3 ms·

So, I shouldn't loan things I value to people who may fall under police scrutiny?

LatteLazy 6y ago
Yeah, pretty much. Certainly for anything valuable or dangerous or potentially criminal. I won't comment on whether this is fair or effective or necessary or whatever. But it is quite standard in the USA and elsewhere. Partly its a way to make people enforce laws themselves (I'll care a lot more about whether you drunk drive my car if I might lose the car). Partly its just the concept of contributory negligence or joint venture / accessory. It also avoids weird loopholes: if we're both drunk, we could drive each others cars home and both avoid part of the penalty when we're caught.
- Meph504 6y ago
  I think you are missing a key element of civil asset forfeiture, its based around the government starting legal proceedings against the property itself for "participating" in criminal activity. This is why the person who owns or posses the property doesn't have to be arrested or convicted of a crime for it to proceed. This goes back to English common law, but so did a lot of other really stupid ideas. Largely these laws are a result of judicial decisions of courts and not legislative bodies of government.
- shaftway 6y ago
  There have been cases in the US where police seized families homes after underage dependents were caught selling trivial amounts of pot to friends without the parents being aware. Please explain to me how I can legally protect my house in this case. - If I'm not aware my kid is selling a dimebag to his friends then I'm not complicit in it, but I might still lose my house. - If I am aware of it and take steps to prevent it, but my kid flaunts the rules and punishments I might still lose my house. - If I kick my son out on the street as soon he's old enough to walk and talk just in case he may do this in the future, CPS will have some harsh words with me and I might still lose my house. The point of articles like this is that it's not fair and it should be overturned. Claiming that it's standard like that is taking a stance in support of it, despite it being unfair.

Yeah, pretty much. Certainly for anything valuable or dangerous or potentially criminal. I won't comment on whether this is fair or effective or necessary or whatever. But it is quite standard in the USA and elsewhere. Partly its a way to make people enforce laws themselves (I'll care a lot more about whether you drunk drive my car if I might lose the car). Partly its just the concept of contributory negligence or joint venture / accessory. It also avoids weird loopholes: if we're both drunk, we could drive each others cars home and both avoid part of the penalty when we're caught.

Meph504 6y ago
I think you are missing a key element of civil asset forfeiture, its based around the government starting legal proceedings against the property itself for "participating" in criminal activity. This is why the person who owns or posses the property doesn't have to be arrested or convicted of a crime for it to proceed. This goes back to English common law, but so did a lot of other really stupid ideas. Largely these laws are a result of judicial decisions of courts and not legislative bodies of government.
shaftway 6y ago
There have been cases in the US where police seized families homes after underage dependents were caught selling trivial amounts of pot to friends without the parents being aware. Please explain to me how I can legally protect my house in this case. - If I'm not aware my kid is selling a dimebag to his friends then I'm not complicit in it, but I might still lose my house. - If I am aware of it and take steps to prevent it, but my kid flaunts the rules and punishments I might still lose my house. - If I kick my son out on the street as soon he's old enough to walk and talk just in case he may do this in the future, CPS will have some harsh words with me and I might still lose my house. The point of articles like this is that it's not fair and it should be overturned. Claiming that it's standard like that is taking a stance in support of it, despite it being unfair.