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

How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 455 posts

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#311

Post by bryondowd »

philh wrote: post #217
Frondo wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taxation isn't theft. The anti-tax crowd is just like the anti-vax crowd. They both want a free ride on the rest of our backs; the anti-vaxers want the benefit of herd immunity, and the anti-taxers want others to pay the cost of living in the modern world. (*edited to a missing word)

Anti-tax is about not forcing people to pay for services they may not want. I don't think it's realistic, but your description of them is uncharitable. In a world where everyone gets hit on the head with a baseball bat once a week, some people are saying "what's with this? Can't we figure out some way of not getting hit by baseball bats every week?" And you're turning that into "I don't want to get hit by a baseball…

I'm not sure I lean one way or the other, but that isn't a good analogy. There's no benefit to anybody from a baseball bat to the head. Now, if a certain number of baseball bats to heads is required to appease the gods and increase fertility, health, etc in a majority of the population, you've got a better comparison. Maybe not everybody needs all those benefits, but the options on the table are to let some people opt out, and decrease the benefits globally, or let some people opt out and increase the bat to head frequency for everyone else, force the holdouts to just quit whining and take their bat to the head for the greater good, or maybe see if there's some alternative way to appease the gods and reap their benefits with less head batting.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#312

Post by [deleted] »

fsck--off wrote: post #205
hackercurious wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The State of New Mexico has just banned asset forfeiture. HB 560, introduced by New Mexico Rep. Zachary Cook and passed unanimously in the legislature, replaces civil asset forfeiture with criminal forfeiture, which requires a conviction of a person as a prerequisite to losing property tied to a crime. The new law means that New Mexico now has the strongest protections against wrongful asset seizures in the country.…

The WaPo article (the submission) mentions this bill, but finishes: "But New Mexico's law only affects state law enforcement officials. As a result, in New Mexico — and everywhere else, for that matter — DEA agents will be able to board your train, ask you where you're going and take all your cash if they don't like your story, all without ever charging you with a crime."

[deleted]

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#313

Post by leap_ahead »

marcosdumay wrote: post #278
leap_ahead wrote: post #221

Russian citizen here. This sort of things I have regularly been hearing about the US over the last decade make me really sad. Some 20 years ago America was a symbol of civil liberties for us. I considered one day maybe going there to work and live. A few years ago I still entertained an idea of going there for an internship. Today I'd be scared to go there even as a tourist or on a short business trip. Let's say I go…

Brazilian citizen here. Do you realize that the news report thing out of proportion, right?

Of course. But the thing is, they actually reported what really happened.

Conversely, do you realize this sort of things shouldn't be really happening in what claims to be the most advanced and civilized country on this planet? I'm not hearing of this crap happening in central Europe for instance. You can expect these things from some forgotten African country, but not really from one of the so called first-world countries.

Really, those government agents should have had access to sufficient information to determine if those 160000 dollars had a legitimate origin and a legitimate objective. Where's the due process please? For many people this sum could represent several years of savings. The government can't just take it for no reason.

Perhaps this poor black guy should consider emigration from the US. He could move to Europe. I'm sure if he was ready to launch a startup he should be able to land a good job there, then get rid of the US passport a few years later.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#314

Post by maratd »

soylentcola wrote: post #290
spacemanmatt wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all. They steal bank accounts, boats, cars, and houses as well.

Sure, but I've got about as much money in my bank account (as opposed to cash) and nobody has ever asked me to prove it wasn't gained illicitly if I wanted it back. I've got friends with boats, I've owned cars, and currently living in a house owned by my SO. None of us has been targeted just for having those things. While I'm sure that they wouldn't hesitate to seize those assets if any of us were charged with some s…

> It's like you don't really have a right to keep your money unless it's accessed via some plastic card or routing number.

They have an apparatus in place to track all of your money, as long as it's in electronic form. That way they can control your spending and make sure you don't spend it on things they don't like (drugs, prostitution, insert illegal behavior/good here). When you use cash, a method they have limited control over, the very act of using it becomes subversive.

Why would you use cash unless you wanted to do something illegal with it?

That's the question ringing in their minds. The very act of using cash becomes ground for suspicion.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#315

Post by jrs235 »

imroot wrote: post #10

While civil forfeiture is scary, my (very very brief) stint doing criminal law as a public defender showed me that there's also a bigger side of this -- seizing the assets of individuals who are charged with a crime so that they cannot attain private counsel, make bail, or receive any creature comforts while incarcerated. What will generally happen is that after sitting in jail for 120+ days, they'll jump at any oppo…

I can't recall the where I heard this before but I once heard that drug dealers purchase and wear expensive gold necklaces because if/when they get busted and booked, cash can [more easily] be confiscated (forfeited) by the police and assumed to be "dirty" drug money while gold necklaces need to be inventoried and kept safe as personal belongings. Then the dealer can get bail money from a friend with them knowing they can go and pawn the necklace to obtain cash.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#316

Post by worklogin »

leap_ahead wrote: post #221

Russian citizen here. This sort of things I have regularly been hearing about the US over the last decade make me really sad. Some 20 years ago America was a symbol of civil liberties for us. I considered one day maybe going there to work and live. A few years ago I still entertained an idea of going there for an internship. Today I'd be scared to go there even as a tourist or on a short business trip. Let's say I go…

Likewise, I'd never go to Russia, because unlike in the US, I might get swept up and accused of being a spy, or have my hotel room turned over when they use hidden cameras to determine I'm out of the room.

Another example would be to see how long someone could shout obscenities at Putin in front of the Kremlin without getting thrown in the back of a truck. In the US, we have the freedom of press to put out articles like this.

I'm sure the everyday life of a Russian isn't totally miserable, and the US has its major issues, but I can't think of a single civil-rights issue where Russia is a leader.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#317

Post by ohitsdom »

leap_ahead wrote: post #305
Dirlewanger wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some advice: stop reading/believing everything you read on the Internet/see in movies and come over for a visit. Distorting your perceptions with solely sensationalist articles (though not saying this one is)/pop culture only does yourself a disservice.

Maybe some day but not today. Today I'm not comfortable with the mere idea. What if some patent troll learns I'm going for a visit to the US? What if they secretly tell the police to arrest me at the airport and then sue me over some dumb patents? What if somebody makes a joke on the Internet and then I'm detained at the airport and interrogated whether I have fought in the Ukraine? What if they learn I have some Mus…

The US has its problems but I think your perception is greatly exaggerated. Let me tell you how I believe those scenarios would play out-

1. Patent trolls have no political clout. Zero chance of police arresting someone on their behalf (let alone them calling police to request this). Patents are a civil matter, not criminal.

2. I have not heard of the US interrogating any suspected Ukraine-invasion fighters.

3. Muslim friends could bring you more scrutiny. But they'd have to be pretty dirty to warrant that much attention on you. I haven't heard one case of someone being taken to a secret prison just to be convinced to turn spy. If you're taken to a supposed "secret prison", you're probably there to stay.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#318

Post by gnaritas »

a3n wrote: post #247
gnaritas wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No he didn't miss the point, you did. You didn't read his link and your comment shows that.

> To a greater extent than many other electoral methods, the first-past-the-post system encourages tactical voting. Voters have an incentive to vote for one of the two candidates they predict are most likely to win, even if they would prefer another of the candidates to win, because a vote for any other candidate will likely be "wasted" and have no impact on the final result. > The position is sometimes summed up, in…

You're still missing the point and still don't appear to understand the consequences of your actions. By not tactically voting in a first past the pole system, you are actually helping the guy you'd least like to win; you are actively making things worse. It doesn't matter than you like neither of them, as they're different you'd clearly like one less than the other and he's the one you're helping win. You aren't opposing both of them, you're helping the one you'd least like to win, your little "protest" vote may as well be a vote for the worst candidate.

> I prefer to oppose them both, however feeble my voice may be.

This little act of ego is helping ruin the country; thanks.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#319

Post by philh »

bryondowd wrote: post #311
philh wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anti-tax is about not forcing people to pay for services they may not want. I don't think it's realistic, but your description of them is uncharitable. In a world where everyone gets hit on the head with a baseball bat once a week, some people are saying "what's with this? Can't we figure out some way of not getting hit by baseball bats every week?" And you're turning that into "I don't want to get hit by a baseball…

I'm not sure I lean one way or the other, but that isn't a good analogy. There's no benefit to anybody from a baseball bat to the head. Now, if a certain number of baseball bats to heads is required to appease the gods and increase fertility, health, etc in a majority of the population, you've got a better comparison. Maybe not everybody needs all those benefits, but the options on the table are to let some people op…

I agree that those features would make the analogy more accurate wrt taxation, but if that was the only important thing about an analogy, we wouldn't use analogies at all. (And it's quite possible that I shouldn't have used an analogy in this case.)

I don't think those features are particularly relevant to the mistake Frondo was making.

Re: How the DEA took a young man’s life savings without charging him with a crime

#320

Post by leap_ahead »

ohitsdom wrote: post #317
leap_ahead wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe some day but not today. Today I'm not comfortable with the mere idea. What if some patent troll learns I'm going for a visit to the US? What if they secretly tell the police to arrest me at the airport and then sue me over some dumb patents? What if somebody makes a joke on the Internet and then I'm detained at the airport and interrogated whether I have fought in the Ukraine? What if they learn I have some Mus…

The US has its problems but I think your perception is greatly exaggerated. Let me tell you how I believe those scenarios would play out- 1. Patent trolls have no political clout. Zero chance of police arresting someone on their behalf (let alone them calling police to request this). Patents are a civil matter, not criminal. 2. I have not heard of the US interrogating any suspected Ukraine-invasion fighters. 3. Musli…

>> Muslim friends could bring you more scrutiny. But they'd have to be pretty dirty to warrant that much attention on you. I haven't heard one case of someone being taken to a secret prison just to be convinced to turn spy.

What about this?

http://www.thelocal.se/20120419/40368

>> If you're taken to a supposed "secret prison", you're probably there to stay.

Okay, thank you very much, I'm staying home then.

Post reply on HN