Bingo! The more assets they seize the more dependent they'll become on the money. The more dependent they become the more reasons they'll find to seize assets. Pretty soon they'll be nothing more than state sanctioned muggers, immune to arrest and untouchable by the average citizen. |
Pretty soon...? |
|
I don't believe we have gotten to page 5 and no one has mentioned the current travails of CavArms (LINK for those who are unfamiliar with the situation). Their property was seized almost 4 months ago buy the ATF who is trying to take it all through civil forfeiture. Civil forfeiture is not only being used against cash. |
AFAIK, there's no law against transporting cash domestically. So.... Yes, it may establish RS/PC for further digging, but I don't support civil asset forfeiture at any level or in any amount. If someone is arrested the assets obviously need to be held, and if they are convicted the now illegal assets have to go somewhere, but I can't imagine how any portion of those assets going to the arresting agency could be a good thing for the public. |
Dave_A approves, I'm sure. |
|
So, if you drive 75 in a 65 zone, he's got a reason to stop and search you. If you drive 65 in a 65, that's suspicious behavior, and he's got a reason to stop and search you. Sounds to me like he's just going to stop and search you no matter what, and take any cash you have. Then YOU have to prove it is not drug related in order to get it back. 
|
Now you're getting it! Oh, and war is peace, and freedom is slavery. |
We collectively are by tolerating it... |
Here is a rather unique idea....
Let's do away with all forfeiture unless the state can prove a crime in the courts... Will a few drug dealers get away? Sure, but the whole concept of a free state revolves around "innocent until proven guilty" I'm sorry for having such wild and extreme views.  
|
Well, the man has brass balls. Maybe he does not scare easy. Little mope drug dealers don't have the guts unless they are South of the Rio Grande. 
|
Convict them of a crime, fine. However, be sure to apply this:
Lose a $50K car for a $10 joint? Sounds unreasonable to me... Now I'm not equating rifles with pot, just suggesting that the concept of due process should be suspended if you think the issue "icky" is a pretty horrible slippery slope. |
I'd bet most of those stops are blacks and hispanics. |
Fuck. That. How about the government has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was used in or related to a crime, just the same as if they had gotten a conviction. There, now there is no incentive to go around the back door to fuck someone over. "Awww shit, we've got no criminal case. Oh well, civil forfeiture has a lower standard of proof, we can probably win there." |
I had a long ass post I was about to hit submit on, but Mr. badfish has summed it up quite nicely. Therefore, +1 |
Because you do not realize that the environment you permit to exist that enables the state to have people's property taken without due process or the conviction of a crime simply because you do not like "druggies" (although they are not "druggies" unless convicted as such) will also enable your property to be seized in the future if enough people hate "gunnies." I'm amazed that, just at the accusation or suggestion, that someone is involved with drugs justifies such acts for some people. I imagine that some people would have no problem with people being pulled from their beds at night, raped, and have their house burned down as long as someone said the magic words,"there may be drugs in there."
|
Are child molesters not still child molesters if they haven't been convicted 'as such' yet? Conviction means squat when it refers to what you are or aren't.
Been hearing that shit for 20 some years. Guns will be seized regardless if druggie's cash is seized or not. It's bullshit to think supporting druggie's cash not being seized means the gov't won't seize your guns. What's your list of all the other stuff we have to not support in order to protect your guns? |
The police should never forget that they are Very much touchable by the citizens they serve. Not advocating anything other than remembering who you serve and what higher power you derive your madate from. |
Well....yes.... I can call you a child molester 'till I'm blue in the face, but should you be treated as such unless it is proven? If I call you a child molester, without proving it, can the state take your house or force you to live away from schools? |
 |
Like Mexico? We are becoming more like them every day. A trillion pesos to fill up a car of gas. etc. |
Nonsense. When you set a precedence that assets can be seized without conviction, then that precedence can be utilized in any scenario. Why the disagreement for waiting for a conviction of a crime in a court before things can be seized. Are we not innocent unless proved guilty?
|
If you're caught with child molester money state should only take away your child molesting money. Profits from selling kiddie porn, etc. Yeah, no problem. |
GTFO mine |
It hurt to read that. Please, please stop. |
Cars are seized every day from drunk drivers and street racers on the spot without judge, jury on the spot. |
Except that's not the way it works. The way the system is set up now, the state can start a civil hearing - not a criminal trial - and if they can prove beyond a preponderance of the evidence that the property was used in or is the proceeds of a crime, they get to take your property. That means they have to show a greater than 50% probability that your property was used in or the result of a crime, and they take it. In a criminal proceeding, they have to prove your guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Thats a high standard, damn near 99% probability. You're giving the state a much easier way to fuck peoples lives over than the state should have. The only way the state should be able to win a judgment in crime-related cases is with the proper standard: beyond a reasonable doubt. |
I pass NO judgement until we find out the details of the case... I've said this every time Cav is mentioned... Like I said, I don't approve of the PROCESS currently used, but the concept is A-OK... The government should have to sue the property owner and prove their case in civil court... INSTEAD of having the property owner prove the innocence of the property.... |
If you're suspected of a crime the police will seize anything as possible evidence to the crime: computers, guns, whatever and possibly lock bank accounts, etc. My example of seizing cars from drunks and street racers stands. |
Let's do away with all forfeiture unless the state can prove a crime in the courts... Will a few drug dealers get away? Sure, but the whole concept of a free state revolves around "innocent until proven guilty" I'm sorry for having such wild and extreme views. Not extreme... Just ignoring that a civil case *is* 'due process of law'... Like I said, the 'you must prove there is nothing nefarious about your property' standard is bullshit.... A 'The government must prove that the property is proceeds of illegal activity to a perponderance of the evidence (civil judgement)' standard is not.... |
No, after a trial and conviction, he should be executed. Period. |
Yeah, and you get it back if you're innocent. In asset forfeiture, even if you committed no crime - the state keeps your property. |
Dave, Some are being deprived of their property without due process because it is being taken in ADVANCE of legal action. They are not even being arrested, which is part of the criminal process. This is completely different than losing your property after a hearing has occured (due process.) No arrest, no hearing, no conviction -- just seizure. |
You obviously missed the part where I said 'The standard needs to be changed'... |
|
If your car gets seized for street racing for example and you dont contest the charge the State wins the case and your car is lost. If your drug money is seized and you don't contest the seizure you lose the money. No difference. Ever get a speeding ticket and decided not to go to court and fight it? You lost. State won. |
some thieves do have honor...... just not officer snatchit. |
HUGE, glaring, mind-blowingly large difference. |
Maybe because this guy wasn't in his jurisdiction: http://www.wral.com/news/news_briefs/story/3058534/ Dad busted for still, son for marijuana James Ray Sheffield, charged with operating still Posted: Jun. 17, 2008 Seagrove, N.C. — Moore County authorities have arrested a father and son after finding a still, illegal moonshine and marijuana plants in the woods near their homes. James Ray Sheffield, 67, of 810 Steed Road in Seagrove, was charged with manufacturing liquor without permits and possession of non-tax-paid liquor. James Edward Sheffield, 41, of 929 Brewer Road in Seagrove, was charged with manufacturing marijuana, possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of drug paraphernalia. Deputies were checking on a residence Sunday when they found seven marijuana plants near an outbuilding at 929 Brewer Road and a still in the woods about 100 yards away, authorities said. After a preliminary investigation, deputies searched 810 Steed Road and found about eight gallons of moonshine. |
Did you give them any reason to suspect you? I'm not advocating the siezure of all large amounts of money.... However, as certain folks are fond of saying, the 'totality of the circumstances' may indicate illegal activity... And in those cases, I have no problem with a civil-forfieture system that requires the government to prove in court, to civil court standards, that there was something wrong (right now you have to prove the 'innocence' of your property).... I don't, however, think that it should be held to criminal court standards.... That said, I won't be caught dead with anything more than $500 in cash (hell, normally I carry ZERO cash)... If it's more than that, check or plastic FTW.... |
) in plain view...USBP asked if I was .mil and waved me through...Should they have seized my money?
 You don't understand the culture. Down here total strangers wave as they pass you on the road. Most of them use one finger to do it too. You gotta look to see if you should wave back. |
|