"I don't understand how he saved that money, so it's probably via some nefarious means".
No, a thousand times no. The government has billions of dollars to spend on prosecuting me. I have much less to spend defending myself.
The standards should be set such that it is very hard for the government to convict me, by requiring things like "evidence", and "probably cause". The standards should be that it is very easy to defend myself "prove your conjecture beyond a reasonable doubt, or I walk".
The alternative is totalitarian dictatorships. The guy in charge thinks you're bad? Yup. You're bad. No trial, no defence, no conviction. Just secret police knocking down your door at 2am, and your neighbors waking up the next day with you gone.
Everyone is too afraid to defend themselves, so the dictatorship continues.
History shows that's the result of opinions like yours. It's why you're getting downvoted.
I'll respond to myself instead of to your response to me. You're getting downvoted enough that I can't reply.
In short, you don't seem to understand or care that your attitude leads to dictatorship and oppression. I have ethical problems with this attitude.
For me, I don't care where he got the money from. If the government can't prove it's the result of criminal behavior, it should have no right to seize the money. It's that simple.
Except that I didn't say anything at all about the Government's right to seize the money.
I commented on the stupidity of transporting the money in such a fashion, and the skepticism of what the article was telling me about how he got the money. And, no, even though you would like to misrepresent that statement, it does not imply he did something nefarious to get it.
So if I understand what you're saying here: "You don't believe that the Government had a right to seize this guy's money, but since you question the story you're given in any way, your attitude leads to dictatorship and oppression."
First off, upon googling this case beyond the two paragraphs, the money didn't just come from waiting tables and working retail. I've done both, and saving that much would have been nearly impossible for me. So while you question that assumption, it turns out I was right. At no point did I suggest the source of the money was nefarious.
Second, I'm much more concerned with the foolishness of putting one's life savings ($11,000) in a bag, and handing that bag off to someone, who will hand it off to someone else, who will hopefully put it in the right plane, and then someone else will hopefully pick it up, and that person will put it on the right conveyor belt, and nobody else will just take the bag anyway off the conveyor belt and walk off with it.
> Second, I'm much more concerned with the foolishness of putting one's life savings ($11,000) in a bag, and handing that bag off to someone, who will hand it off to someone else, who will hopefully put it in the right plane, and then someone else will hopefully pick it up, and that person will put it on the right conveyor belt, and nobody else will just take the bag anyway off the conveyor belt and walk off with it.
There's no doubt about this being an insecure method of transferring money. A criminal could steal it. All the more reason to be disgusted when the thief turns out to be the police.
The only thing curious about that is that he didn't save more. You can make a lot of money as a waiter or waitress in the US, assuming you work at a place that lets you keep the majority of your tips.
I had to look it up because it's so bizarre. The explanation is even more bizarre.
>Charles was carrying his cash because his bank has few physical branches and he and his mother were in the process of moving and he didn’t want to lose his life savings in the move while he was in Cincinnati.
So open up a Chase, or Bank of America, or <insert bank here> account instead of risking someone just stealing your cash in a checked bag that you won't be watching for a few hours, much less airport security?. I've lost bags at the airlines before and had them sent to the wrong cities and such.
This. I can accept that carrying lots of cash is foolish because you might be robbed by a criminal. I can not accept the idea that carrying cash is foolish because you might be robbed by the government.
"I don't understand how he saved that money, so it's probably via some nefarious means".
No, a thousand times no. The government has billions of dollars to spend on prosecuting me. I have much less to spend defending myself.
The standards should be set such that it is very hard for the government to convict me, by requiring things like "evidence", and "probably cause". The standards should be that it is very easy to defend myself "prove your conjecture beyond a reasonable doubt, or I walk".
The alternative is totalitarian dictatorships. The guy in charge thinks you're bad? Yup. You're bad. No trial, no defence, no conviction. Just secret police knocking down your door at 2am, and your neighbors waking up the next day with you gone.
Everyone is too afraid to defend themselves, so the dictatorship continues.
History shows that's the result of opinions like yours. It's why you're getting downvoted.