Doesn't he know whose side he's on?
The agencies that manage law officers create profiles of suspicious people. Ignoring for a moment that they include contradictions – like he rushed or he was very early, he looked the officer in the eye or he evaded loohng him in the eye – the Joneses displayed no suspicious behavior. At every step they were candid if imprecise. They were traveling as a family, in normal dress, and remained polite and calm.
---
A lack of leadership at the agency allowed this. Its mission statement – which none of the officers could recall at the trial – is to serve the American public with vigilance, integrity, and professionalism. They displayed none of these. The agency says that integrity is its cornerstone; that its officers are guided by the highest ethical and moral principles. A gang of armed security officers bullied this family – a family who cooperated with the officers to their detriment. Our homeland will not be secure by these rascals. They played agency games, abused the people they are to serve, and violated their oaths to support the Constitution.
Oh, I'm sure it'll be overturned on appeal or just forgotten in the shuffle - these people will never see their money. But I do wonder where this judge was on the day Bureaucrat School covered "We're right, you're wrong, so just comply and maybe we won't kill you." He's getting it wrong.
2 comments:
Wow, I had to fight the urge to stand up out of respect when I was reading that.
It was a smackdown of epic proportions.
Unfortunately, there's not a word about the fact that how much in cash, checks, or pop bottle caps a person carries is anyone's business, and especially not any of government's business.
If they had been wise, they'd have sent their money - one way or another - ahead of them. Bet they will next time.
Carrying more than lunch money is very dangerous these days. That won't change until far more of us are carrying something else...
Post a Comment