I have no idea what the post says that you replied to. I can't stand people YELLING AT ME in ALL CAPS POSTS! It would be nice if folks could content themselves with the usage of common punctuation marks like the much maligned exclamation.

Cmon, keep it real...... a tootsie pop stick out the mouth. Tophat we can definitely agree on!

That is a mis-characterization. You may fault the agency involved for pushing the seizure of drug money, you may fault them for leaving jurisdiction. Those decisions on where to focus the efforts of the agency are usually made at the command level. The city's citizens can and do effect how that is done by being involved and making their opinions known. However, what do you want the officers to do. The citizens want the problems that drug dealing causing in their neighborhood solved. Law enforcement agencies attempt to split their efforts into BOTH seizing the drugs or money before it can be sold and after it is sold to individuals. Generally, citizens want us to seize it before it gets to their children. If you have another way to seize it without violating the constitutional rights of people we are supposed to protect, share it with the police in your town.

As a side note to forestall the corrupt officer/agency comments: Yes some police officers are corrupt and some agencies have more of them than others. But the fact is that most officers are trying to do the best job we can with limited resources. The good officers who are doing good just aren't as splashily newsworthy as the scandalous one. As an officer, I want the most amount of transparency in regards to our procedures, paperwork, and evidence. I am a strong proponent of in-car cameras.

A transparent police agency is an honest agency.

Not to mention, when the "youth" get on the internet it is to illegally download music and search for pornography.

Brought to you by the same sane, rational and reasonable people who want to manage every other aspect of your life. It goes to show that education does not equal intelligence.

Well, with no cable, no satellite and no antenna I will have to wait for the season on DVD. Still waiting for the day I can subscribe to specific channels with no additional fluff.

Come on officer, your knee was between this guys legs. USE IT!

Wow, I totally forgot about Fern Gully. It really is Avatar, total and complete. DOH!

OK, just looked up the OathKeepers online. If what they are being asked to sign is an agreement with the ten oaths not to obey I can see where some would hesitate. Number 7, "We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext" would negate an american citizen in a foreign land captured as an enemy combatant being placed in Guantanamo Bay detention center. John Walker Lindh was captured on an enemy battlefield, held by the military, before later transporting him at the orders of then Attorney General Ashcroft to the US to face federal trials. Now, I am not positive to the legalities, but could he have faced a tribunal in those circumstances?

Also, number 4 is 4. "We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a “state of emergency” on a state." Now, dismissing this as an outright, not under any circumstances statement would give me pause. In extreme weather circumstances, where the national guard's manpower is not enough, could supplementing with soldiers help? They have for wildfire fighting. Not for martial law, but for states of emergency. There is a lack of clarity in these.

Perhaps the info you have is more detailed.

Do you have the wording or phrasing of the actual pamphlet?