Isn't this, these days, just one of the reasons to stay as far away as possible from the "land of the free"?
If you were exclusively trying to avoid civil forfeiture, where would you suggest going instead?
Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
81–90 of 179 posts
Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, just like the communists. the state can seize anything with no compensation. private property assurances were masqueraded as a distinctive tenet between the systems but they’ve both converged on a discretionary ownership reality.
Communists at least seize stuff with good intentions.
Perhaps they can seize this pile of cobblestones I have, in case they need to pave a road to somewhere warm.
Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
#83Earlier quoted context omitted.
yes, just like the communists. the state can seize anything with no compensation. private property assurances were masqueraded as a distinctive tenet between the systems but they’ve both converged on a discretionary ownership reality.
It is a bit bizarre to read about a system of exploitation that has flourished under a capitalist police state and then mention communists.
It is a bit bizarre to read about police state where the police are a monopoly ran and controlled by the government and then call it capitalist.
Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communists at least seize stuff with good intentions.
The reasons communism allows seizure of property are with good intentions, just as the reasons the law allows the seizure of property in this case are because of good intentions. How it's used and abused in practice in both systems is the important part. I'm not sure either system necessarily has a great track record in that respect.
Sorry, but the intentions behind these seizures are in no way benign. Maybe in the original intentions of the law, but the police are there to shake people down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJd4Q4u5cqU
Reminder: this is yet another piece of evidence that The War on Drugs™ does not serve us well in any way, shape, or form.
Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
#85Wait, 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 t…
You should read up on civil asset forfeiture - it's hilariously obtuse.
They arrest your money. You are not accused of a crime, your money is. Your money is not a person, and thus has no constitutional rights. Your money is not innocent until proven, that's a silly system reserved for persons - instead, your money must prove its innocence. And thus you get cases with absurd titles such as "United States v. $84,740.00 U.S. Currency" ( https://casetext.com/case/us-v-8474000-us-currency )
I'd love to say you can't make this up, but they did.
Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
other robbers https://www.fakhimi.com/photos/robbery-versus-burglary.jpg
That slide is confusing. The Burglary side says it takes place when people are absent, but then says it's a violent crime (and shows one person punching another). I get it's probably a legal definition of "violent" or something, but in that case showing an image of one person punching another is somewhat misleading...
Burglary isn't necessarily/traditionally a violent crime. Crime stats usually report it as a non-violent property crime, though there are parts of federal law that treat it as violent or similarly to violent crimes. It doesn't have violence as an element of the crime, but breaking into peoples' houses obviously sets the stage for more violent encounters.
Robbery on the other hand is by definition a violent crime, the threat of violence is what distinguishes it from other forms of theft or larceny.
Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
#87[dead]
Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is a bit bizarre to read about a system of exploitation that has flourished under a capitalist police state and then mention communists.
It is a bit bizarre to read about police state where the police are a monopoly ran and controlled by the government and then call it capitalist.
The role of the police in upholding and defending capital is a well understood mechanic of capitalism. It's either naive or disingenuous or hold that they are separate unrelated phenomena when literally centuries of experience and scholarship demonstrates how they are interconnected mutually reinforcing social structures.
Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Communists at least seize stuff with good intentions.
The reasons communism allows seizure of property are with good intentions, just as the reasons the law allows the seizure of property in this case are because of good intentions. How it's used and abused in practice in both systems is the important part. I'm not sure either system necessarily has a great track record in that respect.
Fair point. I should have been more precise, I was actually thinking of »hypothetical, never actually realized, potentially impossible to realize true platonic communists« and not of some Soviet era communists or something like that.
Re: Police Seized Innocent Peoples Property, Kept It for Years. What Will SCOTUS Do?
#90Earlier 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?
A particular video essay comes to mind (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs). Since government must ultimately be held in place by use of force no matter how you structure it, it's unsurprising that the sub-organization responsible for exerting force is the ultimate decider of what's actually allowed.