“turning our police forces into present-day Robin Hoods”
But as I recall Robin Hood gave to the poor…
Your mileage may of course vary by location, et cetera, but I believe there is a minimum amount that is considered necessary for suspicion to be reasonable. I want to say something like five grand or so, but I might be misremembering or misinformed.
I wouldn’t be so quick to assume that things have not always been so blatantly corrupt. It’s just that we’re able to see the corruption on YouTube firsthand and this makes it look really bad. I can only imagine the shenanigans that used to occur with impunity by corrupt cops, judges and lawyers all at the expense of women, non-whites and the poor.
3 Likes
The Bank Secrecy Act requires banks to report purchases of negotiable instruments of $10,000 or more (daily aggregate). This act was amended and strengthened by… wait for it… The Patriot Act.
But I’ll bet you 10,000 of those reportable dollars that the amount that is acted upon as “suspicious” varies directly with the melanin concentration in the skin of the victim suspect.
2 Likes
Do we have any insight on what this actually means? I highly doubt it means simply spending $10,000 or more in a single day, as that clearly happens all the time when people write cheques for vehicles, homes, et cetera.
To the googles! (Click, click… and away!)
So wikipedia informs us that negotiable instruments include promissory notes, bills of exchange, banknotes, and cheques. But I’m confused by that wording “purchase of negotiable instruments”.
Average Joes don’t really “purchase” banknotes from the bank, and while we techically have to pay for cheques, those are the blanks, which I can’t imagine count. So I would assume we’re talking about banks and businesses buying up promissory notes and the like for business reasons - purchasing debts and whatnot from their original holders for various speculative purposes and such.
And, as the article you link explains, we’re talking about using cash to make such purchases - so I’m pretty sure most folks will never run into a situation where this is pertinent. And it sounds like it isn’t an unreasonable restriction to place on the sorts of people who do regularly make these kinds of deals and purchases either?
Yeah I read about little towns, especially in the South, it seems, who make millions or hundreds of thousands of dollars with this scam. Most of the money is never reclaimed. It is bullshit.
2 Likes
Okay, so here’s the more pertinent (but still not explanatory) regulation, as part of Title III of the Patriot Act.
The subsection here is about smuggling cash into or out of the States, and it’s a crime, per the legislation.
But the whole point of this article is that somehow, the mere possession of “large” amounts of cash now justifies it’s being seized. No conviction is necessary; indeed, no charges need be filed.
But the burden of proof is upon the person from whom the cash was seized to prove that they had come by the money honestly. And as noted, that can take upwards of a year.
It’s robbery, under color of law.
2 Likes
Back in the 70s one of my musician friends was traveling through Texas. He had long hair all the way down his back, and was arrested for loitering because the law in that town stated unless you lived in town you had to have a hotel key in your pocket. He did not, but had $300 cash, which coincidentally turned out to be the fine for loitering.
Needless to say he never went to Texas again.
Another time when as a band he and some friends crossed the border (from Canada) one of them was turned away because of a B&E record from childhood. The guy who was turned away tried to go through another crossing, and made it. But they all got arrested when they tried to meet up with him. They were all let go but their 56 T-bird was seized and when they asked about getting it back a couple of days later were told “Oh sorry, it was sold”
3 Likes
I don’t think I missed anything. This is the part I was responding to:
If only more white people would explicitly realize and acknowledge that!
Sure, you didn’t ask that white people to call out their own situatedness in every post they ever make. I was being hyperbolic. But you did use the word, “explicitly,” i.e. you want “more white people” to write it out (or speak it out loud) because, well, that’s what “explicit” means. Obviously its better to be aware of one’s limited viewpoint. But I’m not gonna start using /straightwhiteguy when I’m posting on these topics.
1 Like
More’s the pity.
But then, maybe it could depend on just what it is you’re saying at any moment on these topics? Notice above, for instance, that iquitos46 was expressing a potential limitation in his/her perspective, because of his racial status, for a particular reason, brought about by the particular topic at hand.
Well, yes, but what’s so horrible or onerous about sometimes acknowledging that limitation openly while stating one’s opinion, especially as a way of acknowledging the potential limitations of one’s opinion? Especially when white people so often aren’t aware of that limitation? Does that just rub too much against your ordinary white-guy, gotta-always-seem-like-I-know-exactly-what-I’m-talking-about-at-all-times persona?
probably left over language from the days of bearer bonds.
1 Like
He has that limitation everywhere for all topics. He was already clearly talking about a personal experience, his personal memories of the US being a certain way. His race and gender may indeed explain why his experience was different than that of someone else. But perhaps he grew up in nice, safe suburban Boise and didn’t follow any news about police corruption until he moved to Chicago in the 80s. Race, gender and sexuality are hardly the only lenses people see through.
Well, yes, but what’s so horrible or onerous about sometimes acknowledging that limitation openly while stating one’s opinion
Because it’s redundant. One of the first things I learned in school about essay writing was that you don’t need to start sentences with “I think” because it’s already assumed. Everything anyone ever writes is from their own perspective. So pointing it out preemptively falls somewhere between arrogant posturing and pointlessness.
Does that just rub too much against your ordinary white-guy, gotta-always-seem-like-I-know-exactly-what-I’m-talking-about-at-all-times persona?
Nope. I wasn’t consciously avoiding it earlier, and you’ve failed to convince me to change my habits. But it’s hard not to notice that I’ve claimed a race, gender, and sexuality so far, and we’ve seen none of these from you in this thread. 
I’m interested to know what an “ordinary white guy” is, too.
Then you apparently stopped paying attention in about 6th grade when they taught the research essay, as opposed to the personal narrative.
If you’re writing a research essay on the U.S. flag, and you write “I think the U.S. flag has 50 stars on it, and each one represents a U.S. state,” that is patently nonsense because it is not your opinion that the flag has 50 stars representing the states, it is an established fact.
But if you’re writing that same essay, and you write “The U.S. flag has 50 stars on it, and each one represents a U.S. state. Some Americans have argued that the flag should have 53 stars, including stars for Puerto Rico, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands, which are included in the definition of the term ‘The United States’ by an act of Congress. This is correct, because it is only fair to acknowledge them since they are a part of our union,” then you’ll get a big old red pen mark from your teacher because the final sentence is not a fact, but an opinion or conclusion you are personally drawing based on the established facts. It is debatable and assailable, and presenting it as if it is an established fact may be good rhetoric (pro tip: it’s not really good rhetoric) but dishonest writing.
@milliefink’s comment is lauding the fact that, for once on the Intertubes, someone took the time to not only telegraph the “I think” part, but to also contextualize it in a situation (speaking about race) where context really, really matters. It is a humble behavior, and I find it highly trustworthy.
2 Likes
Maybe it works like a Ponzi scheme.
One or two cops confiscated money. Maybe not all of it made it to the locker. So, they ask a third cop to, y’know, confiscate some money. When the first case settled and the force was obliged to repay the funds, they used the second confiscation to make up the shortfall.
Well - wasn’t this an attractive proposition!
Before long, local governors are in on the act, funding minor budget deficits with interest earned on deposits of confiscated cash. Maybe a few of them invested, and lost it. So they turned to the sheriff - ‘get more cash’!
We’ll find who the top of the pyramid is, someday.
1 Like
What Elusis said (and said better – great work there, Elusis).
2 Likes
Encouraged by departments of Homeland Security and Justice…
If you want examples of Doublespeak®, look no further than the names of major U.S. Government departments and agencies.
“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.” – George W. Bush
2 Likes
A research essay is for presenting what you have found through your research. Points made in a research essay are just shortened from “I think [claim] is factual because of [source] (which I had reason to believe was trustworthy)” to “[source] says [claim]” or “[claim] (see: [source]).”
I didn’t say that everything is understood to be an opinion piece. I said that everything someone writes (even in a research essay) is written from their own perspective. That’s unavoidable and is therefore expected and accepted. Because it’s expected and accepted, there’s no need to point it out. So when someone doesn’t point it out, it doesn’t mean they are implicitly claiming to speak as the Avatar of Objectivity.
I can surely appreciate the sentiment behind iquitos46’s mention of his own epistemic shortcomings. The fact that he brings up his race, though, is not proof that it is the relevant point of difference. It could be something else, something he’s not aware of. So even though he took the time to point it out, we aren’t actually any better off for it. As a side point, he also helped reinforce race as a go-to division within the American populace.
So, what do you call a debit card with $100,000 in it? A felony?
It’s just like what Dr. Martin Luther King said that one time:
“The only way the people of this country will ever stop being racist is if y’all stop talking about it so goddamned much.”
And then black people stopped talking about racism, ushering in all the civil rights victories of the 1960’s.
That’s how it happened, right?
6 Likes
My problem here is that you seem to be expressing that white people have it worse.
It’s people, not white people, and it’s understood. And if you want to get hung up on language policing, go ahead, but it’s what you will be doing while other people work on the problem, and the problem isn’t language.
The problem is other people forgetting that other people have POVs, too. Add race, gender, income, spottedness, handedness, age, computer OS choice… whatever…
Here we are all the same font and typeface. And I, for one, don’t pray to the old gods.
3 Likes
