- 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: Minnesota tries to end asset forfeiture, with predictable pushback from LEO
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:11 pm to ThatMakesSense
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:11 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Because verdicts in criminal trials are ALWAYS 100% correct.
Wait a second, are you suggesting law enforcement should be able to punish people without trial because they know better?
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 7:14 pm
0
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:12 pm to NYNolaguy1
I'm a Constitutionalist..but I can also see where CAF can have efficacy if correctly used.
It being objective now is bad. Innocent people get fricked. Sorry. It happens every fricking day in whatever court. This isn't breaking news.
Place reprecussions on LEO that take advantage of CAF, like I said...LEO and courts can figure out pretty quick who needs CAF applied and who got fricked.
It being objective now is bad. Innocent people get fricked. Sorry. It happens every fricking day in whatever court. This isn't breaking news.
Place reprecussions on LEO that take advantage of CAF, like I said...LEO and courts can figure out pretty quick who needs CAF applied and who got fricked.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:15 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:isn't their a difference between civil asset forfeiture and criminal asset forfeiture?
Civil asset forfeiture is a powerful tool used by police and prosecutors in Minnesota and across the country to break this cycle and deprive the criminals of their ill-gotten gains through seizure of drug money.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:17 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
LEO and courts can figure out pretty quick who needs CAF applied and who got fricked.
Except when the DA and LEO stand directly to benefit and are supposed to referee it.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:17 pm to TheCaterpillar
quote:
People that are pro-CAF are despicable human beings.
I have met quite a few people who refuse to believe CAF is abused.
It honestly is nuts to hear someone take that position, but I've heard it multiple times
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:18 pm to ThatMakesSense
When Louisiana put up a constitutional amendment in the late 80's to expand CAF, God fearing conservatives voted it in overwhelmingly.
I attended a pre-election debate where Doug Moreau (then DA) conceded the proposed law was broad and could be subject to abuse, but he assured everyone that prosecutors could be trusted to use their power responsibly.
Lewis Unglesby spoke against the proposal. He followed Doug's remarks by walking to the lectern, standing there silently for a few seconds until all eyes were on him, then screaming, "WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!" He then proceeded to accurately predict the types of abuses we now see.
But voters would not believe the crazy liberals. War on Drugs and all, gotta support law enforcement, etc.
Maybe, just maybe, people are starting to take Unglesby's advice and waking the frick up.
I attended a pre-election debate where Doug Moreau (then DA) conceded the proposed law was broad and could be subject to abuse, but he assured everyone that prosecutors could be trusted to use their power responsibly.
Lewis Unglesby spoke against the proposal. He followed Doug's remarks by walking to the lectern, standing there silently for a few seconds until all eyes were on him, then screaming, "WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!" He then proceeded to accurately predict the types of abuses we now see.
But voters would not believe the crazy liberals. War on Drugs and all, gotta support law enforcement, etc.
Maybe, just maybe, people are starting to take Unglesby's advice and waking the frick up.
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 7:56 pm
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:18 pm to Roaad
quote:
isn't their a difference between civil asset forfeiture and criminal asset forfeiture?
One requires a conviction, the other doesnt even require an accusation.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:21 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
Except when the DA and LEO stand directly to benefit and are supposed to referee it.
I also said reprecussions for those there abuse it. You glanced over that I'm sure.
If you're a lawyer and are totally against it, go do some pro bono helping the ones who got fricked. But I'm sure you'll go with the defendants who have millions at stake to get your chunk of change.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:27 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:That's how I always assumed it to be, however the article characterizes it thusly:
One requires a conviction, the other doesnt even require an accusation.
quote:They are complaining about losing civil while using criminal as their definition and example.
Civil asset forfeiture is a powerful tool used by police and prosecutors in Minnesota and across the country to break this cycle and deprive the criminals of their ill-gotten gains through seizure of drug money.
Most people are cool with criminal asset forfeiture.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:27 pm to Twenty 49
quote:
Maybe, just maybe, people are starting to take Unglesby's advice and waking the frick up.
I've never said CAF isn't abused. I'm saying it can work, in a subjective manner.
The people griping about it now, are the ones who got fricked, probably did nothing wrong in the first place, but because it's objectively viewed..it has to go down.
I'm arguing to tear known criminals down.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:31 pm to NYNolaguy1
LINK
I think MN changed this law last year, but what a fricking riot in another state.
Mom lets son borrow her car. Son gets a dui. State seizes the MOMS car. Tells her she can fight it in court or buy the car back from the police department for $4000. She can’t afford to pay the pd, she’s still paying off the car. Police can sell it and she’s still on the hook for paying off a car she couldn’t buy back and doesn’t own
I think MN changed this law last year, but what a fricking riot in another state.
Mom lets son borrow her car. Son gets a dui. State seizes the MOMS car. Tells her she can fight it in court or buy the car back from the police department for $4000. She can’t afford to pay the pd, she’s still paying off the car. Police can sell it and she’s still on the hook for paying off a car she couldn’t buy back and doesn’t own
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:32 pm to NYNolaguy1
Only thing worse than a thief with a gun is a thief with a badge a gun.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:34 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
I'm a Constitutionalist..but I can also see where CAF can have efficacy if correctly used.
It being objective now is bad. Innocent people get fricked. Sorry. It happens every fricking day in whatever court. This isn't breaking news.
Place reprecussions on LEO that take advantage of CAF, like I said...LEO and courts can figure out pretty quick who needs CAF applied and who got fricked.
they certainly did a fabulous job here, didn't they?
but, hey ... it's not YOUR house ... and mistakes DO happen ... why give a frick, right? ... it's not like they were overtly trying to cash in on someone's property ... noooooooooo ... not local government! ...
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 7:36 pm
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:40 pm to tiderider
quote:
but, hey ... it's not YOUR house ... and mistakes DO happen ... why give a frick, right? ... it's not like they were overtly trying to cash in on someone's property ... noooooooooo ... not local government! ...
That's bad and they're not the only ones affected.
I've already said, CAF should be applied subjectively.
When applied objectively, LEO can do this. Anyone with a brain on their shoulders can see this house wasn't owned by heroin traffickers and was only lived in by a dumbass kid selling heroin.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:47 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
I also said reprecussions for those there abuse it. You glanced over that I'm sure.
The only way there are reprecussions is if the people losing property take action together. To give you an idea why this will never happen, you have to realize that the Supreme Court in Kaley said it was legal to seize money that coule be used for ones legal expenses.
So lets see how this plays out. Your son is accused of selling $40 worth of drugs. So I as the DA decide to seize your house and freeze your bank account.
How are you supposed to defend yourself in court? You have no right to counsel, and they have no obligation to provide one for you.
Who in this case do you think will say its abuse on the part of the DA?
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 7:53 pm
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:52 pm to Roaad
quote:
They are complaining about losing civil while using criminal as their definition and example.
Because they want people to think criminality is definitively established prior to seizure. They are assuming people dont know no accusation is required.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 7:56 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
In February 2007, the grand jury indicted the Kaleys on seven criminal counts. One of these counts was a criminal forfeiture count, which would require the Kaleys to forfeit all property that could be traced to their offenses. This property included a certificate of deposit for $500,000, which the Kaleys intended to use to pay their defense attorneys.
Far cry from $40
Also this part,
quote:
On remand, the district court granted a pretrial hearing, but limited it to the question of whether the property in the forfeiture count was traceable to the Kaleys' offenses. When the Kaleys failed to present evidence regarding traceability, the district court refused to vacate the protective order
This post was edited on 4/19/18 at 7:58 pm
Posted on 4/19/18 at 8:03 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Great. You'd like to see a citizen that has begotten their wealth from criminal activities to have the best legal representation?
I'm sure you're tune would change if some drug lord, who got off multiple times, ended up killing someone you loved
I’ll ask again.
What about the countless people who committed little more than a moving violation or low grade misdemeanor who had their assets seized by local law enforcement.
Defend that?
Posted on 4/19/18 at 8:04 pm to ThatMakesSense
I get there are rich frickers out there.
But not being able to provide where 500k is coming from, when you know you're about to get butt fricked by the long arm of the law, raises more than a few questions.
But not being able to provide where 500k is coming from, when you know you're about to get butt fricked by the long arm of the law, raises more than a few questions.
Posted on 4/19/18 at 8:04 pm to ThatMakesSense
quote:
Because verdicts in criminal trials are ALWAYS 100% correct.
Just to be clear, you are a strong and vocal proponent of guilty until proven innocent?
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News