5 ms·

Civil asset forfeiture is horrible and we should get rid of it. On a different note, my takeaway from this story: pick your battles. Sure, you can go into an

Civil asset forfeiture is horrible and we should get rid of it. On a different note, my takeaway from this story: pick your battles. Sure, you can go into an airport with $11k in cash. Maybe you're a Sikh and you want to carry a kirpan [0] into the airport, or you're a high school kid working on a science project and you have a bunch of C-cell batteries taped together with wires hanging out the ends of them (experience talking). You're probably increasing your odds of getting stopped. Sometimes it's worth it, maybe for strong religious beliefs, or you feel strongly about the exercise of your democratic rights. But fighting the collective weight of "normal", shared perception, culture, etc. is costly. You'll be delayed, people will ask lots of annoying questions, in general you'll expend a lot of energy on stuff that is in some sense, entirely avoidable. I felt this way recently when trying to get a loan for a house from Wells Fargo. Quit my W2 a few months ago for a large contract. I couldn't convince the bank my income was solid even though the payment was about 1/8th of my taxable income and I had almost the entire mortgage balance in semi-liquid retirement accounts. Sometimes the message the world sends is, "conform". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirpan

ddingus 11y ago
I've had similar experiences when taking electronics along on business travel. When it's me and a boring hotel room for the week, why not? Lots of fun, and I enjoy low level programming. Conform is the word of the day for travel. Wish it wasn't. I've since learned to avoid batteries. Most of the other stuff won't be at issue. There is no significant mass, and that means no significant threat. (mostly)
imaginenore 11y ago
Civil asset forfeiture is fine if you're convicted, and the law says it's ok for a given crime. The current situation is ridiculous, and I'm surprised nobody brought a case all the way to The Supreme Court (I mean a case when a person was not charged and/or not found guilty).
- eldavido 11y ago
  Small nitpick, the word "civil" is important here. If you're convicted of a crime, there is nothing "civil" about it, you're tried opposing a public official (district attorney -- not a private party) and convicted of a criminal offense. I don't think anyone here is arguing that asset forfeiture isn't appropriate for convicted criminals.
- nickff 11y ago
  If something is taken when you're convicted, it's usually criminal asset forfeiture. One argument in favor of civil asset forfeiture is that it is the only way to take assets from the estate of a criminal who died before being convicted. The Supreme Court only takes cases it wants, usually because different circuit courts (the level below the Supreme Court) are at odds with one another. The Supreme Court also sometimes takes cases which they are certain will have circuit splits, ones of particular importance (Bush v. Gore), and those which are causing a body of law to be developed which the SC justices believe to be incorrect. Because of these facts, you cannot force a case on to the Supreme Court docket; they are probably waiting for the right case to take.
  - stretchwithme 11y ago
    Can't you just get it from the estate? Anyway, that's relatively rare and doesn't justify suspending the property rights of individuals without due process.
    - nickff 11y ago
      Why would the estate give its property to the government instead of following the will? It is not as rare as you might think, but even if it were very frequent, it would not justify taking people's property for no good reason.
      - stretchwithme 11y ago
        I meant upon conviction they can get what the person would have been fined. Can't execution of the will wait until all cases are finished?
reagency 11y ago
That's great if you are privileged enough to pass as normal. Not acting Jewish was fine in 1937 Germany too, until that wasn't good enough and they started checking who your grandparents were.
- eldavido 11y ago
  Guess it all depends on how you measure your life. Literature is filled with ample anecdotes of members of the WW2 French resistance, prisoners, and other persecuted minorities holding their tongue until the time was right. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the battle to win the war, though it may seem less "heroic" in the moment.
rdancer 11y ago
To many clever people it will probably seem that in the case of this young gentleman, and in cases of many similar people all across the nation, the battle picks them. Your advice basically boils down to: "If I could go to a bank with a saner management, surely you can go to a country with a saner government." That may be the case, but some people would prefer the government to do the going.

ddingus 11y ago

I've had similar experiences when taking electronics along on business travel. When it's me and a boring hotel room for the week, why not? Lots of fun, and I enjoy low level programming. Conform is the word of the day for travel. Wish it wasn't. I've since learned to avoid batteries. Most of the other stuff won't be at issue. There is no significant mass, and that means no significant threat. (mostly)

imaginenore 11y ago

Civil asset forfeiture is fine if you're convicted, and the law says it's ok for a given crime. The current situation is ridiculous, and I'm surprised nobody brought a case all the way to The Supreme Court (I mean a case when a person was not charged and/or not found guilty).

eldavido 11y ago
Small nitpick, the word "civil" is important here. If you're convicted of a crime, there is nothing "civil" about it, you're tried opposing a public official (district attorney -- not a private party) and convicted of a criminal offense. I don't think anyone here is arguing that asset forfeiture isn't appropriate for convicted criminals.
nickff 11y ago
If something is taken when you're convicted, it's usually criminal asset forfeiture. One argument in favor of civil asset forfeiture is that it is the only way to take assets from the estate of a criminal who died before being convicted. The Supreme Court only takes cases it wants, usually because different circuit courts (the level below the Supreme Court) are at odds with one another. The Supreme Court also sometimes takes cases which they are certain will have circuit splits, ones of particular importance (Bush v. Gore), and those which are causing a body of law to be developed which the SC justices believe to be incorrect. Because of these facts, you cannot force a case on to the Supreme Court docket; they are probably waiting for the right case to take.
- stretchwithme 11y ago
  Can't you just get it from the estate? Anyway, that's relatively rare and doesn't justify suspending the property rights of individuals without due process.
  - nickff 11y ago
    Why would the estate give its property to the government instead of following the will? It is not as rare as you might think, but even if it were very frequent, it would not justify taking people's property for no good reason.
    - stretchwithme 11y ago
      I meant upon conviction they can get what the person would have been fined. Can't execution of the will wait until all cases are finished?

reagency 11y ago

That's great if you are privileged enough to pass as normal. Not acting Jewish was fine in 1937 Germany too, until that wasn't good enough and they started checking who your grandparents were.

eldavido 11y ago
Guess it all depends on how you measure your life. Literature is filled with ample anecdotes of members of the WW2 French resistance, prisoners, and other persecuted minorities holding their tongue until the time was right. Sometimes you have to sacrifice the battle to win the war, though it may seem less "heroic" in the moment.

rdancer 11y ago

To many clever people it will probably seem that in the case of this young gentleman, and in cases of many similar people all across the nation, the battle picks them. Your advice basically boils down to: "If I could go to a bank with a saner management, surely you can go to a country with a saner government." That may be the case, but some people would prefer the government to do the going.