To Protect and to Serve II

#5,776
#5,776
GreyWolf1129 said:
You are ignoring the clear distinction...in the law...between articulable suspicion, probable cause, and reasonable doubt.

That's probably a contributing factor in your inability to understand why seizure and forfeiture are, again, two completely different things.
Click to expand...

It's splitting hairs that the courts have done to give LE an end run around people's constitutional rights. I do know that the 5th amendment clearly states that no citizen will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. So please explain to me where is the due process in this whole civil forfeiture bs? If it is on me to prove that my money was obtained legally in order to keep you from taking it from me, then that violates the letter and the spirit of the US Constitution.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#5,777
#5,777
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
It's splitting hairs that the courts have done to give LE an end run around people's constitutional rights. I do know that the 5th amendment clearly states that no citizen will be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. So please explain to me where is the due process in this whole civil forfeiture bs? If it is on me to prove that my money was obtained legally in order to keep you from taking it from me, then that violates the letter and the spirit of the US Constitution.
Click to expand...

I'm with you in principle, but this is more a 4th Amendment issue. That's where the courts have kept it, anyway.

"End run"? If you want to get mad about end runs around the Constitution, you might want to look at how FISA warrants work. There's something you should REALLY be worried about.

Again..."seizure" -vs- "forfeiture". One being a temporary loss, and one permanent. And I already said, if it were me, I'd be beyond pissed. At face value, this was an overreach by CBP and the AUSA.

I'm guessing that Bernie Madoff's victims, and those who have been victims of crime and have been compensated in part thanks to asset / civil forfeiture, are completely okay with it. Works both ways. But it should never work against an innocent party.

This is either a complete and egregious overreach by CBP, or there's more to the story. So let it play out, and let's see what happens.

Plenty of time to throw rocks later.
 
#5,778
#5,778
GreyWolf1129 said:
I'm with you in principle, but this is more a 4th Amendment issue. That's where the courts have kept it, anyway.

"End run"? If you want to get mad about end runs around the Constitution, you might want to look at how FISA warrants work. There's something you should REALLY be worried about.

Again..."seizure" -vs- "forfeiture". One being a temporary loss, and one permanent. And I already said, if it were me, I'd be beyond pissed. At face value, this was an overreach by CBP and the AUSA.

I'm guessing that Bernie Madoff's victims, and those who have been victims of crime and have been compensated in part thanks to asset / civil forfeiture, are completely okay with it. Works both ways. But it should never work against an innocent party.

This is either a complete and egregious overreach by CBP, or there's more to the story. So let it play out, and let's see what happens.

Plenty of time to throw rocks later.
Click to expand...

Well see... this is a totally different situation you're describing. In the Madoff case, you have clear victims of a crime by theft and deceit.

But in a drug deal where two sides willingly engage in commerce of mutual benefit, who is the victim?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,779
#5,779
Rasputin_Vol said:
Well see... this is a totally different situation you're describing. In the Madoff case, you have clear victims of a crime by theft and deceit.

But in a drug deal where two sides willingly engage in commerce of mutual benefit, who is the victim?
Click to expand...

There's not much mutual benefit in first responders having to administer Narcan to prevent an OD death, or in having to work the burglaries / thefts / robberies that many at the "bottom of the food chain" commit to fuel their addiction.


The victims, in that case, are you and me. We're the ones footing the bill for the manpower and assets to respond to, deal with, and treat the epidemic. And yes, it's a losing battle. I don't know what the answer is, but what we're doing is not working at all.


Yes, broad brush strokes, I know. But a very real, present, and increasing reality.


I already said, I've made a 180-degree turn on weed. It has a valid medical application. I'm not aware of any bona-fide study that confirms it's a "gateway drug". So legalize it, tax it, and sell it...under the same rules we use for alcohol and tobacco, or similar.


Asset forfeiture has it's place. Like any other law or rule of law, it can be twisted and/or manipulated to tip the scales against the common man. I'm in favor of addressing the abuse of it, rather than the existence.


By extension, this is the "get rid of all guns" debate, just wearing a different cloak.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#5,780
#5,780
GreyWolf1129 said:
I'm with you in principle, but this is more a 4th Amendment issue. That's where the courts have kept it, anyway.

"End run"? If you want to get mad about end runs around the Constitution, you might want to look at how FISA warrants work. There's something you should REALLY be worried about.

Again..."seizure" -vs- "forfeiture". One being a temporary loss, and one permanent. And I already said, if it were me, I'd be beyond pissed. At face value, this was an overreach by CBP and the AUSA.

I'm guessing that Bernie Madoff's victims, and those who have been victims of crime and have been compensated in part thanks to asset / civil forfeiture, are completely okay with it. Works both ways. But it should never work against an innocent party.

This is either a complete and egregious overreach by CBP, or there's more to the story. So let it play out, and let's see what happens.

Plenty of time to throw rocks later.
Click to expand...

It's not this story per se that bothers me, although it highlights to me that it's a national problem. The THP and the DTF are doing this daily on I40 and I65. Phil Williams has done several stories documenting the corruption involved. In many cases the cops knew that the person they pulled over wasn't involved in drugs or any other crime, but took their money anyway simply because they could. There was even one case where it was a cop from another state on vacation. They didn't even bother to extend him the "professional courtesy" that cops usually get. They saw a money grab and took it.

I refuse to carry cash with me if I'm traveling on the interstate because I know what will happen if I get pulled over. When it gets to the point where law abiding citizens are afraid of the police, then you have an image problem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,781
#5,781
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
It's not this story per se that bothers me, although it highlights to me that it's a national problem. The THP and the DTF are doing this daily on I40 and I65. Phil Williams has done several stories documenting the corruption involved. In many cases the cops knew that the person they pulled over wasn't involved in drugs or any other crime, but took their money anyway simply because they could. There was even one case where it was a cop from another state on vacation. They didn't even bother to extend him the "professional courtesy" that cops usually get. They saw a money grab and took it.

I refuse to carry cash with me if I'm traveling on the interstate because I know what will happen if I get pulled over. When it gets to the point where law abiding citizens are afraid of the police, then you have an image problem.
Click to expand...



I agree.
 
#5,782
#5,782
GreyWolf1129 said:
There's not much mutual benefit in first responders having to administer Narcan to prevent an OD death, or in having to work the burglaries / thefts / robberies that many at the "bottom of the food chain" commit to fuel their addiction.


The victims, in that case, are you and me. We're the ones footing the bill for the manpower and assets to respond to, deal with, and treat the epidemic. And yes, it's a losing battle. I don't know what the answer is, but what we're doing is not working at all.


Yes, broad brush strokes, I know. But a very real, present, and increasing reality.


I already said, I've made a 180-degree turn on weed. It has a valid medical application. I'm not aware of any bona-fide study that confirms it's a "gateway drug". So legalize it, tax it, and sell it...under the same rules we use for alcohol and tobacco, or similar.


Asset forfeiture has it's place. Like any other law or rule of law, it can be twisted and/or manipulated to tip the scales against the common man. I'm in favor of addressing the abuse of it, rather than the existence.


By extension, this is the "get rid of all guns" debate, just wearing a different cloak.
Click to expand...




I represent LEO's in civil cases and had to take a moment first to thank you for your last few as they are very accurate on the legal reasoning, of course.


But also the Narcan point. Wanted to recount a conversation I had with a deputy sheriff, one trained to do that. He told me he once had to administer narcan to the same guy, twice, in one day.


Effectively saved his life in the a.m., he was treated and released from the hospital. Same deal that evening.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,784
#5,784
GreyWolf1129 said:
There's not much mutual benefit in first responders having to administer Narcan to prevent an OD death, or in having to work the burglaries / thefts / robberies that many at the "bottom of the food chain" commit to fuel their addiction.


The victims, in that case, are you and me. We're the ones footing the bill for the manpower and assets to respond to, deal with, and treat the epidemic. And yes, it's a losing battle. I don't know what the answer is, but what we're doing is not working at all.


Yes, broad brush strokes, I know. But a very real, present, and increasing reality.


I already said, I've made a 180-degree turn on weed. It has a valid medical application. I'm not aware of any bona-fide study that confirms it's a "gateway drug". So legalize it, tax it, and sell it...under the same rules we use for alcohol and tobacco, or similar.


Asset forfeiture has it's place. Like any other law or rule of law, it can be twisted and/or manipulated to tip the scales against the common man. I'm in favor of addressing the abuse of it, rather than the existence.


By extension, this is the "get rid of all guns" debate, just wearing a different cloak.
Click to expand...

By mutual benefit, you do know I mean that the buyer and seller were satisfied with the transaction, right?

Also, you should have the same concern, if not more concern, for these addicts on prescription drugs.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,785
#5,785
Rasputin_Vol said:
By mutual benefit, you do know I mean that the buyer and seller were satisfied with the transaction, right?

Also, you should have the same concern, if not more concern, for these addicts on prescription drugs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm not onboard with any illegal drug transactions. You obviously understand why. Legalize weed.

And abuse of prescription Rx's is a huge problem. It already had my concern.

Look...you got me to come around on weed. Enjoy the victory. Baby steps.....
 
#5,789
#5,789
Big Gucci Sosa said:
Agreed, I was trying to ease my way into the conversation.

Coercion..check
propaganda..check
surveillance..check
militirization..check
assassinations..up for debate
Click to expand...

IMO, the most obvious example of the police state is that we have so many victimless crimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#5,792
#5,792
n_huffhines said:
IMO, the most obvious example of the police state is that we have so many victimless crimes.
Click to expand...

Thought crimes... enforced by the state and enforced by the private sector (Roseanne cancellation as an example). So we basically have thought crime police (the state) and thought crime vigilantes (private sector).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#5,798
#5,798
Carl Pickens said:
Such as?
Click to expand...

I would use Walter Block's Defending the Undefendable table of contents as examples of victimless aka crimes that harm no one but offend some prude's delicate sensibilities.

Prostitution
Pimping
Drug pushing
Drug user
Free speech
Blackmailer
Libeler
Advertiser
The person who yell "fire" in a crowded theatre
Gypsy cab driver
Ticket scalper
Dirty cop
Non government Counterfeiter
Speculator
Moneylender
Stripminor
Profiteer
Middleman
Scab
Rate buster
Child labor employer
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top