5 ms·
I definitely understand that I might be the unlucky one, I'm in no way implying it's the norm, and the selection bias is definitely a thing here - but what I'm
by shakezula 6y ago
I definitely understand that I might be the unlucky one, I'm in no way implying it's the norm, and the selection bias is definitely a thing here - but what I'm trying to convey is that it's far more common than people think, and that even if it's pretty uncommon to rare, the consequences can be far worse than warranted or earned, and in many cases can be devastating, which is unacceptable for a system that is entirely constructed and can be changed with some legislation and enforcement.
- leereeves 6y agoYour first comment was certainly implying that its the norm: > I can tell you right now, police in rural areas absolutely _are_ looking for any and every excuse in the book to pull you over, search your vehicle, and question you far more intensely than the situation warrants. As was the root comment in this thread: > In these towns, if you have out-of-state plates, you will regularly be pulled over for doing 5mph below the speed limit. You can expect a dog to sniff around your car if the patrol has one. That's what I'm disputing here, not the injustice of CAF when it happens. Even people who oppose civil asset forfeiture (including me) still feel comfortable traveling throughout the nation.
- shakezula 6y agoI'm not suggesting that people don't travel - my personal opinion is quite the opposite - I'm only saying that it's more common than people think and part of my statement to that was a personal anecdote in agreement with the OP because I've experienced nearly the exact phenomenon they described. I would not call that "implying the norm". Regardless, CAF needs to be abolished and I wish the crowd that cares so much about the Constitution would care about Amendments that aren't the 2nd and 1st.