South Carolina Sheriffs Less Interested In Enforcing Laws Than Taking Stuff
from the my-own-private-Nottingham dept
It's not like we need any more evidence showing asset forfeiture has almost nothing to do with enforcing laws or breaking up criminal organizations. But law enforcement agencies just keep generating damning data.
The Charleston Post and Courier's article on the subject runs under an innocuous title that seems to put the blame on the federal government for the asset forfeiture sins of local police, but the article tells a completely different story. The officers and officials quoted in the story make noises about taking down criminals, but the greedy devil is in the details.
Every year in Spartanburg County, the Sheriff's Office organizes a week-long crackdown on Interstates 26 and 85 involving multiple local and federal agencies. They call it "Rolling Thunder."
Cool name. About as cool as the "interdiction teams" Rolling Thunder contains, which makes it sound as though officers are seriously engaged in disrupting drug trafficking. And the numbers here show the week-long effort did indeed result in a whole lot of searches.
During the March operation, deputies and their colleagues pulled over 1,110 motorists — the majority of whom were black or Hispanic — mostly for infractions such as making improper lane changes or following too closely. Police searched 158 vehicles, including large tour buses. Drug-detecting dogs sniffed around 105 vehicles, and the tour bus luggage…
But did it result in a whole lot of drug traffickers being shown the (jail) door? Of course not.
Just eight felony arrests were made, but police found and seized 233 pounds of marijuana, nearly 8 kilos of cocaine, 164 ounces of heroin, more than 4,800 prescription drug items, 65 grams of methamphetamine, $139,320 in cash and counterfeit consumer products.
Why even make the slightest effort to prosecute when civil asset forfeiture allows you to make nearly no effort at all? Here's Rolling Thunder "participant" trophy-winner Sheriff Chuck Wright making claims about the wondrous works of interdiction teams.
“You’re not going to do this here and get a free pass,” Wright said. “People in Spartanburg County elected me to enforce all laws, and that’s what I’m going to do.”
“The proof is in the pudding. Look around. Do you want this in your street?” Wright said.
But a free pass is exactly what most people got. Eight felony arrests arising from 158 vehicle searches which turned up a whole bunch of drugs and cash. Not sure how a search-and-release program isn't a "free pass" or does anything to prevent more drugs from ending up on the street. Drug producers can always produce more drugs. And as long as their mules aren't sitting in jail, they should have little trouble moving product from point A to B.
The most damning fact is this: South Carolina law enforcement agencies simply stopped enforcing laws when told they weren't allowed to enrich themselves through asset forfeiture. When the federal government briefly shut down its equitable sharing program -- which allowed agencies to route around state forfeiture restrictions to stake a larger claim of seized property -- local agencies shut down their drug interdiction efforts.
"The tip of the spear has just been blunted — it’s got no point now," Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon said at the time.
Hampton County suspended drug interdiction patrols until the payment program resumed.
This is the ugly reality of asset forfeiture. It's not about laws. Or drugs. Or taking down drug cartels. It's about taking stuff from people with a minimum of legal fuss. When the going gets tough, the tough shut down. What began as a well-intentioned notion has become a mockery of property rights and due process.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: asset forfeiture, chuck wright, civil asset forfeiture, rolling thunder, south carolina, spartanburg county
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
I thought it was the drug interdiction patrols who were committing robbery? Also known as asset forfeiture?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well, I can shoot a thug for trying to steal my shit. It's a different story when it is the police stealing my shit.
So yea... maybe I would rather see them instead of you in the street.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Because at least when criminals break the law and attack you, you feel like you will get help and proper recourse for your grievances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"help and proper recourse for your grievances"
In a lot of places in the US, this is a false promise. Police called may take a statement but they have little interest in investigating crimes against people they don't like. Many communities instead rely on neighborhood communities for aid and streetgangs to provide protection from violent crime. In short, urban feudalism.
Granted, many precincts, at least out here in the west, are looking to curb bad policing (e.g. brutality, abuse of probable cause, even asset forfeiture) because of the rifts of distrust that have formed between law enforcement and the public. But these are nucleations in a solution of corruption, exceptions to the rule, and even in public-rights-savvy regions like San Francisco, we'll still see overreach and excessive, sometimes lethal, use of force.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "help and proper recourse for your grievances"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
"The tip of the spear has just been blunted — it’s got no point now," Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon said at the time.
Hampton County suspended drug interdiction patrols until the payment program resumed.
And in one single move they demonstrate that they only care about drugs so long as they can profit from them. It's not about 'protecting the public' or 'putting those criminals away', the only thing they care about was 'How much money can I get from this?' As soon as it stopped being profitable they stopped caring, making it clear that they were only interested so long as it worked as an easy way to pad the budget and/or their wallets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
What, so "leftist" now means "rule of law," does it?
12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. - Rense.com, The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism
If that's where you're coming from it's no wonder you consider due process an impediment to justice. Be careful, Judge Dredd, you may find that the long arm of the law doesn't land as lightly on your collar should you find yourself in a constitution-free zone one day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
- wtf are you talking about?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
That explains a lot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "If I'm not getting a bonus for it why should I care?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The war on drugs was tailor made for thugs. Of course it's easy pickings on the freeway, free people sometimes act funny. Why not take some money?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If that is what you think then we should fund them better as part of our civil process, not give them a blank check that is 'cashed' out of the pockets of anyone that they pulled over for a busted tail-light, "random" drug checkpoint or driving while wrong-colored
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Ok, understandable even if a bit naive. What about all those caught up in the drag net that are not criminal? Take their money too? What you say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Except that with asset seizure there's no requirement that the people seized from be found guilty in a court of law. You're okay with the police acting as judge, jury and executioner when it comes to seizing assets from those they view to be criminals?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is your angst really directed at this practice, or are you upset generally about something, and this just sets you off again? The article isn't specific enough to really be upset about, I mean, so what if fewer arrests are made and more drugs are sized? Seizing drugs in a good thing, right? Who knows why they didn't arrest more. Generally, seizing illegal drugs, illegal weapons (linked hand grandes or bazookas) or other illegal things would be considered a success for law enforcement, right?
There is a whole group of really upset people in this blog, some of them obviously intelligent and pretty good writers. I'm just missing the explanation for the angst - is it American culture, or International culture, or the concept of making money, or respecting law enforcement, or laws themselves, or government itself? Everyone seems upset about something (and I admit I get unduly upset too sometimes) but I can't put my finger on what they are upset about. It can't really be some small town Sherriff and his arrest record, right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Possessing and selling drugs is illegal. So why did the police not arrest all those people who were carrying all those drugs? The hard answer to that question: They did make the right number of arrests — and the rest of those searches were to find anything they could legally take under asset forfeiture practices while letting off those who were not carrying drugs with a “warning” or a ticket.
The United States legal system operates on a principle of “innocent until proven guilty”—that is, a person walks into a courtroom as an innocent party and must have their guilt proven. Asset forfeiture sidesteps this principle by allowing the police to seize anything of value held by a suspected criminal without first obtaining a criminal conviction. It allows cops to become de facto judges who determine a person's guilt on the spot and seize possessions without so much as a trial (or possibly even an arrest).
The culture of policing in the United States has enough issues as it is. It does not need to add this one into that already volatile mix.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'm upset about the seizure of money (and other things which aren't in-and-of-themselves illegal) without any guilty verdict.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Here is a quick test you can do to see if is, in practice, wrong: Would you agree with the police seizing your assets because they suspected you of, and arrested you for, a crime that you can prove you did not commit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"There is always more good they could do with more money."
Hahaha good one ... oh wait, yer serious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
What? You spit it out? I'm sure they'd rather you swallow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In experience, they are almost always overfunded.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Live and learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Live and learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Live and learn
If they're under-resourced the citizens of their districts are going to have to have a grown-up conversation about how to fund their law enforcement agencies properly. Highway robbery at badgepoint is not acceptable in a civilised society. That's what we're complaining about. Be assured that while they're walking away with your TV tucked under their arms they're doing nothing to protect you from the bad guys enumerated in your list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
Maybe you could focus your complaining on something in your own country. How about those Muslim "no-go" zones, maybe you'd like to touch on how extremely intelligent that is?
We don't have that problem in the US, because we assimilate better. I don't think we could assimilate you, but for normal people, they have no problem fitting in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
I've got family in America.
There are no Muslim no-go zones in this country. If you ever find one, let me know.
As for assimilation, a 17yo Muslim girl was murdered recently just as she left a mosque. Perhaps if you stopped spreading hateful messages along the lines of "The Muzzies are taking over our country!" the likelihood of another crime like that would be reduced.
http://www.timesofisrael.com/teenage-muslim-girl-beaten-to-death-outside-virginia-mosque/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
London does look like a hotbed at the moment, I agree everyone should be throwing water on that fire.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
Yes there are area's within the UK such as places in London where the population is mostly non english but that doesn't make them no go zones, if anything there was quite a parody made of it afterwards.
It would be nice if you could back up your claim of locations in london where Sharea Law rules?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
If Trump colluded with the American people, how did he lose the popular vote by over three million votes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
But not because she was Muslim. You left that bit out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Live and learn
Perhaps you could address each line item expressed rather than a blanket "lalala I cant hear you" type of response. I realize that is asking a bit much of people like yourself, but wth, give it try why dont ya.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Assimilate better"
The US was founded on the premise that we don't assimilate very well.
Or maybe you only accept true Americans, id est, Americans that look like you, act like you, talk like you and worship the same gods as you do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Assimilate better"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Assimilate better"
That does not make you better than those who do not walk, talk, and act like you. And being part of a majority does not make you “normal”; it makes you statistically common.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Live and learn
The difference between the number of car's stopped, quantity of drugs located, and the number of people charged is way off.
I law was designed with best intentions, but when departments start creating shopping lists or basing their budget around asset forfiture then it's not being applied correctly.
https://tdrt.io/g48
https://tdrt.io/ek3
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Live and learn
I wouldn't murder innocent people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"What shenanigans are you trying to pull calling yourself 'Fox News', I don't see a single fox anywhere!"
Because it nicely demonstrates the mind-controlling coding buried in some TD articles that forces you to come here and read articles that you have no interest in.
Don't know about you but that strikes me at least as some pretty impressive tech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "What shenanigans are you trying to pull calling yourself 'Fox News', I don't see a single fox anywhere!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "What shenanigans are you trying to pull calling yourself 'Fox News', I don't see a single fox anywhere!"
It's like you tards aren't even trying anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Last time I checked, apple.com had nothing to do with fruit, and I bet you have no trouble with that domain name, do you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"You’re not going to do this here and get a free pass,” Wright said.
"This" being "drive through the county on the interstate at 65mph, probably without even stopping for gas."
People in Spartanburg County elected me to enforce all laws, and that’s what I’m going to do.
On a non-forfeiture note, how long since anyone's heard a LEO talk about 'upholding the law' or 'keeping the peace'? They really seem fixated on the connotations of domination and control that comes with 'enforce'... which is more in line with a blitzkrieg than with 'protecting and serving.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'd also like to compliment you on your fine grammar, however, do be careful when starting sentences with "And", and misplacing those pesky commas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
LEO may be a local shorthand.
I will often refer to law enforcement officers, but I don't expect the acronym to be understood except by those accustomed to talking about this topic.
But judges are not LEOs. Members of the Department of Justice are, which would include those within law enforcement agencies: local precincts, the Sheriff's department, marshals, FBI, ATFE, DEA and so on.
CIA is its own thing, not law enforcement but intelligence and espionage (and counter-espionage). Interestingly, the FBI is no longer officially law enforcement but instead seeks to preserve national security, a goal which gives it a much wider range of latitude.
Regardless, they all do align when it comes to wrangling property via asset forfeiture. We've seen articles here about how the TSA discovered someone transporting cash, reported it to the DHS who then relayed the intel to local law enforcement. The (completely legal) money was seized and they all profited. Law enforcement agencies will gladly cooperate when there is mutual benefit for all of them.
Remember that we all are criminals. You are guilty of numerous crimes that would, on conviction, put you in prison for over ten years. It is only prosecutorial discretion that keeps you free. The average American commits about three felonies a day.
Is it degrading? I don't think so. I tend to avoid degrading language when being critical, as I want the focus on the critique, not the disparagement. But I find cop to be degrading, where I find law enforcement or police or officer to be neutral.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: LEO may be a local shorthand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LEO may be a local shorthand.
No, it is. At any given point in a day, you are likely breaking at least one law, even if it is only a misdemeanor. For example: If you watch a video clip on YouTube that was not uploaded by the copyright owner, you have technically committed an act of copyright infringement by creating a copy of that illegally-uploaded video in your computer’s temporary storage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: LEO may be a local shorthand.
The law doesn't work on ambiguous terms like that. If we could count on jurists to interpret the law reasonably, decide what behavior is or isn't a danger to society and proceed from there, then yes.
But instead our judges have just as much bias as the rest of us and are eager to secure convictions rather than see justice done, even if it means putting innocent people in prison.
Our impacted prisons, our sky-high incarceration rates (in comparison to other nations) and our disproportionate minority prison population are all evidence that law is not enforced equally or fairly.
For me, it's the whistleblowers and hacktivists getting put way for murder-length sentences thanks to the CFAA and Espionage acts, both of which overreach into very common practices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: LEO may be a local shorthand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: LEO may be a local shorthand.
Tell that to the family of Philando Castile.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Prisons full of maladjusted"
Any criminal is a failure of the state to relate to the individual as well as vice versa. Our high numbers of prisoners do not indicate a higher rate of maladjustment, nor that we're better at getting criminals off the streets (we still have plenty of crime).
Considering our scathingly high conviction rate, our system that rewards conviction (rather than determining the truth and seeing justice done) our tolerance for perjury by officers of the DoJ, especially in court testimony, and our inability to convict officers for even murder caught on video, our justice system is such a failure that it is possible (though impossible to confirm) that we have more innocent civilians in prison than guilty. We certainly have more people in jail for minor crimes such as possession than convicts of major crimes, such as bank robbers, rapists and first-degree murderers.
Meanwhile we've witnessed ongoing rulings that indicate clearly that judges cannot be impartial. Their entire job is to be able to divorce themselves of bias and provide opinions that are entirely rational, and they fail to do that.
Most famously is Antonin Scalia's opinion that Jack Bauer's use of torture (in the TV series 24) justifies its use by the United States, never mind that torture doesn't yield sound intel, never mind that it's heinous and inhumane. Never mind that we've never used it for anything as desperate as a ticking time-bomb scenario, nor could our torture program resolve an imminent-crisis situation such as a ticking time-bomb. A US Supreme Court justice was swayed by a fictional television program to justify torture.
I can't get past that. To me, that right there is an indictment of the fallibility of human beings, and their incompetence to adjudicate.
Our prisoners have all been convicted under a failed justice system, and in that regard, they are all political prisoners. And yet, to this day we regard them as maladjusted and revel in mistreatment of them. To us on the outside, prison rape is even a joke that we'll allude to on children's cartoons.
So yes, absolutely the United States could do better. But we don't even try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Some cops — and entire departments — are behaving so badly it's causing an outcry. I'm glad you've not been subject to this but statistically it might happen to you. I'm not sure whether trying to reassure the cop you're not a radical leftist, etc., will save you if you've got a big wedge of wonga in your wallet and the drug dog alerts.
If they did what they're actually supposed to they would get a warrant based on reasonable suspicion, then get a conviction before confiscating your property. But where the drug wars are concerned, you have no property rights if a cop merely suspects you are involved in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course everything in American society is easier if you are wealthy. It's just difficult to get wealthy, it takes persistence, hard work, fair dealing, a good reputation, people who trust you, that kind of thing.
If you fit the model of an upstanding citizens, most Police respect you immediately, regardless of your race, color, sex or background. Money talks, for sure. Respect goes a long way, too. I only met one Police officer in my life that I thought was really difficult, but that was because I was sleeping with his ex-wife. Understandable, right?
What about you, Wendy - did you have a bad experience with your British Coppers? Want to share?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Getting wealthy takes luck.
More than any other factor, attaining any reasonable amount of wealth in US society takes a considerable amount of luck. As one presentation put it, each project, each small business, each new innovative project is a lottery ticket, and the odds are not in the favor of a startup strapped for capital.
But in the United States, minorities are harassed by the police for non-major crimes (e.g. staying past curfew, loitering) way more per capita than whites. People without lawyers have a 90% chance of getting convicted regardless of guilt. Most are driven to plea-bargain. And public defense is underbudgeted in every state, so that ever public defender's case load is grossly impacted.
If you are affluent enough to afford your own lawyer, and if your assets are not seized before you retain one (very common) then you might get to see the kind of justice we are allegedly guaranteed in the US. (Still, expect the police to lie and for judges and juries to hold the honor of the police in higher esteem than clear video evidence to the contrary). Most of us fall through the cracks if we are ever unfortunate enough to cross paths with a police officer on a bad day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
The only small businesses that benefit from those laws work out of lawyers offices, and tax the hardworking people whenever they gain enough money to be worth suing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
Similarly in open source, and increasingly in small businesses, co-operation and sharing of ideas and techniques is proving more powerful than hoarding a small amount of creativity and using it to block competition.
Those who most wish to control the use of created works are in general, (there are exceptions), those who lack creativity, and therefore overvalue the works that they can gain control over, or perhaps they fear that someone creative will take an idea, run with it and produce a much better product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
So if a studio loans a band 100k, the promotion, fee's, studio costs etc etc all come out of that 100k, then as the records sell the studio takes's their cut, they leave the band with a very small proportion, which has to be used to pay for the production of said media, then after that whatever is left goes back to the studio to pay off what they loaned them, this way the band some times never break even with the labels or studios.
As for the movie industry some if not most of them do some amazing maths to show that films like the highest grossing movie of all time (Taking inflation in to account) has never made a profit and as such hasn't paid out to some of the staff, so I refuse to believe that people are going unpaid because of any other reason other than hollywood accounting:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110912/13500315912/hollywood-accounting-darth-vader-n ot-getting-paid-because-return-jedi-still-isnt-profitable.shtml
The industry doesn't want indie artists as they are making a product that engages with the pubic, and in return they are making money out of it, and the labels aren't.
And are you seriously telling me that Disney would no longer bother making anything else ever if Mickey Mouse went in to the public domain, 70 years after it's creator died?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
Okay at Disney movies alone are better than nearly any other product is when I realized you're being satirical.
Well done!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
- to be an inventor severely harmed by Techdirt
- lived the sort of sob success story with deceased parents etc.
- has a dead brother with a lesbian activist wife
- has money bleeding out of his ears
Would be capable of proving his significance to the world aside from inventing Melania/Shiva fanfiction. But no, he'd rather complain on a website he hates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
The laws here dramatically favor the monied interests and hard-ons, which is the whole point of the "IP" laws.
- FTFY -
"the US is the best place in the world"
By what parameter(s) do you make this determination and what study or studies did you research in said determination?
- as if I will get a response that addresses any of this -
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
That Russia is worse doesn't make the US better. If we were looking for economic policies to emulate, I'd look to Germany or Sweden, but I don't have the numbers on hand.
Regardless, we treat our impoverished and working class like shit. We draw the poverty line way below living expenses, and then we begrudge those on welfare basics like a working refrigerator or running water.
And upward mobility is accessible only to those well connected with those above them. Intra-office promotion depends on connections within the office. The startup route presumes that your job means something over time, which is to say your company rises and beats out competitors. But that means either there are no competitors (thanks to anti-competitive practices) or all those competing companies have workers whose careers are tanking.
To borrow a parable from Cracked if you toss a bottle of whiskey into a box car full of transients, only one of them is going to end up drunk.
(That's not actually true according to the transients I know. In transient society, most of them share what they got when they got it, so everyone would end up tipsy.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
You can do everything right and still lose, you know. That is life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"If I made it from poverty, everyone else can too!"
I'm not saying you didn't work hard. I'm saying there are tens of millions working as hard as you did, if not harder, and are going to stay impoverished, not because of bad life choices, but because of circumstances.
I'm saying you got lucky. You got opportunities to rise that many, many people do not get. You won where most people lose.
I get it's easier to digest our nation's poverty and misery when we imagine that they somehow deserve it for being short of character, but that genuinely isn't the case.
Also conspicuous is that the groups that love fetuses (or at least hate people who abort them) also seem to be not-too-fond of children, as most of our children are impoverished, and children tend to lock families into poverty, and they don't care one whit about children's welfare except when saying so furthers their own agenda.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Getting wealthy takes luck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
LOL @ all of the above, AC.
Well, Wendy, you're British, right, so you're speaking about British cops, right?
UK cops don't carry out asset forfeiture, that's done via the courts after a conviction has been secured. We believe in due process over here.
Of course everything in American society is easier if you are wealthy. It's just difficult to get wealthy, it takes persistence, hard work, fair dealing, a good reputation, people who trust you, that kind of thing.
Ever heard of Donald Trump? George Soros? Martin Shkreli? I could make the list longer if you like.
If you fit the model of an upstanding citizens, most Police respect you immediately, regardless of your race, color, sex or background. Money talks, for sure. Respect goes a long way, too. I only met one Police officer in my life that I thought was really difficult, but that was because I was sleeping with his ex-wife. Understandable, right?
Your business is your own but a shedload of lawsuits for excessive force and civil rights violations contradicts your narrative.
What about you, Wendy - did you have a bad experience with your British Coppers? Want to share?
Our police are the best in the world. While it's true you get the odd bad egg, they're mostly decent, friendly folk who gladly give directions and other assistance. I've got this to share: one time I was in a car that had a blow-out on the motorway. We managed to get on to the hard shoulder and were trying to fit the spare tyre. The motorway police showed up and promptly gave us a hand with it to get us back on the road. UK cops for the win!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just like our president!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fair dealing? a good reputation?
Trump is renowned for breaking contracts and refusing to pay his workers throughout his business career. There are still dozens, if not hundreds of cases from before Trump's presidency for his fraud.
At this point I have to assume you've been isolated form the outside world, or you are outright delusional.
So why are you commenting on this site again? Are you trolling?
Go catch up on current events, pal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This is your "sister", right? http://www.feministcurrent.com/2015/11/30/18995/
Don't you think her writing sounds exactly like yours?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You say this as if being a lesbian is an inherently evil thing. Do you hate lesbians specifically or all women in general?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
300
Ahem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There should be due process, Yes sieze the money, but a case MUST be brought against the owner, if convicted and found guilty they the items are gone and become property of the state to be used to help people that are victims of crime seeing as the products are a result of said crime.
If found innocent then the defendent get's it all back, 100% of it.
That's how it should work but it doesn't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How do we know the money is being taken from criminals when the people from whom the money is taken are not arrested, tried, and convicted of a crime? The whole issue people have with asset forfeiture as it is carried out in the US centres around how police take the assets without actually convicting people of crimes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"I love the idea of the Police taking money from Criminals."
What about the police taking money from innocent civilians? That's the problem. They're not seizing the assets of convicts, they're seizing the assets of unconvicted suspects, and then often not even bothering charging them with a crime.
Remember you too are a criminal who, but for the notice of an ambitious prosecutor, has so far escaped investigation and indictment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "I love the idea of the Police taking money from Criminals."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"They can seize all the meth they want"
Except contraband is not what is being seized. In fact, the police have been favoring stopping vehicles that are more likely to be flush with cash than potential mules.
And in some counties, if a police officer spies a sweet ride he wishes was his own? Seized. The news is chock full of incidents in which innocent people had their savings taken based on a dubious probable-cause justification and are now wending their way through the super-tedious appeal process.
The police are seizing more money than is stolen in all the burglaries in the US, to the tune of about five billion a year, and it's changed the outright purpose of much of our law enforcement to literal highway robbery. It just happens to be endorsed by the state.
I get that you want to believe that you are safe, that our law enforcement are on your side, and that's generally so if you're white and affluent enough to afford your own lawyer, and manage to retain one before your assets are frozen.
But for the rest of us, no, the Department of Justice is as self serving as the Sicilian mafia, much to the chagrin of local chiefs who are witnessing the trust between the people and their precincts dissolve like coral reefs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Memories: Operation Rolling Thunder
Wikipedia: Operation Rolling Thunder
Further see: Operation Linebacker (May – October 1972), Operation Linebacker II (December 1972), and Paris Peace Accords.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wanna put a fast end to this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?
...and according to Charleston County Sheriff Al Cannon, why bother enforcing the law, then? Apparently a yearly salary isn't enough.
If I recall my history correctly, the holy inquisition and witchhunts really got going once the prosecutors were allowed to seize and keep the assets of the accused.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?
'Hampton County suspended drug interdiction patrols until the payment program resumed.'
There is nothing 'abstract' about the fact that when they no longer were able to profit off of 'drug interdiction patrols' they stopped engaging in them. They cared about drug busts only so long as they were able to profit from them, and as soon as that wasn't the case they lost all interest, making their actual motivations pretty clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?
Why would the police stop doing the interdiction patrols if they were not doing them to generate revenue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?
Unless you want to say that the source material is factually incorrect, your faux outrage and insults doesn't actually refute the points.
They were engaged in 'drug interdiction patrols' when they got a cut of the money gained from it.
A budget cut of various programs resulting in them no longer getting a cut.
They stopped doing drug interdiction patrols.
Now you could respond with a reasoned counter-argument as to why this isn't likely the case, or you could double-down on the insults and accusations. I'll let you decide which route you want to take.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?
For example, I learned in my Statistics class, there is a HGUE correlation between diaper rash and highway miles constructed. HUGE. Not causal. Understand? Two things that happen do not automagically mean one caused the other.
Your use of the word "profiting" is also silly, as if they take the money home for themselves. Ridiculous word in this case.
Dumb article and dumb arguments. Study a little journalism, or read some history.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Wanna put a fast end to this?
Just because an issue has “two sides” (or possibly more) does not mean that all sides have equal validity. When one side is completely full of shit, it not worth engaging — other than to present accurate information which rebuts the people who take that side and their uninformed opinions.
Take asset forfeiture. If you want to argue for or against the procedure on the merits, go right ahead. But do not insult us by arguing that the police should have the unquestioned privilege of seizing property from people who have not been convicted of (or possibly arrested for) a crime. We know that such an argument is full of shit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
civil asset forfeiture
[ link to this | view in chronology ]