3 ms·
The issue with all of this is that we're allowing actions against property while not respecting the rights of the owner. The FBI/cops can and should raid a plac
by indymike 4y ago
The issue with all of this is that we're allowing actions against property while not respecting the rights of the owner. The FBI/cops can and should raid a place being used for crime, but it does not mean the cops should get to keep all the property that is seized. A much more mundane situation: Dad shouldn't have the family car auctioned off because his kid's friend decided to shoot up in the back seat. This civil asset forfeiture thing is insanely unconstitutional.
- jeffbee 4y agoThat example seems clear cut from both ethical and constitutional perspectives. If juveniles use your property to commit crimes, that property is rightly in jeopardy.
- notch656a 4y agoI'm not sure that's true, but if it is that is absolutely terrifying and I hope it is rectified at once. I think this would lead to the seizure of all public parks in my city.
- jeffbee 4y agoI guess like all libertarians you will be surprised to learn that there is a separate body of jurisprudence around public property, separate from private property law.
- notch656a 4y agoI am rarely surprised to learn anything anymore in the various laws used to part the common joe of his property.
- indymike 4y agoGoogle civil asset forfeiture. It is absolutely nuts.
- Dylan16807 4y agoWhen "use" is "was inside of", how the fuck can you call that ethical?
- njharman 4y agoSo person breaks into your house and squats it, or shoots up there, bith crimes. Your house should be forfeit? What "ethics" you following?
- KennyBlanken 4y agoI think there's a fundamental difference between "someone breaks into your house and commits a crime" and...purposefully allowing someone use of a gun or vehicle, or negligence leading to said use (ie, leaving your car running in front of a convenience store, and then someone stealing it and going on a high speed joyride, running a red light t-boning a minivan, killing a family of four), and someone, with no negligence on your part, using property of yours to commit a crime. If you leave your gun on the floor of your car, someone smashes the window and steals it and shoots up a convenience store: you should be charged criminally and subject to civil liability. If someone breaks into the gun safe in the trunk of your car and shoots up a convenience store? No crime, no liability - you took reasonable precautions.
- Dylan16807 4y agoA gun comes with special obligations to protect it. If someone borrows your car, or steals your left-running car, I don't think you should have have any criminal liability or risk of seizure. (Assuming you didn't conspire ahead of time, of course.)
- notch656a 4y agoWhile I agree with you on someone stealing your car, I don't see the gun and the car as so different as you do. You can easily kill people with a car or box truck, and possibly in greater number. Blaming someone because their car or gun was stolen sounds a lot like victim blaming to me. And to the comment about breaking the window, I'd like to point out that most safes are practically as easy to break open as a window is. I recall buying one safe, and another customer explained to me in detail how they had pried one open in only a few seconds.
- indymike 4y agoWhy should I be responsible for some other parent's kid committing a crime with my property? So the fact a kid commits a crime erases my rights?