4 ms·

As a non-US person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline. What would be different about "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a

As a non-US person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline. What would be different about "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a person's life savings" or "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a citizen's life savings" ? I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights?

emsy 5y ago
I think the reason is that US-Americans are really into pretending they care about their veterans.
- a3n 5y ago
  And the Veterans Administration puts the "pretend" in "care." Source: Watching news articles over decades of the VA denying "service related" for injuries and poisoning, so the government isn't held responsible. Agent Orange and cancer, for example. Or burn pits in the middle east wars. Or concussions from explosions.
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> don't all citizens have the same rights? For legal cases, a drug runner having her cash unconstitutionally seized is a winner. The defendant is not sympathetic. But as you say, she has her rights that the court should recognise. It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.) That would make it a legislative question. In politics, sympathy matters. Guilty people having their rights violated doesn’t tend to rouse the majority. That’s where someone who can cut through to a Blue Lives Matter activist carries merit.
- shkkmo 5y ago
  > It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. It seems pretty clear to me that you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional.
  - JumpCrisscross 5y ago
    > you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional There is unfortunately some pretty deep precedent for states (note: less so the U.S. government) holding property while disputes around it were adjudicated, in some cases going back to the founding of our republic. For details look at the opinions in the cases IJ has previously filed. The fact that the DEA ignored the 90-day timeline for filing a case, on the other hand, may be material if it can be shown to form a pattern of behaviour…
    - shkkmo 5y ago
      "holding property while disputes around it are adjudicated" is extremely different from "siezing your property without even charging you with a crime and then forcing you to go to court to prove your innocence"
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.) I disagree. I think it’s plain as day that civil asset forfeiture as currently practiced is unconstitutional. The only thing unclear is whether the Supreme Court will recognize it as such
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  A citizen is quite the same as a "defendant" and a defendant is not a "Guilty person" or "drug runner", yet. What if Mr Lara (who is not a guilty or accused drug runner) has not been a veteran?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    "A citizen is not quite the same" Sorry, I accidentally a word, and this changed the meaning. "not quite the same" is of course UK English for "it's totally different"
ZekeSulastin 5y ago
You already answered your own question :) The press release is from the group filing the lawsuit on behalf of Stephen, and they of course want to portray their client in the most beneficial way possible. Replacing “citizen” with “veteran” in the headline is a great way to play on that veneration.
drstewart 5y ago
Top article on the UK BBC right now: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58460511 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58460511 >Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' veteran suicide claim As a non-UK person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline. What would be different about "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' person suicide claim" or "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' citizen suicide claim" ? I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights? Since you're in London, perhaps you can shed some light on this for me.
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  You are being silly and pointless. Is it not the role of the armed forces minster to comment on veterans affairs? Are these comparable - Is asset seizure a particular problem among veterans, as suicide definitely is? If not, what are you trying to say?
  - drstewart 5y ago
    So it would be okay if the Minister of the armed forces said such a thing about non-veterans?
    - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
      How is this in any way relevant?
      - drstewart 5y ago
        It's relevant because you pretend you're shocked at the use of the word veteran in headlines when the country you're in does the very same thing. This shtick of "non-US" people is quite tiring.
        SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Claptrap. 1) this is whataboutism. One can ask about one thing when another thing exists, it's not a valid rebuke to say "what about that?". I have given no opinion on that BBC story either way, as it's not relevant. I'm not the country that I'm in, for starters. I would gladly criticise its politics when it's on topic and in good faith. Here it is neither. 2) "shocked" is your spin, and an inaccurate one. I specifically said "curious". 3) as you are repeatedly refusing to address, these are not actually comparable - who in the US case is comparable for the armed forces minister talking about the veteran? Who in the US case has the remit to talk about veterans, specifically? This is a waste of our time.
maxk42 5y ago
Veterans don't tend to be wealthy. It's like saying "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a teacher's life savings"
khazhoux 5y ago
I think in part it's veneration. On another level, even though all citizens have the same rights, it's nonetheless a bit ironic for police to abuse those who've actively put their lives on the line to defend them.

emsy 5y ago

I think the reason is that US-Americans are really into pretending they care about their veterans.

a3n 5y ago
And the Veterans Administration puts the "pretend" in "care." Source: Watching news articles over decades of the VA denying "service related" for injuries and poisoning, so the government isn't held responsible. Agent Orange and cancer, for example. Or burn pits in the middle east wars. Or concussions from explosions.

JumpCrisscross 5y ago

> don't all citizens have the same rights? For legal cases, a drug runner having her cash unconstitutionally seized is a winner. The defendant is not sympathetic. But as you say, she has her rights that the court should recognise. It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.) That would make it a legislative question. In politics, sympathy matters. Guilty people having their rights violated doesn’t tend to rouse the majority. That’s where someone who can cut through to a Blue Lives Matter activist carries merit.

shkkmo 5y ago
> It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. It seems pretty clear to me that you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional.
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > you have to tie the bill of rights in knots to justify civil asset forfeiture as constitutional There is unfortunately some pretty deep precedent for states (note: less so the U.S. government) holding property while disputes around it were adjudicated, in some cases going back to the founding of our republic. For details look at the opinions in the cases IJ has previously filed. The fact that the DEA ignored the 90-day timeline for filing a case, on the other hand, may be material if it can be shown to form a pattern of behaviour…
  - shkkmo 5y ago
    "holding property while disputes around it are adjudicated" is extremely different from "siezing your property without even charging you with a crime and then forcing you to go to court to prove your innocence"
ncallaway 5y ago
> It is unclear, however, if civil asset forfeiture is unconstitutional. (“Unreasonable” is a big word.) I disagree. I think it’s plain as day that civil asset forfeiture as currently practiced is unconstitutional. The only thing unclear is whether the Supreme Court will recognize it as such
SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
A citizen is quite the same as a "defendant" and a defendant is not a "Guilty person" or "drug runner", yet. What if Mr Lara (who is not a guilty or accused drug runner) has not been a veteran?
- SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
  "A citizen is not quite the same" Sorry, I accidentally a word, and this changed the meaning. "not quite the same" is of course UK English for "it's totally different"

ZekeSulastin 5y ago

You already answered your own question :) The press release is from the group filing the lawsuit on behalf of Stephen, and they of course want to portray their client in the most beneficial way possible. Replacing “citizen” with “veteran” in the headline is a great way to play on that veneration.

drstewart 5y ago

Top article on the UK BBC right now: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58460511 https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-58460511 >Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' veteran suicide claim As a non-UK person, am curious about the use of the word "veteran" in the headline. What would be different about "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' person suicide claim" or "Afghanistan: Minister apologises over 'inaccurate' citizen suicide claim" ? I understand that there is some veneration of veterans, but don't all citizens have the same rights? Since you're in London, perhaps you can shed some light on this for me.

SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
You are being silly and pointless. Is it not the role of the armed forces minster to comment on veterans affairs? Are these comparable - Is asset seizure a particular problem among veterans, as suicide definitely is? If not, what are you trying to say?
- drstewart 5y ago
  So it would be okay if the Minister of the armed forces said such a thing about non-veterans?
  - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
    How is this in any way relevant?
    - drstewart 5y ago
      It's relevant because you pretend you're shocked at the use of the word veteran in headlines when the country you're in does the very same thing. This shtick of "non-US" people is quite tiring.
      - SideburnsOfDoom 5y ago
        Claptrap. 1) this is whataboutism. One can ask about one thing when another thing exists, it's not a valid rebuke to say "what about that?". I have given no opinion on that BBC story either way, as it's not relevant. I'm not the country that I'm in, for starters. I would gladly criticise its politics when it's on topic and in good faith. Here it is neither. 2) "shocked" is your spin, and an inaccurate one. I specifically said "curious". 3) as you are repeatedly refusing to address, these are not actually comparable - who in the US case is comparable for the armed forces minister talking about the veteran? Who in the US case has the remit to talk about veterans, specifically? This is a waste of our time.

maxk42 5y ago

Veterans don't tend to be wealthy. It's like saying "Nevada cops use civil forfeiture to steal a teacher's life savings"

khazhoux 5y ago

I think in part it's veneration. On another level, even though all citizens have the same rights, it's nonetheless a bit ironic for police to abuse those who've actively put their lives on the line to defend them.