How can civil asset forfeiture laws still be legal?

[WinterBorn]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

When you use an overly biased source, the far left Washington Post, it is left or right.

As the overly biased article you used was incorrect.

Find another source for your argument, not one so far to the left and then you can make such claims.

The far left love to take others money and redistribute. They claim so many are not paying their fair share. What difference does it make?

The IRS takes millions that does not belong to them, yet you have no problem with that.

What about not paying taxes on your house and you loosing said house just because you did not pay the government their share?

It is all part of the same plan.

If you think you own property, think again!

All of those are great points, but irrelevant to the topic.

When cops can pull someone over and seize cash, just because the driver has a lot of cash, something is seriously wrong.

If you want to waste time moaning about the Washington Post, go ahead. If you have any evidence that the DEA has NOT seized $3.2 billion in assets from people who were never charged with a crime, I will happily admit you are right and take this down.

And you want me to prove a negative..

Another loss in your column, just admit you should have used a more unbiased source, maybe like the DEA site itself.

Then your little rant about left or right would have been spot on, but using an overly biased source does not help you in way, no matter how you want to spin it.

And cops can seize the cash when they pull you over, in a search in seizure mode.

At that point t5hey can take anything they need for evidence, so once again your far left argument falls flat on it's face.

And the article does not make that example of cops just randomly pulling people and seizing cash, just because they can. Anything else you have there?

Take anything they need for evidence? Evidence of what? If no charges are filed, they still get to keep it? Why does that not piss you off?

And when their seize the assets, the victim has to hire a lawyer to get their assets back. No assumption of innocence. Quite the contrary, there is the assumption of guilt, and you have to prove your innocence.

Here is a link to a more rightwing group: Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

And another: Has asset forfeiture gone too far? Truck seizure case sparks outrage, a call for change

And another: Reining in Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse

And another: Civil Asset Forfeiture: A System in Need of Reform


There are 4 articles, from conservative groups, talking about the rampant abuses of the civil asset forfeiture laws. Can you go with the actual topic now? Or are you unable to do anything except waving your arms and scream "You're a liberal!"?

 

[WinterBorn]

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

See Bennis v. Michigan.

Not even relevant to the conversation, but thanks for playing there far left drone!

And you have provided what that was relevant? All I have seen is that same tired "You're a leftist!" bullshit.

Like the comment "The IRS takes money and you are fine with that". As a matter of fact I am NOT fine with what the IRS does, and I have spoken out against it numerous times. I have also campaigned for tax reforms in the real world. Not just snide remarks and baseless accusations on an internet forum.

What, exactly, is leftist about not agreeing with law enforcement being able to seize assets without proof any crime has been committed or was going to be committed? How is that a Left/Right issue? That is wholely unAmerican.

See how many times you changed your stance there far left drone?

See how using such a biased piece of far left trash taints any point you wanted to make?

Show where the DEA/law enforcement can just seized money, cause it can. That was your point and that has yet to be proven. Prove that first and then you may have some valid point to your overly biased far left hit piece.

If it is un-American, then no one in their right mind should support the government taking anyone's fair share on any level.

If they seized the money because of a crime, why are no charges filed?

And I have not changed my stance at all. I am completely against civil asset forfeiture. I have simply taken time to answer accusation that are off topic.

 

[Kosh]

Sounds like a far left wet dream!

But since the Washington Post is a far left hack site, I would take it with grain of salt, much like the onion.

From the article:

In a written response to the Inspector General, the Department of Justice said it had "significant concerns" with the report, noting that global criminal enterprises launder trillions of dollars annually and calling asset forfeiture "a critical tool to fight the current heroin and opioid epidemic that is raging in the United States."

It also took issue with the Inspector General's analysis of the 100 DEA cash seizures it examined, saying more of them were connected with criminal activity than the report suggested.

But since Trump is in office I would expect something like this by the far left.

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

When you use an overly biased source, the far left Washington Post, it is left or right.

As the overly biased article you used was incorrect.

Find another source for your argument, not one so far to the left and then you can make such claims.

The far left love to take others money and redistribute. They claim so many are not paying their fair share. What difference does it make?

The IRS takes millions that does not belong to them, yet you have no problem with that.

What about not paying taxes on your house and you loosing said house just because you did not pay the government their share?

It is all part of the same plan.

If you think you own property, think again!

All of those are great points, but irrelevant to the topic.

When cops can pull someone over and seize cash, just because the driver has a lot of cash, something is seriously wrong.

If you want to waste time moaning about the Washington Post, go ahead. If you have any evidence that the DEA has NOT seized $3.2 billion in assets from people who were never charged with a crime, I will happily admit you are right and take this down.

And you want me to prove a negative..

Another loss in your column, just admit you should have used a more unbiased source, maybe like the DEA site itself.

Then your little rant about left or right would have been spot on, but using an overly biased source does not help you in way, no matter how you want to spin it.

And cops can seize the cash when they pull you over, in a search in seizure mode.

At that point t5hey can take anything they need for evidence, so once again your far left argument falls flat on it's face.

And the article does not make that example of cops just randomly pulling people and seizing cash, just because they can. Anything else you have there?

Take anything they need for evidence? Evidence of what? If no charges are filed, they still get to keep it? Why does that not piss you off?

And when their seize the assets, the victim has to hire a lawyer to get their assets back. No assumption of innocence. Quite the contrary, there is the assumption of guilt, and you have to prove your innocence.

Here is a link to a more rightwing group: Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

And another: Has asset forfeiture gone too far? Truck seizure case sparks outrage, a call for change

And another: Reining in Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse

And another: Civil Asset Forfeiture: A System in Need of Reform


There are 4 articles, from conservative groups, talking about the rampant abuses of the civil asset forfeiture laws. Can you go with the actual topic now? Or are you unable to do anything except waving your arms and scream "You're a liberal!"?

Can you actually start a post that is not from a far left religious narrative, that all cops are evil and can just seize your money at will without using overly biased far left trash like the Washington post?

And you are not a liberal, there are no true liberals on this board. Just more erroneous postings from a far left drone that tried to use religious dogma as their point.

Once again you make a false equivalence, in your rantings.

You are using biased topics to try and prove cops are evil, yet you want these cops to guard your schools. Amazing isn't it?

Once you can make an unbiased post, then there will be progress.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

When you use an overly biased source, the far left Washington Post, it is left or right.

As the overly biased article you used was incorrect.

Find another source for your argument, not one so far to the left and then you can make such claims.

The far left love to take others money and redistribute. They claim so many are not paying their fair share. What difference does it make?

The IRS takes millions that does not belong to them, yet you have no problem with that.

What about not paying taxes on your house and you loosing said house just because you did not pay the government their share?

It is all part of the same plan.

If you think you own property, think again!

All of those are great points, but irrelevant to the topic.

When cops can pull someone over and seize cash, just because the driver has a lot of cash, something is seriously wrong.

If you want to waste time moaning about the Washington Post, go ahead. If you have any evidence that the DEA has NOT seized $3.2 billion in assets from people who were never charged with a crime, I will happily admit you are right and take this down.

And you want me to prove a negative..

Another loss in your column, just admit you should have used a more unbiased source, maybe like the DEA site itself.

Then your little rant about left or right would have been spot on, but using an overly biased source does not help you in way, no matter how you want to spin it.

And cops can seize the cash when they pull you over, in a search in seizure mode.

At that point t5hey can take anything they need for evidence, so once again your far left argument falls flat on it's face.

And the article does not make that example of cops just randomly pulling people and seizing cash, just because they can. Anything else you have there?

Take anything they need for evidence? Evidence of what? If no charges are filed, they still get to keep it? Why does that not piss you off?

And when their seize the assets, the victim has to hire a lawyer to get their assets back. No assumption of innocence. Quite the contrary, there is the assumption of guilt, and you have to prove your innocence.

Here is a link to a more rightwing group: Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

And another: Has asset forfeiture gone too far? Truck seizure case sparks outrage, a call for change

And another: Reining in Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse

And another: Civil Asset Forfeiture: A System in Need of Reform


There are 4 articles, from conservative groups, talking about the rampant abuses of the civil asset forfeiture laws. Can you go with the actual topic now? Or are you unable to do anything except waving your arms and scream "You're a liberal!"?

Can you actually start a post that is not from a far left religious narrative, that all cops are evil and can just seize your money at will without using overly biased far left trash like the Washington post?

And you are not a liberal, there are no true liberals on this board. Just more erroneous postings from a far left drone that tried to use religious dogma as their point.

Once again you make a false equivalence, in your rantings.

You are using biased topics to try and prove cops are evil, yet you want these cops to guard your schools. Amazing isn't it?

Once you can make an unbiased post, then there will be progress.

WTF? I posted an article saying that $3.2 billion in assets were seized without a single charge being filed. No cry from the DEA about it being wrong or lies. And yet, the article is supposed to be ignored because of YOUR bias? Then I post 4 more articles from conservative organizations, and you still go on with the bullshit? No where in any of the posts I have made have I accused every cop of being dirty or whatever.

And you now want to keep going at the bullshit because I didn't delete the thread and start over with a conservative based article?

Thanks for playing, but you are a complete waste of time. Progress? The only kind of progress you want is for me to post articles blaming liberals for all the ills in the world. Your kind of bullshit bias is why nothing gets done.

I tried to engage you on the topic. I tried to provide more sources from more conservative sources. Now I am just going to ignore you.

Happy Life.

 

[Kosh]

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

See Bennis v. Michigan.

Not even relevant to the conversation, but thanks for playing there far left drone!

And you have provided what that was relevant? All I have seen is that same tired "You're a leftist!" bullshit.

Like the comment "The IRS takes money and you are fine with that". As a matter of fact I am NOT fine with what the IRS does, and I have spoken out against it numerous times. I have also campaigned for tax reforms in the real world. Not just snide remarks and baseless accusations on an internet forum.

What, exactly, is leftist about not agreeing with law enforcement being able to seize assets without proof any crime has been committed or was going to be committed? How is that a Left/Right issue? That is wholely unAmerican.

See how many times you changed your stance there far left drone?

See how using such a biased piece of far left trash taints any point you wanted to make?

Show where the DEA/law enforcement can just seized money, cause it can. That was your point and that has yet to be proven. Prove that first and then you may have some valid point to your overly biased far left hit piece.

If it is un-American, then no one in their right mind should support the government taking anyone's fair share on any level.

If they seized the money because of a crime, why are no charges filed?

And I have not changed my stance at all. I am completely against civil asset forfeiture. I have simply taken time to answer accusation that are off topic.

Nothing is off topic when you use biased sources and overly biased rantings.

Are you saying that they all do this? What percentage of this is true? Which states does it happen the most in?

Is it just the DEA or is all law enforcement?

"In 2015, law enforcement agencies on the federal, state, and local levels utilize a mechanism called civil asset forfeiture, in which officers and agents may lawfully seize the property or money of individuals they suspect of committing or helping to commit a crime. An individual targeted by civil asset forfeiture need not be arraigned in court, nor do they need to be convicted of a crime. Sufficient probable cause to seize property, as the FBI explains, is defined as “reasonable ground for belief of guilt.”"

Law enforcement officials argue that civil asset forfeiture is an important tool in the fight against crime. It can be used to deprive criminals of the money and resources they need to continue operating outside the law. During her Senate confirmation hearing, Attorney General Loretta Lynch argued that forfeiture laws have sufficient safeguards to protect innocent people. According to the Wall Street Journal, the value of forfeitures in 2014 exceeded $2.5 billion.

How should law enforcement agencies balance their mission to fight crime while respecting the rights of the suspected and the accused? Should forfeiture be expanded as law enforcement tool, or should it be abolished? Are there ways to reform the system to ensure that only the guilty feel the effects of forfeiture?

Civil Asset Forfeiture - Bill of Rights Institute

See I just posted something from a site, had little bias in it. But you wanted to start off with an overly bias piece to fit the hate cops stance.

I was right it was a far left wet dream.

Best not vote far left if you do not like these things, you voted for Obama and reap what you sow.

But I see you still needed it explained to you so people will be able to make a more informed decision, not based on the overly biased far left hit piece you posted!

What Is Civil Asset Forfeiture? - FindLaw

Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia

Now let us see if you can use these unbiased sources to make your overly biased claims.

 

[Kosh]

When you use an overly biased source, the far left Washington Post, it is left or right.

As the overly biased article you used was incorrect.

Find another source for your argument, not one so far to the left and then you can make such claims.

The far left love to take others money and redistribute. They claim so many are not paying their fair share. What difference does it make?

The IRS takes millions that does not belong to them, yet you have no problem with that.

What about not paying taxes on your house and you loosing said house just because you did not pay the government their share?

It is all part of the same plan.

If you think you own property, think again!

All of those are great points, but irrelevant to the topic.

When cops can pull someone over and seize cash, just because the driver has a lot of cash, something is seriously wrong.

If you want to waste time moaning about the Washington Post, go ahead. If you have any evidence that the DEA has NOT seized $3.2 billion in assets from people who were never charged with a crime, I will happily admit you are right and take this down.

And you want me to prove a negative..

Another loss in your column, just admit you should have used a more unbiased source, maybe like the DEA site itself.

Then your little rant about left or right would have been spot on, but using an overly biased source does not help you in way, no matter how you want to spin it.

And cops can seize the cash when they pull you over, in a search in seizure mode.

At that point t5hey can take anything they need for evidence, so once again your far left argument falls flat on it's face.

And the article does not make that example of cops just randomly pulling people and seizing cash, just because they can. Anything else you have there?

Take anything they need for evidence? Evidence of what? If no charges are filed, they still get to keep it? Why does that not piss you off?

And when their seize the assets, the victim has to hire a lawyer to get their assets back. No assumption of innocence. Quite the contrary, there is the assumption of guilt, and you have to prove your innocence.

Here is a link to a more rightwing group: Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

And another: Has asset forfeiture gone too far? Truck seizure case sparks outrage, a call for change

And another: Reining in Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse

And another: Civil Asset Forfeiture: A System in Need of Reform


There are 4 articles, from conservative groups, talking about the rampant abuses of the civil asset forfeiture laws. Can you go with the actual topic now? Or are you unable to do anything except waving your arms and scream "You're a liberal!"?

Can you actually start a post that is not from a far left religious narrative, that all cops are evil and can just seize your money at will without using overly biased far left trash like the Washington post?

And you are not a liberal, there are no true liberals on this board. Just more erroneous postings from a far left drone that tried to use religious dogma as their point.

Once again you make a false equivalence, in your rantings.

You are using biased topics to try and prove cops are evil, yet you want these cops to guard your schools. Amazing isn't it?

Once you can make an unbiased post, then there will be progress.

WTF? I posted an article saying that $3.2 billion in assets were seized without a single charge being filed. No cry from the DEA about it being wrong or lies. And yet, the article is supposed to be ignored because of YOUR bias? Then I post 4 more articles from conservative organizations, and you still go on with the bullshit? No where in any of the posts I have made have I accused every cop of being dirty or whatever.

And you now want to keep going at the bullshit because I didn't delete the thread and start over with a conservative based article?

Thanks for playing, but you are a complete waste of time. Progress? The only kind of progress you want is for me to post articles blaming liberals for all the ills in the world. Your kind of bullshit bias is why nothing gets done.

I tried to engage you on the topic. I tried to provide more sources from more conservative sources. Now I am just going to ignore you.

Happy Life.

Yes you posted a far left Washington post hit piece that was bunk.

Yes you used an overly biased far left piece and got caught!

Next time maybe not so obvious!

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

It is not about left or right. It is about US citizens having their assets seized without be charged with a crime.

How can you justify taking someone's money simply because they have a relatively large sum in cash? No crime committed, just a large sum of cash.

When you use an overly biased source, the far left Washington Post, it is left or right.

As the overly biased article you used was incorrect.

Find another source for your argument, not one so far to the left and then you can make such claims.

The far left love to take others money and redistribute. They claim so many are not paying their fair share. What difference does it make?

The IRS takes millions that does not belong to them, yet you have no problem with that.

What about not paying taxes on your house and you loosing said house just because you did not pay the government their share?

It is all part of the same plan.

If you think you own property, think again!

All of those are great points, but irrelevant to the topic.

When cops can pull someone over and seize cash, just because the driver has a lot of cash, something is seriously wrong.

If you want to waste time moaning about the Washington Post, go ahead. If you have any evidence that the DEA has NOT seized $3.2 billion in assets from people who were never charged with a crime, I will happily admit you are right and take this down.

And you want me to prove a negative..

Another loss in your column, just admit you should have used a more unbiased source, maybe like the DEA site itself.

Then your little rant about left or right would have been spot on, but using an overly biased source does not help you in way, no matter how you want to spin it.

And cops can seize the cash when they pull you over, in a search in seizure mode.

At that point t5hey can take anything they need for evidence, so once again your far left argument falls flat on it's face.

And the article does not make that example of cops just randomly pulling people and seizing cash, just because they can. Anything else you have there?

Take anything they need for evidence? Evidence of what? If no charges are filed, they still get to keep it? Why does that not piss you off?

And when their seize the assets, the victim has to hire a lawyer to get their assets back. No assumption of innocence. Quite the contrary, there is the assumption of guilt, and you have to prove your innocence.

Here is a link to a more rightwing group: Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture

And another: Has asset forfeiture gone too far? Truck seizure case sparks outrage, a call for change

And another: Reining in Civil Asset Forfeiture Abuse

And another: Civil Asset Forfeiture: A System in Need of Reform


There are 4 articles, from conservative groups, talking about the rampant abuses of the civil asset forfeiture laws. Can you go with the actual topic now? Or are you unable to do anything except waving your arms and scream "You're a liberal!"?

Can you actually start a post that is not from a far left religious narrative, that all cops are evil and can just seize your money at will without using overly biased far left trash like the Washington post?

And you are not a liberal, there are no true liberals on this board. Just more erroneous postings from a far left drone that tried to use religious dogma as their point.

Once again you make a false equivalence, in your rantings.

You are using biased topics to try and prove cops are evil, yet you want these cops to guard your schools. Amazing isn't it?

Once you can make an unbiased post, then there will be progress.

Wow! That might actually be the most retarded post I have seen during my short time here. Congrats.

 

[CHAZBUKOWSKI]

See Bennis v. Michigan.

Not even relevant to the conversation, but thanks for playing there far left drone!

And you have provided what that was relevant? All I have seen is that same tired "You're a leftist!" bullshit.

Like the comment "The IRS takes money and you are fine with that". As a matter of fact I am NOT fine with what the IRS does, and I have spoken out against it numerous times. I have also campaigned for tax reforms in the real world. Not just snide remarks and baseless accusations on an internet forum.

What, exactly, is leftist about not agreeing with law enforcement being able to seize assets without proof any crime has been committed or was going to be committed? How is that a Left/Right issue? That is wholely unAmerican.

See how many times you changed your stance there far left drone?

See how using such a biased piece of far left trash taints any point you wanted to make?

Show where the DEA/law enforcement can just seized money, cause it can. That was your point and that has yet to be proven. Prove that first and then you may have some valid point to your overly biased far left hit piece.

If it is un-American, then no one in their right mind should support the government taking anyone's fair share on any level.

If they seized the money because of a crime, why are no charges filed?

And I have not changed my stance at all. I am completely against civil asset forfeiture. I have simply taken time to answer accusation that are off topic.

Nothing is off topic when you use biased sources and overly biased rantings.

Are you saying that they all do this? What percentage of this is true? Which states does it happen the most in?

Is it just the DEA or is all law enforcement?

"In 2015, law enforcement agencies on the federal, state, and local levels utilize a mechanism called civil asset forfeiture, in which officers and agents may lawfully seize the property or money of individuals they suspect of committing or helping to commit a crime. An individual targeted by civil asset forfeiture need not be arraigned in court, nor do they need to be convicted of a crime. Sufficient probable cause to seize property, as the FBI explains, is defined as “reasonable ground for belief of guilt.”"

Law enforcement officials argue that civil asset forfeiture is an important tool in the fight against crime. It can be used to deprive criminals of the money and resources they need to continue operating outside the law. During her Senate confirmation hearing, Attorney General Loretta Lynch argued that forfeiture laws have sufficient safeguards to protect innocent people. According to the Wall Street Journal, the value of forfeitures in 2014 exceeded $2.5 billion.

How should law enforcement agencies balance their mission to fight crime while respecting the rights of the suspected and the accused? Should forfeiture be expanded as law enforcement tool, or should it be abolished? Are there ways to reform the system to ensure that only the guilty feel the effects of forfeiture?

Civil Asset Forfeiture - Bill of Rights Institute

See I just posted something from a site, had little bias in it. But you wanted to start off with an overly bias piece to fit the hate cops stance.

I was right it was a far left wet dream.

Best not vote far left if you do not like these things, you voted for Obama and reap what you sow.

But I see you still needed it explained to you so people will be able to make a more informed decision, not based on the overly biased far left hit piece you posted!

What Is Civil Asset Forfeiture? - FindLaw

Civil forfeiture in the United States - Wikipedia

Now let us see if you can use these unbiased sources to make your overly biased claims.

Fucktard just referenced Wikipedia.

 

[danielpalos]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.

Individual rights ARE in our US Constitution, numbnuts. Next time you want to talk about your 1st amendment rights, you don't have to check which state you are in, now do you?

 

[WinterBorn]

It is sad that this turns into "You liberal!" or "Bad conservative!" nonsense.

The simply question is whether or not you believe the gov't should be able to seize your assets as punishment if you have not been charged with a crime.

 

[danielpalos]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.

Individual rights ARE in our US Constitution, numbnuts. Next time you want to talk about your 1st amendment rights, you don't have to check which state you are in, now do you?

Nice story bro,

States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.

Individual rights ARE in our US Constitution, numbnuts. Next time you want to talk about your 1st amendment rights, you don't have to check which state you are in, now do you?

Nice story bro,

States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment.

So? The US Constitution guarantees those rights to every citizen. And a state constitution can ONLY guarantee them within the bounds of that one state. The US Constitution guarantees them in the entire USA.

I also think it is hilarious that you first say "The right wing claims natural and individual rights are in our federal Constitution.".

Then you say "States have their own equivalents to our federal First Amendment". Just because the states have them too does not mean the US Constitution does not have them. And the US Constitution covers all 50 states, not just 1 state.

 

[Syriusly]

I was reading an article Since 2007, the DEA has taken $3.2 billion in cash from people not charged with a crime

$3.2 billion in cash seized from people who were never charged with a crime? How is this legal or constitutional? And since the departments who do the seizure get to KEEP THE MONEY, how is there not some serious judicial oversight?

There are few things more wrong than for law enforcement to be able to simply confiscate someone's money or property because they insist it is crime related, but not have to show any crime.

Not only is it wrong for the victims, it creates an environment ripe for corruption.

 

[Syriusly]

It is sad that this turns into "You liberal!" or "Bad conservative!" nonsense.

The simply question is whether or not you believe the gov't should be able to seize your assets as punishment if you have not been charged with a crime.

It is why we are not allowed to have nice things in USMB.

Or more precisely why it is hard to have a serious discussion about a serious issue when there are posters who just want to say "Left bad!" or "Right bad" to anything and everything.

 

[WinterBorn]

It is sad that this turns into "You liberal!" or "Bad conservative!" nonsense.

The simply question is whether or not you believe the gov't should be able to seize your assets as punishment if you have not been charged with a crime.

It is why we are not allowed to have nice things in USMB.

Or more precisely why it is hard to have a serious discussion about a serious issue when there are posters who just want to say "Left bad!" or "Right bad" to anything and everything.

It is the main reason I have left other boards. When it becomes more about fighting and name-calling than about discussion, it isn't worth the hassles.

 

[HenryBHough]

In a truly progressive country private property cannot be confiscated.
That's because there is NO private property.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

How can civil asset forfeiture laws still be legal?

That question is predicated on the idea that our laws exist to protect the people as opposed to the government.

 

[WinterBorn]

How can civil asset forfeiture laws still be legal?

That question is predicated on the idea that our laws exist to protect the people as opposed to the government.

Forgive me. For an old man I can still be rather naive.

 

[Syriusly]

How can civil asset forfeiture laws still be legal?

That question is predicated on the idea that our laws exist to protect the people as opposed to the government.

Forgive me. For an old man I can still be rather naive.

And again why is it people don't want to discuss the topic of your thread?

Why is it hard for so many to have an actual opinion about civil forfeiture laws that allow the government to seize property and money of people not convicted of any crime?

I think that they are wrong for several reasons- but amongst them it that police should not have confiscating property to benefit the police department as an incentive.