4 ms·

They are, though, considering how poorly we treat non-violent felons. That’s beside the point though, because his legal rights are not being infringed. Being su

They are, though, considering how poorly we treat non-violent felons. That’s beside the point though, because his legal rights are not being infringed. Being sued and being charged are completely different. One is civil, the other is criminal.

sbuttgereit 2y ago
Civil asset forfeiture is not criminal, but civil, and the legal matter is against the property, not the property owner. Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions.
- late2part 2y ago
  "against the property" You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Just because the narrative calls it something, doesn't make it right. It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.
  - sbuttgereit 2y ago
    >You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Huh? I'm relaying what the law considers civil asset forfeiture to be. It's not my opinion and it is not a "narrative". In fact, here's some commentary addressing the issue I raised. "Technically, civil asset forfeiture involves a government lawsuit against the personal property itself or, in legal terms, `in rem`. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property, whether a yacht or a bag of cash, is the defendant in such a proceeding." --- (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civil-asset-forfeiture.html https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civ...) If you don't believe that, maybe you'd believe the Justice Department on issue: "Civil Judicial Forfeiture: In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense." --- (https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture) What you ignored is the only opinion I expressed and the context of that expression: "Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions." How does this square with anything about identify theft responsibility? > It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable. Actually, the historical origin of civil asset forfeiture has some rational basis, though, as with most sensible legal moves, gets corrupted by those willing to exploit the letter of the law in spite of its spirit. Nonetheless, unless there's something I'm missing I don't find your retort particularly coherent. I urge you to reread the original comment to which I replied and my reply and try again.

sbuttgereit 2y ago

Civil asset forfeiture is not criminal, but civil, and the legal matter is against the property, not the property owner. Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions.

late2part 2y ago
"against the property" You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Just because the narrative calls it something, doesn't make it right. It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable.
- sbuttgereit 2y ago
  >You probably think identity theft is a customer's problem, not the bank too. Huh? I'm relaying what the law considers civil asset forfeiture to be. It's not my opinion and it is not a "narrative". In fact, here's some commentary addressing the issue I raised. "Technically, civil asset forfeiture involves a government lawsuit against the personal property itself or, in legal terms, `in rem`. As strange as it may seem, the inanimate property, whether a yacht or a bag of cash, is the defendant in such a proceeding." --- (https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civil-asset-forfeiture.html https://www.findlaw.com/criminal/criminal-rights/what-is-civ...) If you don't believe that, maybe you'd believe the Justice Department on issue: "Civil Judicial Forfeiture: In rem (against the property) court proceeding brought against property that was derived from or used to commit an offense, rather than against a person who committed an offense." --- (https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture https://www.justice.gov/afp/types-federal-forfeiture) What you ignored is the only opinion I expressed and the context of that expression: "Still, I would argue that the property owner's rights are often violated is such actions." How does this square with anything about identify theft responsibility? > It's silly for a nation-state to sue cash, it should never have been considered reasonable. Actually, the historical origin of civil asset forfeiture has some rational basis, though, as with most sensible legal moves, gets corrupted by those willing to exploit the letter of the law in spite of its spirit. Nonetheless, unless there's something I'm missing I don't find your retort particularly coherent. I urge you to reread the original comment to which I replied and my reply and try again.