If I come and stick a gun in your face and steal your money while you are traveling, do you have the right to defend yourself from the threat and shoot me?
In my state, yes. you can, if you can prove that you were in fear for your life or safety during the robbery (and I think that you can make a decent argument that the threat posed by a gun is a decent reason to fear, even if it isn’t pointed at you while I am robbing you….)
How about if I am wearing a badge and a uniform? If I pull you over and demand to search you, and find cash on you, Then take it at gunpoint and demand that you account for where you got it…..and maybe (but likely not) give it back until you sue my employer.…. Does the badge make it OK? Or is it still armed robbery?
Now, I am not advocating shooting cops. Nor anyone else for that matter.
But really, when cops shake people passing through their jurisdictions down for cash….what is the difference between them and the common criminals found in many cities? You know, the ones we call “muggers” .
What, exactly is the difference? How is this not theft? Why do I have to prove that any cash on me is not the result of illegal activity? Why is it up to me to prove my innocence rather than the cops proving my guilt? Why is it all of a sudden wrong to carry cash?
And why are the cops getting away with theft at the point of a gun?
Nothing new here. This has been happening for decades. We are in a police state, and are fast approaching third world tin pot status.
Here are a couple more:
Here is a story from 1996:
I know it isn't new….It is accelerating….becoming accepted practice, rather than an outlier behavior wise.
I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario where someone who earned or acquired a large amount of cash legally can't show how he or she came by it. Fact is, this sort of activity hits drug traffickers almost exclusively and I'm not having a problem with it. The story here is all about making it look like thousands of law-abiding people are being affected but it ignores it's own statistic where 5/6 of the cash seizures aren't even challenged by the owners/couriers of the money and of the remaining 1/6, 60% lose in court anyway because they cannot overcome the government's relatively low rebuttable presumtion bar.
Sure, there may be a few folks dumb enough to cart around a bunch of lawfully-owned money in cash, but it's so rare and stupid as to represent a very, very small minority of those found to be transporting currency. The usual reason is drug proceeds and that's why most of them don't even challenge the seizures. A good cop can usually distinguish between a dumb citizen vs. a criminal actor and I'd imagine that most of those who are just dumb get sent on their way with their cash. Funny how the article doesn't mention any of those folks.
All smoke, no fire here.
You make an excellent point about how many are (or may be) sent on their way.
We don't know.
But why should I have to account for my cash? You say that the ends justify the means, but that is a slippery slope.
Further, if the cops take $1k from me and it is gonna take many hours of my time and $800 in attorney's fees to get it back, where is the payoff? I would bet that this is the source of some of, if not the majority of, the 5/6 that don't bother to try to get their money back,
Innocent until proven guilty….isn't that a fundamental part of our society's values? Why should I have to prove that my money is gotten from some approved source? Why shouldn't the burden be on the cops to prove that it is from illegal activities?