NorthSideSox72

QUOTE(DrunkBomber @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 09:37 PM) Loopholes aside there was reasonable doubt to at least suspect him of drug trafficing based on that article. If the law says they can seize it I doubt theyll pass on an opportunity to do so. I didnt see any part that said what type of neighborhood he was in. I think that might make things a little more clear. In regards to him not knowing a DUI was a crime, its in his miranda rights that he was being arrested and Im sure they were read to him when he got arrested for it so that is a lie and a reason for suspision. Id also like to know the incriments of the bills but I doubt anyway it was nickle and diming based on the amount. A few clarifications... Its not reasonable doubt - its probable cause. Two very different things. Neighborhood? He was pulled over by a Nebraska State Trooper, per the article. I'd say he wasn't in a neighborhood - he was probably out on I-80 in the middle of a wheat field. And that, in theory, should make no difference anyway. There is no such thing as Miranda rights. Miranda is named after a case, which set precedent for guidelines on how a non-voluntary police custody (aka police arrest) is made clear to a subject. In some cases, a subject must be read or shown some form of his/her rights while under arrest - this collection of statements is commonly known as a Miranda warning. That all said, yes, he would likely have been Mirandized (not a real word, but often used anyway) during a DUI arrest. But I'd think the night or more in jail, the trip handcuffed in the cruiser, etc., would have been a pretty clear indicator.

I didn't want to clutter PHT with another upper/downer thread, so I just want to point to this post: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?sh...d=1287596 Take a look at those numbers, and let them sink in. Despite Minnesota's seemingly unbeatable nature, and Detroit's staggering early season lead, and our inability to get on a run... we have made up 7 games on the Tigers in a little over a month. And we've only lost 2 on Minnesota. Further, though its been painful, the Sox are actually over .500 during that stretch. Combine all that with Minnesota's injuries and Detroit's free fall, and I don't think its blind homerism to say we have a decent shot at the post-season. We've got a decent chance.

Done deal. Texas winner. After 9/13's action... DET -- MIN +1.5 CHI +3.0 On August 7th, just over a month ago, this was... DET -- CHI +10.0 MIN +10.5 Team records since that date: DET: 11-22 MIN: 20-14 CHI: 19-17 Well, everyone expected a DET slump at some point. They're in it. Question with DET is, will they snap out of it? For MIN, it's can they keep this up without Liriano and Radke, and playing a bunch on the road? And for CHI, for the love of all holy things, are they going to play up to their potential? Its interesting to note that the Sox' 19-17 record since that date, while nothing spectacular, is not the utter ineptitude that some fans here have painted.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 08:17 PM) Courtesy SSS: http://www.southsidesox.com/story/2006/9/13/202538/398 Um... weird.

Middle of 8th: 11-3 Texas Lookin' like we're going to be back to where we were after Monday's games. 3 teams within 3 games. Its getting tight in here.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 05:44 PM) Tadahito for a brief period of time seemed to be afraid of homeplate. You lost me. Anyone want to give a description? I was working and could only see the gamecenter online, didn't see the game itself. No mention of this in the recaps either, and nothing in the highlights.

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 05:41 PM) Great game all around today. I loved BA's hustle on the double, too bad he will probably be benched Friday. Any more details on the Iguchi mishap? Iguchi mishap?! What happened?

Can we try to keep this on-topic instead of on-poster, please? GREAT FREAKIN' GAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 05:15 PM) 15 hits, 0 home runs. This is becoming a theme in this series. Non-HR production. I like it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 02:05 PM) Read the attachment. Here is the bottom line. He was never convicted of any crime in connection to the money. The government now has his money. He's innocent and out $124,000 I can't see how that can be correct. I understand this is very analogous to OJ being found not guilty in criminal court and guilty in civil court. But it seems dangerous and gives the government powers I don't like them having. I don't disagree with any of that. But per the current laws, its all OK. Write you Congressman.

QUOTE(samclemens @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:33 PM) World has tapped just 18 percent of global oil supplies, Saudi executive says Well, that may or may not be true, but I sure as heck wouldn't take a Saudi oil exec's word for it.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:37 PM) This is the problematic part. If you are carrying large sums of cash, you are automatically considered a drug dealer. That is the result of this ruling. Sometimes logical actions in one case have unintended consequences. My understanding from one of the articles was he was never charged. I thought he could be transported to the station without being arrested? Stop citing that snippet - it isn't from the courts, and its not true anyway. The law established the need for a material connection between the money and a drug crime. YOU CANNOT HAVE MONEY SEIZED JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE IT. The question was, did all the combined evidence in this case amount to a clear connection between the money and a drug deal? Whether or not the subject was arrested is not clear in the court papers. Being transported to the station could be an official arrest, or it could be some other involuntary custody, or voluntary custody. Depends on the circumstances. But usually, some sort of arrest took place.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 01:16 PM) He wasn't arrested, they seized the money while they investigated. In your example, you have someone who confesses to something illegal. This man didn't confess to something legal. There is a difference. Did you read that attachment, Tex? First of all, he was taken to the police facility in their custody - this means he was under arrest. Second, there is even more weird stuff in there that he did. He lied about the rental contract, lied about even more things than were stated in your earlier article. Probable cause was absolutely established. As for the canine scent, they did some blind compares of the money against other pocket money, and still the dog went for this dude's cash. Now, all that said... the decision DOES state that the money was seized as part of supposed drug transaction, and that the seizure appears to be permanent. I do agree with you that if this is the case, that doesn't seem right. There was no prosection. But here is the crux of the matter - the Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Act of 2000. That law sets the bar pretty low for seizing assets, and does not require prosecution for a crime. I'm surprised it passed Constitutional muster. In fact, I'd bet this case may result in a direct challenge of that law on appeal. So I agree that any seizure should not be permanent, but apparently, Congress in 2000 disagreed.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 12:47 PM) What did he do that was illegal that would cause the government to seize his property? He lied about something that was legal, carrying cash. He lied when he said he wasn't convicted of a crime. He believed a DUI wasn't a crime. There was a scent of drugs on his money (see my post above, we're all guilty there) There was a scent of drugs in a rental car. No residue. Just a scent in a rental car. There is a difference between arresting him and seizing his property. I believe they went too far in seizing his property. We are talking about seizing his property, not the arrest. 1. When you arrest someone, with the intention to prosecute for a crime, you seize evidence. They did. This happens all the time. Its part of the investigative process and its deemed acceptable by the courts. 2. Let me ask you this... if a man walks into a police station and says "I just killed a man!", and they arrest him... what crime did he commit? No, he didn't murder anyone, did he? He SAID he did. But they arrest or detain him anyway. Why? So they can conduct an investigation. His confession is evidence. The officers did not actually witness ANY crime in commission, did they?

QUOTE(Balta1701 @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 12:35 AM) Even then, it still takes oil to run the farm equipment. If the fuel for the equipment is not oil-based, and the oil used in the engine is synthetic, then in fact zero oil is used by the farm equipment. Or did you mean right now, with current technology?

It ain't over. We are still in it. After the DET series, we'll know for sure if we have a good shot. For now, if we walk out of the West Coast trip 4-2, I bet we'll be 3 games or less back of Detroit.

We are talking about an arrest here, not a conviction. The entire concept of Innocent until proven Guilty resides with the courts, where guilt and innocence is determined. On the street, its probable cause, and there was plenty of that to be had in this case.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 09:59 AM) Previous arrest was for a traffic violations (DUI) most people think of being arrested for things like assault, robbery, drugs, etc. Anyone driving a rental that someone else rented is automatically a criminal? Rental cars have many different drivers, the current driver should not be assumed guilty based on invisible scents. next time you rent a car carefully check it out and make certain there are no scents that a dog can pick up, and also check your money. So Americans can now be arrested for carrying cash. That's nice, we'll seize your property, and if we find out you are INNOCENT, then we'll give it back. I thought America only seized property from the guilty. Oh come on, Tex. The guy wasn't arrested for driving a rental car, nor was he arrested for carrying cash. He was arrested based on a collection of evidence (as stated earlier) that amounted to just cause. You are just picking one element of the evidence and complaining that he was arrested solely for that, which is untrue. You've seen me post in here enough to know I almost always end up siding with individual rights over security. But in this case, nothing was done wrong. And in America, property is NOT just seized from the guilty - it is seized, TEMPORARILY, as evidence when warranted. The 5th amendment takings clause pertains to permanently seized or devalued assets, not evidence being held for a trial. This is totally proper. Next time I drive, I'll be sure not to speed, have someone else rent a car in my name, lie to a cop, have a DUI arrest (DUI is NOT a traffic ordinance violation, it is a law violation), and carry 124,000 drug-rubbed dollars in my car.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 13, 2006 -> 08:59 AM) Link That snippet is highly misleading. According to the article, in addition to $124,000 in cash, other evidence and cause included: --Speeding --Previous arrest record --Initial denial of said arrest record by subject --Drug sniffing dog finds scent of drugs on money and elsewhere --Rental car contract under different name than driver's license Also, seizure of the assets is not permanent in the case of arrests like this. In theory, if he were acquitted or charges were dropped, he'd get it back. As long as that happened, I see nothing wrong here. The cash becomes evidence for a trial, should one occur. Its part of the law. Now, if he was acquitted or charges were dropped AND he never got the money back, then I'd find that improper.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 03:05 PM) There has always been something that really never get on my excited about Soxfest(hence me never going) This sentence should be drug out into the street and shot.

QUOTE(Cknolls @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 12:12 PM) Effective= Khobar Towers, USS Cole, Dar es Salaam, Nairobi. But heh, we hired how many police officers over 8 years? It is a law enforcement problem dammit. As a President overall, Clinton was far, far more effective at making positive changes than W has been. That is what I was referring to.

QUOTE(Jenksismyb**** @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:34 AM) And we haven't factored in the lobbying aspect. The terrorism lobby has nothing on the alcohol industry lobby... There is a terrorism lobby?

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 09:32 AM) That's funny, after he got done with you, he told me to kill sinners. Weird, huh? *slowly steps away from SS2K5*

QUOTE(Texsox @ Sep 12, 2006 -> 08:04 AM) As I have said after almost every Bush speech, I like the guy. If the Presidents during my life time, he's the one I'd most like to sit down and have a couple beers with. Unlike Clinton, I believe he does not get a fair shake for trying to move his party towards the middle. I liked most of the speech, I think he spoke what was in many American's minds. Like Rex, I think we are overplaying this when shampoo can't be taken on a plane, or nailclippers. I think we have started down a sad path when we voluntarily give up freedoms. I hesitate to write the next part, but honestly, I cringe when I here the people who died in the WTC that day refered to as heroes. Heroes, in my book, have a choice to make at some point. They could either leave or stay. They were 3,000 murder victims. The heroes where the men and women who ran into the building and tried to save them. They had a choice. We overuse the word. The question was what did I think of the speech? I thought it was very good. Brief, to the point. Wrong on a number of accounts, but he clearly spoke of his ideas and that is good. I would agree that I'd rather have a couple beers, or sit around the campfire, with W than Clinton. Clinton was a used car saleseman. Bush is pretty direct, and you get what you see. And I agree on our overreaching attempts to fully secure ourselves, which is futile and does in fact mean the terrorists have won that battle. But if you ask who I'd rather have as President, it would sure as heck be Clinton over W. Bush is just too short-sighted and small-minded to be effective at the job. Plus he comes off as a frat boy, which makes me cringe whenever I hear him speak (much like Mr. Genius said). I don't necessarily want Mr. Niceguy as President - I want Mr. Effective. And W ain't it. The speech? I don't think I've ever like one of his speeches, and this was no different. His overdramatizations belong on some reality TV show - they are just outrgeous for the sake of impact. Nothing interesting to report there.

QUOTE(whitesoxin @ Sep 11, 2006 -> 09:48 PM) Our history is referring to United States history. I don't find his statement outrageous or uncalled for. I do not understand why you are trying to downplay what happened. So you actually think that 9/11 was more barbaric against our people than all the following... All the atrocities of WWII commited against us and our allies Same for WWI Pearl Harbor Villa's Siege The War of 1812 The Civil War (being internal, this is admittedly questionable) Genocide of the American Indians, and their violent responses If not, then it is an overstatement.