• 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!

DEA seized a woman's bag of cash at an airport; it was her dad's life savings

US&THEM said:
The article was written in the very premise I am asking a question about. Get off your soapbox and deal with the real world.
Click to expand...

This is the real world. Here in the real world, not only drug dealers carry cash. Here in the real world, we're rightfully upset when the government steals.

You are the one existing in the fictional narrative - where only drug dealers carry cash, and your hypothetical suspicions are reason enough to justify the government taking a senior citizen's life savings.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
This is the real world. Here in the real world, not only drug dealers carry cash. Here in the real world, we're rightfully upset when the government steals.

You are the one existing in the fictional narrative - where only drug dealers carry cash, and your hypothetical suspicions are reason enough to justify the government taking a senior citizen's life savings.
Click to expand...


You like to keep adding your own words with mine? Never stated drug dealers “ONLY”, the asset forfeiture laws are used primarily to seize illicit drug proceeds.
 
US&THEM said:
You like to keep adding your own words with mine? Never stated drug dealers “ONLY”, the asset forfeiture laws are used primarily to seize illicit drug proceeds.
Click to expand...

The asset forfeiture laws are used primarily to fill out the budgets of local law enforcement. They are used all the time in cases where no drugs are involved at all.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
I do not know of any "liberals" who support civil asset forfeiture.

The only people that I see supporting it are the "tough on crime" conservatives, and LEOs.
Click to expand...

Hence my point. Their only solution is a strongly worded letter of protest to the only people who they seek to have guns.
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
The asset forfeiture laws are used primarily to fill out the budgets of local law enforcement. They are used all the time in cases where no drugs are involved at all.
Click to expand...

Link?
 
US&THEM said:
Why would any rational person walk around with 87k and then want to travel as well?
Click to expand...
It's not a brilliant plan to walk around or get on a plane with $87k in cash.

However, it is not illegal to walk around with $87k in cash, nor is it proof of criminal activity, nor does it truly justify permanent seizure by the DEA.
 
Lisa said:
They need to be able to prove it was yours with the intent to sell and not planted on you to frame you.

Ever heard of swatting?
Click to expand...

Due process should prevail. This isn't due process. The old man and daughter have been wronged by the very government which is supposed to protect and serve them.
 
WillyPete said:
It was a very bad idea to carry that much cash around, most especially when you know in advance you'll be subject to Federal security scrutiny.

If their claims are true regarding the source of the money, it shouldn't be difficult to demonstrate to a court, and they should get their money back, though of course it will cost something to do that.

It's a shame when it impacts the innocent, but it would be foolish to just take them at their word.
Click to expand...

Why? Seems to me that ought to be the default, that money is presumed NOT involved in criminal activity unless and until the state can prove otherwise, in a court, with due process, access to counsel and all the rest. So, yeah, they should take them at their word, and if they can prove otherwise, OK. But the presumption is reversed here - presumed GUILTY, unless the owner can prove his or her innocence.

I've read of cases where civil asset forfeiture works. One example is finding someone in possession of a stolen work of art. The government doesn't have to prove the person committed a crime to seize the artwork, which seems on balance a just result to me. But that's rare, obviously, and it seems to me the abuse and screwed up incentives TO abuse the system warrant an end or VAST restriction to the process.

A while back my uncle, who is dead now but a truly messed up individual in life, stayed with my parents for a few months. They took him off the streets, loaned him a car, etc. If he was caught dealing from their house, or using the car loaned to him, the police could seize either and it would have been my parents' obligation to prove they weren't part of his drug dealing. Sorry, but that is ****ed up IMO.
 
Rising Sun said:
Due process should prevail. This isn't due process. The old man and daughter have been wronged by the very government which is supposed to protect and serve them.
Click to expand...

Civil asset forfeiture is another failed legacy of Reagan's war on drugs.
It stepped up forfeiture during the War on Drugs during the early 1980s and onwards. It became harder for criminal organizations to launder dirty money by means of the financial system, so drug cartels preferred bulk payments of cash. ... The methods were supported by the Reagan administration as a crime fighting strategy.
Click to expand...
 
Visbek said:
It's not a brilliant plan to walk around or get on a plane with $87k in cash.

However, it is not illegal to walk around with $87k in cash, nor is it proof of criminal activity, nor does it truly justify permanent seizure by the DEA.
Click to expand...

Should we all assume this was a chance encounter? Assume the persons with the $87k didn’t explain where the money came from and/or had no way to show it was legally OBTAINED.
 
longview said:
The reason I was questioning if it had been challenged is that Asset forfeiture seems to be alive and well.
Click to expand...

That's not why.
 
US&THEM said:
Should we all assume this was a chance encounter? Assume the persons with the $87k didn’t explain where the money came from and/or had no way to show it was legally OBTAINED.
Click to expand...

Almost as if you have to give them the presumption of innocence, isn't it?
 
TheDoctorWasIn said:
That's quite a stretch of logic. This has nothing at all to do with gun control.
Click to expand...

Let me try again: LWers notoriously believe in a big, all powerful government run by the Elite who know what is best for everyone. RWers believe the opposite.

Here we have a situation where that "big, all powerful government" is abusing its citizens to feed its own maw. What is the LW answer to such a problem? A sternly worded letter of protest? A pink hat march?

The reason RWers favor an armed citizenry is to prevent tyranny. Do you agree the asset forfeiture laws, without due process, are tyrannical? Abusive? Wrong?
 
Drowning Man said:
Almost as if you have to give them the presumption of innocence, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Hence why the person is free to go and is able to go to court and get their property back.
 
Rising Sun said:
So if they catch a drug dealer with a pound of crack and a million bucks, they can arrest him/her but not take the coke or money until he/she is convicted?
Click to expand...

Why would it be a problem getting a conviction, and have the asset seizure part of the sentence, the punishment? The criminal defense guys can chime in but I'd think the cash and the crack would be evidence, and held by the police through trial.

Or, let the police go to court and demonstrate the connection between the crack and the cash. Shouldn't be hard, and it wouldn't necessarily require a criminal conviction, but it would move the burden to the police where it belongs.
 
JasperL said:
Why would it be a problem getting a conviction, and have the asset seizure part of the sentence, the punishment? The criminal defense guys can chime in but I'd think the cash and the crack would be evidence, and held by the police through trial.

Or, let the police go to court and demonstrate the connection between the crack and the cash. Shouldn't be hard, and it wouldn't necessarily require a criminal conviction, but it would move the burden to the police where it belongs.
Click to expand...

They do that as well.
 
Piglet said:
Your posts would come across a bit more adult if you didn't resort to silly names for the president and others. But, when you do, attention is drawn to the name and rarely to the point of your post.
Click to expand...

I'm being very presidential. A lot of people are saying that, believe me.
 
Piglet said:
Your posts would come across a bit more adult if you didn't resort to silly names for the president and others. But, when you do, attention is drawn to the name and rarely to the point of your post.
Click to expand...

I'm being very presidential. A lot of people are saying that, believe me.
 
JasperL said:
Why? Seems to me that ought to be the default, that money is presumed NOT involved in criminal activity unless and until the state can prove otherwise, in a court, with due process, access to counsel and all the rest. So, yeah, they should take them at their word, and if they can prove otherwise, OK. But the presumption is reversed here - presumed GUILTY, unless the owner can prove his or her innocence.

I've read of cases where civil asset forfeiture works. One example is finding someone in possession of a stolen work of art. The government doesn't have to prove the person committed a crime to seize the artwork, which seems on balance a just result to me. But that's rare, obviously, and it seems to me the abuse and screwed up incentives TO abuse the system warrant an end or VAST restriction to the process.

A while back my uncle, who is dead now but a truly messed up individual in life, stayed with my parents for a few months. They took him off the streets, loaned him a car, etc. If he was caught dealing from their house, or using the car loaned to him, the police could seize either and it would have been my parents' obligation to prove they weren't part of his drug dealing. Sorry, but that is ****ed up IMO.
Click to expand...

In your scenario if they knew it was happening, then they DID support it and would be on the hook. If they didn't, that reflects on the uncle, not the government.

It is fukt, but if the goal is to cut into drug dealer's profits, you can't just take them at their word and let them walk off with it, because they sure as **** won't have it on them next time. It's the only way such a policy can be effective.

Change it in the law, challenge it through the courts, but it's on the books for now.

I bet they could build an aircraft carrier with the genuinely illegal funds seized under "I don't trust banks" excuses.
 
Rising Sun said:
He's a narcissistic demagogue. If enough Red Hatters want it, he'll do it just for the applause.
Click to expand...

He could just say he did it in that case, and his borg would believe it.
 
US&THEM said:
You think narcotics traffickers transporting drug money through out the US is a good thing?
Click to expand...

No, but if they're trafficking narcotics, that's a crime, so charge them and convict them.

What part of "Hey, I stopped you for speeding. Lookee here! $500 in cash!! We'll take that. Prove you're NOT a criminal!" is a good policy to you? Effectively that person is ****ed because by the time you get off the phone with an attorney, and have a meeting and he files his first document, the $500 is gone, to pay the legal fees required for you to prove you are NOT a criminal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom