3 ms·
The rest of the article gives some context: >She was in the passenger seat when a state trooper clocked her car at 118 miles per hour on I-94 in St. Paul. >Wh
by castratikron 6y ago
The rest of the article gives some context:
>She was in the passenger seat when a state trooper clocked her car at 118 miles per hour on I-94 in St. Paul.
>When the driver, Syrgeo Perez, 30, refused a breathalyzer, he was arrested on suspicion of DWI and troopers seized Dietrich's car using Minnesota's forfeiture law.
Do you really think that seizure was completely and totally unwarranted given the circumstances? If I were her, I would make him pay whatever it took to get my car back.
- snypher 6y agoI don't think blanket penalties should apply to some situation as described by one party. Eg, if the man's family member was in hospital and he was under a great deal of stress, he could have been speeding to the hospital, refused a traffic stop and so on. But this is a circumstance for the judge to decide on a case basis. See death penalty for murder, not everyone convicted of murder is guilty and some have been executed by the state. I personally don't think it's worth the risk of executing an innocent person just to satisfy some vengeance or whatever justification we put on it.
- stjohnswarts 6y agoAbsolutely unwarranted. The law has no right to do this. Sure they can take it and charge a fine. Keeping a vehicle for this? No, this basically means there is no limit to how they can punish you, they can just take any property you or someone else has (where the crime was committed) with the current precedents. That's what fines are for. Sometimes cars are kept for collateral for that, but these civil asset forfeitures are on top of crimes AND you don't even have to get convicted. They drop all charges and sue the car for going fast and then keep it. Yes it is that stupid and their reasoning has Siberian Sink Hole size holes in it.