8 ms·

You're never charged with a crime, the object is and it is not given representation. So there's no "innocent until proven guilty" for inanimate objects. Despic

by stackus 10y ago

You're never charged with a crime, the object is and it is not given representation. So there's no "innocent until proven guilty" for inanimate objects. Despicable, and akin to highway robbery in my opinion.

dragonwriter 10y ago
> You're never charged with a crime, the object is and it is not given representation. No one and nothing is charged with a crime in civil asset forfeiture.
- khedoros 10y ago
  But you do end up with amusing case names like "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...). The currency is defined as the defendant in the case.
  - mcbits 10y ago
    I feel like I'm living in the Matrix when I see things like this. There are people out there - lawyers and judges, who must be fairly smart to finish law school - who think "United States v. $124,700" makes perfect sense.
    - emn13 10y ago
      Hey, if a corporation is a person...
    - sgnelson 10y ago
      I was told when I first started graduate school that it's not about how smart one is, but rather it's about perseverance, the ability to jump through bureaucratic hoops, bite your tongue and do what you're told. I have come to believe this since I've met some incredibly brilliant PhD's, but I've also met some incredibly dumb PhD's.
      - vacri 10y ago
        A PhD is more about elbow-grease than intellect. You do need some intellectual chops (in your field - you can be very naive outside it), but you need perseverance more than anything. I've met some PhDs who would run rings around anyone in their niche, but would be (metaphorically) unable to tie their shoelaces by themselves.
ahallock 10y ago
That doesn't make sense. Objects cannot commit crimes since they aren't human beings and thus cannot act, have rights, etc. Is this what Statism has come to? I know we have the whole corporations are people nonsense, but this is straying even further into complete irrationality. I know it's just to circumvent the law, but if they can create fiction like that, there's pretty much no law and order anymore.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Because of War On Drugs people had no problem with this. If you had asked when this law was passed someone random Joe Schmoe on the street -- "Is this a good law, we'll get all those rich drug lords?". They would have probably nodded and agreed. So the law was pushed through. Then some day cops realized they can apply this law for fun and profit. And so they have been.
hackuser 10y ago
The objects are property, and people have property rights.
- gozur88 10y ago
  Sure, people have property rights, which, in this case, they've stripped without due process. Or indeed, any process at all. There's no way I'd carry a bank card in OK.
  - eric_h 10y ago
    This comment[1] suggests that the product does not work with an actual bank card, only prepaid cards, which boggles the mind. 1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11865494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11865494
    - gozur88 10y ago
      The article says "Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards." It wouldn't be the first time a news article was wrong, though it'd be nice to know for sure.
Pwntastic 10y ago
It is literally highway robbery, as it is the highway patrol pulling you over and stealing your money.
- adventured 10y ago
  In thread after thread on this topic - civil asset forfeiture in its various forms - I see people do elaborate intellectual dances to describe or title what this is. Nothing more than: highway robbery, is necessary. You're spot on, that's exactly what it is, and it's nothing more. It's robbery. Using any other names for it, just assists the police in covering up what they're doing through confusion. Everyone should begin calling it robbery by police or the equivalent, and stop referring to it as civil asset forfeiture in public forums (that's only useful in a technical/legal regard).
  - unimpressive 10y ago
    In a similar vein, I liked the suggestion that we should start calling "Parallel Reconstruction" evidence laundering.
    - colinbartlett 10y ago
      "Officer involved shooting" These are all language tricks used to manipulate the masses. "Double plus good" is not a stretch at this point if we become complacent to this kind of manipulation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/the-curious-grammar-of-police-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/...
      - caf 10y ago
        "collateral damage" - these sorts of tricks are not new.
        OscarCunningham 10y ago
        The CIA is the master of yhese euphemisms; "extraordinary rendition" for kidnapping and "enhanced interrogation" for torture.
1_2__3 10y ago
This is flatly incorrect. This is a civil proceeding, neither you nor your property are charged with a crime. Instead, a civil (not criminal) forfeiture proceeding is initiated against your property. I'm not just being pedantic, this is part of why it's so incredibly fucked. They have, no exaggeration, taken a portion of the criminal legal system with all the constraints and due process requirements there, excised it with a legislative scalpel and grafted it back on to the civil system. I honestly to this day don't understand why government is allowed any access at all to the civil system as a plaintiff, at least not beyond the local level. Oh wait, yes I do understand: It's specifically to fuck the people over.
- mahyarm 10y ago
  Sue a contractor for not upholding your contract with the federal / state government? Like road building or whatever else.
  - 1_2__3 10y ago
    I have to imagine there's a giant pile of (criminal) laws they could use to prosecute someone who's trying to defraud the government. But your point is still well-taken, and it's kind of academic anyway - it's an incredibly valuable (and lucrative) tool for the government, of course they're not going to give it up.

by stackus 10y ago

dragonwriter 10y ago

> You're never charged with a crime, the object is and it is not given representation. No one and nothing is charged with a crime in civil asset forfeiture.

khedoros 10y ago
But you do end up with amusing case names like "United States v. $124,700 in U.S. Currency" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U.S._Currency https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._$124,700_in_U...). The currency is defined as the defendant in the case.
- mcbits 10y ago
  I feel like I'm living in the Matrix when I see things like this. There are people out there - lawyers and judges, who must be fairly smart to finish law school - who think "United States v. $124,700" makes perfect sense.
  - emn13 10y ago
    Hey, if a corporation is a person...
  - sgnelson 10y ago
    I was told when I first started graduate school that it's not about how smart one is, but rather it's about perseverance, the ability to jump through bureaucratic hoops, bite your tongue and do what you're told. I have come to believe this since I've met some incredibly brilliant PhD's, but I've also met some incredibly dumb PhD's.
    - vacri 10y ago
      A PhD is more about elbow-grease than intellect. You do need some intellectual chops (in your field - you can be very naive outside it), but you need perseverance more than anything. I've met some PhDs who would run rings around anyone in their niche, but would be (metaphorically) unable to tie their shoelaces by themselves.

ahallock 10y ago

That doesn't make sense. Objects cannot commit crimes since they aren't human beings and thus cannot act, have rights, etc. Is this what Statism has come to? I know we have the whole corporations are people nonsense, but this is straying even further into complete irrationality. I know it's just to circumvent the law, but if they can create fiction like that, there's pretty much no law and order anymore.

rdtsc 10y ago
Because of War On Drugs people had no problem with this. If you had asked when this law was passed someone random Joe Schmoe on the street -- "Is this a good law, we'll get all those rich drug lords?". They would have probably nodded and agreed. So the law was pushed through. Then some day cops realized they can apply this law for fun and profit. And so they have been.

hackuser 10y ago

The objects are property, and people have property rights.

gozur88 10y ago
Sure, people have property rights, which, in this case, they've stripped without due process. Or indeed, any process at all. There's no way I'd carry a bank card in OK.
- eric_h 10y ago
  This comment[1] suggests that the product does not work with an actual bank card, only prepaid cards, which boggles the mind. 1) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11865494 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11865494
  - gozur88 10y ago
    The article says "Now, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol has a device that also allows them to seize money in your bank account or on prepaid cards." It wouldn't be the first time a news article was wrong, though it'd be nice to know for sure.

Pwntastic 10y ago

It is literally highway robbery, as it is the highway patrol pulling you over and stealing your money.

adventured 10y ago
In thread after thread on this topic - civil asset forfeiture in its various forms - I see people do elaborate intellectual dances to describe or title what this is. Nothing more than: highway robbery, is necessary. You're spot on, that's exactly what it is, and it's nothing more. It's robbery. Using any other names for it, just assists the police in covering up what they're doing through confusion. Everyone should begin calling it robbery by police or the equivalent, and stop referring to it as civil asset forfeiture in public forums (that's only useful in a technical/legal regard).
- unimpressive 10y ago
  In a similar vein, I liked the suggestion that we should start calling "Parallel Reconstruction" evidence laundering.
  - colinbartlett 10y ago
    "Officer involved shooting" These are all language tricks used to manipulate the masses. "Double plus good" is not a stretch at this point if we become complacent to this kind of manipulation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/the-curious-grammar-of-police-shootings/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/14/...
    - caf 10y ago
      "collateral damage" - these sorts of tricks are not new.
      - OscarCunningham 10y ago
        The CIA is the master of yhese euphemisms; "extraordinary rendition" for kidnapping and "enhanced interrogation" for torture.

1_2__3 10y ago

This is flatly incorrect. This is a civil proceeding, neither you nor your property are charged with a crime. Instead, a civil (not criminal) forfeiture proceeding is initiated against your property. I'm not just being pedantic, this is part of why it's so incredibly fucked. They have, no exaggeration, taken a portion of the criminal legal system with all the constraints and due process requirements there, excised it with a legislative scalpel and grafted it back on to the civil system. I honestly to this day don't understand why government is allowed any access at all to the civil system as a plaintiff, at least not beyond the local level. Oh wait, yes I do understand: It's specifically to fuck the people over.

mahyarm 10y ago
Sue a contractor for not upholding your contract with the federal / state government? Like road building or whatever else.
- 1_2__3 10y ago
  I have to imagine there's a giant pile of (criminal) laws they could use to prosecute someone who's trying to defraud the government. But your point is still well-taken, and it's kind of academic anyway - it's an incredibly valuable (and lucrative) tool for the government, of course they're not going to give it up.