5 ms·

From Article: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent sai

by eonw 10y ago

From Article: "If you can prove that you have a legitimate reason to have that money it will be given back to you. And we've done that in the past," Vincent said about any money seized. Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from nor how i got it. this is assumed guilt and utterly unamerican IMO. Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets and forcing me to prove that i have the right to have them. OK = backwoods state full of backwoods laws, and apparently backwoods people that keep voting for these types of idiots.

hackuser 10y ago
Asset seizure, under the same conditions, happens in many states. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591250 And many more stories ... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=asset+seizure+site%3Aycombinator.com&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=asset+seizure+site%3Aycombinator.c...
- eonw 10y ago
  i know, its both sad and outrageous, good on the states putting an end to it on their own.
drcode 10y ago
> Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from That's language is too vague to mean much: Are you saying this is illegal, or are you saying it is unconstitutional, or are you saying it is immoral?
- wernercd 10y ago
  The US is built upon "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Speedy Trial". That means you can't be jailed for murdering someone without a trial and you can't spend 10 years in jail before the trial. In the same way Assange is basically jailed without a trial or being proven guilty of anything. "Asset forfeiture" in the US goes against everything that the above stands for. The fact that a government official (Cops, feds, etc) can take your money... link that money to "drugs" in some way... and keep that money (or assets) without a trial? Is un American.
- loeg 10y ago
  Immoral, obviously. Probably unconstitutional (that's one for the lawyers, though). Obviously not illegal.
visarga 10y ago
> Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets But... that would make police less productive.
adaml_623 10y ago
Why would you say it's 'unamerican'? Your police force does similar things in almost every state don't they?
- e40 10y ago
  Because of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
  - talmand 10y ago
    They aren't accusing the person of being a criminal, they are accusing the property of being obtained from alleged criminal activity. Property is not innocent until proven guilty.
    - loeg 10y ago
      That's a stupid argument and you know it. It doesn't do you much good to be "innocent" if the state just takes all of your money.
      - talmand 10y ago
        I'm not the one making the argument.
- isleyaardvark 10y ago
  Most people use the word "unamerican" to describe something much different from "this isn't currently occurring inside America".
TrevorJ 10y ago
This country is starting to look way too much like pre-revolutionary France, and that's bad for everyone.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  lol, starting. people say that stuff in passive protest, you should look for the causes of the revolution in france, the causes for the declaration of independence, what bothered people so much back then and then see if "starting" is actually applicable vs a glaring understatement
  - TrevorJ 10y ago
    Life under the Ancien Regime had some clear parallels to modern times in America superficially, but there were clear differences too. Pre-revolutionary France was not at all modernized compared to the rest of their neighbors for one thing, so that lent a pressure all it's own that was unique to that time period. Some of the root causes for unrest may be similar but it's not a direct analogue by any means.
twinkletwinkle 10y ago
Not to say OK isn't a backwater, but at least the senator quoted in the article seems to get it: "State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that removes due process and the belief that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty ... 'If I had to err on the side of one side versus the other, I would err on the side of the Constitution'"
dang 10y ago
> backwoods state full of backwoods laws, and apparently backwoods people Attacking an entire population of people like that is a nasty breach of HN's civility rule. Please don't ever post anything like this again. It's the upvoters of such comments who should most be ashamed of themselves. The fact that people here feel angry about police seizing cash without due process can, and must, be kept distinct from cheap slurs. That takes a certain (rather tiny) degree of self-discipline, which is a minimum requirement for participating here.
- eonw 10y ago
  i did not attack them, i said "apparently" meaning it would seem that they are based on the things they allow and agree to. if you allow backwoods laws to be passed and enforced... well you know, if the shoe fits. furthermore being called backwoods is only an attack if you choose it to be, some people don't mind being unsophisticated.
- radmuzom 10y ago
  I upvoted this comment after reading yours.

by eonw 10y ago

hackuser 10y ago

Asset seizure, under the same conditions, happens in many states. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591250 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10591250 And many more stories ... https://duckduckgo.com/?q=asset+seizure+site%3Aycombinator.com&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?q=asset+seizure+site%3Aycombinator.c...

eonw 10y ago
i know, its both sad and outrageous, good on the states putting an end to it on their own.

drcode 10y ago

> Under no circumstance should i have to PROVE where my money came from That's language is too vague to mean much: Are you saying this is illegal, or are you saying it is unconstitutional, or are you saying it is immoral?

wernercd 10y ago
The US is built upon "Innocent until proven guilty" and "Speedy Trial". That means you can't be jailed for murdering someone without a trial and you can't spend 10 years in jail before the trial. In the same way Assange is basically jailed without a trial or being proven guilty of anything. "Asset forfeiture" in the US goes against everything that the above stands for. The fact that a government official (Cops, feds, etc) can take your money... link that money to "drugs" in some way... and keep that money (or assets) without a trial? Is un American.
loeg 10y ago
Immoral, obviously. Probably unconstitutional (that's one for the lawyers, though). Obviously not illegal.

visarga 10y ago

> Where is the burden of proof that must be reached before taking my assets But... that would make police less productive.

adaml_623 10y ago

Why would you say it's 'unamerican'? Your police force does similar things in almost every state don't they?

e40 10y ago
Because of the whole "innocent until proven guilty" thing?
- talmand 10y ago
  They aren't accusing the person of being a criminal, they are accusing the property of being obtained from alleged criminal activity. Property is not innocent until proven guilty.
  - loeg 10y ago
    That's a stupid argument and you know it. It doesn't do you much good to be "innocent" if the state just takes all of your money.
    - talmand 10y ago
      I'm not the one making the argument.
isleyaardvark 10y ago
Most people use the word "unamerican" to describe something much different from "this isn't currently occurring inside America".

TrevorJ 10y ago

This country is starting to look way too much like pre-revolutionary France, and that's bad for everyone.

cloudjacker 10y ago
lol, starting. people say that stuff in passive protest, you should look for the causes of the revolution in france, the causes for the declaration of independence, what bothered people so much back then and then see if "starting" is actually applicable vs a glaring understatement
- TrevorJ 10y ago
  Life under the Ancien Regime had some clear parallels to modern times in America superficially, but there were clear differences too. Pre-revolutionary France was not at all modernized compared to the rest of their neighbors for one thing, so that lent a pressure all it's own that was unique to that time period. Some of the root causes for unrest may be similar but it's not a direct analogue by any means.

twinkletwinkle 10y ago

Not to say OK isn't a backwater, but at least the senator quoted in the article seems to get it: "State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that removes due process and the belief that a suspect is presumed innocent until proven guilty ... 'If I had to err on the side of one side versus the other, I would err on the side of the Constitution'"

dang 10y ago

> backwoods state full of backwoods laws, and apparently backwoods people Attacking an entire population of people like that is a nasty breach of HN's civility rule. Please don't ever post anything like this again. It's the upvoters of such comments who should most be ashamed of themselves. The fact that people here feel angry about police seizing cash without due process can, and must, be kept distinct from cheap slurs. That takes a certain (rather tiny) degree of self-discipline, which is a minimum requirement for participating here.

eonw 10y ago
i did not attack them, i said "apparently" meaning it would seem that they are based on the things they allow and agree to. if you allow backwoods laws to be passed and enforced... well you know, if the shoe fits. furthermore being called backwoods is only an attack if you choose it to be, some people don't mind being unsophisticated.
radmuzom 10y ago
I upvoted this comment after reading yours.