You believe what you want. It would not be this controversial if it was as clean as you want to claim, only harming the bad guys. But the concept is clear. Charge the property, without charging the person, then lower the bar to preponderance of evidence. There is only one reason to do that, to stack the deck against the property owner. Add to that, he has the costs of fighting the seizure.
This is far from a fair or Constitutional activity. All I need to understand it this basic truth. If you don’t have enough evidence to charge the person with a crime, you clearly don’t have enough to charge the property as being the product of a crime. At least one state mentioned in the article requires a conviction, but only ONE state. So clearly your above board view of this activity is incorrect.
You clearly operate within LE. I suggest you consider two possibilities. First, that maybe your particular area is being more honest about it. That doesn’t make the rest your equal. For those paying attention, the abuse is clear. Just like the abuse of SWAT is clear.
Two, and I consider this a certainty to at least a limited extent. That you have a rosy view of your own profession and can’t see the abusive activities because you don’t want to see it. You don’t want to see yourself as supporting criminal behavior by cops.
I’ve seen this attitude in a lot of cops I’ve traded with on FR and elsewhere. They have a rosy view of themselves and their activities, and can’t or won’t see the just criticism of that activity. Those Blue colored glasses can hide a lot, if you let them. It is the old concept of ‘can’t see the forest through the trees’. No profession ever looks at themselves critically, which is why outsiders are the ones providing that critical examination. Doctors, truck drives, lawyers, on and on are all subject to external criticism.
And I consider cops no different, except they are largely left to judge and investigate themselves. At most, they answer to that same government that would be responsible for their activities. You aren’t going to get a very critical review out of that.
You and I will have to agree to disagree.
I find your comment about my “rosy view of my profession” a bit condescending though. You know absolutely nothing about me to make a sweeping statement like that.
I question any source that has an “agenda”. The source cited in the article is an anti-forfeiture organization that may or may not have divulged ALL the facts of the case cited. I’m not willing to accept their version of the events as gospel any more that I would accept the main stream media spewing talking points about Obamacare.
You have made your position about asset forfeiture clear and I repect your position. I have tried to offer a different perspective of the situation from one who has been involved in winning and losing asset forfeiture cases.
You can find abuses in any organization. I would submit that if you looked at your own organization, you can find instances of undesirable behavior. Truth is, cops are easy to pick on. Most encounters with police end up with someone not happy with the outcome...that is easy to criticize.
Lately, it’s become too easy.