|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:29:46 GMT
"How about you learn your history? This has been a thing for years. The current Supreme Court did not invent this, they voted to keep the status quo."So it's ok for the government to take your property and keep it even when you've never been charged, tried, or convicted for a crime. It's just the "status quo". Is the government just taking people's things for fun? There ACTUALLY HAVE been reported cases of that, YES. WOW modern conservativism is screwed up. This used to be a MAJOR PROBLEM for the right....lol |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:30:47 GMT
How is seizing the property of people who are never even charged, much less convicted, the "exact opposite"? In both cases non-lawbreakers are getting victimized. The only difference is that in one case, it's the government doing it. Because victim's rights have to come first, even before my right to be "inconvenienced". I never saw items stolen from me again, even if they were recovered, since in olden days there was no way to tell who owned which recovered property. But the thieves couldn't sell it and get more help. That's much more important than a temporary setback. It's just way too important to protect the poor people from the human monsters. Even more important than personal property. You know you're lying when you claim that police take property from innocent people. It is from people in gangs, and the only reason they aren't "proven" guilty is because they are in mobs and gangs that come up with false testimony for them. The rule of confiscation is the only protection afforded to the innocent people, and you d... well know it unless you are a retard. Wouldn't having your property seized despite not having committed any crime make you a "victim"? |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on May 11, 2024 16:34:35 GMT
Is the government just taking people's things for fun? There ACTUALLY HAVE been reported cases of that, YES. WOW modern conservativism is screwed up. This used to be a MAJOR PROBLEM for the right....lol For fun? Really, now? |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:43:59 GMT
There ACTUALLY HAVE been reported cases of that, YES. WOW modern conservativism is screwed up. This used to be a MAJOR PROBLEM for the right....lol For fun? Really, now? Well, back when the Right cared about individual rights, the main complaint was local municipalities using bogus traffic stops to seize property so it could be auctioned off and supplement local coffers. Apparently that's ok with you modern Rightists though. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on May 11, 2024 16:45:51 GMT
Because victim's rights have to come first, even before my right to be "inconvenienced". I never saw items stolen from me again, even if they were recovered, since in olden days there was no way to tell who owned which recovered property. But the thieves couldn't sell it and get more help. That's much more important than a temporary setback. It's just way too important to protect the poor people from the human monsters. Even more important than personal property. You know you're lying when you claim that police take property from innocent people. It is from people in gangs, and the only reason they aren't "proven" guilty is because they are in mobs and gangs that come up with false testimony for them. The rule of confiscation is the only protection afforded to the innocent people, and you d... well know it unless you are a retard. Wouldn't having your property seized despite not having committed any crime make you a "victim"? Everyone's a victim. We can't solve problems by ignoring atrocities committed by criminals just because someone is aiding and abetting our own local "terrorist gangs". No, the cops aren't picking on innocent people. Detectives are clueless, but the cop on the street knows exactly who the local terrorists are, and knows where they get help. A lot of people are bullied by the thugs into helping, and lose property being confiscated. That's terrible, but it's stupidity and cowardice to blame it on the cops, when it's actually the thugs who are responsible. The property has to be taken away for the safety of everyone, including any innocent person who loses the property, because the local terrorists already have laid claim to that property anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:51:26 GMT
Wouldn't having your property seized despite not having committed any crime make you a "victim"? Everyone's a victim. We can't solve problems by ignoring atrocities committed by criminals just because someone is aiding and abetting our own local "terrorist gangs". No, the cops aren't picking on innocent people. Detectives are clueless, but the cop on the street knows exactly who the local terrorists are, and knows where they get help. A lot of people are bullied by the thugs into helping, and lose property being confiscated. That's terrible, but it's stupidity and cowardice to blame it on the cops, when it's actually the thugs who are responsible. The property has to be taken away for the safety of everyone, including any innocent person who loses the property, because the local terrorists already have laid claim to that property anyway. What a pathetic dodge. I am in no way, shape, or form a victim. I honestly don't know why you people are so intent of defending the practice of government taking your stuff when you haven't done anything wrong. It boggles my mind just how deep down the rabbit hole the partisan mindset can take a person. |
|
|
|
Post by Boricanator on May 11, 2024 16:55:46 GMT
The publication is outright lying. It's cops defending innocent people from the monsters who prey upon them. "Civil asset forfeiture" is the legal euphemism for when the cops CONFISCATE items used for illegal activities in order to protect the innocent people from the criminals. The article is written by a human monster who wants to help demonic people prey upon people who try to get along. The question is whether you are going to trust the police that are monitored for public safety and put on administrative leave for anything that is even questionable, or whether you are going to trust gang members and mobsters who are monitored by how well they prey upon their poorest neighbors and fellow citizens. The only people who trust the gangs and mobs are the human monsters in the mobs and the naive bubble boys who believe in the lies that are told to them by the mobs and gangs. The problem is that many times cops are the monsters. They target people and destroy their lives and many of them are innocent. |
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on May 11, 2024 16:56:37 GMT
Well, back when the Right cared about individual rights, the main complaint was local municipalities using bogus traffic stops to seize property so it could be auctioned off and supplement local coffers. Apparently that's ok with you modern Rightists though. It's individual rights that we traditional LEFTISTS care about, which is why property has to be confiscated. It's already in the control of the local terrorists. When it's property, such as a car, owned by an innocent person, the innocent person is already being coerced by the gang, usually through threats of false accusations. and the property is no longer controlled by the innocent person being coerced. Cops aren't taking property on whims or out of greed. If a cop does this, he is soon caught. Quality control on police is incredibly stringent to the point that it's tons more likely that an innocent cop is punished instead of an innocent bystander. It is precisely for individual rights that the Supreme Court does this. You're speaking up for violating individual rights and you're speaking up for the rich people who prey on the poor people. I know it. You know it. We all know it. You have no consideration at all for individual rights, because the decision made by the Court was meant solely to protect individual rights. |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 11, 2024 16:59:17 GMT
Well, back when the Right cared about individual rights, the main complaint was local municipalities using bogus traffic stops to seize property so it could be auctioned off and supplement local coffers. Apparently that's ok with you modern Rightists though. It's individual rights that we traditional LEFTISTS care about, which is why property has to be confiscated. It's already in the control of the local terrorists. When it's property, such as a car, owned by an innocent person, the innocent person is already being coerced by the gang, usually through threats of false accusations. and the property is no longer controlled by the innocent person being coerced. Cops aren't taking property on whims or out of greed. If a cop does this, he is soon caught. Quality control on police is incredibly stringent to the point that it's tons more likely that an innocent cop is punished instead of an innocent bystander. It is precisely for individual rights that the Supreme Court does this. You're speaking up for violating individual rights and you're speaking up for the rich people who prey on the poor people. I know it. You know it. We all know it. You have no consideration at all for individual rights, because the decision made by the Court was meant solely to protect individual rights. Yeah ok I see the words and recognize them as English but I simply can't comprehend the idea that government should just take your stuff. And YES. Cops ARE taking property on whims or out of greed. That's how this whole civil forfeiture thing became an issue in the the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by mr_self on May 11, 2024 17:05:06 GMT
Come on, Gorsuch. You are so close. ![[straightface]](http://storage.proboards.com/6870873/images/X0xvEuKqIvpjcwikdJVq.gif) |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on May 12, 2024 12:51:01 GMT
Well, back when the Right cared about individual rights, the main complaint was local municipalities using bogus traffic stops to seize property so it could be auctioned off and supplement local coffers. Apparently that's ok with you modern Rightists though. I'm not sure why you keep talking about "ThE RiGhT", I don't give a fuck about the right (or left). |
|
|
|
Post by mikemonger on May 12, 2024 13:03:51 GMT
Well, back when the Right cared about individual rights, the main complaint was local municipalities using bogus traffic stops to seize property so it could be auctioned off and supplement local coffers. Apparently that's ok with you modern Rightists though. I'm not sure why you keep talking about "ThE RiGhT", I don't give a fuck about the right (or left). And I'm not sure why you're defending the practice of using bogus traffic stops to seize and sell property. It's just interesting that you're all for it because Rightist judges approve it. |
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on May 12, 2024 13:07:46 GMT
I'm not sure why you keep talking about "ThE RiGhT", I don't give a fuck about the right (or left).
And I'm not sure why you're defending the practice of using bogus traffic stops to seize and sell property. It's just interesting that you're all for it because Rightist judges approve it. You have not provided a single example of this, let alone demonstrated a pattern. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2024 13:19:05 GMT
Yeah it's a problem. The original Idea had good intentions but it's being abused.
Personal story time. Non-Lawyer Uncle closed a deal with local businessmen famous for being eccentric in SC. The guy buying was an old timer dealt but nothing in cash. Old Timey Business dudes can get squirrely in the Coastal Area of SC. So He wanted to do the deal in cash over the span of 5 trips. The old guy had literal caches of cash he had to go get to pay my Uncle off. This was in the early 00's.
So my Uncle was traveling down Hwy 17 doing about 8 miles over the speed limit with around 85,000 in a manila envelope in the back of his SUV. (it's surprising how little room that takes up) Gets pulled over for speeding. About the 4th question was is there any large amount of money in the car? Uncle being honest said yeah and explained the shit he has had to do to close out a land deal. The cop seizes the 85k. On the report the fact that he had 85k in the car was probable cause enough to seize it.
Uncle is pissed. Calls Lawyer Uncle. He gets on it. 10 Months later even having it discounted because his Brother helped him out and got his friends to do work for him it cost my Uncle around 11k to get back his 85k. (Lawyer Fees, Expenses, Court Cost, etc) That's not even taken into account present value of cash vs future value of cash. Or what he could've done with the 85k in those 10 months.
He was never charged. Never arrested. IF I'm not mistaken it was either the Car that Was Charged for the Seizure or the Actual Money was Charged for justification of it being seized.
Civil Forfeiture is like an ATM for police departments small to federal. They are banking that either A you aren't going to fight if it takes more time and money to get the things seized back. Or B in the interval of seizing vs the eventual relinquishing of the property they can use it to sure up their budgets and will in the mean time seize more money. With future seized money both legitimate and not they can pay back the individuals who fight and win.
|
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on May 12, 2024 13:41:11 GMT
Why do you want criminals to keep goods they've stolen or used to commit a crime? The case doesn't involve goods implicated in crime. From the article: "Justice Sonia Sotomayor (joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson) made a critical distinction between criminal forfeiture and civil forfeiture. It’s one thing if the property involved is the subject of crime...Civil forfeiture, however, requires no crime." Even when civil forfeiture can be justified, abuses can be checked. SCOTUS passed on the chance to do so. |
|
