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

251–260 of 455 posts

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

#251

Post by jessaustin »

Frondo wrote: post #177
MisterWalter wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You help built momentum for a proper electoral system instead of the garbage we have now. I blows my mind that after centuries we still have something as idiotic as the electoral college, and all the imbalance it brings, in our nation.

Yep: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/ If your state's signed on, great, you're done. If your state hasn't yet signed on, call up your legislators, write to them, get your pals to do the same. Make noise, make it clear this is an issue they should start caring about.

How is getting rid of the electoral college going to solve the problems you identify above? You do realize that it only affects the election of the president and vp? Do we imagine that lobbyists will be unable to adjust to a world in which those two positions are elected in a slightly different manner? All this true-though-trivial "every vote should matter" stuff is just the sort of distraction from reality that lobbyists love.

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

#252

Post by dublinben »

JustSomeNobody wrote: post #248
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…

Why is this? I mean, are the police forces so (money) broke that they've needed to make up the difference by becoming this way? Or are they truly corrupt (I find this unlikely)?

Law enforcement isn't entirely corrupt, it is just fulfilling its purpose, i.e. to protect the interests of the powerful.

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

#253

Post by JustSomeNobody »

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…

The internet happened. We are no less corrupt than we ever were. We are just more obvious about it now because of the internet. People always think, "oh, things were so much better back in the day". In reality, no, they weren't. It was just different. Back in the day, we wouldn't let blacks use the same bathroom or water fountain. Now we steal their money.

It is the same America it always was. We just have more people airing our dirty laundry.

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

#254

Post by JustSomeNobody »

vacri wrote: post #163
ploxiln wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm a US citizen who is very unhappy about "civil forfeiture", about mass surveillance, etc. But the reality is that most people in the US are not directly affected. I haven't really been affected, and I don't personally know anyone who has been. (yeah yeah it helps that I'm white.) Most US citizens who are aware of these things, like me, are very unhappy about them. But most people are not really aware, and one reas…

In the US... you can get a lawyer There are lawyers in this thread that claim cases where civil forfeiture is done to prevent the individual getting a lawyer.

And there are judges who can order some of those forfeitures released/returned so that the individual can get a lawyer.

Of course this probably doesn't happen in reality...

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

#255

Post by spacemanmatt »

kzrdude wrote: post #227
fsck--off wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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."

It sounds like a semi-criminalization of cash in practice.

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

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

#256

Post by amalcon »

dankohn1 wrote: post #68
a3n wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, vote 3rd party. That is essentially "none of the above."

3rd party voting is largely a wasted vote in First Pass the Post [0] systems like the US. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-past-the-post_voting

The thing is, if a third party gets enough of the vote, it gets the attention of the major parties. Remember Ross Perot's Reform party? They were the only ones talking about the budget deficit at the time. Then, after eight years of Bill Clinton (of the party generally considered less fiscally responsible), there was somehow a budget surplus.

An economic contraction and a tax cut then combined to eliminate the surplus, but it still shows that third-party votes can have power.

Also, Federal elections aren't the only kind: third party candidates win elections with some frequency at lower levels, because at those levels the person can matter more than the party.

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

#257

Post by spacemanmatt »

pionar wrote: post #250
justthistime_ wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't this just mean that the will rob you _and_ additionally charge you with some made-up crime and let you rot in jail until you sign the plea deal?

> additionally charge you with some made-up crime and let you rot in jail until you sign the plea deal There are supposed to be other protections for this. The sixth amendment, for instance, says: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...", which means that they can't just "let you rot in jail." In practice, though, sometimes you do rot in jail. :/

In the face of such tilted odds, some people consider themselves freedom fighters more than criminals. Perspective matters.

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

#258

Post by m_mueller »

jessaustin wrote: post #246
m_mueller wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furthermore, look at Tesla. I think that's a pretty good win for the Obama administration, in that without them throwing some money in, the US right now wouldn't have a promising player in the new market of all-electric cars.

Thanks to Solyndra etc., I doubt we'll hear much from the Dems about that.

I don't see what's the big deal there - a bailout is a bailout, it's not an ideal situation for anyone, but it's far better than the alternatives of just letting all promising companies fail. If they can't defend that, how can they defend the banking bailouts of 2008/2009?

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

#259

Post by spacemanmatt »

venomsnake wrote: post #230
bobbles wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I wonder how the story would have gone differently if the man had refused to consent to the search. Probably taze the guy, then shoot him 7 times in the back as he runs off

This is so last year. Current trends in LE is to first shoot the guy than taze him

That is so Q1. This quarter it's shoot the guy in the back then put your tazer in his hand and tell the press you felt threatened.

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

#260

Post by random_rr »

cbsmith wrote: post #117

"Asset forfeiture is lucrative for the DEA. According to their latest notification of seized goods, updated Monday, agents have seized well over $38 million dollars' worth of cash and goods from people in the first few months of this year." Umm... $38 million in three months works out to about 5% of the DEA's operating budget. If your revenue is 5% of your burn rate, that's not exactly lucrative. This is money that,…

>Let's be careful with our use of "lucrative".

Any business model that generates $38M/3 months ($152M/yr) could truthfully and emphatically be described as "lucrative." I don't think that's a fair argument.

Post reply on HN