- 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: La. House to vote on recreational weed today. Updated with video link
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:02 am to lsu777
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:02 am to lsu777
I haven’t made up my mind yet on asset forfeiture. For people that are against it I have a few questions.
Do you think you have a right to money earned through illegal activity? If so, you are removing a huge disincentive to criminal activity.
A criminal could easily justify making/stealing large amounts of money, serving his time, then getting out of prison a millionaire.
Should a diamond thief get to keep the diamonds after they get caught? Should Bernie Madoff been able to keep all the money he stole?
I’m not arguing that the assets forfeiture isn’t being taken advantage of or isn’t being abused. I’m simply saying the idea that money earned illegally should be seized isn’t that crazy.
One idea to solve this issue may be to force any money seized to be donated to a charity. This would remove the direct incentive for a police force to seize property.
Do you think you have a right to money earned through illegal activity? If so, you are removing a huge disincentive to criminal activity.
A criminal could easily justify making/stealing large amounts of money, serving his time, then getting out of prison a millionaire.
Should a diamond thief get to keep the diamonds after they get caught? Should Bernie Madoff been able to keep all the money he stole?
I’m not arguing that the assets forfeiture isn’t being taken advantage of or isn’t being abused. I’m simply saying the idea that money earned illegally should be seized isn’t that crazy.
One idea to solve this issue may be to force any money seized to be donated to a charity. This would remove the direct incentive for a police force to seize property.
6
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:05 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
not the type of area/cops this thread is really talking about. more urban areas also don't give a frick about speeding, either
you think that applies to places like Washington, Welsh, Golden Meadow, etc? of course not. they love the "hassle" of tickets
I've lived all over the state my man and I've dealt with alot of cops. You are not wrong about tickets in those places, I'll give you that. I've also had many of dealings in Golden Meadow and I used to drink with the Chief, Reggie Pitre (got fired for punching a dude in a bar off-duty btw) and he would openly admit that the city would push for ticketing out of towners speeders for revenue so I'm not saying it doesn't happen in places like that. I think they would push for 10 tickets a shift.
The assumption that weed is such a large revenue source on the other hand is just incorrect. Golden Meadow maybe wrote ten tickets for weed last year as that is not their concern. They MAY get very small percentage from weed fines but it isn't funding their departments like some on here make it out to be. They could be out writing five more speeding tickets rather than submitting evidence and typing up a report.
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:05 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Tangipahoa Parish Sheriff's Office, $254,617
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:06 am to The Melt
quote:
The Melt
dude you ahve no clue what you are talking about. You are literly arguing with a lawyer that represents a shite ton of these kinds of cases and deals with these kinds of things daily.
and you are comparing big city cops to those in places like jennings, welsh, all the small arse cities along I-49 etc.
you are clueless.
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:07 am to WaWaWeeWa
I don't think most people have a problem with asset forfeiture as a concept, its just that the laws surrounding it are very vague, lack transparency, and are ripe for abuse
in LA, you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to have your assets seized, they just need "reasonable suspicion"
in LA, you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to have your assets seized, they just need "reasonable suspicion"
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:07 am to Macintosh
quote:
Private prisons need weed arrests.
Name the private prisons and list how many people they have locked up for weed in Louisiana right now. Barely anyone does time for weed anymore unless they are a multiple violent felony offender and/or had a gun with the weed along with a criminal history.
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:08 am to Salmon
quote:
The median currency forfeiture is small, averaging just $1,276 across 21 states with available data. In some states, the median forfeiture is only a few hundred dollars. These low values suggest forfeiture often is not targeting kingpins or major financial fraudsters.
Wow. I didn't know this.
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:09 am to Salmon
quote:
I don't think most people have a problem with asset forfeiture as a concept, its just that the laws surrounding it are very vague, lack transparency, and are ripe for abuse
I don’t know, I already have a downvote
quote:
in LA, you don't even have to be convicted of a crime to have your assets seized, they just need "reasonable suspicion"
So what we need is asset forfeiture reform?
I would agree with that
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:10 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Do you think you have a right to money earned through illegal activity? If so, you are removing a huge disincentive to criminal activity.
A criminal could easily justify making/stealing large amounts of money, serving his time, then getting out of prison a millionaire.
Should a diamond thief get to keep the diamonds after they get caught? Should Bernie Madoff been able to keep all the money he stole?
All of these examples are people who actually committed and were convicted of crimes. Almost nobody has a problem with that.
The reality is a person doesnt need to be convicted or even arrested to have their property taken. Are you okay with taking people's property who have not been convicted of a crime?
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:11 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
So what we need is asset forfeiture reform?
I would agree with that
massive reform
the standard of proof on the state needs to be overwhelming
instead, the standard of proof is "well we found this old joint in his backseat"
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:11 am to The Melt
quote:
Name the private prisons and list how many people they have locked up for weed in Louisiana right now. Barely anyone does time for weed anymore unless they are a multiple violent felony offender and/or had a gun with the weed along with a criminal history.
No one will agree with you but you are correct. State prisons have very few drug only offenders. Most of the drug incarceration stats you hear are from federal prisons and they involve trafficking large amounts of drugs.
There will always be a few outlier cases that people point to but the vast majority are not in for marijuana only.
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:12 am to Salmon
quote:
so Sherrifs don't make any money off of weed nor do they care about weed, but they actively argue against legalization
something doesn't add up
You are just locked in that it has to be asset forfeiture or fines but you have zero evidence of such so you are just making an assumption. We don't know why but I would bet they know it is eventually going to pass and they have enough pull in the legislature that they are going to hold it up until they get something out of it (basically a bargaining chip). That's fricked up on its own but don't make-up shite to fit your narrative. It also doesn't mean they are trying to replace the money they would "lose" from asset forfeiture or the fines (stilling waiting on the names of the fines, the funds they go to, and the percentage that eventually gets back to the arresting agency).
This post was edited on 5/10/21 at 11:16 am
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:14 am to Buryl
quote:
All of these examples are people who actually committed and were convicted of crimes. Almost nobody has a problem with that. The reality is a person doesnt need to be convicted or even arrested to have their property taken. Are you okay with taking people's property who have not been convicted of a crime?
Ok so y’all need to clarify your position because it’s more nuanced than you think.
What it sounds like y’all are saying is that you agree with asset forfeiture, just not the way it’s been executed right now.
And I think most people would agree with that, but you need to be more specific. Because most of the time all people post is “civil asset forfeiture is a violation of the constitution”
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:15 am to The Melt
quote:
You are just locked in that it has to be asset forfeiture or fines but has zero evidence of such so you are just making an assumption. We don't know why but I would bet they know it is eventually going to pass and they have enough pull in the legislature that they are going to hold it up until they get something out of it. It doesn't mean they are trying to replace the money they would "lose" from asst forfeiture or the fines
Yeah....just holding out for something
Its impossible to ever know what just exactly they are holding out for
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:18 am to AbitaFan08
quote:
So you are spending at minimum $45 every time you go into a dispensary.
That's not true at all for Denver.
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:18 am to lsu777
quote:
dude you ahve no clue what you are talking about. You are literly arguing with a lawyer that represents a shite ton of these kinds of cases and deals with these kinds of things daily.
and you are comparing big city cops to those in places like jennings, welsh, all the small arse cities along I-49 etc.
you are clueless.
Ok, post your findings then. Where do you practice? Mainly in a JDC or city court? List the fine names which funds they go to and how much goes back to the arresting agency. You should have easy access to this since you deal with a "shite ton" of weed arrests.
I'll wait....
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:21 am to The Melt
I think there is an easy solution here.
Legalize weed and a portion of the taxes generated in sales will go to local law enforcement.
Everyone wins right?
Legalize weed and a portion of the taxes generated in sales will go to local law enforcement.
Everyone wins right?
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:21 am to WaWaWeeWa
I mean civil asset forfeiture has to exist in some way, shape, or form just due to the nature of crime itself. You raid an underground gambling ring, and obviously nobody is going to claim the cash on the table, so it has to go through that process. It's the fact police abuse the shite out of it, and they get to keep the money even though there's no conviction or even trial.
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:22 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
Legalize weed and a portion of the taxes generated in sales will go to local law enforcement.
Everyone wins right?
this is almost assuredly the hold up
the percentages of where the tax revenue would go
Posted on 5/10/21 at 11:22 am to WaWaWeeWa
quote:
I haven’t made up my mind yet on asset forfeiture. For people that are against it I have a few questions.
Do you think you have a right to money earned through illegal activity? If so, you are removing a huge disincentive to criminal activity.
A criminal could easily justify making/stealing large amounts of money, serving his time, then getting out of prison a millionaire.
Should a diamond thief get to keep the diamonds after they get caught? Should Bernie Madoff been able to keep all the money he stole?
I’m not arguing that the assets forfeiture isn’t being taken advantage of or isn’t being abused. I’m simply saying the idea that money earned illegally should be seized isn’t that crazy.
One idea to solve this issue may be to force any money seized to be donated to a charity. This would remove the direct incentive for a police force to seize property.
You're referring to original intent of the law. CAF is so wide open with what can be confiscated and there's very little accountability. For example, a couple that hunts got arrested sometime back for a small grow op. Of course all the plants and equipment were confiscated, but the police also took it upon themselves to grab all of their bolt action rifles, handguns, knives, and vehicles. Is that really necessary at the end of the day?
Page 9 of 29
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News