• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year

clownboy said:
Let's see, if driving on a known drug and/or illicit cash smuggling corridor, most folks who aren't involved in illegal activity know not to carry thousands in cash in small denominations. If they positively must, the ones who aren't terminally stupid carry the bank receipts along with it.

Of course that all goes out the window if you also happen to be carrying drugs with you as well.

And no, the police generally don't have too much leeway. Are you under the mistaken impression that the seized cash goes into some police fund the officers draw from?
Click to expand...
The only point I'm making here is: there's a wide latitude of street variance here in seizing one's personal property, along with no judge or due process. And that's my issue, since I believe there's too much discretion given at the street level.

I suspect it wouldn't be too hard to justify grabbing a couple hundred bucks off of a black kid in a poor black neighborhood where drugs are common, if the police merely suspected him, perhaps through association. This is irregardless of proof of guilt, which again is my big problem with this.

But good laws not only attack the bad guys, but protect the good guys. The good guys are protected by keeping legislation narrow, limiting government intrusion. We need to be protected from the government, not just the criminals - our forefathers knew this well.

So I'm not misinterpreted, my problem is primarily with the system, not necessarily the officers, though I do believe some officers will use the law's vagaries to overreach (as in my example above).

And to answer your last question, my understanding is seized assets are split between the feds & local agencies.
 
clownboy said:
I guess the anti-seizure folks believe we shouldn't seize assets from crooks like Madoff.

The real moral of this story - crime pays, so when you catch criminals, they're likely to have expensive stuff purchased with the ill gotten gains.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges, for sure.

Bernie Madoff was a crook of the highest order.

Some guy whose motel rooms become involved in police stings, and the motel gets seized by the authorities is no crook at all.
 
Anomalism said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/

Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week. Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.
Click to expand...

I would think that in an orderly country the common would always get more that the robbers.
 
Anomalism said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/

Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week. Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.
Click to expand...

As clownboy pointed out, a large part of that was the Madoff judgment.

I do agree though, that property should not be seized unless there is clear proof that it was obtained or at least used unlawfully. It seems to me that the most efficient way of doing this would be to integrate it with the criminal proceeding, and simply have the forfeiture be part of the sentence.
 
Anomalism said:
I can't speak for the author. Why would comparing it to shoplifting be more honest?
Click to expand...
Not more honest, just as dishonest.

It seems to me that if the author wanted to be dishonest he would have avoided mentioning that the original statement was an exaggeration.
Click to expand...
The article was about a study done and it pointed out the fact the results weren't honest

The police abuse asset forfeiture because they have far too much free reign over it. I think that's the impression the article is trying to give people.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying that there isn't abuse, but this kind of dishonest crap isn't the way to expose it.
 
clownboy said:
Here's a clue, something just about everyone with ears knows, those dogs at airports aren't just trained to sniff for drugs, but cash as well. Any clue how much cash you can carry with air travel without declaring it? And not just in he US, but virtually anywhere in the free world? Depending upon the nation, 5-10K.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. If you are traveling domestically, as this woman was, there is no limit to the amount of cash you can carry.

Neither nit-picking the specifics of this example or blaming the victims of law enforcement changes anything. Again, the key problems here are:

• No due process
• You don't have to be convicted to lose your property
• You don't have to be charged to lose your property
• You don't have to be arrested to lose your property
• It is very difficult and expensive to retrieve your property once it's seized
• The seized funds and assets go to local PD, which is a huge incentive for abuse
• Most of the people nailed by this do not live in the jurisdiction, so the police are not accountable to them
• We have numerous cases of widespread abuse of asset forfeiture
• Police are seizing and keeping billions of dollars this way

These policies have resulted in wide-spread abuse. Local fixes will not do the job. It's time for federal laws to change the way this works.
 
Visbek said:
Incorrect. If you are traveling domestically, as this woman was, there is no limit to the amount of cash you can carry.

Neither nit-picking the specifics of this example or blaming the victims of law enforcement changes anything. Again, the key problems here are:

• No due process
• You don't have to be convicted to lose your property
• You don't have to be charged to lose your property
• You don't have to be arrested to lose your property
• It is very difficult and expensive to retrieve your property once it's seized
• The seized funds and assets go to local PD, which is a huge incentive for abuse
• Most of the people nailed by this do not live in the jurisdiction, so the police are not accountable to them
• We have numerous cases of widespread abuse of asset forfeiture
• Police are seizing and keeping billions of dollars this way

These policies have resulted in wide-spread abuse. Local fixes will not do the job. It's time for federal laws to change the way this works.
Click to expand...

Federal laws?? KEEP THE GUBMENT OUT OF MY LIFE!
 
clownboy said:
So, you going to apply that to the reality that virtually ALL laws vary from locality to locality? You're arguing for the end to states and localities, state and local governments and representation. Only the federal should rule, right?
Click to expand...
I was very clear why this SPECIFIC issue requires federal laws. To reiterate and expand:

• The right to due process is violated.
• Local law enforcement are rarely accountable to the people who are harmed by this policy.
• This is a national problem. Trying to deal with it on a municipal, county-wide or even state-wide level has failed; even if there were some successes, it would leave pockets of abuse.

In theory, civil rights legislation could have been left exclusively to the states. In practice, that would have obviously left half the US without any protection for civil rights. Thus, in order to protect those rights, we rely on the federal government.

There is no need on this basis to proclaim that "we must abolish all local laws." But thanks for the fallacious argument, we can never get enough of those....
 
Henry David said:
Apples and oranges, for sure.

Bernie Madoff was a crook of the highest order.

Some guy whose motel rooms become involved in police stings, and the motel gets seized by the authorities is no crook at all.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Plus, Madoff plead guilty to a crime. I have no problems with criminal asset forfeiture, as that involves due process.
 
clownboy said:
The law, that everyone knows exists, including the drug dealers. Here's a clue that legitimate large cash couriers use, knowing the law they carry with them proof of the source of the cash they are carrying. Something drug couriers can't provide.
Click to expand...

Why should I have to provide the government with "proof" of anything?

I've read articles about folks being stopped on their way to a casino for high stakes poker and having their cash stolen.

I've read about a guy who was going to pay cash for a tractor he bought off of Craig's List and had his money similarly stolen.

Presumption of innocence is one of the most fundamental and sacred pillars of the rule of law and it's simply thrown out the window here in the interest of making a profit.

I shouldn't have to prove that property in my possession isn't the result of criminal activity, the government needs to prove that the property is the ill gained result of a crime.
 
soot said:
Why should I have to provide the government with "proof" of anything?
Click to expand...

To make it easier for them to steal your stuff.
 
Shadowless said:
Law enforcement in the US has become a criminal occupation itself. Murdering unarmed people, stealing (asset forfeiture) and roadside corruption. We also see what happens when some politicians criticize them, they cry like little children with a scraped knee. We need to show these people that they work for US.

On a side note, we need to lay off almost every single officer, then start a massive re-hiring campaign with new rules for citizen engagement, and very strict oversight. This is the only way to bring police back under our control. The way it's supposed to be.
Click to expand...

Good idea...get rid of the only people who know what they are doing when it comes to handling criminals. Sigh. It is just like when people claim we need better training because of an incident that occurred with an officer who was in the academy and had an FTO 5-10 years ago. Do people even know what the standards are for the academy now?
 
stonewall50 said:
Good idea...get rid of the only people who know what they are doing when it comes to handling criminals. Sigh. It is just like when people claim we need better training because of an incident that occurred with an officer who was in the academy and had an FTO 5-10 years ago. Do people even know what the standards are for the academy now?
Click to expand...

Do you really think there is nobody out there who knows how to handle criminals without murdering unarmed people? If so, you shouldn't be a cop, ever.
 
I have a feeling a lot of the assets are ill gotten gains (property and land purchased with drug money and so on). There was a multi million dollar ranch involved in money laundering I heard about. If you think about it...the Feds seized it because they used it to Launder money. That isn't exactly "unethical." So freaking out at asset forfeiture like it is theft doesn't make sense.

Getting mad that it doesn't get returned? Yes. That makes sense.
 
clownboy said:
I guess the anti-seizure folks believe we shouldn't seize assets from crooks like Madoff.

The real moral of this story - crime pays, so when you catch criminals, they're likely to have expensive stuff purchased with the ill gotten gains.
Click to expand...
You conveniently lump all "anti-seizure folks" into one group. I know it doesn't fit with your usual blind LE support narrative, but you do know that many are fine with seizure after a conviction, right?
 
Anomalism said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/

Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week. Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.
Click to expand...
I was ready to pounce on this a couple days ago and start a thread, but then I read the article and felt it (or, the title, at least) somewhat misleading. They cherry-picked the numbers to make it appear to be something that it is really not.

Civil asset forfeiture is a serious issue, to be sure, and needs serious and honest reform, but it's not quite the "more" level implied. Not yet, anyway.
 
clownboy said:
Let's see, if driving on a known drug and/or illicit cash smuggling corridor, most folks who aren't involved in illegal activity know not to carry thousands in cash in small denominations. If they positively must, the ones who aren't terminally stupid carry the bank receipts along with it.

Of course that all goes out the window if you also happen to be carrying drugs with you as well.

And no, the police generally don't have too much leeway. Are you under the mistaken impression that the seized cash goes into some police fund the officers draw from?

Really, if you don't like the law, challenge it. Don't get all prissy about the officers enforcing it.
Click to expand...
You're a pretty smart guy, and I generally enjoy your points-of-view, but when it comes to LE issues like this I cannot give you the benefit of the doubt of ignorance. No, that would be giving too much credit. You are simply being obtuse. Willfully obtuse.

(Written prior to reading the other "obtuse" themed posts. My observation still stands, however.)
 
Anomalism said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/

Here's an interesting factoid about contemporary policing: In 2014, for the first time ever, law enforcement officers took more property from American citizens than burglars did. Martin Armstrong pointed this out at his blog, Armstrong Economics, last week. Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really! — through the highly controversial practice known as civil asset forfeiture. Last year, according to the Institute for Justice, the Treasury and Justice departments deposited more than $5 billion into their respective asset forfeiture funds. That same year, the FBI reports that burglary losses topped out at $3.5 billion.
Click to expand...

While it is true that there are some cases of asset forfeiture seizures that occur with no charges brought with them, the VAST majority of asset forfeitures occur with charges pending. As the vast majority of these cases hold the seized property until after a conviction AND determination by a judge to seize the property in connection with the crime.

But people like to hang onto the rare newsworthy cases of (agreeably) unjust seizures as the norm.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, if property and money can be seized without conviction and not returned....it's not being controlled and IS theft.
Click to expand...

And yet, most states do not allow for the seizure of property without that property being connected to a crime.
 
Caine said:
While it is true that there are some cases of asset forfeiture seizures that occur with no charges brought with them, the VAST majority of asset forfeitures occur with charges pending. As the vast majority of these cases hold the seized property until after a conviction AND determination by a judge to seize the property in connection with the crime.

But people like to hang onto the rare newsworthy cases of (agreeably) unjust seizures as the norm.
Click to expand...
I think "rare" is relative to which department/entity we're talking about. You may be correct that, in the overall grand scheme of things, seizure without charges is rare, but for some departments it is the norm.

And even if it is rare, it's still unjust (which you say, as well). I don't believe we should depend on everybody to do the right thing, because it is clear not everyone can or will do the right thing. Laws need to be changed, at the least, to make it outright illegal to seize anything without legitimate related charges and/or conviction.
 
radcen said:
You conveniently lump all "anti-seizure folks" into one group. I know it doesn't fit with your usual blind LE support narrative, but you do know that many are fine with seizure after a conviction, right?
Click to expand...

He also by innuendo lumps all "criminals" into the Madoff category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom