Live data from Hacker News

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

vox.com

91–100 of 186 posts

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

#92
post #80

While the capability of the police to forfeit property is absolutely and completely unfair and, in an (supposedly) equal society, deeply questionable——as opposed to taking the property temporarily unless proven guilty——the unescapably stupid thing to do is to a) transfer money in cash and b) smoking weed while doing that. All kinds of unlucky things could happen with a) such as losing the baggage/wallet/jacket with t…

I don't know why you were voted down. While this is an incredibly unjust act by the police, it is, also, an incredibly stupid act by the student.

Being stupid does not make one deserving of being a victim, but it still does leave one being stupid.

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

#93

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.

If carrying $$$$$ in cash is a normal thing to do, the EV of a mugging goes way up, and I expect muggings would go up, which is a bad thing.

That's not to say I support the actions taken here, of course.

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

#94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah with only $11,000 he'd probably get hit with all kinds of fees if he tried to open a bank account. And forget about checks, you can't even write a check that big. I'm not saying the cash was evidence of wrongdoing, but the elaborate excuses this thread is making for this guy's behavior are only highlighting how absurd it was.

I'm seeing minimum opening deposits on checking accounts between $10-$50. I don't imagine a person walking into a bank with $11k+ to open an account is the common use case...

I assume he was being sarcastic. But as a general rule HN doesn't do sarcasm.

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

#95
post #80

While the capability of the police to forfeit property is absolutely and completely unfair and, in an (supposedly) equal society, deeply questionable——as opposed to taking the property temporarily unless proven guilty——the unescapably stupid thing to do is to a) transfer money in cash and b) smoking weed while doing that. All kinds of unlucky things could happen with a) such as losing the baggage/wallet/jacket with t…

There’s a phrase for what you are doing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming

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

#96
It bugs me reading some of the the comments here blaming the person that did nothing illegal by carrying cash. It doesn't matter if you (or I) feel it is inadvisable to carry cash, it isn't illegal. Smoking pot (illegal in most places) before flying is obviously not the brightest idea given the enhanced level of security at an airport. So I am ok with the "smell" prompting some extra questions (even an agreed to search) but not the seizure of personal property when nothing can tie that property to a crime.

Also, don't forget, here in the US many people cannot qualify for a simple checking/savings account at a bank, meaning they use check cashing services to cash their paychecks and only have cash. There is absolutely nothing is illegal about them only having cash. If anything IMO it is immoral that these people are iced out of the banking environment because of past credit mistakes etc. Immigrants and minorities are almost always the worst affected, how is that right?

Civil asset forfeiture is horrid and needs to be done away with permanently and nationally. If you want to take someones property prove it was involved in a crime and directly contributed to or tied to the criminal act. If the property is properly seized through the courts, the proceeds should first benefit anyone directly afflicted by the criminal act, then secondarily pay for the court and legal fees to reduce taxpayer obligations.

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

#97
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I still think carrying thousands of dollars around is foolish, but thanks for the examples of ... that's just how things have to work, sometimes.

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

#98

It bugs me reading some of the the comments here blaming the person that did nothing illegal by carrying cash. It doesn't matter if you (or I) feel it is inadvisable to carry cash, it isn't illegal. Smoking pot (illegal in most places) before flying is obviously not the brightest idea given the enhanced level of security at an airport. So I am ok with the "smell" prompting some extra questions (even an agreed to sear…

I'm really curious, how do you not qualify for a savings account?

I've never seen a bank that wouldn't take money, especially when they can charge account maintenance fees.

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

#99

Now I'm not sure if Norway has similar laws, but I haven't heard of any. However, watching John Oliver talk about how ridiculous the civil forfeiture laws are in the US just makes me want to laugh so much. I know of all the great things happening in the US, and I'm not calling you a bad country. But it's so hard not to categorise you together with North Korea, China and the United Arab Emirates with how trigger happy…

Before taking that opinion it might be useful for you to go through the exercise of engineering solutions for the various problems that lead to some of the things you point out.

It sounds like you are in Norway, it might just be impossible for you to think of these solutions because of the lack of context. Not putting you down, it would be just as impossible for me to have a valid opinion about anything going on in Norway because I am completely ignorant of your laws and environment.

I am not disputing these problems are in a range from less-than-ideal to horrible. However, the term often used in product design "form follows function" might be applicable here.

For example, our police force's "form" is a result of the "function" they have to serve, which includes a country with 300 million guns, higher crime rate than a lot of countries and, currently, a situation where segments of the population are advocating killing cops. And, in fact, cops have been killed just sitting in their cars doing absolutely nothing more than existing.

Again, not proposing this is the police force I want. Yet one has to understand things in context before forming an opinion. I know lots of cops. I train at a local Aikido dojo that is run by a retired FBI agent. Probably 80% of the students are in law enforcement (police, CHP, correctional, anti-terrorist units, FBI and undisclosed). A number of them are friends. We go have lunch and dinner together and talk about these things. They are very concerned that every time they put on their uniform they become targets for maniacs. They'd love to be able to walk around without their guns when in uniform but, today, in the USA, that would be suicidal. And today, in the USA, for a cop to approach contact with a civilian not prepared for the potential of a gun being pointed at them would be just as dangerous.

That, BTW, is one of the problems we have today in this country. Nobody talks to anyone in an effort to understand what's going on yet everyone has an opinion. Sit down with a cop for a two or three hour heart-to-heart conversation and your view of their reality will be very different. Don't think of them as an image on TV. Think of them as your brother, sister, father or mother.

The sick and the poor? That's an entirely different problem. Again, go through the mental exercise of developing a solution --a realistic one-- before forming opinions. You can't just say "do it like Norway" or "do it like France", because we are not Norway or France. We have our own laws, problems, culture and dynamics. And so, the solutions have to be had in the context of an entire society.

In my opinion the USA is going through some of the phases Latin America has gone through in terms of what's happening with government and the poor. In order to understand what I mean you have to understand Latin American history going back to 1492 and probably a bit before that. I am not going to go into the details, there's an excellent set of videos that paint a strong evidence-based image of the problem. If you don't speak Spanish you can turn on subtitles and google translate (not a great translation but it might do). Here they are:

Short one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkYEXS16dZA

In depth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WylR8EvhnE

There are a couple of lines in these videos that hit the "poor" problem in the US right on the head. Please remember the context here is Latin American history, not US. I am simply proposing there are important parallels (not a match, parallels):

"Populism: It's the shortcut through which politicians play with people's passions, dreams and ideals to promise them the impossible, taking advantage of the people making decisions outside the bounds of logic and reason as they focus in their misery. It plays with necessities of the population to impose a dictatorship."

"Populism has such love for the poor that it multiplies them."

The latter one is particularly powerful. When politicians play the people for their own benefit nothing good can come from that. I feel very strongly that the Latin American historical experience is a time machine for aspects of the US experience. They are probably fifty years ahead of us in populism and it's effects.

A populist uses the population for votes during elections yet needs them to stay poor and miserable after winning the election or they lose their "base". They do this by promising to fix their problems and, ultimately, not doing anything for them. The poor staying poor is good for the populist. They appease them with gifts that might feel good but do not, ultimately, solve the real problems. YouTube is full of videos going back to 2008 with people in absolutely rapture about the Obama era solving all their problems. Obama promised the parting of the oceans and beyond and, of course, just like any good populist, delivered almost nothing. The poor are still poor, the uneducated are still uneducated and we have worst problems than we had seven years ago.

And so I ask, before forming an opinion about anything --not just the US, anything in your life-- take the time to really understand it from the inside and develop solutions on paper. Opinions without solid context and deep solution analysis aren't very valuable.

BTW, we are all guilty of this. Most of use react to things rather than taking the more difficult road of investing time and mental effort to dig deep into something before shaping an opinion. People will, for example, down vote this post without investing the four hours, or more, that it would take to research and truly understand. Nobody is going to go to the local police station and engage a cop in a conversation to understand what being a cop feels like. And nobody is going to devote a couple of hours to watch those videos and another two or more hours to research what they learned and develop context. That's just the way things are. Again, we are --me included-- all guilty of this, which is part of the problem.

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

#100
post #91

The TLDR is "Don't carry thousands of dollars of physical cash unless you want to risk the police [or some criminal] stealing it". Which is an awful thing to say about the police, but is probably reasonable advice to give.

It's worth noting that civil forfeiture doesn't just apply to cash. It can be (and has been) used against bank accounts or pretty much any property you can own. For example, here's a case where the government tried to seize $115,000 from a couple's bank accounts (without charging them with a crime): http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2015/05/08/after-seizing-couples-ba...
Post reply on HN