4 ms·

I’m just explaining the rationale. At this point it’s a moral discussion rather than legal: does the “war on drugs” et al trump individual rights? If yes, you’d

I’m just explaining the rationale. At this point it’s a moral discussion rather than legal: does the “war on drugs” et al trump individual rights? If yes, you’d be in favor of forfeiture, if not, you’d be against.

crooked-v 4y ago
Except it's not really a moral discussion, it's a legal one—and the most fundamental laws of the country obviously ban the tactic. The article uses a lot of sophistry to try and argue that the plain and obvious intended reading of the Fourth Amendment isn't correct, and that's obviously nonsense, both in a vacuum and in the context of when and why it was written.
- SnowHill9902 4y ago
  Laws codify the underlying morality of a society so they are not divorced and independent one from the other. There may be a significant lag between both, though and at times one may lead the other.
ncmncm 4y ago
No. With no conviction, there is no legitimate claim of a crime. Very often the confiscation is not connected to an indictment, or even an arrest. "Oh, you have cash! We'll take that, you're free to go. Scram." Sometimes the cop just wants your Camaro.
oh_sigh 4y ago
Sure - I was just saying my problems with the current implementation. I'm not even against civil forfeiture as a premise - merely how it is implemented now, where one needs to prove something that may be impossible. Imagine if you take $25/week out of your paycheck and put it under your mattress. 10 years later you take that money and go to buy a truck, but you're pulled over and the cops take all of your money. How exactly can you prove the money is legitimately yours? If the burden of proof was put on the accuser(cops), then they would need to show that you're a drug dealer or something, not just some guy who learned financial habits from a member of the old school of savings.
- chrismcb 4y ago
  How can you be for civil forfeiture? What is the argument for it?

crooked-v 4y ago

Except it's not really a moral discussion, it's a legal one—and the most fundamental laws of the country obviously ban the tactic. The article uses a lot of sophistry to try and argue that the plain and obvious intended reading of the Fourth Amendment isn't correct, and that's obviously nonsense, both in a vacuum and in the context of when and why it was written.

SnowHill9902 4y ago
Laws codify the underlying morality of a society so they are not divorced and independent one from the other. There may be a significant lag between both, though and at times one may lead the other.

ncmncm 4y ago

No. With no conviction, there is no legitimate claim of a crime. Very often the confiscation is not connected to an indictment, or even an arrest. "Oh, you have cash! We'll take that, you're free to go. Scram." Sometimes the cop just wants your Camaro.

oh_sigh 4y ago

Sure - I was just saying my problems with the current implementation. I'm not even against civil forfeiture as a premise - merely how it is implemented now, where one needs to prove something that may be impossible. Imagine if you take $25/week out of your paycheck and put it under your mattress. 10 years later you take that money and go to buy a truck, but you're pulled over and the cops take all of your money. How exactly can you prove the money is legitimately yours? If the burden of proof was put on the accuser(cops), then they would need to show that you're a drug dealer or something, not just some guy who learned financial habits from a member of the old school of savings.

chrismcb 4y ago
How can you be for civil forfeiture? What is the argument for it?