Girl that wrote anti gun violence essay killed with a gun

Aryeh Jay

Gone and hopefully forgotten.
Supporter
Jul 19, 2012
15,312
14,321
MI - Michigan
✟498,114.00
Country
United States
Faith
Judaism
Marital Status
Married
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

Trogdor the Burninator

Senior Veteran
Oct 19, 2004
6,024
2,546
✟228,160.00
Faith
Christian
The police who pulled him over had zero doubt he was legitimate. But they had a "directive" from up high to confiscate ANY amount of cash over $1000 no matter what. Period. Because the department was cash poor and because of the provision in the Patriot Act, confiscating money was the same as getting money. When they confiscated money, they got to use it, but when the government had to pay it back, it came from a "different" pool of money... So in effect, Law Enforcement agencies and municipalities were essentially robbing the public for money...

Given we're talking guns, this looks like another case when a "well regulated militia" might have been of some use for a change - and yet, like in all these cases, it's no-where to be seen.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There are several legitimate answers to that question.
#1, as a business owner you get up to 20% discounts when dealing in cash
#2, as a business owner doing different sized quantity purchases from multiple vendors, cash is faster (some vendors require up to a 5 day wait period for checks to clear. Similarly, bank to bank transfers can take up to 2 business days)
#3, check verification and bank to bank transfers do NOT work on the weekends and holidays with banks.
#4, As a law abiding tax paying citizen who has NEVER BROKEN THE LAW, you should not fear the government taking your money just because they feel like it
#5, it is NOT against the law to deal in cash, no matter the amount of cash you wish to deal in.

Dealing in large cash quantities is VERY common especially when you are buying items you need to inspect "on site" before you purchase said item.

Similarly, I don't understand an attitude that supports the State against an innocent law abiding citizen. "Freedom and Liberty" mean you are free to do whatever you want as long as you don't break the law. A lawful citizen with paperwork proving his legitimate business should NEVER fear the government under any circumstance. Why don't you agree with that argument? Serious question?
O.K. that is a good list of reasons but in this case the guy has been doing business with these people for 15 years. He seemed to have plenty of time to line up the caravan of trucks to transport the trees. He would have had plenty of time to arrange for payment without using cash. Wiring funds is the same as cash and much less risky than carrying cash. He could have become a crime victim or the cash could have been destroyed in an accident. It would be in his best interests not to carry that much cash. Without having any of the facts or reports regarding this specific event it is impossible to know if there were other things that might have caused the funds to be impounded. There are always two sides to every story. I suggest that if any specific agency or jurisdiction had a record of unjustified actions the ACLU and others would be all over them. There is a system of checks and balances that allow the courts to keep things under reasonable control. Everyone in the system has to be able to answer for their actions. If this person was mistreated he would have had a very good case to recover not only his funds but also damages. Many attorneys would have taken that case on a contingency fee agreement. You are correct, a lawful citizen has no reason to fear the government.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No worries, I don't mind.

I don't have time to find the specific link right now, I actually saw the case I was talking about on TV in one of those 20/20 type news pieces about 12 years ago...

but the situation I talk about happens all the time
CLICK HERE FOR LINKS

It is called "Civil Forfeiture" and it is a huge problem that doesn't get the press that it should.
We have courts that exist to protect citizens from unlawful forfeiture and other injustices.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
We have courts that exist to protect citizens from unlawful forfeiture and other injustices.

Asset forfeiture as we describe here is not unlawful. Unless you're in New Mexico, the police can declare that your house is being used for drug sales and confiscate your house without ever arresting you or even charging you. You'll never get your day in court.

And you won't get hour house back.

And it's all legal.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Asset forfeiture as we describe here is not unlawful. Unless you're in New Mexico, the police can declare that your house is being used for drug sales and confiscate your house without ever arresting you or even charging you. You'll never get your day in court.

And you won't get hour house back.

And it's all legal.
At some point the court will decide if the particular case was legal or not. The Police do not get to do just anything they like without having to answer to the courts you know.
 
Upvote 0

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
You say we can't identify what in our culture causes such problems, which means we can't pre-emptively identify individuals who have such problems. And we already know that.

Your logic is fautly. I'll use a medical analogy.
We often can't understand "why" we get a certain cancer, however that doesn't mean we can't identify said cancer once it forms and treat it / remove it.

We often can't understand "why" someone develops diabetes but we can identify a defective pancreas and treat it.

You do "not" need to understand the why of something to treat said something. I am not advocating that because we can't identify what causes the gun culture in this country that we do nothing...

Back to your argument of root causes. One might argue that "violent video games" cause the mass shootings. However, these same violent video games sell in Canada, the UK, and Japan... Another argument is violent movies... but those same movies sell in other countries as well...

Similarly, I'm not arguing specifically to target people hell bent on mass shootings, I'm aiming broader than that, I'm aiming to prevent anyone with any mental illness from having access to guns. Just like we can identify cancer without understanding all the whys and hows of cancer formation, we can also identify mentally ill people.

If there is nothing we can do to change the culture, then you propose doing nothing at all.

But I'd argue that we can change the culture--or else, let's also give up on racism and misogyny.

That is not my argument at all... I propose we do everything in our current power to lower the probability of mass shootings.

What you are proposing is to do something that is beyond our technical capability to solve a problem.

It's like we have an energy problem and I'm advocating using solar energy and tidal power whereas you are advocating that we use Fusion generators which would be awesome however we currently have no idea how to build Fusion generators...
 
Upvote 0

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
O.K. that is a good list of reasons but in this case the guy has been doing business with these people for 15 years. He seemed to have plenty of time to line up the caravan of trucks to transport the trees. He would have had plenty of time to arrange for payment without using cash. Wiring funds is the same as cash and much less risky than carrying cash. He could have become a crime victim or the cash could have been destroyed in an accident. It would be in his best interests not to carry that much cash. Without having any of the facts or reports regarding this specific event it is impossible to know if there were other things that might have caused the funds to be impounded. There are always two sides to every story. I suggest that if any specific agency or jurisdiction had a record of unjustified actions the ACLU and others would be all over them. There is a system of checks and balances that allow the courts to keep things under reasonable control. Everyone in the system has to be able to answer for their actions. If this person was mistreated he would have had a very good case to recover not only his funds but also damages. Many attorneys would have taken that case on a contingency fee agreement. You are correct, a lawful citizen has no reason to fear the government.
You are trying hard to bend over backwards to justify this guy having his legitimate money seized by the state.

I listed my reasons, apparently you aren't very knowledgeable about business. You do not wire money ahead of time for items you need to buy upon inspection. The biggest reason for dealing in cash is DISCOUNTS. You get huge discounts when dealing in cash, 20% or even more.

I'm not going to spend the next hour of my time trying to educate you on Civil Forfeiture. It is one of the most disgusting and appalling things the government does to teh citizenry. I already told you, it takes $5k to $10k in Legal fees to get your money back and if/when you win your case you DO NOT GET TO INCLUDE LEGAL FEES IN YOUR SETTLEMENT.

SO, if the government takes $10k from you and it costs you $10k in legal fees to get your money back you win $0. This is why many citizens don't fight Civil Forfeiture. Obviously, when the government takes $20k+ from you then it makes sense to fight it.

My last argument is simple and I hope you can wrap your head around it.

Any citizen conducting LEGAL COMMERCE or any citizen FOLLOWING THE LAW should never at any time have anything whatsoever to fear from the State.

I have no idea why you are so intent of arguing against that? Do you understand the concept of freedom and liberty? I'm not being snarky. By your responses it appears that you do not.

Please take some time to study Civil Forfeiture, it is one of the most disgusting things in this country that both the Left and the Right have dropped the ball on...
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FenderTL5
Upvote 0

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
At some point the court will decide if the particular case was legal or not. The Police do not get to do just anything they like without having to answer to the courts you know.
Look, it is all nice and good to say these sorts of platitudes, but they aren't so easy.

Police abuse their power and this attitude that "oh, don't worry the courts will work it out" is untenable for the vast majority of citizens. Most citizens do not have $10k (or sometimes these cases can drag on and cost you $20k) laying around that they spend on legal fees to fight an injustice. Oftentimes, if you do manage to scrounge up that $10k and win your court case YOU DO NOT RECOVER LEGAL FEES!!!! Wrap your head around that.

The entire legal system works against you, the DA will escalate charges to pressure you to take the original charge, in fact... with many civil forfeiture cases YOU ARE NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIME!!!!

That is the problem with civil forfeiture, it is the only case in our legal system where you are Presumed Guilty and have to prove your innocence.

I do not mean to sound snarky or like a troll. I'm being sincere, you have no idea what you are talking about and you really need to spend some time reading up on Civil Forfeiture cases. The injustices will blow your mind. Fact is, 80% of middle class or lower families can not afford to fight a Civil Forfeiture case.
 
Upvote 0

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
Asset forfeiture as we describe here is not unlawful. Unless you're in New Mexico, the police can declare that your house is being used for drug sales and confiscate your house without ever arresting you or even charging you. You'll never get your day in court.

And you won't get hour house back.

And it's all legal.
I have found that if you surveyed the general populace, that easily 90% of the populace would think you were lying if you described some of the truly appalling Civil Forfeiture cases that occur regularly.

It is such a travesty of justice that people honestly think "that would never happen in America".

Wrong. Civil Forfeiture is a dirty secret the powers of "they" don't want the public to know. Similarly, everyone just assumes it can never happen to them.

One of the things I hate about the News Cycle is that majority of the news is crap that just doesn't really effect any of us.

Yet Civil Forfeiture does. Any one of us at any time can fall victim to Civil Forfeiture.

IMagine your grandma wins $7k at bingo and is driving home and gets pulled over for a broken tail light. Officer asks her what she's doing and she excitedly exclaims, "I was playing bingo and won big tonight!!!" The officer can then ask, "So how much did you win?" she answers "$7k". The officer by law can then say, "You know, I don't believe you. I think you might do something unlawful with that money even if you did win it at bingo. I'm going to confiscate it and you will need to go to court to get it back..."

I know, that sounds like lunacy right? Wrong, that is Civil Forfeiture and it is 100% legal and various versions of it happen all the time everyday on a small scale. There are dozens if not hundreds of municipalities were police are DIRECTED to seize money whenever they can for the flimsiest of excuses. And the logic is simple, "Well, let the courts sort it out..."

What needs to happen is simple.
  • Firstly, we need to completely re-write the law on Civil Forfeiture
  • Secondly, if the State seizes any money/property then the State should NOT be allowed to use that money or property until the case is settled
  • Thirdly, if the citizen wins the case to get their money/property back the Citizen should be made 100% whole to include reimbursement of lost wages and legal fees and any other costs incurred
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
At some point the court will decide if the particular case was legal or not. The Police do not get to do just anything they like without having to answer to the courts you know.

It is legal. It's in the law. The law says they can do it. The law is immoral.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It's like we have an energy problem and I'm advocating using solar energy and tidal power whereas you are advocating that we use Fusion generators which would be awesome however we currently have no idea how to build Fusion generators...

No, your analogy is flawed.

You're advocating solving the power problem by merely outlawing coal plants--you're not proposing to fix the problem of not having power.

The Japanese don't have a lower rate of homicide because they've outlawed guns. They have a lower rate of homicide because the Japanese don't consider killing each other an appropriate means of social intercourse.

And that starts with teaching children early, both directly and though layers and layers of continual social reinforcement, how to avoid confrontation. When I walk the streets in Japan, I'm not just unafraid of being shot, I'm unafraid of being a victim of any kind of violence.

And we don't even have to go as far as Japan. The murder rate in Hawaii--in fact, the violent crime rate in general--is much lower than any other state approaching its level of cultural and economic diversity, despite having access to all the normal American vices (including guns). But they have a general culture that militates against confrontation and violence.
 
Upvote 0

dgiharris

Old Crusty Vet
Jan 9, 2013
5,439
5,222
✟131,531.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Single
No, your analogy is flawed.

You're advocating solving the power problem by merely outlawing coal plants--you're not proposing to fix the problem of not having power.

The Japanese don't have a lower rate of homicide because they've outlawed guns. They have a lower rate of homicide because the Japanese don't consider killing each other an appropriate means of social intercourse.

And that starts with teaching children early, both directly and though layers and layers of continual social reinforcement, how to avoid confrontation. When I walk the streets in Japan, I'm not just unafraid of being shot, I'm unafraid of being a victim of any kind of violence.

And we don't even have to go as far as Japan. The murder rate in Hawaii--in fact, the violent crime rate in general--is much lower than any other state approaching its level of cultural and economic diversity, despite having access to all the normal American vices (including guns). But they have a general culture that militates against confrontation and violence.

I think we may be diverging.

I am 100% in favor of what you seem to be advocating above. Absolutely, at every level of our social development, sure... teach non violence and that shooting people are bad. I'm not opposed to that in the least.

In tandem with that, lets also identify people who are mentally ill (or high risk of violence) and prevent them from getting guns or temporarily confiscate their guns (i.e. you get divorced, fired, and lose a child all in the same month, the State should mentally assess you and if warranted temporarily seize your guns until you are deemed low risk for violence).

At the very least I'd like to see some sort of registry of people on anti-psychotics and if said person has a history of not taking their drugs on schedule they are denied the right to own guns. Similarly, if they suddenly stop taking their drugs that LE is alerted and someone goes by their house to do an assessment and if warranted temporarily confiscates their guns... Basically, I'd like us to try to be proactive in this regards. Link our databases and put in some sort of mental health screenings/assessments aimed at preventing this mass shootings. Of course it won't be perfect and mistakes will be made but over time we could hopefully use the data and trial and error to figure out a viable means of lowering the probability of these shootings...
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Look, it is all nice and good to say these sorts of platitudes, but they aren't so easy.

Police abuse their power and this attitude that "oh, don't worry the courts will work it out" is untenable for the vast majority of citizens. Most citizens do not have $10k (or sometimes these cases can drag on and cost you $20k) laying around that they spend on legal fees to fight an injustice. Oftentimes, if you do manage to scrounge up that $10k and win your court case YOU DO NOT RECOVER LEGAL FEES!!!! Wrap your head around that.

The entire legal system works against you, the DA will escalate charges to pressure you to take the original charge, in fact... with many civil forfeiture cases YOU ARE NOT CHARGED WITH A CRIME!!!!

That is the problem with civil forfeiture, it is the only case in our legal system where you are Presumed Guilty and have to prove your innocence.

I do not mean to sound snarky or like a troll. I'm being sincere, you have no idea what you are talking about and you really need to spend some time reading up on Civil Forfeiture cases. The injustices will blow your mind. Fact is, 80% of middle class or lower families can not afford to fight a Civil Forfeiture case.
I wish you the best of luck on your next case
Supreme Court Will Decide If Civil Forfeiture Is Unconstitutional, Violates The Eighth Amendment
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You are trying hard to bend over backwards to justify this guy having his legitimate money seized by the state.

I listed my reasons, apparently you aren't very knowledgeable about business. You do not wire money ahead of time for items you need to buy upon inspection. The biggest reason for dealing in cash is DISCOUNTS. You get huge discounts when dealing in cash, 20% or even more.

I'm not going to spend the next hour of my time trying to educate you on Civil Forfeiture. It is one of the most disgusting and appalling things the government does to teh citizenry. I already told you, it takes $5k to $10k in Legal fees to get your money back and if/when you win your case you DO NOT GET TO INCLUDE LEGAL FEES IN YOUR SETTLEMENT.

SO, if the government takes $10k from you and it costs you $10k in legal fees to get your money back you win $0. This is why many citizens don't fight Civil Forfeiture. Obviously, when the government takes $20k+ from you then it makes sense to fight it.

My last argument is simple and I hope you can wrap your head around it.

Any citizen conducting LEGAL COMMERCE or any citizen FOLLOWING THE LAW should never at any time have anything whatsoever to fear from the State.

I have no idea why you are so intent of arguing against that? Do you understand the concept of freedom and liberty? I'm not being snarky. By your responses it appears that you do not.

Please take some time to study Civil Forfeiture, it is one of the most disgusting things in this country that both the Left and the Right have dropped the ball on...
After police and authorities have possession of cash or other seized property, there are two ways in which the seized assets become permanently theirs: first, if a prosecutor can prove that seized assets were connected to criminal activity in a courtroom, or second, if nobody tries to claim the seized assets.[35] What happens in many instances is that the assets revert to police ownership by default. If a victim challenges the seizure, prosecutors sometimes offer to return half of the seized funds as part of a deal in exchange for not suing.[16] Sometimes police, challenged by lawyers or by victims, volunteer to return all of the money provided that the victim promises not to sue police or prosecutors; according to The Washington Post, many victims sign simply to get some or all of their money back.[29] Victims often have "long legal struggles to get their money back".[29] One estimate was that only one percent of federally taken property is ever returned to their former owners.[36]

Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
After police and authorities have possession of cash or other seized property, there are two ways in which the seized assets become permanently theirs: first, if a prosecutor can prove that seized assets were connected to criminal activity in a courtroom, or second, if nobody tries to claim the seized assets.[35] What happens in many instances is that the assets revert to police ownership by default. If a victim challenges the seizure, prosecutors sometimes offer to return half of the seized funds as part of a deal in exchange for not suing.[16] Sometimes police, challenged by lawyers or by victims, volunteer to return all of the money provided that the victim promises not to sue police or prosecutors; according to The Washington Post, many victims sign simply to get some or all of their money back.[29] Victims often have "long legal struggles to get their money back".[29] One estimate was that only one percent of federally taken property is ever returned to their former owners.[36]

Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia

Let's remember that this property was seized without due process of law in the first place.

Why should the citizen--not arrested, not charged, not brought to trial--have to do anything more than personally, "Give me my property back?" Why should he have to pay a lawyer to sue or even threaten to sue to get back his own property?
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Let's remember that this property was seized without due process of law in the first place.

Why should the citizen--not arrested, not charged, not brought to trial--have to do anything more than personally, "Give me my property back?" Why should he have to pay a lawyer to sue or even threaten to sue to get back his own property?
How can you say it was without due process when it is in conformance with existing law. If it had been without due process it would have been very easy to get the funds back. What we have here is a poorly written law that needs to be rewritten so that it does what it was designed to do without doing what it was not designed to do. The job of the police is to enforce the laws as they are written not reinterpret the law.
 
Upvote 0

RDKirk

Alien, Pilgrim, and Sojourner
Supporter
Mar 3, 2013
39,140
20,187
US
✟1,441,679.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
How can you say it was without due process when it is in conformance with existing law. If it had been without due process it would have been very easy to get the funds back. What we have here is a poorly written law that needs to be rewritten so that it does what it was designed to do without doing what it was not designed to do. The job of the police is to enforce the laws as they are written not reinterpret the law.

The law does not require the good cops to wrong. The law permits the bad cops to do wrong.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
The law does not require the good cops to wrong. The law permits the bad cops to do wrong.
Do you have any evidence that cops went wrong? Looks like they followed the law. If you do not like the law dont blame the police they dont write laws.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums