Announcement

**Shocker1976** · November 29, 2018, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Kung Wu View Post

Most of the conservative and liberal Supremes are rocking on the issue of state seizures disproportionate to the (often only potential) crime committed.

High court likely to say states can't levy excessive fines

https://apnews.com/f60d5690704648edbf7a967cb6d6e8df

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court left little doubt Wednesday that it would rule that the Constitution's ban on excessive fines applies to the states, an outcome that could help an Indiana man recover the $40,000 Land Rover police seized when they arrested him for selling about $400 worth of heroi

Well done Supremes!

No surprise, Roberts is the idiot in this case. I like him less and less and less and less.

Could this be a President Bush phenomenon? We should pray that Roberts does not morph into GHWB's Supreme Court appointment of Souter:

GHWB appointed two Justices - Thomas and Souter

GW appointed two Justices - Alito and Roberts

**SHOCKvalue** · November 29, 2018, 01:54 PM

Civil asset forfeiture is a cancer to society.

The reigns controlling ground-level, everyday law enforcement in this country have to be kept very taut. They're like a junkyard dog; great when they take down a bad guy, not so great when they maul a toddler. Even worse when the toddler gets blamed, and the junkyard dog is able to retreat and hide behind the other dogs.

**DUShock** · November 29, 2018, 02:21 PM

It is dangerous to draw assumptions from the comments of and questions of the justices. But by in large, at least we appear to have tangible proof of something that may well bring together both sides of political spectrum at the national/judicial level.

**SHOCKvalue** · November 29, 2018, 02:59 PM

84% of Americans Oppose Civil Asset Forfeiture

https://www.cato.org/blog/84-america...set-forfeiture

A half-crazy person might say that this is a pretty good indication the American People have lost control of the American Government.

**C0|dB|00ded** · November 30, 2018, 05:50 PM

I don't know the constitutional implications on this issue but my hunch tells me that if you're doing some heavy illegal ****, be ready to have your **** ganked by law enforcement. Running a law enforcement organization is expensive; I don't have much sympathy for criminals. If you're found innocent you'll get your **** back.

T

...:cool:

**wufan** · November 30, 2018, 06:41 PM

I think the concern is that you have shady cops that could be incentivized to get cool ****! This guy did a $400 drug sale in his Range Rover and they took it. He was certainly guilty, but that’s not proportional punishment.

A better punishment would be an appropriate fine, (perhaps 10 times the amount of money that was exchanged in the transaction?), plus any necessary jail time.

**SHOCKvalue** · November 30, 2018, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by C0|dB|00ded View Post

I don't know the constitutional implications on this issue but my hunch tells me that if you're doing some heavy illegal ****, be ready to have your **** ganked by law enforcement. Running a law enforcement organization is expensive; I don't have much sympathy for criminals. If you're found innocent you'll get your **** back.

T

...:cool:

Assets are seized and put on trial, not people. The people in these sort of cases are never charged with anything. Their assets are seized in a "guilty before innocent" (as it relates to assets, not persons) predicament, and people have to prove to the court that their assets aren't from the spoils of crime, when the people are never even charged for a crime.

I mean there will always be the same forfeiture we've always had when the human is convicted and the spoils of the crime are seized, but that's not this issue. This is a chicken before the egg situation, only with no egg, and the government steals your chicken.

**wufan** · November 30, 2018, 06:57 PM

Originally posted by SHOCKvalue View Post

Assets are seized and put on trial, not people. The people in these sort of cases are never charged with anything. Their assets are seized in a "guilty before innocent" (as it relates to assets, not persons) predicament, and people have to prove to the court that their assets aren't from the spoils of crime, when the people are never even charged for a crime.

I mean there will always be the same forfeiture we've always had when the human is convicted and the spoils of the crime are seized, but that's not this issue. This is a chicken before the egg situation, only with no egg, and the government steals your chicken.

The way I read it is that the forfeiture will no longer occur.

**SHOCKvalue** · November 30, 2018, 07:07 PM

Originally posted by wufan View Post

The way I read it is that the forfeiture will no longer occur.

I can't imagine that to be the case. Old school forfeiture for convicted criminals who wouldn't otherwise have X without the crime doesn't hurt anyone's feelings.

**mattdalt** · November 30, 2018, 07:19 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks Explains the problem pretty well.

**Dark Lord** · December 1, 2018, 05:45 PM

I am no fan of Oliver, but all of his points were valid and should concern any American that does not worship at the alter of the State. Civil asset forfeiture is a soulless abomination that should not be tolerated under any circumstance unless and until it has been proven that the person in question is in fact guilty of a crime and then only if confiscating the property is in connection to the crime that they have been found guilty of.

Sadly, way too often, that is nowhere close to the case in how this is handled at any level of government. You have to be one truly soulless bastard to support these kinds of actions.

**C0|dB|00ded** · December 1, 2018, 11:41 PM

Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States

In 2010, there were $2.5 BILLION in asset forfeitures. Can everybody on here agree that the vast majority of those proceeds came from bad actors? If we can agree on that, can we also agree that the rest of the cases (a minority) would be considered collateral damage? If we can agree on that, can we agree that nearly every use of punitive force on the planet from the meter maid to the dude that drops big bombs on terrorists inflict collateral damage? If we can agree on that, can we also agree that Capitalism inflicts collateral damage on the weak? If we can agree on that, can we also agree that Capitalism is the most successful form of economy known to man? If we can agree on that, can we conclude that while civil forfeiture is imperfect, it's a very effective instrument in our law enforcement tool bag for tipping the scales against sophisticated criminals?

If not, what would you propose we do instead? Just let 'em bling out? Maybe we could call it an economic stimulus package because you know the dealers are throwing every nickel they earn straight back into the economy: Rolli's, 'Rrari's, etc...

Of course there's that little problem about your kid buying laced dope and dying on a street corner somewhere.

T

...:cool:

**wufan** · December 2, 2018, 07:31 AM

It is better to let them guilty men go free than to punish one innocent man.

**SHOCKvalue** · December 2, 2018, 03:41 PM

Perverse incentive. Look it up. Cornerstone of this very issue.

Announcement

Good Job Supremes

Good Job Supremes

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment