Eric Garner Had His Hands Up Too!

[BlueCaliDem]

19. Sad but true. So can we now dispense with the myth that prosecutors prosecute cops, right?

Because they don't.

They play taxpayer-funded defense attorneys for them who, also, get paid by taxpayer dollars. And we, the non-cop taxpayer, pays these corrupt "public servants" to harm us on every level - including losing our civil rights.

When they say they protect and serve, they obviously mean their own. We're just good sheep who have to keep our mouths shut and to make sure that they get the best benefits, best pensions, best bonuses, and 80-85% of a drug haul via the "civil asset forfeiture" law.

The ACLU is, correctly, against this.

In many jurisdictions, the money can go to pay for salaries, advanced equipment and other perks. When salaries and perks are on the line, officers have a strong incentive to increase the seizures, as evidenced by an increase in the regularity and size of such seizures in recent years.

Asset forfeiture practices often go hand-in-hand with racial profiling and disproportionately impact low-income African-American or Hispanic people who the police decide look suspicious and for whom the arcane process of trying to get one’s property back is an expensive challenge. ACLU believes that such routine “civil asset forfeiture” puts our civil liberties and property rights under assault, and calls for reform of state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws.
https://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/civil-asset-forfeiture

That's why they look openly bored when they have to come to your home to report a theft or something like that. That doesn't make them any money so they're not interested - and it always shows.

So when President Clinton advocated for more police officers, and my not knowing that there even was such a thing as "civil asset forfeiture", I was already wondering...why? Why on Earth should that be a good thing for us non-cops??