Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
1–10 of 94 posts
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#2The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#3The atrocities have been going on for decades, yet suddenly everyone is interested. Any ideas what changed, so that press is paying attention now?
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#4The atrocities have been going on for decades, yet suddenly everyone is interested. Any ideas what changed, so that press is paying attention now?
From what I've read, the rate of seizure has increased something like 10-fold in the last decade. That's at least part of it.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#5There was also a good bit on last week tonight about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3kEpZWGgJks
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#6Similar NYTimes article posted yesterday with a bit more substance: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/us/police-use-department-w...
I'm not really sure why civil forfeiture places the burden on owners. Kind of defies the logic of innocent until proven guilty.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#7The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job.
> They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job
So.... if the police do a bad job; and crime is rife; we get rid of the police department? Or conversely, if there is no crime, we give more and more money to the police?
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#8The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job.
> They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job So.... if the police do a bad job; and crime is rife; we get rid of the police department? Or conversely, if there is no crime, we give more and more money to the police?
Surely there are more granular metrics than that.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#9The atrocities have been going on for decades, yet suddenly everyone is interested. Any ideas what changed, so that press is paying attention now?
Those particular geese only lay golden eggs until you kill them.
My guess is they got greedy and then got attention. It was fine and good when they took PimpDaddy's caddy because drugs, but not so fine when they took his grandma's house too because he parked there for an hour last tuesday.
Re: Police Can Seize and Sell Assets Even When the Owner Broke No Law
#10The incentives for police in this country are all wrong. It should be illegal for police to profit in any way off of the people they're tasked with protecting. They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job.
> They should be paid using tax money based on how well they're doing their actual job So.... if the police do a bad job; and crime is rife; we get rid of the police department? Or conversely, if there is no crime, we give more and more money to the police?
Those are both extremely fallacious measures of whether the police are doing a good job.