- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Surely these civil forfeiture without prosecution (or even charges) statutes....
Posted on 10/7/14 at 2:48 pm to MMauler
Posted on 10/7/14 at 2:48 pm to MMauler
quote:
If a drug dealer gets caught selling drugs and has the $5 million dollars from the drug deal on him, surely you don't believe that he should be able to use that $5 million to hire the most expensive lawyer around and set up some sort of annuity for when he gets out of prison -- DO YOU?
Sounds ridiculous doesnt it? Unfortunately, emotional appeals often sway us from remembering to stand on principle no matter how occasionally distasteful the results may be.
0
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:26 pm to MMauler
This is a practice that needs to disappear and go the way of the dodo bird. This shouldn't be a partisan issue. It needs to be an issue of citizens vs gov't.
How is this not a violation of due process?
Civil forfeiture should only happen in the event of a conviction of guilty as charged.
How is this not a violation of due process?
quote:
civil forfeiture without prosecution (or even charges)
Civil forfeiture should only happen in the event of a conviction of guilty as charged.
This post was edited on 10/7/14 at 4:00 pm
Posted on 10/7/14 at 3:50 pm to Sentrius
quote:
Civil forfeiture should only happen in the even of a conviction of guilty as charged.
I can understand them taking the assets while charges (and trial) are pending so long as the assets are traceable to the alleged crime. But, if charges are dropped or the individual is found not guilty, the assets should be returned to the individual.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 4:21 pm to MMauler
quote:I disagree. Even in the case of ongoing trial, they should not be able to take the assets until a guilty verdict is rendered.
I can understand them taking the assets while charges (and trial) are pending so long as the assets are traceable to the alleged crime. But, if charges are dropped or the individual is found not guilty, the assets should be returned to the individual.
The whole idea of taking something that might be connected to the "alleged" crime before it is even proven that a crime was committed makes no sense.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 4:23 pm to MMauler
quote:
Surely these civil forfeiture without prosecution (or even charges) statutes....
are something both conservatives and liberals can agree are total bullsh!t.
Complete and total bullshite!
Posted on 10/7/14 at 4:42 pm to WeeWee
Legal camouflage for government theft. Judges, prosecutors and cops split the take, so there is NO ONE interested in either protecting individuals, or in reforming/ending this process.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 4:53 pm to MMauler
Jeez, the one cop, "it's kind of like pennies from heaven, you know, it gets you a toy or something you need, is typically how we look at it".
Posted on 10/7/14 at 5:08 pm to MMauler
quote:
I can't see how they're even Constitutional.
Its total BS. My friend mailed a package to the west coast with $14,000 in it from Boston and it got seized. Well they sent a letter to him saying he had 30 days to make a claim on the money, his old roommate never told him about it until it was like 45 days later. The money was gone and he couldn't even contest it. Its such BS!
Posted on 10/7/14 at 5:13 pm to lsu480
Plus, you have to put up a bond to get your own money back.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 5:27 pm to MMauler
I don't see the problem. The government is nice enough to allow us to own private property and make money. If we abuse those privileges then they have every right to seize it from us.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 5:35 pm to deltaland
quote:
I don't see the problem. The government is nice enough to allow us to own private property and make money. If we abuse those privileges then they have every right to seize it from us.
Hopefully you are being sarcastic but if not the problem is they are taking money, like my friends $14,000, without even charging people with a crime.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 6:12 pm to SpidermanTUba
quote:
I know a guy who had his car confiscated by a police department in west texas with a sheriff and a single deputy. MASSIVE government.
Oh, well in that case it's an example of small government. Because "big government" means the number of people on the payroll, not the level of infringement on freedom.
Posted on 10/7/14 at 9:22 pm to MMauler
The problem is, nobody knows about it. It's not something your friendly local government actively broadcasts. That's good on John Oliver for helping get the word out. Truly, the greatest threat to the republic our forefathers left for us is civil asset forfeiture IMO.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 12:40 am to LSUTigersVCURams
They have the right to show that the assets seized were not traceable to the offense. If, for example, they owned their home or their car, or they had a bank account with $X in it before they are alleged to have committed their criminal activity, that should be relatively easy.
It is not easy. You guys must not remember when this was going on In Lake Charles and Sulfur in the 90's. They would see a car they liked then try to seize it. They were seizing million dollar yachts when they caught a crew member with a joint for a while. The Lake Charles cops left their car camera on and it caught one of them throwing a bag of drugs into the back of a new sports car.
It is not easy. You guys must not remember when this was going on In Lake Charles and Sulfur in the 90's. They would see a car they liked then try to seize it. They were seizing million dollar yachts when they caught a crew member with a joint for a while. The Lake Charles cops left their car camera on and it caught one of them throwing a bag of drugs into the back of a new sports car.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 1:10 am to MMauler
When the Sheriffs go down the legislature and tell Senator Billy Bob to jump, he asks, "how high?" They'll never have the balls to repeal it. Judges will have to rule it unconstitutional. I know yall don't like judicial activism, but that's what it will take.
This post was edited on 10/8/14 at 1:13 am
Posted on 10/8/14 at 4:37 am to Jim Rockford
quote:
Judges will have to rule it unconstitutional. I know yall don't like judicial activism, but that's what it will take.
Only a flaming moronic liberals would consider this judicial activism.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 7:12 am to lsu480
While I think it is wrong for them to seize the $14,000, why didn't you use a wire transfer like a normal person? Or a check even? Mailing $14k sounds like a terrible idea.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:15 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Nothing new.
Cops have been taking cars that drugs are found in for decades.
Did you watch the segment? They're taking cash from people that have done nothing wrong except have cash in their vehicle and that appear relatively powerless. No crime committed, no citation given. Thanks for the money and you're free to go.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:16 am to MMauler
quote:I literally have no idea how they haven't been overturned other than to say our govt is fricked.
are something both conservatives and liberals can agree are total bullsh!t.
Posted on 10/8/14 at 9:17 am to SpidermanTUba
quote:
Yeah right. Its the big big goverment.
I know a guy who had his car confiscated by a police department in west texas with a sheriff and a single deputy. MASSIVE government.
You never see the full picture, moron. The only reason that "a sheriff and a single deputy" were able to confiscate the guy's car is because government empowered them to act - that's the big government.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News