Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 268 posts

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#41

Post by adventured »

wehadfun wrote: post #36
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #17

I disagree with the author's attitude towards mercenaries operating in foreign countries. Having read "The Modern Mercenary", by former Blackwater merc, Sean McFate, I am fully convinced that mercenaries have a desirable and necessary place in future conflicts. Take Afghanistan for example. It is a nation at a major geographic crossroads that truly acts as a set of tribes and alliances, not a Westphalian-style state…

You think Mercenaries are good based on a book written by a mercenary? Thats like believing GMO corn is good based on a book by Monsato. Or that fracking is good based on a book by some company that builds fracking equipment

The self-interest involved inherently says absolutely nothing about the argument being made. The only thing that does that, is the argument in question, it stands alone.

Anything else is bias no different than the kind you're trying to point at Monsanto or XYZ fracking company.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#42

Post by adekok »

hyperpape wrote: post #27
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

The 4th amendment has consistently understood to allow police to search in exigent circumstances[1], and that's the right decision. If the police have good reason to believe you just robbed a store or attacked someone, they shouldn't need to get a warrant to search you. And if they find a gun on you[2] when they stop you for real cause, they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun. The problem is that the courts h…

> ... they shouldn't need a warrant to seize that gun.

Temporarily.

If they're not going to charge you, they should return the gun.

The alternative is to declare "gun free" zones near the location of all gun crimes. Not sure who did it? No problem! Take everyones guns.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#43

Post by distances »

purespark2 wrote: post #13
ndespres wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're responding to an anti-government troll who is being deliberately obtuse about the difference between civil asset forfeiture vs tax collection. Unfortunately statements like theirs muddy the waters between something that most sane people find acceptable (government tax collection) vs something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it.

I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?

"Property rights" aren't any natural rights. It's a societal agreement, and that agreement comes with strings attached. In your case you pay taxes, and your society holds everyone up to this bunch of collective agreements, including not taking away your property just willy-nilly (confiscation).

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#44

Post by merpnderp »

purespark2 wrote: post #13
ndespres wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're responding to an anti-government troll who is being deliberately obtuse about the difference between civil asset forfeiture vs tax collection. Unfortunately statements like theirs muddy the waters between something that most sane people find acceptable (government tax collection) vs something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it.

I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?

Taxation in a democracy is inherently legitimate. And the reasoning behind it is explained clearly in Rousseau's Social Contract, although the idea goes back centuries. Simply stated, if you decide to continue living in a society, then you implicitly agree to abide by its rules. In most countries, the agreement means paying taxes set by elected representatives.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#45

Post by [deleted] »

joshuaheard wrote: post #35
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there w…

[deleted]

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#46

Post by [deleted] »

coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

[deleted]

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#47

Post by logfromblammo »

purespark2 wrote: post #13
ndespres wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're responding to an anti-government troll who is being deliberately obtuse about the difference between civil asset forfeiture vs tax collection. Unfortunately statements like theirs muddy the waters between something that most sane people find acceptable (government tax collection) vs something that most sane people find abhorrent once they know about it.

I think the question is legitimate. Why are sane people okay with having their property rights violated by taxation but not by confiscation?

Indeed. Logical consistency would dictate that you should either be for both or against both, but not for one and against the other.

But humans are notorious for allowing emotional concerns, religious beliefs, and simple self-interest override logic.

Maybe they just don't like the reverse-lottery aspect of funding the government. Rather than a lucky person getting a windfall from the government, an unlucky person loses everything to it. You can avoid the lottery by not buying tickets, but the only way to avoid the anti-lottery is by not having anything to steal. For most people, that would be a pretty miserable existence.

People want to believe that their government exists to serve their interests. They may be more upset that the government is spoiling the illusion of fairness--that the government is doing all this publicly--than the fact that the government is doing it at all. Because as bad as they might have it now, if there is a rebellion, the new boss might, in fact, be worse than the old boss.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#48

Post by btilly »

coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

The legal rationale is the one for civil forfeiture. Namely they sue the possession, not you. The possession has no rights. And you have no standing in said lawsuit unless you survive an uphill battle to prove that you actually owned the possession in question.

Ever tried to prove that you really own the money in your wallet?

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#49

Post by jessaustin »

talmand wrote: post #30
coreyp_1 wrote: post #14

Amendment IV The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. I don't get it, which is why I'm asking here: Why is this "stop-and-seize"…

I'm not aware of a case making it far enough, but I could be wrong. It's a tough one because in most cases, I believe, the seized property is not worth enough to warrant a case making it to the Supreme Court. I would be interested seeing if a class-action would be possible. But I've often wondered how this could stand up to constitutional muster. I believe one of the arguments is that the criminal case isn't against…

It's a tough one because in most cases, I believe, the seized property is not worth enough to warrant a case making it to the Supreme Court.

When they do run into someone with enough gumption and resources to appeal, they immediately drop the charges against the money and return it minus fees, just to prevent the creation of specific precedent against the practice.

Re: Stop-And-Seize Turns Police into Self-Funding Gangs

#50

Post by pjc50 »

merpnderp wrote: post #37
joshuaheard wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one would argue illegally obtained money cannot be confiscated. A bank robber cannot keep his stolen money, or someone selling stolen goods, or a drug dealer. The trouble with civil asset forfeiture, as its properly known, is that the burden of proof has been shifted to the accused. So, instead of the state having to prove your money is illegally obtained, or that any crime was committed, you have to prove there w…

But what set of idiot justices decided that the police can stop you, see you have $10k in your trunk, and then take it even though you tell them it is from your savings and you're on the way to buy a car?

The US Supreme Court, on a number of occasions. The case law is just full of outrageous stupidity, such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennis_v._Michigan in the USSC ruled that a woman's car could be seized due to her husband's offence that was outside her control.

The whole history of in rem actions is bonkers, as cases have titles like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Article_Consi...

Post reply on HN