4 ms·

Here's the conclusion of the article after reviewing those details, including Madoff: "Still, boil down all the numbers and caveats above and you arrive at a s

Here's the conclusion of the article after reviewing those details, including Madoff: "Still, boil down all the numbers and caveats above and you arrive at a simple fact: In the United States, in 2014, more cash and property transferred hands via civil asset forfeiture than via burglary. "

gruez 5y ago
The implication that the author wants to make is that the cops are worse than the criminals, and that's the conclusion most people will make on first reading of it. However, after further inspection that's totally acceptable, because cops mostly (?) go after bad people, whereas criminals mostly go after innocent people. It's like saying "police are responsible for more kidnappings (aka. arrests) than criminals". Technically true, but misleading.
- voxic11 5y ago
  Where do you get the idea that criminals target innocent people? The few statistics I have seen indicate criminals tend to target other criminals because they are less likely to go to the police if a crime is committed against them.
  - gruez 5y ago
    source?
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Not really, they just want you to realize what a scam it is and that cops/feds are stealing from people for no reason other than personal and departmental gains to flex their power. It's rather common in certain states. Along with basically illegal search by K9 cops on false triggers of vehicles. This happened to me in Texas. I refused them searching my car (had a brake light out), the cop got in a huff, said I had to wait until they brought a k9 out (thought he "smelled marijuana"). Full disclosure, I've never smoked pot or done any narcotic of any kind but I did have a pot brownie in college once. They search my car, the dog "triggered on something" and found absolutely zero as I knew they would (although I was a bit afraid it would be dirty cops who'd drop a dime bag somewhere). It was a complete waste of time and I'm pretty sure the cop set it all up because he was bored and I didn't submit to a voluntary search. This turned me a pretty big supporter of the cops into someone who realize they really need to be reigned in from their current fascist/military mentality.
  - zeusk 5y ago
    ikr! I wasn’t born here and when I tell my friends US police forces are better equipped than my home country’s military they just give me a stare as if it’s normal and blame it on the 2nd amendment that most cops have to carry body armor and deadly force weapons. Sounds so backwards to me, something I’d expect in Somalia and not Redmond, Washington.
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I don't see the problem being with them having those tools. I see the problem being how the system doesnt provide correct/adequate training and turns a blind eye when those tools are misused. There needs to be accountability.
      - zeusk 5y ago
        I quite strongly believe in the saying "When all one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail". I definitely see this in Tech, so it likely happens in policing as well - where they're given ever so forceful tools, they'll find reasons to justify that cost.
        giantg2 5y ago
        They aren't only given "hammers". They have an array of tools at their disposal. There are some cops who don't have the training or the capacity (standards are pretty low) to effectively use the correct tool, like that cop that thought she was using a taser. But countless others are able to correctly choose and use the right tool for the job.
  - adolph 5y ago
    At first I think, "this approach is playing roulette with a revolver," but on second thought if the cop was dirty they'd "find" something regardless of path. If you have the time the civic exercise of constitutional prerogatives is undoubtably as worthwhile and interesting as jury duty or voting. The below linked incident exposed a broad conspiracy to arrest and jail people with a primary purpose of padding overtime timesheets. The city and former chief continue the coverup to this day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecan_Park_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecan_Park_raid
- fitblipper 5y ago
  To say "the police go after criminals" is overly simplistic. They go after those who they are allowed to and that group of people changes from administration to administration making the police a political hammer and we are all the nails. Here is just 1 exmample https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/police-pasco-sheriff-targeted/intelligence-led-policing/ https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/p... Further when the police target you there is zero recourse you can take to resolve the harassment, when your neighbor does it there are many avenues. I would 100% rather be beat by my neighbor than my police.
- TomSwirly 5y ago
  > However, after further inspection that's totally acceptable, because cops mostly (?) go after bad people, So let's sum it up. You agree that the cops can seize property without any evidence and require the original owner to get a lawyer prove they are innocent before they get their property back. You believe the idea of "guilty until proven innocent" is unimportant, because the police are mostly going after bad people. And it doesn't bother you that the police departments actually get to keep the stuff their seize. You don't see any possible conflict of interest when the police departments can just seize property and keep it and never present any proof at all unless the person they confiscated it from spends a lot of money on legal assistance, and often not even then. To me this reads like some dysfunctional dystopia, but then I find strongly authoritarian societies frightening.

gruez 5y ago

The implication that the author wants to make is that the cops are worse than the criminals, and that's the conclusion most people will make on first reading of it. However, after further inspection that's totally acceptable, because cops mostly (?) go after bad people, whereas criminals mostly go after innocent people. It's like saying "police are responsible for more kidnappings (aka. arrests) than criminals". Technically true, but misleading.

voxic11 5y ago
Where do you get the idea that criminals target innocent people? The few statistics I have seen indicate criminals tend to target other criminals because they are less likely to go to the police if a crime is committed against them.
- gruez 5y ago
  source?
stjohnswarts 5y ago
Not really, they just want you to realize what a scam it is and that cops/feds are stealing from people for no reason other than personal and departmental gains to flex their power. It's rather common in certain states. Along with basically illegal search by K9 cops on false triggers of vehicles. This happened to me in Texas. I refused them searching my car (had a brake light out), the cop got in a huff, said I had to wait until they brought a k9 out (thought he "smelled marijuana"). Full disclosure, I've never smoked pot or done any narcotic of any kind but I did have a pot brownie in college once. They search my car, the dog "triggered on something" and found absolutely zero as I knew they would (although I was a bit afraid it would be dirty cops who'd drop a dime bag somewhere). It was a complete waste of time and I'm pretty sure the cop set it all up because he was bored and I didn't submit to a voluntary search. This turned me a pretty big supporter of the cops into someone who realize they really need to be reigned in from their current fascist/military mentality.
- zeusk 5y ago
  ikr! I wasn’t born here and when I tell my friends US police forces are better equipped than my home country’s military they just give me a stare as if it’s normal and blame it on the 2nd amendment that most cops have to carry body armor and deadly force weapons. Sounds so backwards to me, something I’d expect in Somalia and not Redmond, Washington.
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I don't see the problem being with them having those tools. I see the problem being how the system doesnt provide correct/adequate training and turns a blind eye when those tools are misused. There needs to be accountability.
    - zeusk 5y ago
      I quite strongly believe in the saying "When all one has a hammer, everything looks like a nail". I definitely see this in Tech, so it likely happens in policing as well - where they're given ever so forceful tools, they'll find reasons to justify that cost.
      - giantg2 5y ago
        They aren't only given "hammers". They have an array of tools at their disposal. There are some cops who don't have the training or the capacity (standards are pretty low) to effectively use the correct tool, like that cop that thought she was using a taser. But countless others are able to correctly choose and use the right tool for the job.
- adolph 5y ago
  At first I think, "this approach is playing roulette with a revolver," but on second thought if the cop was dirty they'd "find" something regardless of path. If you have the time the civic exercise of constitutional prerogatives is undoubtably as worthwhile and interesting as jury duty or voting. The below linked incident exposed a broad conspiracy to arrest and jail people with a primary purpose of padding overtime timesheets. The city and former chief continue the coverup to this day. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecan_Park_raid https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pecan_Park_raid
fitblipper 5y ago
To say "the police go after criminals" is overly simplistic. They go after those who they are allowed to and that group of people changes from administration to administration making the police a political hammer and we are all the nails. Here is just 1 exmample https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/police-pasco-sheriff-targeted/intelligence-led-policing/ https://projects.tampabay.com/projects/2020/investigations/p... Further when the police target you there is zero recourse you can take to resolve the harassment, when your neighbor does it there are many avenues. I would 100% rather be beat by my neighbor than my police.
TomSwirly 5y ago
> However, after further inspection that's totally acceptable, because cops mostly (?) go after bad people, So let's sum it up. You agree that the cops can seize property without any evidence and require the original owner to get a lawyer prove they are innocent before they get their property back. You believe the idea of "guilty until proven innocent" is unimportant, because the police are mostly going after bad people. And it doesn't bother you that the police departments actually get to keep the stuff their seize. You don't see any possible conflict of interest when the police departments can just seize property and keep it and never present any proof at all unless the person they confiscated it from spends a lot of money on legal assistance, and often not even then. To me this reads like some dysfunctional dystopia, but then I find strongly authoritarian societies frightening.