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

A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 286 posts

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#241

Post by DanBC »

retox wrote: post #145
orf wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame on you for spreading that fake news. People on HN should know better and be held to a higher standard. > Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, you’ve got to be vigilant, you’ve got to support the police doing an incredibly hard job. We must never accept terrorists being successful, we must never accept that terrorists can destroy our life or destroy the…

>Part and parcel of living in a great global city is you’ve got to be prepared for these things, Living in a city, you must be prepared for terror. This is not how things should be.

> This is not how things should be.

So you support the disarming of all US citizens, because living in fear of crime isn't how things should be?

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#242

Post by chiph »

tluyben2 wrote: post #62

What is the rationale behind civil forfeiture? Besides a convenient way to get more funds into the state pocket if you don’t like someone’s face? I first saw it in The Shield (still one of my favorite shows) and remember thinking that it looks more like some army controlled region in Africa or something than a civilized country. But yeah, so does privatising prisons.

It's a legacy of the "War on Drugs". The argument was that drug dealers use money mules to move their cash, and this law would allow law enforcement to take that money, thus harming the drug trade.

Like many well-meaning laws that were hastily passed, they never thought it would be used against retirees and people buying cars with cash.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#243

Post by mgkimsal »

lewis500 wrote: post #55

Only as I get older do I realize how incredibly bad elements of law enforcement in the US can be, and legally so. Few cops and agents are bad, but it is a system with little filtering, personally or institutionally, of the bad elements. Civil asset forfeiture is overwhelmingly unpopular, but when states try to reform it the law enforcement groups rally around it mightily. Essentially they want the right to steal mone…

"What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?”

This feels to me like the end result of "govt should be run like a business!" thinking. Every election cycle we hear about govt should be run like a family budget, and getting out of debt, etc. And govt should run like a business, because that's efficient, etc.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#244

Post by chiph »

mankash666 wrote: post #230

How many 64 year olds put their life savings in carry on bags? I'm not saying the CBP is innocent, but $60K in cash in a carry on is suspicious

Not to people who have seen banks fail. Like the elderly who watched their parent's life-savings disappear during the 1930's market crash (the FDIC insurance law was enacted afterwards). Or people who used to live in totalitarian states and cash was the best way to have savings.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#245

Post by dustycowboy »

seibelj wrote: post #14

It amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions. The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destro…

It amazes me that anytime something goes wrong with the governement, someone says: we should get rid of the government.

How about we work to improve it instead?

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#246

Post by rayiner »

3pt14159 wrote: post #18
seibelj wrote: post #14

It amazes me when people think the government should be the go-to solution to society's problems. The government can indeed be used for good, and it has solved many problems, and regulations can be a good thing. But government should be applied very carefully, and probably as the last solution, after we see the failures of non-government solutions. The government is all powerful. They can destroy any business, destro…

Not last. Not first. Not all powerful. Not feckless. Americans act like their government is representative of governments. It isn't. They act like everything needs to be invented there. It doesn't. They believe that America is the greatest country in the world. It isn't. If people in America just stopped to look around at how other countries do things they'd be doubly as well run. Most parts of Europe, Japan, Canada,…

The older I get, the more I suspect that the problem isn’t our system, but Americans. Take something like the NYC subway. It’s a disaster while London’s Tube works fine. The usual excuses (not enough money) don’t work—the NYC metro has double the operating costs per passenger trip, even though the systems are very similar.

Maybe Americans just aren’t very good at government. This is not so crazy a concept. When I was in Tokyo I marveled at how people would walk several blocks to get to a cross walk. Here in DC, people jay walk like it’s going out of style. That’s when it hit me that it’s no surprise Metro is a disaster while Tokyo’s trains work great.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#247

Post by iforgotpassword »

jimbokun wrote: post #221
iforgotpassword wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wrap my head around how you can see it as positive that these kind of actions would go unpunished, in the name of "freedom". If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious, threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.

Can be equally used to suppress anyone with an unpopular opinion. Who is deciding what is edgy but still funny, vs what’s over the line? What is valid criticism of people who happen to be part of a minority group, vs what is hateful and racist? The only reason you are ok with this, is because all of your beliefs fall within the boundaries of acceptability set by the censors. And you want to be protected from the spee…

Receiving insults, death threats and the likes online is just "speech of people who might think or believe differently" to you, seriously?

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#248

Post by vageli »

threatofrain wrote: post #210
otalp wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is a system with little filtering, personally or institutionally, of the bad elements Wrong. It is a system that explicitly filters out the good elements. "US Court Ruling: You Can Be “Too Smart” to Be a Cop. Police department disqualifies anyone whose IQ is “too high" ( https://www.globalresearch.ca/us-court-ruled-you-can-be-too-... ) "Court OKs Barring High IQs for Cops"( https://abcnews.go.com/US/court-oks-ba…

That's the same thing as barring someone for being overqualified, isn't it?

I can't think of many jobs you'd be turned away from for being too smart.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#249

Post by iforgotpassword »

wetpaws wrote: post #78
iforgotpassword wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't wrap my head around how you can see it as positive that these kind of actions would go unpunished, in the name of "freedom". If I were harassed and bullied I'd not feel very free, but rather anxious, threatened, depressed. I'm quite happy my government takes measures to assure a certain level of personal safety, both physical and psychological.

I would prefer being harrased and bullied rather than having to live in a country that has a legal power to punish me for what I say.

You sure that isn't just a reflex "defending my country" reply?

I mean, extending on that statement, you probably also think sexual harassment, as long as it stays verbal, is OK to have in the name of freedom. As a guy you probably don't have to worry there anyways. People are driven into suicide through harassment.

And why don't you feel the same about the right to just shoot anyone at will? Clearly your government is strongly restricting your freedom there, but we probably don't Need to argue why this is a good thing.

Re: A 64-year-old put his life savings in his carry-on, and U.S. Customs took it

#250

Post by vageli »

skookumchuck wrote: post #193

Why do no candidates, either Dem or GOP, work to end this? Isn't the government blatantly stealing from people something both sides can get together to end?

Because then it might be construed as an attack on police funding. Politicians seek support of police unions when they're running campaigns.
Post reply on HN