3 ms·

Indiana bill to let government seize assets from suspects of 'unlawful assembly'

19 points by justin66 6y ago

bryanrasmussen 6y ago
I guess a side benefit from the standpoint of the police/prosecutor's office is if you can initiate forfeiture proceedings at the start of the criminal proceedings you can remove the ability of the defendants to effectively defend themselves in the American system, throwing them back on the public defenders and the need to plea bargain.
LocalH 6y ago
Disgusting. We need to reign in asset forfeiture, not expand it.
mikece 6y ago
Subtitle on the article: "Vague laws are typically vague for a reason." Like screwing with people for personal or ethnic reasons? I see ignorance on the part of law enforcement leading to this law being used against members of a 2600 meetup or group of hackers discussing things which, form a certain point of view, could be construed as unlawful rather than educational. A very slippery slope. Then again, couldn't this law be used to arrest members of the Indiana legislature when they "assemble" with lobbyists to discuss how to circumvent the law to get things done? What does "unlawful" mean to you?
- slowmovintarget 6y ago
  It may be aimed at rioters and protesters today, but it will, eventually, down the road, be used to seize assets of people at unapproved religious gatherings. It will be used to seize assets of "unapproved" study groups. This is the kind of government we don't want. Rioting isn't OK, creating this kind of government power in response is worse.
  - justin66 6y ago
    > It may be aimed at rioters and protesters today It’s aimed at people who happen to be near a disturbance. Just keep in mind, with civil asset forfeiture, they don’t have to prove you did something before they take your stuff. Due process comes after they’ve taken your property, and since it’s a civil proceeding, you get to pay for a lawyer if you want your stuff back. Police know that a lot of people won’t have that option, or will find that it’s not worth the expense.
IXxXI 6y ago
The kneejerk reaction would be pointing out how the US Constitution guarantees a right to peaceful assembly.

19 points by justin66 6y ago

I guess a side benefit from the standpoint of the police/prosecutor's office is if you can initiate forfeiture proceedings at the start of the criminal proceedings you can remove the ability of the defendants to effectively defend themselves in the American system, throwing them back on the public defenders and the need to plea bargain.

LocalH 6y ago

Disgusting. We need to reign in asset forfeiture, not expand it.

mikece 6y ago

Subtitle on the article: "Vague laws are typically vague for a reason." Like screwing with people for personal or ethnic reasons? I see ignorance on the part of law enforcement leading to this law being used against members of a 2600 meetup or group of hackers discussing things which, form a certain point of view, could be construed as unlawful rather than educational. A very slippery slope. Then again, couldn't this law be used to arrest members of the Indiana legislature when they "assemble" with lobbyists to discuss how to circumvent the law to get things done? What does "unlawful" mean to you?

slowmovintarget 6y ago
It may be aimed at rioters and protesters today, but it will, eventually, down the road, be used to seize assets of people at unapproved religious gatherings. It will be used to seize assets of "unapproved" study groups. This is the kind of government we don't want. Rioting isn't OK, creating this kind of government power in response is worse.
- justin66 6y ago
  > It may be aimed at rioters and protesters today It’s aimed at people who happen to be near a disturbance. Just keep in mind, with civil asset forfeiture, they don’t have to prove you did something before they take your stuff. Due process comes after they’ve taken your property, and since it’s a civil proceeding, you get to pay for a lawyer if you want your stuff back. Police know that a lot of people won’t have that option, or will find that it’s not worth the expense.

IXxXI 6y ago

The kneejerk reaction would be pointing out how the US Constitution guarantees a right to peaceful assembly.