- 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 3:43 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:43 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
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.
We're talking criminal proceedings.
1
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:45 pm to slackster
quote:
Are you just trying to troll this thread?
I got an early start this afternoon. It's been unfavorably cold in Houston the last 2 days
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:46 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Reasonable doubt is a bitch, eh? Works both ways.
Exactly. Lowering evidentiary standards and burdens of proof shouldnt produce more unconvicted "criminals".
Ask the Amherst College John Doe who got expelled for sexual assault after he in fact got assaulted. He couldnt defend himself in their kangaroo court and he got expelled. Lack of due process shouldnt be expected to result in more justice...
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:46 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Reasonable doubt is a bitch, eh? Works both ways.
Huh?
It doesn't work both ways. The burden of proof for CAF is not "beyond a reasonable doubt," it's a "preponderance of the evidence."
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:47 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
We're talking criminal proceedings.
Asset forfeiture is a civil proceeding, not requiring criminal charges.
Either you just pulled a wonderful troll job or we diverged somewhere
.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:49 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Oh, so it's not presumed innocent until proven guilty..it's presumed rich until proven poor.
Do you even know wtf you're arguing?
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:52 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Exactly. Lowering evidentiary standards and burdens of proof shouldnt produce more unconvicted "criminals
Not fighting for your innocence is the same as guilty. Having money or not.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:53 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Either you just pulled a wonderful troll job or we diverged somewhere ?.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 3:54 pm to NYNolaguy1
Still miffed at you saying you'd destroy a country for 300MM inheritance.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 4:01 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Still miffed at you saying you'd destroy a country for 300MM inheritance.
Well to be fair the likelihood of me ever having $68 Million to blow is as likely that I could pull off a successful coup (very very small)
. Besides I had a country more in line with Borat & Libya/Ghadaffi in mind when I made that comment than some peaceful setting, but then again thats how every dictator and despot was ever created so
.This post was edited on 2/12/18 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 2/12/18 at 4:09 pm to slackster
quote:"We aren't interested in enforcing the law & protecting the people unless we make money on it."
"Two problems we have with CAF reform: 1) We don't want to prove it was obtained illegally and 2) We don't want to share the wealth that is CAF"
These guys really can eat shite.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 4:11 pm to NYNolaguy1
I get it. Couldn't resist.
You'd hate to be ripped off, but wouldn't mind doing it given the chance of power.
You'd hate to be ripped off, but wouldn't mind doing it given the chance of power.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 4:23 pm to NYNolaguy1
Not reading 5 pages of this.
I just want to know if the cops that post here showed up and tried white knighting this and if they sounded as ridiculous as the snippets posted in OP.
I just want to know if the cops that post here showed up and tried white knighting this and if they sounded as ridiculous as the snippets posted in OP.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 7:28 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Funny you mention that... there was a whole supreme court case about exactly that, where prosecutors argued that the defendant wasnt entitled to have an attorney present, so by taking the money he would use for counsel, they were depriving no rights.
Kaley v. United States
Kagan wrote the majority opinion.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 7:29 pm to NYNolaguy1
Posted on 2/12/18 at 7:41 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
Last Term, in Kaley v. United States,3× the Supreme Court held that defendants have no constitutional right to challenge a grand jury’s finding of probable cause of guilt for the purpose of defeating a pretrial asset freeze, even if this freeze results in an inability to hire one’s attorney of choice
Probable cause. All defendants, no matter their criminal or monetary stature, should have a right using their illegal and criminal funds to hire adequate legal counsel.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 7:51 pm to Bestbank Tiger
quote:
Kagan wrote the majority opinion
Yep. It was a mixed lineup on either side of the 6-3 decision.
Majority opinion by Justice Kagan. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, GINSBURG, and ALITO, JJ., joined
Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Breyer and Justice Sotomayor joined.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 7:58 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Meanwhile, sending the proceeds of forfeiture to the state's General Fund would result in fewer busts of drug and stolen property rings. What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?
But cops don’t have quotas for tickets, nor do they only spend time targeting revenue generating crimes.
This is clearly why no cop has ever spent even more 10 minuets looking for stolen property. Hell in Birmingham you can’t get a cop to even come write a report in person. They do it over the phone from Dunkin Donuts
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:17 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
What incentive would local police and sheriffs have to invest manpower, resources and time in these operations if they don't receive proceeds to cover their costs?
All this time I thought the taxpayers were covering their costs and the incentive was their paycheck and whatever internal reasons they chose to be in law enforcement.
Posted on 2/12/18 at 8:40 pm to Twenty 49
quote:
SCALIA
Went full cuck on that one.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News