Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Police Use Department Wish List When Deciding Which Assets to Seize


Recommended Posts

Civil forfeiture should not apply to misdemeanors or lesser felony. It was intended to crush the drug kingpins and higher level dealers by stripping assets. Applying it to small plea bargain cases is robbery in itself since the asset is more than the fine or courts time. Time for a rethinking of the law and it's powers being in the hands of police and DA and not involving due process.

Edited by notti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 there is nothing moral about a practice that doesn't involve due process. we are a nation of laws, and this should not exist in the way that it is currently being used.

 

i can't see the good from this practice. it might be there in some form, but when joe citizen is screwed over by the police without any kind of due process, i just can't see the good in any of it.

 

for that one attorney to say that "we're only doing what the state supreme court has told us we can do" is the modern equivalent of "hey, it's not me that wants to fire you. it was the committee's decision." it's crap, and everyone knows it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember a neighboring city 5 miles west of my city having surprise checkpoints and seizing cars from poor Hispanics for DMV infractions. The owners would then have to fork over hundreds in impound fees per day or forfeit their cars to be auctioned off. The police agency would then get a cut from the proceeds. Cops on overtime doing the seizing. What a racket.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

we need a constitutional convention to force these bastards to get rid of asset forfiture, citizens united. i understand that montana already challenged citizens united (via an already existing state law) and were shot down by scotus.

the montana state law i mentioned was 1900's vintage and involved the huge mining concerns that attempted to take over the government by buying the elections and placing industry officials in charge of the gov.

there is a movement in some states toward this and a constitutional convention would be a solution to these problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forfeiture law in place to seize assets such as cars, boats, planes, property and cash arose from the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act. That was part of Reagan's war on drugs. It allowed agencies to divide up the money and personal property from drug dealers and quickly expanded to other crimes such as drunk driving. It has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

Edited by notti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't really matter who the president was.  What this shows is that whenever you give the government an inch, they are going to eventually take a mile.  That is why whenever we willingly hand over any personal freedoms to be "safer" we are only shooting ourselves in the foot and coming that much closer to the facist govenment we will end up deserving.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forfeiture law in place to seize assets such as cars, boats, planes, property and cash arose from the 1984 Comprehensive Crime Control Act. That was part of Reagan's war on drugs. It allowed agencies to divide up the money and personal property from drug dealers and quickly expanded to other crimes such as drunk driving. It has nothing to do with the Patriot Act.

 

i don't remember anyone thinking it was a bad idea, either. taking the ill-gotten gains from drug dealers? go for it. we support you, mr. president.

 

sadly, it has now devolved to something that looks far more nefarious and sinister, and clearly police are abusing and expanding it (based on recently published and posted articles). the real tricky part here is going to get congress to help reign in the abuses. but that's the equivalent of letting the alcoholic run the bar while you go to the men's room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 month later...

sounds to me like holder just made it easier for states and cities to seize your property. just allows states and cities to skip the step of involving the feds in thier thefts.

also watched a news report last night interviewing the new yorker magazine reporter who wrote extensively on this-

my take: us gov didn't do shit.

like so many of their actions, this move by us gov is much ado about absolutely nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as i understood this move by usag, they effectively ENABLED state and city governments by eliminating the previous step of federal government involvement in all civil asset forfitures.

 

maybe some can enlighten me if they understand this move on a detailed legal level. no confirmation bias. just would like to hear others opinions.

 

i would enjoy and welcome a better understanding of this move by usag. i would like to think our government is not a kleptocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...