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


Status
Not open for further replies.

BluesStringer

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

By Link Removed November 23, 2015

Link Removed

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 Link Removed. Last year, Link Removed, 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.

Armstrong claims that "the police are now taking more assets than the criminals," but this isn't exactly right: The FBI also tracks property losses from larceny and theft, in addition to plain ol' burglary. If you add up all the property stolen in 2014, from burglary, theft, motor vehicle theft and other means, you arrive at roughly $12.3 billion, according to the FBI. That's more than double the federal asset forfeiture haul.

[Link Removed]

One other point: Those asset forfeiture deposit amounts are not necessarily the best indicator of a rise in the use of forfeiture. "In a given year, one or two high-dollar cases may produce unusually large amounts of money — with a portion going back to victims — thereby telling a noisy story of year-to-year activity levels," the Institute for Justice explains. A big chunk of that 2014 deposit, for instance, was the $1.7 billion Bernie Madoff judgment, most of which flowed back to the victims.

For that reason, the net assets of the funds are usually seen as a more stable indicator — those numbers show how much money is left over in the funds each year after the federal government takes care of various obligations, like payments to victims. Since this number can reflect monies taken over multiple calendar years, it's less comparable to the annual burglary statistics.

Still, even this more stable indicator hit $4.5 billion in 2014, according to the Institute for Justice — higher again than the burglary losses that year.

One final caveat is that these are only the federal totals and don't reflect how much property is seized by state and local police each year. Reliable data for all 50 states is unavailable, but the Institute of Justice found that the total asset forfeiture haul for 14 states topped $250 million in 2013. The grand 50-state total would probably be much higher.

Still, boil down all the numbers and caveats above and you arrive at a simple fact: In the United States, in 2014, more cash and property transferred hands via civil asset forfeiture than via burglary. The total value of asset forfeitures was more than one-third of the total value of property stolen by criminals in 2014. That represents something of a sea change in the way police do business — and it's prompting plenty of scrutiny of the practice.

Link Removed
 

In Delaware law enforcement took millions in cash and property in recent years from suspected criminals. The money goes into a special police fund. There is a move to pass a law to make that illegal and only if a person is actually convicted can the state seize money and property, but it has to go into the General Fund, not to police. This bill is receiving bi-partisan support.
 
Back in the '90s, cops in Louisiana were infamous for robbing out of state motorists by using civil forfeiture.

The practice is a glaring invitation to police corruption and criminality, and for some is an irresistible temptation to degenerate into veritable highwaymen.
 
Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year
Your point being....?

The point being ...

Officers can take cash and property from people without convicting or even charging them with a crime — yes, really!

... also known as theft or literally highway robbery as many cases of civil asset forfeitures involve traffic stops.

The 7 Most Egregious Examples Of Civil Asset Forfeiture
Link Removed
10 Egregious Abuses Of Civil Asset Forfeiture
 
Ok, and....? This is a gun forum, so are you advocating violence against these cops?

You brought up violence against cops. Nobody else did. What I and bofh brought up was knowledge. If it moves you or anyone else to violence against cops, personally, I would be indifferent to it because of the knowledge I've gained about how dangerous to liberty cops are anymore. Like people from all walks of life, cops will eventually reap what they sow. Sow the seeds of thievery, tyranny and thuggery, and they will reap the fruits from those seeds. They'll get no sympathy from me.

Otherwise, I advocate for knowledge, and that's all the OP attempted to impart, your lame attempt to make something out of it that wasn't there notwithstanding.

Blues
 
Guns have been permanently confiscated as part of civil asset forfeitures in the past, even in self defensive shootings.
Ok..... you're asserting police just went in and took things on their own? There was no court order? The owner didn't have some kind of judgment against them or owe taxes? Cops just took stuff for no reason?

Or is it that you believe gun owners were targeted?
 
Ok..... you're asserting police just went in and took things on their own? There was no court order? The owner didn't have some kind of judgment against them or owe taxes? Cops just took stuff for no reason?

Or is it that you believe gun owners were targeted?

Civil asset forfeitures do not require a court order or judgment against you, by law. That's the whole point of civil asset forfeitures. In order to get your property back, you have to prove your innocence. If you do not have the time and money for that, your problem.

From GHEI: ATF's latest gun grab - Washington Times:

Law enforcement agencies love civil forfeiture because it’s extremely lucrative. The Department of Justice’s Assets Forfeiture Fund had $2.8 billion in booty in 2011, according to a January audit. Seizing guns from purported criminals is nothing new; Justice destroyed or kept 11,355 guns last year, returning just 396 to innocent owners. The new ATF rule undoubtedly is designed to ramp up the gun-grabbing because, as the rule justification claims, “The nexus between drug trafficking and firearm violence is well established.”

From Obama Expands ATF's Right to Seize Guns Without Due Process

The rules were broadened under the guise of giving the ATF authority “to seize and administatively forfeit property involved in controlled substance abuses.” And if that doesn’t strike you as extreme on first glance, consider the fact that this expansion of civil-forfeiture allows the ATF to forego almost all “due process” in making their seizures — in effect, placing the burden of proof on the citizen instead of federal agents.

From Civil Forfeiture of Firearms – How To Get Your Guns Back – Concealed Nation:

Weapons routinely get confiscated by law enforcement. After a self-defense scenario has taken place, police may often ask to take your firearms until a judge makes a ruling or the regional prosecutor decides not to press charges.

This guide will predominantly cover what happens when the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF, ATF) confiscates your weapons under civil forfeiture.

Q: Wait, what is civil forfeiture?

A: It’s when your property (firearm) is confiscated by law enforcement but will not be used against you for criminal proceedings.

“A civil forfeiture action is effected through either a summary, administrative, or judicial procedure.” (FBI, Asset Forfeiture)

Administrative: “An administrative forfeiture procedure can be commenced by a seizing agency against most property if it is valued at $500,000 or less…”

Judicial: If you filed a claim after an administrative forfeiture, the seizing agency must receive and transmit that to the District, State, or U.S. Attorney as applicable to the case.
 
Ok..... you're asserting police just went in and took things on their own?

Yes. Happens in multiple jurisdictions every single day across this country.

There was no court order?

That's right, no court order.

The owner didn't have some kind of judgment against them or owe taxes?

No judgment, no past due tax bills.

Cops just took stuff for no reason?

The reason given is typically "suspicion" of money, cars, guns, what have you, being acquired through drug sales. It's all done on a street-level cop's assertion of said suspicion. No other government official gets involved unless and until the victim of asset forfeiture sets the wheels in motion to try and get their money and/or stuff back.

Or is it that you believe gun owners were targeted?

Yes, that too. It's not an either/or proposition.

Blues
 
Ok..... you're asserting police just went in and took things on their own? There was no court order? The owner didn't have some kind of judgment against them or owe taxes? Cops just took stuff for no reason?

Or is it that you believe gun owners were targeted?

I gotta hand it to ya!!

You do a FANTASTIC Rain Man impersonation!

(I bet you're also a "very good driver" too!)
 
Yes. Happens in multiple jurisdictions every single day across this country.



That's right, no court order.



No judgment, no past due tax bills.



The reason given is typically "suspicion" of money, cars, guns, what have you, being acquired through drug sales. It's all done on a street-level cop's assertion of said suspicion. No other government official gets involved unless and until the victim of asset forfeiture sets the wheels in motion to try and get their money and/or stuff back.



Yes, that too. It's not an either/or proposition.

Blues
I notice you conveniently forgot to link to your evidence for all this. Quick, google something so can try in vain to save face :)

Let me know when all you "cold dead hands" get off your lazy asses and actually do something about it.
 
I notice you conveniently forgot to link to your evidence for all this. Quick, google something so can try in vain to save face :)

Let me know when all you "cold dead hands" get off your lazy asses and actually do something about it.

I purposely didn't use any sarcasm or derision when replying to your post. I simply and politely answered the questions you asked, even though I knew you would dismiss it and come back with some BS about cold dead hands and make it personal about me or those who think and believe more or less like I do, rather than about the answers that point out how far from founding principles our government has deviated, civil asset forfeiture being the example in this thread that substantiates that premise.

I don't have to save face for anybody. I am right in what I said, and apparently only you were unaware of how often asset forfeiture is imposed across this country, as often as not imposed upon wholly innocent victims of local/state/federal government(s).

Talk about lazy. The evidence is very easy to find. In fact, bofh provided multiple links that you obviously didn't even open or you wouldn't have needed to ask the brain-dead questions you asked and that I politely answered. Go back to sleep.

Blues
 
Blueshell, I am not sure what your argument is other than YOU being too lazy to use Google to find out about existing laws.

From another post, I gather that you live in South Dakota. Did you know that under the South Dakota House Bill 1085, your own state's civil forfeiture laws are currently being extended. Under this bill, the state can legally steal your car after 3 DUI convictions.

Read up on your own state's civil forfeiture laws here: Link Removed (D- rating). Read up on the federal government's civil forfeiture laws here: Policing for Profit: Federal Government - Institute for Justice (D- rating).
 
Back in the '90s, cops in Louisiana were infamous for robbing out of state motorists by using civil forfeiture.

The practice is a glaring invitation to police corruption and criminality, and for some is an irresistible temptation to degenerate into veritable highwaymen.

Sounds a bit like the argument that gun ownership is an invitation for people to randomly shoot each other, commit crimes they normally wouldn't commit, etc.
 
Blueshell, I am not sure what your argument is other than YOU being too lazy to use Google to find out about existing laws.

From another post, I gather that you live in South Dakota. Did you know that under the South Dakota House Bill 1085, your own state's civil forfeiture laws are currently being extended. Under this bill, the state can legally steal your car after 3 DUI convictions.

Read up on your own state's civil forfeiture laws here: Link Removed (D- rating). Read up on the federal government's civil forfeiture laws here: Policing for Profit: Federal Government - Institute for Justice (D- rating).
Blue argued that property is seized for no reason, and you give an example of property being seized for reason as evidence. Do you not see how your link doesn't back up the argument?

And you wonder where my aditude comes from.

This is not about court orders to seize property after 3 convictions. The claim is cops are siezing property with no court order, no conviction, just mere "suspicion".

***
Yes, we're comming down hard on DUI. Drunk driving is a bigger problem than terrorism for us. The difference between Blue's argument and your citation, however, is that SD requires conviction and a court order first. Blue claims cops are just taking whatever they want, no conviction, no court order, and that's a very different thing.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,544
Messages
611,260
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon
Back
Top