The Economics of the Police State

[HeadlessRoland]

Next they will be claiming that they do not write their own newsletters.

With all due respect given, and none extra, Kirk - I'd rather have Hans Hermann-Hoppe (or even Walter Block) as President over the current treasonous-in-chief or even your championed would-be-treasonous golden-boy Romney. I'd even prefer 'crazy ol' unca Ron' to Romney. Ten thousand times of ten thousand, with acknowledgment of each and every bit of human frailty each possesses.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

With all due respect given, and none extra, Kirk - I'd rather have Hans Hermann-Hoppe (or even Walter Block) as President over the current treasonous-in-chief or even your championed would-be-treasonous golden-boy Romney. I'd even prefer 'crazy ol' unca Ron' to Romney. Ten thousand times of ten thousand, with acknowledgment of each and every bit of human frailty each possesses.

Which is just fine, but President Paul is not above criticism and having questions asked of him.

The libertarians are claiming to be soooo special that they are above criticism and flawless in their analysis. I have demonstrated over and over, they are just like any other politicians, wrong a lot.

 

[seedubs1]

have demonstrated over and over, they are just like any other politicians, wrong a lot.

You've demonstrated nothing other than your ability to lose the forrest from the trees.

 

[vitamink]

I have heard elsewhere (I do NOT remember where and cannot source it... bad memory) that at least in some cities there was more of a tendency to watch the side of the road leaving the city than coming in. Again, I cannot back this up but have heard similar before. That made it resonated with me a bit more than perhaps it should have. Maybe I was hearing something I wanted to...?

************The problem a cop would still have is the lack of evidence. IE cops would need to stop you carrying a bag of coke and 20,000 to forfeit your money. Another option is cops would have to follow you, watch the deal go down, and stop both you and the other guy showing he has the meth and you have $40,000 now. Cops can't just pull you over for speeding, see 20,000 on the seat and say, "mine". The IRS can, but it's all done through the civil courts and not "on scene".


I did do a quick search on crime statistics and he IS off on the "crimes solved" rate for property crimes, but the numbers do seem pretty low even with his exaggeration. I found one (1) article on property crimes solved in Austin, Texas ( In Austin, Less Than 10 Percent of Property Crimes Get Solved | KUT ) It would appear that the national average from what I found is around 16%, again for property crimes which is pretty pathetic, but it is 50% over his alleged numbers.

*********He might have been looking at older or newer data, so i can't fault him on the numbers. His conclusion, however, was that cops are too busy stealing money, cars, and property to bother with your theft which is absolute BS. He talks about how the amount of convictions are way low. Here is a personal example of why:

A couple of years ago, two crooked hat gold teeth douchebags decided to break into my house. They were able to walk off with a lot of stuff. Luckily I prepared for just such an event by setting fingerprint traps. Both guys left their prints. One had been locked up before and the other not. A warrant was issued for DB#1. They caught him in a traffic stop, his passenger had my stolen iPod. The finger prints matched the second suspect, so off to the pokey they went. As luck would have it, that arrest cleared up 12 break ins in the neighborhood. People got their stuff back and DBs had 12 separate burglary cases with 12 separate case numbers on them. If you have ever been a victim in a burglary, you know the questions you get are just silly but necessary to prove guilt.

"Did you invite them over?"

"Did you tell them they could break in?"

"Did you tell them they could have your TV?"

Then followed by a defense attorney arguing that the reason their fingerprints were on my TV was that they also went shopping for TVs 4 years ago at best buy and touched it, i'm just so filthy that i never cleaned it.

So now i'm in court. The mountain of evidence should nail the coffin shut. They had prints, my guns, burglary tools, my iPod in their pocket, bragged about it on myspace, the neighbors jewelry, 3 or 4 Xboxs etc etc. But the only victim that showed up was me. They dropped 12 counts of burglary each down to 1. On paper they had 12 separate burglaries but only 1 conviction. So 8%?

The difference between property crimes and every other crime is that property crimes are random. In rapes, murders, dom violence etc you most likely know the suspect. A theft is a crime of opportunity. I see that you left your computer in your car…SMASH mine. Unfortunately unless there are cameras, you know the serial number, or have lo jack on your computer... chances are you aren't getting it back. That's not the police's fault. People who plan to take your stuff generally plan to keep themselves unidentifiable. This best sums it up.

[video=youtube;7C3RrvZMx-M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7C3RrvZMx-M[/video]

Other issues are the less stuff people steal the less likely you'll get it back. The reason for this is if there is a .1% (not actual figure)chance that something is discovered stolen you're not likely to get it back. If someone steals 100 things and sells them to 100 people then there is a really good chance. Chances are 1 person will get caught which will lead to another person etc etc.

In 12 years I have only heard of 2 burglaries where someone has written down their serial numbers. Luckily many gun owners seem to have their **** together when it comes to this.



Violent crime seems to be better focused on with around 50% (rounding) being solved. Rape at 40% (rounding) and murder at almost 2/3's with a 65% clearance rate. Source, 2011 FBI UCR Report Table 25: FBI ? Table 25

I have heard we could have a very long, in depth debate on the validity of those numbers due to how things are counted, classified etc. Nonetheless, his argument about single digits might only be good for property crimes in a few cities.

*********certainly! and PDs are no stranger to changing what they tell to the government vs what they tell to the citizenry. Scare .gov, soothe .citizen.


I do think there IS a point to be made that we have the largest prison population in the world! Not statistically or by numbers per 100,000 - but more incarcerated than China! We shouldn't have more than anything over China except income per capita, yet we do have more prisoners. Source: Highest to Lowest - Prison Population Total | International Centre for Prison Studies

Now, that may be a topic for discussion but we cannot blame the police for that. That is, while I disagree with some of the laws they enforce, their job to do so (within the confines of Constitutional limits). That is where lobbying needs to be done by us on the ground.

I don't want to drag this out but you have brought up some significant and specific points of criticism of his presentation, and that was all I needed to see. Thank you sir.

********And thank you. If you ever want to get coffee and discuss i'm available!

Regards,

Doug
[/QUOTE]

 

[poptab]

Or they don't have any evidence but take your money anyway.

Man Loses $22,000 In New 'Policing For Profit' Case - NewsChannel5.com

 

[jbombelli]

Which is just fine, but President Paul is not above criticism and having questions asked of him.

The libertarians are claiming to be soooo special that they are above criticism and flawless in their analysis. I have demonstrated over and over, they are just like any other politicians, wrong a lot.

The biggest thing you've proven time and again is that you have an obsessive, seething hatred for libertarians. Nobody says libertarians are perfect. Their positions, platforms, and voting records are just usually better than the Republicans' on most issues.

Sorry if you don't like that, but that's how it is.

 

[vitamink]

Is that the whole story, or what Mr Reby felt like telling the news?

 

[vitamink]

Though I disagree with the seizure, as did the judge, this wasn't just a drive by theft. Laws have since changed there. They have never been like that here.

Here's what he left out:

He was stopped for speeding and appeared overly nervous

he stated he had never been arrested before

He stated he was driving to a conference in Nashville but his GPS was set to the airport

he changed his story to he was picking up a friend ted at the airport

he was nervous and said he wasn't really sure if he was to pick him up or not. He had to wait on a call.

in a warrant less search of his phone, Ted texted he was in some serious **** and aaked george to quit calling him

the record check on george came back. When the cops told him he lied he told them he was caught dealing cocain in NJ

he also stated he hasn't had employment for a year but could explain having all the cash.

the k9 "fonzie" indicated outside the car and again at the back corner while inside the car for narcotics.




Though this seizure wouldn't fly here and actually didn't fly there, it's a far cry from "saw money, took money". He had a reason, it wasn't good enough.

 

[seedubs1]

Nope. There is NO reason for seizure in that case.

K9 "indications" are bs, and we've seen time and time again police commanding K9s to indicate. They found no narcotics, end of story. No narcotics = no seizure. If a K9 indicates, and they actually FIND narcotics, then go ahead and prosecute and seize assets as allowed by law. But an indication only.....that's bs..

And him "appearing nervous" is bogus as well. I'm nervous every single time I'm pulled over because of all of the ****ty stuff I've seen dirty cops do. That doesn't make me a criminal or give an officer just and probable cause for seizure of my goods and money.

Having no good answer as to where he's going is a completely ridiculous reason for seizure as well. This is America. I can go drive around in circles with no destination if I so please. His destination is no business of the police officers, and I refuse to answer those stupid questions when ever I'm pulled over.

Though I disagree with the seizure, as did the judge, this wasn't just a drive by theft. Laws have since changed there. They have never been like that here.

Here's what he left out:

He was stopped for speeding and appeared overly nervous

he stated he had never been arrested before

He stated he was driving to a conference in Nashville but his GPS was set to the airport

he changed his story to he was picking up a friend ted at the airport

he was nervous and said he wasn't really sure if he was to pick him up or not. He had to wait on a call.

in a warrant less search of his phone, Ted texted he was in some serious **** and aaked george to quit calling him

the record check on george came back. When the cops told him he lied he told them he was caught dealing cocain in NJ

he also stated he hasn't had employment for a year but could explain having all the cash.

the k9 "fonzie" indicated outside the car and again at the back corner while inside the car for narcotics.




Though this seizure wouldn't fly here and actually didn't fly there, it's a far cry from "saw money, took money". He had a reason, it wasn't good enough.

 

[poptab]

Though I disagree with the seizure, as did the judge, this wasn't just a drive by theft. Laws have since changed there. They have never been like that here.

Here's what he left out:

He was stopped for speeding and appeared overly nervous

he stated he had never been arrested before

He stated he was driving to a conference in Nashville but his GPS was set to the airport

he changed his story to he was picking up a friend ted at the airport

he was nervous and said he wasn't really sure if he was to pick him up or not. He had to wait on a call.

in a warrant less search of his phone, Ted texted he was in some serious **** and aaked george to quit calling him

the record check on george came back. When the cops told him he lied he told them he was caught dealing cocain in NJ

he also stated he hasn't had employment for a year but could explain having all the cash.

the k9 "fonzie" indicated outside the car and again at the back corner while inside the car for narcotics.




Though this seizure wouldn't fly here and actually didn't fly there, it's a far cry from "saw money, took money". He had a reason, it wasn't good enough.

Even so the problem is that it doesn't seem to be an isolated event.

Furthermore, in my opinion even if he was a street pharmacists the government has no right to take his money.

 

[rambone]

Of course drug warriors don't see this as a police state. That would make them question their own role in the oppression.

 

[vitamink]

Nope. There is NO reason for seizure in that case.

K9 "indications" are bs, and we've seen time and time again police commanding K9s to indicate. They found no narcotics, end of story. No narcotics = no seizure. If a K9 indicates, and they actually FIND narcotics, then go ahead and prosecute and seize assets as allowed by law. But an indication only.....that's bs..

And him "appearing nervous" is bogus as well. I'm nervous every single time I'm pulled over because of all of the ****ty stuff I've seen dirty cops do. That doesn't make me a criminal or give an officer just and probable cause for seizure of my goods and money.

Having no good answer as to where he's going is a completely ridiculous reason for seizure as well. This is America. I can go drive around in circles with no destination if I so please. His destination is no business of the police officers, and I refuse to answer those stupid questions when ever I'm pulled over.

I agreed with you regarding the seizure as well as did the courts. I too have seen, on the internet, where the dog indicates based on the handlers demeanor. I've also seen with my own eyes in real time dogs who search for people, explosives, and narcotics be 100% correct. I have also seen and heard of the ****ty stuff dirty cops do…on the internet. Just like the above posted story. On the internet, he's just a businessman doing nothing wrong…when you get both sides of the story it starts to make sense. It would require some investigation to find the full story as it doesn't fit the cop hate narrative. Again, he shouldn't have had his money taken, but that dude is drug mule. Dogs indicating, appearing nervous, lying, prior history, carrying lots of money, etc etc are not things individually that would set off the cokemuleo'meter. Those things combined though…totality of the circumstances. Do a report, list him in the contact section, contact the agency where he lives, start an investigation. This is why kirk always says "shut the hell up" when it comes to talking to the police. It makes his job easier. Had he not said anything, they wouldn't have heard him lie about where he was going, lie about his previous arrests, find out that he doesn't have a job, find the money, learn that he was arrest for dealing cocaine (when all they would have know about was the possession), Learn about his tweaker friend that he doesn't know but is going to pick up anyway from the airport he lied about going to. All they would have had was a ticket for speeding.

Now back to the OP…yeah that guy is full of ****.