- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alabama tries to gut asset forfeiture, response from law enforcement is predictable
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:25 pm to ThatMakesSense
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:25 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
. By your logic only rich people should have the right to get away with crimes?
So by that logic if we take away enough money we can make everyone guilty?
Eta: Thats a dangerous scale to play with...
This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 3:26 pm
1
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:25 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Fair enough, but you're talking 250 times/yr in a city the size of Philadelphia? The population is 1.5 million people. That's .01%, assuming all the residents of Philly are innocent, non drug dealers getting fricked by the government.
So if some kid has some drugs, his parents deserve to have everything they’ve worked for stripped away and the entire family thrown out in the street, right?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:26 pm to slackster
quote:
I'm going to need your help connecting my logic to that statement.
You're a drug dealer, it's fricking obvious to anyone in the history of anything, that well known.
You get popped.
The millions you've earned, illegally, are now legal tender to defend yourself?
Normally funds are frozen, CAF is just a streamlined process.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:29 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
The millions you've earned, illegally, are now legal tender to defend yourself?
So how are you supposed to hire a lawyer to evaluate that claim?
What happens when those "millions" earned illegally were actually legit, but because the system is rigged in favor of govt theft, you cant fight it in court?
Thats banana republic type bullshite.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:29 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
So by that logic if we take away enough money we can make everyone guilty?
Eta: Thats a dangerous scale to play with...
No, not all. You said earlier, everyone should have quality representation, no matter the charge.
By not allowing CAF, you're doing the real criminals a favor.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:31 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
So how are you supposed to hire a lawyer to evaluate that claim?
What happens when those "millions" earned illegally were actually legit, but because the system is rigged in favor of govt theft, you cant fight it in court?
Thats banana republic type bullshite.
It doesn't have to be Pablo Escobar $$. It's pretty obvious through financial records, who earns $$$ legally and illegally. Which is also easily proven in the court of law.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:31 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Should the law just allow someone with millions of dollars, gained through the very same illegal activities they are being charged, to procure high quality or representation?
Yes. Burden of proof is on the government. Not the citizen.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:31 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
No, not all. You said earlier, everyone should have quality representation, no matter the charge.
Sure quality of representation. But in order to get that you need funds to do so, and our illustrious Supreme Court has ruled that the govt can seize funds that you would use to hire representation (Kaley v. United States).
So if you seize enough money the defendant will lose every time, regardless of guilt or innocence.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:32 pm to NYNolaguy1
And if you let someone buy legal counsel with monies earned illegally, isn't that a condemnation of the entire legal structure?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:33 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:34 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Sure quality of representation. But in order to get that you need funds to do so, and our illustrious Supreme Court has ruled that the govt can seize funds that you would use to hire representation (Kaley v. United States).
So if you seize enough money the defendant will lose every time, regardless of guilt or innocence.
Ok.
Your family gets killed by a driver, driver is a known drug dealer and has more $$$ than you can shake a stick at.
You want him to have the best representation?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:34 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
It's pretty obvious through financial records, who earns $$$ legally and illegally. Which is also easily proven in the court of law.
Pro se "attorneys" dont do very well in court. I suspect you know this already though. You think the average citizen knows enough about what documents to file where and when to overcome this?
All the while being possibly homeless and without means to purchase anything?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:36 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
And if you let someone buy legal counsel with monies earned illegally, isn't that a condemnation of the entire legal structure?
I am willing to let someone defend themselves in court with moneys ill earned only because the alternative means the defendant will always lose, see the earlier quote about 100 guilty walking free.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:37 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Pro se "attorneys" dont do very well in court. I suspect you know this already though. You think the average citizen knows enough about what documents to file where and when to overcome this?
All the while being possibly homeless and without means to purchase anything?
If it involved 100s of thousands of dollars or more of mine, I'm pretty sure I'd figure it out.
The only dumb rich people I've met are lottery winners.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:38 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Your family gets killed by a driver, driver is a known drug dealer and has more $$$ than you can shake a stick at.
If I dont have faith the system is getting the right guy with the right facts and correct procedure, do I want him to burn?
If I dont have that faith, does it matter?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:39 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I am willing to let someone defend themselves in court with moneys ill earned only because the alternative means the defendant will always lose, see the earlier quote about 100 guilty walking free.
Oh, so it's not presumed innocent until proven guilty..it's presumed rich until proven poor.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:40 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
It doesn't have to be Pablo Escobar $$. It's pretty obvious through financial records, who earns $$$ legally and illegally. Which is also easily proven in the court of law.
They don't exactly prorate that kind of stuff. They'll come after all of your assets and you've got to prove they're legally yours, but you've got no assets with which to do it.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:41 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Oh, so it's not presumed innocent until proven guilty..it's presumed rich until proven poor.
I dont follow.
My point is if you take away someones cash in a civil proceeding everyone loses. You arent guarenteed legal counsel in civil court.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:42 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
If I dont have faith the system is getting the right guy with the right facts and correct procedure, do I want him to burn?
If I dont have that faith, does it matter
Reasonable doubt is a bitch, eh? Works both ways.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:42 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Oh, so it's not presumed innocent until proven guilty..it's presumed rich until proven poor.
Are you just trying to troll this thread?
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News