Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him • Hacker News Board

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#51

Post by pessimizer » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #25

For those who didn't RTFA, he carried his life savings with him in cash . We've seen several stories like this: person has $xx,xxx in cash on them like that's just a normal thing to do. Bad thing happens. Person is incredulous. No one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over vastly safer and free alternatives. That doesn't excuse the seizure, but I don't see how it's worth our time to g…

> No one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over vastly safer and free alternatives.

Why would you have 'culpability' for carrying your own money? Why would you have culpability for not always doing the normal thing - it's also not normal to be an religious minority, a homosexual, or a member of the Green Party; do they also deserve the blame for whatever arbitrary measures that the government chooses to take against them?

I think that you're saying that it's wise to treat your government as hostile, and to hide anything that you do that is out of the ordinary. Fine. But the idea that that makes it a bad case against civil asset forfeiture is like saying that the best cases for religious/racial discrimination should be to defend white Protestants.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#52

Post by nicarus1984 » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:28 PM UTC

jMyles wrote: post #46

nicarus1984 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to believe that because I stated we have the freedom to have an open and critical dialogue around these issues - something one is unlikely to have in N. Korea, etc. - that I am implying we do not have these problems. That is not what I had stated.

Well, you said that "to group the US in with the likes of N. Korea and China is dishonest and inaccurate." So although you didn't expressly state that you didn't think the US has a police state problem, you did seem to think that grouping with other states with this same problem was deceptive. The only odd part was that you used as your justification an assessment that, in a completely separate (albeit obviously rela…

Thank you. This was the most constructive reply I've received.

I do acknowledge the issues raised by OP; my quote: "...exposing and criticizing the very issues you mention."

I read the original comment as a generalization that the US is grouped in with those other countries due to these issues. My reply was simply to refute that primarily on the fact that we have the ability to discuss and solve these issues that those other countries do not have. It is an important distinction in my opinion.

Maybe I misread the intent - it appears from some of the fiery responses I've received that may be true. :(

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#53

Post by eximius » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:33 PM UTC

nicarus1984 wrote: post #38

diego wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a non sequitur. He's talking about grouping countries by specific criteria. To make a code parallel, if you ran select from countries group by police_score; and select from countries group by freedom_of_press_index; You'd expect different results. Maybe there would be a correlation, and the US would be an outlier.

Correct me if I am wrong, but you appear to believe that because I stated we have the freedom to have an open and critical dialogue around these issues - something one is unlikely to have in N. Korea, etc. - that I am implying we do not have these problems. That is not what I had stated.

What he's saying is that it is accurate, in a technical sense, even though you are right that it is a bit misleading.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#54

Post by Poyeyo » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:36 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #32

superuser2 wrote: post #25

For those who didn't RTFA, he carried his life savings with him in cash . We've seen several stories like this: person has $xx,xxx in cash on them like that's just a normal thing to do. Bad thing happens. Person is incredulous. No one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over vastly safer and free alternatives. That doesn't excuse the seizure, but I don't see how it's worth our time to g…

Having cops steal money should not be a risk anyone is taking, let alone a stupid one. If he got mugged, that'd be another thing. Also, free alternatives? Elaborate. And certainly they aren't free from surveillance. We should encourage and treat the carrying of $$$$$ in cash as a normal thing to do.

Bitcoin seems a viable alternative. However its value goes up and down constantly.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#55

Post by Canada » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:41 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #48

protomyth wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing illegal about doing it so it shouldn't be anyones business. Who in their right mind? A farmer or two going to buy some equipment, me paying my first year of college, and plenty of folks buying cars. ACH transfer and cashier checks cost money, and hell, even Walmart won't cash a cashier check. Your attitude towards other people's business offends me about as much as the actual seizure. Its attitudes l…

You paid your university fees in cash? Is this normal? As a Brit, all these stories about people carrying around huge chunks of cash seem completely outlandish to me. But then, we have free bank-to-bank transfers here.

The only time I want my bank to have knowledge of who and how much I pay is in the small number of cases where I need a neutral third party to be able to vouch for payment details.

For things like paying employees, paying my taxes, or spending other people's money: I want maximum electronic and paper trail. Bank fees are hardly a concern.

For my own spending, I want no third party records even if banking fees are 0.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#56

Post by wwweston » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:41 PM UTC

superuser2 wrote: post #25

For those who didn't RTFA, he carried his life savings with him in cash . We've seen several stories like this: person has $xx,xxx in cash on them like that's just a normal thing to do. Bad thing happens. Person is incredulous. No one thinks they have any culpability for opting to carry $10k+ in cash over vastly safer and free alternatives. That doesn't excuse the seizure, but I don't see how it's worth our time to g…

People should be able to carry large amounts of cash, normal or not.

The fact that it's risky considering the fact that crime is impossible to eradicate is one thing.

The fact that we have a publicly sanctioned version of this crime enshrined in law is another, and plenty of reason to get mad.

I'm glad there are more sympathetic cases. This is sympathetic enough.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#57

Post by selimthegrim » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:43 PM UTC

csense wrote: post #10

Mithaldu wrote: post #2

I still don't understand why this kind of thing has not yet led to violence. Edit: > Originally, it was designed for situations in which the court would not have jurisdiction over the person, so it's an action on the property itself. Oh, interesting. So it is a bug in the law itself that nobody has any interest in fixing; but people who've already been robbed at gunpoint.

Because the government and businesses have slowly but surely been eroding the role of cash in our lives. Most people use checks or credit cards for big purchases. Most people are paid by check, and the exceptions are usually near minimum wage. Nobody does big transactions in cash anymore -- even if you want to pay tens or hundreds of thousands in cash for a car, a house, or college tuition, if you show up with a brie…

I mean I think you're also ignoring security. Here in New Orleans, many cash only businesses are more liable to be robbed.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#58

Post by legutierr » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:45 PM UTC

joeax wrote: post #13

pearjuice wrote: post #6

The main reason why the War on Drugs is so popular in police departments.

I read somewhere there are hundreds of thousands of untested rape kits sitting in police labs nationwide. Catching rapists is not profitable.

I wonder what would happen if the proceeds of these seizures had to be used for that testing.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#59

Post by jimrandomh » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:46 PM UTC

1971genocide wrote: post #29

csense wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the government and businesses have slowly but surely been eroding the role of cash in our lives. Most people use checks or credit cards for big purchases. Most people are paid by check, and the exceptions are usually near minimum wage. Nobody does big transactions in cash anymore -- even if you want to pay tens or hundreds of thousands in cash for a car, a house, or college tuition, if you show up with a brie…

I agree with your conclusion - but your premise of conspiracy is wrong. Using virtual Money is obviously much better than paper money. The difference is should it be centralized or de-centralized and anonymous ? The paradoxical economic problem with decentralized money is that the govt has no control over it. Which means during bad time its going to be very difficult for the govt to enact changes. We learnt it the ha…

The grandparent poster never used the word conspiracy, nor alleged one.

Re: Why police could seize a college student's life savings without charging him

#60

Post by protomyth » Sat, Oct 10, 2015, 4:47 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #48

protomyth wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is nothing illegal about doing it so it shouldn't be anyones business. Who in their right mind? A farmer or two going to buy some equipment, me paying my first year of college, and plenty of folks buying cars. ACH transfer and cashier checks cost money, and hell, even Walmart won't cash a cashier check. Your attitude towards other people's business offends me about as much as the actual seizure. Its attitudes l…

You paid your university fees in cash? Is this normal? As a Brit, all these stories about people carrying around huge chunks of cash seem completely outlandish to me. But then, we have free bank-to-bank transfers here.

At the time, yeah - I paid in cash. Financial aid wouldn't free up my money unless I paid my Business Office balance. Business Office claimed I owed $200 from the summer and wouldn't clear my balance until I paid that and the tuition ($734 if I remember correctly). So I walked $934 to the business office (Business Office had the odd policy that they didn't take checks with numbers under 2000 and I didn't write a lot of checks). Took receipt over to the finance office which got my damn financial aid freed up. The Business Office "discovered my payment" which lead to me getting cash and heading back to the bank.

Friend bought a $15,000 truck in cash. We were a bit vigilant about that one. Rural US still has a lot of cash and handshakes.

We do not have free bank to bank transfers and are ornery enough to not want to pay the damn fee.