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

Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

reason.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 179 posts

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#51

Post by thechao »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #41
DebtDeflation wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just an empty threat either. It's happened numerous times in NYC when the mayor or city council has attempted to reign in the NYPD, they simply stop responding to calls for service and then blame it on the politicians. Even if it doesn't lead to an uptick in crime, it still angers voters that police won't respond to their calls and they take it out at the polls.

Shit NYPD publicly doxed and threatened the mayor's daughter. I've always known the police were evil but that made me stop and really wonder what sort of constraints municipal politicians are operating under. Like that is very very close to "gloves off" mafia type shit right out in the open. What kinds of threats do they make against those figures in private?

In case anyone is interested in the power dynamic in Imperial Rome between the Emporers and the Legions, this is is an analogous situation.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#52

Post by fnordpiglet »

kevin_nisbet wrote: post #40
jkubicek wrote: post #2

Severely limiting the scope of civil forfeiture seems like one of those political issues that everyone across the political spectrum can agree on. I'm constantly hearing horror stories like the ones in this article and I've never heard any reasonable defense of our current system. In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense.

> In fact, I've never even heard an unreasonable defense. I suspect like many things, there was some logic to the introduction. But it's just gotten to really batshit levels that there is probably nothing to do but stop the practice. As I understand it, some of the origins were that for debts owed to the government, with the person not present in the country, it was much more practical to target assets that may exist…

Yes the basic premise for why people would support civil forfeiture is “due process let’s too many people ‘get away with it’ so we need an extrajudicial process”.

It’s the same basic rationale that all freedoms are ultimately curtailed with - all those rules are inconvenient, let’s by pass them a little bit. Then the reason for the rules start to become readily apparent again. Then the rationale takes on the old “can’t make an omelet” refrain, as if the world revolves around punishing criminals and everyone need to accept the collateral damage.

Personally I’m of the old “rather let a thousand guilty go free than punish a single innocent,” but I also don’t set policy.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#53

Post by bombcar »

bashinator wrote: post #9
wahnfrieden wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Voting is at best a harm reduction tactic. But as I said for limiting state powers specifically, it's usually not even that.

So what actual actions do you advocate for ordinary citizens to take?

Nobody would tell an Iraqi that they can't complain if they don't vote, especially if the only option on the ballot is Saddam.

Would they say the same if the only two options were Saddam and Maddas?

If the nation's leaders are being elected by a 10-20% voter turnout, it'll be very obvious what's going on. That is the thing that they don't want to happen.

Keep voting harder! That'll solve everything!

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#54

Post by lotsofpulp »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #11
klyrs wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree that everyone across the political spectrum agrees on this: Thin Blue Liners have considerable sway over politics, and they're happily on the take.

Can you provide a reference where you have seen someone take this stance? I personally have never seen it, and I think I know a lot of pro police types. I think most pro police types would see this as corruption.

The fact the police unions sell or give out special signifiers for family members of police is proof enough. The fake badgers stuck to windshields in the NYC area is an obvious reminder of the corruption openly allowed by the police.

And then you have the license plates and stickers and whatnot.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#55

Post by hedora »

klyrs wrote: post #32
pfannkuchen wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you provide a reference where you have seen someone take this stance? I personally have never seen it, and I think I know a lot of pro police types. I think most pro police types would see this as corruption.

Does the Society that a majority of Supreme Court Justices belong to count as credible to you? https://fedsoc.org/commentary/publications/forfeiture-is-rea...

4 of the 5 justices that overturned Roe v. Wade (and ruled there is no right to privacy in the US) were appointed by presidents that lost the popular vote.

So, no.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#56

Post by hotnfresh »

maxwell wrote: post #43
DebtDeflation wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just an empty threat either. It's happened numerous times in NYC when the mayor or city council has attempted to reign in the NYPD, they simply stop responding to calls for service and then blame it on the politicians. Even if it doesn't lead to an uptick in crime, it still angers voters that police won't respond to their calls and they take it out at the polls.

The real socialist shadow governments are local police departments.

If only they were socialist. They’re arguably a lot less socialist than many actual gangs, as far as providing material benefits of their criminal activity to the people who “host” them. Not to glamorize gangs, but some have historically taken care to maintain some degree of legitimacy and favor among “their” people, including through provision of services and money or goods. While also, sure, shaking down some of those same people.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#57

Post by papercrane »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #35
banannaise wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally speaking, the political argument against is "If you do anything that gives even the appearance of curtailing police powers in any way, we will create the illusion of a crime wave, attribute it to you, and absolutely hammer every form of media with that narrative." (If, God help you, you manage to pass a law that actually curtails police powers, they'll generally act in open defiance instead of doing their j…

It's not just an empty threat either. It's happened numerous times in NYC when the mayor or city council has attempted to reign in the NYPD, they simply stop responding to calls for service and then blame it on the politicians. Even if it doesn't lead to an uptick in crime, it still angers voters that police won't respond to their calls and they take it out at the polls.

The police in NYC have rioted because the mayor was proposing a civilian oversight board to investigate misconduct.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrolmen%27s_Benevolent_Assoc...

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#58

Post by hedora »

wnoise wrote: post #50
phkahler wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> I wish the law required that LEOs who steal people's stuff to be automatically criminally charged for theft upon the overturn of civil asset forfeiture At that point the defense would be Qualified Immunity.

Qualified immunity only applies to civil suits.

You're giving SCOTUS too much credit.

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#59

Post by danbruc »

Wait, what? In the US law enforcement can just take peoples' stuff and then the people have to prove that they are innocent in order to get their stuff back? Should this not be the other way around, law enforcement has to prove - within some reasonable amount of time - that the person is guilty, otherwise they get their stuff back, plus some compensation for incurred costs? But even if the person is guilty, why can the state take their stuff to begin with, at least beyond what is required or might reasonably be required to pay for fines or compensations or was acquired illegally?

Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?

#60

Post by joshuaissac »

thechao wrote: post #51
giraffe_lady wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shit NYPD publicly doxed and threatened the mayor's daughter. I've always known the police were evil but that made me stop and really wonder what sort of constraints municipal politicians are operating under. Like that is very very close to "gloves off" mafia type shit right out in the open. What kinds of threats do they make against those figures in private?

In case anyone is interested in the power dynamic in Imperial Rome between the Emporers and the Legions, this is is an analogous situation.

This kind of power dynamic between the civilian administration and 'the military' would not be considered to be healthy, if it were happening in a sovereign polity.

Could a sufficiently wealthy mayor (like Bloomberg) push through privatisation and deunionisation, while using their personal funds to pay for private security for the whole city in case there is a strike? The department's annual budget seems to be around 5 billion USD.

Post reply on HN