3 ms·
>CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not
by romwell 5y ago
>CAF cases make the news when the victim doesn't get their money back in a timely fashion, for the same reason that fires and earthquakes do: because that's not the normal state of things.
Yeah, and we have an awful lot of news like that.
>The OP asserted that CAF was extralegal, and it absolutely is not.
In practice, there have been enough cases to justify saying that.
We live in a country where the authorities can confiscate cash when they see it without reason and consequence.
That, to my eyes, is extralegal.
Whether the law gives them this de-facto power is beside the point; the justice system clearly does.
- kelnos 5y agoI think you're conflating ethics/morals with legality. Something that is legal, by definition, is not extralegal. Civil asset forfeiture is legal, and is therefore not extralegal. > We live in a country where the authorities can confiscate cash when they see it without reason and consequence. That, to my eyes, is extralegal. No, it's not, because it is, unfortunately, legal. "Your eyes" aren't really relevant here; the law is what matters. > Whether the law gives them this de-facto power is beside the point No it's not; "legal" and "extralegal" mean specific things. You can't just redefine them to mean whatever you want.
- lolwut09883 5y agoI think you’re conflating the systems outcomes with the systems intents, and you think if we made the system with good intent, the outcomes cannot be questioned. But in reality, the system is poorly constructed, and often co-opted by bad actors in law enforcement. All apples in that barrel are bad, when they’re strong arming money from people, wouldn’t you agree? If this was a story about China, I bet your little angry dick would be shuddering with rage, wouldn’t it?