3 ms·

It’s not a numbers game at all. On one side you have actual innocent people (and cops) who are killed, assaulted, traumatized. On the other side, in the best ca

It’s not a numbers game at all. On one side you have actual innocent people (and cops) who are killed, assaulted, traumatized. On the other side, in the best case scenario, you are maybe preventing a hypothetical crime that maybe causes someone harm—and even that could have potentially been prevented through other means without the bad externalities. It’s a stupid trade.

colechristensen 5y ago
>It's not worth it when you have both innocent people and cops themselves frequently getting killed as a result. There are plenty of other ways to catch stupid criminals that don't carry the same risks. "worth it", "frequently", "risks" These are all numerical arguments but you're claiming it isn't about numbers. Set a value for risk and reward and drive for that policy. Don't make vague arguments that lean on statistics when it feels useful but refuse to say when something is worth it. What I see is kids getting shot in the street and my neighbors mugged and carjacked and police picking up guns in routine traffic stops. I don't think those are very "hypothetical".
- danenania 5y ago
  That would only make sense if there was no other way to prevent these crimes. It's like asking for "numbers" to justify not putting every 16-25 year old male in prison. It would drastically reduce the crime rate! The numbers are: innocent people and police are dying needlessly, and any potential effect on the crime rate could also be achieved without those people dying through better policing strategies. It's pure waste.
- thatcat 5y ago
  The amount of property stolen by police using civil forfeiture exceeds the amount stolen in property crime. On average, the risk of abuse exceeds the rewards of enforcement.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Are you counting everything seized through civil forfeiture as being stolen? A lot of it really is drug dealer profits.
    - thatcat 5y ago
      That's the unproven assumption made about any cash. There was a choice made between regulation of most black markets and using their existance as a justification for legalizing theft.

colechristensen 5y ago

>It's not worth it when you have both innocent people and cops themselves frequently getting killed as a result. There are plenty of other ways to catch stupid criminals that don't carry the same risks. "worth it", "frequently", "risks" These are all numerical arguments but you're claiming it isn't about numbers. Set a value for risk and reward and drive for that policy. Don't make vague arguments that lean on statistics when it feels useful but refuse to say when something is worth it. What I see is kids getting shot in the street and my neighbors mugged and carjacked and police picking up guns in routine traffic stops. I don't think those are very "hypothetical".

danenania 5y ago
That would only make sense if there was no other way to prevent these crimes. It's like asking for "numbers" to justify not putting every 16-25 year old male in prison. It would drastically reduce the crime rate! The numbers are: innocent people and police are dying needlessly, and any potential effect on the crime rate could also be achieved without those people dying through better policing strategies. It's pure waste.
thatcat 5y ago
The amount of property stolen by police using civil forfeiture exceeds the amount stolen in property crime. On average, the risk of abuse exceeds the rewards of enforcement.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Are you counting everything seized through civil forfeiture as being stolen? A lot of it really is drug dealer profits.
  - thatcat 5y ago
    That's the unproven assumption made about any cash. There was a choice made between regulation of most black markets and using their existance as a justification for legalizing theft.