4 ms·

So the defense of violating people's right to be secure from seizurs is some mumbo jumbo about charging objects with a crime? How does charging anyone or anythi

So the defense of violating people's right to be secure from seizurs is some mumbo jumbo about charging objects with a crime? How does charging anyone or anything relate to the 6th amendment?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mysterydip 4y ago
People have constitutional rights, objects do not
- edrxty 4y ago
  And objects can't commit crimes
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    Yeah no guilty mind.
  - netizen-936824 4y ago
    It's about being used in the commission of a crime, not that the object committed the crime itself
    - function_seven 4y ago
      If that's the case, then what's the point in seizing it? The crime has already been committed, the pile of money being taken doesn't change that one bit. If I use a payphone to order a hit, is it reasonable for the government to come rip it out of the ground? What if I use a freeway to smuggle drugs? Now the road must be torn out? Money is fungible and has all sorts of uses. Any particular pile of cash is no more or less likely to be intrinsically criminal in nature. Just like phones and freeways.
      - c22 4y ago
        The point is to make the crime unprofitable so people will not want to do it. This is not a crazy policy assuming the crime actually happened. The ridiculous part about civil asset forfeiture is that no one has to prove a crime even occured. The onus is on the pile of money or whatever to prove its innocence.
    - mcphage 4y ago
      If the object didn't commit the crime, then how can you bring a court case against it?
      - netizen-936824 4y ago
        That's a great question. Unfortunately I don't have the answer but I believe it has something to do with civil v. criminal cases. I just know that's the line of thinking that these top legal minds are using to justify this bs
- Buttons840 4y ago
  Seizing objects violates the owners rights, not the objects rights. Another angle of defense might be to ask if it's even possible to violate the 6th amendment. What would violating the 6th amendment look like? I suspect the answer will closely resemble civil forfeitures.
- alistairSH 4y ago
  The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated The building was part of the person's effects. I don't understand how your argument is legal (not that I don't believe you - civil forfeiture has been going on long enough that I assume SCOTUS has heard a sampling of cases). It beggars belief that this practice has stood for decades.
  - mysterydip 4y ago
    I agree with you and think it's a crazy practice. I was just saying how they justify it (flaws aside)
- l33t2328 4y ago
  So is it even possible to violate the 6th amendment? Could the police not just seize anything since that object has no rights?
- pessimizer 4y ago
  > People have constitutional rights, objects do not I'm pretty sure that's been modified to US people on US soil, at least 100 miles from a border, have constitutional rights, but those rights were all intended to mean something different than what they actually say.

So the defense of violating people's right to be secure from seizurs is some mumbo jumbo about charging objects with a crime? How does charging anyone or anything relate to the 6th amendment?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

mysterydip 4y ago

People have constitutional rights, objects do not

edrxty 4y ago
And objects can't commit crimes
- daniel-cussen 4y ago
  Yeah no guilty mind.
- netizen-936824 4y ago
  It's about being used in the commission of a crime, not that the object committed the crime itself
  - function_seven 4y ago
    If that's the case, then what's the point in seizing it? The crime has already been committed, the pile of money being taken doesn't change that one bit. If I use a payphone to order a hit, is it reasonable for the government to come rip it out of the ground? What if I use a freeway to smuggle drugs? Now the road must be torn out? Money is fungible and has all sorts of uses. Any particular pile of cash is no more or less likely to be intrinsically criminal in nature. Just like phones and freeways.
    - c22 4y ago
      The point is to make the crime unprofitable so people will not want to do it. This is not a crazy policy assuming the crime actually happened. The ridiculous part about civil asset forfeiture is that no one has to prove a crime even occured. The onus is on the pile of money or whatever to prove its innocence.
  - mcphage 4y ago
    If the object didn't commit the crime, then how can you bring a court case against it?
    - netizen-936824 4y ago
      That's a great question. Unfortunately I don't have the answer but I believe it has something to do with civil v. criminal cases. I just know that's the line of thinking that these top legal minds are using to justify this bs
Buttons840 4y ago
Seizing objects violates the owners rights, not the objects rights. Another angle of defense might be to ask if it's even possible to violate the 6th amendment. What would violating the 6th amendment look like? I suspect the answer will closely resemble civil forfeitures.
alistairSH 4y ago
The right of the people to be secure in their ... effects, against unreasonable ... seizures, shall not be violated The building was part of the person's effects. I don't understand how your argument is legal (not that I don't believe you - civil forfeiture has been going on long enough that I assume SCOTUS has heard a sampling of cases). It beggars belief that this practice has stood for decades.
- mysterydip 4y ago
  I agree with you and think it's a crazy practice. I was just saying how they justify it (flaws aside)
l33t2328 4y ago
So is it even possible to violate the 6th amendment? Could the police not just seize anything since that object has no rights?
pessimizer 4y ago
> People have constitutional rights, objects do not I'm pretty sure that's been modified to US people on US soil, at least 100 miles from a border, have constitutional rights, but those rights were all intended to mean something different than what they actually say.