4 ms·

At the very least, we should try to control the vocabulary here. Instead of using their terms (like "seize" or "asset forfeiture"), we should call this theft, r

At the very least, we should try to control the vocabulary here. Instead of using their terms (like "seize" or "asset forfeiture"), we should call this theft, robbery, and so forth, to reflect what's happening. Those would make for very different headlines.

imcoconut 9y ago
Could not agree with this more.
justinjlynn 9y ago
Indeed, a seizure is a justified theft of personal or corporate property by an agent of the state. If it's not justified, then it's theft pure and simple.
- marcoperaza 9y ago
  If you are acquitted after being arrested, does that make your arrest a kidnapping? The government ultimately has to prove its case in court, but they can’t predict with certainty how a judge and jury will rule. If they lose, they give the money back.
  - hajile 9y ago
    You can be detained on reasonable suspicion (a nebulous legal term), but you cannot be arrested without probable cause. If you are arrested without probable cause, you can sue and win. If an officer had probable cause that someone was smuggling money, they would never have a civil asset forfeiture -- it would be a criminal case from start to finish. The fact that the law was designed to end run around constitutional protections speaks volumes about it and its authors.
  - Veratyr 9y ago
    > If you are acquitted after being arrested, does that make your arrest a kidnapping? If the officers have no reason to suspect that you actually committed a crime and arrest you solely for their own gain, then yes, it's a kidnapping. The problem here is that there's no evidence showing that assets should be "forfeited", cops are stealing people's stuff because they can.
  - justinjlynn 9y ago
    Technically, yes, actually, it is a kidnapping by the state - a deprivation of freedom. But is it justified? I would hope that in most cases it is. However, if it is not, that doesn't make the individuals doing the arresting culpable for the offence they were acting in good faith, but the state doesn't escape, or should not escape, culpability. If it can be shown that the state did not act justifiably (i.e. within its social contract with its citizens) then the individual is entitled to recompense for that crime. This is why, in some states (and, I would like to say all) if there is a gross miscarriage of justice the individual is granted monetary relief. The farce of "asset forfeiture" is in treating the asset, and not the holder of the asset, as an entity which may have civil claims brought against it. In effect, forcing the owner to act as its defender. This is a exploitation of the legal system. If they truly believed the assets were the result of a crime they should have to prove probable cause, and hence justify, their right to steal (i.e. seize/freeze) that property in preparation for a criminal/civil trial. If they lose that trial, then even so, the seizure was justified and everything is fine. The question now is, are we as a society comfortable granting the ability for a single individual, i.e. a peace officer, the ability to justify in its entirety, their actions, even with massive conflicts of interest? I would hope the answer is no. We have the judiciary to justify these crimes of the state and in so doing limit their effect on the innocent by preventing abuses of power due to conflict of interest. Universal accountability and review of justification is the key to preventing the tyranny of the few bad peace officers in positions of extreme situational power from destroying countless lives and reaping massive personal benefit while doing so. An effective way to do this is to take the position that hypocrisy is unacceptable. If it's an act which is unlawful for a person to commit, the state must actively justify itself (before the fact) in order to commit that same act, according to the social contract. If it doesn't, there may as well be no law - for what is the purpose of the law but to protect those without power from those with it.
  - skywhopper 9y ago
    Maybe you missed the part where they never proved anything in court, but took the guy's money anyway.
marcoperaza 9y ago
>Parhamovich told The Associated Press that he was traveling to several performances in Western states and decided to bring his “life savings” because maintenance staff often came into his rented apartment in Madison, Wisconsin. The 50-year-old hid the money inside a speaker he was bringing along on the trip. [...] Parhamovich said the officers implied that carrying that much cash was illegal. He lied and said it was a friend’s. He brought his “life savings” with him on a road trip, hidden in a speaker, and then lied to the police about it. It doesn’t take a cynic to see how ridiculously suspicious that is. There’s plenty of material to start a civil forfeiture case, where the government has to ultimately prove by a preponderance of the evidence (ie “more likely than not”) that the money was the proceeds of illegal activity, the same standard as lawsuits between private citizens. This is not a theft or robbery. It’s the police failing to convince a court in the end. Why seize things upfront in cases like this? If they let the money go, the government would likely never see it again. The goal is to stop organized crime from successfully moving money around and laundering it. It was only a few decades ago that organized crime operated with near impunity in this country. Laws such as RICO and those strengthening civil asset forfeiture are no small part of our success in turning the tide against criminal organizations. It’s easy to forget how we got here, but if we let uninformed outrage rule the day, then we risk returning to the time when these criminal enterprises spread fear and violence without consequence. It is always worth investigating reform, but you should think twice about demonizing those who are carrying out the instructions we gave them. ========================== Edit: HN is rate-limiting me, so I’m responding to erpellan’s very good point here: You’re right that it’s not sufficient reason for seizure by itself, it’s actually been litigated to that effect before iirc. But combined with other factors, like lying to the police (a crime itself in many jurisdictions as Michael Flynn has just learned), it can help establish the burden of proof necessary for seizure pending litigation. (Further, he consented to the seizure in this case.)
- mikestew 9y ago
  then we risk returning to the time when these criminal enterprises spread fear and violence without consequence. Sorry, got lost about the second paragraph: are we talking about cops like the ones in the article, or the Mafia?

imcoconut 9y ago

Could not agree with this more.

justinjlynn 9y ago

Indeed, a seizure is a justified theft of personal or corporate property by an agent of the state. If it's not justified, then it's theft pure and simple.

marcoperaza 9y ago
If you are acquitted after being arrested, does that make your arrest a kidnapping? The government ultimately has to prove its case in court, but they can’t predict with certainty how a judge and jury will rule. If they lose, they give the money back.
- hajile 9y ago
  You can be detained on reasonable suspicion (a nebulous legal term), but you cannot be arrested without probable cause. If you are arrested without probable cause, you can sue and win. If an officer had probable cause that someone was smuggling money, they would never have a civil asset forfeiture -- it would be a criminal case from start to finish. The fact that the law was designed to end run around constitutional protections speaks volumes about it and its authors.
- Veratyr 9y ago
  > If you are acquitted after being arrested, does that make your arrest a kidnapping? If the officers have no reason to suspect that you actually committed a crime and arrest you solely for their own gain, then yes, it's a kidnapping. The problem here is that there's no evidence showing that assets should be "forfeited", cops are stealing people's stuff because they can.
- justinjlynn 9y ago
  Technically, yes, actually, it is a kidnapping by the state - a deprivation of freedom. But is it justified? I would hope that in most cases it is. However, if it is not, that doesn't make the individuals doing the arresting culpable for the offence they were acting in good faith, but the state doesn't escape, or should not escape, culpability. If it can be shown that the state did not act justifiably (i.e. within its social contract with its citizens) then the individual is entitled to recompense for that crime. This is why, in some states (and, I would like to say all) if there is a gross miscarriage of justice the individual is granted monetary relief. The farce of "asset forfeiture" is in treating the asset, and not the holder of the asset, as an entity which may have civil claims brought against it. In effect, forcing the owner to act as its defender. This is a exploitation of the legal system. If they truly believed the assets were the result of a crime they should have to prove probable cause, and hence justify, their right to steal (i.e. seize/freeze) that property in preparation for a criminal/civil trial. If they lose that trial, then even so, the seizure was justified and everything is fine. The question now is, are we as a society comfortable granting the ability for a single individual, i.e. a peace officer, the ability to justify in its entirety, their actions, even with massive conflicts of interest? I would hope the answer is no. We have the judiciary to justify these crimes of the state and in so doing limit their effect on the innocent by preventing abuses of power due to conflict of interest. Universal accountability and review of justification is the key to preventing the tyranny of the few bad peace officers in positions of extreme situational power from destroying countless lives and reaping massive personal benefit while doing so. An effective way to do this is to take the position that hypocrisy is unacceptable. If it's an act which is unlawful for a person to commit, the state must actively justify itself (before the fact) in order to commit that same act, according to the social contract. If it doesn't, there may as well be no law - for what is the purpose of the law but to protect those without power from those with it.
- skywhopper 9y ago
  Maybe you missed the part where they never proved anything in court, but took the guy's money anyway.

marcoperaza 9y ago

>Parhamovich told The Associated Press that he was traveling to several performances in Western states and decided to bring his “life savings” because maintenance staff often came into his rented apartment in Madison, Wisconsin. The 50-year-old hid the money inside a speaker he was bringing along on the trip. [...] Parhamovich said the officers implied that carrying that much cash was illegal. He lied and said it was a friend’s. He brought his “life savings” with him on a road trip, hidden in a speaker, and then lied to the police about it. It doesn’t take a cynic to see how ridiculously suspicious that is. There’s plenty of material to start a civil forfeiture case, where the government has to ultimately prove by a preponderance of the evidence (ie “more likely than not”) that the money was the proceeds of illegal activity, the same standard as lawsuits between private citizens. This is not a theft or robbery. It’s the police failing to convince a court in the end. Why seize things upfront in cases like this? If they let the money go, the government would likely never see it again. The goal is to stop organized crime from successfully moving money around and laundering it. It was only a few decades ago that organized crime operated with near impunity in this country. Laws such as RICO and those strengthening civil asset forfeiture are no small part of our success in turning the tide against criminal organizations. It’s easy to forget how we got here, but if we let uninformed outrage rule the day, then we risk returning to the time when these criminal enterprises spread fear and violence without consequence. It is always worth investigating reform, but you should think twice about demonizing those who are carrying out the instructions we gave them. ========================== Edit: HN is rate-limiting me, so I’m responding to erpellan’s very good point here: You’re right that it’s not sufficient reason for seizure by itself, it’s actually been litigated to that effect before iirc. But combined with other factors, like lying to the police (a crime itself in many jurisdictions as Michael Flynn has just learned), it can help establish the burden of proof necessary for seizure pending litigation. (Further, he consented to the seizure in this case.)

mikestew 9y ago
then we risk returning to the time when these criminal enterprises spread fear and violence without consequence. Sorry, got lost about the second paragraph: are we talking about cops like the ones in the article, or the Mafia?