4 ms·

Another day, another disgusting display of what should be unconstitutional government overreach. Let's review: 1. Civil forfeiture is an action against the pro

by jmyeet 5y ago

Another day, another disgusting display of what should be unconstitutional government overreach. Let's review: 1. Civil forfeiture is an action against the property, not the owner. And property has no rights. How convenient. This justification gets even more ridiculous when you consider the property is alleged to be the proceeds of crime but this isn't a criminal action; 2. The action to recover such money is a civil action not a criminal one so no right for the government to provide you with legal representation (as noted in this article); and 3. Police departments have a direct profit motive to seize asets without due process as they get to keep most or all of the proceeds. The direct profit motive leads to "forfeiture corridors". This is where typically drugs will go in one direction and the resulting cash will go in the other. The police will set up to seize only the cash going in one direction and not care one iota about the drugs going the other way. This is disgusting and has no place in the rule of law.

fraa-orolo 5y ago
> The direct profit motive leads to "forfeiture corridors". This is where typically drugs will go in one direction and the resulting cash will go in the other. The police will set up to seize only the cash going in one direction and not care one iota about the drugs going the other way. That just sounds like drug dealing with extra steps.
- site-packages1 5y ago
  Not that I agree with civil forfeiture, in fact I'm highly against it, but I don't think of it as drug dealing even if the money comes from drugs. They police did not manufacture or sell the drugs, so it's a pretty big leap to call seizing cash drug dealing in any form. Maybe "theft with extra steps" because they do in fact essentially steal the money and add the extra steps to legally inoculate themselves against the consequences if they were to go and just steal the money.
  - standardUser 5y ago
    If the focus is on skimming off the top instead of actually stopping the flow of drugs, then the cops become a component in the illegal drug market. They are essentially running protection for that market... from themselves.
  - everforward 5y ago
    The leaders of cartels and triads also don't manufacture or sell drugs, they just profit off other people doing it. The money mules also don't actually touch any drugs. Either way, profiting from the sale of illegal drugs is uncomfortably close to drug dealer.
- woodruffw 5y ago
  > That just sounds like drug dealing with extra steps. It comes as no particular surprise that American law enforcement, below the Federal level, is not actually all that interested in stopping illegal drug trafficking. Illegal drugs mean more crime, and that's good business for them!
yeetsfromhellL2 5y ago
I've been shouting into the void about this forever: get rid of qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture laws. Last I heard, police have seized more property than was reported stolen for a long while now, and nobody can fight it because of QI. Also, insider trading by elected officials and their family should result in hard-ass prison time for everyone involved. Edit: acting like a goat, finding the highest moral ground: every dollar seized by police without a criminal conviction gets taken by an angry mob from the representative officials.
- dendriti 5y ago
  If you eliminated qualified immunity, only fools would become government officials.
  - syvolt 5y ago
    And if you don't, only grifters would. Quite the conundrum.
  - yeetsfromhellL2 5y ago
    No way, cops can abide by the laws citizens lay out democratically. QI was basically magic'd out of the judiciary's dignified asshole with no basis at all in legislation. It's extra-legal thuggery.
    - salawat 5y ago
      You mean, just like judicial review in the first place?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    Or, you know, people who need a job. People don't get immunity for regular jobs. Just don't do crimes. IMO they should lose all immunity the moment they exceed their lawful authority. I would, in particular, have Cheney tried and then strung up from a dead tree.
  - woodruffw 5y ago
syshum 5y ago
The fact is that the government, like a common thief, says to a person: Your money, or your life... In the past government would not waylay a person in a lonely place, spring upon them from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets, no they would hide their theft under noble terms like taxes, fines and fees but having gotten way with this plunder for years the government is now emboldened to spring upon you from the road side directly taking your property just exactly like a common thief, but this theft is far more dastardly and shameful than common theft. The thief takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you.” ― Updated / modernized quote partially taken from Lysander Spooner
Clubber 5y ago
>3. Police departments have a direct profit motive to seize assets without due process as they get to keep most or all of the proceeds. The federal government incentivizes it as well with a profit sharing program. According to the video, its over 68.8 billion seized and the average amount is $1300. It'll cost you $5000 in legal fees to get it back, so most people won't bother. Just raise taxes already and quit with the literal highway robbery. https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/ https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/ Think of the children! Just Say No! https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/just-say-no https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/just-say-no
_8j50 5y ago
Wrongly incarcerated individuals should also sue the prison they were incarcerated in as an action against the property where they lived and lost productive years of their lives under the conditions of the property. It was used as part of an unjust way to extract valuable time and labor from them. As well as any police equipment used to detain them wrongly. Furthermore, any government owned equipment used in unlawful surveillance or military operation should be subject to seizure and liquidation by any tax payer as it was spent and used in willful disregard of tax payers and their representatives.
chrismcb 5y ago
To bad we don't have a constitutional amendment that says we should be secure in our effects and against unreasonable seizures. Feels like that kind of amendment would go well in in protecting ones property

by jmyeet 5y ago

fraa-orolo 5y ago

> The direct profit motive leads to "forfeiture corridors". This is where typically drugs will go in one direction and the resulting cash will go in the other. The police will set up to seize only the cash going in one direction and not care one iota about the drugs going the other way. That just sounds like drug dealing with extra steps.

site-packages1 5y ago
Not that I agree with civil forfeiture, in fact I'm highly against it, but I don't think of it as drug dealing even if the money comes from drugs. They police did not manufacture or sell the drugs, so it's a pretty big leap to call seizing cash drug dealing in any form. Maybe "theft with extra steps" because they do in fact essentially steal the money and add the extra steps to legally inoculate themselves against the consequences if they were to go and just steal the money.
- standardUser 5y ago
  If the focus is on skimming off the top instead of actually stopping the flow of drugs, then the cops become a component in the illegal drug market. They are essentially running protection for that market... from themselves.
- everforward 5y ago
  The leaders of cartels and triads also don't manufacture or sell drugs, they just profit off other people doing it. The money mules also don't actually touch any drugs. Either way, profiting from the sale of illegal drugs is uncomfortably close to drug dealer.
woodruffw 5y ago
> That just sounds like drug dealing with extra steps. It comes as no particular surprise that American law enforcement, below the Federal level, is not actually all that interested in stopping illegal drug trafficking. Illegal drugs mean more crime, and that's good business for them!

yeetsfromhellL2 5y ago

I've been shouting into the void about this forever: get rid of qualified immunity and civil asset forfeiture laws. Last I heard, police have seized more property than was reported stolen for a long while now, and nobody can fight it because of QI. Also, insider trading by elected officials and their family should result in hard-ass prison time for everyone involved. Edit: acting like a goat, finding the highest moral ground: every dollar seized by police without a criminal conviction gets taken by an angry mob from the representative officials.

dendriti 5y ago
If you eliminated qualified immunity, only fools would become government officials.
- syvolt 5y ago
  And if you don't, only grifters would. Quite the conundrum.
- yeetsfromhellL2 5y ago
  No way, cops can abide by the laws citizens lay out democratically. QI was basically magic'd out of the judiciary's dignified asshole with no basis at all in legislation. It's extra-legal thuggery.
  - salawat 5y ago
    You mean, just like judicial review in the first place?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  Or, you know, people who need a job. People don't get immunity for regular jobs. Just don't do crimes. IMO they should lose all immunity the moment they exceed their lawful authority. I would, in particular, have Cheney tried and then strung up from a dead tree.
- woodruffw 5y ago

syshum 5y ago

The fact is that the government, like a common thief, says to a person: Your money, or your life... In the past government would not waylay a person in a lonely place, spring upon them from the road side and, holding a pistol to his head, proceed to rifle his pockets, no they would hide their theft under noble terms like taxes, fines and fees but having gotten way with this plunder for years the government is now emboldened to spring upon you from the road side directly taking your property just exactly like a common thief, but this theft is far more dastardly and shameful than common theft. The thief takes solely upon himself the responsibility, danger, and crime of his own act. He does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money, or that he intends to use it for your own benefit. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. Furthermore, having taken your money, he leaves you as you wish him to do. He does not persist in following you on the road, against your will; assuming to be your rightful 'sovereign,' on account of the 'protection' he affords you.” ― Updated / modernized quote partially taken from Lysander Spooner

Clubber 5y ago

>3. Police departments have a direct profit motive to seize assets without due process as they get to keep most or all of the proceeds. The federal government incentivizes it as well with a profit sharing program. According to the video, its over 68.8 billion seized and the average amount is $1300. It'll cost you $5000 in legal fees to get it back, so most people won't bother. Just raise taxes already and quit with the literal highway robbery. https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/ https://ij.org/report/policing-for-profit-3/ Think of the children! Just Say No! https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/just-say-no https://www.history.com/topics/1980s/just-say-no

_8j50 5y ago

Wrongly incarcerated individuals should also sue the prison they were incarcerated in as an action against the property where they lived and lost productive years of their lives under the conditions of the property. It was used as part of an unjust way to extract valuable time and labor from them. As well as any police equipment used to detain them wrongly. Furthermore, any government owned equipment used in unlawful surveillance or military operation should be subject to seizure and liquidation by any tax payer as it was spent and used in willful disregard of tax payers and their representatives.

chrismcb 5y ago

To bad we don't have a constitutional amendment that says we should be secure in our effects and against unreasonable seizures. Feels like that kind of amendment would go well in in protecting ones property