I can see how one might come to the assumption that the victims here are "poor", and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are, but I didn't see any suggestio

I can see how one might come to the assumption that the victims here are "poor", and I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are, but I didn't see any suggestion of that in the article. I would presume that the less well-off victims did not have the legal resources (as these men did) to challenge the police's actions. Of the three victims that were profiled, 2 were business owners, all 3 (presumably) owned vehicles, and were carrying anywhere from $18k to $75. Now, that doesn't mean they were well off, but it's also not sounding like most people's definition of poverty. Surely business owners have to deal with the costs of bank transactions. Again, I'm not trying to blame the victims here. I think they were wronged and that the police are overstepping their mandate. I do empathize with what happened to them. However, I've had enough experiences in life to form the belief that while at the same time you should stand up and speak against wrongdoings like this, you should also protect yourself as best you can, knowing that these things, sadly, will happen. That's where my original question originated from. For example, I don't keep valuables in my car, because while I know that the thieves who break into my car once or twice a year are completely in the wrong, I know I am putting myself at risk if I leave stuff in there for them to take. I'm not going to leave stuff in the car out of principle, because it's my "right".