8 ms·

I am an absolutist in this regard. no one is an embezzler, conman or contract killer until they have been proven to be beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of t

I am an absolutist in this regard. no one is an embezzler, conman or contract killer until they have been proven to be beyond a reasonable doubt by a jury of their peers, Until then they are innocent and any taking of their property it immoral theft. Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF. Any Freezing of Assets or property at a minimum should be directly and irrevocably linked to a criminal prosecution of some kind I see no reason the government should be allowed to cease assets with out even charging a persons with crime I also see no reason why when those assets are seized the burden is upon me to prove my innocence CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices. Period, End of Discussion

kbenson 11y ago
> Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF. Yes, and it also requires time. > CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices. CF is used to seize intercepted illegal goods at the border, and items left at the scene of a crime where there is nobody around to charge. Is that promoting unethical practices? A grenade is left in a populated area, and the police are called and confiscate it. That's CF. Without it the police are stealing someone's property. Requiring the police to find and convict someone before seizing what is an dangerous or illegal item does not make sense. It needs to be accounted for in some manner, which is the heart of my argument. Revise CF, or abolish it and pass other laws as needed for the useful cases it supported. Abolishment without understanding or examination is irresponsible. > Period, End of Discussion Sure. If you know everything there is to know about a topic, and all possible current and future interpretations of it, then that makes sense. Since I don't believe that applies to any human being, I don't think that's a rational stance to take. Apparently you do.

kbenson 11y ago

> Further During Criminal Proceeding a judge can order property secured, i.e if a person is charged with embezzlement the judge can order prior to conviction a bank account be frozen, this is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than CF. Yes, and it also requires time. > CF is an abomination of "Justice" is has no place in any Justice System, any defense of it is promoting unethical practices. CF is used to seize intercepted illegal goods at the border, and items left at the scene of a crime where there is nobody around to charge. Is that promoting unethical practices? A grenade is left in a populated area, and the police are called and confiscate it. That's CF. Without it the police are stealing someone's property. Requiring the police to find and convict someone before seizing what is an dangerous or illegal item does not make sense. It needs to be accounted for in some manner, which is the heart of my argument. Revise CF, or abolish it and pass other laws as needed for the useful cases it supported. Abolishment without understanding or examination is irresponsible. > Period, End of Discussion Sure. If you know everything there is to know about a topic, and all possible current and future interpretations of it, then that makes sense. Since I don't believe that applies to any human being, I don't think that's a rational stance to take. Apparently you do.