61–70 of 94 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The burden is actually still on the government, but it's a lower burden than criminal cases.
What burden? The burden is on the owner, because he has all his assets being seized, making it much harder to defend himself now. That should never happen - certainly not in a "innocent until proven guilty" system (if that's still the case).
I'm curious why libertarians around here and Tea Party followers elsewhere do not make more noise over this issue. It's an honest question; my hypothesis: It's because the intrusion is from the right and not from the left.
Although I don't typically use the word "libertarian" to describe myself, I do run in libertarian circles and I think this is arguably the single biggest issue of concern (other candidates include foreign policy and the prison system). Go to Liberty Forum or Porcupine Festival and you'll see not just one but multiple studied experts discussing both the particulars of these policies and also strategies for achieving c…
The 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.
Police aren't actually required to protect anyone (see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)), but just to generally maintain social order.
Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. (2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.
Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him. ^ Top
Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence. (2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.
It would be interesting to see how other countries do asset seizure to compare how they maintain compliance with the UNHDR.
So where's the crime? Who's been arrested/convicted/sentenced?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do get due process. If the police take your property, you file a notice with them that it is your property. They either give it back or file a civil suit against the property. That civil suit will have a trial, which is the due process.
I think the issue mark-r was talking about is that the property is seized before any sort of due process has concluded. Also, if the government doesn't bring a case against you you have to actively fight to get your property back. So if your car is seized and neither party takes any further action the default behavior is the government now owns your car. [someone correct me if I'm wrong about this]
The due process doesn't have to be first, it just has to happen, and it has to be binding. (i.e. they can't just keep you or your property if they lose the trial)
What should I do if I am in the United States and a police officer asks me how much money I have?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Although I don't typically use the word "libertarian" to describe myself, I do run in libertarian circles and I think this is arguably the single biggest issue of concern (other candidates include foreign policy and the prison system). Go to Liberty Forum or Porcupine Festival and you'll see not just one but multiple studied experts discussing both the particulars of these policies and also strategies for achieving c…
Interesting. I read a lot of news and I didn't know Rand Paul talked about it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/07/25/r...
What should I do if I am in the United States and a police officer asks me how much money I have?
Whatever you want. You don't have to answer him, and he can't search you unless he arrests you. If he's going to arrest you it's probably best not to lie though. You can always say I'm not sure. If you do have more than $1,000 in cash don't allow him to search your car.
Do not talk to the police, ever! If they arrest you, you only ask for the reason of the arrest and for legal counsil (a lawyer) and nothing more!
If they give you a ticket, keep your mouth shut, receive it and present it to a lawyer.
Do not consent to a search, ever! Even if you think you have nothing on you!
The police is not your friend!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Police aren't actually required to protect anyone (see Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005)), but just to generally maintain social order.
what happened to the "to protect and to serve" motto then?