4 ms·

The free country where cops can mug you under threat of state backed violence, steal your money, and you won't get any due process, it's just gone. Ok. Extreme

The free country where cops can mug you under threat of state backed violence, steal your money, and you won't get any due process, it's just gone. Ok. Extreme reform is required at this point...

akira2501 2y ago
You get due process in the sense that you can sue for your money back and possibly even win. Due process does not imply fair process. You'll get no due process in the sense that the "authority" who took your money and deprived you of it's use will suffer no consequences due to "qualified immunity."
- TheRealPomax 2y ago
  I question this use of "possibly" here: can you? Not hypothetically, but can you actually win rather than the case being dragged out until you drop it or the judge sides with their government?
  - akira2501 2y ago
    Yes, you absolutely can win these cases, but you must have essentially air tight evidence as to where the money came from and that was in fact the money that was seized. You can also appeal any judgement which prevents the money from leaving custody until the appeal is complete. The chances are very small due to the way the case is structured but it is entirely possible and it has been known to occur. The main issue is it's a _civil_ case against property and the rules of a civil trial massively over benefit the government and effectively ignore fourth amendment property rights.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- jimt1234 2y ago
  I can't believe it's been 6 years since I wrote this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17395675#17398314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17395675#17398314 ... It basically explains local cops and "civil forfeiture", and how it ruined an innocent man's life, someone close to me. This was back in the early/mid-90s; "civil forfeiture" was brand new, and talk of "due process" - well, that just didn't exist.
  - kragen 2y ago
    civil forfeiture in what is now the united states goes back to the 01600s and was used actively during the alcohol prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... thank you for linking your excellent comment incidentally, the thread six years ago was about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana, and you may be pleased to know that tyson timbs got his land rover back
- LightHugger 2y ago
  It operates under guilty until proven innocent, i suppose i didn't consider that due process. Having to prove yourself innocent is not viable.
subroutine 2y ago
If the DEA knows you are about to board a plane back to Columbia with copious amounts of cash after a 24 hour vacation to the States, it's questionable if it's really "your money". The three options are (a) the feds hold the cash until its origin is found to be legit, (b) they hold the person until the cash is verified legit, (c) the suitcase of cash and the person fly away never to be seen again. I guess the 4th option would be making it much easier and faster for the DEA to obtain a warrant; but this just leads back to a, b, or c. n.b. I am totally against local cops holding any amount of discovered money during random searches. That's a huge conflict if interest. I'm mainly commenting on the original post.
- Phrodo_00 2y ago
  Columbia, Indiana is not exactly outside of the US
  - subroutine 2y ago
    True, true. If they are really shaking down passengers for the hell of it to steal their money, that is obviously messed up. It will certainly make me reconsider traveling to Indiana with a duffle bag filled with wads of hundreds.
    - guappa 2y ago
      People who trust the police have never met the police. They generally aren't interested in catching criminals. They're interested in catching someone. The easier the better.
      - subroutine 2y ago
        When you say criminals, who do you mean exactly - someone who very recently committed a crime? And by catching someone... catching them do what? I know several officers, and can safely say they are as varied a group as any other profession. Their day-to-day typically consists of responding to 911 calls, backup to other officers, or traffic duty. I think they generally are interested in catching people breaking the law - particularly the really bad ones. And sure, they would prefer it to be easy, who wouldn't. They get paid like $60k/yr and their day-to-day involves stuff like responding to a domestic violence calls with belligerents wielding various weapons. My biggest challenge most days is finding a parking spot.
yieldcrv 2y ago
land of the free was written by an amateur poet while he had an America-boner watching actual soldiers fighting his poem was adopted posthumously 120 years later to boost morale it has nothing to do with anything and relies on comparison to the most mismanaged countries in the world to justify a perpetuation of its flaws we’ve gotten lucky with 1st amendment rulings over the last 100 years to perpetuate strong protections there and haven't had a military coup, but thats pretty much it. case in point, by 1910 the supreme court ruled that motion pictures had no 1st amendment protections, not overruling itself until the mid 1950s. anything can happen unless we button up the constitution with finely tailored amendments

The free country where cops can mug you under threat of state backed violence, steal your money, and you won't get any due process, it's just gone. Ok. Extreme reform is required at this point...

akira2501 2y ago

You get due process in the sense that you can sue for your money back and possibly even win. Due process does not imply fair process. You'll get no due process in the sense that the "authority" who took your money and deprived you of it's use will suffer no consequences due to "qualified immunity."

TheRealPomax 2y ago
I question this use of "possibly" here: can you? Not hypothetically, but can you actually win rather than the case being dragged out until you drop it or the judge sides with their government?
- akira2501 2y ago
  Yes, you absolutely can win these cases, but you must have essentially air tight evidence as to where the money came from and that was in fact the money that was seized. You can also appeal any judgement which prevents the money from leaving custody until the appeal is complete. The chances are very small due to the way the case is structured but it is entirely possible and it has been known to occur. The main issue is it's a _civil_ case against property and the rules of a civil trial massively over benefit the government and effectively ignore fourth amendment property rights.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
jimt1234 2y ago
I can't believe it's been 6 years since I wrote this post: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17395675#17398314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17395675#17398314 ... It basically explains local cops and "civil forfeiture", and how it ruined an innocent man's life, someone close to me. This was back in the early/mid-90s; "civil forfeiture" was brand new, and talk of "due process" - well, that just didn't exist.
- kragen 2y ago
  civil forfeiture in what is now the united states goes back to the 01600s and was used actively during the alcohol prohibition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United... thank you for linking your excellent comment incidentally, the thread six years ago was about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timbs_v._Indiana, and you may be pleased to know that tyson timbs got his land rover back
LightHugger 2y ago
It operates under guilty until proven innocent, i suppose i didn't consider that due process. Having to prove yourself innocent is not viable.

subroutine 2y ago

If the DEA knows you are about to board a plane back to Columbia with copious amounts of cash after a 24 hour vacation to the States, it's questionable if it's really "your money". The three options are (a) the feds hold the cash until its origin is found to be legit, (b) they hold the person until the cash is verified legit, (c) the suitcase of cash and the person fly away never to be seen again. I guess the 4th option would be making it much easier and faster for the DEA to obtain a warrant; but this just leads back to a, b, or c. n.b. I am totally against local cops holding any amount of discovered money during random searches. That's a huge conflict if interest. I'm mainly commenting on the original post.

Phrodo_00 2y ago
Columbia, Indiana is not exactly outside of the US
- subroutine 2y ago
  True, true. If they are really shaking down passengers for the hell of it to steal their money, that is obviously messed up. It will certainly make me reconsider traveling to Indiana with a duffle bag filled with wads of hundreds.
  - guappa 2y ago
    People who trust the police have never met the police. They generally aren't interested in catching criminals. They're interested in catching someone. The easier the better.
    - subroutine 2y ago
      When you say criminals, who do you mean exactly - someone who very recently committed a crime? And by catching someone... catching them do what? I know several officers, and can safely say they are as varied a group as any other profession. Their day-to-day typically consists of responding to 911 calls, backup to other officers, or traffic duty. I think they generally are interested in catching people breaking the law - particularly the really bad ones. And sure, they would prefer it to be easy, who wouldn't. They get paid like $60k/yr and their day-to-day involves stuff like responding to a domestic violence calls with belligerents wielding various weapons. My biggest challenge most days is finding a parking spot.

yieldcrv 2y ago

land of the free was written by an amateur poet while he had an America-boner watching actual soldiers fighting his poem was adopted posthumously 120 years later to boost morale it has nothing to do with anything and relies on comparison to the most mismanaged countries in the world to justify a perpetuation of its flaws we’ve gotten lucky with 1st amendment rulings over the last 100 years to perpetuate strong protections there and haven't had a military coup, but thats pretty much it. case in point, by 1910 the supreme court ruled that motion pictures had no 1st amendment protections, not overruling itself until the mid 1950s. anything can happen unless we button up the constitution with finely tailored amendments