Federal & Local Law Enforcement Agencies Try to Take Family

[steve74baywin]

I give people on here too much credit all the time.

What an asshole statement.

I normally wouldn't say a thing like that.
But sometimes the repeated nonsense is overwhelming.
In all fairness Ryno, did you go back and look at some of the comments hurled at me or at my comments before I make a statement like that?
I think I do very well, just like in this thread, I am always one behind the rudeness.
The response to that to me is once again one step ahead in rudeness.
What you have here is people who dish it out all the time, they get mad just when we discuss.
They then lash out, but can't take it back at them.

[Ryno]

But sometimes the repeated nonsense is overwhelming.

Pot meet kettle.

this one is staying. delete it if you wish.

[RussellK]

.

[steve74baywin]

Edited to remove quote with insult.
I missed this one, too many quotes in one post.

[RussellK]

.

[steve74baywin]

What's really comical is I'm on board with your criticism of forfeiture laws but you're so busy playing the victim I don't think you even realize it.

I caught that, I realized it, you said it in your first post, I was a bit taken by your opinion of the owners, and your thing about rights. I feel, that even though you don't like forfeiture laws, you were so bent on opposing some of the things you figured I'd say that you were ditching the owners and not giving what was happening enough credit. You spent more time on the latter than you did on the forfeiture laws.
You should know by now how I view rights and think that is how it was 200 years ago.
So it isn't that I think it is someones right to contribute to something others think is bad. They have certain rights, and sometimes a crime or something some don't think is a good thing might still happen, but to shorten the discussion down to something like that when it is more complex.
No need to repeat the rest, I express it in other post in this thread.

Edited to add

I'm on board with your criticism of forfeiture laws but .

The way it came across to me, my perception, is that even though you might agree with me about forfeiture laws, your greater effort would be in opposing me. You couldn't even join in on something you agree with me on. That's making it personal. I probably do that too, I will have to watch for it more, but I like to think I view each topic and issue on it's own and don't pick sides based on the person instead of the issue. It would be great to not pick sides, but that naturally happens unfortunately.

[steve74baywin]

From what I read the percentage of people who stayed their who did crime was something like .005 percent.

Two Days, Four Incidents, Nine Arrests at Motel Caswell

Four incidents in two days done on the property of a business, can you imagine how many business can be found guilty of that?

Taken from the above article.

Seeking to circumvent state law and cash in on the profits, the Tewksbury Police Department is working with the U.S. Department of Justice to take and sell the Caswells’ property because a tiny fraction of people who have stayed at the Motel Caswell during the past 20 years have been arrested for crimes. This is taking place even though the Caswells themselves have worked closely with law enforcement officials to prevent and report crime on their property. And the arrests the government complains of represent less than .0005 percent of the 125,000 rooms the Caswells have rented over that period of time

[RussellK]

Steve for the third time it really comes down to this. If you want to criticize something don't prop up a less than sympathetic example to support your case. Do you honestly think the public cares about a guy who's property is a nuisance? I'll tell you right now they won't care. I don't. But give an example like a widow who's going to lose her home because she has a loser son with stolen car parts in the basement and they'd be all over it. See how it works?

[steve74baywin]

Steve for the third time it really comes down to this. If you want to criticize something don't prop up a less than sympathetic example to support your case. Do you honestly think the public cares about a guy who's property is a nuisance? I'll tell you right now they won't care. I don't. But give an example like a widow who's going to lose her home because she has a loser son with stolen car parts in the basement and they'd be all over it. See how it works?

Well, for starters it is the article that came across my computer. I didn't seek it out.
I read it and shortly there after shared it.
I would hope the public would care, yes, yes, yes. I really would hope, and I guess I give the public too much credit. I would hope they would view things as right and wrong and would care irregardless of whether it is an older couple whose parents started a business just as much as the widow with a son with stolen parts in the basement.
This is why I think people let emotions rule and it is wrong.
Whether it is the widow with a son that stole parts and keeps them in the basement or the couple who is running a motel their parents started, who now in this tough economy happens to have had some people rent rooms who do or deal drugs and who some people pay for sex and use the rooms, which happens in probably all hotels. They catch people in Tampa for prostitution often, yet I don't see them trying to take the in debt big corporations hotel. In fact they probably don't even arrest and make a scene on the big corporations property.

So yes, I really would have hope people could get behind this. I don't find this couple as much worse than your example, and don't think that should matter...
Also, I wonder if I posted an article about a widow who was some how allowing, or didn't throw out her son who stole VW parts and kept them in her basement if I would have gotten some different comments. I could almost see people saying similar, things. She is a low life lady, she raised a bad kid, she was letting the kid stay in the house. The community was complaining about their parts being stolen, so let her house be taken.

[RussellK]

Also, I wonder if I posted an article about a widow who was some how allowing, or didn't throw out her son who stole VW parts and kept them in her basement if I would have gotten some different comments. I could almost see people saying similar, things. She is a low life lady, she raised a bad kid, she was letting the kid stay in the house. The community was complaining about their parts being stolen, so let her house be taken.

There is a difference between ignorance and choosing not to acknowledge. If Mom knew what her son was doing in her home I really don't care what happens to her house. I just don't.

[airkooledchris]

[steve74baywin]

Also, I wonder if I posted an article about a widow who was some how allowing, or didn't throw out her son who stole VW parts and kept them in her basement if I would have gotten some different comments. I could almost see people saying similar, things. She is a low life lady, she raised a bad kid, she was letting the kid stay in the house. The community was complaining about their parts being stolen, so let her house be taken.

There is a difference between ignorance and choosing not to acknowledge. If Mom knew what her son was doing in her home I really don't care what happens to her house. I just don't.

You can have your opinion. I'd say arrest the kid, leave the mom alone and most certainly don't take her house.

And this also separates the two examples in another way.
Mother is letting her son stay their, it is her blood, should she make herself know, in other words should she snoop on her son to see what he is doing or should she ask and make sure he bought the VW parts in the basement? The motel is a business. It offers rooms for rent to people. How much back ground checking, interrogations and spying do we want owners of hotels doing on their patrons. It's back to what I posted earlier. It doesn't seem practical to expect the owner of motel to make certain no drugs or prostitution is happening once people rent a room. Even good law abiding people aren't going to want the owner popping in and out of the room or setting up cameras and microphones in the room. People generally want a place to stay the night, once they pay the man at the desk, they want to be left alone, and the also don't want to spend a long time checking in.

[steve74baywin]

Edited to remove a quote that had an insult.

[Ryno]

In all fairness Ryno, did you go back and look at some of the comments hurled at me or at my comments before I make a statement like that?

"It's easy to grin
when your ship comes in
and you've got the stock market beat.
But the man worthwhile
is the man who can smile
when his shorts are too tight in the seat".

[Amskeptic]

Let's do an experiment.

Every participant in this thread please go to your specific posts, and remove all mention to other members here. The discussion is about forfeiture laws and property owners and community responsibility. That is a fine topic. Somewhere in the discussion, things got personal. Get rid of them. Let's see what it looks like when we have removed them. Perhaps there is still a discussion to be had.
Colin Oct 06 11:50AM PDT