121–130 of 179 posts
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.
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.
The fact that the Supreme Court is taking up this case is good news. The Court could have ignored it, but chose to consider it. The facts of the two related cases are reasonably favorable to striking down or curtailing civil asset forfeiture (CAF). Surprisingly, part of the the right wing of the Supreme Court is skeptical of CAF: "Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch criticized asset forfeiture as an…
The weaseling is always "but it's _civil_, not _criminal_.". Except, the premise is that a crime has been committed. But, people are being deprived of their property without due process. That private property is being taken for public use without _any_, let alone _just_, compensation.
It should be a 9-0 ruling striking it down, but we'll see...
[0] https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transc...
The fact that the Supreme Court is taking up this case is good news. The Court could have ignored it, but chose to consider it. The facts of the two related cases are reasonably favorable to striking down or curtailing civil asset forfeiture (CAF). Surprisingly, part of the the right wing of the Supreme Court is skeptical of CAF: "Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice Neil Gorsuch criticized asset forfeiture as an…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
Seems like the root problem is that we grant the state a monopoly on physical violence because the alternative (no group having a monopoly on physical violence, and hence all of them battling it out) is worse. But then like the holders of any monopoly, they abuse it. This is why we can't have nice things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wikipedia's list of "in rem" cases has a lot of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:United_States_in_rem_...
There it is. Seemingly it was not against complete fish. United States v. Approximately 64,695 Pounds of Shark Fins [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Approximately...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem in that situation wouldn't be funding, it would be personnel. NYPD is nauseatingly over funded and could do their job with half their current budget, but you can't just pull thirty thousand private security contractors out of your ass.
Eh, I think you can: It's called the national guard.
And, they're really badly equipped to do everything NYPD does.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Also, I’d add that robbery can be done by trick instead of threat of violence. E.g., a robber tricks victim into handing over their wallet or purse, then distracts them while they remove valuables. The victim may not even know they’ve been robbed until later. If the victim, later noticing she has been robbed, then has a heart attack and dies, however, then the robber could potentially be charged with felony murder.
This can be fixed simply: require police and the federal government to cover legal fees when successfully recovering stolen property, require them to additionally pay penalties to the victims that match the late payment penalties for fines and taxes. Finally, require all the, ahem, proceeds of this theft to be set aside for paying the above. That removes the profit motive and adds substantial downside to bogus theft.
Counterpoint: That would just mean taxpayers would pay more for police gross negligence (which is already a problem).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.