at both views, protecting the individuals rights and protecting the greater good. If it were drug money, I am glad it has been taken from him. If it was his hard earned cash, an injustice has been committed and he needs to see it promptly returned along with an apology.
I don't always take names when I kick ass but when I do, they most often belong to a Wolverine.
I understand that it was well within the confines of the law for the police to seize that money, I just think it's BS. They didn't find any drugs, guns, or any other reason to take the money. Yeah he has a past and guys do get out just to get in trouble again, but other than having a large sum of money there was nothing else to be suspicious about. Sure, he can have it returned, but it'll take time and cutting through red tape, which to me is not fair or right.
There are a lot of people who truly do carry around all their money. Whether they don't trust banks, or just want all their money in their control at all times, it happens. It's just ridiulous to me that if I want to carry a large some of money with me, and I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong, that it can be seized and I come off looking like I did something wrong.
Also understand that the media only gets the details that are reported by Clarett's attourney and possibly a press report issued by the department. The depth of the details are still unknown. Would it benefit that law enforcement agency to "show their cards" and give Mo C the opportunity to formulate a defense? There is a lot that may have been left unsaid in this case.
I do concur that the known facts are inflamtory. I doubt that is the sum of every detail in the case.
I understand that too, seems like Clarrett wouldn't be suing over it though if he was actually doing something illegal. I don't know. I know some guys get that badge, find out exactly what they have the power to do, and execute that power just because they can. They don't believe in disgression. Also, some see that a guy has a record and automatically he's up to no good no matter what. Hard to say, it could have been he was doing something wrong and it could've been a couple of guys abusing power and wasting a guy's time.
You can specualte it one way or the other but I can tell you that no one gets their names dragged through the dirt more than police do, by people that don't know and will never know the full details of whatever case is being discussed. Police are not always right. they are human. I don't see how taking Mo C's money is an abuse of power because it serves as no personal gain to the officers involved. They don't keep a penny of it. It is easy for every one to jump on the band wagon of commercial propaganda and contempt for authority. Let me cross out a lot of steretypes for you guys:
1. Not every cop is a coward hiding behind a badge. Most often you are safer confronting an officer on duty more so than off duty, when he is out of that uniform.
2. Not every officer is a fat slug and out of shape. I know officers that enjoy doughnuts but wouldn't touch one in a uniform just because of the stigma.
3. Not a personal observation of something you have said BT, but I would love to see a critical citizen fill the shoes of an officer in a large metropolitan agency. I want to see this man set in stoic fashion and listen to a habitual felon talk about how he is going to rape your wife and your kids, kill them just to make you suffer and then end your life, followed by the spitting in your face as you walk the offender behind the glass. All done while expectations are that police remain professional and show no emotion. Yet, officers are expected to show empathy when stopping the public [whomever] for driving 20 mph over the speed limit and the "just the facts routine" gets a complaint of rudeness
People are quick to criticize the authority that is placed over them because honestly, who likes being judged or told they are wrong? How many childhood arguments took place growing up at home because you disagreed with the rules your parents laid down? I would just ask that people give officers a little benefit of doubt regarding these accusations made on them. Wait to form an opinion until you know the facts. This knee jerk reaction catches everybody, almost every single time.
Sorry, I rarely say anything briefly.
I rarely say anything briefly myself.
Look I agree that cops are underappreciated and undervalued, but the one sentence in you response that is relevant is that cops are human. Which means that there are some A-holes on power trips, as well as nice guys. There are guys who are strictly by the book and some that use a little disgression before dragging people through a lot of crap for going 2 or 3 mph above the speed limit.
If I speed, run a stop sign, or fail to wear a seatbelt(ugh this is my least favorite, it's a 25 dollar ticket in KY, I'd rather have it be 100 so I don't spend more in gas/time driving to pay it) That's all my fault. I don't blame the cop for giving me the ticket. If I break the law it's my own problem. I am grown up and can take responsibility for my own actions.
I wouldn't want a cop's job, but I did ride with a Cincinnati Cop for a college class. He was a nice guy to me, but was a dick to people on his beat. I think he was showing off because he had someone riding along, but he consistently insulted people on the street. He pulled over some guys coming off of one street because they had KY tags and he was certain they had drugs. They called the K-9 unit and the dog got spooked and bit one of the 3 kids that were in the car. The kids were noticably pissed. The one said why'd you pull us out of the car and have the car inspected. The cop said, it's the war on drugs on Glencoe. The kid said, Drugs? You pulled us over because you said we didn't use a turn signal. It was a big ordeal, and the Cincinnati PD brass had to come to the scene at Midnight to try and smooth the deal over. The dude looked like he was going to cry when it was all over.
I'm not stupid enough to think that all Cincinnati PD are like this guy. I'm not dumb enough to think I know what he deals with on a daily basis that drives that attitude. However, I am smart enough to know that, his attitude and behavior definitely wasn't doing any favors for himself and the rest of the force.
So, In conclusion, I admire what the police do, but I'm definitely not naive enough to think that all cops are out there doing a great job and representing the best interest of all the citizens, and they never harrass people for no reason. I've experienced it a lot in my own life, and I've never had visited a jail cell. I can't imagine how it would be for people who do have a past.
Yeah I would say out of the multitude of cops that work in Cincinatti that they are likely to have 5% at least, that have chips on their shoulders or some other type of social interaction flaw. It is the same as in any other profession. I don't doubt there are badge heavy officers everywhere throughout the US. What I have a problem with is everyone that hears an "I have been victimized" story, automaticly jumps on that bandwagon and assumes the worst. It is funny too, when an officer is exhonerated of wrong doing by video or other evidence the media rarely retracts the story or produces a follow up version. Nobody cares when one is right, but the fascination is when one is wrong, as if catching an officer screwing up somehow minimizes the mistake that Joe Public commited in the past. "Mommy smokes cigarettes so why can't I" syndrome.
I know you are not debating with me or anything. I am just enjoying the conversation. I know a few "male mebers" that call themselves the police. I know a lot more that serve with pride and are positive examples to the citizens they protect.
Yeah it's a good conversation we're having here. My only problem is that he wasn't charged with any wrong doing or crime. You are correct though, we don't know all the details. I definitely have a problem with a person being judged by their past. Someone very close to me mad a mistake at a young age, paid their debt and is now an ideal citizen and has been since they were released from prison in 1999. Mostly it's not an issue, but they aren't allowed to vote, hell they can't even do Jury Duty. It's different in other states I'm sure, but it's not easy once you get out. This person did get a good job soon after getting out and has worked at the same place since, but they did have to check that box on the application and disclose what the nature of the felony was. That question comes up on every application you have to fill out for just about anything. You don't ever shake that label. On top of that, people who know you and know the situation always have a comment or an accusation. Something comes missing, the convicted felon must've done it, it couldn't have just been misplaced.
It hits close to home for me. I know how many repeat offenders there are, but I also know it's a deck that's stacked against the person. Not saying it's an excuse but there are people who get out and have a hard time getting a job and housing. Sometimes it's easier just to go back. Then there are people who are just wastes of space and spend their lives going in an out of jail.
I feel for your buddy man. It sucks for him to have learned from his mistake and not be able to move on from it. His is not a typical case. It is probably going to be the same with Tressel and how he is viewed from here on out. Your buddy has the the ex-cons to thank for the skepticism used against him.
During 2007, a total of 1,180,469 persons on parole were at-risk of reincarceration. This includes persons under parole supervision on January 1 or those entering parole during the year. Of these parolees, about 16% were returned to incarceration in 2007.
Among nearly 300,000 prisoners released in 15 states in 1994, 67.5% were rearrested within 3 years. A study of prisoners released in 1983 estimated 62.5%.
Of the 272,111 persons released from prisons in 15 states in 1994, an estimated 67.5% were rearrested for a felony or serious misdemeanor within 3 years, 46.9% were reconvicted, and 25.4% resentenced to prison for a new crime.
These offenders had accumulated 4.1 million arrest charges before their most recent imprisonment and another 744,000 charges within 3 years of release.
Released prisoners with the highest rearrest rates were robbers (70.2%), burglars (74.0%), larcenists (74.6%), motor vehicle thieves (78.8%), those in prison for possessing or selling stolen property (77.4%), and those in prison for possessing, using, or selling illegal weapons (70.2%).
Within 3 years, 2.5% of released rapists were arrested for another rape, and 1.2% of those who had served time for homicide were arrested for homicide.
I don't care what the numbers are for repeat offenders, but to me it still doesn't make it ok to profile them. The person I know worked their ass off for the 14 months they were incarcerated. They paid restitution as well. When they got out, their slate should've been clean. Their time was served, their paid for it in both money and loss of freedom. They shouldn't have to come out and get profiled because of one mistake they made in there life. Once they got a job, the state and federal government still take their money for taxes. They are allowed to participate mostly in society, except they can't vote, at least without sending an application for re-instatement that the governor must sign off on. I just don't care what the numbers are, it's America and you should get the rights of any other free person.
I've always had a problem with profiling of any kind though. I hate the idea that just because 8 out of 10 people in a given area are criminals, it's ok to act as if all 10 are. I know this attitude is out there, and I don't like it. To me, it's a major issue if ANYONE'S rights are infringed on. I don't care how successful these practices are in catching criminals. When people are harrassed and have done nothing wrong, cops get a bad name. There are practices, even by cops who are acting perfectly with in the law, that do nothing to foster good will with the people.
Hey brother, what I am about to say isn't meant to be taken personal. It isn't meant to enflame you but I only speak from my experiences much like you speak from yours. Contrary to other posters you have an open mind and are able to converse and I hope that continues after what i post.
"I don't care what the numbers are for repeat offenders, but to me it still doesn't make it ok to profile them. "
I don't in any way think everyone should be treated like they are guilty of something. I do however, believe every officer should have it in there mind that everyone they speak to is capable of such action. Good officers are supposed to be suspicious yet temper their actions with concern for public opinion but not at the risk to their own safety. Profiling is a proven tool that solves more cases than you are aware. Burglaries, rapes and murders are often solved by comparing DNA to that of housed or previously housed inmates. It is perfectly reasonable to assume that someone that has the character to commit a crime before would be a good candidate to commit that crime again. It is not always accurate but police will work with the higher probability every time to fight crime.
"Their time was served, their paid for it in both money and loss of freedom. They shouldn't have to come out and get profiled because of one mistake they made in there life. Once they got a job, the state and federal government still take their money for taxes."
I understand the sentiment and maybe everyone should get a rolling restart for the first offense committed. Maybe there are improvements that could be made across the board. The reality is that these folks should know these laws from the beginning. The punishment for not being able to vote and not being able to possess a hand gun are meant to be deterrent from ever committing those crimes to begin with. I have no idea what your buddy did and I do agree that some crimes such as possession (Not to distribute) are trivial compared to crimes that deprive people of property or safety. I feel very badly for your friend that sounds like hes has gotten himself squared away. I would certainly be proud for him that he was able to overcome that hurdle in his life. The rules are in place for a reason. On flip side of remorse, I can make a case for having none when it comes to those that commit an act against another. I care less for the hardships they encounter in their lives due to their poor choices (In the case that they commit a crime against humanity). Even if their parents took no time to teach them right from wrong they know that it is not lawful to Burglarize, Rape and Steal from others. If their parents didn't teach them this and they are capable of committing such acts with out regard to another's rights, why should they have theirs? I am not perfect and I have committed violations such as speeding and other traffic infractions (On accident) but I have never committed a criminal act. I don't think it is too high a standard that we should not expect others to reach it.
"There are practices, even by cops who are acting perfectly with in the law, that do nothing to foster good will with the people."
Then the people need to petition their law makers to make a change. An officer will often act within the realm of the law to better do his job and better keep himself safe. A lot of their practices are not obvious and lack understanding by the public. If the public were trained the way officers are trained they would better understand the precautions they take. They never know who wants to hurt them or what traffic stop will be their last. Joe Public knows what their intentions are and what they are capable of. An officer doesn't have that ability or knowledge. They are constantly taught officer survival. They are constantly shown video of deadly officer encounters. They envision themselves in the confrontation and mentally prepare for how they would handle it. They are so amped up after training and so paranoid that the next person they meet will take their life that they often respond to confrontation with force necessary to effect an arrest. Notice I didn't say minimal. I guess to summarize it would benefit the public and officers alike to be more empathetic toward each other. I think that it would do the public some justice to start looking at officer encounters that result in the officer losing his life on youtube, as often as they look up abuse of power. Maybe then there would be a common understanding.
I hope my comments and opinions don't seem offensive as I don't mean to attack you BT. I appreciate your civil feedback.
My comments are meant to be thought invoking and not legal advice. I am in no way claiming my affiliation with any organization or Law Enforcement Agency.
I don't take offense to it at all. We just have a disagree on this. I certainly don't doubt that profiling works. I just don't like it. If one person's rights are infringed on we all lose. I just don't believe in questioning or harrassing someone because they fit a "suspicious" profile. I don't consider running DNA or fingerprints found in a crime scene against a database of DNA or fingerprints law enforcement has as profiling, I guess it kind of is, but you are using evidence you found and comparing it to something that currently exists. You aren't saying th ere was a crime let's go ask the felon who lives nearby. Or that guy looks suspicious, lets pull him over and see if he's up to something. That guy is looks Mexican, lets go make him prove he's not an illegal alien. Those are the problems I have.
Some people would rather have a facade of security over individual liberties. Nothing new, it's always been that way.
You benefit from that "facade" of security every day due the sacrifices that are laid before you. You want anarchy? Have at it but i assure you that this "Facade" gives you the lifestyle you have now. You likely don't take the time to see the good that is done by both our service members and our military. Some people just want to bitch about any authority that is placed over them and there is no changing those folks mind. I am not saying, "turn a blind eye to wrong that is commited by officers in our nation". We should hold them accountable just like everyone else. You keep stating your resources but I have yet to see one single link backing up what you say with facts and figures. Then when you have no tangible proof it is because of some cover up. What gives you exposure to all this corruption you speak of? You talk as if 1 in 5 officers are dirty.
Why is it that you present a strawman argument in almost every one of your posts? It's impossible to have a logical debate with one who insists on branching every topic into oblivion. From your response it's apparent that you have no idea what a "facade" is, and if you do then you are sure to enjoy the totalitarian governement we are headed towards (your type will be well taken care of).
As for "links backing up what I say": Please do yourself a favor and search the wealth of public records that are readily available. I won't spend my time doing the work of a common clerk for you.
I don't wish to trade insults with you any further. I wont respond to another post of yours and would ask you to do the same. Neither of us are getting anywhere.
Good call, hard to back away from a corner.
You are not going to bait me into responding unprofessionaly. What does it say about you, your personality, and your character to continue on like this? I guess a polite request for you to direct your comments elsewhere is too mature a decision for you to make.
Nevermind this comment.
October 20th: National Kenneth Guiton Day
Says the guy who wasn't going to respond. Are you angry that I didn't comply with your request? Big surprise.
Racial profiling is totaly different than criminal profiling. But I agree with what you stated above.
"I want to see this man set in stoic fashion and listen to a habitual felon talk about how he is going to rape your wife and your kids, kill them just to make you suffer and then end your life, followed by the spitting in your face as you walk the offender behind the glass. All done while expectations are that police remain professional and show no emotion."
How do you expect someoene to behave when you're forcefully capturing them, removing them from society, and locking them up away from their family and friends?
Those cops can buy a lot of doughnuts and awful haircuts from Bo-Rics with 30 large
Winner! The most mature and repetitive comment of the year folks!
Sounds like someone gets his hair cut at Bo-Rics...
Don't know what Bo-Rics is. Still, would like to hear something original come out of your mouth than the age old "cops and doughnuts" routine. It's not a big deal, just a rebuttal to your comment.
Don't taze me bro
That is a little more modern, not original but you are starting to improve!
Just about every currency bill in this country. no matter the denomination, has at least a minute trace of cocaine on it. This is how the cops justify confiscatating large amounts of cash. I've always been fearfull of being searched on my way to and from Vegas (sadly, mostly to). Those laws definitely need changed.
"It's just another case of there you are". ~ Doc (1918-2012)
Unfortunately the Supreme Court ruling on Kentucky v. King will be pointed to as justification for plenty of ridiculously unwarranted search and seizure cases. If anything it'll only get worse. Gotta fill those prisons!
Yes, this is indeed troubling
"I 've got an El Camino full of rampage"-- Sterling Archer, codename: Duchess
Couple that with the recent ruling in Indiana that states that citizens may not resist a home invasion by the police, even when the officers actions are illegal. The 4th amendment is going the way of the dinasaur (it's already gone in practice, soon by the letter of the law).
Mahoning Valley Law Enforcement Task Force
Task Force members operate throughout Mahoning County and have made arrests in every township, city, and village in the county. Participation in Task Force operations has returned substantial assets to Task Force agencies. Forfeited cash and vehicles confiscated by the Courts after successful prosecutions, help fund and support continued operations. This spectrum of law enforcement agencies is successfully dealing with a very mobile criminal, drug, and gang problem countywide.
The full-time participation and commitment by agents from the FBI and DEA, along with full-time participation of officers from the Austintown, Beaver, Boardman, Mahoning County Sheriff’s Office, Poland Village, and Youngstown Police Departments, provide the continuity and support for the part-time participants in the Task Force efforts.
Task Force's are not local "POPO" that have nothing better to do than drive around on basic patrol and stop folks with out of county tags and do the basic curb side check for drugs. Considering that they are well versed and organized unit there is likely details about Mo C that they have not released to the public, nor will they. I am very interested in how all of this plays out. Again, I am not saying that these guys are right but I would not rush to judgment unless you want to sound like every other teenager with a "F--- the police" Rhetoric.
'Again, I am not saying that these guys are right but I would not rush to judgment unless you want to sound like every other teenager with a "F--- the police" Rhetoric.'
Blanket statement much? There have been cogent arguments made above in this thread that are skeptical of the charges without coming off like NWA.
A young Denny got it bad cause he brown
Straight outta Steeb Hall
I think people are quick to judge because they have been on the wrong end of one douche-bag cop's homing device and then make a blanket eneralization about all cops. It's a thankless job, and one where the 1% bad cops give the majority good cops a bad rap. I've had a Smokey run through a laundry list of things I supposedly "did" after he pulled me over and each offense he listed I was able to defend, he eventually settled on me going 4 mile over the speed limit. It was a speed trap, they were trying to make quota, because stats drive promotions. It was bullshit that cost me money. Could I have gone to court? Yes. Did I have time for that BS either? No. He gets his pound of flesh. One of the worst experiences I've had was by a county sheriff who pulled me and my friends out of the car, cuffed us, we were thrown on the pavement and my buddy had a service .40 put to the back of his head. We were just teenagers and didn't think to get badge numbers or anything else because we were scared and bewildered. Mistaken identity it was, we were released without apology. Nice, eh? These type of things tend to leave an impression on people. As long as we have qutoas and a war on drugs cops will have to do stupid-work that alienates the populace and distracts the officers from doign REAL police work, i.e. busting violent offenders, thieves, etc. It's lose-lose for the civies and the Cops as it is now. /rant off and thanks for being a good cop if that is your profession
Quotas are a myth fabricated by an angry man. I believe it is against federal law to demand a quota of law enforcement. They do have product expectations that in most cases are reasonable. Ticket production often drives less promotions than the "good ole boy" system. You mind if I ask where you get your information?
A speed limit is just that, a limit. The sign doesn't say "55 plus 4 if you want to". It is ticky tack yes but a law is a law. I have mistakenly broken a few violations myself.
It was a sad case of mistaken identity. I apologize for the deputy that didn't give you an apology. The alternative to him putting you on the ground is what? He pulls you guys over and you are the ones hes looking for. He takes no precautions and gives you the element of surprise. What is the outcome of both situations? A) You get put in a compromising position because of mistaken identity with no apology. (That should have happened) B) Officer gets his life taken from him due to lack of officer safety skills. I look at both arguments and I'd rather go through A than B. Again, I am not saying I am a cop but I appreciate what they do and overlook the bad ones to see the majority and what they do. Good talk, Serge!
First of all, Quotas are NOT a myth. They are both illegal and immoral but they do exist and this has been proven in multiple courts of law, as well as by private settlements between disenfranchised officers and their former districts. With a reasonable amount of research you should be able to find evidence of this happening multiple times this year alone.
Secondly, your hypothetical situation (A or B) is a strawman argument. The situation is a cop doing his job poorly, not a question of being cautious vs dying. Even if that were the case, I would submit a quote by Thomas Jefferson: "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences of too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." A cop knows the risks of the job, and illegal behavior in the name of being cautious is completely unacceptable.
Having someone get on the ground due to a reasonable belief that the suspect is one that you are looking for and is a risk to your safety is common practice and viewed acceptable by the supreme courts. It therefore is not illegal. You don't know of what you speak Roger.
I know quotas are not suppsed to happen. Did the agency that wrote the guy for 4 over get sued succesfuly for quotas? If not what is your justification for stating that they were treated in such a way because of that claim?
I can sense the venom in your response sir. I state the facts as simple as i can and hope that you will see things through anothers eyes. Empathy works both ways my friend.
Unbelievable. You somehow manage to use a strawman argument in every single response.
I never made the argument that a cop having someone get on the ground due to reasonable suspicion was illegal. However, cuffing someone, throwing them to the ground and placing a gun to their head (which is a death sentence if done by many incompetent officers) because an officer hasn't done due diligence, is both highly unproffesional and a violation of the 4th amendment.
I also never intimated that the guy who got pulled over for going 4 over was due to quotas, I only corrected your mistaken position that "Quotas are a myth fabricated by an angry man."
You certainly do sense venom. Patriots have a keen dislike for oath-betraying LEOs (along with all other persons who would attempt to infringe on the unalienable rights of another human being).
Hmm patriots sounds alot like Sovereign Citizens. If you are one of those then I have nothing else to say because you would be twisted beyond and beyond the ability to hear. I am all for human rights but everyone that complains they are a victim are not always a victim. I just caution to hear more evidence before condemning the police. I think that that is reasonable.
"Hmm patriots sounds alot like Sovereign Citizens."
Really? Tell that to Jefferson, Adams, Washington, Franklin, Hancock (and hundreds of others). You would receive the laugh of scorn you deserve for that comment.
A patriot is "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests". Interestingly enough, they are nearly always branded as anarchists and troublemakers by those who would usurp authority not delegated to them.
I hadn't heard of the "Sovereign Citizens" until now, but they seem to be as similarly brainwashed as other groups previously mentioned.
I agree, not all that complain are victims. For every legimate incident there are probably dozens (if not hundreds) that aren't. That doesn't change anything. The abuse is still rampant and something needs to change.
Roger for all your venom I have found a common statement that you and I agree on. I know that abuse still exist and will always exist as long as officers are human and have a responsibility to ethicly enforce the law. Your numbers seem acurate or close to it. 1%. 1 percent of the police population doing something unethical. (Potentialy) They are human and falable. I understand this. How do you fix it? I promise you that officers, when found guilty of breaking the law, are held to a higher standard than their counterparts. More is expected of them. Anyhow, i'll be more than happy to respond to any more content tomorrow. I enjoyed talking civily [at least I think I was on my part] with the majority of you. See you folks tomorrow.
Unfortunately, this is the work of a police state in action, which is what the US has become. Without probable cause, these are clear violations of the 4th and 14th amendments to the Constitution. This is especially true if he was not charged with any crime, which he wasn't. If you look further, his brother's been arrested and secretly indicted for drug trafficing. I'm sure they decided to grab Maurice too and see what they turned up.
Here's the more lengthy details published the next day:
"There's a fine line between stupid, and....clever. David St. Hubbins/Nigel Tufnel
@IRRICOIR: I'm made aware of far too many cop-related crimes, cover-ups, and abuses on a daily basis for me to agree that "it's the tiny percentage that makes us look bad!".
The job attracts a certain psychological profile, and it's a profile with a proclivity towards cowardly, abusive and illicit behavior. It certainly doesn't mean all cops are bad, but there is an alarming trend in that direction.
What is too many? Is one too many? Certainly is. Compare the incidents that you describe to the number of men that serve honorably with out incident. That percentage will be surprisingly low. The term cowardly is an attempt at inflammation and ridiculous. Every department has a few of those but the men and women that drive toward danger to help the public or their fallen brethern show many emotions, primarily fear. I doubt cowardice is a trait of the majority.
It's difficult to discern how many serve honorably and without incident when it is so commonplace for cops to cover up their crimes (or justify them, as if they are somehow more important than the laws they swore to uphold).
Cowardice is a 250 pound man slamming a 15 year old girl up against a concrete wall, cowardice is 4 cops beating a man with batons when he poses no physical threat, cowardice is breaking down the wrong door and killing an old woman because it looked like she may have been holding a weapon. I find cowardly behavior "inflammatory and ridiculous".
Also, you have again invoked a strawman argument. I said "The job attracts a certain psychological profile, and it's a profile with a proclivity towards cowardly, abusive and illicit behavior." I did not say cowardice is a trait of the majority.
We have ur seperate opinions. I am not going to sway you into understanding my view point. You are not going to tell me anything that I haven't seen for my self, on isolated incidents. You talk as if you have been the victim of these repeated wrongs. I would hate to live in the jurisdiction you live in and endure that. I feel sorry for your unfortunate life.
We do indeed have seperate "opinions" (it would be more accurate to say "conclusions" as we are both presented with a wealth of resources to discern truth, you simply choose to justify rather than denounce).
I can only hope that this rash of abuse that stems from a corrupt system will eventually be eradicated, and that oath-betraying LEOs everwhere will be brought to justice.
Roger, you wrote, "The job attracts a certain psychological profile, and it's a profile with a proclivity towards cowardly, abusive and illicit behavior."
Please cite your sources. Where is the study which shows that law enforcement attracts people with a proclivity towards cowardly, abusive, and illicit behavior. You state the above as fact so let's see your support. This may be the most absurd statement I've seen posted here in a while. I'm ok if this is your opinion. Misguided and cynical as it may be, you may have your reasons for believing this is the case. But don't make these blanket statements which you can in no way support. You are made aware of far too many cop-related crimes? Fine. Please explain. Are you a defense attorney? Do you work internal affairs? Part of a grand jury? Explain to me what entitles you to state that law enforcement naturally attracts those who actually intend to break the law and expect us to believe that as fact. Law enforcement does attract a certain profile and damn near every study I've seen describes the exact opposite characteristics. Also, show me the "alarming trend in that direction". Don't cite a case or two about a bad cop. We can all agree that some cops are just bad. But show me this "trend" you claim exists.
If he stepped out of the car, then they would have needed a warrant to search it according to Arizona v. Gant, if they walked up and the cash was sitting in his passenger seat or anywhere within his reach while he was still in his car they can confiscate it, which is still a load of crap. Seems to me like this was a complete violation of his 4th amendment.
Gant was due to the fact that they had warrants for the driver and no other need existed for searching his car. They couldn't even search it for Itemization for Impound because the vehicle was lawfuly parked in his driveway. That is what gant was about. The car had nothing to do with the stop other than Gant was driving it.
I need to read the new content of the incident to see what exactly Clarett did. If Clarett was showing furtive movement or gave consent to search his vehicle it is not unconstitutional.
Obviously if he gave consent it's not uncostitutional, then again if the cops randomly confiscated the 30k, I don't care if he can get it back; if there wasn't any probable cause and the cops just confiscated the money that seems like a complete abuse of power; I don't care if it's legal to just confiscate cash like that, because it shouldn't be thats simply theft and there is no arguing otherwise.
Your right. There is no arguing that we can do. The supreme court would have to reverse their previous decision. Read the updated story. There is more to this than pulling Mo C over and taking his cash.
In the linked article it refers to the vehicle, not Mo C's vehicle. They already had a secret indictment to incarcerate Michael Clarett and seize some of his property due to heroin sales. The vehicle might have belonged to Michael himself and since that property belonged to Michael then it was assumed that the money in the vehicle had something to do with Michael as well. If the money was Mo C's then it should be returned to him. I am only speculating and trying to figure out why. i don't know all of the facts but I would assume this sting was pretty big and wide spread. This doesn't happen with out plenty of intel folks.
Aren't we better off not delving into conjecture and just letting things run their course over the duration of the judicial process, rather than updating with new speculation every time somebody says a thing that might be true?
What is a blog for if not to discuss the possibilities of something or diving into conjecture. If we were just going to let the course be run then there is no reason to enable comments on this until Mo C has had his day in court. You guys can continue to go on acting as if this man was opressed by law enforcement simply because he says so. I for one will show the other side of the coin because the media doesn't find that as dramatic and entertaining. They could be wrong and they could be justified. I am only playing the advocate for people that have already come to a foreclusion.
'What is a blog for if not to discuss the possibilities of something or diving into conjecture.'
There's a pronounced difference between debating whether Joe Bauserman will suck a little or suck a lot in the first five games this fall (par for the course on this particular website) and running someone's name through the ringer based on a lawsuit filing with very limited information.
'If we were just going to let the course be run then there is no reason to enable comments on this until Mo C has had his day in court.'
Or we could have a normal conversation without screeds about how clearly the cops did nothing wrong.
'You guys can continue to go on acting as if this man was opressed by law enforcement simply because he says so.'
The article linked mentions theft, not oppression.
'I for one will show the other side of the coin because the media doesn't find that as dramatic and entertaining.'
There was nothing dramatic about the report that was linked to, unless you were reading it to yourself in a dramatic voice.
'They could be wrong and they could be justified.'
It's hard to be both of those things at the same time.
'I am only playing the advocate for people that have already come to a foreclusion.'
Or demonstrating a textbook case of confirmation bias.
Denny, I really don't like you and wish there was an ignore button. I shall suffer you until the end of time or until hell reclaims you. Now onto brighter things. I am sure the fealings are mutual and if not I wish they were so that you would not feel compelled to respond to my posts. I make you this promise: If you dont respond to mine I wont respond to yours. Deal?
A) I am not running a mans name through the mud. I never said Mo C was guilty or innocent. Your implications are wrong and show your motivation. Limited information is the key. Folks are more than willing to take Mo C's side based on his accusations but not the side of Law Enforcement in this case. I will argue what I see fit and where.
B) I never said they clearly did anything wrong. They may in fact be guilty and at the very least are working in good faith, seizing what they believed to be money owned by his brother or whatever possible scenario may exist. No facts to base this on but typicaly there is more information needed to seize money other than, O, looky down here. I think we'll take this.
C) Theft? Opression? Symantics. The article may mention this but the people in this comment chain have voiced oppresion and misconduct. So i will stay the course.
D) Theft is something that happens when someone deprives you of your contents for their own benefit. Theft is typicaly more secretive. There is no cover up and all money is being handled as it is supposed to be, and I am sure there is a strict chain of custody on 30k.
E) No need to respond to the next.
F) Who said they had to be both. You certainly are dissecting my every comment. Glad to see I have you enthralled.
G) Not sure I understand the concept of confirmation bias. I certainly am not a scholar but I have no bias in this event and simply want others to do the same. If I found out that something underhanded went on I would be the first to state my displeasure in what they did. I would not justify willful misconduct or violation of the law. At the same time, how many posters would get on here and appologize for their comments if the facts come out that they have Probable Cause to take that money and that Mo C was in fact not victimized? How many posters would be on here stating, "You know what? I was wrong?" I am pretty sure I know the answer to that.
In conclusion, you have tried to twist my words into a form of bias for the officers. I am not. I only want justice to be served on one side or the other and I dislike all of the negativity toward the people who protect us daily. Even the criminals call the police when they are faced with life threatening issues. Funny how that works.
"Limited information is the key. Folks are more than willing to take Mo C's side based on his accusations but not the side of Law Enforcement in this case. I will argue what I see fit and where."
And that's the beauty of the law in our great country. The burden of proof is on the accuser, not the accused. That fact that, with limited information, you would automatically lean towards law enforcement is very telling. Your slip is showing, sir.
As for the rest, TLDR.
This is the most comments on an article from 11W in a while, especialy off of the side bar. i suggest that we let this run its course Denny. It is on topic.
Fellas, please cool out.
No comment on the MoC situation;
I have been in really shitty situations with cops in OH/ CA/ and VA.
on the flip side, I have friends that are cops, and even thought of becoming one post Navy.
"Don't put syrup on shit, and tell me it's pancakes"
No matter how sh*tty the tour is, it's always tough to leave.
I appreciate the comments. I am typicaly passive and as far as the Mo C situation, really quite impartial to the whole thing. Denny is the only fella I have run into on this board that consistantly acts like a troll and has his own cheering section. The man is constantly poking fun at someones comments or twisting someones words, or attempting to embarass another poster. He sent me mail once but refused to respond so nothing was resolved in private. I've said my peace and won't let it linger. Thanks for the intermission chief.
Come for the sports talk and humor; stay for the social commentary and citing of US Supreme Court case law. And they say sports blogs are for ranting lunatics!
I would like to nominate this thread for the "Out of Hound 2011" award
If Denard Robinson isn't careful with spooning all that food into his mouth, he's going to end up lookin' like Whoopi Goldberg
lol it definitely is
Whats that BT?
hoooo..lyyyy....shit..where did you pull that gem? lol
"Winter is coming" - Urban Meyer
Tricks... I got 'em.
i believe we need an updated Out Of Hound shirt...sure could use an 11w drawer addition
Your wish is our command.
Duck Hunt dog?
In the suit, filed Thursday by Atty. Percy Squire of Columbus, Clarett, 27, a member of the United Football League’s Omaha Nighthawks and former standout at Warren G. Harding High School and Ohio State University, alleges the agents stopped the vehicle he was driving without a warrant for him and without probable cause, unlawfully detained him, unlawfully searched him and the vehicle, and unlawfully confiscated about $30,000 from him.
Michael Clarett had been secretly indicted by a Mahoning County grand jury that day on charges of engaging in a pattern of corrupt activity and four counts of heroin trafficking.
The task force alleged Michael Clarett engaged in drug trafficking in Canfield between Jan. 19 and Feb. 22 this year and seeks forfeiture of two cars allegedly used for heroin sales.
The paper doesn't say if they seized the vehicle he was driving. Does anyone know? The way he worded the article makes it sound as if it was not MO's vehicle. I wonder what previous information the Task Force had? Obviously Mo C was not in question of commiting illegal acts or else they would have persued a warrant for him too.
VIEW ALL »
Scarlet and Gray, Every Day.
Quite simply, Eleven Warriors is the largest free Ohio State site on the internet. We're committed to remaining free and delivering you the Buckeye news and analysis you deserve.
Our Story | Meet the Staff
© 2006-2013 Eleven Warriors LLC.
Eleven Warriors is not affiliated with The Ohio State University. View full disclaimer.
The easiest way for you to contribute is to join the community. Signing up for a new account is 100% free, takes seconds and allows you to comment, participate in the forum and create your own blog posts.
If you'd like to support us with your wallet, you can: buy one of our amazing shirts or shop Amazon with this link. (Your prices remain the same and we get a commission).
We love hearing from you! Whether you want to work with us, discuss advertising opportunities, or pass us a hot tip, you're more than welcome to drop us a line.