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

141–150 of 179 posts

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

#141

Post by isk517 »

giraffe_lady wrote: post #88
ben940830298432 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Might as well say "The role of the police in upholding and defending X is a well understood mechanic of Xism."

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

#142

Post by Mountain_Skies »

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…

We just went through a cycle of politicians coast to coast, though less in the middle, screaming loudly to defund the police. What wasn't part of that conversation was getting rid of civil forfeiture, which is a rather amazing omission on the part of the defund the police folks.

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

#143

Post by buzer »

lesuorac wrote: post #31
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.

Well, either the courts will circle the wagon or thats going to be backfiring soon. People have started to try to apply Eminent Domain to the Qualified Immunity defense [1]. They're not disputing that you are a LEO acting in official government capacity but Eminent Domain requires that you compensate a private party for use of their stuff. https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/police-...

The case was appealed to 5th Circuit and there was oral argument on 6th of June https://www.courtlistener.com/audio/87002/baker-v-city-of-mc.... If I understand things correctly that should mean that the judgement should be out by end of next week?

Note: IANAL, I'm a complete layperson.

From what I could understand it sounds like 4 other district courts have ruled (around 31:30) on similar issues by siding that Eminent Domain does not apply on police actions while 4th has apparently ruled differently (I do not know which case they are referring to) & there were some arguments that earlier John Corp case from 5th Circuit (I believe https://casetext.com/case/john-corp-v-city-of-houston) already split the district courts.

To me it did sound like judges were taking the city side more though they did also ask for what kind of test should be implemented if they did rule in favor of Bakers.

Hopefully they do end up affirming the lower court decision but let's see.

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

#144

Post by Nasrudith »

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.

That is an imaginary distinction which only exists to anti-capitalists to have their cake and it eat too, along with a continuation of their ongoing torrid love-affair of creating their own sophistic definitions. Everyone else says more or less "that is private property you fool!".

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

#145

Post by bashinator »

paulmd wrote: post #42
bashinator wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

the classic "aha, if you're really so oppressed, why don't you take productive action about it (in a society where all avenues of productive action have been foreclosed)" to you strategy kinda like asking a black man what he thinks should be done about jim crow, if he's so smart. the tactic really does go way back like yea oppressive power structures systematically foreclose, neuter, and dismantle any means that migh…

Okay, let me rephrase. What should I be doing other than voting and working for causes I believe in. I’m not in an oppressed group unless you consider the entirety of the American public not part of the oligarchy to be such a group.

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

#147

Post by jamilton »

assimpleaspossi wrote: post #70
jamilton wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Assuming nothing in the story is an outright lie or fabrication, I don't know what additional details could justify any of this.

For example, the one case involves the girl's boyfriend and drugs. It's passed almost as an aside but no one gets that brought up if there isn't more to the story. The first story sounds more innocent but how do both of these apply to the volume of other cases? The article makes it sound like all of them would be similarly innocent.

To me, in Wilson's case it seems irrelevant if the boyfriend was a drug dealer or not, or even if she herself suspected of something. If that's the case, charge one or both of them, there's no just reason to take the car.

A hypothetical situation that could somewhat justify the police taking someone's car would be if the car was known to be stolen, but presumably she wouldn't be able to apply to get it back in that case, so that doesn't seem to be the case.

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

#148

Post by bashinator »

bombcar wrote: post #53
bashinator wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

“Both sides are equally bad” was particularly effective Russian social media trolling leading into 2016. Glad that bullshit is thoroughly discredited.

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

#149

Post by assimpleaspossi »

jamilton wrote: post #147
assimpleaspossi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For example, the one case involves the girl's boyfriend and drugs. It's passed almost as an aside but no one gets that brought up if there isn't more to the story. The first story sounds more innocent but how do both of these apply to the volume of other cases? The article makes it sound like all of them would be similarly innocent.

To me, in Wilson's case it seems irrelevant if the boyfriend was a drug dealer or not, or even if she herself suspected of something. If that's the case, charge one or both of them, there's no just reason to take the car. A hypothetical situation that could somewhat justify the police taking someone's car would be if the car was known to be stolen, but presumably she wouldn't be able to apply to get it back in that c…

As I said, there must be more to this story.

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

#150

Post by 0max »

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…

Makes me hope that these POAs will know what Air Traffic Controllers went through in the 80s
Post reply on HN