Posted on 12/11/2014 9:59:54 AM PST by MichCapCon
“Yes, there are a small number of cases where the money is legitimate and the owner was too stupid to know the laws and so now he has to go to court to prove the money is not drug related. But the normal asset forfeiture is a good call.”
First, the Bill of Rights and the entire Constitution requires proper due process. Asset forfeiture isn’t it. Make no mistake, they don’t CARE if they harm innocents with this. The worded the laws very carefully to put the burden of proof on the suspect, and not on the State. Is that an American ideal? And the costs of fighting it often exceed what was stolen. LE knows this, and very much uses it.
Even the people who originally concocted this insanity are now turning on it for its clear abuse.
Yes, I know you're an engineer; I didn't mean to offend you… merely a dig at the current devaluation of logical thinking in the legal realm.
Like you said, those courses had zero PC material in them. Plus I know the majority of my professors were conservatives - and most had a real job outside of teaching. Consulting usually.
Probably why I liked them. :)
First, when the opponent starts attacking you with insults and flinging nasty words at you, you know you have won. :)
I guess I won this fight handily then.
But second, I am sick to death of foreigners invading MY country and turning it into a 3rd world cesspool. At this stage of being forced to leave a state because it’s no longer the US, I’d be fine with noncitizens having no rights at all. Illegals appear to have more rights than citizens in my area. I AM that incensed. That’s what happens when TPTB force something against our will down our throats. Yes, I am using emotion vs logic right now. Being mad is an appropriate emotion at the invasion, IMO. Let me move to the US in 2 months and I might have a different point of view.
The favoring of people based on those criteria is exactly why its becoming a 3rd world cesspool — this is the natural result of not doing justly (i.e. throwing out the Rule of Law).
But, the way I see it, the proper response to invasion is not via the legal system, it is via force-of-arms.
“And authorities are LOADED with Probable Cause when they seize your $20,000 in cash in your trunk and you can’t/won’t explain why.”
Probable Cause is not the standard for seizing property permanently or until you can prove your innocence. It is the standard for arrest and trial, with any conviction requiring beyond reasonable doubt.
If you can’t walk away with the suspect in cuffs, you clearly don’t have enough to steal property from him. You’ve got nothing and are guessing. That is a recipe for hurting innocent people. And make no mistake, there are a lot of asset forfeitures for far less than 20k.
Who says? You?
What is your authority in this field?
Moreover, given the actions of the government over the last decade, are you really going to assert that the Government gives two craps about the constraints of the Constitution?
Or, to put it another way, what would be the functional difference if the government said we're tired of playing games, the Constitution's over
? (I'm not asking about what reaction/response would be, but what difference the form of the government would be like.)
You are way over your head and out of your league here.
Says all of: you.
Your arguments (really just assertions) are unsubstantiated, unimpressive, and in no way make me reconsider my own model.
“Why, the cops should have just let him go when he began resisting arrest. Just like the cops should let you go with $20,000 in drug profits in your trunk.”
If you can’t prove it is drug profit, YES they should let him go. The standard for our legal system is not some cop’s hunch, or belief, it is what he can take to court and prove.
Logically, if you can’t take someone into court and prove it is drug money, then you don’t actually know it is drug money. You’re assuming. Do you know what assume means? as u me.
“The Institute for Justice is fighting the civil forfeiture abuses.
Like Tenaha targeting out of state cars, pulling them over, taking all cash and threatening in some cases to arrest parents and give kids to CPS if you don’t sign over the cash.”
Just to be clear, that signing over was signing that you will not challenge their claim to the money. Who wouldn’t submit to that threat, especially threats against their kids, no matter how innocent?
Should they have even looked in your trunk?
I'm in no way condoning what he did, I'm merely pointing out that paying your debt to society doesn't mean what it used to mean.
Yup. You've been around here long enough to know better.
If you're violating someone else's rights through force or fraud, then you're committing a real crime. All else is arbitrary law, it's just a matter of who ends up getting their Tyrannical vision imposed. There's no difference between right-wing authoritarians and left-wing authoritarians when it has nothing to do with infringing on anybody's rights.
Liquor stores deal drugs too. They deal the worst drug on the face of God's green earth.
So what? Freedom is a challenging thing, but I'll take Freedom, warts and all, over Tyranny any day of the week.
>>>Alarming, no blanket and no pillow in a cold cell<<<
I wonder if this is part of the CIA Report that was just released. Where is DiFi when you need her?
You didn’t offend me, don’t worry. I just feel the need to point out not all women are idiots. Yes, most are. So choosing carefully when finding the right one is crucial for you guys!
Yup, when the opponents can’t think of anything more to say so starts insulting you, just smile ;)
Ok, I get it now. IF existing laws were implemented AND activist judges wouldn’t overturn the will of the people, the invasion wouldn’t have started. Noncitizens who are here legally should have the same protections under the law as citizens.
‘Asset Forfeiture’ is a federal program, that seizes real and personal property when someone is ‘committing a felony with illegal distribution of drugs’ or other illegal contraband or crimes. After the conviction the property is transferred.
That program was managed by the U S Marshalls and I guess it still is. Many local police end up with confiscated vehicles, etc, as there are auctions.
Yep; I'd go so far as to say even those who aren't here legally should have the protection of the law: if the law is blind, then it should not care about who the accuser and defendant are, but rather what was done.
If the poor man steals $1000 from the rich man it should be given the same weight as the rich man stealing $1000 from the poor man; if an employer agrees to pay his workers $200 for a day's work and hires a Citizen and a non-citizen (even an illegal) and fails to pay them the Citizen and non-Citizen should be treated the same in court. (After the decision, or perhaps concurrently, the issue of the illegal immigrant can be tried… it is a separate issue.)
It is because Justice is no longer blind
that the politically connected (read Congress et al) get away with so much, it is why Law Enforcement get away with so much, it is why illegals get away with so much. — Treat men equal, and they will be equal.
“Yep; I’d go so far as to say even those who aren’t here legally should have the protection of the law: if the law is blind, then it should not care about who the accuser and defendant are, but rather what was done. “
In theory, you are probably right. And logically, I see that if an illegal was treated differently because of his status, then the same can be done to any of us - for whatever reason. Like the IRS targeting conservatives is ok, but not if they go after liberals.
BUT emotionally, I think since they are already criminals they have no rights. Because I see how they have ruined all the border states and now are working on the rest.
I would probably be in trouble if on a jury because I’d want to know if someone was legal or not. Because if they committed one crime already, the punishment should be more. If I expressed that, I’d be the one in jail though. In our PC world.
I’ll wait until I move back to the U.S. Then I can think more rationally. And pretend the nightmare in the border states isn’t my problem any more.
That was probably the very immoral point of the officer making the threat.
That is, without a doubt one of the most ignorant things I've ever seen on this site.
Congratulations.
I keep seeing references to revolution, civil war, ‘last resort’,...
I’m pleased posters are seeing the impossibility of fixing this mess we’re in.
Here’s a few examples:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3235917/posts?page=28#28
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3235917/posts?page=10#10
http://freerepublic.com/focus/news/3235917/posts?page=43#43
“And authorities are LOADED with Probable Cause when they seize your $20,000 in cash in your trunk and you can’t/won’t explain why.”
Well gosh; so much that Declaration of Independence thingy that those guys decided to write back in 1776.
Its totally irrelevant in a society where people think its just fine for authorities to seize cash from citizens.
I guess our experiment in democracy was fine awhile it lasted. Who in Britain today do we go to apologize to?
Maybe these guys were right:
American Loyalists:
I've noticed a bit of an uptick there myself.
I've also noticed that many people aren't berating or scoffing at those who say we're heading that direction, itself [IMO] a telling sign.
I’m pleased posters are seeing the impossibility of fixing this mess we’re in.
I think the only possible peaceful fix is an Article V convention — I've written up a few proposals for amendments that've gotten generally good feedback. (Currently stumped on how to do a judicial reform amendment.)
IMO, any new amendments need to have things like mandatory expulsion for those government agents that violate it — that is, make them have teeth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.