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


Status
Not open for further replies.
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
And still no evidence.

You're all talk.
 

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.

I guess that's the only link you clicked on. I posted numerous examples in this thread before. You just don't want it to be true, so you can continue to ignore the problem. Your choice.

As for stealing someone's car after 3 DUIs, you do understand that's 3 DUIs in that someone's lifetime. If one has 2 DUIs in his early 20s and then one in his 60s, he should get his car stolen by the government based on the 3rd DUI conviction? Note that there is no court order for this. The punishment for the 3rd DUI conviction imposed by a judge does NOT include that the car is taken away. The PD is just allowed to steal the car and sell it for profit based on this new law. Also note that the moment the PD takes the car, any loan on this car is immediately due in full.

Here are a few more examples, if you actually care:

License, Registration—and All Your Valuables, Please:

Between 2006 and 2008, Tenaha, Texas, established itself as a hotbed for civil forfeiture abuse. Tenaha police executed dozens of traffic stops in which vast sums of money and property were seized, though no criminal charges were filed against drivers or passengers.

...

Innocent People Have Their Homes Seized in Philadelphia:

..

Sisters Tracy and Sheila Clements lived together in their childhood home bequeathed to them by their mother. On April 21, 2010, their brother, William Clements, rushed through the door with the police in hot pursuit. William was arrested and eventually convicted of drug-related offenses.

The city, however, decided to seize Tracy and Sheila’s home under Pennsylvania civil forfeiture law. William didn’t live in the house; in fact, Tracy and Sheila had refused to let William live there. And neither Tracy nor Sheila was ever charged with a crime. Still, they were forced to appear in court no fewer than 17 times before a judge denied the city’s forfeiture motion. Undeterred, the Philadelphia District Attorney has filed an appeal. Hopefully, the appellate court will see that justice is done and return the home to its rightful owners.

..

The Motor City Wants Your Car Back: Civil Forfeiture in Detroit:

To most Americans, attending a party at a downtown art institute is a fun, cultural experience. But for the 130 people attending “Funk Night” at the Contemporary Art Institute of Detroit in 2008, a fun night out morphed into a scene out of an action movie. Armor-clad police stormed the party, forced attendees to the floor, and seized 44 vehicles from those in attendance.

What heinous crime necessitated this treatment? It turned out that, unbeknownst to Funk Night patrons, the Art Institute failed to get a permit to serve alcohol. Using Prohibition-era reasoning combined with modern civil asset forfeiture law, the police determined that everyone there was complicit simply because they had attended the party.

And because the cars were used to transport their users to the party, the cars were also “guilty” and subject to seizure. Police even seized a car parked in a friend’s driveway over a mile away from the Art Institute. Attendees had to pay $900 each to have their vehicles returned.

..

All from Civil Asset Forfeiture: 7 Things You Should Know, obtained using a 5-minute Google search.
 
I guess that's the only link you clicked on.
So I guess you think it's ok to mix is invalid examples with valid examples. Science calls what you're presenting an "unrepresentative sample" in that your library of offences is corrupt and fails the falsification process.

Your argument is valid only if your list of examples is pure.

As for stealing someone's car after 3 DUIs, you do understand that's 3 DUIs in that someone's lifetime.
Are you seriously defending DUI here? SD even offers you one "freebie", so that 3 DUI is actually 4.

IMO they're getting off easy. I have no love for DUI. First offence should be a felony. Forget loosing your car to a court order after 3 convictions, you should loose your LIFE after the first. Firing squad. Problem = solved.
 
So I guess you think it's ok to mix is invalid examples with valid examples. Science calls what you're presenting an "unrepresentative sample" in that your library of offences is corrupt and fails the falsification process.

Your argument is valid only if your list of examples is pure.

Quite nonsensical. It appears that you are simply trolling. Also, you have no clue about science and sampling.

The example I posted is not invalid as it does not require a court order for the government to steal someone's car in this case. The punishment coming from the judge after the 3rd DUI conviction does not include the forfeiture of the car.

Are you seriously defending DUI here? SD even offers you one "freebie", so that 3 DUI is actually 4.

IMO they're getting off easy. I have no love for DUI. First offence should be a felony. Forget loosing your car to a court order after 3 convictions, you should loose your LIFE after the first. Firing squad. Problem = solved.

I have no love for DUIs either. I don't drink and drive and I am often the designated driver. However, I also have no love for a police state. You seem to differ on that.

If DUI penalties should be increased, then this should be in the relevant code and the penalty should be handed out by a judge. In this case, it doesn't matter what the judge says, the police can and will confiscate the car using the civil forfeiture laws that were originally meant to deprive a convicted felon of the profits of the illegal activity he was convicted of. This is a police state in action, plain and simple.

As for the death penalty for 3 DUI convictions, you do understand that a DUI is a victimless crime, right?
 
So I guess you think it's ok to mix is invalid examples with valid examples. Science calls what you're presenting an "unrepresentative sample" in that your library of offences is corrupt and fails the falsification process.

Your argument is valid only if your list of examples is pure.


Are you seriously defending DUI here? SD even offers you one "freebie", so that 3 DUI is actually 4.

IMO they're getting off easy. I have no love for DUI. First offence should be a felony. Forget loosing your car to a court order after 3 convictions, you should loose your LIFE after the first. Firing squad. Problem = solved.

Link Removed
 
Quite nonsensical. It appears that you are simply trolling. Also, you have no clue about science and sampling.

The example I posted is not invalid as it does not require a court order for the government to steal someone's car in this case. The punishment coming from the judge after the 3rd DUI conviction does not include the forfeiture of the car.
We're talking about roadside cops just confiscateing property with no charge, and you're bringing up convictions. You're way off topic.

As for the death penalty for 3 DUI convictions, you do understand that a DUI is a victimless crime, right?
The blood I had to clean off says there was a victim.
 
We're talking about roadside cops just confiscateing property with no charge, and you're bringing up convictions. You're way off topic.

I brought up NUMEROUS examples of about roadside cops just confiscating property with no charge. I also brought up ONE example that involves a conviction, but the punishment for that conviction is at the discretion of the executive and not the judicial branch of the government. In this ONE example, the legislative and executive branches conspired to keep the judicial branch out of the loop. You chose to ignore the NUMEROUS examples I gave and misinterpreted the ONE example I gave. All of the examples I gave are examples of asset forfeiture laws in which the executive branch can steal property without the need for judicial approval, which is the topic of this thread. Stop trolling. You are really bad at this.

The blood I had to clean off says there was a victim.

You simply do not know the law. A DUI (driving under the influence) is the crime of driving a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or other drugs (including recreational drugs and those prescribed by physicians), to a level that renders the driver incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely. It is a victimless crime.

What you talk about is vehicular assault/homicide and its legal variations. The newly proposed law I cited has nothing to do with such convictions. Again, stop trolling. You are really bad at this.
 
I brought up NUMEROUS examples of about roadside cops just confiscating property with no charge.
I know. I'm not adressing them BECAUSE they're valid. The squeeky wheel get's the grease.

You're pointing out all this theft: What are you and your army of 'cold dead hands' going to do about it?

Nothing. You may *****, but you'll keep taking it as you always have.

I also brought up ONE example that involves a conviction, but the punishment for that conviction is at the discretion of the executive and not the judicial branch of the government.
The Judicial gave the Executive that authority because using said discretion is the act of enforceing law which is the Executive's very job.

In this ONE example, the legislative and executive branches conspired to keep the judicial branch out of the loop. You chose to ignore the NUMEROUS examples I gave and misinterpreted the ONE example I gave.
You and your mallninja loser friends aren't going to do **** about it, so there's nothing to talk about. Why don't you run allong and go buy some tacticool class 3 trauma plates you're never ever going to use ever.

All of the examples I gave are examples of asset forfeiture laws in which the executive branch can steal property without the need for judicial approval...
The Judicial gave the Executive that authority because using said discretion is the act of enforceing law which is the Executive's very job.

...which is the topic of this thread. Stop trolling. You are really bad at this.
Accusing someone of trolling, is trolling. Thanks for being a hypocrite :)

You simply do not know the law. A DUI (driving under the influence) is the crime of driving a motor vehicle while impaired by alcohol or other drugs (including recreational drugs and those prescribed by physicians), to a level that renders the driver incapable of operating a motor vehicle safely. It is a victimless crime.

What you talk about is vehicular assault/homicide and its legal variations. The newly proposed law I cited has nothing to do with such convictions. Again, stop trolling. You are really bad at this.
Funny how you just ignore all the deaths caused by DUI and pretend you have two brain cells to rub together. Good comedy. Let me know if you ever get off your ass and actually take your firearm and go DO something about any of this.

You aren't going to go out and start shooting police over this; not even if you were the guy getting his stuff taken. No sane person would. I know it. You know it. So there's no point in making this thread.
 
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
Your message being we, the general public, should treat these cops like burglars and shoot them in the act.

You know you'll never do that, so STFU.
 
Your message being we, the general public, should treat these cops like burglars and shoot them in the act.

You know you'll never do that, so STFU.

Hey, blueshell...

Seek help.. Please!
27615a1b789cc33a0e88d46b7118a3dd.jpg
 
Your message being we, the general public, should treat these cops like burglars and shoot them in the act.

"My" message is quite clearly what I named the thread, which also happens to be the title of the Washington Post article that I posted to substantiate my message, which is informational, not any call to action of any sort whatsoever. My message is that, "Law enforcement took more stuff from people than burglars did last year." Hopefully you get the significance of emphasizing the period in that statement, as those are the only words I typed into the Title box. All the rest is copied and pasted from WaPo, and expresses the author's message(s) only, which, as far as I can tell, also suggest or recommend no calls to action, but instead offers only information.

You know you'll never do that, so STFU.

I will never shut the heck up at your demand, but I will point out that the acronym that you used above is shorthand for vulgarity, which isn't allowed on this site. With any luck at all, the rest of us will be spared any more of your arrogant demands after you get banned for breaking the rules so many times. Or not. Rules have meant very little around here for a very long time. Still, everybody knows I'm right that you have no place to speak to others the way you do.

Blues
 
I know. I'm not adressing them BECAUSE they're valid. The squeeky wheel get's the grease.

You're pointing out all this theft: What are you and your army of 'cold dead hands' going to do about it?

Nothing. You may *****, but you'll keep taking it as you always have.

Pure ad hominem attack.

The Judicial gave the Executive that authority because using said discretion is the act of enforceing law which is the Executive's very job.

Incorrect. You haven't read the links I posted.

You and your mallninja loser friends aren't going to do **** about it, so there's nothing to talk about. Why don't you run allong and go buy some tacticool class 3 trauma plates you're never ever going to use ever.

Pure ad hominem attack.

The Judicial gave the Executive that authority because using said discretion is the act of enforceing law which is the Executive's very job.

Again, incorrect. You haven't read the links I posted.

Accusing someone of trolling, is trolling. Thanks for being a hypocrite :)

You do realize that you just accused me of trolling and therefore by your own logic confirmed that you are trolling?

Funny how you just ignore all the deaths caused by DUI and pretend you have two brain cells to rub together.

Thank you for confirming that you do not know the laws of your state. A DUI conviction is not a vehicular assault or homicide conviction.

Good comedy. Let me know if you ever get off your ass and actually take your firearm and go DO something about any of this.

Why should I take my firearm and go DO something about any of this?

You aren't going to go out and start shooting police over this; not even if you were the guy getting his stuff taken. No sane person would. I know it. You know it. So there's no point in making this thread.

The purpose of this thread is to make people aware that this is happening, to prepare themselves for it when it happens to them, and to talk to their legislature to change the existing civil asset forfeiture laws. In your case, however, ignorance seems to be bliss. You are free to ignore this thread.
 
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.
Gun ownership isn't a harm in and of itself. Civil forfeiture is.

The mere fact of my owning firearms harms you in no way.

Having your property taken without benefit of due process does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,545
Messages
611,262
Members
74,959
Latest member
defcon
Back
Top