Shakedown...yep, that's as good a description as anything. I seriously doubt bringing in the feds would help. The DEA would probably just kick themselves for not having thought of this before. The Justice Department is doing it's damnedest to avoid considering the implications of their name. There's not much of any place to turn here...

Cheers for the info, mate, but... cash up front, non-refundable? Sweet mother of fuck, that's a shakedown. Nothing shady about it, that's pure-D corruption.

If this creative business model of theirs is then enforced by the police in such a manner as we witnessed in this clip, it might probably be a good idea to get the feds involved in this.

The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back
The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back

So the FCC won't let me be
They want to stack the deck for the ISPs
but we've got a couple of tricks up our sleeves
It's far too important to leave to police
it could lead to the streets
a breach of the peace
and even decrease our freedom of speech
there's never been a bigger reason to read up
and see what's agreed 'cause of greed for the green and deceit
The greener the leaf, the sweeter the tree
the quicker they'll chop it down and leave nothing but tree stumps; debris
the damage is done, no refund received
see, the thing about net neutrality
is unless you get huge salaries
? the paramedic won't rescue casualties
' til they've seen to the rich next dude's allergies
they'll prioritise cash over content
wanna send one bit? That's one cent
What nonsense, man it's scaring me
a planet of plenty's selling scarcity
Innovation paved the way
Now invaders are paying to take it away
but they ain't gonna make it today
! Letting that happen's a major mistake
If Lessig was rapping he'd tell you the same
LETTING THAT HAPPEN'S A MAJOR MISTAKE
Tim Berners Lee baked us a cake
and they've taken the cherry.. AND THE CAKE
discrimination is happening today
to blacks and to gays and to packets of data
though ethically they're exactly the same
so Oi, we're not gonna stand 4 it m8

U WOT?
THE FOK U SAYIN BRUV?
U WOT M8??????
! THE FOK U SAYIN BRUV
U WOT?
FAK OFF U ARSEHOLE!

The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back
The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back

I'm from the place John Oliver came from
but no matter where you live you should be singing the same song
at long last, I'm putting Comcast on blast
'cause they never learn their lesson like they're in the wrong class
well I'm the professor and I'm setting you with one task
Get them knocked back like a shot glass
Straight in front of me's a cable company
The way they're behaving's unbelievable
Comcast is in league with the devil
and it's pissing me off, I'm not even American
! Take a peek, see from the evidence
Netflix had to pay a fee to get better links
it's a shakedown, communication breakdown
There's a bully in the playground
I had enough of that at school, won't lay down
lay a finger on me, you'll be laid out
You'll be laid out
You'll be laid ou
You'll be laid out
You'll be laid out
lay a finger on me, you'll be laid out

The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back
The world wide web is under attack
They're taking it away but we're pulling it back

Taking it back, we're taking it back
We're taking it, we're taking back

The account of events as discussed suggests that at the time of the altercation, Zimmerman was no longer 'in pursuit' but was heading back to his vehicle. If that is the case, then SYG applies. That's the line that Zimmerman's camp is going to follow anyway. It's a solid defense that could very well - as some have said - let him "walk" with only an investigation and no trial at all.

This is why you have the other camp desperately pumping agenda-driven narratives into the mix. They know if they can gin up enough outrage they'll get a trial when otherwise it would have just been thrown out or languish in proceedural limbo. And then there's the human flotsam like Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and the rest of the professional bigots of the race-shakedown industry. They don't care jack-squat about Zimmerman, Martin or anything else. This is just thier bread & butter - getting people angry so they can make money... The slimeballs are literal carrion fowl.

Are you ever going to address the fact that the Great Depression was ended by massive record deficits, followed by taxing the richest by over 90%?

Your entire argument is deficits never work, and raising taxes on the rich hurts the economy. I just gave you an irrefutable example of that being dead wrong, and you go into FDR's New Deal. Dude, I'm not debating the New Deal with you.

Prove that the US economy got out of the Great Depression without massive deficits (regardless if it was New Deal spending or WWII spending, it's irrelevant), followed by massively taxing the rich over 90% in the 1950s, during which the US economy was extremely prosperous.

That's the thing, dude. You can try to dodge this all you want. I'm not letting you try to move to discussing the New Deal, or Social Security, or how apparently communist George W. Bush (SERIOUSLY?!?!? WTFBBQ?!?!?!?) is.

This example in US history proves your rigid, ideological economic philosophy is dead wrong. You can't argue honestly that deficits are always bad, and massive gov't spending is always bad, and the US gov't can't help aid in turning around the economy. It most certainly can. It indisputably did. There's no "some fact" to this. It absolutely is historical fact.

That's the thing. Once you admit that yes, deficits can and do help end recessions, and taxing the rich more heavily can be good for the economy, we might be able to actually have an honest, adult conversation about how to help the economy. Until that, you're just spewing idiotic and/or intentional misinformation.

And then you just completely glossed over the entire reason why the gov't is almost always the one who HAS to spark the economic turnaround. We NEED the gov't to stimulate the economy, just as we need the gov't to put the brakes on when the economy grows too quickly, which is when those deficits can get paid for incidentally.

Are you just gonna sit there and call everyone other than the Tea Party communists, or are you actually going to address any of this?

>> ^quantumushroom:

The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise?

And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.
But why doth "the poor," who siphon the "free" money, have no civic responsibility at all? Shouldn't they be paying something into the system? Or maybe "dependency voters" are needed by a certain political party?

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.
The rich already DO pay more. It will do NO GOOD to shakedown the rich for ever more $$$. The problem with tax addicts is they can never get enough. It's too easy to spend money. Destroy the incentive to invest and/or create (or deny there is incentive at all) and you get stagnation. GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING.
Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.
But what about now, when our cherished federal mafia creates INstability? No sane businessperson will hire now with the Hawaiian Dunce in office. I've heard this claptrap about government spending as savior before.
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Henry Morganthau, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked.
But it's not working now, is it. OOPS! I agree that govt should not be run like a business. It should instead by treated like the dangerous raw force it is, because that's ALL it is.

We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic
record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.
This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.
There's some fact in there, but the cause and effect seems a little skewered.
FDR was a fascist, perhaps benevolent in his own mind, but a fascist in practice nonetheless, the sacred cow and Creator of the modern, unsustainable welfare state. He had no idea what he was doing and there is a growing body of work
suggesting his policies prolonged the Depression.

Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall.
This is all quite arguable. Yes, Bush the-liberal-with-a-few-conservative-tendencies ruined his legacy with scamulus spending, but nothing--NOTHING--close to 3 trillion in 3 years! Spending-wise, it's comparing a dragster to a regular hemi.

Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.
Do you wonder why you can so neatly explain things while the Democrats in DC, with their arses on the line, cannot? The failed scamulus has forced the DC dunces to change boasts like "jobs saved" to "lives touched". Apparently there's a lot more to this tale than the Donkey Version.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable.
They didn't have the votes.

The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for
that kind of claim whatsoever.
Compare taxocrats' dragster-speed spending of the last three years versus Repub spending during the 8 years before it. The argument of "But they do it too!" has some merit, but as the rise of the Tea Party has shown, business-as-usual is no longer acceptable.
Oh, and taxocrats, remember this: the Hawaiian Dunce considers anyone making over 250K to be millionaires and billionaires.

The rich pay a higher percentage, and more taxes overall than the poor. Why do you think anyone is saying otherwise?

And that's absolutely how it should be, for the good of everyone, rich included.

But why doth "the poor," who siphon the "free" money, have no civic responsibility at all? Shouldn't they be paying something into the system? Or maybe "dependency voters" are needed by a certain political party?

It's perfectly sensible to talk about why some people don't pay any taxes at all. I'm not even debating that. But the rich should still pay more, regardless. The US has been one of the strongest economies for most of the 20th and 21st centuries with a progressive income tax, and it's been a heck of a lot more progressive than it is now, and we were still very prosperous.

The rich already DO pay more. It will do NO GOOD to shakedown the rich for ever more $$$. The problem with tax addicts is they can never get enough. It's too easy to spend money. Destroy the incentive to invest and/or create (or deny there is incentive at all) and you get stagnation. GOVERNMENT CREATES NOTHING.

Showing fraud in some programs doesn't mean the program should be abolished. It can be reformed as well. There are plenty of ways to do that. We didn't abolish welfare in the 1990s. We reformed it. And no, it's not true that private businesses will always create the jobs when the economy is down. History has proven quite the opposite. Why would a business invest to make more goods and services if there's no market for it. A downturn in the economy breeds more economic decline. It's called a business cycle, and it's a natural occurrence. If you were a business owner, generally speaking, if you know less people out there have the money to buy your goods and services, would you increase production and hire more workers? Of course not. Does the average person put more money into the stock market or take money out when the market tanks? Takes money out, which drains money for investing. This is basic micro and macroeconomics.

But what about now, when our cherished federal mafia creates INstability? No sane businessperson will hire now with the Hawaiian Dunce in office. I've heard this claptrap about government spending as savior before.

"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. … I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started. … And an enormous debt to boot."

Henry Morganthau, U.S. Secretary of the Treasury during the administration of Franklin D. Roosevelt.

Some force has to run counter to the natural tendencies of the market to force demand to increase, and of course this virtually always requires running a deficit. This is why slogans like "the gov't should be run like a business" are simplistic and wrong. The gov't should in those situations create jobs through various programs, thereby increasing income for the lower classes, which creates spending and demand, which then causes businesses to increase production, hire more workers, and that gets the economy back on track. You can site case study after case study in our history we've done this, and it worked.
But it's not working now, is it. OOPS! I agree that govt should not be run like a business. It should instead by treated like the dangerous raw force it is, because that's ALL it is.

We ended the Great Depression via defense spending in the form of WWII in record levels as the most obvious exaggerated example. That historically was qm's worst nightmare - record deficits in raw amount at the time, and still to this day historic
record deficits as a percentage of GDP during WWII, followed by a tax raise on the richest Americans to over 90%. And what calamity befell the US because of those policies? We ended the Great Depression, became an economic Superpower, and Americans enjoyed record prosperity it and the world had never seen before.

This is historical fact that simply can't be denied.

There's some fact in there, but the cause and effect seems a little skewered.

FDR was a fascist, perhaps benevolent in his own mind, but a fascist in practice nonetheless, the sacred cow and Creator of the modern, unsustainable welfare state. He had no idea what he was doing and there is a growing body of work
suggesting his policies prolonged the Depression.


Here's what happened - Democrats deficit spent as they were supposed to (which is exactly what the GOP would have done had they been in power, because it was started by George W. Bush), which stopped the economic free fall.

This is all quite arguable. Yes, Bush the-liberal-with-a-few-conservative-tendencies ruined his legacy with scamulus spending, but nothing--NOTHING--close to 3 trillion in 3 years! Spending-wise, it's comparing a dragster to a regular hemi.

Moody's didn't downgrade the US debt. It was S&P. They sited math about the alarming deficits which contained a $2 trillion mistake on their part. They also sited political instability as the GOP was risking default to get their policies in place, which btw still include massive deficits.

Do you wonder why you can so neatly explain things while the Democrats in DC, with their arses on the line, cannot? The failed scamulus has forced the DC dunces to change boasts like "jobs saved" to "lives touched". Apparently there's a lot more to this tale than the Donkey Version.

The GOP couldn't stop the Democrats from spending all that money?! Laughable.

They didn't have the votes.

The GOP started the freakin' bailouts and stimulus! What did the GOP do the last time there was a recession after 9/11? Deficit spent, then continued to deficit spend when the economy was strong. Dude, seriously, you have no factual basis for
that kind of claim whatsoever.

Compare taxocrats' dragster-speed spending of the last three years versus Repub spending during the 8 years before it. The argument of "But they do it too!" has some merit, but as the rise of the Tea Party has shown, business-as-usual is no longer acceptable.

Oh, and taxocrats, remember this: the Hawaiian Dunce considers anyone making over 250K to be millionaires and billionaires.

When will he do this? On is death bed?

A tax-deductible foundation is not the federal mafia. Donating to a foundation is voluntary. Buffoon wants the fed mafia to shakedown more evil rich people.

FAIL. I mean, *coughFAIL*cough



>> ^notarobot:

cough
Fortune reports that Buffett will donate 85 percent of his fortune amassed from stock in the Berkshire Hathaway company to five foundations.
The donations, which will come from Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway shares, would amount to about $37 billion, based on current values.
Five-sixths of the money reportedly will go to The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, which specializes in finding cures for diseases that plague impoverished nations. [source=abc news]
cough
>> ^quantumushroom:
PAT BUCHANAN: Why doesn’t he set an example and send a check for $5 billion to the federal government? He’s got about $40 billion.
What's Warren Buffoon waiting for? A gun in his face like the rest of us get?

It's a SHAKEDOWN!!!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/12/phillip-hinkle-craigslist_n_925638.html

>> ^MaxWilder:

You really can't blame the cops for this. They get their orders from higher up the food chain, from people who are struggling with budgets every day. It's the lawmakers who are encouraging (or at least allowing) this kind of ridiculous behavior. If seized money went to drug rehab centers or something like that, the shakedowns would stop. And of course, lawmakers would have to fund the cops from normal taxes, which they would prefer to spend on their pet projects.
Ultimately, it's the people of the state who must demand changes to the laws, and that's unlikely because the cops target out-of-state plates. Perhaps if this starts to impact legit tourism or something, it might get a referendum. But since there are few legit reasons for carrying large quantities of cash, it's unlikely to change.
BTW, don't carry around large amounts of cash. That's stupid.


Completely agreed

Your video, Civil Forfeiture Highway Shakedowns in Tennessee, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^MaxWilder:
You really can't blame the cops for this. They get their orders from higher up the food chain, from people who are struggling with budgets every day. It's the lawmakers who are encouraging (or at least allowing) this kind of ridiculous behavior. If seized money went to drug rehab centers or something like that, the shakedowns would stop. And of course, lawmakers would have to fund the cops from normal taxes, which they would prefer to spend on their pet projects.
Ultimately, it's the people of the state who must demand changes to the laws, and that's unlikely because the cops target out-of-state plates. Perhaps if this starts to impact legit tourism or something, it might get a referendum. But since there are few legit reasons for carrying large quantities of cash, it's unlikely to change.
BTW, don't carry around large amounts of cash. That's stupid.

I agree with you on everything except the "can't blame the cops". "Just following orders" is no excuse for committing an injustice...

While I agree that "just following orders" is not a strong defense, it's not like they are committing war crimes. For the most part, it really is drug money they are seizing. Are they supposed to throw away their careers in order to try to change something that should be changed by the lawmakers and citizens who elect those lawmakers?

Throwing away? You really think they'd lose their entire career by making such policies known to the public, or talking to the press about it? I don't.
And even if they did...I chose not to work for employers who didn't meet at least the minimum of my ethical standards, and I have no reservations in believing others should do the same. If everyone did, we'd probably not be in the shithouse we find ourselves in these days.

Who said anything about keeping silent? This whole news report may have been inspired by a cop who wasn't happy with the policy.
But if they don't carry out the policy, they will get fired. They guy in the video said so.
I applaud your ethical standards. I certainly hope I would do the same. But these days it isn't so easy to simply change jobs. It would probably involve moving to another area, maybe even another state. Not to mention a big cut in pay as you throw away any seniority. And if all the ethical people leave the force, then they will simply be replaced and replaced until the only people left are unethical. Doesn't sound like an improvement.
Why are you resisting laying the blame where it belongs?


Say what? I'm not the one saying "you can't blame X..." I'm saying there is plenty of blame for everyone involved: legislators, police chiefs, AND cops doing the dirty work. Remember, this whole discussion is about the only part of your original statement I disagreed with...the rest I'm completely on your side (so discussing those parts is rather dull).

And yes, ethics -do- have a price. In my own case, I'm quite sure it prolonged my period of unemployment (causing me to have to empty my retirement funds and put retirement into the "fantasy" category), as well as moving in order to secure another job. But if everyone simply says "I had no choice", nothing ever gets better either.

It's way past time for people to start doing what they're asking other people to do. You want ethical behavior and laws from your legislators, I'd think you'd best be behaving ethically yourselves (note, that's a general "you", not you in particular Max). That's part of my problem with the Republican party...they all seem to talk the talk, but it doesn't appear that more than a tiny fraction actually walk the walk.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^MaxWilder:
You really can't blame the cops for this. They get their orders from higher up the food chain, from people who are struggling with budgets every day. It's the lawmakers who are encouraging (or at least allowing) this kind of ridiculous behavior. If seized money went to drug rehab centers or something like that, the shakedowns would stop. And of course, lawmakers would have to fund the cops from normal taxes, which they would prefer to spend on their pet projects.
Ultimately, it's the people of the state who must demand changes to the laws, and that's unlikely because the cops target out-of-state plates. Perhaps if this starts to impact legit tourism or something, it might get a referendum. But since there are few legit reasons for carrying large quantities of cash, it's unlikely to change.
BTW, don't carry around large amounts of cash. That's stupid.

I agree with you on everything except the "can't blame the cops". "Just following orders" is no excuse for committing an injustice...

While I agree that "just following orders" is not a strong defense, it's not like they are committing war crimes. For the most part, it really is drug money they are seizing. Are they supposed to throw away their careers in order to try to change something that should be changed by the lawmakers and citizens who elect those lawmakers?

Throwing away? You really think they'd lose their entire career by making such policies known to the public, or talking to the press about it? I don't.
And even if they did...I chose not to work for employers who didn't meet at least the minimum of my ethical standards, and I have no reservations in believing others should do the same. If everyone did, we'd probably not be in the shithouse we find ourselves in these days.


Who said anything about keeping silent? This whole news report may have been inspired by a cop who wasn't happy with the policy.

But if they don't carry out the policy, they will get fired. They guy in the video said so.

I applaud your ethical standards. I certainly hope I would do the same. But these days it isn't so easy to simply change jobs. It would probably involve moving to another area, maybe even another state. Not to mention a big cut in pay as you throw away any seniority. And if all the ethical people leave the force, then they will simply be replaced and replaced until the only people left are unethical. Doesn't sound like an improvement.

Why are you resisting laying the blame where it belongs?

>> ^MaxWilder:

>> ^Stormsinger:
>> ^MaxWilder:
You really can't blame the cops for this. They get their orders from higher up the food chain, from people who are struggling with budgets every day. It's the lawmakers who are encouraging (or at least allowing) this kind of ridiculous behavior. If seized money went to drug rehab centers or something like that, the shakedowns would stop. And of course, lawmakers would have to fund the cops from normal taxes, which they would prefer to spend on their pet projects.
Ultimately, it's the people of the state who must demand changes to the laws, and that's unlikely because the cops target out-of-state plates. Perhaps if this starts to impact legit tourism or something, it might get a referendum. But since there are few legit reasons for carrying large quantities of cash, it's unlikely to change.
BTW, don't carry around large amounts of cash. That's stupid.

I agree with you on everything except the "can't blame the cops". "Just following orders" is no excuse for committing an injustice...

While I agree that "just following orders" is not a strong defense, it's not like they are committing war crimes. For the most part, it really is drug money they are seizing. Are they supposed to throw away their careers in order to try to change something that should be changed by the lawmakers and citizens who elect those lawmakers?


Throwing away? You really think they'd lose their entire career by making such policies known to the public, or talking to the press about it? I don't.

And even if they did...I chose not to work for employers who didn't meet at least the minimum of my ethical standards, and I have no reservations in believing others should do the same. If everyone did, we'd probably not be in the shithouse we find ourselves in these days.

>> ^Stormsinger:

>> ^MaxWilder:
You really can't blame the cops for this. They get their orders from higher up the food chain, from people who are struggling with budgets every day. It's the lawmakers who are encouraging (or at least allowing) this kind of ridiculous behavior. If seized money went to drug rehab centers or something like that, the shakedowns would stop. And of course, lawmakers would have to fund the cops from normal taxes, which they would prefer to spend on their pet projects.
Ultimately, it's the people of the state who must demand changes to the laws, and that's unlikely because the cops target out-of-state plates. Perhaps if this starts to impact legit tourism or something, it might get a referendum. But since there are few legit reasons for carrying large quantities of cash, it's unlikely to change.
BTW, don't carry around large amounts of cash. That's stupid.

I agree with you on everything except the "can't blame the cops". "Just following orders" is no excuse for committing an injustice...


While I agree that "just following orders" is not a strong defense, it's not like they are committing war crimes. For the most part, it really is drug money they are seizing. Are they supposed to throw away their careers in order to try to change something that should be changed by the lawmakers and citizens who elect those lawmakers?

>> ^MaxWilder:

You really can't blame the cops for this. They get their orders from higher up the food chain, from people who are struggling with budgets every day. It's the lawmakers who are encouraging (or at least allowing) this kind of ridiculous behavior. If seized money went to drug rehab centers or something like that, the shakedowns would stop. And of course, lawmakers would have to fund the cops from normal taxes, which they would prefer to spend on their pet projects.
Ultimately, it's the people of the state who must demand changes to the laws, and that's unlikely because the cops target out-of-state plates. Perhaps if this starts to impact legit tourism or something, it might get a referendum. But since there are few legit reasons for carrying large quantities of cash, it's unlikely to change.
BTW, don't carry around large amounts of cash. That's stupid.


I agree with you on everything except the "can't blame the cops". "Just following orders" is no excuse for committing an injustice...