Live data from Hacker News

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

bloombergview.com

81–90 of 268 posts

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

#81
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have to take decisions like that in context. That forfeiture arose under Michigan law. The Supreme Court wasn't saying that it's a good idea to allow the state to seize the car without accounting for the wife's interest. It was saying that Michigan's lack of an innocent owner defense to the seizure didn't rise to the level of a Constitutional violation. A lot of decisions that seem "outrageously stupid" make more…

The right to unreasonable search and seizure at the Federal level supersedes all state law. This was just a bad Supreme Court decision, morally in the same "ballpark" as Plessy vs. Ferguson

Unfortunately for this argument, the word "reasonable" means pretty much the same thing now as it did in 1787, and is clearly meant to delegate most of the answer to this question to the people (in the form of the legislature), and not the philosopher-kings of the court.

You will of course come up with many arguments, virtually all of which I'll agree with, that asset forfeiture is "unreasonable". The problem is that other people disagree with you, and, specifically and distinctively with this particular item in the bill of rights, the court is supposed to defer to the legislature as much as it can.

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

#82

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" is an abstract concept that doesn't exist without government in the first place.

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

#84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of the places that host terrorists arent countries, they're messes. They do not have anything close to a Westphalian state, they are a regional coalition of tribes and alliances that call themselves a country for a UN vote and IMF funding. Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, the list goes on. National militaries are there to solve problems, but in the long run, only mercenaries can contain them. It's not just America eithe…

Libya, Iraq, Afganistan, the list goes on. Afghanistan has had problems for some time, but Libya and Iraq both functioned as nations before ill-advised adventurism on the part of Western powers. This "list goes on" shit is particularly chilling to those who value peace, life, and national solvency. What other functioning nations must be broken to feed the military-industrial complex?

> ill-advised adventurism on the part of Western powers

Let keep the picture clear: ill-advised by the USA. It was the USA who wanted the conflicts and did everything in their power to 'persuade' their allies to bomb along.

It was all lies and just see what we got in return.

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

#85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Yes they should. Either they are arresting you and the gun gets processed like everything else, or they aren't arresting you and thus need a warrant to seize anything from you. If they don't have enough evidence to arrest you for the crime then they don't have enough evidence to seize the gun without…

You're not actually denying what I said. If they arrest you without a warrant, then they seize that gun without a warrant.

As for whether they should ever be able to seize a gun without arresting you, I'll defer an opinion--I feel like my knowledge of the variety of cases isn't up to snuff.

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

#86
Actually, the core problem is that when (usually) white, middle-class America sees a police boot on someone's face their instinct is to say, "Well, I guess he deserved it." This is particularly the case for working middle-class mothers. Based on anecdotal conversations, when they see a story about the police shooting an unarmed man in the back, they think, "Well, the guy was probably going to grab someone's little girl and take her hostage." When confronted with stories where the cop was undeniably wrong, they say, "Oh just a bad apple."

Another problem is when (usually) black America sees a police boot on someone's face, and notes that statistically it's usually a black face, and their instinct is to say, "Well, I guess it was because he was black." When confronted with stories where the face is white, they say nothing.

This breaks my heart. We should never allow a police boot on anyone's face for any reason. The police are public servants, our servants, there to keep the peace, and stop violence from happening. They are not the punishers - that is the role of the court. They are not above the law - they need to hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct. The police should be the best of us, but instead we get low-to-average intelligence physically large men who can keep themselves clean and fit, fill out basic paperwork, and who can follow orders. Emboldened by the attitudes of white, middle-class women that "cracking heads" is a sign of order, also a sign of machismo, and absent any authority to stop it, it continues, and it gets worse.

Now, cops go out on a disturbance call, escalate it to violence, and then they 'hurt the bad guys' - cracks some heads, throw 'em in jail. The cop moves on, but 'the bad guys' keep getting hurt, in local lock up, by a justice system that will never hear their case, and then for years by a privatized penal system that takes every economic and social advantage of the prisoner that it legally can.

What we have now is a police force whose individual instinct and unmet need for "respect" (actually, dominance) drives their decisions. No-one can stop them. The police have each other's backs. The judiciary has the backs of the police. And the voters are split between two very different, very wrong reactions to the problem - which takes back seat to things like "the economy" and "abortion" in every election.

Right now, the best we can do is tell the stories of the people who've been harmed by the police. We need to focus on white, middle-class people, to address both mistaken instincts. We need to fund independent police-malpractice commissions with real teeth, to investigate allegations of wrong-doing. More than anything, we need to reform the way police work is done, making it illegal, for example, for a uniformed cop to coerce a suspect, to lie about the law, or to escalate a situation. We need a "broken windows" policy applied to the police where even small breaches of policy - words of disrespect, for example - trigger a reprimand. We need to ask ourselves why cops swarm on every encounter with a citizen, why they have their hand on their gun when they walk up to your car, why they beat people up so much and get away with it.

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

#87
post #4

> With government unable to pay police as much as they need or would like, police are confiscating their revenue directly from the populace. Where does the author think the funding comes from in the normal situation? It's confiscated from the populace just the same. What is this elusive property of the government that makes it not a self-funding gang which is not present in any part of the government (e.g. police in…

This 'elusive' property is the idea that taxes are an indirect method of funding the police (as it is re-proportioned via much bureaucracy), while seizures directly fund the policeman's wallet. Obviously the latter is much more dangerous, because there's a self-reinforcing cycle where the police spend their entire time stealing, instead of doing their government-defined jobs. Indirection is important. It allows someo…

Nice explanation. I'd never thought about the important role of indirection in productive employment.

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

#88
post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure of all the cases, but one of the major common factors seems to be possession of large amounts of cash. They're essentially saying that no one has a legitimate cause to hold thousands of dollars in cash, so they must be doing something illicit, so we have cause to take it. It shouldn't be legal, but thanks to the drug war and post-9/11 anti-terrorism politics, it's been enabled by federal legislation and…

> They're essentially saying that no one has a legitimate cause to hold thousands of dollars in cash, so they must be doing something illicit, so we have cause to take it. Think about it statistically. The standard is "more likely than not" the money is obtained illegally. If you pull over 100 people with large amounts of cash, what percentage obtained it illegally? If it's greater than 50%, then you can always seize…

> If you pull over 100 people with large amounts of cash, what percentage obtained it illegally? If it's greater than 50%, then you can always seize the cash under that standard.

That's an interesting question, but it's not obviously greater than 50%. Honestly, I don't think it's higher than 50% at all, but certainly it isn't so clearly higher that it should be accepted without evidence.

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

#89
We cannot expect the world to become more sane. We must ourselves engineer our way out of it. We will engineer our way out of surveillance with encryption. We will engineer our way our of highway seizure with bitcoin (or a similar tech). If does seem bad now, but we will solve it and we will solve it without needing to convince others it's broken.

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

#90
post #46

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]

Who are "they", where are those people with these hidden agenda? The companies? Where some of us works and just try to do theie job. The politicans? Who cannot agree about anything but somehow figured out an hidden agenda where they secretly betray us. The Illuminati?

"I used to assume there were people in charge who knew what they were doing, who planned how things in society should work. As I got a little older I got more cynical, believing these people were trying to keep the rest of us dumb with shoddy schooling and mind-numbing entertainment, in the hopes they could get away with whatever it is powerful people are always trying to get away with.

Then as I got even older I realized that the people in charge are as clueless as the rest of us. Like our software, our society just kind of happened over the years and it’s always on the verge of coming tumbling down. Nobody really knows what they’re doing or what they’re talking about.

If you can get over the sheer terror of that thought, it’s actually quite liberating." Nick Bradbury

Post reply on HN