http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/11/uc-berkeley-launches-investigation-into-viral-video-of-cop-confiscating-hot-dog-vendors-cash/?utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#link_time=1505177545


***?????
I don't see any cops taking the cash from the Greeks water sales.
Next will be your kid's lemonade stand.

"Public Health Issue," my ass.
If Cal was concerned about that they would put in real drinking fountains instead of providing water out of a garden hose.

The story has gone national. Here's the Washington Post's article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/12/video-shows-a-police-officer-taking-cash-from-a-hot-dog-vendors-wallet-while-issuing-a-citation/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.20bec69f4206

Booth. Has since been moved to the "Off Topic" forum so easy to miss

https://bearinsider.com/forums/6/topics/75438

it's international news as well. Horrible PR.

UC needs to get ahead of this because it's spiraling out of control in the public mindset, and for good reason.

I dont have an issue with taking the cash as evidence. Of course, otherwise he just is giving hotdogs away.

Latinos selling food from carts and trucks is one of the cool things about the west, though. Without that culture exchange, I lose some enjoyment.

"Taco Trucks" used to be similarly grey areas.

Was the cop going to pocket the money? Is he selectively favoring some illegal vendors over others? Absent this, I feel bad for the cop whose superiors are being pressured to fire him.

LOL!!
"Dude, you can keep the cart, the dogs, the peppers and onions........
But I'm gonna have to confiscate all the money in your wallet, evidence"...........

"hot dog hot dog"

The hot dog vendors are a new thing that I don't recall seeing 20 years ago. They've cropped up on every street corner after the game. No way UC police enforce this unless there was a complaint. Either Top Dog complained or somebody got sick and blamed the food. Some are calling this racist but I seem to recall Bear Territory getting similar treatment for unlicensed t-shirt sales. And I thought the water sales were by sports teams and not the greeks?

Thought wrong.
Lots of different groups....but what does it matter if they don't have a vendor's permit either.
I also saw the dude selling knockoff Beastmode shirts for $5.....in front of the command station RV no less.
Cheers!
Go Bears!!!

Ok, people on this thread and in the other thread, and in other threads keep harping on the same thing.

If the officer simply gave the dude a citation and escorted him off campus, this would not be a story. Nobody would care.

It's the taking of cash from his wallet that has so resonated with people. That's why it's the title of this thread.

But people like to argue that the law, the law, the law.

That's not the point.

It's the cash, the cash, the cash.

It resonates with people because of the civil forfeiture controversy.

Isn't this a criminal, not civil forfeiture? Do you doubt the guilt of the vendor or do you feel that, even with guilt, criminal forfeiture should be illegal? Is this really the case to hang your hat on? What makes this vendor so sympathetic? Is it lack of knowledge of the law? Is it his assumed poverty? Is it his race?

Law, my ass.
As of January 1, 2017.....only forfeiture with a conviction.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/keep-your-cash-civil-asset-forfeiture-curtailed-under-new-california-law

Go Bears!!

Damn, liberal media is taking notice.

From now on I'm buying hot dogs from these vendors at every home game. The University will have to up its harassment policy to get rid of them altogether to stop me. And I'm done buying any concessions inside the stadium until there is a full apology and a stop to the harassment.

By the way, I don't think the officer should be fired for enforcing this misbegotten policy. I think he should be officially reprimanded for being a jerk about it instead of patiently and politely explaining what he was doing.

Here's a search of "berkeley" and "Vendor" on Google News.
https://www.google.com/search?num=100&safe=off&hl=en&gl=us&biw=1311&bih=864&tbs=sbd%3A1&tbm=nws&q=berkeley+vendor&oq=berkeley+vendor&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0l3.1443.3424.0.3537.15.9.0.0.0.0.321.871.2-2j1.3.0....0...1.1.64.psy-ab..12.3.869.N_0oaOlH1h4

Look at all the articles!

Now, the cop may have been following rules.

But the reason it's news, the reason many consider it wrong, is because it *looks* so unusual. It doesn't look routine.

It's like the United Airlines passenger. Sure, the rules say he should've just walked off the plane. The rules say he should obey authority. But it just look so unusual, and it looked so wrong. (And you couldn't imagine the police dragging a grandma off a plane for not doing anything wrong.)

-----> And in the United Airlines incident, everybody who bashed the guy and defended the cops and the airline are benefitting from his actions as the airlines have put a halt to those overbooking rules.

"Now, the cop may have been following rules."

Please provide me with a current CA statute that states this action is legit.....
Go ahead, I'll wait.

Go Bears!!

Hey, I'm on your side. I'm just saying that there is always going to be somebody who justifies a cop's overreach...

So far, though, I haven't read any articles stating that it was wrong, even from left-wing publications. So...

So we let the tree sitters alone for months. (costing UC lot's of money)
And we hassle, a guy trying to make a buck and feed his kids!!!

***?

How did leaving the tree sitters alone cost the UC money?

oski003 said:

---

Isn't this a criminal, not civil forfeiture? Do you doubt the guilt of the vendor or do you feel that, even with guilt, criminal forfeiture should be illegal? Is this really the case to hang your hat on? What makes this vendor so sympathetic? Is it lack of knowledge of the law? Is it his assumed poverty? Is it his race?

---

Because the vendor is a victim minority, not a criminal, and the cop is, well, a cop, so he must be evil.

JimSox said:

---

From now on I'm buying hot dogs from these vendors at every home game. The University will have to up its harassment policy to get rid of them altogether to stop me. And I'm done buying any concessions inside the stadium until there is a full apology and a stop to the harassment.

---

I've had a few cocktails, but this seems absurd. I guess the UCPD took a break from allowing antifa to do whatever criminal activity it pleases, got bored and decided to harass some minorities. Okay then.

64k raised on gofundme

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4878690/Robbed-hot-dog-vendor-says-trying-breadwinner.html

Bears2thDoc said:

---

Law, my ass.
As of January 1, 2017.....only forfeiture with a conviction.
http://www.drugpolicy.org/blog/keep-your-cash-civil-asset-forfeiture-curtailed-under-new-california-law

Go Bears!!

---

Doesn't this law apply to drug related forfeitures?

....

https://www.nytimes.com/newsletters/2017/09/13/california-today

I feel bad for the cop too. I'm sure when he dreamed of growing up to be a police officer (as my 3 year old does), that he never dreamed he would be a UCPD bike cop wearing a helmet and shorts to work and clamping down on unlicensed street meat during sporting events.

I think this sort of thing could only happen at Cal where you have the collision of a clueless administration, a challenging environment and a socially/politically engaged population.

I'm hopeful that Juan gets a permit (along with everyone else) and ends up with a booming bacon-wrapped hotdog business. Nothing would be more California than that.

tequila4kapp said:

---

oski003 said:

---

Isn't this a criminal, not civil forfeiture? Do you doubt the guilt of the vendor or do you feel that, even with guilt, criminal forfeiture should be illegal? Is this really the case to hang your hat on? What makes this vendor so sympathetic? Is it lack of knowledge of the law? Is it his assumed poverty? Is it his race?

---

Because the vendor is a victim minority, not a criminal, and the cop is, well, a cop, so he must be evil.

---

To be clear: the small government proponents have no problem with a government official opening your wallet and taking your cash at the time of citation. You are letting your identity politics cloud your judgment. What happened here was invasive, and that's true no matter the race or presumed income level of the victim.

You all know of course that whn someone dies from eating a tainted hot dog from one of these vendors that the University is going to be sued for tens of millions for not controlling them......

I understand that the feeling this is selective enforcement seems unfair but for all we know the other vendors had permits at least....

oldblue83 said:

---

You all know of course that whn someone dies from eating a tainted hot dog from one of these vendors that the University is going to be sued for tens of millions for not controlling them......

I understand that the feeling this is selective enforcement seems unfair but for all we know the other vendors had permits at least....

---

I am not a big fan of resources to cite and escort someone who is obviously breaking several laws. Either change the laws or enforce them. Those laws affect the legal businesses that pay taxes and are subject to regulations that do hurt their bottom line. I defend Top Dog. There is a nexus between the cash in his wallet and the vendor illegally selling food in people's paths.

dajo9 said:

---

How did leaving the tree sitters alone cost the UC money?

---

Because it delayed the construction of the SAHPC and the retrofit of CMS by over a year, which increased construction costs.

UrsaMajor said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

How did leaving the tree sitters alone cost the UC money?

---

Because it delayed the construction of the SAHPC and the retrofit of CMS by over a year, which increased construction costs.

---

No. This is just not true. They couldn't begin construction because of the lawsuits - by PHA and the City of Berkeley. The treesitters were removed as soon as construction was ready to go.

UrsaMajor said:

---

dajo9 said:

---

How did leaving the tree sitters alone cost the UC money?

---

Because it delayed the construction of the SAHPC and the retrofit of CMS by over a year, which increased construction costs.

---

The treesitters didn't delay anything. They had no case and the court never stopped construction because of the trees or treesitters. Construction was delayed because of the city and Panoramic Hills. (Shouldn't have been, but that is another issue). The treesitters got a lot of attention, but nothing they did amounted to anything

dajo9 said:

---

How did leaving the tree sitters alone cost the UC money?

---

"UC Berkeley police have spent $300,000 and taken more than 200 police reports while managing a group of protesters living in campus trees for 17 months, says Cal Police Chief Victoria Harrison."

http://www.eastbaytimes.com/2008/04/10/berkeley-tree-sitters-have-cost-the-university-300000/

That doesn't include the court costs and other stuff. This is just the cost to the UCPD.