Comments on: Outrage of the Day http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/ Politische Kommentare mit Snarkenremarken Wed, 08 Feb 2012 08:50:29 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Xrlq http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89711 Xrlq Sat, 26 Aug 2006 02:43:44 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89711 <blockquote>I.e. prosecutors didn’t even think they had enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but they still thought they had a preponderance of the evidence. Crazy!</blockquote> It's not crazy that they thought that, but it is crazy that that's good enough.

I.e. prosecutors didn’t even think they had enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but they still thought they had a preponderance of the evidence. Crazy!

It’s not crazy that they thought that, but it is crazy that that’s good enough.

]]> By: Patterico http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89702 Patterico Sat, 26 Aug 2006 00:41:40 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89702 "I don’t think “oversimplification” is an issue here — authorities didn’t have enough evidence to even CHARGE this man with a crime, but they still thought it reasonable to seize his assets, suspicious as they may be, without any real justification or proof." I.e. prosecutors didn't even think they had enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but they still thought they had a preponderance of the evidence. Crazy! “I don’t think “oversimplification” is an issue here — authorities didn’t have enough evidence to even CHARGE this man with a crime, but they still thought it reasonable to seize his assets, suspicious as they may be, without any real justification or proof.”

I.e. prosecutors didn’t even think they had enough evidence to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt, but they still thought they had a preponderance of the evidence. Crazy!

]]> By: MVP http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89637 MVP Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:08:35 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89637 Let me correct myself. "Us VS Them" is not a great tune (no offense, Song-Teksten!), but "Us And Them" is. Let me correct myself. “Us VS Them” is not a great tune (no offense, Song-Teksten!), but “Us And Them” is.

]]> By: MVP http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89635 MVP Fri, 25 Aug 2006 13:06:02 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89635 Patterico, cases like this only increase my suspicions about the police -- if the police would like Americans to trust and always be straight with them, perhaps they should try giving us the same respect. It's SUPPOSED to be Them *working for and helping* us, not Us VS Them (a great tune, but not a great reality!). Would I tell the cops numerous lies? Perhaps, because I KNOW they would tell numerous lies to me, hoping for a momentary lapse in judgement leading to divulgence of some information that would ordinarily not be divulged willingly to the authorities. The fact that the authorities again and again have objected to being supervised, monitored, and recorded while performing their civic duties doesn't help the matter. I don't think "oversimplification" is an issue here -- authorities didn't have enough evidence to even CHARGE this man with a crime, but they still thought it reasonable to seize his assets, suspicious as they may be, without any real justification or proof. Patterico, cases like this only increase my suspicions about the police — if the police would like Americans to trust and always be straight with them, perhaps they should try giving us the same respect. It’s SUPPOSED to be Them *working for and helping* us, not Us VS Them (a great tune, but not a great reality!). Would I tell the cops numerous lies? Perhaps, because I KNOW they would tell numerous lies to me, hoping for a momentary lapse in judgement leading to divulgence of some information that would ordinarily not be divulged willingly to the authorities. The fact that the authorities again and again have objected to being supervised, monitored, and recorded while performing their civic duties doesn’t help the matter.

I don’t think “oversimplification” is an issue here — authorities didn’t have enough evidence to even CHARGE this man with a crime, but they still thought it reasonable to seize his assets, suspicious as they may be, without any real justification or proof.

]]> By: Patterico http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89629 Patterico Fri, 25 Aug 2006 11:00:26 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89629 Would you tell the cops numerous lies about yourself and the motorcycle? Would you tell the cops numerous lies about yourself and the motorcycle?

]]> By: nk http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89606 nk Fri, 25 Aug 2006 04:12:13 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89606 Buzz, you wrote: "just how do I go about proving it had no connection to drugs?" Since you live in Nebraska you would probably have to prove that you're not skimming wheat off the combines. Buzz, you wrote:

“just how do I go about proving it had no connection to drugs?”

Since you live in Nebraska you would probably have to prove that you’re not skimming wheat off the combines.

]]> By: buzz http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89600 buzz Fri, 25 Aug 2006 03:48:38 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89600 I understand the concept about taking the ill gotten gains from illegal conduct as it was discribed back when they started doing this, but as usual, it has been abused by the government. If your convicted of a crime, then sure, haul them back into court and take the profits. I bought a motorcycle back in April. I live in Nebraska, I used to live in Ohio where I still have a bank account. I was in town visiting friends and decided to withdraw a few thousand dollars to purchase the bike. Now if I had been pulled over in Nebraska, exactly what obligation do I have to inform the police dept where I was at, where I am going and what my business is and what I intend to do with the money? If they decided to take my money, just how do I go about proving it had no connection to drugs? Is it suspicious that I have a bank account out of state? Is it suspicious that I withdrew cash rather than paying for a cashier check? I understand the concept about taking the ill gotten gains from illegal conduct as it was discribed back when they started doing this, but as usual, it has been abused by the government. If your convicted of a crime, then sure, haul them back into court and take the profits. I bought a motorcycle back in April. I live in Nebraska, I used to live in Ohio where I still have a bank account. I was in town visiting friends and decided to withdraw a few thousand dollars to purchase the bike. Now if I had been pulled over in Nebraska, exactly what obligation do I have to inform the police dept where I was at, where I am going and what my business is and what I intend to do with the money? If they decided to take my money, just how do I go about proving it had no connection to drugs? Is it suspicious that I have a bank account out of state? Is it suspicious that I withdrew cash rather than paying for a cashier check?

]]> By: A Second Hand Conjecture » Inactivist http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89553 A Second Hand Conjecture » Inactivist Fri, 25 Aug 2006 02:23:52 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89553 [...] A while back I mentioned Jon Henke’s latest project, Inactivist. There is a lot going on over there, Mona is stirring things up as usual, and brings our attention to Radley Balko’s post on asset forfeiture. Xrlq weighs in at his own place as well as in Mona’s thread. The two of them are in agreement, and I’ll side with them, but the comments shed some light on various nuances and both sites allow them to strut their stuff on this issue. Unfortunately since Patterico feels the telling has been a bit one sided Mona can’t resist calling him an authoritarian, no, a hard-core authoritarian. Sigh. As The Libertarian World Turns is a never ending series. [...] [...] A while back I mentioned Jon Henke’s latest project, Inactivist. There is a lot going on over there, Mona is stirring things up as usual, and brings our attention to Radley Balko’s post on asset forfeiture. Xrlq weighs in at his own place as well as in Mona’s thread. The two of them are in agreement, and I’ll side with them, but the comments shed some light on various nuances and both sites allow them to strut their stuff on this issue. Unfortunately since Patterico feels the telling has been a bit one sided Mona can’t resist calling him an authoritarian, no, a hard-core authoritarian. Sigh. As The Libertarian World Turns is a never ending series. [...]

]]> By: Mappo http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89423 Mappo Thu, 24 Aug 2006 19:46:50 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89423 Dave: Lordy. I was being sarcastic. It was a reference to Xlrq's lame effort of an insult at Balko from last night. Dave:

Lordy. I was being sarcastic. It was a reference to Xlrq’s lame effort of an insult at Balko from last night.

]]> By: Patterico’s Pontifications » Why Would I Say Radley Balko Isn’t Always Accurate? Because He Isn’t. http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/comment-page-1/#comment-89405 Patterico’s Pontifications » Why Would I Say Radley Balko Isn’t Always Accurate? Because He Isn’t. Thu, 24 Aug 2006 16:44:49 +0000 http://xrlq.com/2006/08/21/outrage-of-the-day/#comment-89405 [...] P.S. As to the specific case in question, I simply felt that Xrlq and (to a lesser degree, Balko) had oversimplified (and understated) the facts underlying the decision. Read this Xrlq post and this comment of mine to see what I mean. That doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with the decision — just that I want to see it portrayed accurately. [...] [...] P.S. As to the specific case in question, I simply felt that Xrlq and (to a lesser degree, Balko) had oversimplified (and understated) the facts underlying the decision. Read this Xrlq post and this comment of mine to see what I mean. That doesn’t mean I necessarily agree with the decision — just that I want to see it portrayed accurately. [...]

]]>