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

101–110 of 179 posts

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

#101

Post by giraffe_lady »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #96
giraffe_lady wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Capitalism is not a monolithic idea, and lots of capitalist scholars have challenged the validity of, variously: - police writ large - police monopolies - any given police policy and its interaction with capital Anyways, if police are supposed "to defend capital", then a policy of stealing capital from private individuals is exactly not capitalistic.

In this case we don't need to generalize across all systems that can be called capitalism, we have a specific instance in front of us to reason about. In the american system and its precursors, the role of the police is clear and well attested.

And people's personal property is not normally capital in the sense of capitalism, it not generally being the means of production or of reproducing capital itself. This is a really basic point which has me thinking we disagree on the fundamental terminology. Capitalism isn't a synonym for commerce, assets are not necessarily capital.

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

#102

Post by jltsiren »

banannaise wrote: post #29
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.

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…

This is one of the things I don't understand about America. If this is really true, how can it possibly happen?

I'm from one of the more stable countries in Europe. While there is corruption and abuse in the police, the average officer has greater loyalty to the system than to their superiors. Which means that if someone refuses to do their job, you can fire them and possibly charge them with crimes, and you will eventually find a replacement willing to do the job.

The only way I can see something like this happening is if the average police officer does not believe in the legitimacy of the political and legal system.

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

#103

Post by klyrs »

hedora wrote: post #55
klyrs wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether or not you agree with them; whether or not you agree with the results of the electoral college; I've never heard of a viable dispute to the de jure legitimacy of their appointments.

I posted that link in response to an inquiry for a single source in support of civil forfeiture. While I happen to agree with the general thrust of your complaint, it is a non sequitur. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority, provided a Congress unwilling to hold them accountable (which it currently is).

My question of 'credibility' is not "do you like the Federalist Society" but "do you think they're in political alignment with the Thin Blue Liners and are they writing policy."

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

#104

Post by enterprise_cog »

ben940830298432 wrote: post #83
enterprise_cog wrote: post #73

Earlier 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.

A little bit of fun trivia for you: state police were first founded to suppress unions and labor through violent means. Using Pinkertons caused backlash, so they integrated the Pinkertons into the government to give it legitimacy.

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

#105

Post by throwawaymaths »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #101
throwawaymaths wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Capitalism is not a monolithic idea, and lots of capitalist scholars have challenged the validity of, variously: - police writ large - police monopolies - any given police policy and its interaction with capital Anyways, if police are supposed "to defend capital", then a policy of stealing capital from private individuals is exactly not capitalistic.

In this case we don't need to generalize across all systems that can be called capitalism, we have a specific instance in front of us to reason about. In the american system and its precursors, the role of the police is clear and well attested. And people's personal property is not normally capital in the sense of capitalism, it not generally being the means of production or of reproducing capital itself. This is a r…

Despite being called capitalist, as a resident of the States that regularly visits other countries. I think many countries are more capitalist than the US, the US just gets called capitalist because we have fucked up healthcare and social services systems which themselves in the US to me seem like taking the worst aspects of socialism and combining them with the worst aspects of capitalism.

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

#106

Post by hedora »

klyrs wrote: post #103
hedora wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Whether or not you agree with them; whether or not you agree with the results of the electoral college; I've never heard of a viable dispute to the de jure legitimacy of their appointments. I posted that link in response to an inquiry for a single source in support of civil forfeiture. While I happen to agree with the general thrust of your complaint, it is a non sequitur. The Supreme Court is the ultimate authority,…

I don't think the current Supreme Court is a credible source of information about US law. The fact that many of them belong to some organization lends it negative credibility in my mind.

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

#107

Post by Retric »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #77
kbenson wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eh, I'm not really pro communism, but it makes sense to me. If one of the central differences people focus on between the systems is private property, if someone sees that as somewhat of an illusion it makes sense to note it.

Private property != personal property Means of production is not the same as the shoes on your feet. It's just unfortunately confusing terminology that leads to twisted argumentation. Btw, the alternative to capitalist liberal states is not exclusively authoritarian marxist-leninist communism. Not all anti-capitalists are pining for another different boot to lick.

A tool (boot, glove, knife, hammer, etc) is easily both the means of production and personal property. The distinction is in effect meaningless.

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

#108

Post by Gormo »

enterprise_cog wrote: post #73
yieldcrv wrote: post #65

Earlier 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's not really that bizarre. Everything boils down to human beings acting on human motivations, and humans often rationalize bad behavior by appealing to pretexts rooted in contrived ideologies. Communism is one such ideology, and the war on drugs is another.

In both cases here, the true underlying motivation of the parties involved is to take other people's stuff for themselves, but their apologists, communists and drug warriors alike, both rationalize real harm done to real people by pretending their actions are in pursuit of some utopian end state (which in both cases is an unattainable fantasy).

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

#109

Post by staplers »

gwbrooks wrote: post #71

Cities and counties can address this on their own, without waiting for the statehouse or Washington. The nonprofit I work for has a model policy and research that makes it nearly turn-key. https://better-cities.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/BCP-ref...

Most law enforcement is "above" local jurisdiction practically speaking.

Police are local militias with a near-military supply of weapons, technology, and surveillance.

Cities often seek judgement or ways to control law enforcement but police unions and silent strikes render their attempts futile.

If your city had George Floyd protests, you're likely aware of these silent strikes. The police simply stop doing their job and allow crime and lawlessness.

Without the threat of a national military coming down on them, local LE behaves like a mafia.

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

#110

Post by gtowey »

yieldcrv wrote: post #65
danbruc wrote: post #59

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 t…

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's not communism, it's a new form of feudalism.
Post reply on HN