5 ms·

Why wouldn’t the onus be on the police to prove you obtained it illegally?

• deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
• jb775 5y ago
  So they should be considered guilty until proven innocent? By this logic, the FBI should be allowed to seize a bank and every bank account holder would need to prove where each penny came from.
  • drdeca 5y ago
    I think you read the other comment backwards?
  • giantg2 5y ago
    That's basically how civil asset seizure works in practice. Technically they charge the asset and not the person, because they know the person has rights and could defend themselves. Somehow they got the courts to agree to allowing the asset to be the subject without extending any of the rights (like to representation) being extended to it.
• DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  that was not the premise hat's being discussed! it was about a room being rented in a crack house. good luck getting your money if you don't have that source of revenue declared somewhere.
  • anamexis 5y ago
    Why would it matter that you are renting a room in a crack house? Do you have fewer rights if other people are committing crime in your vicinity?
    • DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
      yes, or do you think a poor person who has no choice other than to rent in such a location has the same rights as others in modern America?
      • anamexis 5y ago
        The question is whether that is reasonable.